These Reasons for treating these two sources simultaneously. two sources, although representing two distinct works, the former that of Abu’l-Fadhl Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqí*, who was born about 386 A. H. = 996 A. D., composed the extant portions between 450/1 A. H. = 1058/9 A. D. and died in 470 A. H. = 1077 A. D.; and the latter that of Abu’n-Naṣr Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’l-Jabbár al-‘Utbí, who wrote his Kitábu’l-Yamíní about 411 A. H. = 1020/1 A. D., and died in 427 A. H. = 1036 A. D., are not treated separately in this notice for the following reasons:

Firstly, amongst the 81 anecdotes on the Ghaznawids in the Jawámi‘*, the titles of these two works are mentioned with little variation only in 11 anecdotes, in which 9 sources are given without the name of the author and 2 under the name of Abú Naṣr al-‘Utbí, e. g., as the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí in Nos.* (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat i-Náṣirí in No. (2), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní in Nos. (4) and (8), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Yamíní in No. (10), as the Kitáb-i-Yamíní of Abú Naṣr-i-‘Utbí in No. (6) and as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Yamíní of Abú Naṣr in No. (11), so that it is really difficult to distinguish, on the face of it, one work from the other, unless a thorough analysis of the contents of the anecdotes is made simultaneously. Secondly, the actual title of al-Bayhaqí’s work is a disputable question. It is not known whether the author gave any title to the whole work, or while referring to the early volumes concerning the Sultán Maḥmúd as the Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní (B. T. M. pp. 26, 158) and (Maqámát-i-Maḥmúdí) (p. 176), he intended to give separate titles to separate volumes concerning the various rulers from the time of Sabuktigín to Farrukhzád, as is asserted by Rieu. It has been observed by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán* that Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alí b. Zayd, also called Ibn Funduq, a countryman of Abu’l-Fadhl who wrote his Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaq in 563 A. H. = 1168 A. D., designates the whole work as the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí; and the Mírzá adds that this title is given in allusion to the Ál-i-Náṣir, that is the descendants of Náṣiru’d-Dín Sabuktigín; but al-‘Awfí makes use of both these titles, e. g. Nos. (8) and (9). Thirdly, the period and subject-matter covered by some of these anecdotes can be connected partly with the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí and partly with the Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaqí; apparently, either owing to the loose appellation of the sources, e. g. No. (10), or to the indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to al-Bayhaqí through al-‘Utbí, e. g. No. (5), or a deliberate combination of both these sources for modelling his own anecdotes, e. g. No. (5). Fourthly, owing to the loss of the major portion of al-Bayhaqí’s work — as it is often reported that the whole work consisted of thirty volumes, and only a small part, the end of Vol. V, the whole of Vols. VI-IX, and the beginning of Vol. X, containing the history of Mas‘úd I, 421-432 A. H. = 1030-41 A. D. has come down to us — we, on the one hand, cannot establish the relation of al-Bayhaqí’s earlier volumes dealing with Sabuktigín and Maḥmúd to al-‘Utbí’s Yamíní for these common anecdotes, and on the other, cannot exactly estimate the value and the amount of the work of al-Bayhaqí incorporated by al-‘Awfí in his anecdotes of the Ghaznawids.

The Summary of the borrowed anecdotes. following is a summary of the anecdotes in which these two works are mentioned, according to the order of their occurrence in the Jawámi‘, to which dates and comparative references are supplied where possible.

(1)	The wondrous dreams of Sabuktigín foretelling the rise of his dynasty, on the eve of the birth of his son Maḥmúd in 361 A. H. = 971 A. D.; and the coincident falling down of an idol and submerging of a temple at (sic <Arabic>*) in India, as reported by the expelled Muslims, (A. f233a. I. xxi. 1072). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source; probably it is taken from the earlier portion of al-Bayhaqí’s history, concerning Sabuktigín. The second dream resembles very closely the one given by Minháj-i-Siráj in the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí (p. 9), where the birth of Maḥmúd is placed in 371 A. H., and the well-known dream of Sabuktigín about the rising of a tree from the fire-place and the falling down of the idol in Parshawar is connected with the first event.
(2)	The silent joy of the Caliph ‘Uthmán at the dispersion of a party of revellers, whom he intended to punish in observance of the Islamic law, (D. f124a. II. vii. 1318). The Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, but it is not traceable in the extant portion.
(3)	Sabuktigín’s compassion on a deer and its young one, during his chase, at the time when he possessed only a single horse; and his rise foretold by the Prophet in dream, as a result of his humaneness towards the animal, (D. f124b. II. vii. 1319). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is given as the source; and the story is found in the extant portion of al-Bayhaqí (B. T. M. pp. 238-40).
(4)	Absolute refusal of the Khwája Abu’l-‘Abbás al-Isfará’iní to deliver a slave demanded by the Sultan Maḥmúd, and his consequent downfall, (D. f191a. II. xxv. 1536). The Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní as the source.
(5)	The preposterous attempt of the Ílak Khán of Máwará’u’n-Nahr on Khurásán, while the Sultan Maḥmúd was engaged in Multán, his immediate return, and subjugation of the Khán. (D. f192b. II. xxv. 1539). Although the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, this anecdote can be traced in parts in the Yamíní* of al-‘Utbí; from this it can be inferred that al-‘Awfí is indebted to al-Bayhaqí through al-‘Utbí.
(6)	Ṭugháytigín or Ṭughán Khán attacked by Báytúz or Báytú, the ruler of Bust, seeks protection from Sabuktigín, who after a hard struggle restores him to Bust, but owing to the treacherous conduct of Ṭugháytigín, Sabuktigín annexes Bust to his kingdom and punishes the rebels, (D. f230a. III. x. 1648). The Kitáb-i-Yamíní* of Abú Naṣr al-‘Utbí is given as the source. This anecdote begins as in ‘Utbí and Jurbá­dhaqání, but the historical narrative is probably supplemented by some other source.
(7)	Abú Sahl [Muḥammad b. Ḥasan] Zawzaní ‘Áridhí, persuades Sultan Mas‘úd to recover the wealth distributed by his brother Muḥammad, and enforces confiscation against the weighty opposition of Abú Naṣr Mushkání and Khwája Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Maymandí, his colleagues, which brings disrepute on Mas‘úd and causes serious trouble in the kingdom, and consequently tells upon Abú Sahl Zawzaní in the affair of Altúntásh Khwárazmsháh, (D. f246b. III. xiv. 1696). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source. This long citation gives us a real clue to the method of utilisation of the work of al-Bayhaqí by al-‘Awfí. (B. T. M. pp. 311-5, 390-2).
(8)	The usurpation of Ṭughril, the tyrannical regime of Abú Sahl Zawzaní, ending in the assassination of Ṭughril at the hands of his Turkish guard, and the coronation of Farrukhzád in 444 A. H. = 1053 A. D., (D. f259b. III. xviii. 1719). The Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní is mentioned as the source. This anecdote is not found in the extant portion of al-Bayhaqí’s work; probably it is taken from the earlier or later volumes of al-Bayhaqí, as can be inferred from his habit of referring to past and coming events in the portion dealing with Mas‘úd.
(9)	Túmán, an upstart, gets into the favour of the Amír ‘Abdu’r-Rashíd of Ghazna (reigned between 440-4 A. H. = 1049-52 A. D.), and terrorises the people by espionage, and mismanagement in Parsháwar (Peshawar); upon which the Khwája Abú Ṭáhir Ḥusayn b. ‘Alí is sent for investigation, and on his report to the Ṣáḥib-i-Díwán-i-Risálat, Abu’l-Fadhl al-Bayhaqí (the historian), Túmán is temporarily dismissed, but again gets into power and dismisses Abu’l-Fadhl, spreads terror, and ruins the state; finally the Amír himself is murdered, (D. f262b. III. xix. 1728). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source; this account appears to have been drawn from the later volumes of al-Bayhaqí, as the historian himself promised (B. T. M. p. 122), and probably this account brings the history to the year 444 A. H.
(10)	Admonition of the Sultan Maḥmúd to his brother Naṣr, by ordering the royal drums to be beaten at his palace, as a signal of warning for abusing the royal prerogative of thrashing a slave, (D. f8a. IV. ii. 1802). The Ta’ríkh[-i-Dawlat-]i-Yamíní is mentioned as the source. Cf. also (A. f141b. I. ix. 494) where the same anecdote is given in fuller detail without acknowledgement of the source.
(11)	An account of the early wars between the Hindú Sháh of Kábul and Sabuktigín, and the advice of an old woman (*<Arabic>) to pollute the wondrous spring* in the neigh­bourhood of Nagharu (*<Arabic>) which brought about a snow-storm and led to the victory of Sabuktigín in 369 A. H. = 979 A. D., (D. f78b. IV. xx. 2002). The Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Yamíní of Abú Naṣr [al-‘Utbí] is mentioned as the source. In the Yamíní this anecdote is traceable, but it differs in details. In the original* as well as in the translation of Jurbádhaqání the king is mentioned as Jayapála and the place of the battle as Farwán and Lamaghán, emphasis is laid on the fierce battle and undecisiveness of the issue, and the trick of polluting the spring and the snow-storm are mentioned in a different manner; whereas in the Jawámi‘ emphasis is laid on the skill of the young warrior Maḥmúd*, on the advice of the old woman, which is not found in the original, and on the curious natural property of the spring. Probably this is to suit his chapter-heading, viz. “On the Chemical Properties of Natural Objects.”

As al-‘Awfí’s utilisation of al-Bayhaqí’s history. regards the method of the utilisation of al-Bayhaqí’s history by al-‘Awfí, we possess two definite quotations (Nos. 3, 7), one about Sabuktigín’s compassion on the deer, and the other about Abú Sahl Zawzaní’s machinations in the early reign of Mas‘úd, in both of which the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source. In both works No. (3), which al-‘Awfí abridges, is by way of illustration of the humaneness of Sabuktigín, but No. (7) is a fairly long extract from which we can arrive at certain definite con­clusions. In the original, it begins with the account of the entry of the Sultan Mas‘úd into the capital, Ghazna, in 422 A. H. after his father’s death, and serves as a prologue to Mas‘úd’s eventful reign, which is dealt with by al-‘Awfí in a few sentences. The real point of comparison, or rather the main purpose of al-‘Awfí, is to illustrate how corruption can commence in a state by the adoption of counsels based on mean and selfish motives, whereas in the original, apart from a similar purpose, the narrative is coloured by al-Bayhaqí’s personal bias against Abú Sahl Zawzaní and in favour of Abú Naṣr Mushkání and Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Maymandí. The whole account corresponds in general, even certain expressions are similar — except for a few minor additions and omissions — and the story of Abú Sahl’s dismissal is continued and supplemented from the later extant portion of the original. In such citations it is to be observed that the first person is substituted for the third, the language is always al-‘Awfí’s own, and the method of narration is simple and uniform with the entire scheme of the work. These parallel texts offer us a unique opportunity of judging the evolution of historical prose and its transition from the archaic (5^th century) to the comparatively modern (7^th century A. H.) Persian style.

Besides Observations concerning the later portions of al-Bayhaqí’s work. these acknowledged and established citations it is extremely probable that Nos. (8) and (9) are drawn from the lost volumes of the Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaqí, as both of them are immediately connected with the career of al-Bayhaqí and probably bring the record of events down to his own times. The tyranny of Túmán, the assassination of the Amír ‘Abdu’r-Rashíd, and again Abú Sahl Zawzaní’s high-handedness in the short period of Ṭughril’s usurpation and the coronation of Farrukhzád, the then reigning monarch, lead us to think that these minute details would not have been given by al-‘Awfí if al-Bayhaqí had not actually written them, in spite of the rambling narrative, disregard of chronological sequence, insertion of past and coming events, and the discursive and illustrative method of al-Bayhaqí.

There Other unacknowledged, common anec­dotes from al-Bayhaqí’s ex­tant portion. are other anecdotes in which the source is not mentioned, but the resem­blance is very strong, e. g. the exemplary punishment which the Sultan Maḥmúd meted out to an elephant-keeper (A. f145b. I. ix. 522) = (B. T. M. pp. 557-8), the disgrace of Fadhl b. Rabí‘ (A. f192a. I. xiv. 769) = (B. T. M. pp. 29-35), al-Ma’mún’s policy in burning the treasonable letters addressed to al-Amín (B. T. M. pp. 35-6), the Caliph Harúnu’r-Rashíd and the pious Ibnu’s-Sammák (A. f197b. I. xv. 797) = (B. T. M. pp. 638-43), Alexander and the institution of the Tribal Kings (B. T. M. p. 105), from which we can infer that al-‘Awfí borrowed occasionally other illustrative anecdotes given by al-Bayhaqí, apart from the very important material for the Ghaznawids, in which the Jawámi‘ is so rich.

Concerning al-‘Awfí’s dis­regard of the original source in utilising the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí. the utilisation of the Kitábu’l-Yamíní of al-‘Utbí the following remarks are based on the three anecdotes Nos. (5), (6) and (11), of which the last two are acknowledged to have been borrowed from the Yamíní. In No. (5) about the preposterous attempt of Ílak Khán and his discomfiture, the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, but the whole account is traceable to the Yamíní. Unfortunately we do not possess the parallel text of al-Bayhaqí for this portion; in that case it would have been possible to establish a twofold indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to al-‘Utbí and to estimate the relation of al-Bayhaqí’s text to the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí. Here a few points are given about the relation of al-‘Awfí’s anecdotes to the Arabic original of the Yamíní. In this anecdote about Ílak Khán there is no attempt at rhetorical imitation as in Jurbádhaqání, on the contrary bare historical facts are collected from various portions of the Yamíní and brought within the compass of a single anecdote, regardless of the original order, minor details, extraneous matter and profuse imagery of al-‘Utbí. In No. (6), about the annexation of Bust, the story begins as in al-‘Utbí and Jurbádhaqání, without any direct textual resemblances with the one or the other, and is augmented with such minute details as are found in neither. For instance, in the original it is reported that Ṭughán Khán treacherously gave a wound to Sabuk­tigín and the latter, on the other hand, also wounded and banished him; this fact is entirely ignored by al-‘Awfí. According to al-‘Awfí, in the early stages of the attack of Báytúz, Sabuktigín was unhorsed — which caused panic for some time — and later when Ṭugháytigín was restored to Bust, he did not fulfil his promises and made common cause with his brother and turned traitor, whereupon Sabuktigín, secretly informed of his designs, overcomes him and annexes Bust. Similarly in No. (11), about the victory of Sabuktigín over the Sháh of Kábul, the version of the two stories differs in details and is much shortened. In spite of the freedom which Jurbádhaqání takes with the Arabic original as has been duly remarked by Prof. Nöldeke, one can find a reproduction of the original, but in al-‘Awfí’s anecdotes it is difficult to trace even partial agreement with either of these, unless a special effort is made; hence al-‘Awfí is not faithful to this source, and this is an exception to his general mode of utilising his sources, which has been indicated throughout this chapter.