The Origin and early versions of the Sindbád-náma. Book of Sindbád or the tale of the king’s son and the seven wazírs is referred to by al-‘Awfí twice in the Jawámi‘ in pt. III, ch. xxv, “On the Wiles of Women”, once in the introduction to this chapter along with the Bakhtiyár-náma* (D. 286a. III. xxv. Int. 1783)*, and again in the conclusion along with the Kalíla wa Dimna* (B. f243b = C. f344a. III. xxv. 1789)* as one of the famous and popular works on the stories of female slyness. Authorities differ, as in the case of the Kalíla wa Dimna, as to the original home of this work, whether it was India or Persia. al-Mas‘údí* and Ibnu’n-Nadím* agree that it was originally shaped by the Indian sage Sindbád. Ethé and Nöldeke also hold that, from the intrinsic nature of these tales, they belong to an Indian rather than a Persian environment, as is evident from a perusal of this work; but at an earlier epoch they were translated into Pahlawí and then into Arabic and other languages. At any rate, a copy of the Pahlawí version existed in the time of the Sámánids, and by the order of the Sámánid Amír Núḥ II b. Manṣúr (reigned 366-87 A. H. = 976-97 A. D.) the Khwája ‘Amíd Abu’l-Fawáris Qanáwarzí translated it for the first time into modern Persian prose*. An account of Qanáwarzí’s version is given by Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí b. Muḥammad b. [Ḥasan] aẓ-Ẓahírí al-Kátib as-Samarqandí in connection with his own version of the Sindbád-náma [Or. 255 Br. Mus.]* ff14, who says that it was in a very simple and unadorned language. Most probably from this prose version, the poet Abú Bakr Zaynu’d-Dín b. Ismá‘íl al-Warráq al-Azraqí (d. before 465 A. H. = 1072/3 A. D.) composed or intended to compose his Mathnawí in the middle of the fifth century of the Hijra. Unfortunately, like the prose version of Qanáwarzí, this metrical version has not come down to us; the only data for this Mathnawí are found in one of the panegyrics of al-Azraqí written in honour of his patron-prince, Abu’l-Fawáris Ṭughánsháh b. Alp Arslán the Saljúq, in which the poet alludes to his own skill as manifested in the “Counsels of Sindbád”*. Another unique, but rather poor poetical version (a Mathnawí) of the Sindbád-náma of unknown authorship composed as late as 776 A. H. = 1374/5 A. D. is preserved in the India Office Library [No. 3214]*, which according to Ethé closely agrees with the Greek Sintipas* and the prose version of aẓ-Ẓahírí, and has been fully described by F. Falconer*.

As Discussion on the two prose versions by aẓ-Ẓahírí and ad-Daqá’iqí. regards the later prose versions of the Sindbád-náma, it is really difficult to decide which actual version was utilised by al-‘Awfí in the Jawámi‘; but in this con­nection, it seems proper to discuss the question of the existence of two different prose versions, about which the learned critic Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín* has raised certain objections. After combining two different statements of al-‘Awfí regarding this work, one in the biography of the poet [Bahá’u’d-Dín] aẓ-Ẓahírí* and the other in that of the poet Shamsu’d-Dín Muḥammad ad-Daqá’iqí* al-Marwazí, Mírzá Muḥammad supposes them to be contemporaries and rejects the simultaneous composition of two prose versions of the same work. In fact, as remarked above (pp. 40-1), aẓ-Ẓahírí, the author of the A‘radhu’r-Riyása* and the editor of the Sindbád-náma, flourished at an earlier epoch than ad-Daqá’iqí, and these two poets composed two different versions under two different rulers of the same Ílak Khán dynasty of Samarqand. On the testimony of the extant version of aẓ-Ẓahírí [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f6a this work was dedicated to Ruknu’d-Dín Qutlugh Balká Abu’l-Muẓaffar Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán b. Qilij Qará Khán* (identified by Prof. Barthold as Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí, who reigned 558-74 A. H. = 1163-78/9 A. D., and not Jalálu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, a contemporary of al-‘Awfí, the last but one ruler of this dynasty, as asserted by Mírzá Muḥammad) who had returned after a long absence to his hereditary dominions (f10a)*, and who after vanquishing his foes in Túrán in the year fifty-six i.e. 556 A. H. = 1160/1 A. D. had restored peace and the reign of justice in his kingdom. The date and this event point to its having been composed earlier than is supposed by Mírzá Muḥammad. A little later, ad-Daqá’iqí also wrote a prose version of the Sindbád-náma, as H. Khalfa* not only distinguishes it from other versions but gives its beginning line, which owing to the loss of the first folio of aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version cannot be compared, but is certainly an evidence of the existence of this version. This was composed during the reign of Jalálu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, also entitled Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán, who apparently succeeded the aforesaid Ruknu’d-Dín. Thus there is a difference of about 40 years between the composition of the former and the latter, and besides this a comparison of the apparently common anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ and aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version, which follows, shows that al-‘Awfí must have used a version other than aẓ-Ẓahírí’s. From these arguments it is evident that two separate prose versions existed in the time of al-‘Awfí; the former being rare, as he himself says in the Lubáb, he might have utilised ad-Daqá’iqí’s.

On Comparison of the common anecdotes in aẓ-Ẓahírí’s ver­sion and the Jawámi‘. a close comparison of the anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ pt. III, chs. xxiv-v, “On Unchaste and Impious Women”, and “On the Wiles of Women” with the version of Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad aẓ-Ẓahírí, it is noticeable that, although the outlines of some of these stories are somewhat identical, yet they differ in essential details. For instance, an account of a person who was in the habit of studying the wiles of women and collecting works on this subject is common to both (D. f288b. III. xxv. 1787), cf. [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f101b-f103a; and so is another story, mentioned in a different chapter, concerning the hudhud or hoopoe, that could not resist his destiny of falling a prey to a net, in spite of having noticed it (D. f55a. IV. xiii. 1922), cf. [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f129a-f130a. At no point do we find direct or indirect indebtedness to this version. aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version* of these stories is highly decorated with the graces of language, and supplemented with Arabic and Persian verses, none of which are found in the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘. This contrast is especially strengthened when we compare other anecdotes of a similar nature taken from the Bakhtiyár-náma. In any case, the version in al-‘Awfí’s hand was different from aẓ-Ẓahírí’s; it might be that of ad-Daqá’iqí or an earlier one.

This Account, ori­gin, and ver­sions of the Bakhtiyár-náma. work, also known as the Story of the Prince Bakhtiyár and the Ten Wazírs, which is apparently a purely Muslim imitation of the originally Indian Story of Sindbád or the Seven Wazírs, referred to once by al-‘Awfí*, forms one of the direct sources of the Jawámi‘; but it is difficult to decide which actual version was utilised by him. There is one short reference in the biography of the aforesaid Daqá’iqí* to a version prepared by him along with that of the Sindbád-náma; unfortunately neither of these has come down to us. It is possible that al-‘Awfí might have used ad-Daqá’iqí’s or any other earlier prose version of the Bakhtiyár-náma; since from the allusion to it, it appears that works of this nature were rather popular in those days. The oldest extant version of this story, according to Prof. Nöldeke’s* detailed researches, is in Persian prose, represented by the Leyden Codex [No. 593]*, which, however, goes back to a still much earlier Persian original, as yet considered to be lost. This version was prepared by an unmentioned writer* at the court of a hitherto unidentified prince of Samarqand named Táju’d-Dín Maḥmúd b. Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’l-Karím some time about 600 A. H. = 1204 A. D.. al-‘Awfí, being in touch with the court of Samarqand at this period, as shown above (pp. 7-8), must have known of the existence of this work, but it cannot be ascertained after a comparison of the simple and direct style of these borrowed anecdotes with that of the extracts given by Prof. Nöldeke that he ever utilised it; on the contrary, the evidence points to the utilisation of a still much older text. On the older Persian originals are apparently based the different Arabic versions*; one of them is also found in the Alfu Layla* and the Uigur* text contained in [Huntingdon 598 Bodl.], dated 1435 A. D.. To a comparatively later period belongs the shorter version contained in [Ind. Off. 3053] f17a-f63a and [Ouseley 389 Bodl.] which also forms one of the bases of the Ouseley-Kazimirski* Paris lithographed edition of the Bakhtiyár-náma. This version, though differing in the arrangement of the chapters and in the detailed exposition of the contents, and written in a very clear and simple style as contrasted with the older ones, is on the whole in agreement with its contents. Thus, just as the simplicity of style in the anecdotes borrowed by al-‘Awfí is in favour of their being based on a still much older Persian original, so also the resemblance between al-‘Awfí’s version and the Ouseley-Kazi­mirski text strengthens the belief that the latter, though it took its final shape in India, still has its origin in the much older originals on which the Leyden Codex was based.

Out al-‘Awfí’s method of uti­lising the Bakh­tiyár-náma. of the ten dástáns, which the prince Bakhtiyár relates successively, in self-defence, in order to delay his execution and defeat the evil counsels of the ten wazírs, and which are addressed to the king who in the end is proved to be his real father and resigns in his favour, four are found in the Jawámi‘ under different chapters in a very abridged form. The plot of these stories is almost the same, and some of the minor details also correspond in both cases; but the mould, resetting, language and style are al-‘Awfí’s own. The elaborate thread of these stories, connected with the personality of Bakhtiyár, and the rambling details which run to an enormous length in the original are all suppressed; and the stories in the Jawámi‘ stand as detached units representing single topics, befitting peculiarly the chapter-headings of the Jawámi‘, which are almost identical with the original scheme of the dástáns. Thus in pt. II, ch. xiii, “On the Excellence of Patience” the dástán of Abú Ṣábir (ch. iv); in pt. III, ch. iii, “On the Contemptibility of Rancour and Envy”, the dástán of Abú Tammám (ch. ix); and in pt. III, ch. xx, “On the Contemptibility of Hastiness and the Advantages of Slowness”, the two dástáns of the jewel-merchant and his calamitous haste (ch. viii) and of the hasty prince of Ḥalab (ch. iii) are suitably incorporated. The following are the parallel references to the Paris litho. 1839 A. D.:

(1)	The calamities which befell Abú Ṣábir, his exemplary patience, his installation as the ruler of his native place, and his vengeance, (D. f143b. II. xiii. 1400) cf. pp. 45, 47-55.
(2)	The conspiracy of the four old wazírs of the ruler of Álán (?) against the king’s new favourite Abú Tammám, and the destruction of the latter, which ultimately recoiled on the wazírs, (D. f198a. III. ii. 1558) cf. pp. 107, 110-117.
(3)	The life-story of Rúzbih and Bihrúz, the two sons of the hasty jewel-merchant, (D. f264a. III. xx. 1730) cf. pp. 93-107.
(4)	The calamitous haste of the prince of Ḥalab in his marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt, (D. f265b. III. xx. 1731) cf. pp. 33-45.