Although Relation of the Jawámi‘ to the Siyásat-náma. this work of the Niẓámu’l-Mulk* is not mentioned in the Jawámi‘ by this or by its other title of Siyaru’l-Mulúk*, yet the anecdotes in it offer a unique parallel to those in the various chapters of the Jawámi‘ dealing with justice, adminis­tration, punitive system, political art and good and bad traits of the various rulers; thus nearly three-fourths of the historical or quasi-historical illustrations in the Siyásat-náma are found in one form or another in the Jawámi‘. It appears that al-‘Awfí, perceiving the design and character of the work, incorporated it and adapted the anecdotes as best suited his own purpose of illustrating his chapter-headings, regard­less of the order, style, language and aim of the author of the original. There being no attempt at a systematic exposition of politics or events, and since neither the particular suggestions relating to the peculiar circumstances of the times nor the general observations of the author in each section could be easily moulded into a story-form, al-‘Awfí restricted his attention to the anecdotes alone, which the author of the original collected indiscriminately* and probably later the editor either arranged or supplemented from works of the nature of “Counsels to the kings”*, referred to above in Notice No. (2)b, which were the traditional stock* for such compilations in those days. Such allied sources being known to al-‘Awfí and utilised invariably by him, we find therefore, even in some of the anecdotes enumerated below, an independent version, and in others a modified reproduction; thus similarity and variation of the versions of these common anecdotes are a double test for both the accuracy and sources of the Siyasát-náma and the Jawámi‘.

This Importance of the Siyásat-náma. work, usually known as a treatise on the “Art of Government” as its title* also indicates, is not so much a handbook of politics as a memorandum* submitted to a prince and advice given for a proper exercise of royal powers and efficient execution of the functions of other officials of a state, in which the ruler Maliksháh Saljúqí (reigned 465-85 A. H. = 1072-92 A. D.) and the highest responsible official, the great Wazír Abú ‘Alí Ḥasan b. ‘Alí the Niẓámu’l-Mulk of Ṭús (b. 408 A. H. = 1018 A. D. killed 485 A. H. = 1092 A. D.) felt the necessity of reforming the abuses and disorders that had crept into the government, and the corruption which threatened to ruin every other department of public administration. The importance of such a work can be fully realised when we consider the explicit occasion of the original draft*, the headings of the sections*, the general plan of the work, the accredited acceptance of it by Maliksháh, the zeal and earnestness with which the author exposes the existing evils and suggests remedies, his painful pre-occupation with the growth of the heretical sects as an imminent danger to Islám and the state*, his personal observations and illustrations, though somewhat distorted, and the exposition of the whole scheme as by an author of the opposite party. But we cannot ignore other circumstantial facts and internal evidence when we seek to investigate the actual portion written by the Niẓámu’l-Mulk and estimate the present Siyásat-náma, usually regarded as the finished product of the great Wazír’s pen.

Apart Some con­siderations about its present version. from the strange absence of any contemporary or later authentic notice of this work in histories like the Ráḥatu’ṣ-Ṣudúr of ar-Ráwandí, the Zubdatu’n-Nuṣra wa Nukhbatu’l-‘Uṣra (compiled in 579 A. H. = 1183 A. D.) of ‘Imádu’d-Dín al-Kátib al-Iṣfahání, the Kámil of Ibnu’l-Athir and the Tajáribu’s-Salaf of Hindúsháh al-Kírání, the data, however incorrect, given by H. Khalfa* appear to have a direct bearing on the earliest possible period of its composition* (469 A. H.), on the number of section (30) contained in the original draft, and on its recasting by a later and hitherto unidentified author al-Yamaní. Further, the statement about the addition* of 11 sections to the already existing 39, the final revision by the author and the handing over of the autograph for a fair copy on the eve of his fateful journey to Baghdád (485 A. H. = 1092 A. D.), the scanty time at the disposal of the author (484-5 A. H.) in which the work is said to have been composed, the delay of about 13 years caused by the unsettled affairs after the death of the Wazír and the King, in the final publication and dedication to Maliksháh II’s son Ghiyáthu’d-Dín Muḥammad in 498 A. H. = 1105 A. D., who had just ascended the Saljúq throne, and the fact that our information* about its composition and transcription is entirely based on and connected with the old and obscure poet and transcriber of the Royal-Library of the Saljúqs, Muḥammad Maghribí*— all this has to be considered along with the evidence in the work itself. The similarity between the editor’s supplementary note to the list of the section-headings (p. 5) and the concluding remarks of the author (p. 210), the confusion in the arrangement of sections and subject-matter in the latter part* of the book, the occasionally faulty style, the rather betraying insertions of the editor*, the doubtful character* and sources* of the anecdotes, and the author’s downright denunciations of the Báṭinís and other heretical sects set us thinking whether we should rely on all the information contained in the Siyásat-náma. Muḥammad Maghribí has a larger share than is generally sup­posed in augmenting the bulk of the book, especially in the anecdotal illustrations, and the present arrangement of the work is probably his rather than the Wazír’s.

A Comparison of common anecdotes. comparative analysis of the common anecdotes, some of which are borrowed from this and other allied sources yields the following results*:

(1)	The story of the scrupulous care of the deaf king of Chín in ordering that red clothes should be worn by the plaintiffs only, as told by a holy person before the Caliph al-Manṣúr, (A. f124b. I. vi. 392). Cf. N. S. N. p. 10, where the anecdote is given in quite a different setting and version.
(2)	‘Amr b. Layth the Ṣaffárid tempts Ismá‘íl b. Aḥmad the Sámánid with the bequeathed treasures of his brother Ya‘qúb before being sent as a prisoner to the Caliph al-Mu‘tamid; but Ismá‘íl refuses them on the ground that they were obtained by extortion, and that if he accepts them, the onus of responsibility will fall on him on the Day of Reckoning, (A. f123a. I. vi. 383)* (D. f153b. II. xvi. 1434). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 16-17.
(3)	Ismá‘íl b. Aḥmad the Sámánid’s scruples about justice and his habit of staying out in severe winter and snow, alone on horseback, in order to be easily accessible to the poor and the oppressed. In one such outing, he finds one of his camels grazing in the field of a peasant, upon which he readily pays damages to him for this trespass, (A. f135a. I. vii. 442). Cf. N. S. N. p. 17, where the former part of the anecdote corresponds, but the latter part which is the actual point of illustration is omitted; from this it appears that either the story was left incomplete in N. S. N. or al-‘Awfí borrowed it from another independent source.
(4)	The year of severe drought and famine in Iṣṭakhr, and the Kisrá Bahrám’s magnanimity and relief to the distressed, whereby peace and plenty are restored to the kingdom, (A. f130b. I. vii. 420). Cf. N. S. N. p. 18, where the story is told in brief and the ruler is mentioned as Qubád, and the period of famine as seven years; here again the sources appear identical, but the versions differ.
(5)	The misrule of Rást-rawish, the dishonest Wazír of Bahrám Gúr, and the painful awakening of the king from his gaiety at the attack of the Khán of Turkistán, and the lesson drawn by him from the act of the shepherd who hanged his dog for having betrayed his master, (A. f119a. I. vi. 364); (D. f251a. III. xvi. 1704), cf. N. S. N. pp. 19-22. This anecdote is told twice in the Jawámi‘; on one occasion it is ascribed to Bahrám Gúr as in N. S. N. and here, while in the second version, which makes no reference to the former statement, Rást-rawish is made the Wazír of Gushtásp. In N. S. N. this story is told in a very elaborate form along with other stories of the machinations of Rást-rawish.
(6)	An old woman’s complaint to Núshírwán against the tyrannical acquisition of her land by the governor of Ádharbáyján for erecting his own palace and Núshírwán’s exemplary punishment, (A. f119b. I. vi. 365). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 28-35, where the story covers nearly 13 pages and is full of rambling details; probably al-‘Awfí has abridged it from N. S. N. as a few expressions are similar.
(7)	Núshírwán’s redress-bell and the justified complaint of the old ass, (A. f124a. I. vi. 390). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 35-7, where this device for public redress was adopted after the offence of the governor of Ádharbáyján; whereas in the Jawámi‘ it is adopted in consequence of Núshírwán’s consultation with his Wazír about the short­ness of the life of a hawk owing to its cruelty and the best method of prolonging life by enabling the victims of oppression to obtain justice quickly and easily.
(8)	The time-honoured Persian custom of open-court on Nawrúz and Mihrgán adopted by ‘Abdu’llah b. Ṭáhir Dhu’l-Yamínayn, (A. f129a. I. vii. 412). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 39-40, where the origin of this institution is traced. A similar account is given in the Naṣíḥatu’l-Mulúk of al-Ghazálí (T. S. N. p. 59).
(9)	‘Umára b. Ḥamza (d. 199 A. H. = 814/5 A. D.) prefers to renounce his ownership of an estate claimed by his opponent rather than give up the exalted position in which he had been installed by the Caliph al-Manṣúr, (D. f118b. II. v. 1295). Cf. N. S. N. p. 40, where the story is placed in the court of the Caliph al-Wáthiq, which as pointed out by Schefer is wrong (T. S. N. p. 60). This anecdote is also found in the Naṣiḥatu’l-Mulúk and corresponds very closely with the version given in the Jawámi‘, where another instance of the high-mindedness of ‘Umára is also added to the above one.
(10)	The story of the pious tailor, the significance of his prayer-call at an unusual hour and the ready submission of one of the tyrannical generals of the Caliph al-Mu‘tadhid’s Turkish guards to the demand of his creditor, a helpless merchant of Baghdád, at the immediate call of the tailor, (A. f126a. I. vi. 399). Cf. T. F. S. pt. II, pp. 17-9; N. S. N. pp. 45-54. This anecdote is undoubtedly borrowed by al-‘Awfí from the Faraj as the version and literal Persian rendering of the story indicate; but it is also found in N. S. N. where it is set in the Caliphate of al-Mu‘taṣim, and is treated at greater length and differs from the version of al-Faraj.
(11)	The Sultan Maḥmúd gives strict orders to his son Mas‘úd to arrest and extermi­nate the band of robbers belonging to the Kúch and Balúch*, in the forest of Khabíṣ* in Kirmán, which Mas‘úd does by a surprise attack. (A. f186a. I. xiii. 732). The Sultan Mas‘úd kills a band of robbers in Kirmán by means of poisoned apples. (A. f186b. I. xiii. 733), cf. N. S. N. pp. 58-65; H. T. G. p. 399. These two stories are given in the Siyásat-náma in a connected form with other details about Maḥmúd’s request to Abú ‘Alí b. Ilyás, and the success of his own efforts, assisted by his son’s skill, in overcoming this band of robbers. The details are different and probably the sources also.
(12)	Parwíz’s rebuke to Bahrám Chúbín for punishing a servant and his ironical sug­gestion to sheathe two swords in one case, (D. f7b. IV. ii. 1801). Cf. N. S. N. p. 67, where Parwíz is made the king of Rúm and Bahrám Chúbín his Wazír and a beloved friend, which, as pointed out by Schefer (T. S. N. p. 101) and Nöldeke (ZDMG. loc. cit. p. 766), is unhistorical. The details about the present of 300 red-haired camels to Bahrám Chúbín and the picking up of 2 swords out of 150 are entirely missing in the Jawámi‘, and Bahrám Chúbín is simply mentioned as one of the best warrior-athletes of Parwíz.