Folios
On account of its textual accuracy and close agreement* with A.* and D., and the ancientness of its transcription which falls within the 14th century A. D., this Ms. stands third in chronological order; but unfortunately owing to the absence of date and serious lacunae and transpositions it could not be adopted as the basis of the text even for the portions which are entirely preserved. This Ms. has always been consulted in cases of difficult readings and its contents are duly recorded in the Comparative Index; but the next Ms. i.e. D., offering a unique opportunity for the completion of the basis of the text for Pts. II-IV in conjunction with A., this Ms. is ignored for practical purposes.
Folios
This Ms. though not so old and correct as A. or C. yet offers a unique opportunity of establishing a complete text together with A.. Thus, in a sense, A. and D. are complementary, that is to say, the first part which is entirely missing from D. can be supplied from A. which contains that part in full; and they are, in point of time, textual value and for purposes of reference and systematic study, incomparable. Although there are about seventeen complete Mss., each has its own defects, a few are not dated, while most of them belong to a much later period and contain a hopelessly corrupt text; therefore, only these two Mss. have been systematically followed in establishing a complete Table of Contents of the Jawámi‘ as regards the number and serial order of the anecdotes, though, for variants, other older and later Mss. have always been consulted. The passage* cited below will illustrate the comparative value of A., C. and D. In spite of a few variations, which are natural, and the careless use of dots and a few minor changes in the three texts which do not materially affect the sense, there is a close agreement amongst the three. As regards names of places and persons, Arabic citations, Persian verses and a consistent use of archaic spellings, much more accuracy is desirable, but in the absence of better readings this Ms. approaches much nearer the original than any of the later ones. Unless and until a better text than that in A. and D. is discovered, these two Mss. should always be given preference.
Folios
Folios
This apparently complete but undated Ms. is an abridged, revised and supplemented version of the Jawámi‘. On f5a, in the original handwriting, the copyist and the recompiler whose name does not appear anywhere says that from a certain Ms. of this work a few other Mss. were transcribed; so it occured to him that it would be suitable, if he supplemented each chapter with similar unique and authentic anecdotes*. Consequently, additions of this nature are traceable throughout, e.g. Pt. I, ch. v. ff74, an account of the Caliphate of Musta‘ṣim is given and it is brought down to the Sack of Baghdád by the Mongols [in 656 A. H. = 1258 A. D], which anecdote is not found in any other Ms.; probably, indeed, the author did not live up to that time. Besides this, amongst other places, on f135b it is written “The author of the original, of which this is an abridgement, Núru’d-Dín Muḥammad ‘Awfí says”*. All the eulogies at the end of the chapters and many anecdotes are omitted. Apart from these insertions and abridgements the text is not of any material value; hence this Ms. is ignored in the preparation of the Comparative Index and the Table of Contents.
Folios
Contents: f1b-f3a, Preface of the author; f3b-f5a, a complete list of the hundred chapter-headings; f5b-f172b, Pt. I, chs. i-xxv, (except the 175 additional anecdotes found in A. only); f173b-234a, Pt. II, chs. i-xxv; f234b-f290a, Pt. III, chs. i-xxv; f290b-f358b, Pt. IV, chs. i-xxv; undated colophons at the end of each part; the last two folios are supplied by a later hand, so that the original colophon and the last 30 anecdotes are entirely missing, which are supplied from B. in the Table of Contents. The date of the transcript is not known, but the first line from the Bústán of Sa‘dí, and the Persian caligraphy, as surmised by Monsieur E. Blochet, suggest that this Ms. was written sometime during the 14th century A. D. Among the 14th century Mss. described here this is the only complete and reliable text of the Jawámi‘; although its accuracy can not be highly guaranteed, yet for the purpose of general reference it is incomparable; hence it is adopted as a companion Ms. throughout the Table of Contents, but the serial number of the anecdotes is established from A. and D. only, which form the bases of Pt. I, and II-IV respectively.
Folios
This is the second complete and dated Ms., and is in fact the gem of the John Bardoe Elliott collection, and must be taken into consideration for collation purposes, as at times it offers valuable readings.
This
Folios
This Ms. has not been personally examined by the present writer as yet, but it certainly deserves attention, as it is the fourth complete and dated text; hence it is duly recorded in the Chronological Table.
The The seven Petrograd Mss. present writer’s information about the seven Petrograd Mss., viz. I bis, L bis, M bis, Pet. 1.-Pet. 4., is partly based on the references to and extracts from the Jawámi‘ given by Prof. Barthold, and partly on the kind communication of Mr. Ignaz Kratchkovski*. The former has utilised in several of his studies four out of the seven Mss., viz. I bis, L bis, M bis, and Pet. 1. Firstly in the Zapiski Vostochnavo Otdyeleniya…. Arkheol. Obshchestva etc. Vol. IX, 1895, pp. 262-7, he gives an extract from the Jawámi‘ (D. f67a. IV. xvi. 1967) concerning the ancient Russians, where in the footnote (No. 1) to p. 262, he briefly mentions the Mss. he has utilised, three of which are the same Petrograd Mss., viz. I bis, L bis, M bis, again utilised by him in his second work, the Turkistán (Vol. I. pp. 83-101, Vol. II. p. 37). Then in his article “Zur Geschichte der Saffariden” in the Nöldeke-Festschrift (Band I, p. 176, n. 3), referred to above on pp. 31, 46, he gives a note about the fourth Petrograd Ms., viz. Pet. 1., of the Asiatic Museum No. 581aa. The information collected from the above works about these four Mss. is recorded according to their relative position in this Descriptive list.
This
Folios
Although this is the fifth complete Ms., its textual value is very small indeed. As regards proper names, quotations, cited verses and difficult passages it is extremely unreliable. The copyist has either carelessly imitated the original or the copy from which this Ms. was transcribed was hopelessly defective and mutilated. Not only that the order of some of the anecdotes is altered, but in a few chapters in the first part, and in the middle of almost all the chapters in the third and fourth part, a few anecdotes are always missing. Evidently this is the trick of the scribe who wanted to pass off his transcript as a complete one. Hence it is neither suitable for arrangement of anecdotes nor for purposes of systematic study.
Folios
This is the sixth complete Ms.; its textual value cannot be rated very high, but it is of course much more correct and helpful than J.. The number and order of the anecdotes is almost the same as in other older Mss. except A.. The older and worm-eaten portion in bad Nasta‘líq offers excellent readings and is very useful for the collation of the Preface and the 100th chapter which are defective in the 14th century A. D. Mss. except B.