THIS “Arrangement or String of Histories” is a small work devoted to general history, well known in Europe, but in too compendious a form to be of any great use, for in some of the dynasties treated of we have little beyond the names of the kings and the dates of their decease. Its value is chiefly attributable to the early period at which it was written.
The author was Abú Sa'íd 'Abdu-llah bin Abú-l Hasan 'Alí Baizáwí.* His father was, as well as himself, a “Kázíu-l kuzzát,” or chief kází, and his grandfather exercised the functions of Imám. He was born at Baizá, a town at a short distance from Shíráz, and was kází, first at Shíráz and afterwards at Tabríz, where he died in the year 685 H., 1286, A.D. Hájí Khalfa says he died either in that year or 692 H.* This author has obtained great celebrity from his commentary upon the Kurán, entitled Anwáru-t Tanzíl wa asrára-t Táwíl—“the lights of revelation and mysteries of allegorical interpretation,” which has itself been commented on by many succeeding authors, of which a bit is given by Hájí Khalfa, in his Lexicon, Vol. I. pp, 469-81. This is considered generally the best commentary, and has been largely used by Sale and others. There are several copies of it in Europe, enumerated by De Rossi. It has lately been printed at Leipsig by Professor Fleischer. Baizáwí was the author of other works on law, theology, logic, and grammar, all written in Arabic, but the Nizámu-t Tawáríkh is in Persian, in order, as he says, “that it might be of more general use.”
A full account of the Nizámu-t Tawáríkh has been given by Silvestre de Sacy, in the Notices des Manuscripts, Tom. lv. pp. 672-696, from the Appendix of which article it appears that there is another work of the same name, composed by Kází Jalálu-d dín, wazír of Mahmúd the Ghaznivide, in which I am disposed to apprehend some error of name or designation. Amongst other extracts given by him he has translated the brief histories of the Assassins and Atábaks.
There is some doubt about the exact date of the composition of this work. It is generally supposed that it was written about 674 H., but there are dates mentioned in it subsequent to that period. For instance, in the history of the Atábaks, there is one of 686, and towards the close of the Moghal history, there are 684 and 690; and 694 is repeated four times. There appears nothing like interpolation in these passages, and there would therefore appear some reason to suppose that 694 was the real date of composition, or at least of final revision, and that the latest date mentioned by Hájí Khalfa, namely, 699 (A.D. 1299-1300), is the most probable one of the author's death. Still this is opposed to all other authorities. M. Silvestre de Sacy examined two copies of the work in the Bibliothèque Nationale, in one of which he found dates later than 674. He mentions particularly the date of 689 (in my copy 686) in the history of the Atábaks, and he observes, what is very true, that at the beginning of that history their power is said to have commenced in 543, and to have lasted up to the time of composition, 130 years (131 in mine), which fixes the date in 674. It is easy, however, to read 650 for 630. M. de Sacy does not notice the additions to the Moghal history in either of the copies in the Bibliothèque Nationale. My own copy, which is taken from a very excellent one written in 1108 H., has distinctly in the preface, as well as the conclusion, the year of 694 H. It is to be observed, that in Arabic 90 and 70 are written almost in the same form, when without diacritical marks. I have seen one copy in which the Perso-Moghal history is carried down to 739 H., but that evidently contained additions by the copyist. Altogether, if so many authorities were not arrayed against me, I should prefer fixing the date at 694, instead of 674. The question, however, is not of the least consequence. The work is divided into four books.