Among Numerical index to the Conspectus. the innumerable works which our author utilised for the compilation of this work, only 93 are mentioned*, in one way or another, throughout the array of anecdotes; and the names of about 45 authors are given along with the works; out of which nearly 35 sources have been completely identified and established, and about 43 are traceable, while the remaining 15 are either lost or hitherto unknown.

The Difficulty of identification. vague manner in which al-‘Awfí alludes to different works, and the inexact titles by which he refers to them, render identification extremely difficult, but nevertheless, there is one great consolation, that whenever an original source is traced, he redeems himself by his fidelity and intelligent adaptation. Such instances are many, and they will be shown in the course of our examination of individual works in the accompanying Conspectus.

Although Only promi­nent sources discussed. the sources of our author are not unique, yet they are typical; hence they possess a special importance, and contribute to the authenticity of the material contained in the Jawámi‘. On a systematic analysis of the anecdotes, firstly, it is observable that these sources represent the literature of the period or subject with which our author was intimately acquainted; secondly, he utilised the ample material at his disposal to the best advantage; and thirdly, the encyclopaedic nature of the anecdotes made it necessary for him to see more than one book on each subject, and sift suitable material for his own purpose. For these reasons a thorough analysis of the sources is out of the question; we cannot say with certainty that these anecdotes were actually taken from such and such a source, except occasionally when the author himself acknowledges them. This investigation of some of the most prominent sources of the Jawámi‘ is chiefly based on the works mentioned by the author, and on others, which though unmentioned are yet established by parallel citations and other critical canons, whereas the rest are noticed briefly in the Table of Contents as they occur in the anecdotes.

This The two works of al-Bírúní directly utilised. is one of those sources not mentioned directly, yet established completely after textual comparison. Throughout the entire collection consisting of 2,113 anecdotes, only three times is al-Bírúní named (by his Kunya, Abú Rayḥán) in connection with his works. But on comparison of the portions of the Jawámi‘ noticed below, it is found that at least two of the famous works of al-Bírúní have been utilised, viz., the Átháru’l-Báqiya and Kitábun fí Taḥqíq-i-má li’l-Hind.

al-‘Awfí Parallel references. is directly indebted to the Áthár for the earlier part of his chapter on ‘Pseudo-prophets’, which exactly corresponds with the eighth chapter in al-Bírúní. (Parallel references are given in the Table of Contents: Part III, ch. viii. Anecdotes 1622—1625 = Áthár pp. 207-9, 210-211).

Although Method of utilisation. al-‘Awfí had more than one source for these anecdotes, yet the influence of al-Bírúní on this chapter is predominant, the whole account of Manes in the Jawámi‘ (D. f219b. III. viii. 1622), being based on the Áthár, pp. 207-9. The arrangement of the anecdote is altered but the contents are the same and it is nothing more than an abridged Persian version of the account of Manes from the Áthár. al-Bírúní has mentioned only 5 works of Manes, and these very five works are also enumerated in the Jawámi‘. Again the account of Mazdak begins as it is found in the Áthár, but the lacuna in the Arabic text of Sachau (p. 209) cannot very well be supplemented by the Persian version of this anecdote* from the Jawámi‘. Further on, the account of Máh-áfaríd or Bih-áfarídh, as al-Bírúní calls him, agrees very closely; then follows the account of al-Muqanna‘ which is similar in both. Therefore, the debt of al-‘Awfí to al-Bírúní is considerable.

One Only one citation from the Kitábu’l-Hind. concrete example of the utilisation of this work is the account of the animal Sharw. (D. f91b. IV. xxiii. 2057 = Indica, Text, p. 99, ll. 14-7). While describing the various types of strange animals, al-‘Awfí inserts this extract from the Indica, about Sharw or *Shérú, an animal of the rhinoceros species, which is found in the forests of Konkon, called Dának, a sea-coast place, situated to the south of Samhita, in India.

This Reference to these works but no citation. famous work of al-Ghazálí, surnamed Ḥujjatu’l-Islám, (d. 1111 A. D.), Iḥyá’u ‘Ulúmi’d-Dín or the “Revivification of the Religious Sciences”, and its epitomised Persian version the Kímiyá-yi-Sa‘ádat or “The Alchemy of Happiness”, are mentioned by al-‘Awfí, in connection with the controversial problem of Samá‘, in his introduction to the chapter on ‘Musicians’ (A. f242b. I. xxiv. Int. 1126).

This controversy is treated at full length in the Buláq edition of the Iḥyá’ Pt. II, pp. 229-264, and al-Ghazálí, as a lover of Music, has refuted the theories of the theologians against the unlawfulness of hearing music, and has championed the cause of the Ṣúfís, who considered it as the food of the soul. Our author has simply referred to it, without dilating on the subject, and has proceeded to illustrate his chapter with anecdotes of the musicians. The first anecdote describes the origin of music, and the conception of Pythagoras (circa 582-500 B. C.), concerning the scientific arrangement of notes and their influence on the soul. At the end of this long account, the author adds a few words as to why the Prophet proscribed musical revelry.

This at-Tibru’l-Masbúk uti­lised in the Jawámi‘. work, though not mentioned anywhere in the Jawámi‘, appears to have been constantly utilised by al-‘Awfí. It cannot be ascertained whether al-‘Awfí used the lost Persian original of al-Ghazálí written for Muḥammad b. Maliksháh Saljúqí or the present Arabic version made by ‘Alí b. Mubárak b. Mawhúb for the Atábek Alp Qutluq of Mawṣil (d. 595 A. H. = 1199 A. D.); but a textual comparison shows that al-‘Awfí used a fuller text. A few parallel references are noted here: Shaqíq of Balkh’s advice to the Caliph Hárún (A. f196b. I. xv. 790) = p. 14; Fudhayl b. ‘Iyádh’s advice to the same (A. f197a. I. xv. 791) = p. 15; Abú Ḥázim-i-Laffáf’s gift to the Caliph Sulaymán (A. f197a. I. xv. 792) = p. 16. This treatise on politics like others, such as Ibn Qutayba’s ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, al-Máwardí’s (d. 450 A. H.) Aḥkámu’s-Sulṭániyya, and at-Ṭurṭúshí’s Siráju’l-Mulúk and Ibnu’l-Jawzí’s tract [Or. 1529 Br. Mus.] offers unique opportunities for parallel references to the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘.

This Accounts of various works of the same title. source remains unidentified. No clue whatsoever is found as to who was the original author of this work, from which al-‘Awfí borrowed. The fall of the Barmecides took place in the year 803 A. D., and nearly a century and a half later, there is found in the Fihrist (p. 134) in the list of Abú ‘Abdi’llah al-Marzubání’s works (d. 378 A. H. = 988/9 A. D.) a work with the title of Akhbáru’l-Barámika, about which Ibnu’n-Nadím, a contemporary of al-Marzubání, says that it contained nearly 500 folios. We have some reason to believe in the acquaintance of our author with the works of al-Marzubání, as will be shown in the account of the Kitábu’sh-Shabáb-i-wa’sh-Shayb (another source of al-‘Awfí), but this work like most of al-Marzubání’s is com­pletely lost, therefore we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion in this case. Another work of the same title is mentioned by H. Khalfa (Vol. I, p. 185. No. 184) and Ibnu’l-Jawzí (d. 597 A. H. = 1200 A. D.) is said to be the author of it; but apparently that is also lost. Even the Arabic originals of Dhiyá’u’d-Dín Baraní’s translation, “Akhbár-i-Barmakiyán” for Fírúz Sháh, about 757 A. H. = 1356 A. D., prepared a century later than al-‘Awfí’s time, are not well established (see Cat. Pers. Mss. [Or. 151 Br. Mus.] Vol. I, pp. 333-4); therefore this source cannot be established with certainty.

al-‘Awfí Anecdotes borrowed. had more than one source for his anecdotes of the Barmecides*, as 34 of them are scattered throughout the Jawámi‘; but he has mentioned the above source three times only: