This Only one anecdote with acknowledge­ment. important work is mentioned once only, without the name of the author, in connection with the anecdote of the infatuation of Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán b. Thábit, who had gone from Raqqa to the Madínatu’s-Salám (Baghdád), and there seeing a girl was almost lost in her love, but being unsuccessful, took up an ascetic life and became famous as one of the holy men of Baghdád, (D. f35a. IV. x. 1888).

In Not traceable in the Khaṭib’s nor Ṭayfúr’s histories. the extant portions of the Mss.* of Abú Bakr Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Thábit al-Khaṭíb al-Baghdádí’s (392-463 A. H. = 1002-1071 A. D.) famous History of Baghdád called the Ta’ríkh-i-Madínatu’s-Salám, especially under the section of the Muḥammadún, this anecdote is not traceable, nor in the Ta’ríkh-i-Baghdád of Abu’l-Fadhl Aḥmad b. Abí Ṭáhir Ṭayfúr al-Baghdádí (204-80 A. H.), the predecessor of the Khaṭib, in the seventh part rescued from oblivion by Dr. H. Keller, which deals with the early part of the Caliphate of al-Ma’mún; nor in the Maṣári‘u’l-‘Ushsháq of Abú Bakr Muḥammad b. Ja‘far as-Sarráj (d. 500 A. H.), who collected the anecdotes of lovers from earlier sources and especially from the Khaṭíb himself; therefore this source remains unidentified.

This Only one anecdote with acknowledge­ment. famous work of Abú Isḥáq Ibráhím* b. Hilál al-Ḥarrání aṣ-Ṣábí (d. 384 A. H. = 994 A. D.) is mentioned once, as the source of the anecdote* about the domination of the Buwayhid, Mu‘izzu’d-Dawla Abu’l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad over the Caliphate, his exasperation at the contradictory reports received from the court of the Sámánids concerning the intrigue of the Caliph al-Mustakfí, whom he had relieved from the clutches of the Turkish guards, and the brutal murder of the Caliph al-Mustakfí by the Daylamites in 334 A. H., (A. f115b. I. v. 345).

According aṣ-Ṣábí’s sar­castic remark about his own work. to Miskawayh’s Tajáribu’l-Umam, Yáqút’s Irshádu’l-Aríb, and Ibn-Khallikán’s Wafayátu’l-A‘yán, the author, is said to have described this history of the Buwayhids, which he composed for ‘Adhudu’d-Dawla, after whose title “Táju’l-Milla” it was called Kitábu’t-Tájí (commonly known as Ta’ríkh-i-Tájí), as “a pack of lies”; but since the author was compiling it under duress and in prison, his sarcastic remark should be accepted with due modification, for it is reported that ‘Adhudu’d-Dawla supervised it; and apart from this, the extracts and references to this work in later authorities* show that at least the records of contemporary events by the author were of extreme value in determining the authenticity of the historical accounts concerning the ascendancy of the Daylamites over the Caliphate. Prof. Margoliouth also holds a similar view.

Unfortunately, Identification of this source through parallel citations. this work like his Rasá’il and others has come down to us only in extracts, and the original is lost, therefore it is not possible to establish the debt of al-‘Awfí to Ibráhím the Sabian. There are nearly 22 anecdotes* in the Jawámi‘ about the Buwayhids, but there is no acknowledgement of their sources, except in the anecdote referred to above, nor any mention of his grandson’s works*, the Chronicle of Hilál b. Muḥassin (359-448 A. H. = 970-1056 A. D.) and his Kitábu’l-Wuzará’; so we can only identify this source from other parallel citations.

This Mention of this works under two titles. important, but unfortunately lost work of Majdu’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí, the maternal uncle of al-‘Awfí, is mentioned under two names, once as the Ta’ríkh-i-Máwará’u’n-Nahr, and in the subsequent anecdote as the Ta’ríkh-i-Turkistán.

The The two anec­dotes borrowed from it. first anecdote is that of a King of Khurásán who employed Negroes in his army, to fight against the people of Turkistán, who lived beyond the Oxus, and were frightened to death at the sight of Negroes, (D. f69b. IV. vii. 1973).

The second anecdote is about the earliest marriage between Irán and Turkistán, in which the ruler of Irán called *Ḥastawayh or *Ḥasanawayh or *Ḥaswayh (?) sends a Negro as a present to the ruler of Turkistán, called *Tukaj or *Balaj or *Balaḥ (?), who in the end usurps the throne, and makes himself independent, and from him the name Qará Khán originated (D. f70a. IV. xvii. 1974).

In al-‘Awfí him­self gives a short account of this work. the second anecdote al-‘Awfí makes a passing mention of this work and says that his uncle had prepared a history of the rulers of Turkistán, in which he dis­cussed at length the history of the Turks, (who are now invariably identified as the Ílak Kháns* of Máwará’u’n-Nahr or the Ál-i-Afrásiyáb*. This history was dedicated to the ruler of Samarqand, Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán, Ibráhím ibnu’l-Ḥusayn (reigned between 1178-1200 A. D.), whose patronage our author once enjoyed while he was in Samarqand*.

Of Its importance acknowledged by Prof. Bar­thold. this work, the first and the last of its kind, only these two anecdotes are preserved, but al-‘Awfí had evidently seen and used it. Concerning the history of the Ílak Kháns there is very little known, except what Prof. W. Barthold has gathered from various sources, and recorded in his Turkistán*.

This External evi­dence for ascribing this work to as-Sallámí. work is also among those that can only be identified through external evidence, as the title is generic, and the name of the author is not specified. There are many anecdotes scattered through the whole collection about the eminent persons of Khurásán, but the work bearing this title is cited only twice. From the nature of these anecdotes it must, as Prof. W. Barthold* asserts, be the Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán, or the Kitáb-i-Akhbár-i-Wulát-i-Khurásán of Abu’l-Ḥusayn* ‘Alí b. Aḥmad al-Bayhaqí an-Níshápurí, famous as as-Sallámí* (d. 300 A. H.). Unfortunately, this book is known only through the extracts preserved in various important works, like the Ansáb* of as-Sam‘ání, the Wafayátu’l-A‘yán* of Ibn Khallikán and the Zaynu’l-Akhbár* of Gardízí, from which we can obtain an idea of its contents, and lastly in the Jawámi‘ as follows:

The The two anec­dotes directly taken from the Ta’ríkh-i-Khu­rásán. first anecdote is the account of Abú Shujá‘ Aḥmad b. ‘Abdu’llah al-Khuji­stání’s* abduction of the wife of his general Shérzád, the raid of ‘Ayyásh, (or ‘Abbásu’l-Qaṭṭán*) on Níshápúr, the rape of al-Khujistání’s mother, the curse of Abú ‘Uthmán al-Ḥírí against the unbearable tyranny of al-Khujistání and his murder at the hand of his pages. (J.* f307a. III. xvii. 1707). The second anecdote in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán* is particularly mentioned as the source is that of the foolish revenge of Aḥmad b. Ibráhím, an adherent of Ráfi‘ b. Harthama against his master’s murderer Abú Sa‘íd Dhar‘ání or Darghání, the governor of Khwárazm, by poisoning the water-tanks of the city of Khwárazm and thereby inflicting death on innocent people (D. f233a. III. xi. 1652).

The Reasons for ascribing this work to as-Sallámí. reasons for deciding that these two anecdotes were drawn by al-‘Awfí from the work of as-Sallámí are four-fold. Firstly, they corroborate materially some of the facts mentioned in connection with the murders of al-Khujistání in 262 A. H. and Ráfi‘ b. Harthama in 283 A. H., by Ibnu’l-Athír* and Ibn Khallikán*, of whom the latter cites directly from as-Sallámí. Secondly, there are three other anecdotes about the Ṭáhirids and Ṣaffárids with acknowledgement of their sources as Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭáhiriyán and Akhbár-i-Ya‘qúb-i-Layth, by which titles al-‘Awfí is alluding to the parts of as-Sallámí’s work dealing with these dynasties, as is confirmed by Ibn Khalli­kán’s* testimony. Thirdly, there are other anecdotes about the rulers of Khurásán, especially the Ṭáhirids, Ṣaffárids and Sámánids, in which no source is indicated, but in certain cases we can produce actual parallels from Ibn Khallikán, who cites with acknowledgement from as-Sallámí. Fourthly, Prof. W. Barthold who has made a critical use of some of these anecdotes from the Jawámi‘ in his Turkistán, and in his excellent monograph “Zur Geschichte der Saffariden” which is a continuation of Nöldeke’s article in the “Orientalische Skizzen”*, confirms this view with similar documentary evidence, as will be noticed shortly.

Besides Anecdotes of the Ṭáhirids. the two concurrent episodes, there is another anecdote which also appears to be taken from as-Sallámí. It is the account of the dissipation of Muḥammad* b. Ṭáhir b. ‘Abdu’llah b. Ṭáhir-i-Dhu’l-Yaminayn, the fruitless attempts of Ibráhím b. ‘Azíz to avert the disaster, his alliance with Ya‘qúb b. al-Layth, and the end of the Ṭáhirid rule in Khurásán (D. f152a. II. xv. 1428). This anecdote is taken from the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭáhiriyán, but in the same and in the next and other chapters there are 34 other anecdotes* concerning the Ṭáhirids. The sources of these anecdotes are not acknowledged, but some of them are probably drawn from the same part of as-Sallámí dealing with the Ṭáhirids. e. g. (D. f148a. II. xv. 1417), (D. ff154a-155a. 1435-7).

Similarly Anecdotes of the Ṣaffárids. another anecdote of the Ṣaffárids occurs with acknowledgement of the Akhbár-i-Ya‘qúb-i-Layth as source, which does not necessarily indicate an independent work; al-‘Awfí is probably referring to that part of as-Sallámí’s history dealing with the Ṣaffárids, as Ibn Khallikán* says that as-Sallámí devoted the first section of his history to the account of ‘Amr* b. al-Layth. Another piece of evidence which supports this view is that another anecdote of al-Khujistání referred to above, where Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán is mentioned as the source, occurs here with the Akhbár-i-Ál-i-Layth as the source. The following four anecdotes are likely to have been drawn from as-Sallámí’s portion of the history dealing with the Ṣaffárids. Why Ráfi‘ b. Harthama was nicknamed the Ṣáḥibu’l-Jaráḥát, (D. f233a. III. xi. 1654). The earlier portion of this anecdote about the ugliness of Ráfi‘ corresponds materially with the account cited by Ibn Khallikán* from as-Sallámí. The rise of Abú Shujá‘ Aḥmad al-Khujistání, his treachery towards his master Ibráhím Sarkab or Sharkab or Sarkat, and his alliance with Ya‘qúb b. al-Layth, (D. f233b. III. xi. 1655). The account of his rise corresponds actually with Ibnu’l-Athír’s* version. The same al-Khujistání’s cruel murder of Muẓaffar the son of Muḥtáj (D. f242a. III. xiii. 1686). ‘Amr b. al-Layth’s story* of the gardener Isḥáq and the butcher as related by himself in connection with the cruel murder of Isḥáq, to his favourite Ja‘far b. Muḥammad az-Zuburí*(?) (D. f242b. III. xiii. 1687). In the last two cases we do not possess any parallels, but both anecdotes appear to be genuine.

Including Prof. Bar­thold’s opinion as to the direct indebtedness of al-‘Awfî to as-Sallámí. all those mentioned above there are 37 anecdotes of the Ṣaffárids* in the Jawámi‘; 25 of them occur in the first part, and 15 are found in chapter xiii, dealing with “The Wiles and Stratagems in Statecraft”. The opinion of Prof. W. Barthold referred to previously is quoted here: “Unmittelbar aus Sallāmī’s Werk werden wohl abgesehen von einigen anekdotenhaften Ausschmückungen, die von Muḥammed ‘Aufī in seinem Ǵāmi‘-al-ḥikāyāt mitgeteilten Erzählungen entlehnt sein. In ‘Aufī’s Erzählungen scheint die östliche Tradition in ihrer späteren, wahrscheinlich auf Sallāmī zurückzu­führenden Gestalt am ausführlichsten wiedergegeben zu sein; manche bei Gardīzī nur angedeutete Episode wird bei ‘Aufī ausführlich erzählt; wir werden sehen, dass diese Ausführungen nicht von ‘Aufī erfunden sein können und auf Gardīzī’s Vorlage zurück­gehen müssen.”

Prof. Nature of Utilisation. Barthold thinks that the anecdotes of the Ṣaffárids in the Jawámi‘, apart from some embellishments, go back directly to as-Sallámí, and the case is the same with other sources whose texts we possess. al-‘Awfí’s main interest was in anecdotal illustration of his chapter-headings, and naturally what might interest him would find its place in the collection from this or a similar source. That is why in this instance we find partial correspondence of anecdotes with Gardízí, Ibnu’l-Athír and Ibn Khallikán’s accounts, as an anecdote which might interest al-‘Awfí might lie beyond the scope of a systematic history; Ibn Khallikán himself, speaking of his own utilisation of as-Sallámí’s work, acknowledges that he had to omit many things for the sake of brevity. Since we do not possess the actual text of as-Sallámí we cannot exactly estimate the debt of al-‘Awfí to him, but it is certain that al-‘Awfí has presented the traditions about these dynasties faithfully and has preserved for us, though without any coherent design or systematic classification, most of the prominent matters concerning the rulers of Khurásán not found in such detail in any of the above works.