No.	Chrono.* Order.	Original Mark of the Mss.	Dated=Cent.		Contents*: Parts.	Textual Importance.
			A. H.	A. D.
1.	A.	= Ancien Fonds Persan 75, Bib. Nat., Paris.	699	14th	I; II, chs. i-v only.	The oldest, fullest and most accurate Ms.; base for Pt. I.
2.	B.	= Suppl. Persan 95, Bib. Nat., Paris.	717	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Correct, helpful but abridged in places.
3.	C.	= Or. 6855, Br. Mus., London.	—	Do.	*I; II; III; IV*.	Very old, correct and helpful, but portions missing.
4.	D.	= Or. 2676, Br. Mus., London.	732	Do.	IV; II; III only.	Very old, correct and reliable; base for Pts. II—IV.
5.	E.	= Or. 4392, Br. Mus., London.	741	Do.	I, chs. i-x only.	Very correct, but fragmentary.
6.	F.	= P. and A. 59 (Jones) Ind. Off., London.	—	Do.	I; II; III; IV.	Abridged and supplemented.
7.	G.	= Suppl. Persan 906, Bib. Nat., Paris.	—	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, correct and reliable; used as companion Ms.
8.	H.	= Elliot 171 + 172, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	832-3	15th	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, fairly good and helpful.
↑ 9.	H bis.	= Univ. Lib. Edin. 119, (Baillie MS.).	842-3	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, contains 30 miniatures, but at present lost.
↑ 10.	I.	= Persisch 422, Hof. Bib., Wien.	896	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete and helpful.
↑ 11.	I bis.	= Imp. Sank Univ. 648, Petrograd.	—	Do.	II; III; IV only.	Very old, fairly good and reliable.
12.	J.	= Add. 16, 862, Br. Mus., London.	—	16th	o I; II; III: IV.	Complete, but incorrect, defective and unreliable.
13.	K.	= Or. 236, Br. Mus., London.	—	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, partly correct but unreliable.
14.	L.	= Ind. Off. 595, (Ethé Cat. 600), London.	—	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, but evasive and unreliable.
↑ 15.	L bis.	= Imp. Publ. Bib. IV. 2. 33., Petrograd.	—	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Fairly good, contains additional anecdotes, but partly abridged.
16.	M.	= Add. 7672, Br. Mus., London.	1025	17th	III; IV only.	Later, but fairly good and helpful.
↑ 17.	M bis.	= Imp. Publ. Bib. V. 4. 31., Petrograd.	1032	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, but mediocre.
18.	N.	= Elliot 169, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	1042	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete, but mediocre and unreliable.
19.	O.	= Elliot 173, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	1049	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Do.        Do.        Do.
20.	P.	= Schindler Ms., (Prof. Browne), Cambridge.	1059	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Do.        Do.        Do.
21.	Q.	= Fraser 125, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	1061	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Do.        Do.        Do.
22.	R.	= Elliot 174, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	1067	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Do.        Do.        Do.
23.	S.	= Elliot 170, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	—	Do.	II; III; IV only.	Mediocre.
24.	T.	= Ouseley 361, Bodl. Lib., Oxford.	—	Do.	*I* only.	Mediocre and fragmentary.
↑ 25.	U.	= Crawford 81, John Rylands Lib., Man­chester.	—	Do.	II; III; IV* only.	Mediocre and incomplete.
↑ 26.	V.	= Quatremère 35, Munich.	—	18th	o I; II; III; IV.	Complete but very late and ordinary.
↑ 27.	W.	= Quatremère 53, Munich.	—	Do.	II; III; IV only.	Very late and ordinary.
28.	X.	= Naaman’s Ms., (Prof. Browne), Cambridge.	—	Do.	I, only.	Do.        Do.    and unreliable.
29.	Y.	= Suppl. Persan 96, Bib. Nat., Paris.	—	Do.	I, chs. i—xv only.	Do.        Do.        Do.
30.	Z.	= Suppl. Persan 97, Bib. Nat., Paris.	—	Do.	I, only.	Do.        Do.        Do.
↑ 31.	Pet. 1.	= Asia. Muz. 581aa, Petrograd.	1251	19th	I, only.	Do.        Do.
↑ 32.	Pet. 2.	= Asia. Muz. 581aa-, Petrograd.	1261	Do.	o I; II; III; IV.	Do.        Do.
↑ 33.	Pet. 3.	= Asia. Muz. 581aa- -, Petrograd.	—	Do.	III, only.	Do.        Do.
↑ 34.	Pet. 4.	= Imp. Sank. Univ.-, Petrograd.	—	Do.	——	Abridged and valueless.
↑ 35.	Núr. 1.	= Núr-i-‘Uthmániyya 3272, Constantinople.	—	Do.	——	——
↑ 36.	Núr. 2.	= Núr-i-‘Uthmániyya 3273, Constantinople.	—	Do.	——	Abridged throughout.
37.		(Unknown).	—	Do.	I, only.	With miniatures.

Folios

255; size 35 by 24 cm.; 33 lines per page; dated; frontispiece; rubri­cations; occasional notes and a few short titles of anecdotes on the margin in different hands and at different periods; bold and beautiful Naskh; most probably transcribed in Persia; archaic spellings; each part divided into two Mujallads (a division which does not occur in any Ms. as the work, according to the author’s division, is expressly denoted by Qisms only); transposition and inversion of folios 180-182, 208-214; missing folios in the beginning of Pt. I, f19b-f26b, and f85 and f92 are supplied by a careful reader; double pagination, Pt. II (chs. i-v) comes first, (folio numbers in ink only are referred to in the present work). Contents*: f1b-f18b, Pt. II, chs. i-v. Anecs. 1183-1284 (originally titled as al-Mujalladu’th-Thálith, but now, wrongly, as al-Mujallad u’l-Awwal; f19b-f26b, Pt. I, (original preface, defective list of chapter-headings and ch. i. Anecs. 1-32, supplied by a later hand in Nasta‘líq); on f27a begins the original transcript and the Ms. breaks off on f255b at the last but one anecdote (1181) of the 25th chapter of Pt. I. Thus chs. i-xxv are complete. A dated colophon* after the the first half of Pt. I, ch. x. Anec. 564 called al-Mujalladu’l-Awwal occurs on f150b giving the date of transcript as Dhu’l-Qa‘da 699 A. H. (= July 1300 A. D.), and below it is a short endorsement by an unknown reader which bears 21, Jumádá II, 803 A. H. (= Jan. 1401 A. D.) as the date of finishing the study of the Mujallad. Then on f151b begins the subsequent portion called al-Mujalladu’th-Thání, which continues to the end of the part.

This is the oldest Ms. so far as it is known through an investigation of about thirty-four Mss. of the Jawámi‘ in Europe. It was transcribed nearly 70 years after the date of the composition of the work, which falls between 625 and 630 A. H., and like other Mss. it gives a clue to the progress of the work at the hands of the author*. It contains a much fuller text and about 175 genuine additional anecdotes, three-fourths of which are not found in any part of any of the Mss. which the present writer has had the opportunity of examining; excepting probably L bis, which contains at least one anecdote (I. xiii. 728) quoted exclusively from this Ms. by Prof. Barthold in his Turkistán (see above, p. 8, ll. 11-14). Thus the order and number of anecdotes in the present Ms. to the middle of Pt. I, (chs. i-xii), correspond exactly with all the older Mss.; but from chs. xiii-xxv a considerable number of anecdotes is added in each chapter. While in all the other Mss. the number of anecdotes decreases as the part advances and comes to an end, in this Ms. it does not fall below a minimum of 15, as will be seen by referring to the Comparative Index of the first 25 chapters of the Jawámi‘.

Moreover this Ms. contains a few references by the author himself giving an indication of the succeeding chapters and anecdotes in other parts and a few personal and autobiographic* anecdotes which are exclusively found in these additions. Another peculiar feature of this Ms. is that some anecdotes are repeated over again in the same part with slight variation under different headings, e.g. (A. f187b. I. xiv. 742) = (A. f249a. I. xxv. 1152), while a quarter of the additional anecdotes occur in other parts, without much variation, in other old Mss. also, e.g. (A. f183b. I. xiii. 717) = (D. f159a. II. xvii. 1452). On these grounds it might be maintained that this Ms. accurately repre­sents the first original draft of the author, and that there has been a revision, partial rearrangement, omission of recurring anecdotes and cutting short of the number of anecdotes in general, either by the author himself or by a learned copyist at a very early epoch, since B., the next oldest Ms., dated 717 A. H., and C. and D. do not contain three-fourths of this additional material.

This Ms. like C. and D. does not exhibit any striking* features of orthography; but it contains, on the whole, some of the most predominant features of archaic spellings prevalent in the Persian transcripts of the 14th century A. D.*. There is a very sparing use of even necessary dots, nor strictly consistent use of Dhál for Dál and Kí for Kih, as might be expected from the 14th century style of writing. As regards the textual value of the Ms., it can be said with certainty that it has under­gone very few material changes; and to a great extent proper names, quotations and Arabic and Persian verses are correctly transcribed, and at times offer readings which approach the original; but still a greater accuracy is desirable which can be attained only by collation. As regards the choice of synonyms, the placing of conjunctions, the use of pronouns, adjectives and adverbs and the interchange of tenses, it is not easy to determine after a comparison with B. C. D. and E. which are the original wordings of the author, as often they express the same sense and preserve essentially the substance of the narrative and the meaning of the sentence. A comparison of A., C. and D. is given below on p. 116, n. 1. Although this Ms. contains only a fourth part of the entire work, it was considered proper to establish the plan of a standard text on the basis of a Ms. which approaches much nearer the original, bears a date, and represents a much fuller text than is found in many of the complete but later and inaccurate Mss..

Folios

289; size 36 by 26 cm.; lines 33 per page; dated; gilt frontispiece; margins; rubrications; border decoration at the beginning of each part*; archaic spellings; very good Naskhí; transpositions; most probably transcribed in Shíráz for some royal library; various endorsements and seals of Turkish and other owners; acquired from the collection of Ducurroy (?) sometime before 1st August 1873. Contents: ff1b-149a, Pt. I: Preface, table of headings of the 100 chapters and chs. i-xxv; ff149b-202a, Pt. II, chs. i-xxv; ff202b-243b, Pt. III, chs. i-xxv; ff244a-289b, Pt. IV, chs. i-xxv, in all a complete Ms.. In a short colophon at the end of the Ms. on f289b the date of transcription is given as the middle of Jumáda’l-Ákhir 717 A. H. = August 1317 A. D.

This “Exemplaire de Luxe” codex of the Jawámi‘ is the second oldest dated one, but unfortunately it is a shorter recension of the text in places, though not a completely abridged one. At times synonyms and elaborate expressions of the author are omitted and sentences are cut short; the comparison with A. and C. given below will illustrate the comparative value of the two texts*. There are no insertions in the text of B. as in F.. It sometimes offers better readings, but in the cases of proper names and Arabic citations it does not help us much, as there are many instances of evasive transcription. Excepting the additional anecdotes in Pt I of A., the number and order of the anecdotes in Pts. II-IV correspond exactly with other old Mss.*. Had it not been for its somewhat short recension, it would have served as a base for a complete text of the Jawámi‘; and for the same reason it is not adopted even as a companion Ms. like G., which, though later and undated, is not abridged. Since the 100^th or the last chapter is defective in all other old 14^th century Mss. like C., D. and G., this Ms. is adopted as the basis for that portion as will be noticed in the Table of Contents: Pt. IV, ch. xxv.