(The following notes by Mr. A. G. Ellis of the British Museum comprise such observations as he was kind enough to send me on the proofs which I submitted to him, and which could not be incorporated in the text either as corrections or foot-notes.)

P. 9. “The setting of this anecdote is quíte historical, for the three persons concerned were all contemporaries. You will find a notice of 'Abdu`l-Malik b. Qurayb al-Aṣma'í in De Slane’s translation of Ibn Khallikán, vol. II, p. 123, and of al-'Attábí in the Fihrist of al-Warráq, vol. I, p. 121. See also De Slane, op. cit., vol. II, p. 466 and vol. III, p. 99.”

“With regard to the Shí'a “rijál” (notable men) all the authorities that I quoted contain much the same matter; but I could not tell which of them might be accessible to you. Of -Najáshí, I think, no MS. is at present recorded in Europe. I have a Bombay lithograph, which can easily be procured. The Fihrist of -Ṭúsí (contemporary with -Najáshí) you have in the Bibliotheca Indica. Concerning -Astarábádí and his Manhaju`l-Maqál, see Rieu’s Arabic Supple­ment, N° 635. I have a Persian lithograph of the book. The Muntaha`l-Maqál of Muḥammad b. Isma'íl al-Ḥá`irí is a quite recent work, compiled from all accessible older authorities, and extremely useful, though somewhat con­densed. Of this also I have a Persian lithograph. Another book of which I possess a Bombay edition is the Ikhtiyár of Muḥammad b. 'Umar al-Kashshí (see Rieu’s Arabic Sup­plement, N° 833). It often contains useful information, but is not very easy of reference. I have also a Persian edition of the Naqdu`r-Rijál of at-Tafríshí (Rieu’s Arabic Supplement, N° 636); but it is rather meager, and does not add much to the contents of the first-named works.”

“In the following notes I have quoted several times from a book which you may perhaps know, namely 'Umdatu`ṭ-ṭálib fí ansábi Áli Abi Ṭálib (“the Student’s Mainstay for the [verification of the] genealogies of the House of Abú Ṭálib”). It was composed in Arabic under the Amír Tímúr by Ibn 'Utba ('Uqba, 'Inaba) Jamálu`d-Dín Aḥmad b. 'Alí, who died in A. H. 828 (= A. D. 1424—5).”

P. 19. “Concerning Ḥasan b. Yaḥyá al-'Alawí, called Kúchak, see 'Umdatu`t-Ṭálib, p. 68.”

P. 32. “'Abdu`r-Raḥmán b. Khúrzád, author of a Kitábu`l-Masálik wa`l-Mamálik is cited. May not this be intended for Ibn Khurdádhbih? It is true the last is usually called 'Ubaydu`lláh. Still there is some slight uncertainty with regard to his name, and we know next to nothing about the man. The remark about the excellence of Samarqand will be found on p. 172 of De Goeje’s edition of his book, together with the saying of ar-Raqqáshí with some variation. On p. 171 of the same edition Ibn Khurdádhbih says of Ṭabaristán that it is <Arabic> De Goeje omits these words in his translation, and gives no explanation. In his critical notes he says that al-Muqaddasí has <Arabic> in place of <Arabic>. Al-Muqaddasí says that he got this rhyming notice from a book which he found in the library of 'Aḍu­du`d-Dawla, and adds — <Arabic>. 'Abdulláh b. Khurdádhbih, the father of 'Ubaydu`lláh, was, I may mention, according to -Ṭabarí (Series III, pp. 1014—1015) governor (wálí) of Ṭabaristán.”

Ibid. “Ḥusayn b. Mundhir ar-Raqqáshí was the Imám 'Alí’s standard-bearer and an Anṣárí. There are brief notices of him in the Manhaju`l-Maqál, p. 118, and the Muntaha`l-Maqál, p. 115. There is nothing to show how he came to know anything about either Samarqand or Ṭabar­istán. He may, however, have been a Persian, as his kunya is Abú Sásán.”

P. 36. “Concerning ‘the son of Amír Ká’, compare 'Umdatu`ṭ-Ṭálib, pp. 71, 72, where Amír Ká appears as —
a descendant from Isma'fl Jálibu`l-Ḥijára by eight generations.”

P. 37. “‘A Jew named Sham'ún (Simon)’. Or. 7633 has <Arabic>. This suggests a reminiscence of the Jew­ish Maccabean hero Shim'on ben Mattathyah. Mattathyah = Gift of God = Khudádád.”

P. 39. “In the Akhbár-i-Barmakiyán of Ḍiyá`u`d-Dín Baraní (Bombay ed., pp. 6—7) allusion is made to this talis­man. Baraní, however, speaks of it as an armlet, and does not mention its origin. The anecdote connected with the ring is as follows. The courtiers introduced Barmak into the presence of 'Abdu`l-Malik, who, as soon as he saw him, ordered him to be severely beaten and thrust out. After­wards the courtiers prayed the Caliph to make known to them Barmak’s offence. 'Abdu`l-Malik replied that Barmak carried poison upon his person, and that upon his own arm were two jewels which, whenever anyone should come before him having poison upon him, would be attracted towards one another. When Barmak entered, these two jewels were so strongly drawn together as to cause pain to the Caliph’s arm. Angered at this, 'Abdu`l-Malik ordered Bar­mak to be chastised.”

P. 47. “May not ‘Abu`l-'Amr’ perhaps be the same per­son as <Arabic> (Yatímatu`d-Dahr, Damascus ed., vol. III, p. 274) and <Arabic> <Arabic> (Dumyatu`l-Qaṣr, Add. 9994, f. 80b)? Unfortunately, all that we seem to know about these three names is that they all belonged to the same part of Persia.”

Ibid. “There is a biographical notice of Muḥammad b. Zayd at pp. 71 et seqq. of the 'Umdatu`ṭ-ṭálib.

Ibid. “By ‘Ṭabáṭabá al-'Alawí’ must be meant Abú 'Abdi`lláh al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Ṭabáṭába al-Ḥasaní, one of the chief authorities of the author of the 'Umdatu`ṭ-ṭálib for the pedigrees of the earlier Sayyids. He was the Shaykh of Abu`l-Ḥasan 'Alí b. Muḥammad al-'Umarí, another of Ibn 'Utba’s authorities, who was in al-Mawṣil in A. H. 423 = A. D. 1032 ('Umda, p. 364) and in ´Amid in A. H. 430 = A. D. 1038—9 (Ibid., p. 60). For Ibráhím Ṭabáṭabá, the genealogist’s ancestor, see 'Umda, p. 158.”

P. 50 (also p. 46). “‘As-Sarwí’. As-Sam'ání (Ansáb, Add. 23,355, f. 297b, gives <Arabic> from <Arabic> in the district of Ardabíl, but <Arabic> from <Arabic> in Mázandarán. Unfortunately he does not mention anyone derived from the last named place.”

Pp. 50 and 55. “Ibnu`l-Mahdí al-Mámṭírí and Sayyid Imám Bahá`u`d-Dín al-Ḥasan b. Mahdí al-Mamṭírí are, I suppose, the same person.”

P. 52. “The ascription of the authorship of the Kitábu`l-Faraj ba'da`sh-Shidda to Qáḍí Abu`l-Qásim at-Tanúkhí is an error. The real author was his son Muḥassin b. 'Alí, as is clearly shewn by various allusions in the book itself.”

P. 54. “Abu`l-Faraj 'Alí b. al-Ḥusayn must be the poet Ibn Hindú. He was a native of Ray, and one of the Kut­tábu`l-Inshá of 'Aḍudu`d-Dawla the Buwayhid. He was in Jurján about A. H. 410 = A. D. 1019—1020 (aṣ-Ṣafadí’s Wáfí bí`l-Wafayát), and died in A. H. 420 = A. D. 1029 (Ḥájji Khalífa, vol. III, p. 252; vol. VI, p, 15).”

P. 59. “Concerning Zarrín Kamar, see the 'Umdatu`ṭ-ṭálib, p. 68, where he appears as <Arabic>, a direct descendant of 'Abdu`r-Raḥmán ash-Shajarí.”

Ibid. “'Imádí is, I suppose, identical with the homonymous contemporary of Saná`í of Ghazna mentioned by Dawlatsháh, p. 98, and noticed by 'Awfí in vol. II of the Lubáb, pp. 257 et seqq. The author of the Majma'u`l-Fuṣaḥá, vol. I, p. 350, calls him 'Imádí Shahriyárí, and says that he composed poems in praise of 'Imádu`d-Dawla ad-Daylamí and Ṭughril Beg the Seljúq. He admits, however, that some critics say that there are more 'Imádís than one. Taqiyyu`d-Dín Káshání in his Khuláṣatu`l-Ash'ár, (Or. 3506, ff. 449b—452a) has a long notice of 'Imádí. He distinguishes two poets of this name, 'Imádí-i-Ghaznawí and 'Imádí-i-Shahriyárí. The latter was a native of Shahriyár, one of the dependencies of Ray, and resided in the last-named city. In the latter part of his life he was attached to the court of Ṭughril b. Arslán. He died in his native place in A. H. 573 (= 1177—8).”

Sheet 9 (pp. 129—144). Owing to the vagaries of the Post Office, this sheet was printed off before the corrections indicated by Mr. Ellis had been made. These, therefore, are included with the longer notes in this place.

P. 129, l. 26. For “whom” read “whose”. “'Abú Jaysh al-Hilálí. Properly this kunya should be Abu`l-Jaysh, not Abú Jaysh, but perhaps in a Persian MS. the absence of the article may not be significant. Otherwise I had thought of <Arabic>, who was a Badawí poet of the reign of al-Mahdí, and a friend of Bashshár b. Burd (died A. H. 167 or 168 = A. D. 783—4 or 784—5). See the Kitábu`l-Aghání, vol. III, p. 60, vol. XI, p. 65, vol. XVIII, pp. 74—75. I have not, however, discovered his tribal nisba, and there does not appear to be any evidence of his ever having been in Ṭabaristán. Add. 7633 has distinctly <Arabic>

Pp. 130—131 (and also pp. 120, 124 and 125 supra). “For 'Amr b. 'Alá read 'Umar b. al-'Alá. So Ṭabarí, Series III, pp. 136, 137, 493, 500, 520, and 521, and Add. 7633.”

P. 130, l. 26 “The story to which reference is here made is given in brief in the Muraṣṣa' of Ibnu`l-Athír, ed. Sey­bold, 1896, p. 184.”

P. 132, ll. 16—23. “Either the India Office MS. or your­self has jumped a few lines. I have inserted a translation of these in their place on the proof, and enclose herewith a copy of the passage from Add. 7633.” (The lines in question are, I find, actually omitted in the India Office MS. The amended translation runs as follows. “Next came Sa'íd b. Salm (so Ṭabarí) b. Qutayba b. Muslim, who was replaced after six months by Ḥammál and 'Abdu`lláh, the sons of 'Abdu`l-'Azíz. Ten months later, in A. H. 177, these were superseded by Muthanná b. al-Ḥajjáj, who ruled for a year and four months, and was followed in A. H. 179 by 'Abdu`l-Malik b. Qa'qa', who remained one year …” “For Ḥázim, Add. 7633, supported by Ṭabarí, has Kházim.

Pp. 134 and 136. “Both these alternative motives for the destruction of the Barmecides are recorded by Ṭabarí (series III, pp. 669 et seqq. and pp. 676 et seqq.).”

Pp. 134, l. 16. “By -Nawfalí 'Alí b. Muḥammad b. Sulaymán an-Nawfalí is probably intended. See De Goeje’s Index to Ṭabarí, p. 400.”

P. 140, l. 30. “Add. 7633 has Khalífa b. Sa'd here, as well as in l. 19 above.”

Ibid. “For Mihrúya, De Goeje (Ṭabarí, Series III, pp. 650 et seqq.) has Mahruwayh.

P. 141, l. 12. “Jaríshí should at least be Jurayshí, but Jurashi is the older and better form, and is the actual reading of Add. 7633. This nisba is thus vocalized by as-Sam'ání (Add. 23,355, f. 127a), who derives it from Juraysh, a Ḥim­yarite tribe. Ṭabarí (Series III, pp. 650 et seqq.) has al-Ḥarashí.

Ibid., l. 28. “Read Zufar for Zafr; and in l. 29 read 'Amíra for 'Umayra, which is always a woman’s name.”

P. 142, ll. 22, 25, 28. “Read Nu'aym b. Kházim for Na'ím b. Ḥázim.

P. 144, l. 12. “Through” is, of course, a misprint for “though”.

P. 147, l. 2. Correct, as above on p. 141, Jurayshí to Jurashí.

Ibid. ll. 5—6. “For Bizíst-i-Fírúzán = Yaḥyá b. Abí Manṣúr, see Fihrist, p. 275, al-Qiftí’s Ta`ríkhu`l-Ḥukamá, pp. 357—359. He died in A. H. 215 or 217 (= A. D. 830 or 832): see Suter, Die Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber, N° 14.

P. 174, 6. The text has Tarchí for Tarícha, but the emendation, suggested by Mr. Ellis, seems pretty certain.

P. 180, l. 4. “Here, as on the previous page, A. wrongly reads al-Musta'ín for al-Mu'tazz, which latter is not only required by history, but is in every case the actual reading of A. Ṭabarí gives the name of this Caliph as Muḥammad, but in the Mafátíḥu`l-'Ulúm of al-Khwárazmí and in the Wáfí of aṣ-Ṣafadí (Add. 23,858, f. 112a) he is called Zubayr.”

P. 187, ll. 14—15. “Abu`l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad b. Muḥammad was a Shajarí Sayyid, a descendant of a different line from Sayyid Ḥasan’s. See 'Umdatu`ṭ-ṭálib, p. 71, 1. 18, where his relationship to Sayyid Ḥasan is expressed by <Arabic>. This must, I think, imply ‘brother-in-law’. The word <Arabic> may be used of any relation through a woman, according to the lexica.”

P. 190, l. 2. “Compare -Ṭabarí, Series III, pp. 2039—2201.”

P. 191, ll. 14—15. “Compare -Ṭabarí, Series III, pp. 1929—2159.”

P. 193. “‘Martyrdom of Sayyid Muḥammad’. Abu`l-Faraju`l-Iṣbahání, the author of the Kitábu`l-Aghání, gives, in his Maqátilu`ṭ-Ṭálibiyyín (Ṭihrán, A. H. 1307, p. 229), rather a different account of the death of Muḥammad b. Zayd. He relates that Isma'íl b. Aḥmad, who had made himself master of Khurásán, sent against him one of his officers named Muḥammad b. Hárún with orders to attack him. An engage­ment took place at Báb Jurján in which the Sayyid was mortally wounded. After the battle he was found on the field still breathing, and was carried to Jurján, where he died. His funeral obsequies were performed by his adver­sary Muḥammad b. Hárún. These events took place in Ramaḍán, A. H. 289 (sic). Sayyid Muḥammad’s son Zayd was taken prisoner in the battle, and brought to Jurján, where he still is at the present time,’ i. e. A. H. 313 (= A. D. 925—6). Abu`l-Faraj was born in A. H. 284 (= A. D. 897), five (or three) years before the above mentioned battle was fought.”

P. 194, l. 15. “This Shajara-i-ansáb-i-Ṭalibiyya is most probably identical with the Ansábu ashráfi`l-amṣár of Ibn Ṭabáṭabá, already mentioned on p. 47, l. 8.”

P. 195, ll. 17—18. “Add. 7633 (= B.) has <Arabic>. The vocalization and meaning of <Arabic> are obscure. The dictionaries do not give much help. <Arabic> is one of the nomina verbi of <Arabic>, and has amongst other meanings that of ‘carrying an enterprise to its conclusion’. I would suggest that a derivative <Arabic> should be read, but unfortunately no such form is recorded in the lexica. <Arabic> must, I think, be an error for <Arabic> [this last is the reading of A.], for no such form as <Arabic>, although quite possible, is recorded.”

P. 198, end. “The person usually known by the title of Dhu`r-Riyásatayn was the famous wazír of the Caliphate al-Faḍl b. Sahl. As, however, he was murdered at Sarakhs in A. H. 202 (= A. D. 817—818), he can hardly be the person intended here, unless ‘grandson’ could be substituted for ‘son’.”

P. 199, l. 25. “Abu`l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. 'Abdu`lláh al-Bal'amí was the father of the Persian translator of -Ṭabarí, and died in A. H. 329 (= A. D. 940—941). See -Sam'ání’s Ansáb, Add. 23,355, f. 90.”

P. 210, ll. 5—6. “The addition in parentheses (which is found in B.) seems necessary, otherwise the personality of Díkú on p. 216 is rather enigmatical.”

P. 210, l. 18. “‘The Sayyids' governor’. He was appointed by <Arabic>; i. e. the family of an-Náṣiru`l-Kabír, not by Sayyid Ḥasan.”

P. 215, 14. “Mánkdím was a descendant of Zaynu`l-'´Abi­dín, not of 'Aqíl b. Abí Ṭálib.”

P. 219, ll. 24 et seqq. “The news was brought to Ḥasan b. Fírúzán at Sárí, not to Washmgír at ´Amul.”

P. 227, ll. 3—4. “Add. 7310, f. 8, vocalizes the name of Sulṭán Maḥmúd’s father <Arabic> ‘Subuktigín’, not ‘Sabuk­tagín’.”

P. 229, l. 5 and note. As regards the vocalization Ḥum­múla adopted by the Delhi edition, Mr. Ellis remarks that if the name be Arabic, as it appears to be, such vocalization is inadmissible, as giving no meaning. The same edition incorrectly gives this person’s full name as Abu`l-Ḥusayn b. Ahmad b. Ḥummúla, 'Alí having dropped out after Abú.

P. 229, l. 8. “As to the name Asfár b. Kurdúya the texts of the Yamíní vary. Add. 7310 reads <Arabic>; the Delhi ed. has <Arabic>; Or. 1513 and the Buláq ed. concur in reading <Arabic>.

P. 229, l. 10. “The Yamíní adds after the name Rashá­múj the words <Arabic>, See Delhi ed., p. <Arabic>; Buláq ed., vol. II, p. <Arabic>; Add. 7310, f. 112a. The MS. Or. 1513, f. 108a, has incorrectly <Arabic> for <Arabic>.”

P. 245, 1. 29. “Add. 7633 (= B.) reads <Arabic>. I take Shírzíl (or Shíra-zíl) to be a clan name. Compare Ḥamza (Ta`ríkh, pp. 241—2), who mentions the Shírdhíláwandín as the tribe or clan (<Arabic>) of 'Alí b. Buwayh, and the Wardadáwandán as that of Asfár b. Shírawayh (Shírú`è), both these leaders being ‘Daylamí’, as opposed to Mardáwíj, who was a ‘Jílí’. Also Shírzílwand are named in the original Persian of Ibn Isfandiyár as forming part of the 400 prisoners burnt by the Ispahbad.”