It is clear to all intelligent persons that the business of an author is a serious and dangerous one, but especially the collecting and arranging of historical materials; because books of this kind are brought to the notice of sovereigns endowed with great power, of Amirs who are very discerning, of great personages, of nobles, of U’lamâ, and of scholars in all countries, and even of persons of low station scarcely able to distinguish white from black, but much pleased to listen to [recitals from] books of this kind, so that according to the proverb, ‘Whoever composes anything desires to become a target,’ the unhappy author becomes even in small defects the mark for the arrows of reprobation, shot at him by everybody. If, therefore, some of the conditions necessary for an historiographer are here submitted to the reader, he will perhaps withdraw the tongue of blame into his palate, and lend a willing ear to the recital of the historian.
The first quality is that an historian should be unbiassed in his religion, and of an orthodox sect, because heretics, such as the Kharejites and the Shia’hs,* impute wicked acts to the companions of the prophet, and to their immediate successors, and have deceived people by inserting improper and unproved statements into their works, so that anyone, who is not aware of their tricks, believes their traditions to have been taken from the ‘Mishkât Nabavvat’ and from the ‘Misbâh Resâlat,’* and is thus led into error.
The second quality is that an historian should always state both sides of his subject. Thus, for instance, when he mentions the virtues, good acts and justice along with the benefactions of persons of low and high degree, he must likewise mention their defects and bad qualities; he is, however, at liberty either to give a detailed statement of these last, or to hint at them enigmatically and covertly according to the proverb that ‘A hint is sufficient to a wise man.’
Third quality.—In his blame and praise he must abstain from exaggeration, and except for the sake of gaining some advantage, or averting some calamity, he must not swerve from the maxim that ‘The middle road is the best,’ because his object is merely to give a correct account of events, and if he aims to do that only, he will succeed.
Fourth quality.—An historian ought to write as if under the guidance of Providence. It is his duty to abstain from dissimulation, and also from vehemence, and to endeavour to write in a fluent style adorned with handsome and easily intelligible figures of speech, void of unusual or antiquated expressions, so as to make his work acceptable and pleasing to all intelligent persons of high and of low degree; and this rule applies not only to historical, but to all other compositions.
The fifth quality—which does not refer to the author of this work—is, that an historiographer must be noted for his honesty and piety, because, as the majority of historical reports concerning the affairs of kingdoms are not based on authorities which claim the full confidence of the readers, they are biassed by the character of the author, who, if he be of the right stamp, will not jeopardize his eternal salvation for the advantages of this world. Accordingly his works will be perused with delight, and will be handed down to the latest posterity.
In confirmation of the assertion just made, it may be remarked that the persons endowed with the above qualities have composed historical works in the Arabic and in the Persian languages, and although many centuries have elapsed since they wrote, their works have not fallen into oblivion.