Thus far we have confined ourselves to the consideration of the influence exerted by the Arabs on the Persians in the Arabian Science. domain of language only, but this influence is not less perceptible in other fields. Strongest in Theology and Jurisprudence, it extends also to Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry, and all the sciences known to the Muslims. These sciences were, of course, in many cases of complex origin, being borrowed by the Arabs (chiefly during the early 'Abbásid period, i.e., the latter part of the eighth century of our era) from other more civilised nations, notably the Persians and the Greeks; and indeed they are divided in such works as the Mafátíḥu'l-'Ulúm (“Keys of the Sciences”) * into two groups, the native or indigenous (Jurisprudence, Scholastic Theology, Grammar, Writing, Poetry and Prosody, and History), and the exotic (Philosophy, Logic, Medicine, Arithmetic, Mathematics, Astronomy and Astrology, Music, Mechanics, and Alchemy). All these, however, were thoroughly assimilated into the complex Arabo-Persian culture of the 'Abbásid capital, Baghdád, and in their entirety con­stitute what is often, but inexactly, styled “Arabian Science” —a science which, drawn from many different sources, forms a synthesis common to all Muhammadan peoples, and which has exercised and continues to exercise an influence second only to that of the religion of Islám itself in bringing about that solidarity of sentiment so conspicuous in the Muslim world.

For a scientific language, indeed, Arabic is eminently fitted by its wealth of roots and by the number of derivative forms,

Fitness of Arabic for scientific purposes. each expressing some particular modification of the root-idea, of which each is susceptible. Let us illustrate this by two examples, the first drawn from the terminology of Medicine, the second formed after a perfectly sound analogy to express a quite modern idea. The primitive verb has in Arabic some dozen derived forms (com­monly called “conjugations”), each expressing some definite modification (causative, intensive, reciprocal, middle, &c.) of the meaning connoted by the original verb. Of these ten conjugations, the tenth is commonly desiderative, and, if we substitute the numbers 1, 2, 3, for the first, second, and third letters of the triliteral root the general form of its verbal noun will be (Isti. 1. 2. á. 3), and of its active participle (Musta. 1. 2. i. 3). Thus from the simple verb ghafara, “he pardoned,” we have in the tenth conjugation istighfár, “asking for pardon,” and mustaghfir, “one who asks for pardon”; from kamala, “he was perfect,” istikmál, “seeking perfection,” and mustakmil, “one who seeks perfection”; and so on. Now the old theory (adopted by the Arabian physicians) as to the ætiology of dropsy was that it was caused by excessive drinking (“crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops”), and hence it was named by the Arabs (and consequently by all the Muhammadan peoples) istisqá, “craving for drink,” while the sufferer is called mus-tasqí , both forms belonging to the tenth conjugation of the root saqá, “he gave drink to.” So in quite modern times a need has arisen for an equivalent in Arabic to the European term “Orientalist,” and this has been met by taking the regularly-formed participle of the tenth, or desiderative, con­jugation of the root from which comes the word sharq, “the East,” and coining the derivative mustashriq, which can only mean “one who desires” or “is interested in the East.” These instances will suffice to show the facility wherewith new ideas can be denoted in Arabic by forms which, hitherto unused, precisely and unmistakeably indicate the idea to be expressed.

The Arabs themselves (including, of course, peoples like the Egyptians who have adopted the Arabic speech) are intensely,

Pride of the Arabs in their language. and justly, proud of their glorious language, and exclaim with the fullest conviction, “Al-ḥamdu li'lláhi'lladhí khalaqa' l-Lisána'l-'Arabiyya aḥsana min kulli lisán” (“Praise be to God who created the Arabic language the finest of all languages”). Whether or not we are prepared to go as far as this, it is at least certain that no satisfactory knowledge of the languages, literatures, and modes of thought of Persia, Turkey, Muhammadan India, or any other Muslim land is possible without a considerable knowledge of Arabic, and that in particular our appreciation and enjoyment of these literatures grows in direct ratio to this knowledge.

In my previous volume on the Literary History of Persia until the Time of Firdawsí I discussed at some length what Recapitulation of Prolegomena. I have called the Prolegomena to the history of Persian literature in the narrower sense. I spoke there of the three ancient languages of Persia (the Old Persian, the Avestic, and the Pahlawí), and of some of the dialects by which they are now represented. I sketched in outline the earlier religious systems which prevailed in that country (to wit, Zoroastrianism and the heresies of Manes and Mazdak), and the history of the last great national dynasty, the Sásánian. Passing, then, to the Arabs, whose conquest of Persia in the seventh century of our era wrought, as we have seen, such deep and lasting changes alike in the religion, the language, the literature, the life, and the thought of the Persians, I spoke briefly of their state in the “Days of Ignorance” (Ayyámu'l-Jáhiliyyat) or heathendom, ere the Prophet Muḥammad arose, and of their ancient poems, which, dating at least from the end of the fifth century of our era, still remain the classical models which every versifier of Arab speech aspires to imitate when writing in the heroic vein. I then described in a summary manner the advent of the Prophet, the doctrine of al-Islám, the triumph of the Muhammadan arms, the rule of the Four Orthodox Caliphs, and the origin of the great Shí'ite and Khárijite schisms. I endeavoured to depict the semi-pagan Imperialism of the Umayyad Caliphs, and the growing discontent of the subject-races (especially the Persians), culminating in the middle of the eighth century in the great revolt of the Khurásánís under Abú Muslim, the Battle of the Záb, the overthrow and destruction of the Umayyad power in the East, and the establishment of the 'Abbásid Caliphate, which, enduring for some five cen­turies, was finally destroyed (save for the shadowy existence which it maintained in Egypt until the Ottoman Turkish Sulṭán Selím the First, in A.D. 1517, took from the last scion of this House the titles and insignia which it had hitherto preserved) by the great catastrophe of the Mongol Invasion in the middle of the thirteenth century.

The period included in this volume begins at a time when the glories of “the golden prime of good Haroun Alraschid”

The period discussed in this volume. had long passed away. The early 'Abbásid Caliphs, though they never obtained possession of Spain, otherwise maintained and extended the vast empire won by the first successors of the Prophet—an empire extending from Morocco to Sind and from Aden to Khwárazm (Khiva), and including, besides North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Persia, Afghán­istán, Balúchistán, a large portion of Turkistán, a smaller portion of India, and the islands of Crete and Cyprus. The first step towards the weakening and dissolution of this empire may be said to have been taken when al-Ma'mún, the son of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd, rewarded his general Ṭáhir Dhu'l-Yamínayn (“the Ambidexter”), in A.D. 820, with the permanent govern­ment of Khurásán for himself and his heirs, who held this province from father to son till they were displaced by the “Brazier” or Ṣaffárí dynasty in A.D. 872. These Ṭáhirids are generally accounted the first post-Muhammadan Persian dynasty; and, though they never claimed to be in any way independent of the Caliphs of Baghdád, the hereditary character of their power clearly differentiates them from the governors and proconsuls of previous times, who were transferred from province to province by the central Government as it saw fit. The transition from the state of an hereditary governor or satrap to that of a practically independent Amír (for the title of Sulṭán was first assumed by Maḥmúd of Ghazna at the period with which this volume opens) was very gradual, and was not always continuous. The Ṣaffárí dynasty was, for instance, less obedient and more independent in its earlier days than the Sámánid dynasty which succeeded it; but nominally even the mighty rulers of the Houses of Ghazna and Seljúq accounted themselves the vassals of the Caliph, regarded him as their over-lord and suzerain, and eagerly sought after those titles and honours of which he was the only recognised and legitimate source. Individual instances of overt disobedience and rebellion did, of course, occur—as, for instance, the march of Ya'qúb b. Layth, the Ṣaffárí, on Baghdád, and his battle with the troops of the Caliph al-Mu'tamid in A.H. 262 (A.D. 875-76); * the attempt of the Seljúq Maliksháh to compel the Caliph al-Muqtadí to transfer his capital from Baghdád to Damascus or the Ḥijáz * about A.D. 1080; and the still more serious quarrel between Sanjar and al-Mustarshid in A.D. 1133, which ended in the Caliph being taken prisoner and, during his captivity, assassinated (in A.D. 1135) by the Isma'ílís, who, as al-Bundárí asserts, * were instigated to this deed by Sanjar himself. The nominal suzerainty of the Caliph of Baghdád was, however, more or less recognised by all orthodox Muhammadan princes and amírs save those of Spain, from the foundation of the 'Abbásid Caliphate, about A.D. 750, till its extinction in A.D. 1258, and during this period of five centuries Baghdád continued to be the metropolis and intellec­tual centre of Muslim civilisation, and Arabic the language of diplomacy, philosophy, and science, and, to a large extent, of belles lettres and polite conversation.