Among Numerical index to the Conspectus. the innumerable works which our author utilised for the compilation of this work, only 93 are mentioned), in one way or another, throughout the array of anecdotes; and the names of about 45 authors are given along with the works; out of which nearly 35 sources have been completely identified and established, and about 43 are traceable, while the remaining 15 are either lost or hitherto unknown.
The Difficulty of identification. vague manner in which al-‘Awfí alludes to different works, and the inexact titles by which he refers to them, render identification extremely difficult, but nevertheless, there is one great consolation, that whenever an original source is traced, he redeems himself by his fidelity and intelligent adaptation. Such instances are many, and they will be shown in the course of our examination of individual works in the accompanying Conspectus.
Although Only prominent sources discussed. the sources of our author are not unique, yet they are typical; hence they possess a special importance, and contribute to the authenticity of the material contained in the Jawámi‘. On a systematic analysis of the anecdotes, firstly, it is observable that these sources represent the literature of the period or subject with which our author was intimately acquainted; secondly, he utilised the ample material at his disposal to the best advantage; and thirdly, the encyclopaedic nature of the anecdotes made it necessary for him to see more than one book on each subject, and sift suitable material for his own purpose. For these reasons a thorough analysis of the sources is out of the question; we cannot say with certainty that these anecdotes were actually taken from such and such a source, except occasionally when the author himself acknowledges them. This investigation of some of the most prominent sources of the Jawámi‘ is chiefly based on the works mentioned by the author, and on others, which though unmentioned are yet established by parallel citations and other critical canons, whereas the rest are noticed briefly in the Table of Contents as they occur in the anecdotes.
| (1) | a. | (Átháru’l-Báqiya) of al-Bírúní. | |
| b. | (Kitábu’l-Hind) of al-Bírúní. | ||
| (2) | a. | Iḥyá’u ‘Ulúmi’d-Dín and Kímiyá’u’s-Sa‘ádat of al-Ghazálí. | |
| b. | (at-Tibru’l-Masbúk fí Naṣíḥati’l-Mulúk of al-Ghazálí). | ||
| (3) | Akhbár-i-Barámika (indefinite). | ||
| (4) | a. | Adyánu’l-‘Arab (of Hishám ibnu’l-Kalbí). | |
| b. | Tafsír-i-Ibnu’l-Kalbí (of Muḥammad b. as-Sá’ib b. Bishr al-Kalbí). | ||
| (5) | (Asráru’t-Tawḥíd fí Maqámáti’sh-Shaykh Abí Sa‘íd). | ||
| (6) | A‘rádhu’r-Riyása fí Aghrádhi’s-Siyása (of aẓ-Ẓahírí as-Samarqandí). | ||
| (7) | a. | Injíl (or the Gospels of Manes.) | see the notice on ‘The five works of Manes mentioned in the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát.’ |
| b. | Kitábu’sh-Sháburqán (of Manes). | ||
| c. | Kanzu’l-Iḥyá’ (of Manes). | ||
| d. | Sifru’l-Jabábira (of Manes). | ||
| e. | Sifru’l-Asrár (of Manes). | ||
| (8) | Ta’ríkh-i-Baghdád (indefinite). | ||
| (9) | Ta’ríkh-i-Tájí (of Ibráhím aṣ-Ṣábí). | ||
| (10) | Ta’ríkh-i-Turkistán of Majdu’d-Dín b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí. | ||
| (11) | Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán (of as-Sallámí). | ||
| (12) | Ta’ríkh-i-Khulafá’-i-bani’l-‘Abbás (of Abú Bakr aṣ-Ṣúlí ash-Shatranjí). | ||
| (13) | Ta’ríkhu’ṭ-Ṭabarí of Muḥammad b. Jarír at-Ṭabarí. | ||
| (14) | Ta’ríkh-i-Mashá’ikh-i-Khurásán (indefinite). | ||
| (15) | Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí (of Muṭahhar b. Ṭáhir al-Maqdisí). | ||
| (16) | Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam (indefinite), (with a notice of other similar sources). | ||
| (17) | a. | Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí (of Abu’l-Fadhl al-Bayhaqí). | |
| b. | Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní of Abu’n-Naṣr al-‘Utbí. | ||
| (18) | a. | at-Taysír fi’t-Tafsír of Najmu’d-Dín ‘Umar an-Nasafí. | |
| b. | ‘Uyúnu’l-*Akhyár (a work ascribed to an-Nasafí, but unidentifiable). | ||
| (19) | Khalqu’l-Insán of Maḥmúd b. Aḥmad called Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq of Níshápúr. | ||
| (20) | Khawáṣṣ-i-Ashyá’ of Majdu’d-Dín b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí. | ||
| (21) | Dastúru’l-Wuzará’ of Sultán Radhi(yyu’d-Dín Ibráhím of Ghazna). | ||
| (22) | Ra’y-Áráy the Persian Translation of ath-Tha‘álibí’s Ghurar wa Siyar by Muḥammad b. Maḥmúd Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq of Níshápúr. | ||
| (23) | Rabí‘u’l-Abrár of az-Zamakhsharí. | ||
| (24) | ar-Risálatu’l-Qushayriyya. | ||
| (25) | a. | Sindbád-náma (the two prose versions of Daqá’iqí of Marw and of Ẓahírí of Samarqand). | |
| b. | Bakhtiyár-náma. | ||
| (26) | (Siyásat-náma) of the Niẓámu’l-Mulk (a comparative study). | ||
| (27) | ash-Shabáb wa’sh-Shayb of al-Marzubání. | ||
| (28) | Sharafu’n-Nabí (probably of Abú Sa‘d ‘Abdu’l-Malik b. Abí ‘Uthmán Muḥammad al-Khargúshí, the famous preacher of Níshápúr). | ||
| (29) | Ṭabá’i‘u’l-Ḥayawán of Sharafu’z-Zamán Ṭáhir al-Marwazí. | ||
| (30) | Ghurar wa Siyar of Abú Manṣúr ‘Abdu’l-Malik ath-Tha‘álibí. | ||
| (31) | al-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda of at-Tanúkhí. | ||
| (32) | al-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda (Persian Translation by al-‘Awfí). | ||
| (33) | (Qábús-náma) of ‘Unṣuru’l-Ma‘álí Kay-Ká’ús. | ||
| (34) | Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán of al-Jáhiẓ (with a notice of other works on natural history). | ||
| (35) | Kitábu’l-Firása (probably referring to a translation of the work of Polemon). | ||
| (36) | Kitábu’l-Maghází of Muḥammad b. Isḥáq. | ||
| (37) | The Masálik wa Mamálik (a notice on the cosmographical portions in the Jawámi‘). | ||
This The two works of al-Bírúní directly utilised. is one of those sources not mentioned directly, yet established completely after textual comparison. Throughout the entire collection consisting of 2,113 anecdotes, only three times is al-Bírúní named (by his Kunya, Abú Rayḥán) in connection with his works. But on comparison of the portions of the Jawámi‘ noticed below, it is found that at least two of the famous works of al-Bírúní have been utilised, viz., the Átháru’l-Báqiya and Kitábun fí Taḥqíq-i-má li’l-Hind.
al-‘Awfí Parallel references. is directly indebted to the Áthár for the earlier part of his chapter on ‘Pseudo-prophets’, which exactly corresponds with the eighth chapter in al-Bírúní. (Parallel references are given in the Table of Contents: Part III, ch. viii. Anecdotes 1622—1625 = Áthár pp. 207-9, 210-211).
Although Method of utilisation. al-‘Awfí had more than one source for these anecdotes, yet the influence of al-Bírúní on this chapter is predominant, the whole account of Manes in the Jawámi‘ (D. f219b. III. viii. 1622), being based on the Áthár, pp. 207-9. The arrangement of the anecdote is altered but the contents are the same and it is nothing more than an abridged Persian version of the account of Manes from the Áthár. al-Bírúní has mentioned only 5 works of Manes, and these very five works are also enumerated in the Jawámi‘. Again the account of Mazdak begins as it is found in the Áthár, but the lacuna in the Arabic text of Sachau (p. 209) cannot very well be supplemented by the Persian version of this anecdote) from the Jawámi‘. Further on, the account of Máh-áfaríd or Bih-áfarídh, as al-Bírúní calls him, agrees very closely; then follows the account of al-Muqanna‘ which is similar in both. Therefore, the debt of al-‘Awfí to al-Bírúní is considerable.
One Only one citation from the Kitábu’l-Hind. concrete example of the utilisation of this work is the account of the animal Sharw. (D. f91b. IV. xxiii. 2057 = Indica, Text, p. 99, ll. 14-7). While describing the various types of strange animals, al-‘Awfí inserts this extract from the Indica, about Sharw or *Shérú, an animal of the rhinoceros species, which is found in the forests of Konkon, called Dának, a sea-coast place, situated to the south of Samhita, in India.
This Reference to these works but no citation. famous work of al-Ghazálí, surnamed Ḥujjatu’l-Islám, (d. 1111 A. D.), Iḥyá’u ‘Ulúmi’d-Dín or the “Revivification of the Religious Sciences”, and its epitomised Persian version the Kímiyá-yi-Sa‘ádat or “The Alchemy of Happiness”, are mentioned by al-‘Awfí, in connection with the controversial problem of Samá‘, in his introduction to the chapter on ‘Musicians’ (A. f242b. I. xxiv. Int. 1126).
This controversy is treated at full length in the Buláq edition of the Iḥyá’ Pt. II, pp. 229-264, and al-Ghazálí, as a lover of Music, has refuted the theories of the theologians against the unlawfulness of hearing music, and has championed the cause of the Ṣúfís, who considered it as the food of the soul. Our author has simply referred to it, without dilating on the subject, and has proceeded to illustrate his chapter with anecdotes of the musicians. The first anecdote describes the origin of music, and the conception of Pythagoras (circa 582-500 B. C.), concerning the scientific arrangement of notes and their influence on the soul. At the end of this long account, the author adds a few words as to why the Prophet proscribed musical revelry.
This at-Tibru’l-Masbúk utilised in the Jawámi‘. work, though not mentioned anywhere in the Jawámi‘, appears to have been constantly utilised by al-‘Awfí. It cannot be ascertained whether al-‘Awfí used the lost Persian original of al-Ghazálí written for Muḥammad b. Maliksháh Saljúqí or the present Arabic version made by ‘Alí b. Mubárak b. Mawhúb for the Atábek Alp Qutluq of Mawṣil (d. 595 A. H. = 1199 A. D.); but a textual comparison shows that al-‘Awfí used a fuller text. A few parallel references are noted here: Shaqíq of Balkh’s advice to the Caliph Hárún (A. f196b. I. xv. 790) = p. 14; Fudhayl b. ‘Iyádh’s advice to the same (A. f197a. I. xv. 791) = p. 15; Abú Ḥázim-i-Laffáf’s gift to the Caliph Sulaymán (A. f197a. I. xv. 792) = p. 16. This treatise on politics like others, such as Ibn Qutayba’s ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, al-Máwardí’s (d. 450 A. H.) Aḥkámu’s-Sulṭániyya, and at-Ṭurṭúshí’s Siráju’l-Mulúk and Ibnu’l-Jawzí’s tract [Or. 1529 Br. Mus.] offers unique opportunities for parallel references to the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘.
This Accounts of various works of the same title. source remains unidentified. No clue whatsoever is found as to who was the original author of this work, from which al-‘Awfí borrowed. The fall of the Barmecides took place in the year 803 A. D., and nearly a century and a half later, there is found in the Fihrist (p. 134) in the list of Abú ‘Abdi’llah al-Marzubání’s works (d. 378 A. H. = 988/9 A. D.) a work with the title of Akhbáru’l-Barámika, about which Ibnu’n-Nadím, a contemporary of al-Marzubání, says that it contained nearly 500 folios. We have some reason to believe in the acquaintance of our author with the works of al-Marzubání, as will be shown in the account of the Kitábu’sh-Shabáb-i-wa’sh-Shayb (another source of al-‘Awfí), but this work like most of al-Marzubání’s is completely lost, therefore we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion in this case. Another work of the same title is mentioned by H. Khalfa (Vol. I, p. 185. No. 184) and Ibnu’l-Jawzí (d. 597 A. H. = 1200 A. D.) is said to be the author of it; but apparently that is also lost. Even the Arabic originals of Dhiyá’u’d-Dín Baraní’s translation, “Akhbár-i-Barmakiyán” for Fírúz Sháh, about 757 A. H. = 1356 A. D., prepared a century later than al-‘Awfí’s time, are not well established (see Cat. Pers. Mss. [Or. 151 Br. Mus.] Vol. I, pp. 333-4); therefore this source cannot be established with certainty.
al-‘Awfí Anecdotes borrowed. had more than one source for his anecdotes of the Barmecides), as 34 of them are scattered throughout the Jawámi‘; but he has mentioned the above source three times only:
| (1). | *Ṣáliḥ b. *Khuzayma expresses disbelief in *Nu‘mán b. ‘Abdu’llah’s account of the overflowing generosity of Fadhl b. Yaḥyá the Barmecide. (J. f214b. II. v. 1291). |
| (2). | *Qásim *Ghassán *Muḥammad *Ṭá’í’s description of Yaḥyá b. Khálid the Barmecide’s peculiar method of scattering wealth to the winds. (D. f130a. II. ix. 1341). |
| (3). | Yaḥyá b. Khálid the Barmecide dismisses Sahl (?) b. Nu‘aym, one of his officials in charge of Baṣra, on ‘Abdu’llah’s complaint of his meanness. (D. f245b. III. xiv. 1694). The first two anecdotes can be verified from Baraní’s version), (pp. 19-20), where Abu’l Qásim Muḥammad b. Aḥmad at Ṭá’ifí’s Arabic original is mentioned. |
The Identification of this source. account of the conversion of ‘Imrán ibnu’l-Ḥuṣayn is borrowed from this work, (A. f22b. I. i. 7). The identity of the author of this work is conjectural; a work of the same title is recorded in the Fihrist (p. 69) under the list of the works of the son of the ancient Commentator, Abu’l-Mundhir Hishám b. Muḥammad b. as-Sá’ib b. Bishr al-Kalbí; moreover in the Kitábu’l-Aṣnám) (p. 63) of Hishám Ibnu’l-Kalbí, edited by Aḥmad Zakí Pásha, the title of this book appears in the list of his works.
Besides Indirect indebtedness of al-‘Awfí. this we have reason to assume an indirect acquaintance of al-‘Awfí with the elder Ibnu’l-Kalbí’s) Tafsír, as there are two references to this Commentary on the Qur’án (iii, 16; xxv, 40), from which two anecdotes are borrowed. (1). The Prophet and the two rabbis. (A. f26b. I. i. 32). Cf. Ma‘álimu’t-Tanzíl p. 150. (2). Aṣḥábu’r-Rass and how the ‘Anqá’-i-mughrib) became extinct. (D. f93a. IV. xxii. 2067). Unfortunately this work is also lost, but extracts of it are found in the works of az-Zamakhsharí, aṭ-Ṭabarí and al-Baghawí.
This The Asrár as a source established from internal evidence. is one of those sources, though not mentioned directly, yet established completely after an investigation of the anecdotes concerning the Shaykh Abú Sa‘íd b. Abi’l-Khayr of Mayhana, in the Jawámi‘, and comparison with the Asráru’t-Tawḥid of Muḥammad ibnu’l-Munawwar, who composed it from an earlier work, identified as the Ḥálát wu Sukhunán-i-Shaykh Abú Sa‘íd ibn Abi’l-Khayr, by V. A. Zhukovski, the editor of both. The date of the composition of this work is not precisely known, but it is certain that it was written at the end of the twelfth century somewhere about 1200 A. D.. Dr. R. A. Nicholson in his masterly monograph on the life and activities of the Shaykh (published in his “Studies in Islamic Mysticism”) has drawn an actual portrait of him, and unveiled the myths connected with his personality. Nothing more can be added to it from the anecdotes given in the Jawámi‘, because all the eight anecdotes selected by al-‘Awfí are directly taken from the Asrár (chapter II) in which the Shaykh is shown in the marvellous surroundings, successful display of telepathic powers and glorious achievements, which are attributed to the last period of his life (i. e. circa 400-440 A. H. = 1009-1049 A. D.).
In Anecdotes borrowed. the Table of Contents (Pt. I. ch. iii. anecdotes 110—118) parallel references and descriptive titles of the anecdotes of the Shaykh are fully given with a view to establish the authenticity of al-‘Awfí; here a few points about his method of utilisation of this source will be sketched.
The Comparison of ‘Aṭṭár and ‘Awfí’s method of utilisation of this source. third chapter, which contains the anecdotes of the saints, is remarkable for its sources; as they run parallel to those used by his famous contemporary Farídu’d-Din ‘Aṭṭár in his Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’. The Risála of al-Qushayrí forms the main basis of both, but ‘Aṭṭár made a very free use of it, whereas al-‘Awfí in relating stories of the older Ṣúfís kept as far as possible to the original. Coming to Abú Sa‘íd, al-‘Awfí selected a unique work of its kind, abridged the longer anecdotes from the Asrár, and presented them as accurately as possible in his Jawámi‘. On the other hand, ‘Aṭṭár most probably had more than one source in this case also, and so his eclectic method did not allow him to be very faithful to the original. E. g. the anecdote of a deserted traveller and the tiger-ride-miracle of the Shaykh common to the Tadhkira (II, pp. 331-2) and the Jawámi‘ (A. f44b. I. iii. 110), which is evidently taken from the Asrár (pp. 76-84) where it is told at a much greater length than in either of these, will illustrate the point, and a comparison of both with the original passage will show the greater accuracy of al-‘Awfí, in the utilisation of this source, than of ‘Aṭṭár.
This The anecdote borrowed from this source. extremely rare work is mentioned only once, as the source of the anecdote of the early appearance of Manes in the reign of Bahrám b. Hurmuz, the Persian King. (A. f70a. I. iv. 163).
The Determination of the authorship of this work. name of the author is not given, but it is the same work which al-‘Awfí has himself mentioned in the Lubáb, (I, pp. 91-2) in the biography of its author, Ẓahíru’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí as-Samarqandí al-Kátib, along with his other works, with a special note about the recasting of the Sindbád-náma. But there is a difference in the title of the work and the name of the author, only so far, that in the Ms. of the Sindbád-náma [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f11b, the author mentions his own name as Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí b. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar (or Ḥasan) aẓ-Ẓahírí al-Kátib as-Samarqandí, and in the Ms. of A‘rádhu’r-Riyása preserved in the Library of Leyden [Codex 904 Warn.], the title of the work along with the full name of its author is mentioned as the A‘rádhu’s-Siyása fí Aghrádhi’r-Riyása, without his Laqab, Bahá’u’d-Dín, and with Ḥasan instead of ‘Umar as his great-grandfather, which is undoubtedly correct.
This Dedicated to Mas‘ud b. ‘Alí. work has been utilised by Prof. Barthold in his “Turkistán”, and the following is the account given by him in person, for the benefit of the present writer. The Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán, whom Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín, in connection with the account of the Sindbád-náma (Lubáb I, pp. 318-9) has identified with the “last but one ruler of the Ílak Kháns” viz., Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, is not the same person. He is Ruknu’d-Dín Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí who ruled in Samarqand between 1163-1178 A. D.; and whom Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn succeeded immediately (1178/9-1200 A. D.).
Ethé Date of composition uncertain. in the Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie, (Vol. II. p. 258), gives the date of the composition of this work as about 552 A. H. = 1157 A. D. i. e. 6 years earlier than the accession of Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí; whatever the date of the composition may be, it is certain that it was written at about the same time as the Chahár Maqála, and it was a rare work even in the days of al-‘Awfí, who says in the Jawámi‘ (A. ff. 70) that he has read it, and describes it in the following manner in the Lubáb, (I, p. 91-2):
Although Reason for including these works in the Conspectus. the works enumerated below do not form part of the direct sources of al-‘Awfí, they have attracted the attention of ancient and modern writers, and on account of their importance a description of them is given here. As they are mentioned in one anecdote on the life and doctrines of Manes (D. f219b. III. viii. 1622), it will be convenient to ignore the alphabetical order.
The al-‘Awfí indebted to al-Bírúní for this account. direct source of this anecdote appears to be the Átháru’l-Báqiya, where these very five works are mentioned, and al-Bírúní’s source for this account is different from that of Ibnu’n-Nadím), al-Mas‘údí), al-Ya‘qúbí), or ash-Shahristání), who are the most important Islamic authorities on the subject.
| a. | The Injíl, or the Gospel. |
| b. | The Kitábu’sh-Sháburqán, (or The Sháhpuhrakán or Sháhpuriyyán**). |
| c. | The Kanzu’l-Iḥyá, (or Sifru’l-Iḥyá or Kanzu’l-Akhbár**). |
| d. | The Sifru’l-Jabábira, (or Sifru’l-Jáyiza**). |
| e. | The Sifru’l-Asrár, (or the Sifru’l-Asfár). |
| a. Short notes on these five works of Manes | The Injíl), or the Gospel, about which Flügel) is silent, contained according to al-Bírúní 22 Gospels, “which he arranged after the letters of the alphabet: twenty-two letters.” (In Syriac, the number of letters is 22, but in the Fihrist (p. 17) the letters of Manes are said to exceed the Arabic alphabet.) Further, al-Bírúní mentions a few doctrines from the Gospels, which are the cardinal principles of his religion. (pp. 207-8.) |
| b. | The Kitábu’sh-Sháburqán), which is the only one written in Persian, as its title and object indicate, is characterised by al-Bírúní, who shows an intimate knowledge of the work, as “of all Persian books one that may be relied upon”, since “Mání in his law has forbidden telling lies, and he had no need whatever for falsifying history”). (See, Flügel’s Mani, No. 322, p. 365, for other particulars). This work contained three chapters, which are enumerated in the Fihrist, (p. 336, l. 16). Ya‘qúbí, Mas‘údí and Shahristání also quote from it. |
| c. | The Kanzu’l-Iḥyá or Sifru’l-Iḥyá (or Aḥyá), the origin and identification of which is so ably discussed by Flügel, (No. 324, p. 367-9), is described by al-Ya‘qúbí as containing, “an account of the salvation wrought by the Light and the corruption wrought by the Darkness.” |
| d. | The Sifru’l-Jabábira, or the Book of the Giants; again Flügel (No. 320 p. 362-3), discussing the nature and contents of this work, on the authority of Mosheim writes, “Dass Mání hier überhaupt von seiner Dämonologie, von dem Wesen der Dämonen in seiner Gesammtheit gehandelt hat.” |
| e. | The Sifru’l-Asrár, which is also mentioned by other authorities as Sifru’l-Asfár, is the first work mentioned among the Syriac written works of Manes in the Fihrist, where its chapter headings are enumerated. (See, Flügel No. 307, pp. 354-6, for other particulars.) |
Besides these, in the Fihrist (pp. 336-7) nearly 77 tracts of Manes) and other chief Manichaeans are enumerated, in which, according to al-Bírúní, “he asserted that he explained what the Messiah had (only) hinted.”
This anecdote of Manes and Manichaean religion is entirely based on al-Bírúní’s account in the Áthár (pp. 207-8), just like some other accounts) of the great ‘Heresiarchs.’
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.
This This source mentioned under three titles. important history of the ‘Abbásid Caliphs is cited by al-‘Awfí without the name of the author, under three slightly different titles, as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-‘Abbásiyán, the Ta’ríkh-i-Ál-i-‘Abbás and as mentioned above, in 10 anecdotes, which range from the time of the Caliph al-Manṣúr to that of at-Muttaqí. A short summary of them is given below in chronological order, and approximate dates are supplied in order to establish the authorship of this work, and ascertain the exact nature of its contents.
| (1). Borrowed anecdotes. | The assassination of Abú Muslim al-Khurásání, the benefactor of the ‘Abbásids, by the order of the Caliph al-Manṣúr in 137 A.H. = 754-5 A.D. (A. f179b. I. xiii. 697). |
| (2). | The appearance of the Imám Ja‘far aṣ-Ṣádiq before the Caliph al-Manṣúr during the persecution of the ‘Alíds in 144-5 A. H = 761-2 A. D. (D. f169a. II. xx. 1475). |
| (3). | The foundation of the city of Baghdád by the Caliph al-Manṣúr in 145 A. H. = 762 A. D. (D. f73b. IV. xviii. 1986). |
| (4). | The rivalry of the Barmecides with ‘Abdu’llah b. Málik al-Khuzá‘í and their downfall at the hands of the Caliph Hárún in 187 A. H. = 803 A. D. (D. f199a. III. ii. 1559). |
| (5). | The arrest of Bakr b. Mu‘tamir, and the coincident death of the Caliph Hárún in 193 A. H. = 809 A. D. (C. f386a. IV. xii. 1914) = T. F. S. pt. II, ch. viii, pp. 48-9. |
| (6). | An account of the two public prosecutors of the time of the Caliph al-Ma’mún (D. f240a. III. xiii. 1682). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 122-5. |
| (7). | Fadhl b. Sahl’s efforts to win over the Caliph al-Ma’mún, in favour of ‘Alí b. Músá ar-Ridhá’s succession to the Caliphate in 201 A. H. = 816-7 A. D. (D. f163a. II. xviii. 1464). |
| (8). | The death of a favourite slave-girl of the Caliph al-Ma’mún at the shocking news of her master’s death in 218 A. H. = 838 A. D. (D. f36b. IV. x. 1895). |
| (9). | Mání-i-Muwaswas’s prediction about the attack of Ya‘qúb b. al-Layth on Baghdád in 263 A. H. = 876 A. D. (A. f239a. I. xxii. 1103) |
| (10). | The hostility of Abú ‘Abdi’llah al-Barídí, the Wazír, and Muḥammad Ibnu’r-Rá’iq the general of al-Muttaqí and the latter’s assassination in 330 A. H. = 941-2 A. D. (D. f173a. II. xxi. 1486). |
Partly Other citations rom aṣ-Ṣúlí. from the nature of the anecdotes mentioned above, and partly from incidental correspondence of some other accounts of the ‘Abbásid Caliphs in the Jawámi‘ with references to and stray quotations from aṣ-Ṣúlí’s works like the Kitábu’l-Awráq), the Kitábu’l-Wuzará’) and the Adabu’l-Kuttáb), found in various biographical and historical works, viz., the Kitábu’l-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda) and the Nishwáru’l-Muḥádhara) of Abú ‘Alí Muḥassin at-Tanúkhí), (d. 384 A. H. = 994 A. D.); the fragments of the Kitábu’l-Wuzará’) and of the Chronicle) of Hilál) b. Muḥassin aṣ-Ṣábí (d. 448 A. H. = 1056 A. D.); the latter part of the Tajáribu’l-Umam) of Miskawayh) (d. 421 A. H. = 1030 A. D.) and the parallel references supplied to this work in the footnotes, directly from the Kitábu’l-Awráq of aṣ-Ṣúlí; the Mu‘jamu’l-Buldán) and the Irshádu’l-Arib of Yáqútu’l-Ḥamawí, the Kitábu’l-Fakhrí) of Ibnu’ṭ-Ṭiqṭaqa (composed in 701 A. H. = 1302 A. D.), and other works), it can be inferred that al-‘Awfí is alluding to the famous but partly preserved Kitábu’l-Awráq fí Akhbári’l-Khulafá’ wa’sh-Shua‘rá’, also known as the Ta’ríkh-i-Khulafá’-i-bani’l-‘Abbás of Abú Bakr Muḥammad b. Yaḥyá b. ‘Abdu’llah b. al-‘Abbás aṣ-Ṣúlí ash-Shatranjí), the boon companion of the Caliphs al-Muktafí (289-95 A. H. = 902-8 A. D.), al-Muqtadir (295-320 A. H. = 908-32 A. D.), and also the tutor of al-Rádhí, (322-9 A. H. = 934-40 A. D.).
According Ibnu’n-Nadím’s account of aṣ-Ṣúlí. to Ibnu’n-Nadím, the first part of this work contained the history of the Caliphs to the end, (down to his own times), and the other part about their poetry was left unfinished. Probably this might be due to his flight from Baghdád which happened about 300 A. H., in connection with his having related a tradition about the Caliph ‘Alí, which excited the wrath of the people. Ibn Khallikán says that he died in Baṣra in 335 or 336 A. H. = 946-7 A. D.
As Partial agreement of facts with the citations from the Kiábu’l-Awráq. regard the citations from this work in the Jawámi‘, the last anecdote (No. 10) about the hostility of al-Barídí and Ibnu’r-Rá’iq brings the history to the times of al-Muttaqí (329-333 A. H. = 940-4 A. D.). Miskawayh) under the events of the year 330 A. H. relates the account of the murder of Ibnu’r-Rá’iq, which corresponds in general with that given in this anecdote, but a little earlier than this event a direct quotation) is found from aṣ-Ṣúlí’s Kitábu’l-Awráq relating to the flight of Ibnu’r-Rá’iq in 325 A. H., which also partially agrees with the anecdote mentioned above. Another anecdote, (D. f19a. IV. vi. 1840), though without acknowledgement of the source, about the arrest of Abú ‘Alí ibn Muqla is related in the footnotes to the Eclipse) which also bears some resemblance.
Since Probable indirect indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to aṣ-Ṣúlí. we do not possess the actual text of the Kitábu’l-Awráq of aṣ-Ṣúlí we cannot establish the direct indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to him; but one striking instance of indirect borrowing is noticeable, which leads us to think that al-‘Awfí drew from the works originally based on the monumental work of aṣ-Ṣúlí; (e. g. No. 5) the arrest of Bakr b. Mu‘tamir and the coincident death of the Caliph Hárún, in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Khulafá’-i-bani’l-‘Abbás is mentioned as the source, is also found in the Faraj ba‘d a’sh-Ṣhidda of at-Tanúkhí, but for this anecdote we have no access to a parallel text of aṣ-Ṣúlí amongst the fragments enumerated below).
The Result of Mr. Kratchkovski’s investigation. present writer cannot do better than reproduce the remarks of Mr. Ign. Kratchkovski concerning the extant portions of the Kitábu’l-Awráq of aṣ-Ṣúlí with a view to a further intensive study of the work as wished by him. “The whole material to hand, represented by five fragments from the work of aṣ-Ṣúlí does not yet allow us to judge of the whole extent of the Kitábu’l-Awráq, although it gives more exact data than we had before). The Ms. of al-Azhar [Ta’ríkh No. 443 and 6737], found by us, represents in its fullness one of the parts, a third or a fourth, while the previously known Mss. only give fragments. Thus the whole work, unfinished by the author, as is known from the Fihrist (p. 150) and from a note in the last part) of the Azhar Mosque Ms. [Adab No. 487 and 7083] f180b, contained probably 5-6 tomes, of similarly solid extent to that of the Azhar Ms. [Ta’ríkh No. 443 and 6737]. This work was written, as it appears, during a long period by the author and simultaneously with other works: in the last part he speaks of the Kitábu’l-Wuzará’ as a book already in existence), while in one of the preceding ones he merely expresses the intention of writing it). The general plan of the work agrees with what the author of the Fihrist wrote about it; after the history in the narrower sense in chronological order of the material, as is seen in the three accessible Mss., followed a historico-literary part, consecrated to the crowned and uncrowned poets, an anthology of their works, and biographical notes on them in systematic order. This second part also led astray H. Khalfa) [and aṣ-Ṣafadí]), who ascribed to aṣ-Ṣúlí a special work, the Akhbáru’s-Shu‘ará’. For the identity of these works speaks the alphabetical order, to which H. Khalfa refers as well as aṣ-Ṣúlí), and in particular that the work first appeared in H. Khalfa; neither the author of the Fihrist who gives a fairly complete list of the works, [especially a full description of the contents of the Awráq, based on personal observation)], nor Ibn Khallikán mentions it. However that may be, aṣ-Ṣúlí did not succeed in finishing the compilation of this second part before his death, only giving monographs on poets of ruling dynasties and some others not belonging to them. At the present time, therefore, we possess five fragments) of his Kitábu’l-Awráq; three from the historical part: 1. Cairo *(ii) = (?) Constantinople (iii), 2. Paris (iv), 3. Petrograd (i); and two from the historico-literary: 4. Cairo *(vi), 5. Petrograd *(v). Sooner or later this work will attract the intensive study of Arabists; if the author succeeds in any degree in awakening the coming generation of scholars to this, he will consider the aim of the present note attained.”
The Indications of the material for these chapters. Annals) of Abú Ja‘far Muḥammad) b. Jarír aṭ-Ṭabarí (b. 224 d. 310 A. H. = 838-923 A. D.), fully entitled the Ta’ríkhu’r-Rusul-i-wa’l-Mulúk, is mentioned with its short title as Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí twenty times in the Jawámi‘. Almost all these citations occur in Pt. I, ch. iv, “On the Ancient Kings of Persia” and ch. v, “On the Accounts of the Caliphs.” In the introduction) to ch. iv, al-‘Awfí has given us sufficient clues about his material for this and the next chapter, and in two other places) he has indicated the nature of the utilisation of this and other works, such as the Ghurar and the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí discussed later on.
From
Observations
on other combined
sources.
the three quotations given in the footnotes, it is to be remarked that,
firstly, al-‘Awfí had at his disposal other works besides the Annals of aṭ-Ṭabarí, and
that he utilised them according to his own discretion with a sparing mention of the
sources; secondly, the Persian Translations of the Annals and the Ghurar were known
to him. Although in the first instance there is no direct mention of the translation of
‘Abú ‘Alí al-Bal‘amí, yet, probably, the emphasis on the word
The Purport of the anecdotes. following is a summary of the quotations in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí is mentioned.
| (1) | Dhaḥḥák’s tyranny relaxed at the protest of the people of Babylon. (A. f48b. I. iv. 127) = Ṭab. I, 204-5. |
| (2) | Recognition of Ashk, the son of Dárá the great, by the Tribal Kings. (A. f67a. I. iv. 155) = Ṭab.) I, 704-5, cf. Gh.) pp. 456, 473. |
| (3) | Ardashír’s final victory over Arduwán. (A. f68a. I. iv. 157) = Ṭab. I, 819, cf. Gh. pp. 479-80. |
| (4) | The account of the birth of Shápúr. (A. f69a. I. iv. 158) = Ṭab. I, 823-5; cf. Gh. pp. 473-82. |
| (5) | Hurmuz cuts off his hand to remove his father’s suspicion. (A. f69b. I. iv. 160) = Ṭab. I, 833. |
| (6) | Short period of Bahrám III’s reign. (A. f70b. I. iv. 164) = Ṭab. I, 835; cf. Gh. pp. 507-8. |
| (7) | Shápúr disgraces the Qayṣar of Rúm. (A. f70b. I. iv. 167) = Ṭab. I, 845; cf. Gh. p. 528. |
| (8) | Extermination of the Mazdakites by Núshírwán in his own reign. (A. f75b. I. iv. 183) = Ṭab. I, 893-4; cf. Gh. 603-5, also B. A. B. p. 209. |
| (9) | Defeat of Parwíz at the hands of Bahrám Chúbín. (A. f76b. I. iv. 185) = Ṭab. I, 1000. |
| (10) | Flight of Bahrám Chúbín and Parwíz’s final history. (A. f78a. I. iv. 186) = Ṭab. I, 1000. |
| (11) | The cause of Ázarmídukht’s murder. (A. f81a. I. iv. 193) = Ṭab. I, 1064-5; cf. Gh. pp. 736-7. |
| (12) | The Caliph ‘Umar’s comparison of the death of the Prophet Muḥammad with the ascension of Jesus Christ (A. f82b. I. v. 197). = Ṭab. I, 1815-6, where it is interpreted as parallel to the Translation of Moses. In the Jawámi‘ there is a misquotation as well as a complete refutation of this comparison, with an explanation of the Caliph’s words and the situation at that moment. |
| (13) | Khálid b. Walíd’s killing of Málik b. Nuwayra the Musaylimite, regarded in Ṭabarí as the cause of dissension between the Caliphs Abú Bakr and ‘Umar. (A. f83a. I. v. 200) = Ṭab. I, 1924-5, 1926-9. The last version is adopted by al-‘Awfí. |
| (14) | ‘Amr b. Sa‘íd b. al-‘Áṣ al-Ashdaq and ‘Abdu’llah b. Zubayr as rival claimants to the Caliphate in the time of Marwán b. Ḥakam. (A. f97b. I. v. 252) = Ṭab. II, 576. |
| (15) | Sulaymán b. ‘Abdu’l-Malik the Umayyad’s benevolence towards the ‘Alids. (A. f99b. I. v. 261) = Ṭab. II, 1338. |
| (16) | The killing of the two sons of Ja‘far and ‘Abbása. (A. f107a. I. v. 303) = Ṭab. III, 676-7. |
| (17)) | The poisoning) of the Imám Ḥasan. (A. f176b. I. xiii. 684). |
| (18) | Prediction of the historian aṭ-Ṭabarí about the unsettled affairs of the Caliphate and Ibnu’l-Mu‘tazz who was much ahead of his times. (A. f114b. I. v. 337). |
| (19) | The Caliph al-Ma’mún’s efforts to suppress the rumours afloat in Baghdád after his advent, and the story of the Caliph and the Miller (D. f181a. II. xxiii. 1510). |
| (20) | The Caliph Hárún’s consideration for the Qádhí Abú Yúsuf and the preparation of a special daily dish for him. (D. f5b. IV. i. 1794). |
From Nature of the Utilisation of the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí in the Jawámi‘. the nature of the citations from the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí it can be inferred that al-‘Awfí makes a particular mention of this source whenever there is a material difference of tradition regarding the particular event or whenever he wants to support his own statement. In the account of the ancient kings of Persia, he has omitted the parallel accounts given in aṭ-Ṭabarí and the Ghurar about the ancient prophets and other Arabian kings, and has represented the tradition regarding the Persian kings as based on Arabic rather than on the original Persian sources, as in the case of Ibn Qutayba, Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání or the anonymous author of the Mujmal or Firdawsí). The account of the Persian kings is in general based on the plan of the Ghurar, rather than on that of aṭ-Ṭabarí. These acknowledged citations are very short, but there are other anecdotes about the Caliphs which are entirely based on aṭ-Ṭabarí; in these al-‘Awfí has cut short longer accounts, dropped the chain of tradition, and omitted other interesting particulars, and in places blended the different accounts into one single narrative, and retained bare events regarding the lives of the Caliphs, which can be found in any ordinary handbook on the Caliphs. Only in the latter portion of this chapter, when the accounts approach his time, he gives valuable information regarding the rise of the various dynasties, while the Caliphate was on the decline.
This An unidentifiable source. work is mentioned only once, and its identification is extremely difficult. From the nature of the anecdote and the connection in which it is cited the work appears to be different from the Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán discussed previously in Notice No. (11). The anecdote which is borrowed from this source is that of a disciple of Abú Ḥámid Aḥmad b. Khidhrawayh al-Balkhí, the famous Ṣúfí saint (d. circa 240 A. H. = 854 A. D.), at whose prayer a bucket of water rose from the bottom of the well automatically, (A.) f42a = B. f21b = G. f22a. I. iii. 97). It is quite likely that the next anecdote might have also been taken from the same source, though it is not mentioned in any Ms.: the visit of the Shaykh Abú Ḥafṣ ‘Umar b. Maslama al-Ḥaddád (d. circa 264 A. H. = 877 A. D.) to the Shaykh Abú ‘Uthmán al-Ḥírí (d. circa 298 A. H. = 910 A. D.) and his historic reception by the latter in his own convent, and the burning of nineteen lamps, which resulted in the conversion of a family of Jews at the hand of the latter Shaykh (A. f42a. I. iii. 98). These accounts are not found in the Risála of Qushayrí; it is possible that al-‘Awfí is alluding to the Ta’ríkh of al-Ḥákim) an-Níshápúrí (d. 403 A. H.) or of Abú Naṣr al-Marwazí.
The Correct identification of this source. source mentioned above is no other than the Kitábu’l-Bad’i wa’t-Ta’ríkh of Muṭahhar b. Ṭáhir al-Maqdisí, composed in 355 A. H. = 965-6 A. D. This work was for a long time regarded as the composition of Abú Zayd Aḥmad b. Sahl al-Balkhí; in fact, the first two volumes of M. Clément Huart’s edition appeared under the name of Abú Zayd. As early as 1883, C. Schefer) had noticed a few extracts of this work in the Bayánu’l-Adyán; it was Hermann Zotenberg) who discovered a passage in the Ghurar of ath-Tha‘álibí quoted from this history (Vol. III, p. 157), about Manes, and perfectly established the right authorship.
There Acknowledged citations. are three acknowledged citations from the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí in the Jawámi‘; the first one happens to be the same on which the discovery of Zotenberg was based, the second is not traceable, and the third is entirely based on the version of al-Maqdisí, regarding the origin, rise, and rebellion of Bábak al-Khurramí. The following are the anecdotes taken from this work:
| (1) | Manes as the founder of Zindiqism and his followers who in later times were called Báṭinís (Esoterics). (A. f70a. I. iv. 162) = Gh. p. 501 = M. K. B. Vol. III, p. 157. |
| (2) | The fate of the two sons of Ja‘far the Barmecide and ‘Abbása. (A. f107a. I. v. 303). |
| (3) | The origin, rise, and rebellion of Bábak al-Khurramí. (A. f110b. I. v. 315). M. K. B. Vol. IV, pp. 114-6. |
The Importance of the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí. authority of al-Maqdisí (d. 375 A. H. = 985 A. D.) on the origin of important historical events has been recognised from the earliest times; especially the quotations No. (1) and (3), which are concerned with two important persons in the history of the heretical movements in Persia, contain independent and original matter. Although the accounts of them given by aṭ-Ṭabarí were written nearly 50 years earlier, al-Maqdisí appears to have adopted quite a different source. Particularly Bábak’s private life, which is quoted in the Jawámi‘ from al-Maqdisí, is also found in detail in the Fihrist (pp. 342-4), which was written nearly 25 years later than al-Maqdisí’s work, and differs essentially from aṭ-Ṭabarí’s version (III, 1171-9).
The Difficulties regarding the identification of these works. identification of this work and four others of a similar nature viz., the Kitáb-i-Áyín-i-Mulúk, the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira, the Siyaru’l-Mulúk and the Waṣáyá-i-Ardashír which are mentioned as the sources of the anecdotes of which the purport is given below, is beset with many difficulties. Firstly, the names of the authors are not mentioned and the titles are uncertain; secondly, none of these works has come down to us in its original form, language, and version; thirdly, there are diverse statements given by earlier authorities who utilised them regarding the different versions of some of them; fourthly, the criticism of these works by Oriental scholars is mostly based on conjectural grounds; and lastly, al-‘Awfí’s knowledge about them seems to be secondary. In so far as they are represented by quotations in the Jawámi‘, an attempt is made in this notice to discuss briefly each of them and where possible to identify them.
The Purport of the anecdotes in which they occur. following are the accounts borrowed from these works:
| (1) | The various qualities which determined the rank and social status of the officials under the various Persian kings from the time of Jamshíd to Núshírwán, as recorded in the Kitáb-i-Áyín-i-Mulúk, and recounted before an anonymous Caliph. (A. f127b. I. vii. 402). |
| (2) | The peaceful reign of Yazdijird b. Bahrám Gúr, as recorded in the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam, and his four pithy sayings appreciated in the court of the Caliph al-Manṣúr. (A. f139a. I. viii. 476). |
| (3) | Bahrám Gúr’s skill in the art of shooting arrows as exhibited before Nu‘mán b. Mundhir, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f141a. II. xii. 1391). |
| (4) | How Gushtásp during his exile in Constantinople, maintained himself by earning his own livelihood, and his public order for learning handicrafts after being restored to his Persian kingdom, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f203a. III. iv. 1572). |
| (5) | The story of the forbidden dish and the Kisrá’s admonition to the ungrateful guest, who betrayed the secret of his host, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f261a. III. xix. 1721). |
| (6) | Núshírwán punishes, after his coronation, the courtiers who took the same liberty with him as before it, taken from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f8a. IV. ii. 1804). |
| (7) | An interview between a king and a sage, and the latter’s reference to the Akhbár-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam concerning the remark of Núshírwán about the safety of his own person from the attack of enemies, and its being due to the protection which he offered to his own subjects. (D. f10b. IV. iii. 1812). |
| (8) | The reason of the preference of al-Ma’mún over al-Amín, as shown to Zubayda by the Caliph Hárún through a practical test of their capabilities, in which an incidental reference to the Siyaru’l-Mulúk occurs, which the precocious al-Ma’mún always used to study. (D. f184b. II. xxiii. 1517). |
| (9) | An account drawn from the Siyaru’l-Mulúk concerning the Land of Women in the desert of the Maghrib near the Moving Sands. (D. f71a. IV. xvii. 1976). |
| (10) | An observation from the Waṣáyá-i-Arḍashír is recited by Naṣr b. Aḥmad the Sámánid on the eve of his immediate action against the rebellious governor of Isfíjáb in contrast to the negligence of his Wazír Abu’l-Fadhl al-Bal‘amí, enjoining the precautions which a king should observe, first about the safety of his throne, then his court, then his palace, then his capital, then his subjects, and then the boundaries of his kingdom. (P. f261b. II. xvii. 1450). |
| (11) | An observation from the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira is brought forward by Núshírwán to bear upon his decision regarding the characteristic craftiness of a dwarf. (D. f194a. III. i. 1543). |
In Discussion on the anecdote taken from the Áyín-i-Mulúk. the anecdote preceding No. (1) occurs a passage (A. f127b. I. vii. 401) in which ‘Abdu’llah b. al-Muqaffa‘ speaks of his own efforts in recasting) the philosophical books which he found in the treasury of the kings of Persia, and goes on to describe the ten virtues inherited from Kayúmarth, the mythical ancestor of the Persian kings, and acted upon by his descendants to the time of Yazdijird, which established the superiority of the Persian kings over other rulers of their times. And the anecdote in which the Áyín-i-Mulúk is mentioned as the source, recounts the various qualities which determined the rank and social status of the officials. A parallel text of the latter account is also found in the Ghurar) of ath-Tha‘álibí (pp. 14-5), where the Kitábu’l-Áyín is also mentioned as the source, but the anecdote in the Jawámi‘ is told before a Caliph and is set in a different manner, from which we can infer that at least the Ghurar is not the direct source; nor does it correspond with any of the citations from the Kitábu’l-Áyín in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár); hence it is likely that al-‘Awfí may have utilised a source in which this anecdote occurs in a much later setting.
Other Other citations from the Kitábu’l-Áyín in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár. quotations from the Kitábu’l-Áyín occur in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár of Ibn Qutayba without acknowledgement of the author of the Áyín. Ibn Qutayba’s knowledge of this work is first-hand, as he says he has read such and such in the Kitábu’l-Ayín) and quotes from it directly. One of the quotations is interesting on account of the changes which it has undergone. This is a short and sententious saying from the speech of an anonymous king regarding his policy of administration. In the ‘Iqdu’l-Faríd) this same quotation is ascribed to Ardashír, and in the Jawámi‘ a story is built on it. It occurs as a reply of Núshírwán written in response to a mischievous representation of certain courtiers about others whom they suspected of evil intentions against the king (A. f146b. I. x. 529). Unfortunately the source of this anecdote is not mentioned in the Jawámi‘ and only a part of this saying is translated, so we do not know the intermediate stages it passed through, before it assumed the form in which it occurs in the Jawámi‘.
al-Mas‘údí
Its identification
with the
Kitábu’l-Áyín
of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘.
in his Kitábu’t-Tanbíh wa’l-Ishráf)
(p. 104) is the only author who
describes the Áyín-námáh and differentiates it (p. 106) from the Khudáy-námáh and
another anonymous large and illustrated work)
of encyclopaedic information on the
history of the Persian kings, which he happened to see in Iṣṭakhr in 303 A. H.. As
Zotenberg)
asserts, it is quite likely that the long extracts concerning the social hierarchy
of the Persian court and of the Marzubáns in the Murúju’dh-Dhahab)
may have been
drawn from the Ayín-náma, since these details and the definition of the work given by
al-Mas‘údí, as a book of the customs and conventions of Persian society, point in this
direction; but unfortunately he does not mention the name of Ibnu’l-Mụqaffa‘ as the
translator of this work. For the identification of this work with that of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘
mentioned in the Fihrist (p. 118, l. 27), our information rests on Ibnu’n-Nadím and
Ibn Qutayba. The former mentions various Áyin-námas)
but it is likely that as Victor
Rosen)
affirms, the
Of Identity of the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. the six anecdotes, Nos. (2) to (7), in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam is citēd, two deal with Bahrám Gúr, one with Gushtásp, another with the Kisrá (probably Núshírwán) and the other two with Núshírwán; hence they give us a clue to the utilisation of a work, which in general contained an account of historical events, at least from the time of Gushtásp to Núshírwán. As regard the identification of this work, serious difficulties come in our way; but similar quotations in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár) and the Kitábu’l-Ma‘árif) of Ibn Qutayba, from a Siyaru’l-‘Ajam and from another anonymous work, which is identified by Nöldeke) and Rosen) as the Arabic Translation of the Khudáy-náma by Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘, lead us to think that this work is meant here. But as early as 350 A. H., we know through Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání) that at least eight Arabic versions of the Khudáy-náma existed. Of all these the celebrated but unfortunately lost version of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ is the one that has been most used by subsequent writers. References to the existence of this version and stray accounts from it are found as late as the 6th century A. H. or 12th A. D.
Much Critical studies on the Khudáy-náma in connection with various works. light has been thrown on the origin, contents and versions of this important source for the ancient history of Persia, the Khudáy-náma, by various Oriental scholars, viz., Wallenbourg), Turner Macan), Quatremère), Jules Mohl), Th. Nöldeke), Victor Rosen), H. Zotenberg), E. Mittwoch), and many important points have been elucidated from the extracts from this work, in connection with Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ (d. circa 760 A. D.), al-Jáḥiẓ) (d. 869 A. D.), Ibn Qutayba (d. 889 A. D.), ad-Dinawarí (d. 895/6 A. D.), al-Ya‘qúbí (d. 900 A. D.), the Patriarch of Alexandria Sa‘íd b. Biṭríq or Eutychius (d. 939 A. D.), aṭ-Ṭabarí) (d. 923 A. D.), al-Mas‘údí (d. 956 A. D.), Abú Manṣúr al-Ma‘marí and Abú Manṣúr b. ‘Abdu’r-Razzáq the lord of Ṭús, identified as Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’r-Razzáq the lord of Ṭús (r. 945-960 A. D.), Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání (d. 961 or 971 A. D.), Ibnu’n Nadím (d. 995 A. D.), Firdawsí (d. 1020 or 1025 A. D.), ath-Tha‘álibí (d. 1037 A. D.), al-Bírúní) (d. 1048 A. D.), Abu’l-Fadhl al Bayhaqí) (d. 1077/8 A. D.) and the anonymous author of the Mujmalu’t-Tawáríkh (composed about 1126 A. D.)).
In Various problems connected with the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. the past as well in modern times, the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam, variously designated as the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúki’l-Furs, Ta’ríkh-i-baní-Sásán, or the Siyar-i-Mulúki’l ‘Ajam has been the subject of discussion, on account of its importance as an original source for the antiquities, legends, history, literature and civilization of the ancient Persian kingdom, but the identity and differentiation of the various versions of this work have been based on hypothetical grounds; and unless an extract from the original Pahlawí text of the work and a corresponding Arabic translation of it are happily discovered, we cannot really establish the exact relation of the former to the latter versions. Till then our conclusions for the most part will remain conjectural: for instance, concerning the thorny problems of the Dihqán-i-dánishwar, the prose version of the Sháhnáma prepared for Abú Manṣúr b. Abdu’r-Razzáq, the nature of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘’s translation from the original work, the different versions mentioned by Ḥamza al-Iṣfahání and the relation of one to another, the work which formed the real basis of Firdawsí’s Sháhnáma, and the partial genuineness of the Báysunqurian preface. Prof. Nöldeke in the articles mentioned above has discussed these points thoroughly, but where data are not available he had to depend on historical reasoning.
Three References to the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí. incidental references to the Sháhnáma occur in the Jawámi‘, in one of which the name of Firdawsí is also mentioned (A. f50a. I. iv. 130). There appears to be no evidence of direct utilisation, as there are no citations of verses from the Sháhnáma; whereas other verses from unknown sources are found in the chapter on the ancient kings of Persia. Besides this, these references are given simply by way of representing the incredible views of the Persians on the legendary history of their kings, and the Sháhnáma being the highest representative of their national epic is referred to for further details; thus occasional resemblances are noticeable.
| (1) | The origin of the name of Minúchihr. (A. f50a. I. iv. 130). |
| (2) | The legend of the Birth of Zál and of the Símurgh. (A. f51a. I. iv. 131). |
| (3) | The Haft Khwán of Isfandiyár. (A. f61b. I. iv. 144). |
The The other three similar works mentioned in the Jawámi‘. Siyaru’l-Mulúk which is mentioned in (No. 8) in connection with the Caliph al-Ma’mún is likely to be the work to which Ḥamza al-Iṣfahání refers as one that was acquired from the library of al-Ma’mún, but no extract occurs in the Jawámi‘. In the anecdote (No. 9) in P. f387b, Sha‘bí) is mentioned as the author of the work, but other Mss. omit it, so the identity of this work also remains uncertain. The Waṣáyá-i-Ardashír referred to in (No. 10), from which a quotation regarding the precautions enjoined upon kings for their protection is given, appears to be the same work which occurs anonymously in the instructions of Ardashír in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár. Then the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira mentioned in (No. 11) is probably an early Pahlawí text which existed in the time of Núshírwán in the form of an official summary of the history of the Sásánid kings.
Besides Sources of other similar anecdotes unassignable. the above-mentioned anecdotes there are several others unascribed which are likely to have been drawn from similar sources, for we find in them partial agreement with others extant; for instance, several anecdotes concerning the ancient Persian customs, method of administration or speeches or replies of the various kings agree sometimes with certain passages in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, and at other times with the accounts given in Ṭabarí, or in Tha‘álibi’s Ghurar. The absence of sources in such cases, and the mixing up of various versions of the same story to shape out an anecdote in order to suit his chapter-headings, and the utilisation of secondary sources by al-‘Awfí make it impossible for us to determine their exact sources; but in the connected accounts of the Persian kings in pt. I, ch. iv the case is otherwise, as will be noticed later on in connection with the Ghurar).
These Reasons for treating these two sources simultaneously. two sources, although representing two distinct works, the former that of Abu’l-Fadhl Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqí), who was born about 386 A. H. = 996 A. D., composed the extant portions between 450/1 A. H. = 1058/9 A. D. and died in 470 A. H. = 1077 A. D.; and the latter that of Abu’n-Naṣr Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’l-Jabbár al-‘Utbí, who wrote his Kitábu’l-Yamíní about 411 A. H. = 1020/1 A. D., and died in 427 A. H. = 1036 A. D., are not treated separately in this notice for the following reasons:
Firstly, amongst the 81 anecdotes on the Ghaznawids in the Jawámi‘), the titles of these two works are mentioned with little variation only in 11 anecdotes, in which 9 sources are given without the name of the author and 2 under the name of Abú Naṣr al-‘Utbí, e. g., as the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí in Nos.) (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat i-Náṣirí in No. (2), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní in Nos. (4) and (8), as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Yamíní in No. (10), as the Kitáb-i-Yamíní of Abú Naṣr-i-‘Utbí in No. (6) and as the Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Yamíní of Abú Naṣr in No. (11), so that it is really difficult to distinguish, on the face of it, one work from the other, unless a thorough analysis of the contents of the anecdotes is made simultaneously. Secondly, the actual title of al-Bayhaqí’s work is a disputable question. It is not known whether the author gave any title to the whole work, or while referring to the early volumes concerning the Sultán Maḥmúd as the Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní (B. T. M. pp. 26, 158) and (Maqámát-i-Maḥmúdí) (p. 176), he intended to give separate titles to separate volumes concerning the various rulers from the time of Sabuktigín to Farrukhzád, as is asserted by Rieu. It has been observed by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán) that Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alí b. Zayd, also called Ibn Funduq, a countryman of Abu’l-Fadhl who wrote his Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaq in 563 A. H. = 1168 A. D., designates the whole work as the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí; and the Mírzá adds that this title is given in allusion to the Ál-i-Náṣir, that is the descendants of Náṣiru’d-Dín Sabuktigín; but al-‘Awfí makes use of both these titles, e. g. Nos. (8) and (9). Thirdly, the period and subject-matter covered by some of these anecdotes can be connected partly with the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí and partly with the Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaqí; apparently, either owing to the loose appellation of the sources, e. g. No. (10), or to the indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to al-Bayhaqí through al-‘Utbí, e. g. No. (5), or a deliberate combination of both these sources for modelling his own anecdotes, e. g. No. (5). Fourthly, owing to the loss of the major portion of al-Bayhaqí’s work — as it is often reported that the whole work consisted of thirty volumes, and only a small part, the end of Vol. V, the whole of Vols. VI-IX, and the beginning of Vol. X, containing the history of Mas‘úd I, 421-432 A. H. = 1030-41 A. D. has come down to us — we, on the one hand, cannot establish the relation of al-Bayhaqí’s earlier volumes dealing with Sabuktigín and Maḥmúd to al-‘Utbí’s Yamíní for these common anecdotes, and on the other, cannot exactly estimate the value and the amount of the work of al-Bayhaqí incorporated by al-‘Awfí in his anecdotes of the Ghaznawids.
The Summary of the borrowed anecdotes. following is a summary of the anecdotes in which these two works are mentioned, according to the order of their occurrence in the Jawámi‘, to which dates and comparative references are supplied where possible.
| (1) | The wondrous dreams of Sabuktigín foretelling the rise of his dynasty, on the eve
of the birth of his son Maḥmúd in 361 A. H. = 971 A. D.; and the coincident
falling down of an idol and submerging of a temple at (sic |
| (2) | The silent joy of the Caliph ‘Uthmán at the dispersion of a party of revellers, whom he intended to punish in observance of the Islamic law, (D. f124a. II. vii. 1318). The Ta’ríkh-i-Dawlat-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, but it is not traceable in the extant portion. |
| (3) | Sabuktigín’s compassion on a deer and its young one, during his chase, at the time when he possessed only a single horse; and his rise foretold by the Prophet in dream, as a result of his humaneness towards the animal, (D. f124b. II. vii. 1319). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is given as the source; and the story is found in the extant portion of al-Bayhaqí (B. T. M. pp. 238-40). |
| (4) | Absolute refusal of the Khwája Abu’l-‘Abbás al-Isfará’iní to deliver a slave demanded by the Sultan Maḥmúd, and his consequent downfall, (D. f191a. II. xxv. 1536). The Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní as the source. |
| (5) | The preposterous attempt of the Ílak Khán of Máwará’u’n-Nahr on Khurásán, while the Sultan Maḥmúd was engaged in Multán, his immediate return, and subjugation of the Khán. (D. f192b. II. xxv. 1539). Although the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, this anecdote can be traced in parts in the Yamíní) of al-‘Utbí; from this it can be inferred that al-‘Awfí is indebted to al-Bayhaqí through al-‘Utbí. |
| (6) | Ṭugháytigín or Ṭughán Khán attacked by Báytúz or Báytú, the ruler of Bust, seeks protection from Sabuktigín, who after a hard struggle restores him to Bust, but owing to the treacherous conduct of Ṭugháytigín, Sabuktigín annexes Bust to his kingdom and punishes the rebels, (D. f230a. III. x. 1648). The Kitáb-i-Yamíní) of Abú Naṣr al-‘Utbí is given as the source. This anecdote begins as in ‘Utbí and Jurbádhaqání, but the historical narrative is probably supplemented by some other source. |
| (7) | Abú Sahl [Muḥammad b. Ḥasan] Zawzaní ‘Áridhí, persuades Sultan Mas‘úd to recover the wealth distributed by his brother Muḥammad, and enforces confiscation against the weighty opposition of Abú Naṣr Mushkání and Khwája Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Maymandí, his colleagues, which brings disrepute on Mas‘úd and causes serious trouble in the kingdom, and consequently tells upon Abú Sahl Zawzaní in the affair of Altúntásh Khwárazmsháh, (D. f246b. III. xiv. 1696). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source. This long citation gives us a real clue to the method of utilisation of the work of al-Bayhaqí by al-‘Awfí. (B. T. M. pp. 311-5, 390-2). |
| (8) | The usurpation of Ṭughril, the tyrannical regime of Abú Sahl Zawzaní, ending in the assassination of Ṭughril at the hands of his Turkish guard, and the coronation of Farrukhzád in 444 A. H. = 1053 A. D., (D. f259b. III. xviii. 1719). The Ta’ríkh-i-Yamíní is mentioned as the source. This anecdote is not found in the extant portion of al-Bayhaqí’s work; probably it is taken from the earlier or later volumes of al-Bayhaqí, as can be inferred from his habit of referring to past and coming events in the portion dealing with Mas‘úd. |
| (9) | Túmán, an upstart, gets into the favour of the Amír ‘Abdu’r-Rashíd of Ghazna (reigned between 440-4 A. H. = 1049-52 A. D.), and terrorises the people by espionage, and mismanagement in Parsháwar (Peshawar); upon which the Khwája Abú Ṭáhir Ḥusayn b. ‘Alí is sent for investigation, and on his report to the Ṣáḥib-i-Díwán-i-Risálat, Abu’l-Fadhl al-Bayhaqí (the historian), Túmán is temporarily dismissed, but again gets into power and dismisses Abu’l-Fadhl, spreads terror, and ruins the state; finally the Amír himself is murdered, (D. f262b. III. xix. 1728). The Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source; this account appears to have been drawn from the later volumes of al-Bayhaqí, as the historian himself promised (B. T. M. p. 122), and probably this account brings the history to the year 444 A. H. |
| (10) | Admonition of the Sultan Maḥmúd to his brother Naṣr, by ordering the royal drums to be beaten at his palace, as a signal of warning for abusing the royal prerogative of thrashing a slave, (D. f8a. IV. ii. 1802). The Ta’ríkh[-i-Dawlat-]i-Yamíní is mentioned as the source. Cf. also (A. f141b. I. ix. 494) where the same anecdote is given in fuller detail without acknowledgement of the source. |
| (11) | An account of the early wars between the Hindú Sháh of Kábul and Sabuktigín,
and the advice of an old woman (* |
As al-‘Awfí’s utilisation of al-Bayhaqí’s history. regards the method of the utilisation of al-Bayhaqí’s history by al-‘Awfí, we possess two definite quotations (Nos. 3, 7), one about Sabuktigín’s compassion on the deer, and the other about Abú Sahl Zawzaní’s machinations in the early reign of Mas‘úd, in both of which the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source. In both works No. (3), which al-‘Awfí abridges, is by way of illustration of the humaneness of Sabuktigín, but No. (7) is a fairly long extract from which we can arrive at certain definite conclusions. In the original, it begins with the account of the entry of the Sultan Mas‘úd into the capital, Ghazna, in 422 A. H. after his father’s death, and serves as a prologue to Mas‘úd’s eventful reign, which is dealt with by al-‘Awfí in a few sentences. The real point of comparison, or rather the main purpose of al-‘Awfí, is to illustrate how corruption can commence in a state by the adoption of counsels based on mean and selfish motives, whereas in the original, apart from a similar purpose, the narrative is coloured by al-Bayhaqí’s personal bias against Abú Sahl Zawzaní and in favour of Abú Naṣr Mushkání and Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Maymandí. The whole account corresponds in general, even certain expressions are similar — except for a few minor additions and omissions — and the story of Abú Sahl’s dismissal is continued and supplemented from the later extant portion of the original. In such citations it is to be observed that the first person is substituted for the third, the language is always al-‘Awfí’s own, and the method of narration is simple and uniform with the entire scheme of the work. These parallel texts offer us a unique opportunity of judging the evolution of historical prose and its transition from the archaic (5th century) to the comparatively modern (7th century A. H.) Persian style.
Besides Observations concerning the later portions of al-Bayhaqí’s work. these acknowledged and established citations it is extremely probable that Nos. (8) and (9) are drawn from the lost volumes of the Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaqí, as both of them are immediately connected with the career of al-Bayhaqí and probably bring the record of events down to his own times. The tyranny of Túmán, the assassination of the Amír ‘Abdu’r-Rashíd, and again Abú Sahl Zawzaní’s high-handedness in the short period of Ṭughril’s usurpation and the coronation of Farrukhzád, the then reigning monarch, lead us to think that these minute details would not have been given by al-‘Awfí if al-Bayhaqí had not actually written them, in spite of the rambling narrative, disregard of chronological sequence, insertion of past and coming events, and the discursive and illustrative method of al-Bayhaqí.
There Other unacknowledged, common anecdotes from al-Bayhaqí’s extant portion. are other anecdotes in which the source is not mentioned, but the resemblance is very strong, e. g. the exemplary punishment which the Sultan Maḥmúd meted out to an elephant-keeper (A. f145b. I. ix. 522) = (B. T. M. pp. 557-8), the disgrace of Fadhl b. Rabí‘ (A. f192a. I. xiv. 769) = (B. T. M. pp. 29-35), al-Ma’mún’s policy in burning the treasonable letters addressed to al-Amín (B. T. M. pp. 35-6), the Caliph Harúnu’r-Rashíd and the pious Ibnu’s-Sammák (A. f197b. I. xv. 797) = (B. T. M. pp. 638-43), Alexander and the institution of the Tribal Kings (B. T. M. p. 105), from which we can infer that al-‘Awfí borrowed occasionally other illustrative anecdotes given by al-Bayhaqí, apart from the very important material for the Ghaznawids, in which the Jawámi‘ is so rich.
Concerning al-‘Awfí’s disregard of the original source in utilising the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí. the utilisation of the Kitábu’l-Yamíní of al-‘Utbí the following remarks are based on the three anecdotes Nos. (5), (6) and (11), of which the last two are acknowledged to have been borrowed from the Yamíní. In No. (5) about the preposterous attempt of Ílak Khán and his discomfiture, the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí is mentioned as the source, but the whole account is traceable to the Yamíní. Unfortunately we do not possess the parallel text of al-Bayhaqí for this portion; in that case it would have been possible to establish a twofold indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to al-‘Utbí and to estimate the relation of al-Bayhaqí’s text to the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí. Here a few points are given about the relation of al-‘Awfí’s anecdotes to the Arabic original of the Yamíní. In this anecdote about Ílak Khán there is no attempt at rhetorical imitation as in Jurbádhaqání, on the contrary bare historical facts are collected from various portions of the Yamíní and brought within the compass of a single anecdote, regardless of the original order, minor details, extraneous matter and profuse imagery of al-‘Utbí. In No. (6), about the annexation of Bust, the story begins as in al-‘Utbí and Jurbádhaqání, without any direct textual resemblances with the one or the other, and is augmented with such minute details as are found in neither. For instance, in the original it is reported that Ṭughán Khán treacherously gave a wound to Sabuktigín and the latter, on the other hand, also wounded and banished him; this fact is entirely ignored by al-‘Awfí. According to al-‘Awfí, in the early stages of the attack of Báytúz, Sabuktigín was unhorsed — which caused panic for some time — and later when Ṭugháytigín was restored to Bust, he did not fulfil his promises and made common cause with his brother and turned traitor, whereupon Sabuktigín, secretly informed of his designs, overcomes him and annexes Bust. Similarly in No. (11), about the victory of Sabuktigín over the Sháh of Kábul, the version of the two stories differs in details and is much shortened. In spite of the freedom which Jurbádhaqání takes with the Arabic original as has been duly remarked by Prof. Nöldeke, one can find a reproduction of the original, but in al-‘Awfí’s anecdotes it is difficult to trace even partial agreement with either of these, unless a special effort is made; hence al-‘Awfí is not faithful to this source, and this is an exception to his general mode of utilising his sources, which has been indicated throughout this chapter.
This Anecdotes taken from this Commentary. Commentary on the Qur’án by the Imám Najmu’d-Dín Abú Ḥafṣ ‘Umar b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad an-Nasafí (460-537 A. H. = 1068-1142 A. D.), very well known in the East as one of the pillars of the Ḥanafite school, through his treatise on the Sunní creed, the ‘Aqá’idu’n-Nasafiyya, is cited with acknowledgement three times in the Jawámi‘.
| (1) | ‘Amr b. Murra’s earnest advice to a questioner not to cavil at the mysterious verses of the Qur’án), called the “Mutashábihát”, (A. f26b. I. ii. 31). |
| (2) | The formula of prayer adopted by the Prophet Yúsuf in his confinement in the well at Kan‘án, (D. f17b. IV. v. 1835). |
| (3) | The account of the seven magic cities in Babylon built for Namrúd, (D. f76a. IV. xix. 1994). |
The work being inacessible, the present writer is unable to verify these anecdotes from the original.
Another Source unidentifiable. work of an-Nasafí is also cited, but the identity of it is uncertain. Firstly, there is a difference in the reading of the last word of the title, which in some Mss. is found as ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár; secondly, the full name of the author is not mentioned; thirdly, the nisba an-Nasafí is ambiguous, as there are a number of people who rose from the town of Nasaf and distinguished themselves in various branches of Islamic learning; fourthly, there does not appear any work of this title in Brockelmann or H. Khalfa, attributed to ‘Umar an-Nasafí; fifthly, the only anecdote taken from this work does not afford us any sure means of identification; it is as follows: the graciousness of the Imám Abú Ḥanífa towards his rowdy neighbour resulting in reformation of the latter’s character. (D. f134a. II. x. 1353).
This
Account of
the work given
by al-‘Awfí.
title)
was once very popular with the philologists, nearly thirty authors
from the time of al-Aṣma‘í to Jalálu’d-Dín as-Suyúṭí, the famous polygraph, having
adopted it for different subjects, but al-‘Awfí has particularly mentioned the name of
the author and has given a short account of this work in the Lubáb),
from which,
we gather that the author, the Imám Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq Maḥmúd b. Aḥmad an-Níshápúrí
wrote it under the following circumstances: “And when it came to his knowledge,
that in the lands of the West (probably Andulus), a Commentary on the Qur’án had
been prepared in fifty volumes, he, in exposition of a single Verse (li, 21), namely,
«
| (1) Borrowed anecdotes. | The blaspheming caligraphist who wrote a miniature Qur’án in six days, when asked, impudently cited from the Qur’án the Verse (l, 37) about the period of creation, upon which his hand was withered. (A. f25b. I. i. 29). |
| (2) | The growing suspicion of the Caliph Hárún and the final disgrace of the Barmecides, (A. f106a. I. v. 302). |
| (3) | The Qádhí of Raqqa compels ‘Ísá b. Ja‘far to discharge his liabilities, (A. f124b. I. vi. 394). |
| (4) | The dream of Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq, the author, about the rise of the Sultan Bahrámsháh of Ghazna. (A. f233a. I. xxi. 1069). |
| (5) | The trick of a miserable person who wanted to deprive his nephew of his inheritance, (D. f174b II. xxii. 1489) |
| (6) | Jealousy of a vindictive neighbour, which called down doom upon himself, (D. f197b. III. ii. 1557). |
| (7) | A miser’s habit of talking to any piece of coin which happened to fall into his hands, (D. f228a. III. ix. 1640). |
| (8) | A joke which led to the execution of a murderer. (D. f59a. IV. xiii. 1934). |
From Probable nature of its contents. the nature of these citations and from the basic Verse, it can be inferred that this work contained illustrations of human nature, drawn from various points of view. It is not known whether it was in Arabic or Persian, but it is likely that the author, since he lived at the court of Bahrámsháh (r. 511-52 A. H. = 1117/8-57/8 A. D.) may have written it in Persian. About the author’s son who also flourished in the reign of Bahrámsháh we shall speak later on in connection with the Persian translation of the Ghurar called the Ra’y-Áráy), but very little is known about Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq himself beyond what al-‘Awfí mentions in the Jawámi‘ and the Lubáb.
This Connection of al-‘Awfí with this work. treatise on the medicinal properties of natural substances was written by Sharafu’z-Zamán Majdu’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí, the court physician to the Sultan Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán Ibráhím ibnu’l-Ḥusayn who ruled in Samarqand 1178-1200 A. D., the maternal uncle of al-‘Awfí, and also the author of the Ta’ríkh-i-Turkistán mentioned previously, a short biographic sketch of whom is given in the Lubáb). The connection of our author with this book is very interesting; he relates it himself in an anecdote which gives an account of a discussion on the famous line of the poet Manṣúr-i-Manṭiqí:
which took place at the court of the Prince of Samarqand, Nuṣratu’d-Dín ‘Uthmán b. Ibráhím, about the year 597 A. H., (D. f80a. IV. xx. 2008). Our author having studied and even transcribed this treatise of his uncle was able to explain the allusion of the poet to the peculiar property of a stone called the Ḥajaru’l-Báhit, which is found in Tibet and is said to produce an extremely exhilarating effect on strangers. Muqaddasí and other ancient geographers have particularly remarked the effect of the land of Tibet on foreigners; Zakariyyá al-Qazwíní) also mentions a stone of the above name, possessing similar properties. This work has probably been utilised advantageously in illustrating his chapter in the Jawámi‘, “On the Properties of Natural Objects” (Pt. IV, ch. xx), but unfortunately it has not come down to us.
This A work hitherto unknown. Manual for the Wazírs is ascribed by al-‘Awfí to the Sultan Radhiyyu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. Mas‘úd b. Maḥmúd of Ghazna, entitled Ẓahíru’-Dawla (reigned 451-92 A. H. = 1059-99 A. D.). No account of this work is found in other contemporary sources, but al-‘Awfí’s reference to it, and the contents of the anecdote in the Jawámi‘ (D. f241b. III. xiii. 1684), are direct proofs of its existence, and upon these the present notice of the work is based. But unfortunately only one citation is given, from which we cannot possibly determine the exact value of this work. The anecdote in question gives an account of a Chief of the police called Báwardí (?) who explains the mystery of his successful management of the city of Ghazna in the days of the Sultan Maḥmúd, the grandfather of the author of the Dastúr i. e. the Sultan Radhiyyu’d-Dín Ibráhím. It is introduced in the chapter “On the Despicability of Hard-heartedness and the Praiseworthiness of Humaneness”, and is narrated to illustrate the apparent harshness of the Chief, who was at heart very kind. If anything can be gathered about the nature of the contents of this source, it may be said on the basis of this anecdote that the Sultan, who as has been suggested by Minháj-i-Siráj) and Abu’l-Fadhl) al-Bayhaqí, a contemporary historian, being very earnest about the administration of his kingdom which had sustained heavy losses in the reigns of his predecessors at the hands of the Saljúqs, wrote this manual with the idea of imparting political advice to his ministers, through the example of his predecessors and other successful sovereigns.
There are a few more anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ concerning the Sultan Radhiyyu’d-Dín Ibráhím of Ghazna, but their sources are not mentioned; still, a short summary of them is given here, to illustrate the various aspects of this royal personage, the author of the Dastúr. (See also above p. 30, ll. 1-8).
| (1) | His consultation with Abu’l-Qásim Ḥuṣayrí, the old counsellor of Maḥmúd. (A. f128a. I. vii. 405). |
| (2) | His anxiety to appoint a suitable successor to his old Ḥájib-i-Buzurg, (probably Badr or Urtigín as mentioned by Bayhaqí, B. T. M. p. 824) (A. f128a. I. vii. 406). |
| (3) | The dream of his Wazír, Khwája Buzurg, Bihrúz b. Aḥmad, and the interpretation that he would manage the affairs of a part of the globe (Ghazna). (A. f233a. I. xxi. 1070). |
This An account of the author and of this work. Persian Translation of ath-Tha‘álibí’s Ghurar-i-Akhbár-i-Muluki’l-Furs-i-wa Siyar-i-him is known to us correctly through al-‘Awfí only. In the Lubáb) a short notice of the author Fakhru’d-Dín Muḥammad b. Maḥmúd Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq b. Aḥmad an-Níshápúrí occurs, and in the Jawámi‘) (B. f45b = G. f48b. I. iv. 183) this work is referred to. In the Haft Iqlím) it is mentioned as the Ra’y-i-Jahán Áráy; H. Khalfa) mentions it under the same title as al-‘Awfí, but ascribes it to Muḥammad b. Aḥmad an-Níshápúrí, omitting the name of his father, Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq Maḥmud, noticed previously as the author of the Khalqu’l-Insán). In this respect the account given by al-‘Awfí is trustworthy, since he is speaking from first-hand knowledge of the work. The author of the Ra’y-Áráy was one of the eminent persons who lived at the court of Bahrámsháh the Ghaznawid (r. 511-52 A. H. = 1117/8-57/8 A. D.), and was sent as an emissary to the camp of the invading Saljúq King Sanjar at Takínábád in 529 A. H. = 1134-5 A. D., in order to negotiate peace terms, on which occasion he addressed a quatrain to the Sultan Sanjar, glorifying his overlordship. At this time the author was far advanced in age, so much so that a special conveyance was sent for him and respect was paid to him in the enemy’s camp. al-‘Awfí also mentions his other works, the Tafṣír-i-Baṣá’ir-i-Yamíní), and the Ṣaḥífatu’l-Iqbál), but apparently all these three are lost. As regards the utilisation of this translation by al-‘Awfí we cannot say with certainty the amount of matter incorporated by al-‘Awfí, since al-‘Awfí has also used the original) of ath-Tha‘álibí for the accounts of the Ancient Kings of Persia.
This An account of the work in connection with the cited anecdote. work of the great Mu‘tazilite commentator and philologist Abu’l Qásim Maḥmúd b. ‘Umar az-Zamakhsharí), surnamed Járu’llah, (d. 1143 A. D.) is quoted in the Jawámi‘ only once in connection with the traditional account of the extinction of the fabulous bird ‘Anqá’, (D. f93a. IV. xxiv. 2067). In the words of az-Zamakhsharí as quoted by H. Khalfa): “This work is designed to inflame the minds of the readers of the Kashsháf ‘an Ḥaqá’iqi’t-Tanzíl, and to direct the attention of the wearied minds towards the sources of its information and its secrets”. The complete work is called the Rabi‘u’l-Abrár wa Nuṣúṣu’l-Akhyár, of which various later selections are enumerated in Brockelmann. One of these selections is entitled the Rawdhu’l-Akhyár), and quotations from this work are generally found in works on Tradition and the Qur’ánic sciences, e. g. the passage in question is found in ad-Damírí’s Ḥayátu’l-Ḥayawánu’l-Kubrá) also. This anecdote is found in the fourteenth Rawdha) dealing with the Angels, the Jinn, the Demons, and the Animals, where the account of the extinction of the ‘Anqá’ is recorded on the authority of the early commentator ‘Abdu’llah b. ‘Abbás. In this very anecdote al-‘Awfí cites another version from Muḥammad b. Sá’ib al-Kalbí’s Commentary as noticed above), and both these quotations are faithfully translated.
This The Risála as a ground-work for a few anecdotes about the Súfís. famous tract on Ṣúfism by Abu’l-Qásim ‘Abdu’l-Karím b. Hawázin al-Qushayrí) (b. 376 d. 465 A. H. = 986-1073 A. D.) is one of the acknowledged sources of the Jawámi‘. It was composed in 437 A. H. = 1045-6 A. D., as Dr. Nicholson) observes, “with the avowed object of demonstrating that the history and traditions of Ṣúfism are bound up with strict observance of the Mohammedan religious law”, and Goldziher) characterises it as “eine Reaktion der positiven Gesetzlichkeit gegen den Nihilismus der Mystik”. Although al-‘Awfí had no intention of writing either a systematic account of the development of Ṣúfism or strictly chronological or class-wise biographies of the Ṣúfís, as the author of the original had in view, the choice of the Risála as a ground-work for his sketches of the lives of the saints in pt. I, ch. iii, reflects to a certain extent the moderate Ṣúfism to which our author was devoted. His main interest lying in anecdotal illustration and biographic details, he selected only those portions of the Risála, which is so valuable as a collection of sayings, anecdotes and definitions, that would enrich his own collection of anecdotes, and particularly, the first chapter of the first section “On the account of the chiefs of this path and that which accrues from their lives and sayings towards the observance of the religious law”, and based on it nearly thirteen short accounts of the lives of the Ṣúfís of the first order from Ibráhím b. Adham al-Balkhí (d. 161 A. H. = 777 A. D.) to Ḥátim al-Aṣamm (d. 237 A. H. = 851 A. D.). Besides these, there are other traces in the Jawámi‘) from which we can infer that al-‘Awfí has utilised other chapters of the Risála on ethical virtues from a similar point of view.
As al-‘Awfí utilised the Arabic original and not the Persian Translation of the Risála. regards the utilisation of the Risála, the manner of al-‘Awfí’s) alluding to it and other internal evidence from the cited passages indicate a direct use of the Arabic original rather than the Persian version represented by the Br. Mus. Codex [Or. 4118]); even though the latter, owing to its priority and characteristic early features, might have been known to him. Unfortunately nothing is known either about the translator or the date of his work; we have only the name of the transcriber and the date of this transcript which is 601 A. H. = 1205 A. D.; but the archaic spelling, the construction of the sentences, the choice of words, the idiom and mode of expression, the simplicity and directness of style, the literal and exact rendering — excepting as regards the introduction and the poetical citations which are retained in Arabic and at times vocalised, the partial omission of the fuller links of narration, and the inversion of the order of a few chapters — definitely point to its having been translated at a much earlier epoch, probably in the beginning of the 6th century of the Hijra, and entitle it to a place amongst the classical translations of the pre-Mongolian period. Thus, a comparison of the style of the identical passages in it and in the Jawámi‘ with the original determines, on the one hand, the early nature of this version and a marked difference between the two; and on the other, the use of the Arabic original by al-‘Awfí.
The Comparison of the Persian Translation and the Jawámi‘ with the original. account of the Ṣúfí saint Dhu’n-Nún-i-Miṣrí (d. 245 A. H. = 860 A. D.) will perhaps serve as a typical example for such a comparative study, as it is partly common to all the three and even to the Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’. In the Arabic text of al-Qushayrí (p. 9) it begins with short biographical details and Dhu’n-Nún’s interview with the Caliph al-Mutawakkil and extends to his epigrammatic sayings and other doctrines, e. g. the signs of the lovers of God, and to his story of conversion and repentance. The Persian version (ff14) follows almost all the details closely and even retains in some places the Arabic construction of the sentences. In the Jawámi‘ (A. f39b. I. iii. 83) the earlier portion consisting of biographic details is given in a short form, and other particulars e. g. his interview and sayings, are omitted, but the central fact of his conversion to Ṣúfism is given prominence, i.e. the story of the miraculous provision of two dishes for a blind lark and the object-lesson drawn from it by Dhu’n-Nún, which is the immediate point of a comparison in this case. In the Arabic original all the links of transmission from Dhu’n-Nún to al-Qushayrí) are given; in the Persian version the two latest authorities are omitted and the story is connected with Yúsuf b. al-Ḥusayn, who was present when Dhu’n-Nún himself related the cause of his repentance to Sálim al-Maghribí; and in the Jawámi‘ all the intermediate links are dropped out except Sálim al-Maghribí, and the story is in al-‘Awfí’s own language, which is not so precise and faithful a translation as the Persian version, and appears to be quite independent of it, containing a few additional anecdotal embellishments; whereas in the Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’ (pt. I, p. 115, ll. 21-5) all the authorities are omitted, the story is abridged and the facts are altered; and it is welded with other stories of his awakening in order to produce an effect by the continuity of his experiences, regardless of any biographical truth or fidelity to the original.
Attention Comparison of al-‘Aṭṭárand al-‘Awfí’s methods of utilising the Risála has already been called (p. 40) to the inaccuracy of Farídu’d-Dín al-‘Aṭṭár) in the utilisation of the Asráru’t-Tawḥíd, and the same remark holds good in the case of the Risála; a comparison of al-‘Aṭṭár’s and al-‘Awfí’s texts of identical passages with the Arabic original will further illustrate this point clearly. al-‘Aṭṭár’s method of dealing with his sources, which he does not acknowledge, yet which becomes noticeable after a close examination, is precarious. At times he abridges and alters the original completely, as in the case of the last-mentioned anecdote of Dhu’n-Nún’s conversion, and in other cases he develops, augments the bulk of the story with details of his own invention, changes the order of the events irrespective of chronological sequence or historical accuracy, and narrates in such a form that the original is entirely neglected, e. g. the anecdote of the conversion to Ṣúfism of Ibráhím b. Adham al-Balkhí, connected with the hunt and the mysterious voice proclaiming, “O Ibráhím! is it for this that thou wast created or is it for this that thou wast commanded?”. In the Arabic original (p. 9) as well as in the Persian version [Or. 4118 Br. Mus.] f12b, this account is sketchy and brief, and couched in direct and simple language, and similarly in the Jawámi‘ (A. f39a. I. 82) there is a very close agreement between the text of this story and the Arabic original, whereas in the Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’ (pt. I, pp. 86-7) it is narrated at twice the original length, and details are furnished, firstly, to prepare the minds of the readers for some unexpected thing on account of which Ibráhím is disconcerted; secondly, to emphasise his reluctance to obey the mysterious voices, till at last the prey, the deer, converses with him and makes a prey of him; and lastly to enhance the effect of the sudden change that has come over him. For these reasons, the biographic information in the Tadhkira, however interesting it may be, is very untrustworthy. Most likely, the profuseness of material, the eclectic method, the welding of different versions, the attempt to impart a personal touch and to narrate the lives in a popular and interesting manner are responsible for its inconsistency and inaccuracy. On the other hand, al-‘Awfí’s sources were probably few; therefore, in this case also he concentrated his energy on the Risála and tried to be as faithful to the original as possible.
The Origin and early versions of the Sindbád-náma. Book of Sindbád or the tale of the king’s son and the seven wazírs is referred to by al-‘Awfí twice in the Jawámi‘ in pt. III, ch. xxv, “On the Wiles of Women”, once in the introduction to this chapter along with the Bakhtiyár-náma) (D. 286a. III. xxv. Int. 1783)), and again in the conclusion along with the Kalíla wa Dimna) (B. f243b = C. f344a. III. xxv. 1789)) as one of the famous and popular works on the stories of female slyness. Authorities differ, as in the case of the Kalíla wa Dimna, as to the original home of this work, whether it was India or Persia. al-Mas‘údí) and Ibnu’n-Nadím) agree that it was originally shaped by the Indian sage Sindbád. Ethé and Nöldeke also hold that, from the intrinsic nature of these tales, they belong to an Indian rather than a Persian environment, as is evident from a perusal of this work; but at an earlier epoch they were translated into Pahlawí and then into Arabic and other languages. At any rate, a copy of the Pahlawí version existed in the time of the Sámánids, and by the order of the Sámánid Amír Núḥ II b. Manṣúr (reigned 366-87 A. H. = 976-97 A. D.) the Khwája ‘Amíd Abu’l-Fawáris Qanáwarzí translated it for the first time into modern Persian prose). An account of Qanáwarzí’s version is given by Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí b. Muḥammad b. [Ḥasan] aẓ-Ẓahírí al-Kátib as-Samarqandí in connection with his own version of the Sindbád-náma [Or. 255 Br. Mus.]) ff14, who says that it was in a very simple and unadorned language. Most probably from this prose version, the poet Abú Bakr Zaynu’d-Dín b. Ismá‘íl al-Warráq al-Azraqí (d. before 465 A. H. = 1072/3 A. D.) composed or intended to compose his Mathnawí in the middle of the fifth century of the Hijra. Unfortunately, like the prose version of Qanáwarzí, this metrical version has not come down to us; the only data for this Mathnawí are found in one of the panegyrics of al-Azraqí written in honour of his patron-prince, Abu’l-Fawáris Ṭughánsháh b. Alp Arslán the Saljúq, in which the poet alludes to his own skill as manifested in the “Counsels of Sindbád”). Another unique, but rather poor poetical version (a Mathnawí) of the Sindbád-náma of unknown authorship composed as late as 776 A. H. = 1374/5 A. D. is preserved in the India Office Library [No. 3214]), which according to Ethé closely agrees with the Greek Sintipas) and the prose version of aẓ-Ẓahírí, and has been fully described by F. Falconer).
As Discussion on the two prose versions by aẓ-Ẓahírí and ad-Daqá’iqí. regards the later prose versions of the Sindbád-náma, it is really difficult to decide which actual version was utilised by al-‘Awfí in the Jawámi‘; but in this connection, it seems proper to discuss the question of the existence of two different prose versions, about which the learned critic Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín) has raised certain objections. After combining two different statements of al-‘Awfí regarding this work, one in the biography of the poet [Bahá’u’d-Dín] aẓ-Ẓahírí) and the other in that of the poet Shamsu’d-Dín Muḥammad ad-Daqá’iqí) al-Marwazí, Mírzá Muḥammad supposes them to be contemporaries and rejects the simultaneous composition of two prose versions of the same work. In fact, as remarked above (pp. 40-1), aẓ-Ẓahírí, the author of the A‘radhu’r-Riyása) and the editor of the Sindbád-náma, flourished at an earlier epoch than ad-Daqá’iqí, and these two poets composed two different versions under two different rulers of the same Ílak Khán dynasty of Samarqand. On the testimony of the extant version of aẓ-Ẓahírí [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f6a this work was dedicated to Ruknu’d-Dín Qutlugh Balká Abu’l-Muẓaffar Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán b. Qilij Qará Khán) (identified by Prof. Barthold as Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí, who reigned 558-74 A. H. = 1163-78/9 A. D., and not Jalálu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, a contemporary of al-‘Awfí, the last but one ruler of this dynasty, as asserted by Mírzá Muḥammad) who had returned after a long absence to his hereditary dominions (f10a)), and who after vanquishing his foes in Túrán in the year fifty-six i.e. 556 A. H. = 1160/1 A. D. had restored peace and the reign of justice in his kingdom. The date and this event point to its having been composed earlier than is supposed by Mírzá Muḥammad. A little later, ad-Daqá’iqí also wrote a prose version of the Sindbád-náma, as H. Khalfa) not only distinguishes it from other versions but gives its beginning line, which owing to the loss of the first folio of aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version cannot be compared, but is certainly an evidence of the existence of this version. This was composed during the reign of Jalálu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, also entitled Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán, who apparently succeeded the aforesaid Ruknu’d-Dín. Thus there is a difference of about 40 years between the composition of the former and the latter, and besides this a comparison of the apparently common anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ and aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version, which follows, shows that al-‘Awfí must have used a version other than aẓ-Ẓahírí’s. From these arguments it is evident that two separate prose versions existed in the time of al-‘Awfí; the former being rare, as he himself says in the Lubáb, he might have utilised ad-Daqá’iqí’s.
On Comparison of the common anecdotes in aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version and the Jawámi‘. a close comparison of the anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ pt. III, chs. xxiv-v, “On Unchaste and Impious Women”, and “On the Wiles of Women” with the version of Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad aẓ-Ẓahírí, it is noticeable that, although the outlines of some of these stories are somewhat identical, yet they differ in essential details. For instance, an account of a person who was in the habit of studying the wiles of women and collecting works on this subject is common to both (D. f288b. III. xxv. 1787), cf. [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f101b-f103a; and so is another story, mentioned in a different chapter, concerning the hudhud or hoopoe, that could not resist his destiny of falling a prey to a net, in spite of having noticed it (D. f55a. IV. xiii. 1922), cf. [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f129a-f130a. At no point do we find direct or indirect indebtedness to this version. aẓ-Ẓahírí’s version) of these stories is highly decorated with the graces of language, and supplemented with Arabic and Persian verses, none of which are found in the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘. This contrast is especially strengthened when we compare other anecdotes of a similar nature taken from the Bakhtiyár-náma. In any case, the version in al-‘Awfí’s hand was different from aẓ-Ẓahírí’s; it might be that of ad-Daqá’iqí or an earlier one.
This Account, origin, and versions of the Bakhtiyár-náma. work, also known as the Story of the Prince Bakhtiyár and the Ten Wazírs, which is apparently a purely Muslim imitation of the originally Indian Story of Sindbád or the Seven Wazírs, referred to once by al-‘Awfí), forms one of the direct sources of the Jawámi‘; but it is difficult to decide which actual version was utilised by him. There is one short reference in the biography of the aforesaid Daqá’iqí) to a version prepared by him along with that of the Sindbád-náma; unfortunately neither of these has come down to us. It is possible that al-‘Awfí might have used ad-Daqá’iqí’s or any other earlier prose version of the Bakhtiyár-náma; since from the allusion to it, it appears that works of this nature were rather popular in those days. The oldest extant version of this story, according to Prof. Nöldeke’s) detailed researches, is in Persian prose, represented by the Leyden Codex [No. 593]), which, however, goes back to a still much earlier Persian original, as yet considered to be lost. This version was prepared by an unmentioned writer) at the court of a hitherto unidentified prince of Samarqand named Táju’d-Dín Maḥmúd b. Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’l-Karím some time about 600 A. H. = 1204 A. D.. al-‘Awfí, being in touch with the court of Samarqand at this period, as shown above (pp. 7-8), must have known of the existence of this work, but it cannot be ascertained after a comparison of the simple and direct style of these borrowed anecdotes with that of the extracts given by Prof. Nöldeke that he ever utilised it; on the contrary, the evidence points to the utilisation of a still much older text. On the older Persian originals are apparently based the different Arabic versions); one of them is also found in the Alfu Layla) and the Uigur) text contained in [Huntingdon 598 Bodl.], dated 1435 A. D.. To a comparatively later period belongs the shorter version contained in [Ind. Off. 3053] f17a-f63a and [Ouseley 389 Bodl.] which also forms one of the bases of the Ouseley-Kazimirski) Paris lithographed edition of the Bakhtiyár-náma. This version, though differing in the arrangement of the chapters and in the detailed exposition of the contents, and written in a very clear and simple style as contrasted with the older ones, is on the whole in agreement with its contents. Thus, just as the simplicity of style in the anecdotes borrowed by al-‘Awfí is in favour of their being based on a still much older Persian original, so also the resemblance between al-‘Awfí’s version and the Ouseley-Kazimirski text strengthens the belief that the latter, though it took its final shape in India, still has its origin in the much older originals on which the Leyden Codex was based.
Out al-‘Awfí’s method of utilising the Bakhtiyár-náma. of the ten dástáns, which the prince Bakhtiyár relates successively, in self-defence, in order to delay his execution and defeat the evil counsels of the ten wazírs, and which are addressed to the king who in the end is proved to be his real father and resigns in his favour, four are found in the Jawámi‘ under different chapters in a very abridged form. The plot of these stories is almost the same, and some of the minor details also correspond in both cases; but the mould, resetting, language and style are al-‘Awfí’s own. The elaborate thread of these stories, connected with the personality of Bakhtiyár, and the rambling details which run to an enormous length in the original are all suppressed; and the stories in the Jawámi‘ stand as detached units representing single topics, befitting peculiarly the chapter-headings of the Jawámi‘, which are almost identical with the original scheme of the dástáns. Thus in pt. II, ch. xiii, “On the Excellence of Patience” the dástán of Abú Ṣábir (ch. iv); in pt. III, ch. iii, “On the Contemptibility of Rancour and Envy”, the dástán of Abú Tammám (ch. ix); and in pt. III, ch. xx, “On the Contemptibility of Hastiness and the Advantages of Slowness”, the two dástáns of the jewel-merchant and his calamitous haste (ch. viii) and of the hasty prince of Ḥalab (ch. iii) are suitably incorporated. The following are the parallel references to the Paris litho. 1839 A. D.:
| (1) | The calamities which befell Abú Ṣábir, his exemplary patience, his installation as the ruler of his native place, and his vengeance, (D. f143b. II. xiii. 1400) cf. pp. 45, 47-55. |
| (2) | The conspiracy of the four old wazírs of the ruler of Álán (?) against the king’s new favourite Abú Tammám, and the destruction of the latter, which ultimately recoiled on the wazírs, (D. f198a. III. ii. 1558) cf. pp. 107, 110-117. |
| (3) | The life-story of Rúzbih and Bihrúz, the two sons of the hasty jewel-merchant, (D. f264a. III. xx. 1730) cf. pp. 93-107. |
| (4) | The calamitous haste of the prince of Ḥalab in his marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt, (D. f265b. III. xx. 1731) cf. pp. 33-45. |
Although Relation of the Jawámi‘ to the Siyásat-náma. this work of the Niẓámu’l-Mulk) is not mentioned in the Jawámi‘ by this or by its other title of Siyaru’l-Mulúk), yet the anecdotes in it offer a unique parallel to those in the various chapters of the Jawámi‘ dealing with justice, administration, punitive system, political art and good and bad traits of the various rulers; thus nearly three-fourths of the historical or quasi-historical illustrations in the Siyásat-náma are found in one form or another in the Jawámi‘. It appears that al-‘Awfí, perceiving the design and character of the work, incorporated it and adapted the anecdotes as best suited his own purpose of illustrating his chapter-headings, regardless of the order, style, language and aim of the author of the original. There being no attempt at a systematic exposition of politics or events, and since neither the particular suggestions relating to the peculiar circumstances of the times nor the general observations of the author in each section could be easily moulded into a story-form, al-‘Awfí restricted his attention to the anecdotes alone, which the author of the original collected indiscriminately) and probably later the editor either arranged or supplemented from works of the nature of “Counsels to the kings”), referred to above in Notice No. (2)b, which were the traditional stock) for such compilations in those days. Such allied sources being known to al-‘Awfí and utilised invariably by him, we find therefore, even in some of the anecdotes enumerated below, an independent version, and in others a modified reproduction; thus similarity and variation of the versions of these common anecdotes are a double test for both the accuracy and sources of the Siyasát-náma and the Jawámi‘.
This Importance of the Siyásat-náma. work, usually known as a treatise on the “Art of Government” as its title) also indicates, is not so much a handbook of politics as a memorandum) submitted to a prince and advice given for a proper exercise of royal powers and efficient execution of the functions of other officials of a state, in which the ruler Maliksháh Saljúqí (reigned 465-85 A. H. = 1072-92 A. D.) and the highest responsible official, the great Wazír Abú ‘Alí Ḥasan b. ‘Alí the Niẓámu’l-Mulk of Ṭús (b. 408 A. H. = 1018 A. D. killed 485 A. H. = 1092 A. D.) felt the necessity of reforming the abuses and disorders that had crept into the government, and the corruption which threatened to ruin every other department of public administration. The importance of such a work can be fully realised when we consider the explicit occasion of the original draft), the headings of the sections), the general plan of the work, the accredited acceptance of it by Maliksháh, the zeal and earnestness with which the author exposes the existing evils and suggests remedies, his painful pre-occupation with the growth of the heretical sects as an imminent danger to Islám and the state), his personal observations and illustrations, though somewhat distorted, and the exposition of the whole scheme as by an author of the opposite party. But we cannot ignore other circumstantial facts and internal evidence when we seek to investigate the actual portion written by the Niẓámu’l-Mulk and estimate the present Siyásat-náma, usually regarded as the finished product of the great Wazír’s pen.
Apart Some considerations about its present version. from the strange absence of any contemporary or later authentic notice of this work in histories like the Ráḥatu’ṣ-Ṣudúr of ar-Ráwandí, the Zubdatu’n-Nuṣra wa Nukhbatu’l-‘Uṣra (compiled in 579 A. H. = 1183 A. D.) of ‘Imádu’d-Dín al-Kátib al-Iṣfahání, the Kámil of Ibnu’l-Athir and the Tajáribu’s-Salaf of Hindúsháh al-Kírání, the data, however incorrect, given by H. Khalfa) appear to have a direct bearing on the earliest possible period of its composition) (469 A. H.), on the number of section (30) contained in the original draft, and on its recasting by a later and hitherto unidentified author al-Yamaní. Further, the statement about the addition) of 11 sections to the already existing 39, the final revision by the author and the handing over of the autograph for a fair copy on the eve of his fateful journey to Baghdád (485 A. H. = 1092 A. D.), the scanty time at the disposal of the author (484-5 A. H.) in which the work is said to have been composed, the delay of about 13 years caused by the unsettled affairs after the death of the Wazír and the King, in the final publication and dedication to Maliksháh II’s son Ghiyáthu’d-Dín Muḥammad in 498 A. H. = 1105 A. D., who had just ascended the Saljúq throne, and the fact that our information) about its composition and transcription is entirely based on and connected with the old and obscure poet and transcriber of the Royal-Library of the Saljúqs, Muḥammad Maghribí)— all this has to be considered along with the evidence in the work itself. The similarity between the editor’s supplementary note to the list of the section-headings (p. 5) and the concluding remarks of the author (p. 210), the confusion in the arrangement of sections and subject-matter in the latter part) of the book, the occasionally faulty style, the rather betraying insertions of the editor), the doubtful character) and sources) of the anecdotes, and the author’s downright denunciations of the Báṭinís and other heretical sects set us thinking whether we should rely on all the information contained in the Siyásat-náma. Muḥammad Maghribí has a larger share than is generally supposed in augmenting the bulk of the book, especially in the anecdotal illustrations, and the present arrangement of the work is probably his rather than the Wazír’s.
A Comparison of common anecdotes. comparative analysis of the common anecdotes, some of which are borrowed from this and other allied sources yields the following results):
| (1) | The story of the scrupulous care of the deaf king of Chín in ordering that red clothes should be worn by the plaintiffs only, as told by a holy person before the Caliph al-Manṣúr, (A. f124b. I. vi. 392). Cf. N. S. N. p. 10, where the anecdote is given in quite a different setting and version. |
| (2) | ‘Amr b. Layth the Ṣaffárid tempts Ismá‘íl b. Aḥmad the Sámánid with the bequeathed treasures of his brother Ya‘qúb before being sent as a prisoner to the Caliph al-Mu‘tamid; but Ismá‘íl refuses them on the ground that they were obtained by extortion, and that if he accepts them, the onus of responsibility will fall on him on the Day of Reckoning, (A. f123a. I. vi. 383)) (D. f153b. II. xvi. 1434). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 16-17. |
| (3) | Ismá‘íl b. Aḥmad the Sámánid’s scruples about justice and his habit of staying out in severe winter and snow, alone on horseback, in order to be easily accessible to the poor and the oppressed. In one such outing, he finds one of his camels grazing in the field of a peasant, upon which he readily pays damages to him for this trespass, (A. f135a. I. vii. 442). Cf. N. S. N. p. 17, where the former part of the anecdote corresponds, but the latter part which is the actual point of illustration is omitted; from this it appears that either the story was left incomplete in N. S. N. or al-‘Awfí borrowed it from another independent source. |
| (4) | The year of severe drought and famine in Iṣṭakhr, and the Kisrá Bahrám’s magnanimity and relief to the distressed, whereby peace and plenty are restored to the kingdom, (A. f130b. I. vii. 420). Cf. N. S. N. p. 18, where the story is told in brief and the ruler is mentioned as Qubád, and the period of famine as seven years; here again the sources appear identical, but the versions differ. |
| (5) | The misrule of Rást-rawish, the dishonest Wazír of Bahrám Gúr, and the painful awakening of the king from his gaiety at the attack of the Khán of Turkistán, and the lesson drawn by him from the act of the shepherd who hanged his dog for having betrayed his master, (A. f119a. I. vi. 364); (D. f251a. III. xvi. 1704), cf. N. S. N. pp. 19-22. This anecdote is told twice in the Jawámi‘; on one occasion it is ascribed to Bahrám Gúr as in N. S. N. and here, while in the second version, which makes no reference to the former statement, Rást-rawish is made the Wazír of Gushtásp. In N. S. N. this story is told in a very elaborate form along with other stories of the machinations of Rást-rawish. |
| (6) | An old woman’s complaint to Núshírwán against the tyrannical acquisition of her land by the governor of Ádharbáyján for erecting his own palace and Núshírwán’s exemplary punishment, (A. f119b. I. vi. 365). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 28-35, where the story covers nearly 13 pages and is full of rambling details; probably al-‘Awfí has abridged it from N. S. N. as a few expressions are similar. |
| (7) | Núshírwán’s redress-bell and the justified complaint of the old ass, (A. f124a. I. vi. 390). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 35-7, where this device for public redress was adopted after the offence of the governor of Ádharbáyján; whereas in the Jawámi‘ it is adopted in consequence of Núshírwán’s consultation with his Wazír about the shortness of the life of a hawk owing to its cruelty and the best method of prolonging life by enabling the victims of oppression to obtain justice quickly and easily. |
| (8) | The time-honoured Persian custom of open-court on Nawrúz and Mihrgán adopted by ‘Abdu’llah b. Ṭáhir Dhu’l-Yamínayn, (A. f129a. I. vii. 412). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 39-40, where the origin of this institution is traced. A similar account is given in the Naṣíḥatu’l-Mulúk of al-Ghazálí (T. S. N. p. 59). |
| (9) | ‘Umára b. Ḥamza (d. 199 A. H. = 814/5 A. D.) prefers to renounce his ownership of an estate claimed by his opponent rather than give up the exalted position in which he had been installed by the Caliph al-Manṣúr, (D. f118b. II. v. 1295). Cf. N. S. N. p. 40, where the story is placed in the court of the Caliph al-Wáthiq, which as pointed out by Schefer is wrong (T. S. N. p. 60). This anecdote is also found in the Naṣiḥatu’l-Mulúk and corresponds very closely with the version given in the Jawámi‘, where another instance of the high-mindedness of ‘Umára is also added to the above one. |
| (10) | The story of the pious tailor, the significance of his prayer-call at an unusual hour and the ready submission of one of the tyrannical generals of the Caliph al-Mu‘tadhid’s Turkish guards to the demand of his creditor, a helpless merchant of Baghdád, at the immediate call of the tailor, (A. f126a. I. vi. 399). Cf. T. F. S. pt. II, pp. 17-9; N. S. N. pp. 45-54. This anecdote is undoubtedly borrowed by al-‘Awfí from the Faraj as the version and literal Persian rendering of the story indicate; but it is also found in N. S. N. where it is set in the Caliphate of al-Mu‘taṣim, and is treated at greater length and differs from the version of al-Faraj. |
| (11) | The Sultan Maḥmúd gives strict orders to his son Mas‘úd to arrest and exterminate the band of robbers belonging to the Kúch and Balúch), in the forest of Khabíṣ) in Kirmán, which Mas‘úd does by a surprise attack. (A. f186a. I. xiii. 732). The Sultan Mas‘úd kills a band of robbers in Kirmán by means of poisoned apples. (A. f186b. I. xiii. 733), cf. N. S. N. pp. 58-65; H. T. G. p. 399. These two stories are given in the Siyásat-náma in a connected form with other details about Maḥmúd’s request to Abú ‘Alí b. Ilyás, and the success of his own efforts, assisted by his son’s skill, in overcoming this band of robbers. The details are different and probably the sources also. |
| (12) | Parwíz’s rebuke to Bahrám Chúbín for punishing a servant and his ironical suggestion to sheathe two swords in one case, (D. f7b. IV. ii. 1801). Cf. N. S. N. p. 67, where Parwíz is made the king of Rúm and Bahrám Chúbín his Wazír and a beloved friend, which, as pointed out by Schefer (T. S. N. p. 101) and Nöldeke (ZDMG. loc. cit. p. 766), is unhistorical. The details about the present of 300 red-haired camels to Bahrám Chúbín and the picking up of 2 swords out of 150 are entirely missing in the Jawámi‘, and Bahrám Chúbín is simply mentioned as one of the best warrior-athletes of Parwíz. |
| (13) | How ‘Adhudu’d-Dawla the Daylamite, at the report of the dishonesty of the chief Qádhí, devised means to detect it, entrapped and disgraced the Qádhí, and made him disgorge to a belated claimant the two jugs of gold deposited in his charge, (A. f122b. I. vi. 382). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 69-77, where the story is told at much greater length and details about the youth’s adventures and the coaxing of the Qádhí are amplified. The story in its outline is the same in both, but al-‘Awfí’s source is different as his version appears to be an independent and abridged translation from some other earlier work. |
| (14) | A similar complaint before the Caliph al-Mu‘tadhid about the dishonesty of a Qádhí who tampered with a purse of 1000 dínárs deposited by a pilgrim, and how the Caliph tore his own turban and detected the secret of the Qádhí through an expert mender of clothes in the town, (A. f122a. I. vi. 381). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 77-80, where the ruler is mentioned as the Sultan Maḥmúd and a few details are changed. Again, like the previous anecdote, this one is also drawn by both from similar sources independently and the stories are coloured according to individual tastes. The source being unknown, it cannot be said which version is more reliable. |
| (15) | A Háshimí excuses his son on account of his witty reply when questioned about his rowdiness while intoxicated, (A. f207b. I. xvi. 901). Cf. N. S. N. p. 118; the story is short in both and agrees very closely. |
| (16) | How Bárbad the musician saved the life of a condemned criminal by a witty
reply to the king Parwíz, (A. f203b. I. xvi. 855). Cf. N. S. N. p. 118; where the
story is related on the authority of [Ibn] Khurdádbih, and Bázíd ( |
| (17) | Núshírwán, pleased at the witty replies of an old man who was planting a nutmeg tree, rewards him amply, (D. f200a. III. iii. 1561). Cf. N. S. N. p. 118-9, where the story is similar though a few details differ; both appear to have been drawn from identical sources. Another version probably adopted from the above is related in the Jawámi‘ in connection with the Caliph Hárún and his rewards for the witty replies of an old man who described his age as four years only, and the reason for planting a nutmeg tree at such an advanced age. (A. f206b. I. xvi. 887). |
| (18) | ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán Khál a courtier of the Sultan Maḥmúd falsely accuses a sage of Herát of idolatry and drinking; the Sultan, after due deliberation, without having summoned the sage, interrogates ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán on oath, upon which he confesses his malicious motive of acquiring the palace of the sage, and thereby the Sultan is saved from punishing an innocent and holy person, (D. f268a. III. xx. 1735). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 120-1, where from an allusion to ‘Bikrek’ and the Sultan Shahíd, Schefer has identified the king as Alp Arslán, but ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán Khál as the maternal uncle of Alp Arslán is not yet known (cf. T. S. N. p. 177 n.) except through the Siyásat-náma, whereas in the Jawámi‘ he is expressly mentioned as a courtier of the Sultan Maḥmúd. Most probably the version of the Siyásat-náma is correct and al-‘Awfí, although he borrowed the anecdote from here, did not examine closely the accuracy of his statement. |
| (19) | An account of the doings of the two public prosecutors appointed by the Caliph al-Ma’mún who presented a striking contrast in their character, temper and reputation, (D. f240a. III. xiii. 1682). (See above p. 48, The Ta’ríkh-i-Ál-i-‘Abbás is mentioned as the source). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 122-5; no source is mentioned and the story is evidently taken from the above, as a reference to it occurs in N. S. N. p. 204. This is again an instance of a common source being utilised by both independently, as the rendering into Persian and arrangement under different headings from different points of view clearly indicate. |
| (20) | Zayd b. Aslam’s account of a night patrol of the Caliph ‘Umar, during which they heard the plaintive cry of a widow against the Caliph, as she was beguiling her sons to sleep by the pretence of cooking food for them, and the Caliph’s speedy succour and humble supplication to her, (D. f156a II. xvi. 1440). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 128-9. The story agrees in both very closely, and there is another similar story in the Jawámi‘ reported by Suwayd b. ‘Alqama in a different manner, (A. f123a. I. vi. 386). |
| (21) | How a cruel governor of the time of the Sultan Maḥmúd attained his redemption in the next world by a single act of kindness he had shown to a dog suffering from scab, (D. f124b. II. vii. 1320). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 129-30, where the governor’s name is mentioned as Rashíd the Ḥájjí. There is no verbal resemblance between the texts of this story, whereas in the Jawámi‘ it is given in a fuller form with minor details not found in the Siyásat-náma and is, probably, drawn from identical sources. |
| (22) | The Sultan Maḥmúd, jealous of the numerous titles bestowed by the Caliph (al-Qádir
bi’llah) on the Khán of Samarqand, contrives illegitimate means, procures a
few of the mandates of the Caliph from the court of Samarqand and sends to the
Caliph pointing out the Khán’s insult in order to excite his wrath and extort titles
for himself, (A. f218b. I. xviii. 998). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 131-6, where this anecdote
is told at a much greater length and with minute details, not found in the Jawámi‘,
about the secret mission of the wily women who obtained the mandate from the
court of Samarqand, and in the end how the Caliph, in spite of his resentment,
had to award Maḥmúd the title of Amínu’l-Milla in addition to the already
bestowed Yamínu’d-Dawla; but there are many similar expressions from which
we can infer that al-‘Awfí borrowed it from N. S. N.. There are two other
anecdotes in the Jawámi‘ (A. f218b. I. xviii. 996-7) previous to this, in which
persistent efforts of Maḥmúd to extort titles from the Caliph are mentioned. One
of them relates the threat to the Caliph and the counter-stroke of the Caliph by
the letter of |
| (23) | Alp Arslán the Saljúq ruler’s prudence in suppressing the Báṭinís illustrated by his rebuke to Árdim on appointing the Dih Khudáy of Ábá, the Báṭiní, as his personal secretary, (D. f151b. II. xv. 1427) cf. N. S. N. pp. 139-41. This anecdote and the previous one (No. 18) about ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán Khál, which throw light on the policy and deliberate action of Alp Arslán, are typical of the Síyásat-náma. Besides others which are common to the Jawámi‘ and Siyásat-náma, these two instances afford us concrete data for the direct indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to the work of Niẓámu’l-Mulk. In N. S. N. the name of the Dih Khudáy is mentioned as Yaḥyá, and full details about Alp Arslán’s precautions and the Niẓámu’l-Mulk’s fears of the growing danger to the state, and Árdim’s experiment with pieces of cord one by one till at last a number of cords when spun into a rope could not be broken by him, are given; but apart from slight variation and abridgement the wording of the story in the Jawámi‘ is almost identical. |
| (24) | The story of the first appearance of Barmak of Balkh at the court of ‘Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwán, and how he was disgraced for carrying on him poison which affected the wondrous poison-detecting armlet of the Caliph; and a similar story related in this connection by Barmak about the wondrous silver fish of the ruler of Gurgán that possessed the peculiar property of attracting a ruby which was thrown into the sea, whereupon the Caliph acquired the fish from the ruler of Gurgán and took Barmak into his favour; but after ‘Abdu’l-Malik’s death, his son Hishám conferred some estates on Barmak, for which reason he settled in ‘Iráq and Shám, (D. f79a. IV. xx. 2003). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 151-5, also Q. A. M. pp. 218-9. In the Siyásat-náma, as Schefer (T. N. S. p. 224) and Nöldeke (ZDMG. loc. cit. p. 766) have pointed out, the author curiously enough makes “Ja‘far b Barmak” (assassinated 187 A. H. = 803 A. D.) a contemporary of the Caliph Sulaymán b. ‘Abdu’l-Malik (reigned 96-9 A. H. = 715-7 A. D.); the same anachronism is committed by Zakariyyá Qazwíní, who without verifying it has entirely reproduced the same story; but al-‘Awfí, whatever the real circumstances of the first appearance of Barmak may be, has set the story in the court of the Caliph ‘Abdu’l-Malik b. Marwán (reigned 65-86 A. H. = 685-705 A. D.) and has drawn this story from some other earlier source, which in its wording and contents differs materially from that given by the Niẓámu’l-Mulk. |
| (25) | The unlawful passion of Súdába for her step-son Siyáwush, her failure and revenge and Kay-Ká’ús’s wrath against her, (A. f55b. I. iv. 138), cf. N. S. N. pp. 157-8. This story is told at length in the Jawámi‘ and is borrowed from the Ghurar pp. 168-212; whereas in N. S. N. it is very short and differs in its form considerably. This is an instance of an account which is entirely independent of N. S. N. |
| (26) | An Israelite sage wastes the three chances of effective prayer given to him by the Lord by consulting and carrying out the wishes of his foolish wife, (D. f283b. III. xxiv. 1780). Cf. N. S. N. pp. 160-2, where the story is told in connection with the wives of the Prophet, ‘Á’isha and Ḥafṣa, and is designated the story of Yúsuf and Kirsif. In the Jawámi‘ it is told in a similar chapter, but in connection with the Qur’ánic verse (vii, 174). |
| (27) | A detailed account of Mazdak: his early appearance in the reign of Qubád, his contrivance to make the fire speak and Qubád’s acceptance and public proclamation of his communistic doctrines, Núshírwán’s protest and consultation with the Múbad of Fárs to dissuade his father, the encounter of the Múbad of Fárs with Mazdak, the exposure of the latter’s secret and dark designs against Qubád, Qubád and Núshírwán’s effort to overcome Mazdak, the grand feast and the skilful extermination of the Mazdakites, and the accession of Núshírwán to the throne, (D. f220b. III. viii. 1623), cf. N. S. N. pp. 166-81. The whole account agrees entirely and even the expressions are similar; but al-‘Awfí does not call Mazdak as in N. S. N. the first heresiarch in the world, and has recounted in this chapter, previous to this account, the anecdotes of Zoroaster and Manes, the latter being entirely based on the Átháru’l-Báqiya (pp. 207-9), whereas in N. S. N. (pp. 166, 204) a Ta’ríkh-i-Iṣfahán) is referred to for further details. The account of Mazdak being marred by a big lacuna in the text of the Áthár, we cannot actually determine the source of the anecdote in the Jawámi‘; but the later accounts of Máh-áfaríd and al-Muqanna‘ are similar to those given in the Áthár). The accounts of al-Muqanna‘ and Bábak al-Khurramí given in N. S. N. differ entirely from the versions in the Jawámi‘; the latter are more reliable than those in N. S. N. |
This The Shabáb wa’sh-Shayb as a direct source of the Jawámi‘. work of Abú ‘Abdi’llah Muḥammad b. ‘Imrán b. Músá b. Sa‘íd b. ‘Abdi’llah, one of the great Mu‘tazilite writers, generally known by his patronymic and nisba as al-Marzubání, who lived between 296 or 297-378 or 384 A. H. = 908/9 or 910-988/9 or 994 A. D., like most of his other writings, which are now lost and very little known beyond scrappy accounts in various biographical and bibliographical works), forms one of the direct sources of al-‘Awfí, as he emphasises its importance and directs the attention of his patron-wazír towards his own special endeavour and erudition in utilising such works in his compilation). Fortunately, a small portion of this work is preserved for us in the Jawámi‘, in the chapter “On the Account of Longevity in Animals”: (D. ff61b-64b. IV. xv. 1947-61), from which we can partly judge the nature of its contents.
A A short account of its author, al-Marzubání. contemporary and reliable account of al-Marzubání is given by Ibnu’n-Nadím who survived him and speaks of him as the last of the proficient and veritable authors amongst the “Akhbáriyyún” whom he had seen, and enumerates about fifty of his works on different subjects, among which the Shabáb wa’sh-Shayb is said to contain nearly 300 folios. Then as-Sam‘ání, giving an account of his accomplishments in literature and Tradition, with a list of those from whom he acquired the latter, recounts the extreme regard of ‘Adhudu’d-Dawla for him, and the immense provision which al-Marzubání had at his house for learned men who used to lodge with him, and his habit of drinking date-wine and writing enormously, and lastly remarks about the Mu‘tazilite tendencies in his works. Then Ibn Khallikán adds that he was the first to collect the Díwán of the Caliph Yazíd b. Mu‘áwiya, a fact which, in spite of his strong Shí‘a tendencies, indirectly reveals his extreme sense of appreciation for exquisite Arabian poetry.
As Its identification and relation to other similar works. regards the identification and the full contents of this work our information is very scanty. Prof. Brockelmann has altogether omitted the works of al-Marzubání; even Ign. Goldziher, while tracing the influence of Abú Ḥátim Sahl b. Muḥammad as-Sijistání’s (d. 250 A. H. = 864 A. D.) Kitábu’l-Mu‘ammarín), does not say anything about al-Marzubání’s work in this connection, and passes on to other later works, either bearing similar titles or contents. Amongst these he first mentions the work of ‘Alí b. al-Ḥusayn ash-Sharíf al-Murtadhá), the famous Shí‘a divine (d. 436 A. H. = 1044/5 A. D.), entitled ash-Shiháb fi’sh-Shaybi-wa’sh Shabáb) as the first one particularly devoted to the Mu‘ammarún-literature, and conjectures that it probably has an implied reference to the Kitábu’sh-Shaybi-wa’sh Shayb of Abú Bakr ibn Khayr (?); but, apparently, this title originated from al-Marzubání and was adopted by these later writers.
The Its contents, importance, and preserved portion. contents of this work are indicated in a general way by the division in the title itself, that of “Shabáb” and “Shayb”, and by this division it is to be understood that, at any rate, a part of the work was devoted to those who died young; but from the account given by al-‘Awfí and the extracts in the Jawámi‘ and the actual agreement of most of the cited verses with those in the unique and earliest extant Kitábu’l-Mu‘ammarín, it is certain that this work lies directly in the line of literary semi-historico-biographical works called the “Mu‘ammarún” or the accounts of the long-lived, and it is most probable that it is directly influenced by as-Sijistání’s work. Its value lies mostly in the pedigrees, in the oldest citations from the pre-Islamic poets regarding the events of their own lives, and in the revelation of some of the Jáhiliyya traditions, notwithstanding the incredible number of years these people are said to have lived. Along with others, these fourteen sketches, some of which are devoid of all biographic information except the name and the age, are analysed in the Table of Contents (Pt. IV, ch. xx) and parallel references are given to the biographies in the Kitábu’l-Mu‘ammarín, which affords an excellent opportunity of emending the corrupt text of these anecdotes even in the oldest Mss. of the Jawámi‘.
This Difficulties in the identification of this source. is one of those sources of the Jawámi‘ that cannot be identified properly for the following reasons: firstly, its title) is uncertain owing to different readings in the Mss.; secondly, the name of the author is not mentioned; thirdly, it is variously designated by later authorities); fourthly, several other works) of similar titles and contents were written by different authors between the 4th and 6th century A. H.; fifthly, there is only one anecdote which is borrowed from it with acknowledgment; and lastly, the verification of the facts mentioned in it is extremely difficult owing to the obscurity and doubtful reading of the name of the person, Zayd b. Sa‘na), with whose conversion the anecdote is connected, even though according to Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalání it was related by many important traditionists. This anecdote is arranged in the chapter on ‘Ḥilm’ in illustration of the extraordinary self-control and clemency of the Prophet towards a Jew, named Zayd [b.] Shu‘ba) or Shí‘a or Sa‘ba or Sa‘na, a friend of ‘Abdu’llah b. Salám, who, after having read and verified the various attributes of the Prophet in the Tawrát, wanted to test the description “that his clemency will outstrip his anger and that the rudeness of the ignorant will only increase his clemency”), and with this motive he offered a loan and demanded payment from him before it was due, using strong provocation and casting a slur upon his reputation on the occasion of a public funeral; upon which ‘Umar enraged at his insolence wanted to finish him off there and then, but the Prophet forbade him and asked him to pay twenty measures extra as penance for his threat; and thereby the Jew, convinced of the Prophet’s meekness, repented and accepted Islám, (D. f105b. II. iv. 1231). The anecdote is related by ‘Abdu’llah) b. Salám b. al-Ḥárith, also a convert from the Banú Qaynuqá‘, the account of whose conversion together with similar stories is given in almost every work of Tradition; but this Zayd’s conversion) is not traceable to Ibn Hishám, al-Wáqidí, Ibn Sa‘d, al-Bukhárí or aṭ-Ṭabarí.
As Probable authorship. regards the authorship of this work, most of the authorities enumerated above agree that the Kitábu-Sharafu’n-Nabí) or Nubuwwa was written by the famous preacher Abú Sa‘d ‘Abdu’l-Malik b. Abí ‘Uthmán Muḥammad b. Ibráhím al-Khargúshí) an-Níshápúrí (d. 407 A. H. = 1016 A. D.). His work is extant both in the Arabic original and in a Persian translation, and Ahlwardt) and Rieu) have given full accounts of it; but unfortunately from the accessible Br. Mus. Ms. [Or. 3014] nearly half of the chapters are missing, and similarly the Persian Translation) [Ancien Fonds Persan 82 Bib. Nat.] by Najmu’d-Dín [correctly Zaynu’d-Dín)] Maḥmúd [b. Muḥammad] b. ‘Alí ar-Ráwandí, the maternal uncle of the author of the Ráḥatu’ṣ-Ṣudúr, contains only 61 chapters out of the original 90; so that this anecdote is found in neither of these two Mss.
But Anecdote traceable to the Dalá’ilu’n-Nubuwwa of Abú Nu‘aym al-Iṣbahání. in the Kitáb Dalá’ilu’n-Nubuwwa) [Or. 3012 Br. Mus.] of the Ḥáfiẓ Abú Nu‘aym Aḥmad b. ‘Abdu’llah b. Aḥmad b. Isḥáq al-Iṣbahání (b. 336 A. H. = 948 A. D. d. 430 A. H. = 1038 A. D.), the famous author of the Ḥilyatu’l-Awliyá’), this anecdote occurs under the heading of the Account of the Prophet in the Older Books, on ff45b-46b, with little variations from the version given in the Jawámi‘. The name of the Jew occurs nearly seven times as Zayd b. Sa‘na, and at the end it is added that Zayd witnessed many battles with the Prophet and died fighting in the Battle of Tabúk) (in 9 A. H.); for this reason this Zayd cannot be identified with Zayd b. al-Luṣayt) or al-Luṣayb of the Banú Qaynuqá‘, who according to Ibn Hishám) and others was one of the calumniators of the Prophet and died a Munáfiq; and further Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalání) distinctly calls him Zayd b. Sa‘natu’l-Khayr al-Isrá’ílí.
This An account of the author of this work. is one of those works utilised by al-‘Awfí in the Jawámi‘ on subjects connected with natural history and is now apparently lost. Very little is known about its real contents or its author, Sharafu’z-Zamán Ṭáhir al-Marwazí, beyond a few incidental references and dates, placing him in Marw and connecting him with the Sultan Maliksháh Saljúqí who reigned between 465-85 A. H. = 1072-92 A. D.. His long connection with Marw, most probably his native town, as his nisba also indicates, is apparent from the fact that four out of seven citations are local incidents, in two of which dates are also mentioned; once in 448 A. H. = 1056/7 A. D. he witnessed a feat of a Bedouin and in 478 A. H. = 1085/6 A. D. he treated, also in Marw, an elephant of Maliksháh. And again his attachment to the court of Maliksháh, probably as a physician, can also be inferred from the request and reward of the Sultan to him for having explained the cause of sexlessness and abnormalities in both sexes.
The Borrowed anecdotes. following are the anecdotes in which either a reference to the author occurs or the Ṭabá’i‘u’l-Ḥayawán of Sharafu’z-Zamán Ṭáhir al-Marwazí is mentioned as the source.
| (1) | Abnormal features in a girl and duality of sex, as related by the author in his book, (D. f59b. IV. xiv. 1936). |
| (2) | A deformed but skilful woman seen by the author in Marw, (D. f60a. IV. xiv. 1939). |
| (3) | The author’s explanation of sexlessness at the request of Maliksháh, (D. f61a. IV. xiv. 1944). |
| (4) | A Bedouin seen in Marw by the author in 448 A. H. who overtook horsemen by his characteristic swift-footedness and recovered his clothes with which they wanted to run away, (D. f69a. IV. xvii. 1969). |
| (5) | The great age of an elephant and some observations, (D. f80b. IV. xxi. 2009). |
| (6) | The story of a spiteful elephant that killed the son of a certain Muḥammad Fílawí in Marw during the reign of Maliksháh I, (D. f81b. IV. xxi. 2010). |
| (7) | How the author temporarily stopped the bleeding of a wound in the breast of an elephant of Maliksháh I in Marw in 478 A. H., (D. f81b. IV. xxi. 2012). |
This Correct authorship of the Ghurar. lately discovered work of Abú Manṣúr ‘Abdu’l-Malik b. Muḥammad b. Ismá‘íl ath-Tha‘álibí) (b. 350 d. 429 A. H. = 961-1038 A. D.), fully designated as the Ghuraru Akhbári-Mulúki’l-Fursi wa Siyari-him, forms one of the acknowledged) sources of the Jawámi‘ for the chapter “On the Ancient Kings of Persia” (Pt. I, ch. iv. Anecs. 119-193). Before 1900 A. D. it was believed that this work was written by another ath-Tha‘álibí named Abú Manṣúr al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Mar‘aní or Mar‘ashí. Probably this mistake arose from the title-page of the Constantinople Ms., and was perpetuated by H. Khalfa) who ascribes it to the aforesaid Mar‘ashí and quotes the beginning line. Prior to him, even Ibn Khallikán was not aware of the existence of this work as that of the famous philologist ath-Tha‘álibí, since he has omitted it from the list of his works and has praised his more famous anthology the Yatímatu’d-Dahr only. It escaped the notice of Prof. Th. Nöldeke in his masterly works ‘Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden’ and ‘Das iranische Nationalepos’. It was Hermann Zotenberg) who, for the first time, after examining the available material, established conclusively the claim of the great philologist as a historian also.
Unfortunately, An account of the work based on Zotenberg’s Préface. only a quarter of the great history of ath-Tha‘álibí has come down to us, and much more interesting and contemporary material is lost, as we can judge from the original Preface of ath-Tha‘álibí (pp. xlvii-l), setting forth the grand scheme of the work. It was written, as shown by Zotenberg in his excellent Préface, probably between 408 and 412 A H. = 1017-21 A. D. and is dedicated to the Prince Abu’l-Muẓaffar Naṣr b. Náṣiru’d-Dín Abú Manṣúr [Sabuktigín], the brother of the great Sultan Maḥmúd of Ghazna. The importance of this source of information about the ancient kings of Persia and their early legends is well established when we consider the period of the composition of the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí, as both these works were written under the patronage of the Ghaznawids, and from almost the same available sources, and even under identical circumstances, — the difference being, that one is the highest expression of the epic in Persian, while the other is a systematic history in classical Arabic prose. All the resemblances to and divergences from the versions adopted by aṭ-Ṭabarí and put into verse by Firdawsí are analysed by Zotenberg in his Préface (pp. xxv-xli) which extends our knowledge about the sources of the Sháhnáma beyond the researches of Prof. Th. Nöldeke.
As al-‘Awfí’s adaptation of the Ghurar. regards the method of utilisation adopted by al-‘Awfí, it can be asserted on the basis of a textual comparison) that either al-‘Awfí has himself abridged the Ghurar in order to provide material for his anecdotes or has used its Persian Translation called the Ra’y-Áráy, discussed above in Notice No. (22). Although he has omitted in this chapter the parallel accounts, detached pieces and episodes given by ath-Tha‘álibí regarding the king-prophets like Yúsuf, Dá’úd and Sulaymán and others, the accounts of the Pharaohs, the rulers of Yaman and Syria, and the wise and pithy sayings of the Persian kings attached to almost every biographical account, and the different versions cited by ath-Tha‘álibí, yet the order, the division of the longer accounts, the main course of the narrative, the exact literal rendering of certain expressions throughout the anecdotes, and the consistent fidelity with which he reproduces the original version of these traditions in a very abridged form, definitely indicate that al-‘Awfí has entirely based this chapter on the Ghurar, though occasionally he has referred to either aṭ-Ṭabarí or Firdawsí or some other source. The following analysis will perhaps illustrate his method precisely: In the very first account of Kayúmarth, ath-Tha‘álibí (Gh. pp. 1-4) quotes aṭ-Ṭabarí and gives various opinions as to whether Adam and Kayúmarth were the same person, and an episode as to who were the kings amongst the prophets; al-‘Awfí omits all these details and gives in brief the story of Kayúmarth (A. f47a. I. iv. 119); and then in the account of Húshang (A. f47a. I. iv. 120) he omits the Arabic verses of Manṣúr al-Faqíh cited by ath-Tha‘álibí and introduces a Persian couplet, the origin of which is uncertain; and further on in the account of Farídún (A. f49a. I. iv. 129) he omits the wise sayings recorded by ath-Tha‘álibí; al-‘Awfí usually compresses lengthy accounts, e. g. the legend of Rustam and Isfandiyár, which covers in the Ghurar about 40 pages (338-78), is abridged in the Jawámi‘ to two folios (A. ff62a-64a. I. iv. 145); and very rarely he brings in a different version of the story, e. g. the account of Manes (A. f70a. I. iv. 163), or enlarges an anecdote, e. g. Fírúz b. Yazdijird’s struggle against Khushunwár (Gh. pp. 579-83), cf. (A. f73b. I. iv. 178). At the end of this chapter there are two anecdotes— one is a sketchy account of the kings of Rúm or Byzantium (A. f81b. I. iv. 194), and the other about Heraclius’ persistence in opening the locked chamber (A. f81b. I. iv. 195)— which are not traceable in the Ghurar, and are probably drawn from the lost portion of the book or some other source. Thus, in short, this chapter is an epitomised Persian translation of the Ghurar.
This The career and work of al-Muḥassin at-Tanúkhí. Arabic original of the Qádhí Abú ‘Alí al-Muḥassin) b. Abi’l-Qásim ‘Alí b. Muḥammad b. Abi’l-Fahm Dá’úd b. Ibráhím b. Tamím at-Tanúkhí, who was born in Baṣra in 327 or 329 A. H. = 938 or 940 A. D. and died in Baghdád in 384 A. H. = 994 A. D., is one of the acknowledged) sources of al-‘Awfí, which has somewhat increased the value of the Jawámi‘ in the field of historical anecdotes and considerably in bulk. al-Muḥassin at-Tanúkhí, a Mesopotamian judge, a poet, a Mu‘tazilite traditionist, and an eminent prose-writer, was one of the distinguished members of his family, in which learning was cultivated assiduously, literature flourished, and the greatest historical movements found an echo. Like his father, ‘Alí, he was occasionally employed on political missions, held various offices, chiefly as a Qádhí, had travelled through the lands of the Caliphate, had associated intimately with the most eminent men of his times, and had obtained an exceptional insight into the various aspects of life. As a judge, he was fully aware of the social circumstances in which enmity, jealousy, disgrace, imprisonment and flight took their origin. As a literary man, he had read largely in Tradition, history and other branches of literature both in Arabic and Persian, and had obtained the Ijáza of the Kitábu’l-Aghání of Abu’l-Faraj al-Iṣfahání and possessed a very retentive memory. And as a student of current politics, he had studied history, and in many cases taken part in contemporary events; but he has not given us the result of his experiences in the form of a systematic chronicle. Therefore, his literary achievements entitle him to be ranked only as one of the most talented gatherers of historical anecdotes. His works throw sufficient light upon the internal history of the declining period of the ‘Abbásid Caliphate and afford us, in parts, details which cannot be had anywhere else in such a graphic form; even Miskawayh and Hilál b. Muḥassin aṣ-Ṣábí are indebted to him in certain respects. And, in fact, as Prof. Margoliouth) remarks, the Nishwáru’l-Muhádhara or his “Table-talk, of which only one volume out of eleven has been discovered, is a mine of information about the customs of the time and the conduct of his contemporaries.” And again the Professor adds in his preface to the English translation of his Nishwár: “It was his purpose to record interesting facts which had come to his knowledge by personal experience or by hearsay; in general he avoided matter which had already appeared in books. He admits that there are exceptions to this rule to be found in his work, and indeed several of the stories already published in the Deliverance after Stress) are repeated here”).
The The sources of the Faraj. Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda, a less original work than its successor the Nishwár, which also differs from it essentially in its object), design), sources) and subject-matter, forms one of the most important contributions to the Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda-Literature. It is a collection of anecdotes of sensational character depicting “Relief after Distress”, containing 14 chapters of different headings bearing loosely on the central theme and illustrating thrilling human experiences. It is partly based on the earlier collections of the same title, viz., by Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alí b. Muḥammad al-Madá’iní (d. 225 A. H. = 839/40 A. D.), by Abú Bakr ‘Abdu’llah b. Muḥammad Ibn Abi’d-Dunyá (d. 281 A. H. = 894/5 A. D.) and by the Qádhí Abu’l-Ḥusayn ‘Umar b. Abí ‘Amr Muḥammad b. Yúsuf (d. 328 A. H. = 939/40 A. D.). It is partly borrowed from several Histories of the Wazírs, like the Kitábu’l-Wuzará’ of Abú ‘Abdi’llah Muḥammad b. ‘Abdús al-Jahshiyárí) (d. 331 A. H. = 942/3 A. D.) that of Abú Bakr Muḥammad b. Yaḥyá aṣ-Ṣúlí) (d. 335 A. H. = 946/7 A. D.) and that of Abú ‘Abdi’llah Muḥammad b. Dá’úd b. al-Jarráḥ) (executed 296 A.H. = 908/9 A.D.), the Wazír of the Caliph ‘Abdullah Ibnu’l-Mu‘tazz, and the Manáqibu’l-Wuzará’ of Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alí b. al-Fatḥ al-Muṭawwaq al-Kátib) (who survived the Caliphate of al-Qáhir bi’llah 320-2 A. H. = 932-4 A.D.) and from several other sources) which are recorded in the admirable article of Herr Alfred Wiener in Der Islam. Other accounts in the Faraj are either indirectly taken from the author’s predecessors or directly from his teachers and other eminent contemporaries like the famous historian Abú Bakr aṣ-Ṣúlí from whom he obtained the Ijáza of his Kitábu’l-Wuzará’) and of the Kitábu’l-Awráq) also, Abu’l-‘Abbás Muḥammad) b. Aḥmad b. Ḥammád al-Athram al-Muqrí al-Khayyáṭ al-Baghdádí (d. 336 A. H. = 947/8 A. D.), his father Abu’l-Qásim ‘Alí) b. Muḥammad b. Abil-Fahm Dá’úd at-Tanúkhí (d. 342 A. H. = 953 A. D.), his preceptor Abu’l-Faraj ‘Alí) b. Ḥusayn al-Iṣfahání, the famous author of the Kitábu’l-Agháni’l-Kabír (d. 356 A. H. = 967 A. D.) from whom he obtained the Ijáza of this book), Abu’l-Ḥasan Aḥmad) b. Yúsuf al-Azraq al-Kátib b. Ya‘qúb b. Isḥáq b. al-Buhlúl at-Tanúkhí (alive in 361 A. H. = 971/2 A. D.) and Abu’l-Faraj ‘Abdu’l-Waḥíd) b. Naṣr al-Makhzúmí al-Ḥinṭí known as al-Babbaghá’ (d. 398 A. H. = 1007/8 A. D.).
The The nature of the Faraj. nature and subject-matter of the anecdotes in the Faraj varies according to the sources and authorities referred to in the book. In the earlier part, it is full of quotations from the Qur’án, and other traditional forms of prayers used for “Faraj”, which are mostly borrowed from the earlier Farajs. In the middle, various important details about the declining period of the Caliphate, and about the sudden changes in the office of the Wizárat are reported on the personal authority of the various secretaries who were in direct touch with the political affairs of the time. In handing down these anecdotes al-Muḥassin took every opportunity of gaining his material from every source. Now his authorities are Shi‘a and ‘Alid, now Christian, now an inhabitant of Ahwáz and now a trader from Baghdád; and wherever possible he imparted an extraordinary personal colour to these accounts. At the end of the book, ludicrous and strange incidents are told, which are a curious combination of grim realities and uncanny horrors (such as are found in the Tales of Edgar Allan Poe) with accidental escapes and quasi-miraculous rescues and a juxtaposition of “Whirlpools” and “Safety-zones”, failures and successes and misadventures and bold risks in various perilous undertakings. The scenes of most of these stories are laid in Baghdád, Kúfa, Baṣra, Ahwáz and other social centres. The state of society as revealed in some of these anecdotes is rather perplexing. There existed side by side benevolent despotism and severest tyranny; patronage of talents, whimsical emoluments and shameful bribes and decay of genius, swift dismissals and painful extortions; and the greatest possible fear of and trust in God together with outrageous crimes and villanies.
As Utilisation of the Faraj by al-‘Awfí. regards the utilisation of the Faraj by al-‘Awfí, nearly three-fourths of the work have been freely incorporated in one chapter or another of the Jawámi‘). As remarked previously), al-‘Awfí had prepared a Persian translation of the Faraj, and from that very translation he has actually copied) these anecdotes and arranged them arbitrarily) under different headings), often regardless of the design of at-Tanúkhí. At times anecdotes from one single chapter of the Faraj are scattered over different chapters of the Jawámi‘, and at others, a few chapters are retained in extenso; e. g. the first thirteen chapter-headings in Pt. IV of the Jawámi‘ are directly taken from those of the Faraj, and in some of these, anecdotes after anecdotes follow in the same order. In these borrowed anecdotes, the authorities and verses cited by at-Tanúkhí are often omitted, and a few details are suppressed; but the translation is uniform, accurate and simple.
An An account of the merits and contents of al-‘Awfí’s version. account of the composition and transcription of this work, and its priority to Ḥusayn’s translation has been given in detail in the preceding pages (14-19); here a few points about its merits, contents and relation to the original of at-Tanúkhí will be outlined. It appears, firstly, that al-‘Awfí used a much fuller text of the Faraj than is represented in the Cairo edition, as there are a number of genuine anecdotes in this translation which are missing in the latter; secondly, that he originally intended to divide his own version into two Daftars or parts, and to follow the original order of the chapters and anecdotes as closely as possible. Unfortunately both the extant Mss.) which represent this translation are in a very defective condition, as they are marred by lacunae, transposition of folios, wrong numeration of chapters and disarrangement of anecdotes. Moreover the text is very corrupt, authorities of narratives are omitted, proper names are mutilated and citations from Arabic prose and poetry are often wrongly transcribed. The ignorance of the copyist is to a great extent responsible for some of these glaring errors. On comparison of one of the Mss. which is said to be the second half of al-‘Awfí’s translation [Ind. Off. 1432] with the original text of the Faraj), it is found to contain over three-fourths of the work — the first three chapters and the last one are entirely lacking, apart from the gaps in the middle; thus owing to transpositions or the defective arrangement of the original copy, a fairly large portion of the first part of the Faraj is also included in this Ms.. The contents of both the Mss. enable us to judge accurately the relative merits of al-‘Awfí’s and Ḥusayn’s versions. Each has an advantage over the other, i. e. the classification of chapters and the division of anecdotes in Ḥusayn’s version is very precise and useful; whereas in al-‘Awfí’s version it is very difficult to follow the order of the chapters or of the anecdotes. But al-‘Awfí’s version has one great merit in its favour, that it presents in its essential features an accurate, simple, pure and slightly abridged translation; whereas in Ḥusayn’s version, prolixity, modification of the text, omissions, and insertions of his own poetical pieces in Arabic and Persian have in great measure effaced the merit of an unadulterated and faithful translation.
This Relation of the Qábús-náma to the Jawámi‘. book of moral precepts and rules of conduct written by ‘Unṣuru’l-Ma‘álí Kay-Ká’ús b. Iskandar b. Qábús b. Washmgír for his son Gílánsháh in 475 A. H. = 1082/3 A. D. is vaguely) mentioned by al-‘Awfí in one anecdote concerning the deposition of Qábús) b. Washmgír, the Ziyárid) ruler of Ṭabaristán, who was put to death in 403 A. H. = 1012 A. D.. However, besides this, there are seven anecdotes which are common to the Qábús-náma and the Jawámi‘, some of which are found to agree very closely on textual comparison, whence we can infer that al-‘Awfí utilised this work also. In the Lubáb) he has not mentioned the Qábús-náma at all; but he has referred to the famous compositions of Shamsu’l-Ma‘álí Qábús, the grandfather of Kay-Ká’ús, in prose and verse, collected by the Imám Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alí b. Muḥammad al-Yazdádí, known as the [Qará’in-i-Shamsu’l-Ma‘álí wa] Kamálu’l-Balágha), extracts from which are preserved in the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabaristán) of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan known as Ibn Isfandiyár.
The Common and parallel anecdotes. following are the anecdotes common to the Qábús-náma and the Jawámi‘, the purport of which is given according to the version of the latter, while a few points of divergence and similarity are also briefly noticed:
| (1) | Brutal rejoinder of one of the notables of Bukhárá to a poor fellow-pilgrim who had the audacity to challenge the comparative reward for their pilgrimage. (A. f203b. I. xvi. 850) = U. Q. N. ch. iv, pp. 20-1, where the story is in a fuller form and differs in a few minute details. |
| (2) | The Sultan Maḥmúd’s threat to the Caliph (al-Qádir bi’lláh who ruled 381-422 A. H.
= 991-1031 A. D.) that he would attack him with elephants, and the latter’s pithy but
enigmatic reply by the letters |
| (3) | Plato’s grief at being praised by a fool. (A. f249b. I. xxv. 1155) = U. Q. N. ch. vi, pp. 34-5. |
| (4) | Muḥammad [b.] Zakariyyá ar-Rází the physician’s alarm at being laughed at by a madman, and his endeavour to rid himself of any symptom of madness which the madman may have found in common with his own. (A. f249b. I. xxv. 1156) = U. Q. N. ch. vi, p. 35. These two stories resemble each other very much and in the latter the proverb in Arabic is also quoted. |
| (5) | The fate of the two interpreters of the Caliph Harún’s dream, one of whom is flogged for giving a plain and unvarnished interpretation, whereas the other is rewarded for his euphemistic reply. (D. f123b. II. vi. 1314) = U. Q. N. ch. vii, p. 42. |
| (6) | The deposition and imprisonment of Shamsu’l-Ma‘álí Qábús b. Washmgír attributed by him rather to his own negligence in not murdering his enemies than to his tyranny, as remarked by one of his custodians Abú ‘Abdi’llah [Jammáz]. (D. f150a. II. xv. 1423) = U. Q. N. ch. xx, pp. 87-8. The texts agree very closely, cf. D. T. S. pp. 48-9; also History of Ṭabaristán p. 232. |
| (7) | The shepherd who advised his dishonest master to sell pure milk, and his witty reply when retribution overtook the latter and the flock was swept away by flood. (D. f251a. III. xvi. 1703) = U. Q. N. ch. xxxii, p. 154. |
| (8) | Sayyida the mother of Majdu’d-Dawla’s bold reply to the Sultan Maḥmúd, whereby she prevented Maḥmúd from attacking her capital, Ray. (D. f274a. III. xxii. 1745) = U. Q. N. ch. xxix, pp. 128-9, cf. D. T. S. pp. 43-4. |
The text of anecdotes No. (6) and No. (8), which are typical of the Qabús-náma, is closely followed by al-‘Awfí, but the personal references of the author are omitted, and the original classification of other anecdotes is also ignored.
Among al-Jáḥiẓ’s position as a natural-philosopher. the various works utilised by al-‘Awfí for the compilation of anecdotes in his chapters on natural history (Pt. IV, chs. xxi-xxiv), the above work of Abú ‘Uthmán ‘Amr b. Baḥr al-Jáhiẓ), the famous prose-writer and natural philosopher and the founder of the Jáḥiẓiyya sect, who was born in 150 A. H. = 767 A. D. and died in 255 A. H. = 869 A. D., is mentioned five times in one connection or another in the Jawámi‘. Before proceeding to discuss the actual merit of the citations from the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán, the following observation, regarding al-Jáḥiẓ’s position as a scientist, seems appropriate here: “Primarily, our author was a religious thinker belonging to the rationalistic sect of Islám, the Mu‘tazila. His works on natural history are closely connected with theology by his attempt to show the unity of nature and the equal value to the observer of its constituent parts. To conclude, Jáḥiẓ besides representing the stand-point of the educated man of the time was a link between the philosophers proper and those theologians who had to combat with foreign ideas.”
An Identification of the Kitáb Tafdhíli'l-Kalbi etc. illustration of this fact can indirectly be noticed from one of the citations in the Jawámi‘. al-‘Awfí mentions a treatise of al-Jáḥiẓ which is hitherto not known to exist separately. It is designated the Kitáb Tafdhíli’l-Kalbi ‘ala’s-Siflati mina’n-Nás), which the present writer regards as a first instalment of the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán, as it appears to be no other than the “Controversy of the Dogs and the Cocks”, representing two schools of thought amongst the Mutakallimún of his day. Parts I and II of the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán are entirely devoted to this diatribe, which al-Jáḥiẓ aims at certain theologians whose names he carefully omits; and under this allegorical treatment of the subject and veiled attack, he describes the virtues of a dog and its utility to mankind. al-‘Awfí, not being concerned with the controversy, has selected only that small portion dealing with the varieties of the best hunting dogs, (D. f88b. IV. xxii. 2048 = J. K. H. Pt. I, p. 105; Pt. II, pp. 15-6) which is most appropriate from the natural history point of view.
Citations Citations from the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán in the Jawámi‘ with acknowledgement directly traceable to the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán are:
| (1) | A few particulars about the elephant, which al-Jáḥiẓ quotes from the observations of the Indian philosophers (D. f80b. IV. xxi. 2009) = J. K. H. Pt. VII, pp. 29, 31, 32, 33. |
| (2) | Another observation of al-Jáḥiẓ on the greediness of pigs. (D. f88b. IV. xxii. 2047) = J. K. H. Pt. IV, p. 17. |
| (3) | Argument against the theory of “Khalq-i-Murakkab” (hybrid) as applied to the giraffe. (D. f91b. IV. xxiii. 2059) = J. K. H. Pt. I, p. 65; VII, p 76. |
Other unidentified citations either with the name of al-Jáḥiẓ or his Tabá’i‘u’l-Ḥayawán are as follows:
| (1) | Opinion of al-Jáḥiẓ about the influence of wine on different temperaments, (D. f193b. III. i. 1541). |
| (2) | Anecdote related by al-Jáḥiẓ about a stammerer, ‘Abdu’llah ‘Amí (?) who grew eloquent after taking plenty of wine at a party given by the sons of ‘Abdu’l-Malik Riyáshí (?), (D. f194a. III. i. 1542). |
| (3) | al-Jáḥiẓ’s incredible story of the animals trained by Aswad b. Iyádh al-Jabalí (?) for hunting, (D. f86b. IV. xxii. 2037). |
| (4) | al-Jáḥiẓ on the scarcity of the rhinoceros, (D. f91a. IV. xxiii. 2056). |
The References to other authors in connection with the anecdotes on natural hisory. following are the anecdotes in which vague references either to the ancient authors or to their works occur:
| (1) | Sinán) b. Thábit al-Ḥarrání the famous physician’s observation on a deformed woman, (D. f60a. IV. xiv. 1938). |
| (2) | ‘Ubaydu’llah) [b. Bukht-Yishú‘ b.] Jibrá’il’s similar observation in his book about a deformed man whom he had seen in Hurmuza (?). (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1941). |
| (3) | Hippocrates’) explanation of abnormities, (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1943). |
| (4) | Dioscorides) on the medicinal value of the parts of an antelope, (D. f83b. IV. xxi. 2023). |
| (5) | Ptolemy’s) account of a famous breed of war-horses, (D. f84a. IV. xxi. 2025). |
| (6) | Abú Rayḥán [al-Bírúní’s] account of strange animals presented to the Sámánids in 339 or 337 A. H., (D. f84b. IV. xxi. 2027), (D. f89b. IV. xxii. 2050). |
| (7) | Dioscorides and Ibn Mása) on the medicinal properties of the various parts of an ass, (D. f85b. IV. xxi. 2033). |
| (8) | A Kitáb-i-Sumúm (?) cited regarding the fat of a leopard as a cure for paralysis, (D. f86b. IV. xxii. 2040). |
| (9) | Aristotle’s book) cited: as to how a fox keeps a wolf away from its lair by means of wild onion, (D. f89a. IV. xxii. 2050). |
| (10) | Galen) arranges a fight between a weasel and a serpent and cures the weasel by an antidote, (D. f90b. IV. xxiii. 2054). |
| (11) | Rufus) of Ephesus witnesses a fight between a weasel and a serpent and discovers Ḥabbu’l-Fár as an antidote, (D. f91a. IV. xxiii. 2055). |
| (12) | Abú Rayḥán [al-Bírúní’s] description of the animal Shérú of the rhinoceros type, (D. f91b. IV. xxiii. 2057). See above, Notice No. (1)b. |
| (13) | Aristotle’s description of a strange animal), (D. f92a. IV. xxiii. 2060). |
| (14) | A Greek author’s) description of a curious animal) with a tail like a peacock’s. (D. f92b. IV. xxiii. 2064). |
| (15) | A Greek musician) who devised a musical instrument that produced the cry of a young Burṣul and thereby collected olives. (D. f95a. IV. xxiv. 2074). |
In Subject-matter of the chapters on natural history in the Jawámi‘. the introductory remarks (D. f80b. IV. xxi. Int. 2009) al-‘Awfí states, that, since he has treated at length of the nature and temperament of mankind throughout the entire work, he thinks proper to devote a few chapters to the animal kingdom also. Therefore, in this chapter (xxi) he starts with a description of domestic quadrupeds and gives a few of their peculiarities; in the next chapter (xxii) he takes up wild beasts; and in the following chapter (xxiii) he mentions some strange and uncommon animals, the accounts of which are found in the works of Greek authors on natural history, and briefly records their peculiarities, properties and special medicinal uses. Lastly, he closes the chapters on natural history with an account of strange birds (ch. xxiv), which is partly based on mythical and traditional accounts.
Although Importance of these chapters, and a notice of other works. al-‘Awfí does not claim to deal with the subject of natural history as a science and has selected only very peculiar and uncommon features of the animal kingdom for illustrating his chapters, yet we find that he has incidentally touched upon many problems connected with it, e. g., instinct, natural affinity and animosity, preservation of species, struggle for existence, animal habits and tactics, coupling, cross-breeding, effect of environments at the time of conception, and of music on animals, and other problems. Similarly, as it was the custom of ancient writers on natural history to record the medicinal properties of the various parts of animals, he has also given us some information, which may appear to us very crude and elementary. The importance of some of these anecdotes can only be realised when we consider that they are probably the earliest remains in Persian of the works of some of the most important authors mentioned above. It is rather difficult to trace and identify these passages from ancient sources, as it is not known whether al-‘Awfí drew all his information from Persian) and secondary sources) which contained these quotations or directly from Arabic translations of the older works; but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of their contents, when we find him faithful as regards other sources which we possess, e. g. the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán of al-Jáḥiẓ. There is another work entitled the Na‘tu’l-Ḥayawán wa Manáfi‘ihi [Or. 2784 Br. Mus.] which is said to have been compiled from the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawáns of Aristotle and that of ‘Ubaydu’llah b. Jibrá’íl b. [‘Ubaydu’llah b.] Bukht-Yishú‘, which in parts agrees with the accounts given by al-‘Awfí). Thus, these chapters on natural history follow the works of the ancient authors, though much of accuracy is lost during transition, and pave the way for works like the ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Makhlúqát of Zakariyyá Qazwíní, to which many accounts of semi-scientific nature are common).
This References to this work in the Jawámi‘. work is mentioned four times in the Jawámi‘ without the name of its author. In one anecdote, dealing with the origin of the science of physiognomy, in the chapter “On the Sagacity of Eminent Persons”, Aflímún) is mentioned as the founder of this science; and the oft-quoted story), of his correct reading of the lustful nature of Hippocrates from a chart of his features, is told at length, (A. f154b. I. xi. 589). In another anecdote, the Imám Sháfi‘í is said to have gone in search of this science to different countries and acquired a considerable knowledge of reading men’s characters from their features, (A. f153b. I. xi. 579). Two other references to this work are given in connection with the relation of external features to the human mind, (D. f194a. III. i. 1543), (D. f194b. III. i. 1545).
It Identification not possible. is not known which particular author’s work was in the hands of al-‘Awfí. In these citations he alludes to a work written by the Greek philosophers. Ibnu’l-Qiftí in his Ta’rikhu’l-Ḥukamá’ (p. 60) in the biography of Aflímún says that the treatise of Aflímún on physiognomy was translated from Greek into Arabic; but he does not mention the name of the translator. H. Khalfa (Vol. IV, p. 388, No. 8943) speaks of a work on the above subject, composed by the Imám [Fakhru’d-Dín] ar-Rází (d. 606 A. H. = 1209 A. D.) which was based on the work of Aristotle, and enumerates a few other works on physiognomy, but unfortunately none of these has come down to us.
The Acknowledged citations from the Kitábu’l-Maghází of Muḥammad b. Isḥáq. name of Muḥammad) b. Isḥáq (d. 151 A. H. = 768 A. D.) is particularly mentioned in connection with the above work twice in the Jawámi‘. One anecdote which is related on the authority of Muḥammad b. Isḥáq, the author of the Maghází, concerning the vow of ‘Abdu’l-Muṭṭalib, the grandfather of the Prophet, to sacrifice one of his sons (A. f32b. I. ii. 53), is preserved in extenso in the Síratu Rasúli’lláh (pp. 97-100) of ‘Abdu’l-Malik) b. Hishám (d. 218 A. H. = 834 A. D.), in whose recension the work of Ibn Isḥáq is preserved mainly. Another anecdote, about a man from an Arabian tribe who was taken prisoner during the early victories of the Prophet and breathed his last on separation from his beloved (D. f36b. IV. x. 1896), is also taken from the Maghází of Ibn Isḥáq, but it is not traceable to Ibn Hishám. There is another citation from an indefinite Maghází concerning the famous steed of Sa‘d b. Abí Waqqáṣ called Balqá’ and the poet Abú Miḥjan ath-Thaqafí’s exploit on the eve of the Battle of Qádisiyya, (D. f85a. IV. xxi. 2029). The latter anecdote is genuine), but it belongs to a later period, hence it cannot possibly be connected either with the work of Ibn Isḥáq or of Ibn Hishám.
Besides Other anecdotes which correspond with Ibn Hishám’s version. these acknowledged anecdotes, there are at least 21 fairly long accounts) which materially correspond with the Sírat of Ibn Hishám. All these are connected with the life of the Prophet and various campaigns which he waged against the unbelievers of Arabia. From this it is obvious that al-‘Awfí has considerably utilised the Maghází either through the medium of Ibn Isḥáq or Ibn Hishám or al-Wáqidí or some other early writer. In these anecdotes there are very few poetical citations, and much less the insertions of Ibn Hishám. The Persian rendering is very accurate, but has very few references to proper names; and the accounts in the main are correct, but occur like detached and abbreviated excerpts.
The Other works mentioned in the Jawámi‘. Jawámi‘ is also rich in the accounts) of the early conquests of Islam during the Orthodox and the Umayyad Caliphate which are directly connected with Tradition and the early history of Islam. The sources of these anecdotes are not mentioned, but we find here and there agreement either with the accounts given by Ibn Sa‘d, al-Baládhurí, al-Bukhárí or aṭ-Ṭabarí, which, especially in the case of traditional literature, is not a sure basis for correct identification. In different connections, indefinite references are made to six other works connected with theology, Tradition and exegesis of the Qur’án, which again do not permit us to determine exactly the books al-‘Awfí might have consulted in preparing these anecdotes, e. g. the Siyaru’l-Kabír and the Jámi‘u’l-Kabír of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan ash-Shaybání) (d. 189 A. H. = 804/5 A. D.), the disciple of the great Ḥanafite theologians, the Imám Abú Ḥanífa an-Nu‘mán b. Thábit (d. 150 or 151 A. H. = 767 or 768 A. D.) and the Imám Abú Yúsuf Ya‘qúb b. Ibráhím (d. 182 A. H. = 795 A. D.), (A. f214a. I. xvii. 967), (A. f214b. I. xvii. 975), (A. f214b. I. xvii. 976); the Musnad Akhbár-i-Nabawí (?) (A. f4a. II. ii. 1198); the [Jámi‘u’ṣ-]Ṣaḥíḥ of Abú Abdi’llah Muḥammad b. Ismá‘íl al-Bukhárí (d. 256 A. H. = 870 A D), (D. f124b. II. vii. 1321); the Gharíbu’l-Hadíth (?), (A. f140a. I. viii. 482), (D. f14b. IV. iv. 1825); and the Jámi‘u’l-Kabír fi’t Tafsír of the Imám Náṣir (?) Ghazálí, (D. f17b. IV. v. 1835).
Among Difficulty in the identification of the sources of al-‘Awfí for cosmography. the various subjects represented in the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘, cosmography, wonders of the world and talismans occupy four chapters at the end of the book: Pt. IV, chs. xvi-xix, Anecs. 1963-95; but in these cases, it is very difficult to trace the actual sources of al-‘Awfí, as he himself acknowledges in one passage) that he has drawn his material for cosmography from several indefinite works like the Masálik wa Mamálik and the Kitáb-i-Ṭabá’i‘ [probably of al-Buldán]. From the time of Ibn Khurdádbih who began his Masálik wa Mamálik about 232 A. H. = 846 A. D., the earliest extant work on the “Routes and Continents”, to that of Yáqútu’l-Ḥamawí, an illustrious contemporary of al-‘Awfí, who made a fair copy his Mu‘jamu’l Buldán in 625 A. H. = 1228 A. D., there are at least three more works extant of the same title), that of Iṣṭakhrí (who wrote in 340 A. H. = 951 A. D.), of Ibn Ḥawqal (who wrote in 367 A. H = 978 A. D) and of al-Bakrí) (d. 487 A. H. = 1094 A. D.), and similarly there are more than twelve old extant works) with the titles of ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Buldán and Kitábu’l-Buldán; therefore, it is very difficult to identify the works used by al-‘Awfí. Moreover a comparison of the material and arrangement of the two chapters (xvi-xvii) on cosmography with the extant Masálik wa Mamáliks shows that al-‘Awfí did not utilise them, and has probably drawn his material from some comparatively late work.
In A notice on the cosmographical portion in the Jawámi‘. these two chapters on cosmography) al-‘Awfí has given us a rudimentary sketch of the world as it was known to the old Arab geographers, and has described the main groups of peoples inhabiting the different “climes”. In chapter xvi, after describing the ancient physical geography of the world, he goes on to the division of the globe into seven Iqlíms or “climes”, which is more or less the same as that adopted by his predecessors like al-Mas‘údí) and by his successors like Zakariyyá al-Qazwíní) and Shamsu’d-Dín ad-Dimashqí) (d. 727 A. H. = 1327 A. D.). Then he gives an account of the ancient Chín, its old capital, fine arts and civilization, and a few other interesting details (D. f66a. IV. xvi. 1965), some of which are taken from an Akhbár-i-Chín, and correspond with the account given by Yáqút) from the itinerary) of Abú Dulaf Mis‘ar b. Muhalhil al-Khazrají al-Yanbú‘í (who wrote after 331 A. H. = 942 A. D.). Further on, he gives us really valuable information about ancient Turkistán and the Valley of Kharkhíz and the various Turkish tribes that once existed in those regions, (D. ff66b-68a. IV. xvi. 1966-7). The importance of these sketches has been shown by Professors Barthold) and Marquart, as has been noticed previously (pp. 31-2). In the next chapter (xvii), al-‘Awfí takes up the historical geography of Rúm or Byzantium, and gives a short description of the military organisation, civil administration, religious orders and the revival of Greek learning as introduced into Asia Minor, (D. f68a. IV. xvii. 1968). Then follows an account of Arabia, its pre-Islamic civilization and a few features of the Bedouin life, (D. 68b. IV. xvii. 1969). Next comes India, but the information does not exceed a few remarks about the black arts and the diversity of her races and religions, (D. f69b. IV. xvii. 1971). Then he deals with the Ḥabasha and gives a few interesting details about their curious manners, customs and superstitions, (D. f69b. IV. xvii. 1972). Lastly, he closes this chapter with a very long account of the People of the Jazá’ir, by which he means those who dwelt on the isles round the Caspian Sea, and with an account of the land of Maghrib), (D. f70a. IV. xvii. 1976).
See below, Alphabetical List of all the works mentioned in the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát.
↩References to the pages of the Arabic Texts of the Áthár = B. A. B. and Indica = B. T. H., ed. by E. Sachau.
↩See below Notice No. (26) Anec. No. (27).
↩References to the pages of the Arabic Texts of the Áthár = B. A. B. and Indica = B. T. H., ed. by E. Sachau.
↩See, for a critical estimate of the Barmecides, W. Barthold’s article in Ency. Islam, Vol. I, pp. 663-6; and for the sources of their history, L. Bouvat’s “Les Barmécides d’après les Historiens Arabes et Persans”, pp. 5-23. (On p. 19, he incorrectly mentions Jamálu’d-Dín Muḥammad al-‘Awfí († 854 = 1450) as one of the authors of a work, written for the Wazír Niẓámu’l-Mulk; and again mentions “Jami‘u’l-Hikayat”. This work and its author are no other than the present Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát, and Sadídu’d-Dín Muḥammad al-‘Awfí).
↩See below, Reclassification of the Contents.
↩Bombay litho. 1889.
↩The present writer is indebted to Prof. D. S. Margoliouth for this and many other valuable references.
↩See for a critical account of the two Kalbís, Brockelmann’s article in Ency. Islam (Vol. II, pp. 689-90).
↩This story is connected with Ḥanẓala b. Ṣafwán, cf. Beidhawi, ed. Fleischer, Vol. II, p. 40, ll. 9—12.
↩See H. Khal., Vol. I, p. 368, no. 986; Chahár Maqála, p. 176, Persian Text; Rieu, Cat. Pers. Mss. Vol. II, p. 748; Leyden Cat. Vol. III, p. 14; also below, Notice (25)a; “Turkistán”, Extracts in Vol. I, pp. 71-2.
↩The Fihrist contains the fullest account in Arabic on Manes, his doctrines, works etc., pp. 327-338, which forms the basis of G. Flügel’s excellent monograph, “Mani: seine Lehre und seine Schriften”, Leipzig, 1862.
↩Murúju’dh-Dhahab (ed. C. B. de Meynard) I. 200-1; VIII. 293; The Tanbíh, pp. 100, 101, 135.
↩Ibn Wáḍih, ed. Houtsma. Vol. I, pp. 180-182.
↩Kitábu’l-Milal-i-wa’n-Niḥal (Arabic text) ed. Cureton, pp. 188-192.
↩al-Bírúní and al-Ya‘qúbí make a passing mention, whereas a work al-Jabilla, which occurs in different forms, is likely to be the Gospels.
↩Since this Injíl is not mentioned in the List of Manes’s works in the Fihrist pp. 336-7.
↩The Arabic form of “the work written for Shápúr”, the then reigning Persian king.
↩See Professor Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia. Vol. I, pp. 154-6, Manes and Manichæans.
↩See, for a bibliography of the works of Manes, A. von Le Coq’s article, “On …. Expedition to Turfán” etc., in JRAS. (1909) p. 301; also an article by A. V. Williams Jackson, on, “The so-called Injunctions of Mani” etc. JRAS. (1924) pp. 213-227.
↩See Table of Contents Pt. III, ch. viii, for parallel references, and the preceding Notice No. (1)a.
↩G. Salmon, L’Introduction topographique a l’Histoire de Baghdâdh, p. 11-12; Mr. F. Krenkow’s article, JRAS. (1912) pp. 31-79; also Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, p. 329.
↩Fihrist, p. 134; H. Khal., Vol. II, p. 94. No. 2061.
↩Ency. Islam, Mr. F. Krenkow’s article on ‘al-Ṣâbí’, Vol. IV, pp. 19-21; Yáqút, Irshádu’l-Aríb, Vol. I, pp. 324-58; Ibn Khallikán (Wüst.) Biog. No. 14; also The Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate ed. by Prof. D. S. Margoliouth = Eclipse, Vol. III, pp. 21, 22, 23, 53, 59, 404.
↩For verifying this anecdote see Eclipse, Vol. II, pp. 86-7.
↩Largely utilised by Ibnu’l-Athír, Ibn Isfandiyár, Miskawayh, al-‘Utbí, Hilál aṣ-Ṣábí and ath-Tha‘álibí.
↩See Reclassification of the Contents. [s. v. Buwayhids].
↩See the Introduction of Amedroz to the Kitâbu’l-Wuzará’ of Hilál for a sketch of his life and works.
↩Cf. H. Khal. Vol. II, pp. 122, 127, Nos. 2187; (2209, for Turkish Trans,); Chahár Maqála, Persian Text, notes pp. 184-9; Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 179-81 and 337.
↩See Prof. Barthold’s article in Ency. Islam. Vol. II, pp. 465-6.
↩See Sir Henry Howorth’s article in JRAS. (1898) Vol. XXX, pp. 467-502.
↩See above p. 5, ll. 28-33; pp. 7-8.
↩This excellent work “Turkistán at the time of the Mongolian Invasion”, of which a translation from Russian into English is in preparation, fulfils in an ample measure the hopes expressed by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán in his survey of the sources for a reconstruction of the history of Turkistán in his notes to the Chahár Maqála (pp. 184-9). See for the chronological data of these Kháns Vol. II, pp. 509-12, and for the extracts from the Jawámi‘, Vol. I, pp. 83-101, and for other anecdotes including those cited by Prof. Barthold, Reclassification of the Contents of the Jawámi‘. [s. v. Ílak Kháns].
↩See, for the histories bearing the same title, H. Khal. Vol. II, p. 127. No. 2210.
↩See his article “Zur Geschichte der Saffariden” in the Nöldeke-Festschrift, Band I, pp. 174-6.
↩Ibn Funduq calls him Abú ‘Alí al-Ḥasan.
↩See, for his biography Ibn Funduq’s Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaq [Or. 3587 Br. Mus.] f89a; Chahár Maqála, Persian text, notes p. 125; also Yatímatu’d-Dahr. IV, p. 29.
↩Facs., p. 601b.
↩(Wüst.) Biog. Nos. 308, 350, 540, 553, 764, 838.
↩Excerpts without acknowledgement found in Turkistán, (Vol. I, pp. 1-18) from [Ouseley 240, Bodl.].
↩See for a detailed account of his life, Kámil, Vol. VII, pp. 204-211.
↩According to Ibnu’l-Athír, ibid. p. 209.
↩Source mentioned only in this Ms., which appears to be genuine.
↩In G. f257a. Ta’ríkh-i-Khwárazmiyán occurs instead; all other Mss. read as above. It is quite likely that the portion dealing with the rulers of Khwárazm is meant, which also agrees with the context and corroborates the reasoning given further on.
↩Cf. Kámil, Vol. VII, pp. 256, 318-9, for parallel excerpts of the anecdotes referred to above.
↩Cf. Ibn Khal. (Wüst.) Biog. No. 838, pp. 69-70 for parallel excerpts.
↩Ibid., (Wüst.) Biog. No. 838, p. 68.
↩Translated by J. S. Black: see the article on “Yakúb the Coppersmith, and his dynasty” in Sketches from Eastern History, pp. 176-206.
↩Cf. the account of his arrest in 259 A. H. Kámil, Vol. VII, pp. 180-1.
↩See Reclassification of the Contents, [s. v. Ṭáhirids].
↩(Wüst.) Biog. No. 838, p. 67.
↩See Prof. W. Barthold’s article in Ency. Islam, Vol. I, pp. 335-6.
↩(Wüst.) Biog. No. 838, p. 69.
↩Kámil, Vol. VII, p. 205.
↩This anecdote affords plenty of data for ‘Amr’s character and achievements.
↩ D.
See Reclassification of the Contents. [s. v. Ṣaffárids.]
↩See H. Khal., Vol. II, p. 127-8. No. 2213, for other histories bearing similar titles.
↩ A fragment of it about Ibnu’l-Mu‘tazz is published by Mr. Ign. Kratchkovski of Petrograd, in
Russian, in
Hilál b. Muḥassin aṣ-Ṣábí expresses an unfavourable opinion about this work in his own Kitábu’l Wuzará’, ed. H. F. Amedroz (p. 2).
↩Edited by Muḥammad Bahjat al-Atharí of Baghdád (Cairo 1341 A. H.) with an introduction, which was kindly lent to the present writer by Mr. F. Krenkow.
↩Many anecdotes with and without acknowledgement are borrowed from aṣ-Ṣúlí, [see Notice No. 31].
↩In the first part, edited and translated by Prof. D. S. Margoliouth (p. 145 Arabic text), aṣ-Ṣúlí tells a story about the Caliph ar-Rádhí.
↩Y. I. A., Vol. VI, pp. 251-68, for his biography.
↩On pp. 219, 354, aṣ Ṣúlí is twice quoted.
↩Part of it is published along with his Kitábu’l-Wuzará’, ed. H. F. Amedroz.
↩Ency. Islam, Mr. F. Krenkow’s article, “al-Ṣábí” Vol. IV, pp. 20-1, for a sketch of his life.
↩Eclipse, Vol. I, footnotes to pp. 268, 269, 291-3, 306, 307, 309, 310, 313, 316, 317, 319, 325, 331, 334, 337, 338, 348, 351, 352, 358, 360, 366, 373, 390-2, 406-8, 419-20. These quotations from the Kitábu’l-Awráq give an accurate idea of the end of the historical section.
↩See for a sketch of his life Eclipse, (Index), Vol. VII, Preface by Prof. Margoliouth pp. ii-viii. In his and Amedroz’s opinion the debt of Mískawayh to aṣ-Ṣúlí is considerable.
↩Y. M. B., Vol. I, p. 572; II, 706; III, 7, 213; IV, 133, 248, 306, 725, 732, 819, aṣ-Ṣúlí quoted concerning topics on poets. Y. I. A., Vol. I, p. 114; V, p. 278.
↩Ed. Derenbourg, pp. 210, 250, 351, 363, 364, aṣ-Ṣúlí quoted concerning history of the ‘Abbásids.
↩Of Mas‘údí, Ibn Ẓáfir, Khaṭíb-i-Baghdádí, Ibnu’l-Jawzí, adh-Dhahabí and ‘Aríb.
↩Fihrist, pp. 150-1; Ansáb, (facs.) p. 357; a fuller account of his life in Ibn Khal. (Wüst.) Biog. No. 659; Wüstenfeld, Geschichtschreiber = Wüst. Gesch. No. 115, followed by Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. Vol. I, p. 143; Eclipse, Vol. I, p. 9; B. T. M., p. 755.
↩Eclipse, Vol. II, pp. 27-8.
↩Ibid., Vol. I, p. 373.
↩Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 390-1.
↩The present writer’s information about the extant fragments of the Kitábu’l-Awráq of aṣ-Ṣúlí is based on secondary sources, and mostly on Mr. Ign. Kratchkovski’s article “On the description of the Mss. of Ibn Ṭayfúr and aṣ-Ṣúlí” in Russian ZVO., XXI, pp. 95-115, (see above, p. 48, n. 1), which was kindly translated for him by Mr. L. C. Wharton of the British Museum. These known fragments are arranged in the order in which the work is supposed to have been written by aṣ-Ṣúlí, from the data given in the Fihrist (pp. 150-1). The historical section dealing with the ‘Abbásid Caliphs comes first, then the historico-literary section dealing with the history and poetry of the Ál-i-‘Abbás and other poets besides them. (Mss. used by Ign. Kratch. are marked with an asterisk, and the order of the Mss. is tentative.)
| *i. | Petrograd, Public Library Ms. [No. 60], Khannikov collection, contains the account of the end of the Caliphate of al-Wáthiq from 227 A. H. = 841 A. D. to the murder of al-Muhtadí in 256 A. H. = 869 A. D. (see Dorn, Mélanges Asiatiques, Vol. V, p. 244. St. Petersburg 1868 and Ign. Kratch.) |
| *ii. | Cairo, Azhar Mosque Ms. [Ta’ríkh, No. 443 and 6737] contains the chronological accounts from the year 295-318 A. H. = 907-930; thus covering almost the period of the Caliphate of al-Muqtadir (d. 320 A. H. = 932 A. D.). Unless this Ms. is compared with the next one, it cannot be ascertained with certainty whether it is really the 3rd or the 4th juz of the historical section of the Awráq. (see Ign. Kratch.) |
| iii. | Constantinople Ms. contains only the 3rd juz. O. Rescher who first discovered it does not give a descriptive account of this Ms. (see Mitteilungen aus Stambuler Bibliotheken, in the Mélanges de la faculté orientale, Tom. V2. Beyrouth, 1912, p. 523, No. 2141). |
| iv. | Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Ms. [Fonds Arabe 4836] contains the biography of the Caliph ar-Rádhí (322-329 A. H. = 934-940 A. D.). From the quotations in the Eclipse, supplied probably from this Ms. by H. F. Amedroz (see above p. 48, n. 10) it is obvious that this fragment represents the end of the historical section, which brings the account to his own times. (see G. Salmon, Intro. Topog. Baghdádh, p. 80, n. 3). |
| *v. | Petrograd, Rosen Ms. contains two independent treatises, one about the history and poetry of Ibráhím b. al-Mahdí and his sister ‘Aliyya, and the other a fairly complete monograph on the history and poetry of ‘Abdu’llah ibnu’l-Mu‘tazz. This fragment probably forms a part of the historico-literary section dealing with the direct descendants of the Caliphs as the author of the Fihrist describes it (p. 150), (see Ign. Kratch.) |
| *vi. | Cairo, Khedivial Library Ms. [Ta’ríkh No. 594] contains accounts of poets presumably arranged in alphabetical order. Probably this fragment represents the last portion of the unfinished section of the Awráq, concerning poets. (see Prof. J. Horovitz’s list “Aus den Bibliotheken von Kairo, Damaskus und Konstantinopel”, MSOS. X, ii, Berlin 1907. pp. 35-8; W. Barthold ZVO. XVIII, pp. 0148-0153, 1908; Zaydán II, 175; Khedivial Cat. Vol. V, p. 16. |
| *vii. | Cairo, Azhar Mosque Ms. [Adab, No. 487 and 7083], a modern transcript identical with the above No. vi. (see Ign. Kratch.) |
| viii. | Ḥaydarábád Dakan, State Library Ms. [Ta’ríkh, ‘Arabí, No. 311] dated 1310 A. H. of hitherto unknown description, (see the Fihrist-i-Kutub-Khána-i-Áṣafiyya, (litho, 1332 A. H.) Vol. I, p. 180. |
“The writer deduces his results from a comparison of the Khedivial and Petrograd Mss.”
↩See J. Horovitz’s article op. cit. p. 37.
↩ Ibid.
See Ign. Kratch.
Vol. I, p. 187, No. 203; also Wüst. Gesch. 37, No. 115, 3. Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, p. 143, No. 5.
↩ Journal Asiatique. Series 10. Tom. XIX, (1912) p. 286, No. 226:
See J. Horovitz’s p. 37.
See Fihrist pp. 150-1.
The order of the fragments adopted by the present writer, (as shown above on p. 49, n. 5), is indicated after the names of the places.
↩H. Khal. Vol. II, p. 136, No. 2250.
↩Edited by M. J. de Goeje and others, Leyden (see de Goeje’s preface and Introduction and his article in Ency. Brit. XI edition, Vol. II, Arabia: Historical Literature pp. 273-6); and for the portions in question see Prof. Th. Nöldeke’s ‘Einleitung’ to Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der Arabischen Chronik des Tabari übersetzt, Leyden 1897. (= Tabari-Übersetzung).
↩Y. I. A. Vol. VI, pp. 423-63, a biographical sketch of aṭ-Ṭabarí based on contemporary sources.
↩ (A. f46b—f47a = E. f12b. I. iv. Int. 119)
(A. f76a = B. f45b = C. f116b = E. f57b—f58a = G. f48b. I. iv.
183)
See Notices Nos (22), (30), (15), for further details.
↩See Notices Nos (22), (30), (15), for further details.
↩See Notices Nos (22), (30), (15), for further details.
↩Ṭab., Gh. are the abbreviations used in this notice for the Ta’ríkhu’r-Rusul ed. by De Goeje and for the Ghurar of ath-Tha‘álibí ed. by Zotenberg respectively.
↩Ṭab., Gh. are the abbreviations used in this notice for the Ta’ríkhu’r-Rusul ed. by De Goeje and for the Ghurar of ath-Tha‘álibí ed. by Zotenberg respectively.
↩No. 17 is untraceable; No. 18 reference to the historian only; in Nos. 19 and 20 the source is uncertain as the readings differ, probably referring to the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí as Ta’ríkh-i-Tází.
↩Cf. Abu’l-Faraj Iṣfahání’s Maqátilu’ṭ-Ṭâlibiyyín, (Ṭihrán litho. 1037 A. H.) pp. 29-30. Cf. Kitábu’l-Ma‘árif, (= Q. K. M.) p. 108, and Maqdisí, ed. Huart, Vol. V, p. 238, which give 49, 47 A. H. as the year of his death resp.
↩See Notice No. (16).
↩See H. Khal. Vol. II, p. 127, No. 2210 where other histories of Khurásán are enumerated.
↩A. E. omit the source mentioned above.
↩Ansáb. (facs.) p. 574a; Ibn Khal. (Wüst.) Biog. No. 626; H. Khal. Vol. II, p. 155, No. 2333.
↩Le Livre de la Création et de l’Histoire de Moṭahhar ben Ṭáhir el-Maqdisí attribué a Abou-Zéïd Aḥmed ben Sahl el-Balkhí, publié et traduit par M. Cl. Huart, Paris, Arabic Text (= M. K. B.). See Prefaces, Vol. II, ix; III, v-vii, where other references are given concerning the authorship; also JRAS. (1901) pp. 159-61.
↩Chrestomathie Persane, Vol. I, pp. 136-8.
↩Histoire des Rois des Perses, par Aboû Manṣoûr ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Moḥammad ibn Ismá‘íl al-Tha‘âlibí, texte Arabe publié et traduit par H. Zotenberg, Paris 1900, Arabic Text (= Ghurar) preface pp. xxi-xxii. See for a review of it by Prof. Browne, JRAS. (1901) pp. 161-4.
↩Cf. Fihrist, pp. 118, 305; Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 151-2.
↩Histoire des Rois des Perses, ed. Zotenberg, Préface p. xxxiii.
↩Ed. C. Brockelmann (= Q. U. A.), pp. 24-5, 83-4, 139-43, 144, 165-6, 166-7, 186-9.
↩ Q. U. A. pp. 24-25:
Cf. Vol. I, 10, ll. 23-25.
↩Ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bib. Geog. Arab. Vol. VIII (= M. T. I.)
↩A full description of this royal album is given by al-Mas‘údí.
↩Histoire des Rois des Perses, Préface, p. xxiii; cf. also Kitábu’t-Táj of al-Jáḥiẓ pp. 23 n. 3; 23-29.
↩Edited and translated by Barbier de Meynard (= M. M. Dh.), Vol. II, pp. 152-5; 240-1.
↩Fihrist p. 314, l. 21; p. 305, l. 12; p. 138, l. 3.
↩Mélanges Asiatiques (St. Petersbourg) Tome VIII (1881) pp. 775-6.
↩ Q. U. A. pp. 24, 27, 30, 59, 67, 138-9, 143, 183-4,
Ed. F. Wüstenfeld (1850) (= Q. K. M.) p. 320.
↩Tabari-Übersetzung, Einleitung p. xxi.
↩Mélanges Asiatiques (St. Petersbourg) Tome VIII, pp. 775, 777.
↩The Ta’ríkh-i-Siní Mulúki’l-Ardh-i-wa’l-Anbiyá’ (Kaviani press, Berlin 1340 A. H.) (= H. T. S.) pp. 9-10.
↩Notice sur le Schàh’-namé de Ferdoussí, etc. Vienna (1810).
↩ Edition of the Shah Nameh: Introduction, Vol. I, for the Báysunqurian Persian preface pp.
Journal Asiatique (New series) Tome XVI, pp. 532-4.
↩Le Livre des Rois. Paris 1838. Vol. I. Preface, pp. x, xii, xvi, xiv, lii, also Journal Asiatique (1841) Introduction to ‘Extraits du Modjmel-al-Tewarikh’, pp. 5-7.
↩Tabari-Übersetzung, Einleitung pp. xiv-xxv, also Das iranische Nationalepos, in G. I. P. Band II, pp. 142-6.
↩Mélanges Asiatiques tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, Tome VIII, (1881). “Zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte der älteren Zeit”, Ibn Quteiba: Kitâb ‘Ujôn al-akhbâr, pp. 773-7; also Vostochnia zamietke (1895) St. Petersbourg: On the question of the Arabic Translation of the Khudáy-náma, pp. 153 et. seq.
↩Histoire des Rois des Perses, Préface, pp. xxiii, xli-xliii.
↩Mitteilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen, Band XII, Abt. ii, Berlin (1909), p. 122: “Die literarische Tätigkeit Ḥamza al-Iṣbahānīs”.
↩See Aḥmad Zakí Pásha’s Taṣdír to the Kitábu’t-Táj (1914).
↩Cf. I, p. 707.
↩B. A. B., p. 99.
↩Ed. W. N. Lees, p. 116.
↩Particulars about individual Arabic and Persian authors cited here will be found in the critical works mentioned above in the footnotes to p. 58.
↩Cf. Q. A. B. p. 413, l. 5.
↩See below, Notice No. (30).
↩See Rieu’s description of [Or. 1 Br. Mus.] Cat. Pers. Mss. Vol. I, pp. 158-60, regarding the various titles and the extant portion of al Bayhaqí’s work known as the Ta’ríkh-i-Mas‘údî (ed. from Morley Ms. by W. N. Lees = B. T. M.); and for a concise exposition of its contents, Biberstein Kazimirski’s Introduction to the Díwán of ‘Menoutchehri’, Paris (1886).
↩See Nöldeke’s account of the Arabic original of the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí and its relation to the Persian Translation of Jurbádhaqání, in the Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie, Vienna, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 15-102 and Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, 314; and for an account of the Persian Translation, Rieu’s description of [Add. 24, 950 Br. Mus.] Cat. Pers. Mss. Vol. I, pp. 157 - 8, where all other references are also noticed.
↩W. Barthold’s article on him, in Ency. Islam, Vol. I, pp. 592-3; and for an important biography hitherto little made known, Ibn Funduq’s Ta’ríkh-i-Bayhaq [Or. 3587 Br. Mus.] f101b-103b.
↩Reclassification of the Contents [s. v. Ghaznawids].
↩As arranged in this Notice.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 296.
↩Probably Wayhind or Ohind, cf. Ērānšahr p. 299.
↩Yamíní [Add. 7310 Br. Mus.] f119a, f132b-f136a = Sprenger litho. pp. 266, 376 = Maníní, marginal text. Vol. I, p. 76 = Jurbádhaqání [Add. 24, 950 Br. Mus.] f173b, ff179 et seq.
↩Yamíní [Add. 7310 Br. Mus.] ff11 = Sprenger litho. p. 19 = Maníní, marginal text. Vol. I, p. 64 et seq. = Jurbádhaqání [Add. 24, 950 Br. Mus.] ff16.
↩Cf. Muqaddasí, Aḥsan’ut-Taqásím, ed. M. J. de Goeje. Bib. Geog. Arab. VIII, p. 303: probably near Shiyán, a town in Askimasht where there was a wonderful spring; Y. M. B. Vol. III, p. 345 mentions it as a village in Bust, and on (p. 886) Farwán as a small town in Ghazna; L. E. C. p. 350, the Banjhír or Kábul river flowed out towards the plains of India, past Farwán; but in Y. M. B. IV, p. 797, Nagharu a town in Sind, 6 days from Ghazna.
↩Yamíní [Add. 7310 Br. Mus.] f13b-14b = Sprenger, litho. p. 23 = Maníní (Cairo 1286), marginal text p. 74 = Jurbádhaqání [Add. 24, 950 Br. Mus.] ff20.
↩He is stated to have been 14 years old.
↩See H. Khal., Vol. II, p. 487, No. 3811 and Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 427-8.
↩Súra iii, verse 5.
↩See for the various Khalqu’l-Insáns, H. Khal., Vol. III, pp. 172-3; Ibn Khal., (Wüst.) Biog. Nos. 12, 85, 262, 272, 281, 389, 590, 646, 653, 741.
↩Pt. I, p. 281.
↩See below, Notice No. (22).
↩See Pt. I, pp. 179-81, also above, pp. 8, 44.
↩Q. A. M. pp. 211-2.
↩M. T. N., for the reign of the Ghaznawid Ibráhím, pp. 19-20.
↩B. T. M., p. 823.
↩Pt. I, pp. 281-2.
↩See above, Notice No. (13), p. 52.
↩[Or. 203 Br. Mus.] f224a.
↩H. Khal. Vol. III, p. 342, No. 5855.
↩See above, Notice No. (19).
↩H. Khal., Vol. II, p. 55, No. 1855. Cf. also, Ivanow, Cat. Pers. Mss. Asiatic Society of Bengal No. 956.
↩H. Khal., Vol. IV, p. 100, No. 8828.
↩See below, Notice No. (30).
↩See Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, p. 292; for Mss. of this work and its selections, see Hammer, W. Jahrb. 63 Anz. Bl. p. 231; old Arabic Cat. Br. Mus. pp. 334a, 513a, and Suppl. Ar. Cat. Br. Mus. pp. 714-5.
↩See for his life, Ibn Khal., (Wüst.) Biog. No. 721.
↩Vol. III, p. 344, No. 5868.
↩Printed in Buláq (1280 A. H.).
↩(= D. H. H.) Buláq (1284 A. H.) Vol. II, p. 194.
↩Rawdhu’l-Akhyár (p. 99).
↩See above, Notice No. (4) b. p. 39.
↩See H. Khal., Vol. II, p. 152, No. 6271; Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, p. 432; Rieu’s description of [Or. 3502] Suppl. Ar. Cat. Br. Mus. pp. 147-8. (Buláq 1287 Edition = R. Q.); also Richard Hartmann’s Einleitung to Al-Ḳuschairîs Darstellung des Ṣûfîtums, Berlin 1914.
↩See for his life, Ansáb. (facs.) 453b; Kashfu’l Maḥjúb p. 167; Ta’ríkhu’l-Islám [Or. 50 Br. Mus.] f100; Ibn Khal. (Wüst.) Biog. No. 367.
↩Studies in Islamic Mysticism p. 33.
↩Vorlesungen über den Islam p. 175.
↩E.g. (D. f35b. IV. x. 1889).
↩ (A. f39a. I. iii. 82)
See Rieu’s description of its contents, Suppl. Cat. Pers. Mss. pp. 9-10.
↩ See Persian Introduction pp.
See for its origin, history, versions, adaptations and bibliography G. I. P. II, pp. 258-61.
↩See Notice No. (25) b.
↩
See for its origin, history, versions and bibliography G. I. P. II, pp. 326-9, also Brockelmann’s article in Ency. Islam, Vol. II, pp. 694-8.
↩M. M. Dh. Vol. I, p. 162.
↩Fihrist, pp. 304-5.
↩Chahár Maqála, (Pers. Text.), Mírzá Muḥammad’s comment., pp. 174-8.
↩See Rieu’s description, Cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. Vol. II, p. 748.
↩Ethé, Cat. Pers. Mss. Ind. Off. col. 714, No. 1236.
↩Loiseleur des Longchamps, Essai sur les fables indiennes, Paris, 1838, pp. 93-137.
↩Asiatic Journal, (1841) Vols. XXXV, p. 169 sq., and XXXVI, p. 4 sq. and 99 sq.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 318-9.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 91.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 212.
↩See above, Notice No. (6).
↩Two coins dated 558 A. H., issued by this monarch are known and are described by Dorn in the Mélanges Asiatiques, (St. Petersburg) 1881, Tome VIII, p. 734.
↩H. Khal. Vol. III, p. 620, No. 7259.
↩ al-‘Awfí writes about it in the following manner, Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 91:
See for the origin, history, versions, adaptations and bibliography of this work, Ethé in the G.I.P. II, pp. 323-5; J. Horovitz in the Ency. Islam, Vol. I, pp. 602-3.
↩See above, Notice No. (25) a. p. 72 n. 3.
↩ Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 212:
ZDMG. Band XLV, pp. 97-143.
↩Unfortunately the present writer could not consult this Ms.
↩ The text is marred, but the present writer ventures to suggest that on p. 108 of Nöldeke’s article
(op. cit.) the title of the work
See Basset, Contes arabes: Histoire des dix Vezirs, Paris 1883; P. A. Ṣalḥani, Contes arabes, Beyrout 1890.
↩Habicht’s edition of 1001 Nacht containing the Arabic text, (Band VI, pp. 191-343) identified in 1807 by G. Knös in the Göttingen edition: Historia decem Vezirorum.
↩A. Jaubert, Notice et Extrait de la Version Turque du Bakhtiyár-naméh etc. in the Journal Asiatique X, (1827) pp. 146-67.
↩Sir W. Ouseley published a text with its English translation in 1801, which was also re-edited after correction, by A. Biberstein-Kazimirski in 1839 A. D.; references to it are given in this notice.
↩See for critical accounts of this work Ethé in G. I. P. II, pp. 347-8, Nöldeke in ZDMG. XLVI (1892) pp. 761-8, Browne in Lit. Hist. Pers. II, pp. 212-7; references to Persian Text (= N. S. N.), French Translation (= T. S. N.), and Supplément (= S. S. N.) by C. Schefer, Paris, 1891, 1893, 1897 resp.
↩See various notices of him in S. S. N. and Zubdatu’n-Nuṣra wa Nukhbatu’l-‘Uṣra ed. M. Th. Houtsma (1889), pp. 55-9 and Kámil (index), Vol. X, pp. 137-42.
↩H. T. G. (facs.) p. 8; Ibn Isfandiyár, History of Ṭabaristán (Trans. Prof. Browne) p. 93.
↩ N. S. N. p. 8: Arabic> and N. S. N. p. 204:
Several anecdotes as pointed out by Schefer in his footnotes to S. S. N. are also found in the Naṣíḥatu’l-Mulúk of al-Ghazálí, a work written at least 13 years after the Niẓámu’l-Mulk’s death.
↩ath-Tha‘álibí also wrote a book entitled Síratu’l-Mulúk, see H. Khal. Vol. III, p. 641, No. 7343 and Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, p. 286, No. 19, preserved in Gotha [No. 1886]; also above Notice No. (16) [s. v. Siyaru’l-Mulúk].
↩ Cf. N. S. N. p. 210:
See N. S. N. pp. 5-8, 163-6, 210-1.
↩N. S. N. Preface pp. 1-2.
↩N. S. N. pp. 3-5.
↩Six sections (xli, xliii-xlvii, pp. 138-56, 164-205) are especially devoted to this purpose.
↩ Vol. III, p. 638-9. No. 7318:
The date 469 A. H. indicates that four years had elapsed after the succession of Maliksháh.
↩ It is hardly possible to know the additional sections, excepting that in xliii (p. 164) occurs:
The Preface of Muḥammad Maghribí to the work (N. S. N. pp. 1-2.)
↩The original arrangement of section xlii (pp. 156-64) “On the veiled inmates” etc. and of the last three sections xlviii-l (pp. 205-9) seems to be out of place. The subject-matter contained in the sections on heretics is, apart from historical accuracy, very disjointed; Mazdak (xliv) is considered as the first heresiarch in the world, then directly follows the account of Sinbád the Gabr (xlv), and then that of the Carmathians, Báṭinís, and other sects in various places (xlvi-xlvii).
The numeration of the sections as given in the present text, as well as in the translation, does not correspond with the original list given on pp. 3-5. Not only is section xl repeated on pp. 125, 131, but also xliv on pp. 138, 166; according to the list the intervening untitled faṣl on p. 130 should not occur and xl (pp. 131-8) “on titles” should immediately follow xl on p. 125, and xliv on p. 138 should bear the numeration xli.
↩ZDMG. loc. cit. p. 762; N. S. N., pp. 136-7; p. 137, l. 9; p. 151, l. 1; p. 204, ll. 5-13.
↩E.g. Buzurjmihr is said to have survived the downfall of the Sásánids, (N. S. N. p. 159); Bahrám Chúbín is reported as the Wazír and dear friend of king Parwíz, who is also made the king of Rúm, (N. S. N. p. 67); Ja‘far-i-Barmakí is made to appear at the court of the Caliph Sulaymán b. ‘Abdu’l-Malik the Umayyad, (N. S. N. p. 151); Ya‘qúb b. Layth is represented as threatening to bring the Fáṭimid rival of the ‘Abbásid Caliph al-Mu‘tamid (who reigned from 870 until 892 A. D.) from Mahdiyya, which was not founded until 910 A. D. (N. S. N. p. 12). Several other errors are pointed out by Nöldeke (ZDMG. loc. cit. pp. 766-7).
↩On p. 204 the Tajáribu’l- Umam is referred to for other details; but the account of the Carmathians given in N. S. N. (pp. 183-7) hardly resembles the one given in the Tajáribu’l-Umam of Miskawayh (see Gibb facs. VII, 5, pp. 30-32).
↩For the sake of a systematic study the order of the Siyásat-náma is retained, but the purport of the story according to the version of the Jawámi‘ is given, and points of similarity and divergence are briefly noted.
↩Cf. also T. S. N. pp. 20-1, ZDMG. (loc. cit. p. 766-7); Sketches from Eastern History (pp. 201-3). In the Siyásat-náma, apart from real historical information, even the Eastern tradition about Ya‘qúb and ‘Amr, the Ṣaffárids, is erroneously represented. In the Jawámi‘, as pointed out in Notice No. (11) on the Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán (see above pp. 44-7), various other authentic traditions regarding the Ṣaffárids are preserved. This story of the treasures of ‘Amr is probably drawn from the Siyásat-náma and has found its way through it into many other works.
↩ Schefer (loc. cit.) has identified them with the
T. S. N. p. 89. Schefer identifies Dayr-i-Gachín mentioned in the Siyásat-náma with Dayru’l-jass,
but according to A. it is
Identification of this work is difficult; probably the Arabic original of Mufadhdhal b. Sa‘d b. al-Ḥusayn al-Máfarrukhí entitled the Risálatu Maḥásin i-Iṣfahán composed in 421 A. H. = 1030 A. D. is meant, of which an enlarged Persian version by Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Abu’r-Ridhá al-Ḥusayní al-‘Alawí made in 729 or 730 A. H. = 1329/30 A. D. has come down to us. Two Mss. of the latter are preserved, one by the Royal Asiatic Society [No. 180] described fully by Prof. Browne in JRAS. (1901) pp. 411-46; the other, which is in the Schefer collection (Cat. No. 1573), is identified by M. E. Blochet in Catalogue des Manuscrits Persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Tome I, p. 308, No. 502.
↩See above, Notice No. (1)a, and below, the Table of Contents Pt. III, ch. viii, for parallel references.
↩See for further details about the life and works of al-Marzubání the following works on which this notice is based: Fihrist pp. 132-4; Ansáb (facs.) p. 512a; Y. I. A. Vol. VII (in the Press); Ibn Khal. (Wüst.) Biog. No. 658, pp. 50-1. Altogether omitted in Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt.
↩ D. f62a, f63a. IV. xv. 1948, 1958:
See for a critical estimate of this work and its author, Ign. Goldziher’s excellent ‘Einleitung’ to his edition of this work, Leyden, 1899, (= S. K. M.) esp. p. lxi in this connection.
↩See for a complete biography of him, Rawdhátu’l-Jannát fí Aḥwáli’l-‘Ulamá’i-wa’s-Sádát (Litho. 1307 A. H.). On p. 385 this work is mentioned as the Kitábu’sh-Shaybi-wa’sh-Shabáb.
↩Published along with Salwatu’l-Ḥaríf of al-Jáḥiẓ (Constantinople 1302 A. H.).
↩ A. f10a:
adh-Dhahabí, Ta’ríkhu’l-Islám [Or. 49 Br. Mus.] f59a:
Some of them are found in various European libraries, viz. The Dalá’ilu’n-Nubuwwa of Abú Nu‘aym Iṣbahání [Or. 3012 Br. Mus.], and of Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn b. ‘Alí al-Bayhaqí [Or. 3013 Br. Mus.], and the Kitábu’l-Wafá fí Sírati’l-Muṣṭafá [Pet. 255 Berlin] of Abu’l-Faraj ‘Abdu’r-Raḥmán al-Jawzí, probably the same work which H. Khalfa mentions as the Sharafu’l-Muṣṭafá; while others of the title of Dalá’ilu’n-Nubuwwa of different authors are enumerated in H. Khal., Vol. III, pp. 236-7. No. 5129, and a Sharafu’n-Nabí is quoted in D. T. S. p. 7.
↩ About whom Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalání writes in al-Iṣába fi Tamyîzi’ṣ-Ṣaḥába (Bib. Indica, Vol. XX)
Pt. II, p. 52, Biog. No. 2889:
A. f10a = C. f88a
A. C. D.
Ibn Hishám, Síratu Rasúli’llah, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (= H. S. R.), Vol. I, pp. 352-4, and for other references see J. Horovitz’s article on him in Ency. Islam. Vol. I, pp. 30-1.
↩According to Ibn Ḥajar (loc. cit.) this story has been related by many earlier authors and has been incorporated by Abu’sh-Shaykh (probably referring to Aḥmad b. Fáris b. Zakariyyá, see Y. I. A., vol. II, pp. 7-8 in his Kitáb Akhláqu’n-Nabí, a collection of traditions regarding the Morals of the Prophet, very similar to the works enumerated above; and even Ibn Sa‘d is said to have related it in an impersonal form.
↩The present writer is indebted to M. L. Massignon for having kindly directed his attention towards its probable author al-Khargúshí.
↩Ansáb (facs.) pp. 193b, 195b; Y. M. B. Vol. II, pp. 421, 425; Brock. Gesch Ar. Litt. I, pp. 200, 521.
↩Verzeichniss der arabischen Hss. der Königl. Bibliothek zu Berlin, Band IX, p. 138-141. Nos. 9571-2. The present writer was not able to consult these Mss.
↩Suppl. Ar. Mss. Br. Mus. pp. 307-9, No. 509, for a life of al-Khargúshí also.
↩M. E. Blochet, Cat. Mss. Persans. Bib. Nat. Paris. Vol. I, p. 249.
↩See Ráḥatu’ṣ-Ṣudúr ed. Dr. M. Iqbál, Preface, p. xvii, n.
↩Suppl. Ar. Mss. Br. Mus. pp. 309-11, No. 510; also printed at Ḥaydarábád, Dakan.
↩See Leyden Cat. Vol. V, pp. 209-23.
↩See for all references, Chronographia Islamica by Leone Caetani, fasc. I, p. 90.
↩Sir T. W. Arnold has kindly communicated with the present writer about him.
↩H. S. R. Vol. I, pp. 351, 361, 900.
↩Loc. cit.
↩ D. ff59b-60a:
See for his life, Ibn Khal., (Wüst.) Biog. No. 391, pp. 91-2; and for his works, Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 284-6; II, p. 697, ll. 1-4; cf. I, p. 342
↩See above, Notice No. (13), pp. 52, 54.
↩H. Khal., Vol. IV, p. 319, No. 8592.
↩See for a critical study of this work, his Préface to His. des Rois des Perses; and Prof. Browne’s review in JRAS. (1901) pp. 161-4.
↩See Table of Contents, Pt. I, ch. iv, for all parallel references.
↩See for his life Yatímatu’d-Dahr pt. II, pp. 115-6; Y. I. A. vol. VI, pp. 251-67; Ibn Khal (Wüst.) Biog. No. 567, pp. 82-5; The Table-Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge, preface by Prof. Margoliouth pp. v-viii; and for all references concerning “Die Farag ba‘d aš-Šidda-Literature”, Alfred Wiener in Der Islam (1913) Band IV, Heft 3, 4, pp. 270-98, 387-420. The present writer is indebted to the courtesy of Mr. C. A. Storey for the latter and several other references. The detailed researches of Herr A. Wiener are incorporated in this Notice advantageously, and to him also the present writer owes a deep debt of gratitude.
↩See above, p. 15, ll. 23-5.
↩Eclipse (Index Vol. VII) preface, p. viii; and Table-Talk preface, p. v.
↩T. F. S. stand for the Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda (Cairo edition 1903, 1904).
↩Prof. Margoliouth has given parallel references of these recurring anecdotes, which, on a closer study, show the relation of the Nishwár to the Faraj: T. F. S. Pt. II, p. 17 = Nishwár (Arabic Text) pp. 123-4; T. F. S. II, pp. 17-9 = pp. 150-4; T. F. S. I, pp. 153-4 = pp. 220-3; T. F. S. I, pp. 172-3 = pp. 225-6; T. F. S. I, pp. 174-6 = pp. 238-40; in the Faraj 373 A. H. is given as a past year, whereas in the Nishwár this anecdote is shortened and the date is omitted, from which it appears that the Nishwár was completed later than the Faraj. According to his own authority (Arabic Text p. 7), the Nishwár was begun in 360 A. H., and it is said to have been written during twenty years. Various events and dates in the Faraj indicate that its period of composition includes the years 358-68 and 373 A. H. (T. F. S. Pt. I, pp. 132; 176), so that part of the Nishwár appears to have been written simultaneously; meanwhile these anecdotes were incorporated from one into another as the author chose. T. F. S. II, pp. 94-5 = Nishwár pp. 246-8, where at the end an episode (p. 248, ll. 8-18) is added, which does not form part of this story and is missing in the Faraj also.
↩See al-Muḥassin’s own preface to the Faraj (T. F. S. pp. 5-7), also Leyden Cat. Vol. I, pp. 212-6.
↩Compare the list of chapters at the end (T. F. S. p. 220) with that of the Nishwár (Preface).
↩al-Muḥassin acknowledges the earlier Farajs in his preface and frequently quotes them in the anecdotes; but he claims to have made great improvements upon his older models. For other particulars see Der Islam (loc. cit.).
↩See Der Islam (loc. cit.) p. 403 for the references of the citations from this work in the Faraj.
↩Ibid. pp. 403-4.
↩Ibid. p. 404.
↩Ibid. p. 404.
↩Ibid. pp. 404-7.
↩T. F. S. Pt. I, pp. 40, 66, 84, (orally from aṣ-Ṣúlí, Pt. I, pp. 44, 72, 89, 91, 147, 158, Pt. II, p. 4).
↩Der Islam (loc. cit.) p. 405; a passage cited from this work is found in the Ms. of the Faraj in Berlin, [Cat. No. 8738] f106b; see also above, Notice No. (12).
↩T. F. S. Pt. I, pp. 88, 132; cf. Ansáb (facs.) p. 19a.
↩Der Islam (loc. cit.) pp. 388-91, for his life and other particulars.
↩Ibid. p. 405, nn. 6 and 7.
↩T. F. S. Pt. II, p. 177.
↩T. F. S. Pt. I, pp. 107, 132, passim. cf. Eclipse (Index Vol. VII) p. 10, for references to the oral traditions reported from him in the Nishwár, (on p. 275, 361 A. H. as the year in which the conversation took place).
↩Der Islam (loc. cit.) p. 406.
↩Numerous anecdotes are found in the following chapters: Pt. I, chs. vi, xi, xviii, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxv; Pt. II, chs. iii, iv, vi, ix, x, xiii, xiv, xvi, xviii, xx, xxii, xxiii; Pt. III, chs. v, vii, xv, xxi; Pt. IV, chs. iii-xiii, out of which chs. vi-xi are entirely based on the Faraj. Parallel references, wherever traced, are given in the Table of Contents.
↩See above, pp. 15, ll. 15-25.
↩E. g. The anecdote of al-Aṣma‘í’s poverty in the days of his early education, the Grocer’s taunt, and al-Aṣma‘í’s appointment as tutor to the Caliph’s son al-Amín. ((T. F. S. Pt. II, ch. vii, pp. 19-21 = [Ind. Off. 1432] ff11b-13b = (D. f122a. II. vi. 1304).)).
↩E. g. The anecdote of the pathetic appeal of Zuhayr b. Ṣurad, a poet of the tribe of Hawázin, to the Prophet for amnesty, and his ode in praise of the Prophet. In T. F. S. Pt. I, ch. v, p. 88 it occurs under the heading, “On Deliverance from Imprisonment” etc., whereas in the Jawámi‘ (A. f240a. I. xxiii. 1109) it is inserted in the chapter “On Poets” etc. On the other hand, the anecdote of the Shi‘a Poet, Di‘bil of Khuzá‘a, (T. F. S. Pt. II, ch. xi, pp. 104-6) is retained in the Jawámi‘ (D. f25b. IV. viii. 1860) in the chapter “On Deliverance from Brigands” etc.
↩E. g. The account of the arrest of the three magnates Muḥammad b. Dá’úd b. al-Jarráḥ, the Qádhí Abu’l-Muthanná and the Qádhí Abú ‘Umar, the brutal assassination of the first two, and the intercession of the Wazír Ibnu’l-Furát on behalf of Abú ‘Umar who survived the shock, though his hair turned grey on account of fear. In T. F. S. Pt. I, ch. v, pp. 120-2 it is related in the chapter “On Deliverance from Imprisonment” etc., whereas in the Jawámi‘ (D. f10b. IV. iii. 1813), though the original is closely followed, it is given in the chapter “On Fear and Hope”.
↩Ethé, Cat. Pers. Mss. Ind. Office, coll. 504-5. Nos. 737 and 738.
↩The following is a list of the contents of al-‘Awfí’s Translation [Ind. Off. 1432] which roughly corresponds with the original of at-Tanúkhí’s (T. F. S.):
f11b-f61b = Pt. II, ch. vii. pp. 19-40; f64a-f101a = Pt. II, ch. viii. pp. 44-72; f101b-f126a = Pt. II, ch. ix. pp. 73-94; f126a-f135a = Pt. II, ch. x. pp. 94-104; f135a-f149a = Pt. II, ch. xi. pp. 104-118; f149b-f174a = Pt. II, ch. xii, pp. 118-148; f174a-f240b = Pt. II, ch. xiii. pp. 148-188; f242a-f256a = Pt. I, ch. iii, pp. 57-65; f256a-f285a = Pt. I, ch. iv, pp. 66-88; f285a-f352b = Pt. I, ch. v. pp. 88-147; 352b-f392b = Pt. I, ch. vi. pp. 147-188; f392b-f415a = Pt. II, ch. vii. pp. 2-17.
↩Ethé in G. I. P. II, p. 347; Prof. Browne’s analysis of this work in Lit. Hist. Persia Vol. I, pp. 276-87; U. Q. N. stand for Ṭihrán litho. 1285 A. H.
↩ (C. f233b = D. f150a. II. xv. 1 423):
See for a sketch of his life M. Cl. Huart’s article in Ency. Islam, Vol. II, p. 596.
↩See Reclassification of the Contents for other anecdotes of the Ziyárids in the Jawámi‘.
↩Pt. I, p. 31, cf. also, p. 297.
↩Chahár Maqála, p. 95.
↩ [Add. 7633 Br. Mus.] f81a-f84a
Probably owing to the coincidence of the name of the elephant of Abraha with that of Maḥmúd (see H. S. R. p. 35, l. 12; and for a biography of Abú Bakr Qúhistání, Y. I. A. Vol. V, pp. 116-21).
↩al-‘Awfí always mentions it as the Ṭabá’i‘u’l-Ḥayawán, and to avoid confusion with the work of Marwazí, noticed above No. (29), he gives the name of al-Jáḥiẓ along with it. See for other works of the same title and subject-matter, H. Khal., (Vol. III, pp. 121-2, No. 4662); references are given to the Cairo text printed in 1325 A. H. (= J. K. H.).
↩See for his life and works etc., Y. I. A. Vol. VI, pp. 56-80; Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 152-3; Ency. Islam, Vol. I, pp. 1000-1001; and the unpublished dissertation of Dr. M. Badhlu’r-Raḥmán in the University Library, Cambridge, from which the following quotation is taken.
↩ D. f88b. = M. 239b. IV. xxii. 2048:
Fihrist, pp. 272, 302; Ta’ríkhu’l-Ḥukamá’ of Ibnu’l-Qiftí ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903, (= Q. T. H.) pp. 190-5; ‘Uyúnu’l-Anbá’ fi Ṭabaqáti’l-Aṭibbá’ of Ibn Abí Uṣaybi‘a printed at Cairo 1882, with introduction etc. by A. Müller, Königsberg, 1884, (= U. T. A.) Pt. I, pp. 220-4.
↩ C. f393a
Fihrist, p. 287; Q. T. H. pp. 90-5; U. T. A. Pt. I, p. 24 sqq.
↩ D. f84a:
Fihrist, pp. 267-8; Q. T. H. pp. 95-8.
↩ D. f85b and J. f382b read
Probably referring to his Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán, which is mentioned in the Fihrist, p. 251; Q. T. H. p. 41; H. Khal. III, p. 121. An Arabic version of it is in the Br. Mus. [Add. 7511.] See old Arabic Cat., p. 215a; another combined work which is based on Aristotle is [Or 2784 Br. Mus.] see Suppl. Ar. Cat., pp. 531-2.
↩Fihrist, pp. 288-91; Q. T. H. pp. 122-32; U. T. A. Pt. I, pp. 71-103.
↩ D.
D.
D.
D.
D. f95b
Cf. Flügel, Vienna Cat., Band III, p. 451, fragment No. 17. It contains a few anecdotes taken from the ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Makhlúqát of Muḥammad Nasafí (?). According to Flügel a major portion of these anecdotes is also found in the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát, but the present writer had no opportunity of comparing these texts and establishing their relation to each other.
↩See above, Notice No. (29).
↩ E. g. the following passage about the yearly change of sex in the hyena appears to be a literal translation.
[Or. 2784 Br. Mus.], ff171b-172a:
See the Table of Contents Pt. IV, chs. xxi-xxiv for parallel references.
↩Fihrist, pp. 314, 356; Flügel in his Notes, p. 155, No. 3 has identified him with Polemon.
↩Q. T. H. p. 91-2; U. T. A. I, pp. 27-8; H. Khal. IV, pp. 589-90; Q. A. M. p. 385, his work is cited.
↩See the various notices on him collected by F. Wüstenfeld in his Einleitung to H. S. R. and Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 134-5.
↩Ibid.; Ency. Islam, Vol. II, p. 387 for bibliography.
↩Cf. the account of Abú Miḥjan in the Kitábu’sh-Shi‘ri wa’sh-Shu‘ará’ of Ibn Qutayba, ed. M. J. de Goeje, pp. 251-2.
↩All parallel references are given in the Table of Contents; Pt. I, ch. ii, Anecdotes 52-58, 69, 73-74, 76-78; Pt. I, ch. xii, Anecdotes 647-652; Pt. I, ch. xiii, Anecdote 676; Pt. II, ch. xvii, Anecdote 1453.
↩See the Table of Contents, Pt. I, ch. xii, Anecdotes 653-674, Pt. I, ch. xiii, Anecdotes 677-687.
↩Ansáb, facs. p. 342b; Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, 171-2.
↩ D. f71a = K. f523a = M. f217a. IV. xvii. 1976:
Three of them are edited by M. J. de Goeje in the Bib. Geog. Arab. Vols. VI, I, II, respectively.
↩The whole work is not accessible to the present writer, but from the extracts published by De Slane in the Description de l’Afrique etc. (Alger, 1857), and by A. Kunik and V. Rosen “On al-Bakrí”, St. Petersbourg, 1878, it can be ascertained that al-‘Awfí did not use al-Bakrí’s Masálik wa Mamálik.
↩Details about these works and Arab geographers will be found in the following works: Géographie D’Aboulféda traduite …. par M. Reinaud, (Paris, 1848), Tome I, Introduction, chapter II; Palestine under the Moslems by Mr. Guy Le Strange, (London, 1890) pp. 1-13; Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. I, pp. 225-30, 475-82; M. J. de Goeje’s introductions to the Bib. Geog. Arab. Series; L. E. C. pp. 11-6. The present writer is indebted to Mr. Guy Le Strange who was kind enough to solve some of his difficulties in these chapters.
↩See the Table of Contents: Pt. IV, chs. xvi-xvii, for a detailed account.
↩M. T. I. pp. 31-3.
↩Cf. The Átháru’l-Bilád ed. F. Wüstenfeld (= Q. A. B.) pp. 9, 48, 92, 188, 330, 387, 410.
↩Cf. The Nukhbatu’d-Dahr fi ‘Ajá’ibi’l-Barri wa’l-Bahr ed. M. A. F. Mehren, (1866), (= D. N. D.), pp. 17-25.
↩Y. M. B. Vol. III, pp. 445-54.
↩Probably his ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Buldán is alluded to by Yáqút.
↩Also in ZVO., IX, (1895), pp. 262-7 for an extract about Rús.
↩Cited in H. N. Q., see above, p. 27; utilised by Cl. Huart, see above, p. 32 (l. 5, where by an oversight reference to the folio and to the anecdote number is wrongly printed); for Siyaru’l-Mulúk as its source, see above, pp. 56, 59.
All the 37 Notices in this chapter have undergone the scrutiny of Prof. D. S. Margoliouth and Dr. R. A. Nicholson who have laid the present writer under deep obligations.
↩