Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:06:52.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manuscripts and editions of Bal‘amī's Tarjamah-i Tārīkh-i Ṭabarī1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Elton L. Daniel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the year 352/963, according to independent evidence and the author's own testimony, the Samanid ruler Manṣūr b. Nūḥ sent an order via his major-domo and closest confidant, al-Fā'iq al-Khāṣṣa, to his minister Abū 'Alī Bal'amī, commissioning the latter to prepare a translation into court Persian of the famous historical annals written in Arabic by Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī. Bal'amī completed this task, producing a book whose popularity in many ways eclipsed that of the original text throughout the Persian-speaking world and beyond (being translated into various Turkish dialects and even, ironically enough, back into Arabic). Unfortunately, exploitation of this source by modern scholars has been hindered both by its identification as a “translation” of Ṭabarī's work and by the lack of a suitable edition of the Persian text. This article attempts to explore these problems and the extent to which they have been rectified by recent studies and editions of this important work.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 282 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 According to the Arabic preface found in some manuscripts; see below n. 24. This is accepted as accurate and repeated by Çelebi, Kātib (Khalīfa, Ḥājj), Kashf al-ẓunūn 'an asāmī aī-kutub wa'l funūn (edited by Yaltkaya, Şerefettin and Bilge, Rifat; Istanbul, 1971), 1: 297–8Google Scholar. Other historians refer to the translation in less detailed fashion; e.g. Ṣamd Allāh Qazvīnī, Tār$ikh-i Guzīdah (edited by 'Abd al-Ṭusayn Navā'ī; Tehran, 1339/1960, reprint 1362/1983), pp. 383, 705. See also Sprenger, A., “Bal'amy's translation of the History of Tabary and Ghazzály's History of the Prophets”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 17 (1848): 437–71Google Scholar; Bahār, M. T., “Tarjamah-i tārīkh-i Ṭabarī”, Nāmah-i Tamaddun 1 (1309–10/1932–1933): 133–44Google Scholar; Barthold, W., “Bal'amī”, El1, 1: 614Google Scholar; Dunlop, D. M., “Bal'amī”, El2, 1: 984–5Google Scholar.

3 The Arabic translation by Khiżr b. Khiżr al-Āmidī, dated 935–7/1528–31, is preserved in Leiden, Cat. cod. arab. 2: 825; see Voorhoeve, P., Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden (Leiden, 1957), p. 373Google Scholar. Other copies of the Arabic translation are at Cambridge (Add. 836), Princeton (Garrett Collection 582), and perhaps Berlin: see Browne, E.G., A Handlist of the Muḥammadan Manuscripts…in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1900), no. 189Google Scholar; Hitti, P. K. et al. , Descriptive Catalogue of the Garrett Collection of Arabic Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Princeton, 1938)Google Scholar; Ahlwardt, W. A., Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin, 1887–1899), no. 9424Google Scholar. On the many Turkish translations, published and unpublished, see Brown, Handlist; Babinger, F., Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen undihre Werke (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 66–7, 410Google Scholar; Bregel, Yuri, Persidskaia literatura: bio-bibliograficheskii obzor (Moscow, 1972), 1: 287Google Scholar.

4 For example, there is a manuscript at Oxford, Bodleian Library, Elliott 374, of a modern compilation of Bal'amī's is text by Abu'l-Qāsim Simnānī, probably prepared for J. B. Elliott, at the front of which Elliott remarks, “I believe it is doubtful whether the original Arabic History of Tabary is extant”. See also the comments in Kosegarten, G. L., Taberistanensis id est Abu Dschaferi Mohammed ben Dscherir Ettaberi Annales Regum Atque Legatorum Dei (Griefswald, 1831), pp. x–xviGoogle Scholar; Morley, William H., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Historical Manuscripts in the Arabic and Persian Languages Preserved in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society (London, 1854), p. 18Google Scholar (description by Sir John Malcolm); Sprenger, , “Bal'amy's translation of the History of Tabary”, p. 438Google Scholar.

5 Kosegarten, Annales Regum; Dubeux, L., Chronique d' Abou Djafar Mohammed Tabari (Paris, 1836)Google Scholar; Zotenberg, Chronique (see above n. 1).

6 Bartol'd, V. V. [Barthold, W.], Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, third edition of the English translation (London, 1968), p. 10Google Scholar.

7 See Dunlop, D. M., The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954), p. 58 n. 1Google Scholar; also his article in El2, 1: 984–5. Earlier authors had pointed out that Bal'amī's work contained additional material beyond that found in Ṭabarī (see Malcolm's notes in Morley, , Descriptive Catalogue, p. 18Google Scholar; Paret, R., “Ṭabarī”, El1, 4: 579Google Scholar), but Dunlop deserves special commendation for showing the utility of this information, despite the handicap of having to work with inadequate editions of the text.

8 Text in Raushan 2: 927–8; Zotenberg, 4: 270–93; Dorn, B., “Tabary's Nachrichten über die Chasaren”, Mémoires de l' Acaaemie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, VIme Série, Sciences Politiques, Histoire et Philologīe (1842), pp. 510–46Google Scholar (Beiträge zur Geschichte der kaukasischen Länder und Völker, reprint, Leipzig, 1967). Although Dunlop showed that these accounts are similar to ones in Ibn A'tham al-Kūfī and Ibn al-Athīr, much of the material is unique; for Dunlop's, use of it, see his Khazars, pp. 58–79Google Scholar.

9 Text in Raushan, 2: 683–4; Zotenberg, 4: 8–9. A similar account is found in other sources such as Mas'ūdī or Ibn Abī'l-Ḥadīd, but not in Ṭabarī.

10 Compare the two texts on Job (Ṭabarī, 1: 361–5; Zotenberg, 1: 255–66; Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 323–32), 'Azīz/Jeremiah (Ṭabarī; 1: 646–8; Zotenberg, 1: 492–8; Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 648–54), Jesus (Ṭabarī, 1: 723–41, Zotenberg, 1: 537–72 Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 745–90) and the Battle of Badr (Ṭabarī, 1: 1281–1346; Zotenberg, 2: 480–530; Raushan, 1: 107–46). The treatment of Qutayba's exploits does not seem much more detailed than Ṭabarīs, but it is more coherent and featured more prominently (cf. Ṭabarī, 2: 1178–81, 1184–5, 1185–91, 1194–5, 1198–9, 1201–7, 1218–30, 1236–53, 1256–7, 1267–8, 1275–81; Raushan, 2: 817–19, 862–4; Zotenberg, 4: 153–85, 198–201.)

11 One instance of this pertains to a first-hand description of “Job's Spring” and its miraculous properties. Zotenberg, 1: 263 thought that this came from Ṭabarī (see his index, s. v. “Mo'hammed, fils de Djarir, Tabarī, a visité la source miraculeuse de Job”), which is understandable since Ṭabarī was known to have resided in Syria and Egypt. However, the account is not found in Ṭabarī, and some of the manuscripts used by Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 330 add to the passage in Zotenberg, giving the date of the visit as 330/940–1. This date, which corresponds, interestingly enough, to the time of an abortive pro-Shi'ite coup in Khurāsān, can only refer to Bal'amī and proves that he must have spent some time in Syria/Palestine himself. While discussing the origin of the Islamic calendar, in a section explicitly stated not to come from Ṭabarī, the author, presumably Bal'amī, also indicates that he had met Shi'ites in Baghdad who used their own dating system: see Raushan, 1: 87 (Zotenberg, 2: 457.)

12 Frequent mention is made of additional material being taken from Isḥāq, Ibn, both the Mubtadā' (see Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 536)Google Scholar and the Maghāzī (Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 633, 2: 843; Raushan, 1: 53, 56, 106, 134, 180 etc.) Other sources named include geographical works such as the Tasmiyyat al-buldān (Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 976; cf. Zotenberg, 2: 158), Faḍā'il al-buldān (Zotenberg, 1: 278–9; called Faḍāil-i shahr-hā in Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 346), and a Masālik wa'l-mamālik (Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 762); a Persian book of omens (Kitāb-i fāl; Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 1130–1), and various histories such as the Akhbār Ṣiffīn (Mīnuvī/Mashhad, p. 198) and perhaps Ibn A'tham's Kitāb al-futūḥ (given in Raushan, 2: 824 as Kitāb Abū'l-Futūḥ [sic]; cf. Zotenberg, 4: 159.) This ignores several works mentioned in the spurious chapter on the rūzgar-i 'ālam.

13 Sometimes using this phrase; in other instances, referring only to “other chronicles”, “books of the history of the Persians”, “Egyptian authors”, “some historians”, “books of tafsīr”, “other works”, or “certain traditions”: for examples, see Zotenberg, 1: 252, 266, 279, 290, 331, 498, 556, 562, 2: 44, 216, 253, 322, 326, 402, 3: 104, 291, 325, 366, 433, 435, 479, 537, 545, 546, 705, 4: 139, 159, 177, 179, 181, 193, 222, 227, 234, 239, 244, 263, 360. Many, but not all, of these references appear in the Bahār/Gunābādī and Raushan editions; the Mashhad manuscript preserves a few additional references (Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 198, 388, 407, 458.)

14 As Dunlop, , Khazars, p. 58 n. 1Google Scholar, pointedly and correctly said, “to credit what Ṭabari tells us and reject out-of-hand additional information offered by this or that other source is evidently methodologically wrong”, particularly when such an allowance is routinely made for much later historians such as Ibn al-Athīr.

15 For example, he corrects, disagrees with, or points out inconsistencies in Ṭabarī on such matters as the identity of the Midianites (Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 332–3; Zotenberg, 1: 268); the story of Solomon and the dīv (Zotenberg, 1: 454; Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 586ff. adds further anecdotes about Solomon said not to be found in Ṭabarī); the date of the ahl al-kahf (Bahār/Gunābādī, 2: 838; Zotenberg, 2: 39); the dates of conversion of Zayd, 'Umar, and 'Abbās (Zotenberg, 2: 400, 402, 537, 3: 107; these, perhaps significantly, vary from manuscript to manuscript); an incident in the history of the Battle of Dhū Qār (Zotenberg, 2: 315–16, from the Gotha manuscript only); an anecdote about ‘Ā'isha (Raushan, 1: 82–3; Zotenberg, 2: 452); the establishment of the hijra calendar (Raushan, 1: 86–7; Zotenberg, 2: 454); the casualties at Uḥud (Raushan, 1: 180; Zotenberg, 3: 42); confusion of the raid of Sawīq with the rendezvous of Badr (Raushan, 1: 196; Zotenberg, 3: 58); the role of Khālid b. al-Walīd in the conquest of Ubulla (Zotenberg, 3: 325); or the duration of 'Utba b. Ghazwān's governorship of Baṣra (Raushan, 1: 490; Zotenberg, 3: 448). One of his sharpest rebukes of Ṭabarī is in connection with Ṭabarī's statement that Muḥammad cleared away some ancient graves in Medina to lay the foundations for the mosque there: cf. Ṭabarī, 1: 1260; Zotenberg, 2: 449 (this passage, found in only some manuscripts, appears in Raushan's notes, 3: 1339–40.) In addition to disagreeing with Ṭabarī, Bal'amī sometimes cites additional information to show that Ṭabarī is correct about something (for example, on the capitulation of Baysān, despite what he describes as the claims of “Egyptian authors” and a Kitāb al-Ma'ārif to the contrary; this, however, is apparently found only in a Paris manuscript and appears in Zotenberg, 3: 366 but not in Raushan's edition).

16 Both of these works have received critical editions: see Abū'l-Qāsim Samarqandī, Tarjamah-i al-savād al-a'ẓam (edited by ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī; Tehran, 1348/1969–70); Tarjamah-i tafsir-i Ṭabarī (edited by Ḥabīb Yaghmāī; Tehran, 1339–44/1960–66). It is interesting that several reviewers of the edition of the Tarjamah-yi tafsīr-i Ṭabarī have noted that there are also major differences in the various manuscripts of this work which are not adequately represented in the published text: see Ḥusayn, K. Ra'nā, “Nuskhah-hā-yi kuhan az nuskhah-i tafsīr-i Ṭabarī”, Yaghmā 20 (1346/1967–1968): 646–9Google Scholar; Aḥmad Rajāī, “Bakhsh-i bāzyāftah az kuhantarin tarjamah-i tafsīr-i Ṭabarī”, Nāmah-i Āstān-i Quds (special issue; 1350/1971–2), pp. 103–77. In any event, the phenomenon of the appearance of these works and others under Samanid auspices has received much scholarly attention, but typically because of its importance for the revival of the Persian language rather than for its potential political implications. One of the best studies is Bosworth, C. E., “The interaction of Arabic and Persian literature and culture in the 10th and early 11th centuries”, Al-Abhath 27 (1978–1979): 59–75Google Scholar; see also Frye, R. N., Bukhara: The Medieval Achievement (Norman, 1965), pp. 100–10Google Scholar; Lazard, G., “The Rise of the New Persian Language”, in Frye, R. N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. IV, The Period From the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, pp. 629–30Google Scholar, Ṣadīqī, G., “Ba'żīaz kuhantarīn āsāri nasr-i fārsī tā pāyān-i qarn-i chahārum-i hijrī”, Revue de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines de Téhéran 13 (1345/1966): 56–125Google Scholar; Ṭusī, F. Taqizädah, “Tarjamah-i tafsīr-i Ṭabarī va arzish-i adabīān”, Āstān-i Quds 7i (1345–6/1967–1968): 81–96Google Scholar; Negmatov, N. N., Gosudarnovo Samanidov, Maverannaxr i Xorasan v IX–X v.v. (Dushanbe, 1977), p. 225nGoogle Scholar.

17 See above, n. 1.

18 See above, n. 1.

19 Storey, C. A., Persian Literature: a Bio-Bibliographical Survey (London, 1927–1939), 1/i: xxxvi, 61–5; 1/ii: 1229Google Scholar.

20 Bregel, , Persidskaia literatura, 1: 279–88Google Scholar. The spurious entry is “Jerusalem, al-Aqṣā 7481” (1: 280). There is no such manuscript; Bregel took the information from the Ad Orientem Catalogue 12 (1968), which contains a notice (item 752) for sale of a “lithographic edition from the mss no. 7481 in the Library of Jerusalem Aksa Mosque. Tehran, 1345. 4to. pp. x, 490”. This obviously refers to Mujtabā Mīnuvīs reproduction of the Mashhad manuscript 129 (7481) in the Āstān-i Quds (which the compiler of the Ad Orientem catalogue misunderstood as referring to the Aqṣā Mosque in Jerusalem). Another potential source of confusion is that Bregel indicates that a manuscript in Tashkent, Akademii Nauk 1, may be identical with Storey's Bukhara, Semenov 24 (Bregel, 1: 284.) If the two manuscripts are not identical, this would bring the total of manuscripts added to the inventory by Bregel to 55. Finally, Bregel cites a manuscript from the San Marco library in Venice, taking his information from Dānishpazhūh, M. T., Fihrist-i mīkrūfītm-hā-yi kitābkhānah-i markazī-yi dānishgāh-i Ṭihrān (Tehran, 1348/1969–1970), p. 37 no. 17Google Scholar; I have not been able to confirm the identity or existence of this manuscript.

21 Munzavī, Aḥmad, Fihrist-i nuskhah-hä-yi khaṭṭī-yi fārsī, (Tehran, n.d.), 6: 4125–9Google Scholar.

22 Neither Storey nor Bregel identifies, for example, the Canterbury manuscript of Bal'amī used by Zotenberg (and which I have been unable to locate.) There is also a Bal'amī manuscript in the library of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, no. 47978 and apparently some others waiting to be catalogued in the Tehran Majlis library. The introduction to the Bahār/Gunābādī edition alludes to a number of other uncatalogued or privately owned manuscripts in Iran.

23 I have been able to identify the following manuscripts which can be definitely dated to 850 or before: Mashhad, Āstān-i Quds 129 (7481), dated Muḥarram 586/1190; Bursa, Genel Kütübhane 1612(F), dated 692/1292–3; London, Royal Asiatic Society 22 (Morley 9), dated 5 Shawwāl 701/1302; Istanbul, Fātih 4285, dated 1 Shawwāl 702/1303; Gotha, Landesbibliothek 24–5, dated 12 Muḥarram 713/1313; Istanbul, Aya Sofya 3050, dated Rajab 713/1313; Istanbul, Aya Sofya 3051, dated Dhu'l-Qa'da 718/1319; Istanbul, Fātih 4281, dated 21 Rabī' 1725/1325; London, British Library Add. 7622, dated Rajab 734/1334; Istanbul, Evkaf Müzesi(?) 2171, dated 735/1334–5; Patna (Bankipore), Oriental Public Library 449–50, dated Ṣafar 740/1339; Leiden, Universitätsbibliothek Cod. 1612, dated Jumādā I 754/1353–4; Istanbul, Fātih 4284, dated 817/1414; Tehran, Salṭanatī (Gulistān) 873, dated 821/1418; Tehran, Majlis 5575, dated 824/1421; Leningrad, Public Library 49, dated 833/1430; Paris, Bibliothèque National 239–49 (Blochet; Supplément 162), dated 842/1438; Istanbul, Aya Sofya 3054, dated Rabī' II 845/1441; Istanbul, Aya Sofya 3049, dated Safar 846/1442; London, British Library Add. 23496, dated 847/1443–4; Istanbul, Fātih 4282, dated 15 Sha'bān 850/1446; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ouseley 359–60, dated Ṣafar 850/1446. In addition to these manuscripts, there are two fragments (Edirne, Selimiye 1036 and New Haven, Yale University Library 1285) dated by Sezgin to the seventh/thirteenth century; an undated manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 238 (Blochet; Anciens Fonds 63) which Blochet believed to date from the thirteenth century and which Munzavī dates to 727/1327; and the Istanbul, Topkapisaray Bağdat Köşk 282 manuscript, which is part of a Ḥāfiz-e Abr$u album and is generally considered to date earlier than 850/1446. Of these manuscripts, I have not been able to see the fragments mentioned by Sezgin, the Bursa manuscript (which certainly needs to be investigated), the Evkaf manuscript (which also needs to be inspected), the Bankipore manuscript, the Salṭanatī manuscript, the Majlis manuscript (which was reported “on exhibition” at the time I inquired about it), and the Leningrad manuscript. While the contents of those manuscripts might require modification of some of the later conclusions of this paper, they do not affect the point discussed here, the diversity among the manuscripts I have examined. The Aya Sofya 3050 and 3051 manuscripts are closely related copies, produced by members of the same family less than five years apart, certainly from the same copy. Although I will thus cite only the 3050 manuscript, the comments apply to the 3051 copy as well.

24 An edited version of this introduction may be found in Kosegarten, , Annales Regum, pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar and Griaznevich, P. A. and Boldyrev, A. N., “O Dvukh Redaktsiyakh ‘Ta'rīkh-i Ṭabarī’ Bal'amī”, Sovyetskoye Vostokovedeniye (1957/iii): 52–3Google Scholar. In the incipit, most manuscripts I have examined read al-asmā' al-ḥusnā rather than al-samā' al-ḥusnā as given by Kosegarten and Griaznevich/Boldyrev.

25 One edited version of the text may be found in Griaznevich, and Boldyrev, , “O Dvukh Redaktsiyakh”, p. 48Google Scholar; cf. the versions in Kosegarten, , Annales Regum, pp. xii–xiiiGoogle Scholar; Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 1–2 and Zotenberg, 1: 2.

26 For a detailed listing, see the inventory of Bal'amī manuscripts provided at the end of this article.

27 In the sample surveyed here, these include Gotha 24–5; Bankipore 449–50; Salṭanatī 873, Leningrad Public Library 49; Aya Sofya 3054, Aya Sofya 3049, and Fātih 4282. See also below, n. 38.

28 In this sample, the RAS 22 manuscript is followed by some material on the Seljuks and the Leiden manuscript has a particularly detailed supplement on the Mongols. These may be original works or (more likely) simply fragments of other works, but some assessment of their historical value still needs to be made. Other manuscripts containing unusual appendices include Cambridge, University Library O0.6.IO; Istanbul, Fātih 4283; Oxford, Bodleian Fraser 131; Tabriz, Millī 3318 and perhaps Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 829.

29 Text in Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 2–18; cf. Zotenberg, 1: 2–8. The text contains a famous “Creation Horoscope” (garbled in Zotenberg's translation) based on the exaltation points of the planets. This “horoscope” is too widely cited to be of use in determining the identity of the pseudo-Bal'amī who composed this passage; see Neugebauer, O. and van Hoesen, H. B., Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia, 1951), p. 7Google Scholar; Elwell-Sutton, L. P., The Horoscope of Asadullāh Mīrzā (Leiden, 1977), p. 90Google Scholar (following Bīrūnī). Although this type of material is often associated with Shi'ite historical-cosmological theory, it is also found among Sunnī authors: See Massignon, Louis, The Passion of ai-Hallāj (translated by Mason, Herbert; Princeton, 1982), 1: 204–16Google Scholar. It should perhaps be emphasized that the author of this section concludes by stating that his purpose is to demonstrate that no one but God knows when the Day of Judgment will be. (I wish to thank Professor George Saliba for his assistance in clarifying the significance of this passage.)

30 Unfortunately, this part of the Mashhad manuscript has been lost, so it cannot be compared with the other manuscripts. The manuscripts preserving this material, which follows Ṭabarī fairly closely, include Aya Sofya 3050, Add. 7622, Ouseley 359–60 and the Paris and Gotha manuscripts used by Zotenberg. All of these sections are omitted in the RAS 22, Fātih 4285, Fātih 4281, and Leiden manuscripts. Although it is quite possible that the omission of this material represents nothing more than a lacuna in the manuscript tradition, it is nonetheless odd that such an extensive section of well known material should be completely missing in several apparently unrelated manuscripts. The variations are summarized in the following list (using the Zotenberg pagination to refer to the Paris and Gotha manuscripts, but changing his inaccurate transliteration of the names): Khālid b. al-Walīd's conquests in Iraq (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 246b; Add. 7622, f. 265a; Zotenberg, 3: 319) capture of Ḥīra (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 247a; Add. 7622, f. 265a; Zotenberg, 3: 321) Abū Bakr's letter to Khālid (only in Add. 7622, f. 265b) capture of Ubulla (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 247a; Add. 7622, f. 265b; Zotenberg, 3: 323) Battle of Madhār (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 247b; add. 7622, f. 266a; Zotenberg, 3: 325) Battle of Walaja (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 248a; Add. 7622, f. 266b; Zotenberg, 3: 326) Battle of Ullays (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 248b; Add. 7622, f. 267a; Zotenberg, 3: 327) submission of Ḥīra and the Sawād (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 249a; Add. 7622, f. 267b; Zotenberg, 3: 330) capture of Anbār (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 249b; Add. 7622, f. 268b; Zotenberg, 3: 335) Battle of 'Ayn al-Tamr (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 250a; Add. 7622, f. 269b; Zotenberg, 3: 337) conquest of Dūmat al-Jandal (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 250b; Add. 7622, f. 269b; Zotenberg, 3: 339) Battles of Ḥuṣayd, Khanāfis, and Muṣayyakh (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 252a; Zotenberg, 3: 340) Battles of Thinī, Zumay and Raḍab (only in Zotenberg, 3: 343) Battle of Firāḍ (only in Zotenberg, 3: 345) invasion of Syria-departure of Khālid (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 252a; Add. 7622, f. 270b; Zotenberg, 3: 347) victory of Yarmūk (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 253a; Add. 7622, f. 270b; Zotenberg, 3: 349) Muthannā's campaign against the Persians (Aya Sofya 3050, f. 253a; Add. 7622, f. 272a; Zotenberg, 3: 354).

31 Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 9–11 inserts the section of 'Umar's creation of the dīvān, which is not found in any of the other manuscripts surveyed. All the manuscripts give an account of the fall of Madā'in, but only in the Mashhad manuscript does this exceed a couple of folios. The Mashhad manuscript covers five folios (Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 8–18) and is divided into sections on the fall of Sābāṭ and Bahursīr (Nahrsīr in the manuscript), the palace of Kisrā, the royal treasury, and the subsequent battle of Jalūlā.

32 See Mīnuvī/Mashhad, p. 25; variant in Ouseley 359–60, f. 245a; cf. Oxford, Laud 323, f. 167a; Zotenberg, 3:422–5.

33 Virtually all the manuscripts begin treatment of this with a section on 'Abd Allāh b. Sabā and the doctrine of the “return” or second coming of Muḥammad (khurūj 'Abd Allāh b. Sabā wa iẓhār madhhab al-raj'a; khabr padīd āmadan-i maẕhab-i raj' at va bar khāstan-ifilnah-hā bar 'Usmān, etc.), leading quickly to an account of 'Uthmān’s murder (e.g. RAS 22, ff. 257a–258a; Fātih 4285, ff. 268a–269a; Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 285a–286b; Add. 7622, ff. 310b–313b; Leiden, 273b–275b.) In Mīnuvī/Mashhad, however, this is preceded by a more detailed account of opposition to 'Uthmān (pp. 105–12), and the very long account of the caliph's murder, pp. 112–41, is divided into several sections either not found or greatly abridged in other manuscripts. It may also be noted that some manuscripts include an obituary notice on 'Uthmān's genealogy and character (Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 141–3; Fātih 4285, f. 270b; Aya Sofya 3050, f. 287a; Add. 7622, f. 313a; Zotenberg [Paris and some other MSS], 3: 616) that is missing (accidentally?) in other manuscripts (such as RAS 22, Fātih 4282, Fātih 4281, Leiden.)

34 For example, the account of Ṣiffīn and related events, drawing on an Akhbār Ṣiffīn, extends in Mīnuvī/Mashhad from pp. 175–216; other manuscripts cover the same material in less than five folīos (RAS 22, ff. 265a-268b; Fātih 4285, ff. 276b–280a; Aya Sofya 3050, 294a–297b; Fātih 4281, ff. 296b–299b; Leiden 283b–187a; cf. Zotenberg, 3: 670–92; Raushan, 2: 640–60). Chapters on disturbances in Baṣra and the khuṭba of Ziyād b. Abīh are found only in Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 220, 239–43. The history of Karbalā covers pp. 248–76 in Mīnuvī/Mashhad; cf. the much abridged treatment in RAS 22, ff. 274a–277a; Fātih 4285, ff. 287a–290a; Fātih 4282, ff. 321a–325b; Fātih 4281, ff. 307a–311a; Leiden, ff. 293b–297b; Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 312a–316a; Add. 7622, ff. 328a–332a. Zotenberg, 4: 24–50, based on the Paris manuscript, is somewhat closer to the expanded Mashhad version. On events from the death of Yazīd to Mukhtār's revolt, compare Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 288–318; Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 309a–322a; Add. 7622, ff. 335a–346a or Zotenberg 65–101 to the briefer accounts in RAS 22, ff. 279a–284a; Fātih 4285, ff. 292a–297a; Leiden 299a–304a etc.

35 The information on Ḥajjāj's wars may be found in Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 335–56; it is abridged in Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 328a–331a and Add. 7622, 352b–355a, but not found at all in Zotenberg's manuscripts, RAS 22, Fātih 4285, Fātih 4281, or Leiden. All these manuscripts vary greatly on their treatment of Ibn Ash'ath, Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, and Yazīd b. Muhallab; these topics are generally missing from the Mashhad manuscript.

36 Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 352b–353a and Add. 7622, ff. 378a–378b follow Ṭabarī in giving accounts of the governors Ashras b. 'Abd Allāh, 'Āṣim b. ‘Abd Allāh and Khālid b. 'Abd Allāh in Khurāsān; this is not found in other manuscripts. Instead, manuscripts such as RAS 22, ff. 311b–314a; Fātih 4285, ff. 327a–330a; and Leiden, 320a–322a substitute information on events in Armenia and Azerbayjan (especially the wars with the Khazars). Compare also the very detailed account of the period of the 'Abbasid da'wa in Mīnuvī/Mashhad, pp. 452–85, Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 360a–370a, Add. 7622, ff. 386b–396b, Zotenberg, 4: 314–37 with RAS 22, 318a–321b; Fātih 4285, ff. 333b–337a; or Leiden, ff. 326b–327b.

37 For example, several manuscripts treat the entire reign of al-ManṢūr in less than two folios (RAS 22, ff. 324a–b; Fātih 4285, ff. 339a–340a; Fātih 4281, ff. 343b–344a). On the other hand, the manuscripts used by Zotenberg, 4: 347–430; Aya Sofya 3050, ff. 367a–389a; Add. 7622, ff. 330a–419a are vastly expanded, with numerous sections on Sunbādh, the Hāshimiyya disturbance, the wars with the 'Alids, the foundation of Baghdad, etc. Variations on later 'Abbasid history are too complex to be summarized easily here; it is worth noting that both the Aya Sofya 3050 (f. 425a) and Add. 7622 (f. 457b) contain chapters on ‘Alī al-Riḍā, while the other manuscripts do not. Add. 7622 is exceptionally detailed on the civil war between Amin and Ma'mūn, particularly in regard to the exploits of Ṭāhir b. al-Ḥusayn. A curious feature of some manuscripts later than those being surveyed here (such as Add. 23497, Laud 323, and Ouseley 206–8) is the tendency to expand treatment of the ‘Abbasid period to an even greater degree.

38 In the sampling of early manuscripts considered here, these include the Gotha 24–5, Fātih 4281, Fātih 4284, Aya Sofya 3054, Aya Sofya 3049, and Fātih 4282 manuscripts. From the catalogue descriptions, it seems likely that the Bankipore, Salṭanatī 873, and Leningrad manuscripts also belong in this group. For other manuscripts of this type, see below n. 53.

39 Examples: RAS 22, ff. 230b–231a; Fātih 4285, ff. 286b–287a; Fātih 4281, f. 307b (note also its use of gilded headings for events of Shi'ite significance such as death of Zayd b. 'Alī, f. 335a); Fātih 4282 (al-la'na after names of practically all the Umayyads). Other instances occur in later manuscripts such as Elliot 375, Elliott 376, and Ouseley 206–8.

40 Examples: Leiden 1612, ff. 244a, 248b, 253a; British Library Add. 7622, f. 304b; Ouseley 359–60, f. 246a.

41 Compare, for example, the account of the conversion of Abū Bakr in Zotenberg, 2: 400–2 with Raushan, 1: 39–40.

42 One's initial reaction might well be to dismiss the obviously Shi'ite material as later additions by Persian Shi'ite copyists. However, some of the most conspicuously pro-Shi'ite manuscripts are also among the very oldest manuscripts; a Safavid manuscript could be expected to show signs of Shi'ite tampering, but the appearance of such material in manuscripts from the fourteenth century is not so easy to explain. Nor can it automatically be assumed that Bal'amīs work was produced in a purely Sunnī environment, or how its composition might have been affected by such factors as the bitter antagonism between the Murji'a and the Karrāmiyya in Khurāsān and Central Asia. It is true that the Samanid rulers generally supported the Ḥanafī rite of Islam, and they initially sought legitimacy through investiture by the 'Abbasid caliphs; it is also known that Bal'amī's father was regarded as a staunch Shāfi'ī. But the Samanid-'Abbasid relationship had cooled considerably as a result of deceptive collusion on the part of the 'Abbasids with the rival Saffarid dynasty and particularly after the 'Abbasids recognized Ibn Abī-Sāj as prefect of Rayy in 310. Fatimid propagandists are known to have been active in Samanid lands, and there was certainly movement towards some form of Shi'ism under Naṣr b. Aḥmad until Turkish troops intervened to prevent it. See al-Mulk, Niẓām, Sīāsatnāmah (translated by Darke, H., The Book of Government or Rules for Kings; New Haven, 1960), pp. 218–24Google Scholar; Massignon, , Passion, 1: 537Google Scholar; Bartol'd, , Turkestan, pp. 242–3Google Scholar; Frye, , Bukhara, pp. 52–5Google Scholar. In this regard, too, it is interesting that some Bal'amī manuscripts provide evidence that the younger Bal'amī knew Shi'ites in Baghdad and that he was in Palestine at the time of the abortive “Shi'ite” coup under Naṣr b. Aḥmad (to meet Fatimid agents or fleeing from the coup?): see Raushan, 1: 87 (Zotenberg, 1:263); Bahār/Gunābādī, 1: 330 (Zotenberg, 1: 263); above n. 11.1 hope to explore the issue of Bal'amī's religious/ideological orientation more fully in a separate article.

43 It is just this problem which led Raushan to exclude the Mashhad manuscript from consideration in the preparation of his edition. However, there are ways in which it can be demonstrated to have a relationship to other Bal'amī manuscripts, notably the Aya Sofya 3050 manuscript. Both, for example, give very detailed accounts of the 'Abbasid revolution, and both begin their accounts with similar passages indicating that it has been supplemented from accounts more complete than Ḥabarīs: compare Mīnūvī/Mashhad, p. 458 with Aya Sofya 3050, f. 367a (Raushan, p. 1006.) For this reason, I prefer to think of the Mashhad manuscript as an earlier and fuller example of the same redaction as that followed by Aya Sofya 3050 and related manuscripts.

44 Many scholars before Zotenberg had noted the extensive discrepancies among the manuscripts but the general tendency was to dismiss them as purely philological changes introduced by many individual copyists: see Sprenger, , “Bal'amy's Translation of the History of Tabary”, p. 437Google Scholar; cf. Zotenberg, 1: v–vii and 2: i. The “rédaction primitive” was represented by his manuscripts A (Blochet 238), C (Blochet 242), D (Blochet 241) and G (Gotha 24–5); the “nouvelle rédaction “ by manuscripts B (Blochet 239–40), E (Royal Asiatic Society 22), J (Royal Asiatic Society 23), and K (a manuscript said to be in Canterbury); and the “rédaction remaniée” by manuscripts F (Royal Asiatic Society 24) and perhaps L (Blochet 243). This arrangement is curious in many respects: the RAS 22 and RAS 23 manuscripts, as noted in Morley's catalogue, represent quite different versions of the text, yet both are classed as belonging to the “nouvelle rédaction” by Zotenberg; the Gotha manuscript, considered by Zotenberg to belong to the “rédaction primitive” resembles RAS 22 (supposedly the “nouvelle rédaction”) in its introduction while its second volume, containing the akhbār Muqanna', is closer to RAS 24 (of his “rédaction remaniée”), etc. The manuscripts in each group also differ radically in their dates, relative completeness, etc. Zotenberg's classification thus seems rather arbitrary, but was perhaps based on similarities of parts of the manuscripts to each other, particularly in regard to the orthography of the names of people and places.

46 The translation of Bal'amī into French was actually begun by Dubeux, who finished only the first volume. Zotenberg incorporated Dubeux's volume into his own translation and so may have made the mistake of not checking closely enough on those sections of the manuscripts.

46 Griaznevich, and Boldyrev, , “O Dvukh Redaktsiyakh”, pp. 46–59Google Scholar.

47 Full text in Griaznevich, and Boldyrev, , “O Dvukh Redaktsiyakh”, pp. 52–3Google Scholar and Kosegarten, , Annales Regum, pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar. Çelebi, Kātib, Kashf al-Ẓunūn, 1: 298Google Scholar confirms that Bal'amī's text began with the doxology in Arabic.

48 Text in Bahār/Gunābādī, 1:1–2; Griaznevich, and Boldyrev, , “O Dvukh Redaktsiyakh”, p. 48Google Scholar; Zotenberg, 1: 1–2.

49 Griaznevich and Boldyrev believed that his second redaction was prepared by another unidentified editor who “worked on it at Bokhara, a comparatively short time after the translation itself had been completed, i.e., at the end of the 10th century”. However, the use of the plural “we” in the manuscript may not be purely rhetorical; it is quite possible that this extensive revision of the text was prepared by a group of editors. The argument for the revision taking place at Bukhārā by the end of the tenth century is also highly speculative. If, as I suspect, the unknown editor(s) not only added astrological material but expanded Bal'amī's text by adding accounts about various Shi'ite revolts, it might be possible to trace the origins of this redaction back to Buyid scholarly circles.

50 Beginning with the manuscripts that can be dated, these include: London, Royal Asiatic Society 22 (Morley 9), dated 701/1302; Istanbul, Fātih 4285, dated 702/1303; Gotha, Landesbibliothek 24–5, dated (at least in part) 713/1313; London, British Library Add. 7622, dated 734/1334; Oxford, Bodleian Laud Or. 323 (Sub Fenestra XV); London, India Office Ethé 8; Tehran, Majlis 2291; Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek 363; Haydarabad, Sālār Jang 149; and Lahore, Punjab University 1743. Three manuscripts – London, British Library Or. 5343, Leningrad, Dorn 266, and Haydarabad, Sālār Jang 151 – modify the doxology to begin alḥamd lillah al-awal qabl hull… and appear to combine elements of the Arabic and Persian introductions. In addition, the Leningrad, Berlin, and both Sālār Jang manuscripts are incomplete, going down no later than the caliphate of Abū Bakr, and so are difficult to compare with the other manuscripts.

51 There is a detailed description of this manuscript in Rieu, C., Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1879), 1: 68–70Google Scholar. From the earlier discussion, it may be observed that this manuscript corresponds to Aya Sofya 3050 in its extended treatment of the early conquests in Syria/Iraq and especially in regard to late Umayyad and 'Abbasid history.

52 The second volume of this manuscript may have been recopied or replaced at a later date, using a different redaction, which would explain the variation. See Pertsch, Wilhelm, Die Persischen Handschriften der herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha (Vienna, 1859), pp. 46–8Google Scholar.

53 As noted above, this manuscript is also problematic in combining a variant Arabic incipit with elements of the Persian introduction. It is also relatively detailed in its treatment of Umayyad and 'Abbasid history; except for including the story of Muqanna', it could be classed with such manuscripts as Aya Sofya 3050.

54 Indeed, any manuscript with the Muqanna' narrative should probably be included in this group. The two major exceptions are the Gotha manuscript, which has the Arabic rather than the Persian doxology and preface, and the Leiden manuscript, which does not end with the appendix to Mustaẓhir.

55 Manuscripts which definitely meet these criteria include: Istanbul, Aya Sofya 3054, 3049, 3052, and 3053; London, British Library Add. 26174; Oxford, Bodleian Elliott 377, Fraser 131, Ouseley 376; Cambridge, University Library O0.6.IO; London, India Office Ethé 2, Ethé 3, Ethé 4, Ethé 5, Ethé 7 (slight variants in the ending), Ethé 9, Ethé 10; Istanbul, Fātih 4282; Paris, Blochet 243; Berlin 364; Tehran, Aṣghar Mahdavī 872; Bankipore 449–50. A good many more manuscripts are known to have the appendix down to Mustaẓhir, and it is probably safe to predict that they also contain the akhbār Muqanna'.

56 British Library Add. 7622 is the most important of these. Among later manuscripts, Oxford, Bodleian Laud Or. 323, Tehran, Majlis 2291, and London, India Office Ethé 8 are notable for combining the Arabic introduction with exceptionally detailed accounts of Umayyad and 'Abbasid history.

57 See p. 388 of Mīnuvī's facsimile publication of the manuscript; part of the phrase is blurred in the manuscript.

58 RAS 22 was copied in Shawwāl, 710 (1302) by Muḥammad Shāh b. 'Alī b. Maḥmūd b. Shādbakht al-Iṣfahānī; Fātih 4285 was copied in Shawwāl 702 (1303) by Aḥmad b. al-Najm al-Akhlāṭī. Facsimiles of the colophons may be found in Raushan's edition of the text, pp. xxxvii and xliv.

59 It is found in RAS 22, ff. 311a–314a and Fātih 4285, ff. 326a–330a but not in Aya Sofya 3050 or Add. 7622. (See also above, n. 8.)

60 See al-Sam'ānī, Abū Sa'd, Kitāb al-ansāb (edited by 'al-Yamānī, Abd al-Raḥman; Haydarabad, 1962–), 2: 313–14Google Scholar; al-Ḥamawī, Yāqūt, Kitāb mu'jam al-buldān (Cairo, 1323/1906), 1: 271–2Google Scholar.

61 See above, n. 42.

62 For example, they omit chapters on the exile of Abū Dharr, Manṣūr's wars with the 'Alids, and the history of 'Alī al-Riḍā and various other 'Alid rebels, and they condense, sometimes considerably, reports on the Battle of Ṣiffīn, Ḥusayn's martyrdom, the revolt of Sulaymān b. Ṣurad, etc.

63 In this regard, there has been speculation that Bal'amī was working from an early edition of Ṭabarī's text which ended in the year 294 or 295 rather than the year 302 as does the text which has come down to us: See the foreword to Rosenthal, Franz (tr.), The History of al-Ṭaban, Vol. XXXVII, The Return of the Caliphate to Baghdad (Albany, 1985), p. xviGoogle Scholar with reference to Massignon, Passion, 4: 13 n. 1 (French edition). This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the colophon to one manuscript, Majlis 2291 (which also preserves the Arabic introduction), contains an explicit statement that the narrative ended at that point: See Nafīsī, Sa'īd, Fihristi kitābkhanah-i majlis-i shūrā-yi millī, Vol. 6 (Tehran, 1344/1965–1966), pp. 244–6Google Scholar.

64 See above, n. 1.

65 Istanbul 1260/1844 and 1288/1871–2; Būlāq, 1275/1858–9; see Storey, , Survey, 1/i: 65Google Scholar.

66 Tārīkh-i Ṭabarī, Lucknow 1291/1874Google Scholar; Cawnpore, 1896; Cawnpore, 1916; see Storey, , Survey, 1/i: 64Google Scholar.

67 Tehran, 1337/1959. There was also an edition of selections from Bal'amī, published by Nizhād, B., Kārnāmah-i sāsānīān (Isfahan, 1349/1970 but it is equally unimportant for serious researchGoogle Scholar.

68 See above, n. 1.

69 Bahār/Gunābādī refers, for example, to “the Bodleian manuscript” or “the London manuscript” or “the German manuscript”; often one can do no more than guess at the identity of the manuscript he means. On the basis of information in his notes, especially pertaining to the date or number of folios in ambiguous manuscripts, it appears that he was more or less familiar with the following manuscripts: the Mashhad manuscript (not used in his edition because it contains only Islamic material); Aya Sofya 3051; Fātih 4281; Ouseley 206–8; Laud 323; Blochet 238; the Dihkhudā manuscript; Majlis 2291; another manuscript in the Majlis; a manuscript in the Sipahsālār library; a manuscript in the Salṭanati collection; Malik 4154; Malik 3906 and various other manuscripts.

70 This is one of many mistakes that can result from using the photocopies in the University of Tehran library, which were in some disarray when I had the opportunity to use them over ten years ago. Raushan's manuscript “FB” is catalogued there as being a copy of Fātih 4281, but it is in fact a copy of the Gotha 24–5 manuscript as the colophon reproduced by Raushan, p. xlvii clearly shows (it even bears the stamp Biblotheca Ducale Gothana). Raushan realized that the catalogue entry was in error but did not establish the actual identity of the manuscript.

71 See above, n. 70.

72 Raushan's extensive critical notes often provide the information needed to sort out these problems as well as the text of some of the additional narratives found in the manuscripts but not included in the edition proper. However, these notes are published in a separate volume which makes checking for the proper references cumbersome.

73 For example, I have pointed out in another article the type of unique information to be found in a manuscript such as British Library Add. 23497: See Daniel, E., “Inqilāb-i qummīān bar żad ma'mūn-i khalīfah va sharḥ-i ān dar nuskhah-yi khaṭṭī-yi tārīkh-i Bal'amī”, Rāhnamāyi Kitāb 21 (1357/1979): 382–5Google Scholar. There is much additional material of this type to be found in the manuscripts.