Download PDF | Al-Maqrīzī, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila (ed., transl.) - Al-Maqrīzī's _al-Ḫabar ʿan al-bašar_. Vol. V, Section 4_ Persia and Its Kings, Part I-Brill (2018).
524 Pages
Foreword
The aim of Bibliotheca Maqriziana is to publish critical editions of al-Maqrizis works based on the author's holographs, whenever these are preserved. The critical editions are accompanied by annotated translations and introductions. The series is divided into two categories: the first, Opera minora (three volumes have been published thus far), includes al-Maqrizi’s minor works; and the second, Opera maiora, is devoted to his major, often multivolume, works.
The present volume is the first of the Opera maiora. It contains one section of one of al-Maqrizi’s major works and, more importantly, one of the least known: al-Habar ‘an al-basar (‘The History of Mankind’). Al-Maqrizi divided it into six volumes and several sections. This original division will be respected. Each section will be edited and translated by a specialist on the subject; the title page of each volume will indicate the volume and section number according to alMagrizi’s divisions. For reasons of space, some sections have been divided into several parts, as in the present case: The history of the Persians corresponds to the fourth section of volume 5 of al-Habar ‘an al-basar and will be published in two tomes, this one being the first.
With al-Habar ‘an al-basar, al-Magqnizi brought his historical panorama to an end. It was his last major opus, composed at the end of his life, and he conceived it as an introduction to his biography of the Prophet (Imta‘ al-asma‘ bi-ma lil-rasul min al-anba@ wa-l-ahwal wa-l-hafada wa-l-mata‘), a work that preceded his trilogy on the history of Egypt under Muslim rule (Igd gawahir al-asfat min ahbar madinat al-Fustat; Itti‘az al-hunafa’ bi-ahbar al-hulafa@, and al-Sulik limarifat duwal al-mulitk).
With this last evidence of his output as one of the most significant historians of Islam, al-Maqrizi's goal was to stress the central position of the Arabs in the history of the world, as the group elected by God to receive His last message. Though the content of al-Habar also deals with the history of other peoples (Jews, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc.), its main focus is undoubtedly on the history of the Arabs before the appearance of Islam: no fewer than four of the six volumes are entirely devoted to them. The present volume, which deals with the history of the Persians, will be followed by others, already in preparation and scheduled for publication in the near future. We hope that the full publication of this significant, largely unknown, work will contribute to a better understanding of al-Magqrizi as a historian and a scholar.
Frédéric Bauden Liége, 10 June 2017
Preface
It is my pleasant duty to thank several persons who have, in one way or another, helped me to prepare this edition. The initial type script of the Arabic text was done by my students Mr Jouni Harjumaki, Ma, and Ms liris Saarelainen, B.Soc.Sci. Saarelainen also acted as my research assistant in spring 2016, helping with locating and getting hold of some books and articles that I needed for the edition.
An earlier version of the translation was read by Dr Ilkka Lindstedt (Helsinki), who made several useful suggestions to improve the text. Towards the end of the editing process, Ms Maria Pakkala, Ma, was invaluable in helping with the Arabic text, both discussing my readings and giving practical help in preparing the Arabic text.
My warmest thanks go to Dr Frédéric Bauden, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Liége and the editor-in-chief of the series Bibliotheca Maqriziana, who invited me to edit this part of the Habar, provided me with copies of the relevant parts of the manuscripts, and helped in preparing the final manuscript for print. He also kindly provided me with copies of some of his relevant articles, both published and unpublished.
Jaakko Hameen-Anttila Edinburgh, 31 March 2017
Introduction
1 al-Maqrizi and the Habar
The Egyptian historian Taqi l-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Magrizi (766/1364—845/ 1442) wrote his last work, al-Habar ‘an al-basar, towards the end of his life to complete his historiographical cuvre by adding to it this history of the world in pre-Islamic times. The six-volume? work was begun in 836/1433 and the third volume was completed in 844/1441.3 It seems, though, that before the completion of the third volume, al-Magqrizi had collected materials for the remaining parts, too, although the final parts of the text show signs of hurried composition: towards the end of the present part al-Magqrizi’s quotation technique slightly changes and in at least some later parts al-Maqrizi is satisfied to quote through Ibn Haldun’s Ta’rih some of his ultimate sources, which in earlier parts he had quoted directly (see below).*
The whole text will be edited in parts in Bibliotheca Magqriziana. This volume covers the history of pre-Islamic Iran from the Creation to and including the ASsganians. The part on the Sasanians will be edited in a separate volume.
2 The Pre-Islamic History of Iran in Arabic and Persian Sources
During the ‘Abbasid translation movement, beginning, in fact, in the Late Umayyad period and continuing for some two centuries, a huge number of Greek and Syriac works on philosophy and science were translated into Arabic.5 At the same time, Arabs became acquainted with Biblical history through both Jewish and Christian sources in a variety of languages, including, perhaps even most importantly, oral sources.
This part of the translation movement largely ignored history (and literature, for that matter). Herodotus, Thucydides, and other Greek historians remained virtually unknown to the Arabs and no Latin sources were translated into Arabic. Likewise, sacred history rarely met factual history. Sacred history transmitted Biblical names, events, and legendary chronologies, but only in some individual cases related these to factual history.
But there was also another branch of this translation movement. Contrary to their attitudes towards Greek and Syriac historical works, Late Umayyad and Early ‘Abbasid translators were keenly interested in Persian history.’ This may partly be due to many of them being themselves of Persian origin and there was probably an element of early nationalistic feelings in transmitting the history of their country to the Arabs.
Be that as it may, a rather large number of Middle Persian historical works were translated into Arabic by translators such as Gabalah b. Salim® and, especially, Ibn al-Mugqaffa‘ (d. ca. 139/756).9 Most of the original texts and all of their early translations have, however, later been lost. Among Middle Persian historical books that we know to have been translated are the following:
the Hwadaynamag (Siyar muluk al-Agam; Hudaynamah); Ayadgar t Zaréran;)°
Karnamag i Ardasir t Pabagan (Karnamag Ardasir);
Kitab al-Sakisaran;
Kitab al-Baykar,
Kitab Rustam wa-lsfandiyar;
Kitab Bahram Subin;
Kitab Bahram wa-Narsi™
C0: a 12 Oe SN
Several of these seem to have centred on the Sistanian heroes, the most famous of whom was Rustam, the central character of Firdawsi’s Sahnameh.!2
Although the translations were lost, they influenced the nascent ArabIslamic worldview,’ and Persian history became part and parcel of ArabIslamic historiography. Arabic and Classical Persian world histories tend only to give full attention to three historical traditions, those of sacred history, Persian history, and Arab-Islamic history.
Some authors did add chapters on India, China, Byzantium, Western Europe, Turks, Mongols, and other countries and peoples,* but these tend to remain comparatively brief and, what is more, they had little effect on the overall organization and understanding of world history.
When it comes to pre-Islamic Persian history, the model adopted by Arabic historians and based on that of the Hwadaynamag, as it seems, combine mythical and legendary East Iranian history with the factual history of the Arsacids and Sasanians, almost completely ignoring the Achaemenids and Seleucids and the factual history of Iran until Alexander the Great.!
Typically, this model divides pre-Islamic Persian history into four categories, or classes, of kings related to each other by family ties, viz.:
the Pisdadians; the Kayanids; the ASganians;!©
ae Go [Nin
the Sasanians.
The transitions were explained to have taken place without major interruptions in the dynastic principle. The first Kayanid king, Kay Qubad, was considered to have been the son of Zaw, the last PiSdadian King. The transition over to the Asganians was safeguarded by making Alexander the Great the son of Darius the Elder (see below) and by taking his successors, the Petty Kings, to have been scions of the earlier aristocracy. The Sasanians, further, were derived from Sasan, the oldest son of Darius the Elder, who had been surpassed in the line of succession in favour of Darius the Younger. Hence, the Sasanians represented a return to the legitimate royal line before Alexander. A line of succession, thus, ran from Gayomart, the first man and the first king, down to Yazdagird 11, killed in 651, the last Persian king before the Arab conquest of Iran. This model is broken only by some usurpers (especially al-Dahhak and Afrasiyab) whose reigns were considered interregnums and who were taken to task for the interruptions and confusions in the continuous chronology. After their reigns, the kingship always returned to its legitimate owners.!”
The Asganians are not much more than a list of names, and the Seleucid interlude in Persian history is virtually ignored. The line of history moves from Alexander directly to the Parthians, with few historical or even legendary details in between. The lack of information on the Achaemenids and, especially, the Parthians has raised discussion as to why these dynasties were ignored or even suppressed in Sasanian historiography. The question is, to my mind, wrongly put. There was no indigenous historiography before the Sasanian historians started writing their works in the sixth century.!® It seems reasonable to assume that by that time they had scarce information on events that had taken place some 1,000 to 300 years earlier and that had not been recorded in writing, as far as we know.!9 It is perhaps more to be wondered at that later historians knew the names of the Parthian kings in the first place. Herodotus’ knowledge of Greek history some 1,000 to 300 years before his time is even more minimal.
Al-Magqrizi adopts the historical worldview ultimately going back to the Middle Persian Hwadaynamag and its Arabic translation(s). As in these sources, for al-Maqrizi the history of Iran consists of a continuous line of kings, with occasional interruptions. The story begins with the first human being, Gayomart (al-Habar §§ 4-25), who is often considered to have been the first king, too. Al-Maqrizi, however, formally begins the chapter on the Pisdadians only with Huang (§ 26). The Pisdadians, in turn, give way to the Kayanids (§ 107), whose rule was ended by Alexander the Great (§ 168), thus confusing, or equating, the Kayanids and the Achaemenids.
Alexander the Great, whose history goes back to the Alexander Romance,?° is in theory tied up with the earlier dynasty by family ties, but in practice portrayed through his campaigns rather than his kingship. Like his predecessors, al-Magqrizi does not make a difference between the Parthian period and the Greek successor states about which he obviously knew little,?! taking all rulers between Alexander and the first Sasanian king, Arda&ir, as one group, the Petty Kings.
The most important kings of the third dynasty are the A8ganians (al-Habar § 247). Here, the text comes closer to factual history, even though al-Maqrizi, like the Arab-Islamic tradition in general, has little to say about any of the kings of this group. Islamic historiography in general and specifically al-Maqrizi are well informed about the fourth dynasty, the Sasanians. This fourth part will be edited in a separate volume of the Habar.
As shown by his division of the Persian part into chapters, this is the primary division of Persian history for al-Maqrizi. In § 6, however, he also mentions a quinquipartite division, from Gayomart to Manwsihr to Kay Qubad and from there to the ASganians and the Sasanians. This model stems from Sa‘id alAndalusi’s Tabagat al-umam, and al-Maqrizi quotes it without comment, but otherwise adheres to the more common quadripartite division.??
In comparison to most historical works written in Arabic or Persian, alMagrizi’s al-Habar deviates from this paradigm by including much material from the Arabic translation of Orosius’ Seven Books. This brings in the dynasty of the Achaemenids (§ 166), who are usually only known through the Alexander Romance. Orosius was familiar with Greek historiography, providing a short account of the Persian Wars and giving the background for Alexander and Philip. Orosius was also well informed about the Achaemenids and the Alexander Romance in a version that differed from those current in Arabic literature. Al-Magqrizi added these to his Habar, albeit in an abbreviated form (see below).
Al-Magqrizi makes an effort to fuse together these two historical traditions and critically considers the situation on basically sound principles. After discussing the two conflicting versions of history he opts for relying on that of the Persians themselves as Orosius is to him the historian of the Greeks and Romans, rather than the Persians (al-Habar § 168). The underlying principle of relying on the native tradition is obviously sound, even though the result in this case is not, as the Persians had lost almost all traditions from the Achaemenid period and foreign sources—in this case, Orosius’ Latin text—do, indeed, come closer to factual history than the Persians’ own tradition.
Like most other historians, al-Maqrizi endeavours to synchronize the various historical traditions by making equations between the main characters. This he does in this part of the Habar in three ways. He equates mythical and legendary characters of Persian national history with Biblical characters. Secondly, he equates some of the Achaemenids with Kayanid kings. Thirdly, like many earlier authors he equates a series of characters from Persian national history with South Arabian rulers.
We come across this synchronizing tendency already in the lost translation of the Hwadaynamag by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the mid-eighth century, as we know from fragments of the translation and references to it.?3 Persian kings and the early prophets of Islam, mainly derived from Biblical history, were synchronized either in the framework of prophets, as al-Tabani did, or of kings, as al-Dinawari did,?* thus dating the kings to the times of the prophets or vice versa.25
Almost all historical works take part in the discussion whether some Persian kings could or should be equated with characters known from Islamic sacred history. Al-Magrizi is rather reserved in this, though himself equating Adam and Gayomart, once even slightly changing the text of his source so as to offer this as a fact whereas the source had given it as the opinion of some Persians only.”6
In the same vein, al-Maqrizi discusses the position of Zoroaster and whether to consider him as a prophet—as had been done by many?’—or not. In this case, he takes a rather negative stance (al-Habar §§ 8, 135-138, 141), although in the final analysis leaving the question open. But the implication is rather strong that he does not accept this view. Another religious character, Buddha, is discussed in passing, although his name has been confused with that of Biwarasf (al-Habar § 8).
Both in the Habar and most other Arab-Islamic world histories, Alexander is part of Persian national history. Alexander forms both a break with the earlier tradition and a continuation through the fabricated story (al-Haba § 21) which makes him the brother of the last Kayanid/Achaemenid king. A similar case is the bridging of the gap between the Kayanids/Achaemenids and the Sasanids through claiming for Arda&ir a lineal descent from the eponymous Sasan, son of Darius the Elder.
In this paradigmatic model for pre-Islamic Persian history, the pre-Sasanian factual history of Iran is virtually ignored, with few exceptions. The major exception is, of course, Alexander the Great, whose life was known to the Arabs and Persians of the Islamic period through versions of the Alexander Romance.
The Romance was received in the Islamic world through the early Syriac translation.?® Already in ps.-Callisthenes, Alexander had come to be seen as a Persian king, so that the dynastic principle of kingship could be safeguarded. This was done by taking him to have been the unacknowledged son of Darius the Elder and, hence, a legitimate successor to Darius the Younger. Also his marriage to Roxanne (al-Habar § 171) followed this agenda of repatriating Alexander, as it were.
Alexander also ties up with the Quranic Du |-Qarnayn, mentioned in the Qur’an (al-Kahf) 18:83—98, and identified by many with Alexander.” Alexander also drew into the sphere of history his famous teacher, Aristotle, and alMagrizi breaks his historical narrative in order to add a lengthy passage (alHabar §§ 237-246) on the great sage and the First Teacher, as he was called in Islamic philosophy.
The Achaemenids remained almost completely outside of this model of history, with the exception of the downfall of their dynasty that was documented in the Alexander Romance and, through it, became part of the received history of Iran. Other minor exceptions are formed by the few cases where Biblical history, especially the events in the Book of Esther and the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, tangentially touched Persian history.
This brought with itself the question of harmonizing the earliest history of Iran, based on East Iranian legendary history, with the little that was known from the West. The most common solution was to consider the Achaemenids, as well as the few Babylonian and Assyrian rulers who were known by name, real or invented, as vassal kings or governors of Babylon under the legendary East Iranian kings (cf. al-Habar §106). The less common option was to identify the two (cf., e.g., al-Habar § 168) There was one external source al-Maqrizi used that disturbed this model. This was the Arabic Orosius (Kitab Hurtisiyus), which was translated directly from Latin with many omissions and several additions, possibly in the tenth century. It influenced few later authors, but was extensively used by Ibn Haldin in his Ta’rth and al-Magqnizi in his Habar and, to a far lesser extent, in his Hitat (cf. below).
3 al-Maqrizi’s Sources
In this part of the Habar, al-Maqrizi uses a good variety of Arabic sources for his synthesis of Persian national history.
His main source is Kitab Ta’rih al-rusul wa-l-mulitk by Abt Ga‘far Muhammad b. Garir al-Tabari (d. 310/923), a general history which in its pre-Islamic part is arranged according to prophets, with Persian kings being inserted into this framework. Al-Maqrizi relies heavily on al-Tabari almost throughout, the first quotation coming in al-Habar § 19 and the last in the very last paragraph, § 269, major continuous blocks being quoted in §§ 27-34, 58-87, and go-102. Al-Maqrizi builds most of his text on al-Tabari, but even where he relies primarily on another source, such as the Arabic Orosius, he inserts relevant passages from al-Tabari, as in §§ 146-190, which mainly derives from Orosius, but has material taken from al-Tabari in §§ 152-154 and 169-171. As al-Magrizi organized his text according to the Persian kings, not the prophets, he had to excerpt relevant passages from different parts of al-Tabari’s work and reorganize these according to his own grid.
The second main source for this part is the Kitab Hurusiyus, the Arabic translation of Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum adversum paganos libri vii, which provides material for al-Habar §§ 108, 146-151, 155-167, 173-177, and 180-190. This source is of particular interest because it has only been preserved in one defective copy, and al-Maqrizi’s text helps to fill in some of its lacunae. It will be studied in more detail below.
Hamzah al-Isfahani’s (d. 350/961 or 360/971) Ta’rih sint l-muluk, written in 350/961 or a year after,2° is a concise chronological study of world history, the first and largest part of which is dedicated to pre-Islamic Iran and based on Arabic translations of very good pre-Islamic sources.*! This part is much used by al-Maqrizi, major blocks of Hamzah’s text being quoted throughout the text, from al-Habar §§ 10-18 to §§ 255-259.
Abt Rayhan al-Biruni’s (d. about 442/1050) history of ancient nations, alAtar al-baqiyah ‘an al-qurin al-haliyah, is used to provide additional information on especially Gayomart, chronology, and Alexander, being the source for al-Habar §§ 20-23, 106, 178, 227-232, and 260-264. Abu ‘Ali Ahmad b. Muhammad Miskawayh’s (d. 421/1030) general history, Tagarib al-umam, contains an extensive section on pre-Islamic Iran (Tagarib al-umam, 1:61-168) and it is used especially towards the end of this part (al-Habar §§ 49, 194, 199, 233-235, 247— 249, and 251-254), providing additional information on Alexander and the Petty Kings. In the manuscript Aya Sofya 316 of Tagarib al-umam, vol.1, there is a note by al-Maqrizi indicating that he made a resumé of the work in 844/1441, the very year in which he finalized the third volume of the Habar.*?
All the remaining identified sources for this part of the Habar are only used for a limited part of the text. The beginning (al-Habar §§ 4-9) is based on Sa‘id al-Andalusi’s (d. 462/1072) history of science, Tabaqat al-umam, defining the Persians as a nation and giving some general information on them in a nutshell.
Ibn Abi Usaybi‘ah’s (d. 668/1270) biographical dictionary of doctors (and philosophers), Uyun al-anb@ fi tabaqat al-atibba’, provides a long chapter on Aristotle (§§ 237-246). This chapter is very similar to the resumé of the same text which we have in the Liége notebook (Ms 2232), fols. 22-265, of alMagrizi.*? Al-Mubaésir b. Fatik’s (5th/11th century) collection of wise sayings, Muhtar al-hikam wa-mahasin al-kalim, is culled for parts of al-Habar §§191210, possibly through Ibn Abi Usaybi‘ah’s work, though with several other sources intervening and providing additional material for these paragraphs.*+
Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam’s (d. 257/871) book on the conquest of Egypt, Futuh Misr wa-ahbaruha, has been used by al-Maqrizi for the discussion whether Dt 1Qarnayn should be identified with Alexander the Great (al-Habar §§ 212-231), and the historian Abt |-Hasan al-Mas‘ud?’s (d. 345/956) al-Tanbth wa-lisraf is the source for a passage on the definition of the term Iranahr (al-Habar § § 88-89). Al-Maqrizi may also have used the same author’s Muriug al-dahab § 534 for a short note in al-Habar §15, although the brevity of the quotation (explicitly by al-Mas‘tdi, but no book identified) makes it impossible to verify this.35 It should also be noted that this has been written in the margin of the holograph, as an afterthought. It is also possible that the historian Ibn al-Atir’s (d. 637/1239) al-Kamil fi l-ta’rih, 1:290, is quoted in al-Habar § 200, but as the quotation is neither explicit nor exact this is far from certain. Fahr al-Din alRazi (d. 606/1209), Mafatih al-gayb 21166 is quoted in § 221 but I have been unable to verify whether this is a direct or an indirect quotation.
In his Hitat, 1:399-417, al-Maqrizi had covered large parts of Alexander the Great’s history, partly based on the same sources. Knowing his methods, it is quite possible that in writing the Habar, al-Maqrizi has used former notebooks of his, which he had already used when writing the Hitat. This would explain the major overlaps between his two books (see al-Habar §§ 175-176, 180-186, and 215-221). However, the Hitat itself cannot be considered his source for this passage, as al-Maqrizi sometimes quotes the original sources more extensively in the Habar.
In later parts of the Habar, al-Magqrizi uses some of these sources through Ibn Haldtn’s Ta’rih, but this does not seem to be the case in the part edited here.
4 al-Magqrizi and Orosius
The Arabic translation of Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum adversum paganos libri vii (“The Seven Books of History against the Pagans”), Kitab Hurusiyus (KH), has received some scholarly attention, mainly centred on the question of the identity of the probably 10th-century translator(s) of the work and the possible ideological motives behind the changes that can be detected between it and the original Latin text.36
This translation is only preserved in one defective copy in Princeton. There are two editions, one by Badawi (1982) and the other by Penelas (20014). Badawis edition leaves much to be desired. That by Penelas is much better, but even it cannot, in most cases, fill in the numerous lacunae of the defective copy.
Penelas (20014): 67-81, lists the posterior influence of KH. The cases of Ahmad al-Razi (d. 344/955), Anbar muluk al-Andalus and the Crénica PseudoTsidoriana (13th century, possibly dependent on al-Razi’s Ahbar) are open to discussion (Penelas 2001a: 67-71). The case of Ibn Gulgul (d. 384/994), Tabagat al-atibb@ wa-l-hukam@ is also complicated (Penelas 2001a: 71-73). With al
Bakri (d. 487/1094), Kitab al-Masalik wa-l-mamalik, we are on firm ground and K's influence on it is indubitable (cf. Penelas 2001a: 73—74).3”
Ibn ‘Abd al-Mun‘im al-Himyari (8th/14th century) quotes KH a few times in his al-Rawd al-mitar (Penelas 2001a: 74-76), but possibly indirectly, at least once through the anonymous al-Istibsar ft agaib al-amsar (6th/12th century). More important is the anonymous Texto mozdrabe de historia universal (c. 1300, Penelas 20014: 76-77), which, despite its poor condition, fortunately preserves an important passage on the walls of Babylon, which can be compared to alMagrizi, al-Habar§ 147, discussed below.#8
The number and/or accuracy of these previously detected fragments is limited and their value for the reconstruction of the poorly preserved KH is marginal. With two later historians we come to more substantial quotations. The first is the famous North African historian Ibn Haldtn (d. 808/1406), who quotes KH extensively in his Ta’rih (Kitab al-Tbar),>° through which KH is further quoted by al-Qalqasandi (d. 821/1418) in his Subh al-a$a. As shown by Fischel (1961), (1967), Ibn Haldiin probably used KH while in Egypt and the quotations are so similar to the preserved unicum that he may well have used the very manuscript we still have.*° Ibn Haldiin’s quotations are extensive and sometimes enable us to fill in minor lacunae in the preserved manuscript, which Ibn Haldin must have had at his disposal when it was in a better condition than it now is.*1
KH is also quoted five times by al-Maqrizi in his Hitat.4* There has been some discussion as to whether the short quotations have been directly taken from KH or through intermediate sources.** As we now know that al-Maqrizi had access to KH when writing his Habar, we could argue that it is probable that he already had it at hand when writing the Hitat, which could be supported by the fact that the few quotations there are very literal. On the other hand, as we shall see, it may also be that al-Maqrizi got hold of a copy of KH only after having started collecting materials for the Habar. The quotations in the Hitat are, in any case, unfortunately few and none of them coincides with any of the lacunae of KH.4#
While these quotations have been known for up to several decades, alMaarizi's al-Habar has hitherto not been realized to contain very extensive quotations from KH, mostly in an accurate form, as we can see comparing the existing parts of the texts. Luckily, many of the quotations contain passages that fall into the lacunae of the unique manuscript of KH and, hence, enable us to reconstruct parts of the missing text.
Most of the quotations from KH occur in the part of the Habar edited here. There are also a number of quotations in the chapter on the Kings of the Israelites (al-Habar, ed. al-Suwaydi and ‘Abd al-Gani, 6:229-282) and the Greeks and Romans, fols. 233?-253> of the holograph Ms Fatih 4340,4° not edited in this volume.*® In addition, occasional quotations from KH are to be found elsewhere in the Habar.*’ KH, 134-146 and 169-188, are extensively excerpted for the part of the Habar edited here, and there are a few further quotations coming from other parts of KH. The lacunae and illegible words of KH, 134-146, can to a large extent be filled in by the aid of the Habar and elsewhere the quotations in the Habar help in reading some illegible words and passages in the KH. Further research, feasible once all volumes of the critical edition of the Habar have appeared, may add some passages, but on the basis of Ms Fatih 4340, fols. 76>-136> and 2333-264), and the edition of the Habar by al-Suwaydi and ‘Abd al-Gani, it would seem that al-Maqrizi restricted his use of KH mainly to the part on pre-Sasanian Persian history, the chapter on the Kings of the Israelites, and the short chapter on Greeks and Romans. This is understandable, considering the contents of KH.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق