No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
The history of literature in Persian has not been sufficiently studied although it is almost twelve centuries old, and was at times in widespread use in Afghanistan, Eastern Turkestan, India, Turkey and the Caucasus, as well as in Iran and Central Asia. The comparatively late development of Iranian studies and the condition of source materials are to blame for this situation.
page 169 note 1 This article has been published in Russia in an abridged form in Narody Azii i Afriki, 1970, no. 3, pp. 104-19.Google Scholar
page 169 note 2 In this article, which deals mainly with medieval works, the term ‘literature’ is used to include all written compositions (Schrifttum in German), except for official documents, private letters, and the like.Google Scholar
page 169 note 3 In a far from complete bibliography of catalogues and hand-lists of Persian manuscripts by Iraj, Afshar, Kitdb-shindsl-i fihristha-i nuskhaha-i khatti-i fdrsi dar kiidbkhdnaha-i dunya (Tehran, 1337/1958), only 222 publications are listed, but such a bibliography should contain not less than 1, 000.Google Scholar
page 170 note 1 The principles of the compilation of such a bibliography are discussed in an article by O. Akimushkin and Yu. Borshchevsky, Materialy dlya bibliografii rabot o persidskih rukopisyah (Materials for a bibliography of works on Persian manuscripts), Narody Aziii Afriki, 1963, no. 6, pp. 165-9 (Persian translation in Nashrlya-i Kitdbkhdna-i markazi-i Ddnishgdh-i Tehran dar bdra-i nuskhahd-i khatti (Tehran, 1342/1964), vol. m, pp. 277-88). G. Gabrieli's Manoscritti e carte orientali nelle biblioteche e negli archivi d'ltalia. Dati statistici e bibliografici delle colezioni loro storia e catalogazione (Firenze, 1930), omitted in this article, should be added. J. D. Pearson'sOriental Manuscripts in Europe and North America, A survey (Zug, 1971), a most useful and important work, contains information about catalogues and hand-lists of manuscripts in all Oriental languages found in European and North American libraries. At the International seminar on Oriental manuscripts held in Cabul (31 July to 4 August 1967) it was decided that a similar bibliography should be compiled for Asiatic countries (see Afghanistan. Historical and Cultural Quarterly, vol. xx, no. 3 (1967), pp. 91-6); such a repertory for the African countries is just as important. The Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental studies, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, is now completing a comprehensive bibliography of works on Arabic, Persian and Turcic manuscripts in libraries throughout the world.Google Scholar
page 170 note 2 The works by an-Nadim (tenth century), Katib Chelebi (seventeenth century) and many similar Arabic and Persian bibliographical works can be considered the predecessors of contemporary scholarly bibliographies, and their tradition is continued in the still incomplete multivolume bibliography adh-Dhari'a ild tasdnif ash-Shl'a by Agha Buzurg Tihrani. For more detailed information see Iraj Afshar, Fihrist-ndma-i kitdbshindslhd-i Iran, Tehran, 1342/1963 (English title: A Bibliography of Bibliographies of Iranian studies ; henceforth Afshar, Irdnshinasi ).Google Scholar
page 170 note 3 C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Bd. I_II, Weimar_Berlin, 1898_1902; Supplementbande I_III, Leiden, 1937-42; Zweite, den Supplementbanden angepasste Aufl., Bd. I_II, Leiden, 1943_49). The revision and continuation of this work has been undertaken by Fuat Sezgin. Two volumes have already appeared: Geschichte der arabischen Schrifttutns, Bd. I, Qur'dnwissenschaften _ If adit _ Geschichte _ Fiqh _Dogmatik - Mystik bis ca. 430 A.H. (Leiden, 1967), Bd. II (Leiden, 1971).Google Scholar
page 170 note 4 As far as we can judge, the first such reference work was A. Fonahn's Zur Quellenkunde der persischen Medizin (Leipzig, 1910), which was reprinted in 1968 despite its incompleteness. The important work on Ismaili literature by W. Ivanow, A Guide to Ismaili Literature (London, 1933), and its fully revised and expanded second edition, Ismaili Literature: A Bibliographical Survey (Tehran, 1963; The Ismaili Society series, A-15) contains information about published texts and only occasionally mentions manuscripts.For more specialized reference works see Afshar, Irdnshindsi.Google Scholar
page 171 note 1 Obituaries: I, Afshar, Rdhnamd-i kitab, vol. x, no. 3 (1346/1967), pp. 320-2; G.M.Meredith Owens, JRAS (1967), pt. 3/4, p. 182;R.B., Serjeant, Islamic Culture, XLIII, no. 1 (1969), pp. i-ii.Google Scholar
page 171 note 2 In his letter to V. Minorsky dated 1 July 1963 (inset in the copy of the Persian Literature now in the library of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies) Storey wrote: ‘It is very kind of you to exert yourself on behalf of the publication of further parts [of PL], but I am afraid that senescence is likely to be a more serious obstacle than inadequate finance. In a recent letter to Luzac, who writes to me periodically about future parts, I said " The main obstacles are (1) old age and diminishing vigour, (2) psychological changes in my attitude to the work "… I have been meditating on the possibility of having some parts reproduced from manuscript written out by me. The existing manuscript cannot be reproduced as it stands, since it is full of gaps left for possible insertions. It could serve as "copy" for a printer accustomed to my "copy", but printing would be far too slow. Unfortunately it is not up to date (and knows nothing of Mushar, for example), but I should be inclined to publish any parts that I may be able to get ready without troubling to remove its deficiencies.’Google Scholar
page 171 note 3 C.A, Storey, Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey, vol. 1, pt. 1-2 (London, 1927-53), vol. 11, pt. 1 (London, 1958).Google Scholar
page 171 note 4 It should be noted that in our opinion Brockelmann is most important as a work of reference, and not as a history of Arabic literature.Google Scholar
page 171 note 5 Claude Cahen sharply criticized the classification of material used by Brockelmann in which one section contained the works of a given author without regard to their subject, and he underlined the advantages of Storey's system in this connection; see Cl. Cahen,Google Scholar
page 172 note 1 See: H. Ritter, OLZ, 1928, no. 12, col. 1121-7; J. Horovitz, ZDMG, Bd. 83 (1929), pp. 183-4; V. Minorsky, BSOS, vol. vm, pt. 1 (1935), pp. 255-7; idem, BSOS, vol. ix, pt. 1 (1937). PP- 253-5; idem, BSOS, vol. x, pt. 2 (1940). PP- 539-41; R- Lescot, BEOIF Damas, vols. vii-vm (1937-8), pp. 281-3; W. Hinz, ZDMG, Bd. 91 (1937), pp. 756-8;J. Rypka, Archiv orientdlni, tome x, no. 1_2 (1938), pp. 358-9; G. Morgenstierne, AO, vol. XVII, fasc. in (1938), pp. 238-9; C. N. Seddon, jfRAS (1938), pp. 568-9; H. Ritter, Oriens, vol. 8, no. 1 (1955), pp. 142-5; I. Afshar, Rdhnamd-i kitdb, vol. 1, no. 2 (1337/1958), PP- 186-7; R- N. Frye, JAOS, vol. 75, no. 3 (1955), P- 198.Google Scholar
page 172 note 2 ZDMG, Bd. 91 (1937), pp. 756, 758.Google Scholar
page 172 note 3 ‘The work has been so carefully done and such a mass of catalogues has been utilized that only longer use of the book may bring to evidence some occasional lacunae’ (V.Minorsky, BSOS, vol. vm, pt. 1 (1935), p. 256).Google Scholar
page 172 note 4 This was Claude Cahen's only criticism of Storey in comparison to Brockelmann (see p. 171, note 5, above). But it should be noted that Storey himself wrote that ‘nonextant-works do not fall within the scope’ of his book.Google Scholar
page 173 note 1 Many mistakes and sometimes the generally low level of scholarship of some catalogues of manuscripts published recently in the East, in Europe and in the USSR can be explained by the failure of their compilers to use Storey's survey.Google Scholar
page 173 note 2 The most recent summary of Persian historical and geographical literature compiled by B. Spuler (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. I, Bd. iv, Iranistik, Abschn. 2, Literatur, Lief. 1 (Leiden, 1968), S. 100-67, henceforth Handbuch ), and corresponding sections of the survey of Persian scholarly literature written by F. Tauer (in J. Rypka, History of Iranian Literature (Dordrecht, 1968), pp. 419-82) are based to significant degree on Storey's work.Google Scholar
page 174 note 1 Clearly a mere translation of Storey would be even less useful. Nevertheless an unrevised translation of three sections of this work has recently appeared in Iran. See Nashrlya-i Kitdbkhdna-i markazl-i Ddnishgah-i Tihrdn, vol. I, Tehran (1339/1961), pp. 67-153 (posthumous publication of the translation of ‘Qur'anic literature’ by 'Abbas Iqbal); ibidem, vol. iv (Tehran, 1344/1966), pp. 13-51 (translation of the section ‘A. Mathematics’ from vol. 11, by TaqJ Binish, who intends to gradually translate the whole work, and who is currently publishing parts of the translation of the section ‘Biography; Poets’ from N 1088 in Majalla-i Ddnishkada-i adabtydt-i Mashhad, vol. in, no. 1 (1346/1967), pp. 88_109, an-d following numbers. Tadhkira-navlsl dar Hind tva Pakistan (Tehran, 1343/1964), by Pakistani specialist Sayyid 'Ali-Rida Naqawi, includes some additions but is essentially an unacknowledged translation of the corresponding parts of Storey's book. Nevertheless Sayyid 'Ali-Rida Naqawi in 1966 received a prize for ‘the best scholarly book of the year’ in Iran. Storey bequeathed his library and unpublished materials to the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. It is our understanding that the Society plans to publish the remaining portions of Storey's manuscripts without revision or additions.Google Scholar
page 174 note 2 Storey himself was able to study only a small proportion of the actual manuscripts, mainly from the library of the India Office. In addition he used the card catalogue of this library. In the preparation of the first volume of the Russian edition, several manuscripts in the library of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental studies, Lenin Library in Moscow, and the library of the Kazan University were studied, and also the card catalogue of the Leningrad Public Library.Google Scholar
page 175 note 1 As far as we can tell, Storey used most of the scholarly editions of texts known to him. The least accessable to him were Soviet publications, and recent Turkish and even Iranian editions. It was possible to eliminate most of these deficiencies in the Russian translation. However, similar difficulties arose for the translator because Iranian, Indian, Pakistan and Turkish publications are received irregularly and incompletely in the USSR.Google Scholar
page 175 note 2 Of these, 93 are devoted to manuscripts in collections in Western Europe, the Soviet Union and the United States, 27 in India, 31 in Turkey, 3 in Egypt, and only 5 in Iran.Google Scholar
page 175 note 3 In other words the total number of newly included catalogues and hand-lists is 93. They can be classified as follows: 46 describe manuscripts in Iranian collections, 19 describe manuscripts in Turkey, India, the Arab countries, and Afghanistan, 10 in the USSR and 18 in Europe and America. Several recent Iranian, Turkish and Indian catalogues were unavailable.Google Scholar
page 175 note 4 H. Ritter checked the Istanbul manuscripts of Qur'anic works cited in the first body of Storey and showed that about 40 per cent of the data in the Turkish defters is erroneous.Google Scholar
page 175 note 5 A typical example is the beautiful three-volume catalogue of the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, which was compiled by several prominent European and Iranian orientalists: some previously unknown Persian historical works are included, but their descriptions do not provide sufficient information about their contents.Google Scholar
page 176 note 1 There are many defects in the catalogue of the biggest in the USSR manuscript collection in the Institute of Oriental studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR. This is not the place to discuss them fully but the main faults should be pointed out: (1) selective character of the catalogue - not all the manuscripts of a given work are included into the catalogue, or not all the works on a given subject, and criterion for selection is quite vague; (2) incomplete and often very skimpy descriptions of the contents of manuscripts; (3) faulty attributions of some works; (4) scanty bibliographic references (quite often scholarly works devoted to described manuscripts are even not mentioned); (5) lack of information on the provenance of manuscripts. It should be noted that defects mentioned in (2), (4), (5) are often met with in many of the Oriental catalogues, including those from Iran. Unfortunately the accumulated experience of cataloguing Islamic manuscripts has never been evaluated and systematized.Google Scholar
page 176 note 2 E.G, Browne, A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge, 1953 ; reprint), vol. iv, PP.453. 457.Google Scholar
page 176 note 3 Compiled by O.P.Shcheglova and now in the press. The Institute of Oriental studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR recently undertook the compilation of a catalogue of its collection of lithographic books.Google Scholar
page 177 note 1 Storey, judging from the references in his book, used the catalogues of several European firms, but he did not say whether he used them systematically. The possibility of additions from such catalogues was mentioned by J. Rypka (Archiv orientdlni, vol. x./ 1-2 (1938), pp. 358-9). During the preparation of the Russian translation, trade catalogues could only be used partially.Google Scholar
page 177 note 2 For details see J.D., Pearson, Oriental and Asian Bibliography: An Introduction with Some Reference to Africa (London, 1966 ), pp. 120-60;idem, Oriental and Asian Bibliography in Progress in Library Science, 196/, ed. by R.L, Collison (London, 1967 ), pp. 183 ff.Google Scholar
page 177 note 3 In many cases the bibliographical journal Rahnania-i kitab, published since 1958, is a valuable supplement.Google Scholar
page 177 note 4 Khanbaba, Mushar, Kitdbhd-i chdpi-i fdrsi, 2 vols. (Tehran, 1327-42/1958-63). This bibliography was meant to include books in Persian published from the beginning of printing in every country of the world. Most of the omissions are books published in India and Central Asia. For the second volume of his work Mushar used Storey's book, however unsystematically.Google Scholar
page 177 note 5 Mu'allifin-i kutub-i chdpi-i fdrsi wa 'arabl as aghdz-i chap td kunun, 6 vols. (Tehran, 1340-4/1961-5) - indexes are provided only for the first volume. Both works by Mushar were used for additions to the Russian edition of Storey.Google Scholar
page 177 note 6 See Afshar, Irdnshindsii. For example, Muhammad, Sadr Hashimi, Tdrikh-i jard'id wa majalldt-i Iran, 4 vols. (Isfahan, 1327-32/1948-53).Google Scholar
page 178 note 1 In the lists of sources (at the beginning of each issue) Storey mentions altogether 42 biographical works (dictionaries, tadhkiras, and so forth), 24 of which are in Persian, 15 in Arabic, and 3 in Urdu, but these lists are far from complete and in the text proper there are references to many other biographical sources.Google Scholar
page 178 note 2 Storey used only four such works, all in Arabic. For the Russian translation the bio-bibliographical dictionary by Mushar (see p. 177, n. 5 above) was utilized. Unfortunately, at the time of preparation of this translation, the biographical dictionary by Mahdi, Bamdad, Sharh-i hal-i rijdl-i Iran dar qarn-i 12 via 13 wa 14 hijrl (Tehran, 4 vols., 1966), English title Dictionary of National Biography of Iran, 1700_IQ6O), especially valuable for the Qajar period, was unavailable to the translator.Google Scholar
page 178 note 3 J.D, Pearson, with the assistance of J.F.Ashton, Index Islamicus, 1906-1955 (Cambridge, 1958 ); publications up to 1911 were also included 'into Orientalische Bibliographie by A. Miiller. J. D. Pearson publishes supplements to the Index every five years.Google Scholar
page 178 note 4 Fihrist-i maqdldt-i fdrsi..., by Iraj Afshar, 2 vols. (Tehran, 1340-8/1961-9). Also quite helpful is Fihrist-i maqaldt-i jughrdfiyayi, vol. 1 (Tehran, 1341/1964), compiled under the supervision of Muhammad-Hasan GanjawJ and listing articles in Persian on geography and ethnography. During the preparation of the first two volumes of the Russian edition of Storey, complete sets of the following Iranian journals were utilized in full: Yddgdr, Rdhnamd-i kitdb, Majalla-i Ddnishkada-i adabiydt (Tehran), and Nashrlya-i Ddnishkada-i adabtydt-i Tabriz. Other Iranian, as well as Afghan, Indian and Turkish journals were used only partially because complete sets were unavailable.Google Scholar
page 179 note 1 Ideally, as noted above, the original material would be used as the source; however, even if the compiler of the survey could use 100 per cent of all texts in manuscripts and editions, the necessity of using 'secondary sources' would still remain.Google Scholar
page 179 note 2 However, the quality of the sources in this instance plays a great role, and when one cannot turn to the original compositions themselves, a decisive one. The comple teness and accuracy of information on the content of a work is particularly important.Google Scholar
page 181 note 1 The article by H., Ritter, ‘Arapca, tiirkce, farsca yazma eserlerin ilimlere gore tasnifi’, Islam Tetkikleri Enstitiisu Dergisi, vol. 2 (1958 ), unfortunately unobtainable to us, is devoted to this question.Google Scholar
page 181 note 2 Both these problems coincide in respect to belles-lettres and in general for all branches of literature which are of interest for their own sake, and not for the study of some other question. It is a different matter in areas such as historiography, biography, and geography in part, which are of interest to contemporary scholarship as independent, branches of literature (when they are considered from the historiographical point of view), and as sources for the study of history. The last attitude quite often prevails: criticizing Brockelmann's classification of historical works, Claude Cahen wrote: ‘A historian would have grouped the works (and not the authors) in such a way as' to put together all sources to be used for each section of History’ (Editing Arabic Chronicles, p. 4). But a historian can also be interested in the history of historiography, and for this purpose the system proposed by Cahen is hardly suitable.Google Scholar
page 182 note 1 BSOS, vol. ix, pt. i (1937). PP- 253-5-Google Scholar
page 183 note 1 In Storey's book there are only two indexes (of titles and authors names), but since he calls them ‘provisional’ apparently he intended to provide the completed survey with more comprehensive indexes. There are cross-references in Storey, but not enough. Many cross-references have been added in the Russian translation, but gaps are also possible there.Google Scholar
page 184 note 1 Storey possessed sufficient means to acquire numerous publications necessary for compilation of the survey. Otherwise he would hardly have been able to achieve such success.Google Scholar
page 184 note 2 Compare Claude Cahen's words referring to Brocklemann: ‘It was probably beyond the power of any one man to do better, and is consequently so to produce a new and revised edition; but at the least a few historians might perhaps pool their efforts to compile a more complete and less inaccurate list of the products of Arabic historiography’ (‘The historiography of the Seljuqid period’, loc. cit. p. 78). In another place, speaking about the necessity of revising Brockelmann's work, Cahen wrote: ‘Personne ne peut le fair a soi seul, mais, selon des lignes convenues, divers specialistes peuvent le fair chacun pour sa spdcialite'’ (‘Notes pour un Brockelmann futur’, loc. cit. p. 309).Google Scholar
page 186 note 1 At the First International Congress of Iranian studies held in Tehran (31 August to 6 September 1966) it was decided that it is necessary to continue Storey's work (see I. Afshar's report to the congress in Rahnama-i kitab, vol. ix, no. 3, 1345/1966, p. 249); this decision was repeated at the international seminar on Oriental manuscripts (see p. 170, n. 1, above), but in both cases no practical steps were undertaken.Google Scholar
page 186 note 2 The revised Russian translation of the Storey's work may be regarded as a part of this ‘shorter’ variant of the survey, or as a basis for its corresponding part.Google Scholar
page 186 note 3 M.J, Dresden, ‘Survey of the history of Iranian studies’ in Handbuch (see footnote 2, P- 173), P- 189.Google Scholar