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: 15 March 2011
It is at a relatively late date that the writing of history begins in the Arabic literature. The Arabs of the earliest period of Islām seem to lack all historical sense, and their theologians proved entirely hostile to historical studies. The impetus towards such investigations was not given until the second half of the second century A.H., when, under the ‘Abbāsides, the Arabs came into close touch with the Sāsānides, whose political ideas and civilization were accepted by the caliphs of Baghdād. Persian customs, Persian knowledge pervaded the empire and brought forth one of the most remarkable phenomena of history: the subjugation of the conqueror by the conquered, possessed of higher intellectual gifts.
page 49 note 1 See Justi, F., Geschichte des alien Persiens, Berlin, 1879, p. 216Google Scholar.
page 49 note 2 It was Goldziher, I., who, for the first time pointed out this fact in a Hungarian paper, “A történetirás az arab irodalomban“ (The writing of history in the Arabic literature), Budapest, 1895, pp. 20–41Google Scholar.
page 50 note 1 This trend of all Arabic historiography has been excellently characterized by Dozy, in speaking of the Spanish-Arabic historians: “Ce qui les interesse, ce n'est pas l'histoire du peuple, l'état de la société, le mouvement de la vie publique, la guerre des factions, la lutte des tribus, des races ennemies, les agitations et les développements du pouvoir et de la liberté, mais c'est l'histoire toute personnelle des princes. Leurs ouvrages sont des chroniques de cour, des registres de famille, où l'on trouve énumérés, avec un soin minutieux et puéril, les employés, les femmes, les enfants, les occupations journalières des rois.” (Histoire de l'Afrique et de l'Espagne par Ibn ‘Adhārī, etc., vol. i (Leyde, 1848, 51), Introduction, p. 19Google Scholar.)
page 51 note 1 See Ibn Khallikān, ed. Slane, de, vol. ii, pp. 96–8;Google Scholar; Wüstenfeld, F., Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber, Nr. 287, pp. 102–3;Google Scholar; Brockelmann, C., Gesch. der arab. Lit., vol. i, pp. 499–502Google Scholar; ibid., in the Encychpcedia of Islam, vol. ii, p. 372.
page 51 note 2 Brockelmann, vol. i, p. 500, gives his name as al-Janzī; Ibn al-Jauzī, as he is called in the MSS. of his work and in his Oriental biographies, is more complete and correct.
page 51 note 3 According to Ibn Khallikān (ibid.), his genealogy is traced up as follows: Abul-Faraj ‘Abdarrahmān ibn abil-Hasan ‘Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn ‘Ubaydallāh ibn ‘Abdallāh ibn Hummāda ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ja'far al-Jauzī ibn ‘Abdallāh ibn al-Qāsim ibn an-Nadhr ibn al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Abdarraḥmān ibn al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad ibn abī Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq.
page 51 note 4 Ibn Khallikān, ibid.
page 51 note 5 Ibn al-Athīr, vol. xii, p. 112, 1. 24.
page 52 note 1 See the catalogues of MSS. of Berlin, Nr. 3988 and of Cairo, vol. vii, p. 177.
page 52 note 2 Ibn Khallikān, ibid.
page 53 note 1 See Cat. Lugd., vol. iv, p. 318, No. 2156.
page 53 note 2 In his Mu‘īd an-ni'am, ed. by Myhrman, D. W., London, 1908, p. 163, 1. 7Google Scholar.
page 53 note 3 See Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, vol. ii, p. 154Google Scholar.
page 53 note 4 See Brockelmann, vol. i, p. 503, Nr. 26.
page 53 note 5 Edited in Lahore, 1886.
page 53 note 6 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. xi, p. 230; Goldziher, , Muhamm. Stud., vol. ii, p. 97Google Scholar.
page 53 note 7 See Goldziher, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 185–6, concerning his attack upon ‘Abdalkarīm as-Sam'ānī (died in 562/1167), the author of the Kitāb al-ansāb.
page 53 note 8 See Brockelmann, vol. i, p. 504, Nr. 29.
page 53 note 9 In vol. x, pp. 244, 256; vol. xi, p. 167; vol. xii, p. 71.
page 54 note 1 See Goldziher, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 263; Brockelmann, vol. i, p. 503, Nr. 20.
page 54 note 2 See Hājī Khalfa, vol. vi, pp. 263–4, Nr. 13, 435.
page 54 note 3 Vol. i, pp. 502–6.
page 54 note 4 His other works on history quoted by Brockelmann (vol. i, pp. 502–3) are: Adh-dhahab al-masbūk fī siyar al-mulūk, a history of the rulers of Islām; Shudhūr al-'uqūd fī ta'rīkh al-'uhūd, the first volume of which treats of prophets and angels: ‘Ajā'ib al-badā'i, a collection of historical anecdotes; Talqīh fuhūm ahl al-āthār fī mukhtaṣar as-siyar wal-akhbār. His works on general biography are: Ṣifat aṣ-ṣafwa, extract from the Ḥilyat al-anbiyā of Abū Nu'aym; Kitāb fī akhbār al-adhkiyā alladhīna quwwiyat fitanuhum wa tanaqqada dhakā'uhum biquwwat jauhariyyat ‘uqūlihim, a work on “those people whose minds were sharp“; Kitāb al-ḥukamā wal-mughaffalīn, a counterpart_to the former; Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wal-mudhakkirīn, see above.
page 55 note 1 See Hājī Khalfa, vol. vi, pp. 166–7.
page 55 note 2 See Wüstenfeld, Geschichtschreiber, Nrs. 287 and 340; Brockelmann, vol. i, pp. 347 and 502; Horovitz, J., “Aus den Bibliotheken von Kairo, Damaskus, und Konstantinopel,” Berlin, 1907 (Mitteilungen des Seminarsfür orientalische Sprachen), pp. 6–7 and 7–10;Google Scholar; Gabrieli, G., “Appunti desorittivi e critici su alcuni manosoritti arabi di oontenuto storico,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Serie quinta, vol. xxv, fasc. 11–12, pp. 1135–84, Roma, 1917Google Scholar; Ritter, H., Philologika, Der Islam, vol. xix, 1930, Heft 1–2, p. 2Google Scholar.
page 56 note 1 According to the Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 151, this MS. is the third volume of a certain Ta'rīkh al-umam, by Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr but H. F. Amedroz has proved (“An unidentified MS. by Ibn al-Jauzī,” JRAS., vol. 1906, pp. 851–80, and vol. 1907, pp. 19–46) that this is part of the Kitāb al-muntazam. To his discussions G. Gabrieli adds (op. cit., pp. 1135–6) that the MS. coincides with the MS. of Aya Sophia, Nr. 3095, and is an abridged recension of it by the same author as copied the MS. of Cairo (Cat., vol. v, p. 145, see Brockelmann, vol. i, p. 502: Wustenfeld, Nr. 287, p. 103) in abridging the isnāds and in omitting the less important biographical notices. This recension is according to Gabrieli, later than the common recension of the Kitāb al-muntaẓam and not earlier, as is asserted by Amedroz.
page 56 note 2 Brockelmann (vol. i, p. 502) has erroneously quoted Bodl., pp. 102, 105, 106, as MSS. of the Kitāb al-muntazam; these are MSS. of the Kitāb al-adhkiyā by the same Ibn al-Jauzī.
page 58 note 1 See Brockelmann, C., Das Verhältnis von Ibn al-Athīrs Kāmil fit-ta'rīẖ zu Tabaris Aẖbār ar-rusul wal-mulūk, Strassburg, 1890, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
page 59 note 1 This method was also adopted by historians who lived later than Ibn al-Jauzī, for example in the Ta'rīkh al-islām of adh-Dhahabī (died in 748/1348).
page 59 note 2 One of the most conspicuous instances for this is the narrative of events of the year a.h. 251, which are recorded on 110 pages in aṭ-Ṭabarī's work (vol. iii, pp. 1535–1645), and only on less than ten pages (Br. M. Suppl., No. 460, fol. 124b–129). In particular the record of al-Mu'tazz being elected caliph by the Turks after the assassination of Boghā aṣ-Ṣaghīr and Waṣīf is very short, seventeen lines only in the Kitāb al-muntaẓam, whereas it comprises forty-eight pages (vol. iii, pp. 1535–83) in aṭ-Ṭabarī's work.
page 60 note 1 Ibn al-Athīr's procedure of abridging and complementing aṭ-Ṭabarī's work is far more logical than that of Ibn al-Jauzī. See Brockelmann, C., Das Verhāltnis, etc., pp. 17–25Google Scholar.
page 60 note 2 See Br. M. Suppl, No. 460, fol. 226b–233b.
page 61 note 1 See Berlin (Ahlmrdt), No. 9436, fol. 50, and subs.
page 61 note 2 This also proves that the Muslim historical works deal with the history of the rulers in the first place.
page 62 note 1 See Gotha (Pertseh), No. 1553, fol. 15–17b, the description comprising six pages, whereas aṭ-Ṭabarī only has a short record of it (vol. i, pp. 939–40).
page 63 note 1 The caliphs are always included in these necrologies, even if their decease has been recorded among the political events; in this case their names are only given.
page 64 note 1 See Ḥājī Khalfa, vol. iii (and not iv, as quoted by Broekelmann, vol. i, p. 503, note), p. 347, Nr. 5875.
page 65 note 1 See Brockelmann, , Das Verhältnis, etc., p. 9Google Scholar.
page 65 note 2 See Br. M. Suppl., No. 460, fol. 986, 1. 14; fol. 177, 1. 4.
page 65 note 3 Br. M. Or., No. 3006, fol. 276, margin.
page 65 note 4 Do., MS., fol. 287a; see also as-Sam'ānī: Kitāb al-ansāb, ed. Margoliouth, D. S., London-Leyden, 1912Google Scholar, fol. 320a.
page 66 note 1 Do., MS., fol. 277a.
page 66 note 2 adh-Dhahabī in his Ta'rīkh al-islām also mentions these three men as masters of Ibn al-Jauzī, see Br. M. Or., Nr. 52, fol. 119.
page 66 note 3 See Br. M. Or., Nr. 303, fol. 116b, 1. 24.
page 66 note 4 Especially in his Al-kifāya fī ma'rifat uṣūl 'ilm ar-riwāya, see Goldziher, , Muh. St., vol. ii, p. 183Google Scholar.
page 66 note 5 As I have not yet been able to inspect the MSS. of the Constantinople libraries, the above data refer only to the narratives contained in the MSS. of the European libraries (British Museum, Oxford, Gotha, Berlin). As reference-works, I have made use of Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, the Fihrist and Ḥājī Khalfa, ed. Flügel.
page 68 note 1 This date of his death seems more probable than 154/770, which is generally accepted. See Ibn Khallikān, ed. de Slane, vol. ii, p. 402.
page 69 note 1 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. iv, pp. 361–2.
page 72 note 1 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. vii, p. 43.
page 73 note 1 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. vii, p. 56.
page 73 note 2 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. vii, p. 110.
page 74 note 1 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. vii, p. 324.
page 75 note 1 See Ibn al-Athīr, vol. vi, p. 76.
page 75 note 2 Do., vol. vi, p. 76.
page 75 note 3 Do., vol. vi, p. 81.
page 75 note 4 Do., vol. vi, p. 84.
page 75 note 5 Do., vol. vi, p. 105.
page 75 note 6 Only as far as the period recorded by aṭ-Ṭabarī is concerned.
