General

When Charles Ambrose Storey died in 1968, only the first volume of his Persian Literature, A Bio-bibliographical Survey, had been published in full (vols. 1 and 1–2 in this new edition). It was also the sole volume to have indices (in vol. 1, part 2 – London, 1953). Volume two was only published in part (Part 1, pp 1–192 – London, 1958) and therefore had no indices yet. Posthumously, some more parts were printed from his notes through the combined effort of several scholars: vol. 2, part 2 (pp 193–346 – London, 1971) and part 3 (pp 347–499 – Leiden, 1977), and vol. 3, part 1 (pp 1–206 – Leiden, 1984) and part 2 (pp 207–407 – Oxford, 1990). Even if the second volume was now complete, indices were never published. Volume three was only printed in part and was therefore left without indices. Storey’s other notes for the rest of volume three and the whole of volume four were not published until they were in this new and complete edition. A continuation of Storey’s work was begun by François de Blois, leading to the publication (first in three fascicles in 1992, 1992, and 1997, then revised and updated) of volume 5 (London & New York, 2004). Volume 5 is the only volume besides volume 1 to have indices.

In preparing the joint indices for this complete edition of Persian Literature, A Bio-bibliographical Survey, vols. 1–5, it was decided that the best way to go about it would be to start all over again. The Index of Authors now only includes the names of those to whom a separate entry is dedicated and those who wrote commentaries, summaries, extracts, translations, replies, rejoinders and the like on any of the main works cited in the text. Though often referred to but not authors, historical figures such as kings, princes, generals and patrons were left out, and the same goes for any of the names and book titles mentioned in the footnotes. The terms dīwān and mat̲h̲nawī were not included as a keyword in the Index of Titles because they are insufficiently specific. Furthermore, vague descriptions such as ‘a commentary’, ‘a translation’, ‘a work about’ or ‘D̲h̲ikrī dar bayān i tīr-andāzī’ were not included because they are descriptions, not titles.

In the indices, volume numbers are printed in bold. If an entry contains different volume numbers, these will be separated by a semicolon. Numbers mentioned after a volume number are record numbers, not page numbers.

Abarqūhī, K̲h̲usrau [b.] ʿĀbid 1 114; 2 382

The first volume consists of two parts, distinguished thus:

ʿAbbās [M. ʿAbbās Afg̲h̲ānī] 1–2 1468

ʿAbbās ʿAlī 1 311 2.3.1 (4)

If the first word of an entry starts with the Arabic definite article al-, the article is moved to the end of a book title or name. It plays no role in establishing alphabetical order:

Ins̲h̲āʾ al-maṣnūʿah, al- 3 430 (2)

ʿAbbāsī, Ḥasan M. b. Rājī M. al- 2 26

In the Index of Titles, the definite article al- is considered in establishing alphabetical order in all other cases, as are ‘b.’ (for Ibn), the Persian ‘i’ or ‘-yi’ to indicate iḍāfa, and prepositions and particles such as ‘az’ (‘from’) and ‘u’ or ‘wa’ (‘and’). The hamza (ʾ) and ʿayn (ʿ) are not considered. Examples:

Ins̲h̲āʾ al-maṣnūʿah, al- 3 430 (2)

Ins̲h̲āʾ i ʿAbd Allāh i Marwārīd 3 439

Ins̲h̲āʾ i zar-bak̲h̲s̲h̲ 3 520

Ins̲h̲ā-yi ʿAbd al-Ḥaiy 3 440

Intik̲h̲āb al-tawārīk̲h̲ 1 645

Intik̲h̲āb az Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn 1 802

Intik̲h̲āb i bī-badal 3 246 (1) (ii)

Qiṣṣah i Manṣūr b. K̲h̲ālid i jauharī 3 809 (270)

Qiṣṣah i Manṣūr i Dimas̲h̲qī u ganj yāftan 3 809 (271)

S̲h̲arḥ i hāl i Yag̲h̲mā 1–2 1241

S̲h̲arḥ i ḥāl u āt̲h̲ār i Saiyid Jamāl al-Dīn i Asadābādī 1–2 1667 (33)

Transliteration follows the personal conventions of Storey (volumes 1, 1–2, 3 and 4) and de Blois (volume 5) when occurring in separate entries. However, if a joint reference occurs, the system of Storey prevails, i.e. c̲h̲, d̲h̲, g̲h̲, k̲h̲, s̲h̲ or t̲h̲ instead of ch, dh, gh, kh, sh or th. The letters ḥ, ḍ, ṣ, ṭ and ẓ are regarded as if they were regular h, d, s, t and z and occur, therefore, in their usual places. The same applies to c̲h̲, d̲h̲, g̲h̲, k̲h̲, s̲h̲ and t̲h̲.

Whenever this seemed helpful for quick navigation, page references in the Index of Authors and the Index of Titles received additional information. For instance, there are records in which Storey uses the same numbers to identify different works, which can be confusing. To direct the reader to the right spot, an ordinal number indicating which instance of that number is meant was added:

Bardwānī, M. Rās̲h̲id 4 8 (1) 2nd

Farāʾiḍ-nāmah i manẓūm 4 8 (1) 3rd

In other cases, additional specifications will do the job:

Bilānī, Ismāʿīl Kāmil al- 3 108 prose vers.

Buk̲h̲ārī, ʿImād [al-Dīn] b. Jamāl [al-Dīn] 2 104 (2) Pers. comm. (b), 111

Farhang i Sikandar-nāmah i barrī 5 258 (v) comm. (12)

Nūr al-ʿain s̲h̲arḥ Qirān al-saʿdain 1 665 (1) 3rd comm. (1)

A Note on Names

In classical Arabic texts, the names of individuals are primarily composite. The elements from which these names are composed are of five types, here given in the order in which they would traditionally be stated if cited in full:¹

1.

laqab or nickname, e.g. Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn (‘Pride of the Faith’)

2.

kunya or indication of parenthood, e.g. Abū ʿAbdallāh

3.

ism or given name, e.g. Muḥammad

4.

nasab or lineage, e.g. Ibn ʿUmar

5.

nisba or indication of association, e.g. al-Rāzī (‘of Ray’)

So, if stated in full, the above would produce: “Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Rāzī” (the famous philosopher and theologian, d. 606/1210 in Herat). There is no rule stating which of the above elements must be included for a personal name to signify. Any element in isolation is in principle and given the necessary context sufficient to produce proper identification. So, taking the above example, any of Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn, Abū ʿAbdallāh, Muḥammad, Ibn ʿUmar or al-Rāzī could act as an identifier if sufficient secondary information is available. Combinations of two or more of the above are also possible. There is no universal rule limiting the number of instances of any of the above five elements when included in a name. Nevertheless, patterns exist:

1.

laqab, between 1 and 2

2.

kunya, nearly always 1

3.

ism, usually 1 but also 2

4.

nasab, no limits, but mostly between 1 and 4, except for texts in which lineage is used as a way to lay claim to authority and/or authenticity.

5.

nisba, mostly between 1 and 4, the association expressed usually indicating one’s birthplace, place of death, place(s) of studies, place(s) of residence or religious affiliation

These elements can also be found in Storey’s Persian Literature because most of the names cited are of Arabic origin or structured along similar lines. In his Index of authors, subjects, etc., to volume 1 of the first edition (the only index he ever made), Storey preferably starts with the ism, followed by the nasab or the nisba. In this, he adopts the approach of Carl Brockelmann in his Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur,² to which Storey’s work represents the counterpart for the Persianate world. In preparing the Index of Authors, I followed a different approach. Instead of the ism, the keyword is the nisba whenever there is one. This is also the method followed in contemporary publications in Islamic studies, in which the nisba is treated as a surname.

If there is just one nisba, this will be the keyword for the index. If there is more than one nisba, the one mentioned last in Storey will be chosen unless another one is deemed more relevant. In some rare cases, two nisbas were retained because it was not clear by which one the person was better known. When the ism and the nasab each have their nisba, the nisba following the ism will be the keyword, and the second nisba dropped so that a name like ʿAlī ʿAskarī b. M. Taqī K̲h̲wāfī will be listed as ʿAskarī, ʿAlī b. M. Taqī. When there is no nisba, other elements will function as the keyword, such as the laqab in Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn Aḥmad K̲h̲ān and Saif al-Dīn Maḥmūd, or the kunya as in Abū ’l-K̲h̲air b. G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ al-Dīn, the ism as in ʿAbbās ʿAlī or the nasab as in Ibn Jarīr, Ibrāhīm. The article al- as part of the nisba is always cited at the end for computerized ordering of the material to be possible: e.g. Rāzī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-.

After the nisba follows the ism, followed by the nasab, but just the first member of it, i.e. the name of the author’s direct parent, e.g. Ḥusainī, Ḥasan b. Murtaḍā al-. Laqab and kunya will, as a rule, not be included, but there are exceptions, for instance, in case there is no ism, nasab or nisba or when a laqab or kunya belongs to the standard form of the name of the person concerned.

Besides the laqab, kunya, ism, nasab and nisba, names in Storey often contain one or more (honorific) titles: muns̲h̲ī, āqā, k̲h̲ān, k̲h̲wājah, ḥakīm, maulawī, saiyid, s̲h̲aik̲h̲, bēg, kaul, miyāṅ, mollā, qāḍī, mahārājah, amīr, sartīp, s̲h̲āh, ḥājj[ī], mīr, nawwāb, bahādur, mīrzā, rājah … In cases where they are considered potentially helpful identifiers, these titles will be cited. However, as a rule, they will be left out, although in some cases, they may even act as a keyword, e.g. Saiyid ʿAlī, S̲h̲aik̲h̲ al-Ṣadūq [al-], Amīr ʿAbd Allāh. Aḥmad and Ḥasan, when occurring at the end of a name or in the absence of other identifiers, are sometimes chosen as the keyword, e.g. ‘Aḥmad, Ḥāfiz’ or ‘Ḥasan, Aḥmad’.

Storey includes the takhalluṣ or nom-de-plume of an author whenever such a name is available. All these names have been listed separately in the Index of Authors, followed by the author’s real name in square brackets, omitting the nasab. Whenever different persons use the same takhalluṣ, this is reflected in the Index as well, e.g.

Kās̲h̲if [ʿAlī Akbar Burqaʿī Qummī] 1–2 454a; 2 304

Kās̲h̲if [G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain] 3 234

Kās̲h̲if [M. S̲h̲arīf S̲h̲īrāzī] 3 731

However, this does not mean that everything followed by something in square brackets is a nom-de-plume. Square brackets also show the different ways in which names appear in the text, such as in:

Humāʾī, Jalāl [al-Dīn] 1–2 1411 (19a), 1668 (17)

Kas̲h̲mīrī, Yaʿqūb [b. Ḥasan] 1 240; 4 645

In some rare cases, the name cited is not a takhalluṣ but more like an “a.k.a.”, such as Furṣat [M. Naṣīr Ḥusainī] (1 465). It also happens now and then that a name that has few additional identifiers occurs more than once while it is not clear whether we are dealing with the same person or not. In such cases, different occurrences are all listed under one entry, and it is left up to the reader to further investigate the matter. Examples:

Farīd al-Dīn 1–2 1411 (63); 2 584 (142)

G̲h̲ulām-Imām 2 584 (70) (135) (136); 4 273 (53)

ʿIbād Allāh 1 82 (a) (1), 520

Storey uses bold type for some of the parts of the name cited at the beginning of each new record, e.g. Mīrzā M. Taqī b. Mīrzā Zakī ʿAlī-ābādī Māzandarānī (1 430). There is no consistency between this use of bold type and the composition of Storey’s Index entries. His use of bold type could therefore not act as a criterion.

As stated earlier, any combination of the five elements mentioned above is possible. Indeed, because full names were mainly too unwieldy for daily use, people were often referred to by their ʿurf or conventional name, which is an arbitrary selection of just some of the elements of the full name. The following examples will give the reader an idea of the many forms under which personal names appear in this Index of authors, the list being non-restrictive (name + vol. no. + record no.; M. = Muḥammad, only cited in full when at the beginning):

Besides Arabic or Arabicized names, many native Indian names are usually cited in the way they are found in the text (e.g. Ak̲h̲tar, Ranc̲h̲hōṛ-Dās b. Ranjīt Rāy Kāyat’h), unless it contains a nisba at the end which is then cited first, e.g. K’hatrī, Harsukh Rāy b. Jīwan-Dās.

If the above explanations are still insufficient to find the person one is looking for, one should look under all the known elements of the name. If this still does not yield a positive result, then this may be because:

1.

some unknown element plays a role or because

2.

the individual did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the Index of authors or because

3.

the individual is not mentioned by Storey at all

Because of the complexity of personal names in Arabic, it is often easier to look for the title of a book connected with the person involved. After all, while it may always happen that different titles refer to the same work, the titles themselves hardly vary, meaning that they can easily be found, unlike the author, if searched for by name.

…