Original Preface to Vol. 1–1, section 1 by C.A. Storey

A counterpart to Brockelmann’s Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur is urgently needed by students of Persian, and circumstances are now unprecedentedly favourable for the compilation of such a work. Not only have the recent efforts of bibliographers, especially in India, added greatly to the available information concerning manuscripts, but the publication in 1922 of Mr. E. Edwards’s Catalogue of Persian printed books in the British Museum has for the first time provided details of a great collection of printed books. The subject can, therefore, be treated now with a comprehensiveness that would have been inconceivable a few years ago. Unfortunately the libraries of Persia, the fountain-head, remain inaccessible and without published catalogues.

The main divisions of this book will be sections devoted to particular branches of literature, and, as a general rule, each work will be mentioned in the section to which its subject belongs. If an author is represented by extant works appertaining to more than one section, biographical information concerning him will be given briefly, when available, at some one place, usually in the section devoted to the subject which embraces the greater, or most important, or best known, part of his literary output. At the same place will be given particulars of the manuscripts and editions of such of his extant works as belong to that section. His other extant works will be mentioned in the section or sections appropriate to them, with references, where possible, to the pages on which further information, biographical or bibliographical, is to be found. Non-extant works do not fall within the scope of this book except in so far as they may from time to time be cited to illustrate the nature of an author’s literary activity. A similar purpose will be served by the mention in this fasciculus (as, for example, under al-Zawārī) of some extant works which are not concerned with the Qurʾān and which will recur in their proper places.

The arrangement within each section or sub-section is chronological, an appendix at the end of the section or sub-section being reserved primarily for works whose dates are uncertain (uncertain, that is to say, at the time of inclusion, since it is to be expected that, as in this fasciculus, the dates of some works included in the appendices on this ground will be ascertained subsequently).

So far as the data given by the cataloguers permit, the manuscripts of early or relatively early works are for the most part arranged in chronological, or roughly chronological, order (broken sometimes to bring together manuscripts preserved in a single library or for other reasons), but in the case of late ¶ works chronological order is not necessarily adhered to nor are dates always specified, even when they are mentioned in the catalogues. The biographical authorities (in square brackets at the end of articles dealing with particular authors) are given fairly strictly in the order of date.

Imperfect manuscripts are for the most part distinguished as such, and in many cases it has been possible to indicate how much of the works in question they contain. Roman numerals divided by a hyphen and enclosed within round brackets after the catalogue number of a manuscript refer in this fasciculus to the sūrahs contained in the manuscript. Editions described in one of the British Museum catalogues (i.e. either Mr. E. Edwards’s Catalogue of Persian printed books or Mr. A. G. Ellis’s Catalogue of Arabic books) are distinguished by a small circle to the right of the date. An asterisk similarly placed indicates editions preserved in the India Office Library. A dagger implies that the edition in question is neither described in a British Museum catalogue nor preserved in the India Office, but is mentioned in one of the Quarterly Catalogues of Books published by the Indian local governments since the passing of Act XXV of 1867 (an Act for the regulation of Printing Presses and Newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books printed in British India, and for the registration of such books). Editions which do not fall within any of the three preceding categories but which are in my own possession or have at least been seen by me are distinguished by a double dagger.

It should be remembered that some of the biographical notices in this fasciculus are merely provisional anticipations of fuller notices which will be given in a more appropriate, or more convenient, place.

I am much indebted to Mr. H.L.T. Gonsalves for valuable help in searching the quarterly catalogues of Indian publications, to my mother for kind assistance in arranging the material, and to Messrs. Stephen Austin and Sons for their accurate and tasteful printing and for the trouble that they have taken to carry out my wishes.

C.A. Storey

March, 1927

Original Preface to Vol. 1–1, section 2, fasc. 1 by C.A. Storey

The first fasciculus of this work formed the subject of an extremely valuable review in the Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (1928, coll. 1121–7) by Professor H. Ritter, who had taken the trouble to examine most of the Istanbul manuscripts mentioned in the fasciculus and was thus in a position to correct much ¶ of the information which I had derived from the Turkish handlists. That these handlists, or many of them, were inaccurate was commonly known, but the extent of the inaccuracy, as revealed by Professor Ritter’s corrections, was, to me at least, a surprise. “Bei der Auswertung der Stambuler Kataloge,” says Professor Ritter, “wird nun freilich nicht immer genügend beachtet, dass etwa 40% der Angaben falsch sind.” Fortunately in compiling the present fasciculus I have been able to draw information concerning the manuscripts at Istanbul from a trustworthy source. In a series of articles entitled “Les manuscrits persans historiques des bibliothèques de Stamboul” and published in the Archiv Orientální (vol. iii (Prague 1931) pp. 87–118, 303–26, 462–91, vol. iv (1932), pp. 92–107, 193–207) Dr. Felix Tauer has accurately described most of the historical manuscripts in the Istanbul libraries.

In the preface to the first fasciculus I expressed regret that the libraries of Persia had not published catalogues of their collections. I was unaware of the fact that the Shrine of the Imām Riḍā at Mashhad had published a valuable catalogue of its library in 1345/1926. Since then has appeared a concise, but good, catalogue of the Majlis Library at Ṭihrān.

In consequence of my removal from London I have been compelled to abandon my intention of dealing exhaustively with those India Office manuscripts of which no published catalogue exists. So far as the Delhi Collection is concerned, I have been able to use, in a typewritten copy, a concise card-catalogue compiled some thirty years ago by the late Saiyid ʿAlī Bilgrāmī, but for more than one reason I have not aimed at completeness in recording the manuscripts belonging to that collection. Only in rare cases have I been able to attempt a verification of the details and numbers given (not always correctly, I am afraid) by Saiyid ʿAlī Bilgrāmī. In the case of the printed books at the India Office I have used typewritten copies of various card catalogues and handlists, but here again completeness of the kind at which I formerly aimed is no longer practicable.

To several persons, who, by reviewing and correcting the first fasciculus or in other ways, have helped or encouraged this work, my appreciative thanks are due, especially to Mr. W. Ivanow, Professor R. A. Nicholson, Professor H. Ritter, and Dr. Felix Tauer.

C.A. Storey

March, 1935

Original Preface to Vol. 1–1, section 2, fasc.2 by C.A. Storey

This fasciculus completes the survey of historical literature in Persian, apart from the large and important branch of Indian history, which will form the subject of the next fasciculus. That will be followed by a much smaller one devoted to biography.

To the list of those whom it has been my pleasant duty to thank for providing information or for help of other kinds, I must now add the names of Professor F. Babinger, Mr. A. G. Ellis, Dr. R. Levy, Mr. V. Minorsky, Sir Denison Ross and Mr. N.C. Sainsbury.

C.A. Storey

August, 1936

Original Preface to Vol. 1–1, section 2, fasc. 3 by C.A. Storey

The present fasciculus almost completes the survey of historical literature in Persian, but not quite, since the next fasciculus, devoted primarily to biography, will contain also additions and corrections to the Qurʾānic and historical sections as well as a provisional index.

A few words must be said about points of transliteration. The sign ḍ having been used to represent the Arabic ḍād, it has been found necessary to use a different sign (d̤) for the palatal d which occurs in Urdu and other Indian languages. In previous fasciculi t̲h̲āʾ, k̲h̲āʾ, and d̲h̲āl have been represented by t̲h̲, k̲h̲, and d̲h̲, while th, ṭh, kh, dh and d̤h (without the underlining) have stood for the combinations دھ, کھ, ٿھ, تھ and ڐھ. It seems, however, that a clearer distinction is desirable, and therefore, in this fasciculus دھ, کھ, ٿھ, تھ and ڐھ have been transliterated t’h, ṭ’h, k’h, d’h, and d̤’h in accordance with the practice adopted sporadically by Rieu in his British Museum catalogues and regularly by Ivanow in the catalogues prepared by him for the Asiatic Society of Bengal. In transliterating the proper names of Indians I have allowed myself to represent certain vowel sounds in accordance with the Indian pronunciation and to write Aurangzēb, Fīrōz-Shāh and the like, but I have not been rigidly consistent in this matter and I have not, for example, thought it necessary to change the title Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū into Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gō (or K̲h̲was̲h̲gō), though “K̲h̲wushgō” was an Indian. Such inconsistencies as there are will probably cause no trouble.

It remains for me to express my grateful acknowledgments to Dr. A.J. Arberry, who has provided me with information concerning India Office accessions as well as other matters, and to Mr. A.F.L. Beeston, who has informed me ¶ about manuscripts in the Bodleian library and the Indian Institute at Oxford. I am indebted also to several reviewers, who have suggested additions and corrections, Professor V. Minorsky (BSOS viii (1935–7), pp. 255–7, ix/1 (1937), pp. 253–4), Dr. W. Hinz (ZDMG. 91 (1937), pp. 755–8), Mr. C. N. Seddon (JRAS 1938, pp. 568–9), Professor J. Rypka (Archiv Orientální x, 1–2 (1938), pp. 358–9), Mr. R. Lescot (Bulletin d’études orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas, vii–viii, pp. 281–3), Professor G. Morgenstierne (Acta Orientalia, xvii, pp. 238–9), and others.

C.A. Storey

May, 1939

Original Preface to Vol. 1–2, by C.A. Storey

The present instalment of my survey of Persian literature completes the first volume. In view of the inconveniently large size to which it has grown I have felt myself compelled, for purposes of binding, to regard the previous four fasciculi as Part 1 and the present instalment as Part 2.

Among those who since the date of my last acknowledgment have been so kind as to send me additions and corrections I remember particularly Professor A.J. Arberry, Mr. J.D. Pearson, Mr. G.M. Wickens and, above all, Professor V. Minorsky. To the Trustees of the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial”, who generously agreed to bear the cost of printing this second part of Volume I, I am greatly indebted.

C.A. Storey

April, 1953

Original Preface to Vol. 2, part 1 by C.A. Storey

In a review PL i/2 which appeared in Oriens 8 (1955), pp. 142–5 (and which contains some addenda eventually, I hope, to be included in one of my lists of additions and corrections) Professor H. Ritter asks two questions in the following words:

Bei der grossen fülle der persischen handschriften in der Türkei fragt man sich doch, ob es praktisch ist, sie einfach zu übergehen. Sollen auch die Istanbuler handschriften persischer dichter später nicht aufgeführt werden ?

The first of these questions is fortunately rendered less important in regard to the present part of my work by the existence of Max Krause’s Stambuler Handschriften islamischer Mathematiker. The second question is not for me to answer. Although I originally had no intention of excluding the poets from my survey, I came to realise some years ago that, while I might succeed in surveying most of the branches of the prose literature, to deal with them all was probably more than I could expect. The position would doubtless have been different, if in the past decade more rapid printing had been possible and larger funds had been available.

I must repeat my thanks to the Trustees of the “E.J.W. Gibb Memorial” for their generous financial support and to those—especially again Professor V. Minorsky—who have kindly sent me information.

C.A. Storey

January, 1958

Original Preface to Vol. 2, part 2 by J.D. Pearson

Charles Ambrose Storey died on 24th April, 1967, leaving to the Royal Asiatic Society his whole estate apart from some minor bequests. Among his literary remains was found a mass of material prepared for his Persian Literature: a Bio-bibliographical Survey, some of which appeared to be in the form in which he was accustomed to submit his copy to the printer.

¶ The Society was concerned to ensure that as much as possible of Storey’s important work should be made available to the public at large. Accordingly, Mrs. Ann Walsh was employed to investigate, with the advice of the undersigned, the materials which had come into the Society’s possession. It appeared that one section at least, that dealing with works on medical subjects, was so far as could be determined complete and ready for the press. It is published herewith. Other sections will follow, it is hoped, in due course.

The entries drawn up by Storey have been left almost exactly as they were found. Each reference to a manuscript was checked with the catalogue in which it was originally described. That this proved scarcely to be necessary will come as no surprise to those who were acquainted with Storey and were familiar with the meticulous accuracy with which his writings were invariably compiled. Mrs. Walsh and the present writer have added practically nothing to, and have taken nothing away from, the original Storey autograph.

It was realized at a fairly early stage that any attempt to bring Persian Literature up to date, by incorporating references to manuscripts reported since its author gave up work on his masterpiece, would be a huge undertaking, quite beyond the resources currently at the Society’s disposal. (It is estimated that some 300 catalogues have been published since Storey laid down his pen, or were not available to him at the time of writing.)

We have deemed it useful to give as an appendix a list of manuscripts in the catalogues scanned by Storey which he did not, for various reasons, include in his work. These normally consist of unidentified works, fragments of unknown provenance, or writings to which a date cannot be assigned.

The next section to be prepared for publication will contain particulars of works on science, arts and crafts, and the occult sciences.

The unstinting help of Professor G.H. Meredith-Owens, Librarian of the Society from 1964 to 1970, greatly lightened the editors’ task, but when this work became ready for the press it was realized that the cost of publication was beyond the means of the Royal Asiatic Society. The Wellcome Trustees were approached and very kindly agreed to provide a subsidy so that the book could be published.

J.D. Pearson

Original Preface to Vol. 2, part 3

As foreshadowed in the preface to part 2 of Vol. 2 of the present work, published in 1971, this section is based on the manuscript written by C.A. Storey which is ¶ preserved among his literary remains in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society. Mrs. Ann Walsh was again able to read through the manuscript before it was sent to the printer and made certain changes in the arrangement of material, in which she received valuable assistance from the Society’s former Honorary Librarian, Professor G.M. Meredith-Owens, now at the University of Toronto. No substantial changes were, however, made to the Storey text. Unfortunately it was not possible this time to list, as in the Section on Medicine, manuscripts indicated in the catalogue which were not included by Storey.

The Society is indebted to the Iranian Culture Foundation for a generous grant to cover the cost of printing. It is hoped that the remaining parts of Persian Literature which were left in a state fit for publication, will follow in due course.

Original Preface to Vol. 3, part 1 by V.M. Shepherd

In this further volume of C.A. Storey’s Persian Literature the present editor has simply carried on the task begun by the editor of Volume ii, parts 2 and 3. The entries drawn up by Storey have been left almost exactly as they were found, although the order has sometimes been altered slightly. Some entries have been supplemented from Storey’s card indexes, but, as before, no attempt has been made to bring the original work up to date, and there are no major additions, alterations or innovations. It has not been possible to list all the authors and manuscripts that Storey had described only on cards, or those manuscripts included in the catalogues he scanned which he chose to omit.

Attention is re-drawn to the lists of authorities and abbreviations already given: pl i (i.e. Volume I of the survey) pp. ix–xxiii, xxix–xxxv (prefixed to p. 61), [xliv] (facing p. 237), [xlviii] (facing p. 433), pp. liii–liv (prefixed to p. 781) and pl ii, pp. iv–vii and 193.

Note that biographical sources not occurring in these lists are normally works already described by Storey as part of his survey, usually in pl i, and listed in the index thereto. To discover the specific edition he used, therefore, Storey’s original description of the work in question should be checked. In cases where he lists more than one edition, that to which he has referred is the one to which he would have had the most easy access (i.e. one he himself owned¹, or one that is in the I.O.L. or B.L.) and/or that is the most well-known edition (e.g. G.M.S. or Bibliotheca Indica).

Note that cross-references to items within Volumes iii and iv and the brief Supplement to Volume i² are given in terms of paragraph, not page, numbers.

An author described as “contemporary” should normally be understood as one contemporary with the writing of the catalogue or catalogues in which ms(s). of his work are described.

Thanks are due to Professor J.D. Pearson for supervising the task of editing, also to Mr. Simon Digby and Dr. Richard Pankhurst, respectively Honorary Librarian and Librarian, of the Royal Asiatic Society, for help with queries ¶ relating to the work. Dr. A.K. Irvine is responsible for seeing this fascicle through the press, and Dr. T. Gandjei of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, was kind enough to read the proofs and make some helpful suggestions.

V.M. Shepherd

Original Preface to Vol. 5 by François de Blois³

The present fifth volume of the survey of Persian literature is devoted to poetry down to the Mongol invasion. Volume vi, which, it is hoped, will follow in due course, will continue the history of poetry from the time of Saʿdī and Rūmī onwards. The decision to devote at least two volumes to this, the most important genre of Persian writing, is a departure from the original plan; it was dictated by the great mass of material, but also by the insistent request of several readers for an index of what has been covered up till now. The change in programme has led to certain inconsistencies within the book, the most noticeable of which is doubtless the fact that the general bibliography (p. xv–xxv) contains a fair number of titles that are never actually cited, as they are relevant only for the later periods.

In preparing this volume I have been able to use a certain amount of material left behind by C.A. Storey, in particular his handwritten lists of the older editions and translations of most of the dīwāns and mathnawīs discussed in these pages, a small number of references to biographical sources and a card-index of the older catalogues of Persian manuscripts. However, because of the wealth of information contained in the old catalogues (especially those by Rieu, Ethé, Pertsch and Sprenger) I have chosen to re-index almost all of the catalogues consulted by Storey, as well as those published after his death, and have used the cards only to double-check the entries, for which purpose they have proved very valuable. For the biographies I must bear sole responsibility.

The selection of authors to be included has not been easy. Although Storey, in the previous volumes, in general discussed only works that are actually extant (following in this, as in much else, the excellent model of Brockelmann’s history of Arabic literature), it seemed to me that, at least for the earliest period of Persian poetry, it would be useful to attempt a relatively comprehensive survey of all the poets of whose work anything remains, however slight this might be. This seemed all the more necessary as a distinction between authors of ‘extant dīwāns’ and poets ‘without a dīwān’ is a fairly artificial one, since many of the dīwāns of ancient poets are in fact fairly recent compilations; this question is discussed in some detail in Appendix iv. At the same time, limits have had to be set to the pretence of comprehensiveness, first of all by excluding all poets who are known only by name, but have not actually ¶ left us with any verses; this is bio-bibliography and not a prosopography of Persian poetry. Second, the selection has been restricted to authors writing in what can roughly be called standard literary Persian; dialect poets, apart from the famous names of Bābā Ṭāhir and Bundar, have been excluded, though this was perhaps a mistake. Third, except in the very earliest period, so-called occasional poets have, in general, been excluded and the selection limited to more or less professional men (and women) of letters. For example, I have thought it of little use to list the various local notables who are enumerated, together with a meagre sample of their verses, in Ibn Funduq’s Tārīkh i Baihaq, except in the very few cases where these people are mentioned also in some other source. To be sure, some doubtless equally obscure authors have been given entries, but it is impossible to be entirely consistent in this matter.

The entries follow a standard tripartite scheme: biography, codicology (where codices exist) and bibliography. The biographies are obviously the most important part and they differ, I think, from those in all previous histories of Persian literature in that they have been compiled on the basis of primary sources, and not on that of the unreliable, or indeed mendacious, ‘biographical’ compendia of the Timurid period and later. More on the value of the individual sources, and on the selection of the poets included, will be found in the notes at the beginning of chapters two and three.

The codicological sections are the least satisfactory ones. In the course of the work it became increasingly clear that the declared intention of publishing ‘the most complete possible inventory of manuscripts, printed (or lithographed) editions, prose and verse translations (of entire works or of substantial extracts)’, as rashly promised in jras 1990, p. 371, was neither feasible nor would such a ‘complete’ inventory have served any useful purpose. In the case, for example, of the dīwāns of the more popular poets, there is really no point in listing hundreds of manuscripts from the 18th and 19th centuries and it would have been better to have restricted the selection from the outset to a selection of the oldest copies. Unfortunately the futility of the original plan only became evident after a fairly large part of this volume had been written, and, although in the latter half of the volume the codicology is more selective, even there there is much that should have been left out. It is hoped that the sixth volume will be more successful in this respect.

Manuscripts are listed under the name of the town where they are at present located (or of their last known location), arranged in roughly geographical order from West to East, beginning with Europe, and then, within each locality, by date. Much space and effort could have been saved by quoting only the hijrī dates, and not converting them into Christian dates as well, but in this I have emulated Storey’s practice in the previous volumes. For the actual conversion ¶ I have tried to follow a scientific principle and only offered a precise Julian or Gregorian equivalent in cases where the day of the week is indicated in the source; for details the reader is referred to the article ‘Taʾrīkh’ in EI2. Dates not actually mentioned in the manuscripts are evident as such; if, for example, a manuscript has been attributed to the 16th century not on the basis of a colophon or of some other clear indication, but merely of a (however well-founded) deduction by the editor of the relevant catalogue it will be cited as belonging to the ‘16th century?’—with a question mark—or else no date will be suggested. The names of scribes are quoted from chapter iii onwards, and then mostly only for the older manuscripts; this limits the usefulness of the relevant entries in the index, but I think these will not be entirely without value to students of codicology.

For the older printed editions from Iran it has seemed more prudent to refer once and for all to Mushār’s bibliography (see below, p. 12) rather than copying out references to books that I have not seen. The Indian lithographs are cited mainly from Storey’s notes, mostly based on the collections in the (then) British Museum and the India Office in London. Modem editions have been listed where they have come to my knowledge, but I am painfully aware of the gaps on the shelves of the libraries in post-colonial London.

The bibliographical sections are arranged chronologically and begin with references to the primary and other mediaeval sources. A fairly comprehensive listing of modern monographs has been attempted. Articles in journals or collective volumes are listed more selectively; in particular, those devoted primarily to the aesthetic appreciation of works of poetry or elucidating only a small number of individual passages are not in general included. Similarly, references to standard histories of Persian literature, such as those by Ethé, Browne, Shiblī, Rypka, Nafīsī, etc., have mostly been dispensed with, but I have given references to Ṣafā’s big history cum anthology.

For the sake of consistency, the system of transliteration (or rather of partial transliteration and partial transcription) employed in the previous volumes of this survey has been retained, with minor alterations: for purely typographical reasons the subscript lines under sh, etc., have had to be omitted, and the letters ṭ and ẓ appear with one, rather than two, subscript dots. The Persian final silent hāʾ is, as before, transliterated as h, but the particles ba, bi and na appear always without -h. I have conformed—but only under protest—with the usual—but absurd—orientalist practice of ignoring the kasrah i iḍāfah when it occurs in personal names, except in cases where the iḍāfah construction represents filiation; thus we write ‘Nāṣir i Khusrau’ and ‘Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salman’, but (for example) ‘Saʿīd Nafīsī’. The particle is, however, transliterated in names occurring in book-titles. The so-called majhūl vowels (ē and ō) are ¶ distinguished in classical Persian, Afghan and Indo-Persian names, titles and quotations, but not in references to modern Western Persian sources. Thus the name of the poet Rōdakī, when it occurs in a modern Iranian book-title, will be rendered as ‘Rūdakī’, an annoying, but, I think, unavoidable inconsistency. A purely scientific transcription of early Neo-Persian (to which I have aspired in other publications) would also require, for example, the use of dh (or δ), rather than d, after vowels or of the preposition ‘pa’, rather than ‘ba’, but I have thought it best not to inflict this on the readers of the present book. Similarly, no attempt has been made to indicate the metrical lengthening of final short vowels in verse quotations.

Turkish names and words which occur in texts in Arabic script have been transliterated, as far as the consonants are concerned, according to the same system, but the Turkish values have been used for the vowels. Plene spelling of the vowels is, as a rule, indicated by a macron, but for typographical reasons this has had to be omitted in the case of ö and ü. Russian titles are cited in Cyrillic script, but want of the necessary special characters has meant that those in Tajik, Uzbek, Azeri, etc., have usually had to be transliterated.

Original Preface to the Second, Revised Edition⁴ by François de Blois

This volume came out in three fascicules, published in 1992, 1994 and 1997 respectively, the last with fairly extensive addenda and corrigenda. For the present second, revised, edition the addenda have been inserted into the appropriate place in the text, errors have been corrected and a few of the articles (notably those on the spurious writings of Nāṣir i Khusrau, on Shahīd Balkhī and on Rafīʿ Lunbānī) have been rewritten in the light of my subsequent researches. However, it has not been possible to work through the manuscript catalogues published since the early nineties and the codicological sections have consequently been reprinted virtually without change.

One or more of the three fascicules of pl v have been reviewed by the following authors: Īraj Afshār in Āyandah 18, 1993, p. 552, and in Kilk 68/70, 1374sh./1996, p. 70–1; Ch. Melville in bsoas 56, 1993, p. 600–1; F. Vahman in Acta Orientalia 54, 1993, p. 192–4, and 56, 1995, p. 249–50; F. Richard in Abstracta Iranica 15/16, 1992–3, item 7; E. Yarshater in jras 1994 p. 104–6, jras 1996, p. 256–60, and Īrānshināsī vi/1, 1994, p. 18–21; J. Bečka in Archív orientální 62, 1994, p. 90–1; A. Schimmel in zdmg 144, 1994, p. 439; P. Orsatti in rso 69, 1995, p. ¶ 252–4, rso 72, 1998, p. 333–8; J.W. Clinton in bsoas 59, 1996, p. 379–80, bsoas 61, 1998, p. 353; C.-H. de Fouchécour in Abstracta Iranica 20/21, 1997–8, items 5–6. Additions and corrections suggested by these reviewers have been included, with gratitude, in the new edition. References to publications in Czech and Tajik (mostly not accessible to me) have been added from Bečka’s review.

It is a pleasant duty to reiterate the thanks expressed at various places in the first edition to those scholars who have helped me with suggestions and criticism and sent me books or offprints. First of all to Professor A.D.H. Bivar who, first as a member of the Society’s publications committee, and then as president of the R.A.S., has shown great interest in and concern for this project and has made many valuable suggestions concerning both the content and the physical preparation of this publication, and to the Society’s former honorary treasurer, John Payne, for manifold support. Other colleagues who have helped me with their suggestions are A.L.F.A. Beelaert, C.E. Bosworth, J.T.P. de Bruijn, S. Digby, C.W. Ernst, ʿAbdullāh Ghūchānī, M. Glünz, J.S. Meisami, C.P. Melville, B.W. Robinson, but in particular A.H. Morton, who has proposed a very large number of corrections and improvements, only a few of which are explicitly credited in the pages that follow. Naṣrullāh Pūrjawādī generously sent me a large number of books and journals from Tehran. R. Zipoli has given me all the volumes of the Lirica Persica series. Maḥmūd Jaʿfarī has assisted me with some difficult Persian texts. Charlotte de Blois and Lydia Wright helped with the correction of the proofs of the first edition.