ns were unfairly
biassed and rhetorical. The ornamental and figurative ingredients are
indicated even by the Arabic reproductions, though the latter are
greatly condensed. A classic testimony to it has been kindly
communicated to me by Baron Von Rosen which is a passage from a
Petersberg manuscript of _Albayan Wattabyin_ of Jahiz in which the
Shuubiya or the Persians, who, though Muslims placed their nation above
the Arabs say: "And he who is interested in reason, fine culture,
knowledge of ranks, examples and penalties, in elegant expressions and
superlative thoughts, let him cast a glance at the _History (more
properly the Vitae) of Kings."_ History of the Kings, _Siyar-ul Muluk_,
is the title of the Arabic rendering of the Book of Kings in Pahlavi.
Compare likewise Hamza's remarks on the works on Persian history. I have
laboured to show the partiality of the Persian tradition in the
footnotes. The narrative is conceived in a monarchical and legitimistic
spirit, but equally all along from the view point of the superior
nobility and the clergy. Add to this the exertions to cry up as much as
possible the glory of Persia which sometimes produces a strange effect.
Moreover, there must have been no lack of contradictions as to facts as
well as respecting estimates of personal character which was inevitable
owing to the employment of varying sources. Nevertheless a work like
this written under the Sasanides and familiar with the state of things
obtaining in the empire and more or less of an official nature, must
have been an admirable fount of history. There was hardly ever a better
presentment of the story of this house than the _Khoday-Nameh_.

[I have translated the entire passage from the since printed text. See
p. 170.--G.K.N.]

Since, barring the small book treating of Ardeshir's adventures, no
original Pahlavi document in the domain of historical or romantic
literature has descended to us and even the Arabic recensions made
directly from the original general history in Pahlavi have perished, we
are altogether left in uncertainty touching many most important points.
We cannot, for instance, ascertain whether alongside of the
_Khoday-Nameh_ there existed also other general continuous narrations or
whether the deviations, which are for the most part trifling, in some
cases of great moment, already existed in the Pahlavi work or are
traceable to various recensions of that book. It would not be rash, to
assume that some