s Codex Sprengers 30, which and Tabari are mutually
independent, shows quite the same combination of two main sources and so
far as the section in question goes, can be utilised and treated as a
new manuscript of Tabari. Both have relied almost to the letter upon the
presentment which emanated partly from Ibn Mukaffa and partly from
another translator with the only difference that the anonymous writer is
oftener more concise than Tabari. Again the version which does not
proceed from Ibn Mukaffa is for the most part in accord with the epitome
of the story of the Sasanides in the introduction to Yakubi's History of
the Abbasides; there the excellent author occasionally subjoins
extraneous information. More often than not this presentment is in touch
with Ferdausi. I am unable to aver from whom has originated this other
recension of the story of the Sasanides. We know indeed the names of a
number of persons who redacted the History of Persia, originally in
Pahlavi, for Arab readers. But though we can collect a few notices of
some of the authors mentioned, we know nothing in particular about them
and are completely in the dark about the special nature of their work.
All that we can postulate as established is that they wrote posterior to
Ibn Mukaffa. The latter is always mentioned in the first place. Muhammad
bin Jahm who is regularly cited next after him and bears the surname of
Bermaki, was a client of the Barmecides, who came to power a long while
after the death of Ibn Mukaffa. Ifc may be supposed that they all laid
under contribution the production of their celebrated predecessor. How
they individually set about their work, whether perhaps some of them
tapped non-Persian tradition; also, how far one or other of them
utilized the novels of which there were probably many in Pahlavi--this
we are no longer in a position to determine. Again this too remains a
mystery whence Tabari came by most of the accounts touching the
Persians, which are conspicuous by their absence in the anonymous Codex.
To clear this whole ground it would appear to be expedient in the first
place to set apart all that for which Ibn Mukaffa directly or indirectly
is responsible. This I have done in the footnotes but an advance is
possible in this direction. On the other hand, we must keep Ferdausi
steadily before our eyes. Whatever in Tabari and other Chroniclers does
not issue from Ibn Mukaffa and is not represented in Ferdausi likewise
merits special