YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Reprinted from
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
Vol. XXVI, No. 3, April 1,910

AL-KINDI'S HISTORY OF THE QADIS
OF EGYPT

C. C. TORREY

\

PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

AL-KINDI'S HISTORY OF THE QADIS OF EGYPT1
This work, which Professor Gottheil has edited from the only manu
script now known to contain it, is one of very considerable interest and
importance. The period which it covers begins with the first establish
ment of the office of qadi in Egypt in the year 31 A. h. (651 a. d.), at the
beginning of the Mohammedan occupation, and extends to the year 424
(1033). This was the formative period of Muslim jurisprudence, and
Egypt was a country in which many interesting things were happening.
In the case of each qadi the dates of his accession and removal, or
death, are given, including usually the day of the month. The bio
graphical sketches contain, as a rule, only matters connected with the
office of the judge, not miscellaneous reminiscences. The authority by
which he received his appointment is recorded, and if he was removed
for cause, the circumstances are described. The official qualities of each
incumbent of the office are set forth in more or less detail, usually in the
form of a series of incidents from which the reader is left to draw his own
conclusions. It is in the intrinsic importance of these recorded incidents
that the chief value of the work lies. The material collected by al-Kindi,
in particular, which forms the principal part of the compilation, contains
much information, accessible nowhere else, which is of the first impor
tance for our knowledge of the inner history of Egypt in the first cen
turies of the Mohammedan dominion. Illuminating hints as to political
'The History of the Egyptian Cadis as Compiled by Abu Omar Muhammad ibn
Yusuf ibn Ya'qub al-KindI, together with Additions by Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn
'Abd al-Rahman ibn Bukd. Edited from the unique MS in the British Museum by Richard
J. H. Gottheil. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1908. 183

184 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and social conditions are given, official documents are sometimes quoted
in extenso, and especially, of course, we are given much detailed infor
mation as to the evolution of the office of qadi and the actual adminis
tration of justice. Many of the narratives are entertaining as well as
instructive, and this is true also of not a few of the many bits of poetry
which are scattered through the book. The popular or partisan estimate
of the official occasionally crystallized in a few verses, laudatory, denun
ciatory, or satirical, which were thereupon handed about, and served much
the same purpose as the cartoons in our illustrated periodicals. Some of
these verses are decidedly amusing, besides being written with some
literary skill. Such, for instance, are the several productions (pp. 82 ff .,
95 f .) written in ridicule of certain Copts who succeeded in getting them
selves pronounced pure-blooded Arabs by a bribed judge and suborned
witnesses; or the verses which describe, with elaborate sarcasm, the
changed circumstances of the magistrate who, together with all his near
relatives and cronies, rose from poverty to magnificence by misappro
priating the funds intrusted to him (p. 80); or the somewhat excited lines
(p. 135) called forth by the controversy over the tall hats which Ibn Abi
'1-Laith had prohibited. The qadi al-'Umari is vehemently denounced,
in several scraps of poetry, for his wine-drinking and his unholy love of
music (p. 83); some of his fellows are even more sharply called to account
for their alleged dishonesty. It is not surprising that the offending
poet — when he could be discovered — was sometimes roughly handled.
In the Introduction (pp. iii-xvii), Gottheil treats at some length the
history and significance of the office of qadi. This is a subject to which
he had previously paid some attention; see especially his article, "A Dis
tinguished Family of Fatimide Cadis," in the Journal of the Am. Orien
tal Soc, Vol. XXVII (1906), pp. 217-96. A still more thoroughgoing
treatment of the matter, using all the available material, would be very
welcome; at present, some important points remain obscure. It is a pity
that the text of al-Kindi could not have been accompanied at once by a
translation ; this, however, we may perhaps hope to receive later.
The history of the Egyptian qadis has been written, expanded, or
revised by several hands, as has long been known, and the publication of
this text brings to light some interesting problems. According to all the
later Mohammedan writers, al-Kindi first wrote the history of the qadis,
carrying it down to the year 246, from which point his work was con
tinued by Ibn Zulaq, who belonged to the next following generation.
This expanded history was thenceforward the standard work in its field,
and is the one which Ibn Hajar (f 852) took as his chief early authority
in compiling his own biographical dictionary of the magistrates of Egypt,
entitled -ao/o sLaj' £ -o^M *i\ . No other continuation of al-
Kindi's monograph than that by Ibn Zulaq has been known. But in this

Book Notices 185
solitary manuscript, preserved in the British Museum, there is a surprise
for us. The portion of the history purporting to have been written by
al-Kindi does indeed extend to the year 246. At that point, after the
introductory announcement regarding the qadi Bakkar, there is a note
in the MS (fol. 215a) which reads: »La~&-1 _wo _*£. .j| jcUc. Lo -i-t
-ox sLdi' , "Here ends what Abu 'TJmar [al-Kindi] composed of the
history of the qadis of Egypt." But the continuation, carrying on the
history of Bakkar's term of office, and following it with the account of
his successors down to the year 366, when 'All ibn an-Nu'man was given
the formal appointment, is not the work of Ibn Zulaq, but that of an
otherwise quite unknown writer, whose name is given (ibid.) as Abu
'1 Hasan Ahmad ibn ' Abd ar-Rahman ibn Burd. This dhail of Ibn Burd
was obviously composed for the purpose of supplementing al-Kindi,
whose spoken (not written) word is once expressly quoted, on p. 159, 1. 4
(fol. 2206). Its author cites as his chief authority, for the years 246-314,
Muhammad ibn ar-Rabi' ibn Sulaiman al-Jizi,2 and brings the history
down to his own day (as his pupil says, p. 149, 1. 5: !<Xs& Ljj.^o.£ J,l ).
For the history after the year 314 he names no authorities at all; saving
that on one occasion, as already mentioned, he says of a certain piece of
information that he had received it verbally from al-KindT. He must.
have died soon after the year 367, the latest date which his dhail contains.
But this is not all. There is also a second appendix, this time
anonymous, composed in continuation of Ibn Burd. It is introduced
(fol. 2226) by the words: ,j-_? tX+£? .«.£ ^1 i_,Ia£) Jl/dl &Isj
-mzjii s'Lo.? Xj^-\ jj ^JciXlt OS.**/*.} . Its first item is a correction
of Ibn Burd's statement regarding the accession of Muhammad ibn
Ahmad ibn Nasr, the next to the last of the qadis named by him. He
had given the date (p. 161, 1. 9) as the second rabi' of the year 348; his
continuator, on the contrary, asserts that it was the first rabi' of the year
347. That this was expressly intended as a correction of Ibn Burd, and
written for this place, seems plain from the fact that the writer says not
a word more about this qadi, but goes on at once with 'AH ibn an-Nu'man,
with whose appointment to office Ibn Burd had ended his work.3 The
2 This same Muhammad ibn ar-Rabi' is also cited once or twice by al-Kindi. I have not
been able to ascertain the date of his death. Ibn Sa'id (ed. Tallquist, p. 101) mentions him
in connection with events of the year 306. His father, ar-Rabi', who was a man of some
note, died in the year 256 (Khali., tr. Rlane, I, 520: Yaqut. II, 177; Husn, 1, 186). He must
not be enfused with Ms contemporary, ar-Rabi' ibn Sulaiman (who also had a son named
Muhammad), who i^ often mention"d as a disciple of aS-Safi'i.
3 Gottheil edits here with a row of dots between the date and the following name, but
in his notes on the text nothing is said of any blank space at this point. The dots, therefore,
presumably express his opinion thut something is missing which originiilly stood here; but
if the view advanced above is correct, the text stands just as it was originally written.

186 The American Journal op Semitic Languages
date of 'All's accession, also, is corrected. According to Ibn Burd, the
removal of Muhammad from office and the reading of 'All's diploma in
the mosque had taken place on the same day; but from the continuator 's
statement it appears that there was an interval of just one week. The
new dhail is then carried on as far as the year 424, that is, presumably,
to about the time when it was composed (notice the way in which the
words Lb (Jw^.J'1 are used on p. 165, 1. 9, and p. 166, 1. 14). It is very
meager until the last qadis are reached, and even then what we have is
merely two or three incidents long drawn out, rather than any really
extensive information. The writer names no authorities, and presumably
did not expect himself to be cited as an authority by subsequent writers.
He merely wished to bring al-Kindi down to date for practical purposes,
and made his task as light as possible, putting down only the necessary
names and dates, and in the latter part the few additional items which
he happened to recollect.
The story of al-Kindi's history of the qadis, then, so far as we are
able to trace it, seems to have been as follows :
1. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam (f 257) included in his Conquest of Egypt a
concise account of the qadis. He belonged to a family which was much
interested in jurisprudence, and his father, 'Abdallah ibn 'Abd al-Hakam,
had been associated with the qadi as censor of witnesses (he was not him
self qadi, as Brockelmann, Gesch., I, 148, and others have said). He was
above all things a student of the Tradition, interested in the isndd as
well as in the fact behind it, and his chief concern was with the earlier
period of Egyptian history. Hence it was that his biographies of the
magistrates, which were at first tolerably extended, dwindle as they
approach his own day until they become at last little more than a suc
cession of names and dates.
2. Al-Kindi (f 350) was one of those who handed down the -jo.a —y-i
of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam. From the author himself the text was passed on
to his pupil, AH ibn Qudaid. From the latter it was then received and
transmitted by two scholars. One of these was Muhammad ibn Ahmad
ibn al-Faraj al-Qammah, from whom we have the "standard" text found in
three of the four known manuscripts and attested elsewhere (e. g., in Abu
'1-Mahasin, I, 6); the other was al-Kindi, whose recension is preserved in
MS 1686 of the Bibliotheque Nationale. The name is incorrectly written
at the beginning of the manuscript (fol. 16, .jj tX*^ i^vJ r*A «j|
^LowXJl <Juuyi , which must be emended to ^j-s <X*^? r*£- «-?'
^dJSj\ *wdw«-? ), whence it happened that Slane, in his Catalogue, and
other scholars failed to recognize the interesting fact. At the beginning
of other chapters — for example, the one treating of the qadis — the name
is given correctly.

Book Notices 187
3. Al-Kindi revised and greatly expanded Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's
chapter on the qadis, making out of it a new and highly important
monograph. His chief interest was in the history, not in the science of
tradition, and his work was most voluminous just where that of his
predecessor had been most scanty. The period of history which was
covered by the compilation included those things which were most
momentous in the development of early Muslim jurisprudence: the
Mu'tazilite controversy and the mihna, or religious inquisition, under
al-Ma'mun; the reactionary reign of al-Mutawakkil; and the establish
ment of the four great schools of law. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam had ended
his chapter with the year 246, and al-Kindi closed his own History of the
Qadis at the same point. This has recently been doubted by Mr. H. F.
Amedroz, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (October, 1909,
pp. 1145 f .), but on quite insufficient grounds. Ibn Hallikan (tr. Slane,
I, 388) says that al-Kindi's annals of the qadis extended to the year 246;
and adds, that Ibn Zulaq's continuation of this work began with the
biography- of Bakkar ibn Qutaiba. This corresponds exactly with what
we have before us in the London manuscript. Both Ibn Zulaq and Ibn
Burd were personally acquainted with al-Kindi, and in all likelihood
both were pupils of his.4 Each one of the two, in writing a continuation
of his monograph, began with the year 246.° It is really additional testi
mony to the same effect when Haji Halifa (ed. Fliigel, No. 2,312) says
that al-Kindi died in the year 246; someone's statement in regard to the
end of his History of the Qadis had been misunderstood. Amedroz lays
weight on the fact that a certain anecdote of the qadi Bakkar is told by
Ibn Hajar on the authority of "al-Kindi," though it is not found in the
present work. But this is easily explained. The anecdote in question
comes from Ibn Zulaq (see Ibn Hallikan, IV, pp. 592 f., in the biography
of Yunus ibn 'Abd al-A'la), and moreover, not from his account of the
qadis, but from his Ta'rih Misr. The ascription to al-Kindi is probably
merely an instance of the very frequent confusion of master with pupil;
and, in any case, there is nothing to suggest that the anecdote ever stood
in al-Kindi's work on the qadis. Amedroz says further (ibid., p. 1146)
what implies that evidence exists tending to show that Ibn Zulaq's work
on the qadis may have begun with the year 335. But where is the evi
dence to be found? The note on the margin of fol. 131a, in this manu
script, referred to by Amedroz, has to do only with al-Kindi's account of
the governors, which was cut short by his death just as he had brought
it down to the year 335. It is certainly not permissible to give the state
ment any connection with his account of the qadis. He may of course
*This was certainly true of Ibn Zulaq; see Gottheil's article in the Journal of the
Am. Or. Society, XXVIII (1907), p. 255, 1. 14 ; p. 263, 1. 9. In the case of Ibn Burd it is at least
probable; see what was said above in regard to him.
5 Ibn Hajar, in his Saf al-Isr, quotes expressly from Ibn Zulaq in the biography of
Bakkar ibn Qutaiba; Gottheil, ibid., pp. 255 f.

188 The American Journal op Semitic Languages
have hoped to take up again, at some later day, the last-named work, and
continue it from the year 246 down to his own time, or he may have sug
gested such a continuation to his pupils; as to that we have no informa
tion. But this much seems certain, that every particle of evidence,
external and internal, goes to show that Ibn Zulaq's -*ax> iiLdi' \L*i>l ,
that is, the part which he himself compiled, began with the life of Bakkar
ibn Qutaiba.
4. Ibn Burd wrote a dhail to al-Kindi's history of the qadis, carrying
it down to the year 367, which was probably near to the date of his death
(see above). It was an inadequate continuation, and was eventually
superseded by the more elaborate work of his younger contemporary,
Ibn Zulaq. The original monograph of al-Kindi continued to be handed
down without either continuation. This was probably the case in the
recension which here lies before us. Ibn an-Nahhas (f 416; more than
ninety years old at the time of his death; Husn I, 175), who transmits
the text, received it from its author; and if he had included Ibn Burd in
his recension, we should pretty certainly have some indication of the fact
on fol. 215a.
5. An unknown writer, who flourished in the early part of the fifth
century, wrote a continuation of Ibn Burd's dhail, correcting one or two
of its statements and bringing the annals of the qadis down to 424 a. h.
He may or may not have known Ibn Zulaq's work; if he did, he pre
sumably found it much too extensive for his own purpose. This doubly
expanded edition of al-Kindi was probably very little used. Our unique
manuscript is a copy made in Damascus in the year 624.
6. Ibn Zulaq (f 387), whose works seem to have been to a considerable
extent an expanded repetition of those of his teacher al-Kindi, handed
down the latter's _o» s'Loj' and supplemented it with a dhail that
was really adequate. He doubtless knew, and possibly used, the work
of Ibn Burd. If we had for this period a considerable number of such
citations as the one from ad-Dahabi noticed by Amedroz (loc. cit.,
p. 1145), we might be able to reach a sure conclusion on this point. The
appendix began at the year 246, and was carried as far as 386, the year
before the one in which the author died; so we are told by Ibn Hallikan
(loc. cit.), and Ibn Hajar's Raf al-Isr in the biography of Muhammad
ibn an-Nu'man quotes Ibn Zulaq by name (Gottheil, JAOS., XXVIII,
p. 256).6 The later historians and biographers, such as Ibn Hajar, seem
to have used al-Kindi chiefly, or only, in the edition of Ibn Zulaq.
Gin the Introduction to the present volume, p. xviii, and also in the JAOS., XXVII,
p. 224, Gottheil speaks of 386 (996 A. d.) as the year of the death of the qadi Muhammad.
That is not the case, however; it was the year of the death of the caliph al-'Aziz, and three
years before that of Muhammad, which occurred in 389.

Book Notices 189
Besides the Introduction and the Arabic text, Gottheil has given us a
full and very helpful Index of Proper Names, and about twenty pages of
Notes. These last deal almost exclusively with the text, and contain a
great many parallel readings from Ibn Hajar. Unfortunately, they are
not put at the foot of the page, but occupy a distant part of the book.
This arrangement is sometimes necessary in a voluminous commentary,
though even there it is usually undesirable, but for such notes as these it
ought never to be employed. In the present case, the inconvenience is
made all the greater by the character of the text and the way in which it
is treated. Editing a unique Arabic manuscript is a very difficult matter
at best, and this London codex, though well written and on the whole
trustworthy, needs to be corrected in a good many places. In the work
of emendation Gottheil is both conservative and judicious, but he seems
to have printed the text before fully making up his mind how to edit it.
What he gives us, in the body of the book, is neither a diplomatic repro
duction of the codex nor the result of his own study, but something half
way between. The reader is therefore kept constantly turning to the
notes and back again. Doubtless some necessity of haste, and the diffi
culties resulting from printing the text abroad (in Rome), are chiefly
accountable for this defect in the edition.
For the criticism of the text Gottheil was able to use four Paris
manuscripts. Two of these contain the -oil! «iv , in compiling which
Ibn Hajar made extensive use of Ibn Zulaq's edition of al-Kindi; the
third is an abridgment of Ibn Hajar by his grandson, Ibn Sahin. Though
these are often very helpful, the type of text which they exhibit is gen
erally less primitive than that of Ibn an-Nahhas. The fourth MS is one
containing Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's annals of the qadis, Part VI of his
jW yXi . This is the MS which was mentioned above as containing
al-Kindi's recension of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam. It is interesting to observe
that the text of this recension exhibits a number of peculiarities which
are also found in the London text of al-Kindi. Thus, the very well-
known name -Xc ^ *d-* Is invariably written -yXs- ^j p-tV^" ;
the even more familiar &*-yg.J ^jjI is pointed xju^} ; and in the
isndds each io^>i Ui'tX^- is followed by J Li', while in the more
common usage, followed by all the MSS of the other recension of the
_»o>o +Zi , as well as by the Ibn Burd appendix (149, 5) in the Kindi
MS, the JLs is used only after the last name in the series.7
'The fact must not be overlooked that there are two copies of the Futuh Misr in the
Bibliotheque Nationale. Gottheil, p. xviii, speaks of "the" Paris MS; and Amedroz,
p. 1143, speaks of " the finely written MS of Paris," which description shows that he has in

190 The American Journal op Semitic Languages
The text as printed in this edition, after receiving all the emendation
suggested by Gottheil in his notes, still needs to be corrected in a great
many places. Some of these have been pointed out by Amedroz, loc. cit. ;
still other instances are the following. I have not included the typo
graphical errors, which are also numerous.
3, 1. The last name in the marginal gloss (see note) was certainly
.+£¦ «jI , not Jii jj| . Cf. what was said, above, as to the age of Ibn
an-Nahhas. — L. 10. For c^aJ ^j-fi- read cy.dJ! .j^Cj , and put a period
after «.«o! . — 4, 6. Judging from the great multitude of similar cases, the
word JLs has fallen out after i_ ft**/«J . — L. 13. The history has been
sadly confused here by an accident. In one of the MSS from which this
one was descended a single leaf was transposed. To restore the original
order, the section which begins with the last word ( Laj Jes. ) of 1. 2, p. 6,
and ends with the last word of 1. 11, p. 7, must be inserted between 11. 13
and 14 on p. 4. There must be no paragraph division at the beginning
of the section ; at the end of it the break occurred in the middle of a
sentence.— L. 16. Cancel the last five words. — 5, 12. For je^aAJ read
ijajh . — L. 16. For ^-^Li' read uoLi' . — 6,16. Gottheil inserts ijD} by
conjecture, and does not understand the two preceding words. Should
not the MS be read and pointed as follows : /-?v*JI ij-* f>£> i_>viJLo
juJL/o £ ? — L. 18. Read .rrjyol ¦ — 9, 1- The very carefully and correctly
written London MS of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam always writes this name ^s-
-X>) ^jj . — L. 2. MS s-sli . Probably IV stem, and pronounced in
the popular way, sJs'ls (for xSjj'Li , which form actually stands here in
the London MS of Hak.).— L. 17. For _I>=M ^_>=>Lo read au^Lo
-U-t (cf. 1. 10).— 10, 19, last word. Read lots.— 12, 17. Read
sLdiaJ .— L. 18. Read J-k*Jt £ o~wj .— 13, 5. The name of this
man is *U>N ^j-i tX*-3? (not &*-oA see the note above, p. 185. The
same mistake p. 124, 1. 3. Correct the Index accordingly, and add to the
references there 152, 9 and 153, 13. — L. 18. Add Li<\a. at the end of
the line. — 14, 19. For '&+Xm*jo read xJJLmuo . — 15,3. Insert another JU'
after (jlojj . — L. 4. xi\* *aaj **tXi-t ,j^ ails is plainly wrong. I
mind the other codex, not used by Gottheil. It may be worth while to add, that in the Paris
MS 1686, written in 585 A. H., the chapter on the qadis is comprised in foil. 1406-516 (Gottheil:
"1406-1416"), which woul i make about twenty-six pages (Gottheil: "thirteen pages") of
the London MS of al-Kindi.

Book Notices 191
should conjecture: «5\* ^-yj |*#lV^.| ^^ xjLs ; cf. the account
which follows. — 18,6. There are two similar names, Ju^.t~<& (the correct
one here) and ^.aa^«-Cu , but no such name as the one given by this
MS. — L. 10. Insert _ajiX^. after the first Jli' . — L. 19. The name is
I jot , not IlXjI ; see Wiistenfeld's Tabellen. — 19, 6. Something is miss
ing from the text here. Either this MS or one of its ancestors accidentally
dropped a line or two just after the word tX.A***/ . 'Ubaid Allah ibn
Sa'id was not a ^cXx**/ (the Index must be corrected accordingly), and
since he flourished in the third century he cannot have taken part in this
incident of the year 83. Who the al-Harith as-Sa'di al-Haulani was, I
do not know. Probably .cys-t ij* should also be inserted in 1. 8 after
yyjlil, as in Ibn Hajar (text given in Gottheil's note). — 24,4. For tX^a
uLss^il ^0 aJU! read ^l^s^il (jj aJJl tX<u-& , and cf. Ibn
Duqmaq, IV, 39, 131; Ibn Haldun, IV, 188 (^U I _j_>l). Correct the
Index accordingly. — 25, 8. Cancel cy.-yUt ! It came in from the pre
ceding line. — LI. 15 ff. The wind cast a scrap of paper (SsL^1) upon
his lap (Sv^O, not an iron shovel (sL^fUi) upon a rock (SjS). — 27, 4.
The name in the second half of the line is of course not the subject of the
verb JLs , but the superscription of the section which begins here. It
should either be overlined, or else omitted altogether, with a note. —
28, 4. For _wul^. read „j.**a*Jj . — L. 19. For the first ^&. read
^j . — 32, 16. The name is vol <\=- , as in the better MSS of Ibn 'Abd
al-Hakam. — 34,11. For ^sXi\y^-, which makes no sense, read ^oXyia. .
— L. 13. For .jJ}) i>jI read j\j ^jI . — 35,14. Apparently, the most
important word in the clause has been accidentally omitted. Was it
UoJJa/), following ^ ?— 36, 13, 15. In both places read i_jl^\J.| ,
and correct the Index accordingly. — L. 15. There is a bad gap in the
MS here, which the editor has not noticed. The qadi Yahya was not
directly followed by Tauba. Two others intervened, namely, Yazid ibn
Abdallah ibn Hudamir and al-Hiyar ibn Halid. These are duly named
in the Futuh Misr and the Husn, and what is more, they were obviously
included here by al-Kindi, since we are told at the top of the next page
that Tauba received his appointment upon the death of al-Hiyar. A
considerable passage has therefore been lost here by accident. It may
be possible to bridge the gap in part by the help of Ibn Hajar and Ibn
Sahin — neither of which I have seen. — 37, 1. For XiM read X?p*\ . —

192 The American Journal op Semitic Languages
L. 10. For ,jt LoU read ^jl Loli, and delete the period just preceding.
Amedroz has pointed out the true reading of the remainder of the line. —
L. 15. c^=»L«ai iV^UaJI cioli will not do in this context. The first
c
two of these words must have been (JjJLie ooLi in the original, and
the two immediately following were parenthetical, thus: Her husband
said to her, "You are divorced" (she cried out, but he continued) "if you
ever say a word to me about any litigant," etc. — 38, 5. The reading of
the next to the last word in the line must be ^ , not ^1 . — L. 16. For
SL.JI read sLjoI . — L. 17. The correct reading (see Gottheil's note) is
sJU Lu J . — 43,9. The name is -*«j , not -*ij ; cf. 44, 14; 50,18; etc.
Correct the Index. — 44, 10. After ^j <X^I several words have been
accidentally omitted; cf. 1. 14. — 46,12. Insert ^J6 after JUs . — 51,11.
The first word in the line should be divided into two words, s3 j I. . —
55, 3. Read J^LCs . For ^^jt read jj^i til , as in Ibn 'Abd al-
Hakam and Ibn Hajar. — L. 15. Cancel .jjI at the end of the line. —
56, 1. There is a considerable gap here, not noticed by the editor, after
the word -X? . In the passage which has fallen out, the story of the
murder of Ibn 'Utba was told. The text as it now stands makes no
sense. — L. 9. For (o-?l read ^y . — 59,3. For ^li read .jU . — L. 14'
For ^j( i^t read .jI J,£ — 60,11. The name is t\jt-w , not J-v**** ¦
According to the Index, p. 170, the matter is in doubt; but a statement
in the text, 17, 2 f., makes it absolutely certain. — 61,9. Read *Las . —
L. 11. The note, p. xxviii, proposes to emend here, but the text is correct
as it stands. — L. 19. For Ji.*^- ^j| substitute ^iX^Jt ! This lapsus
was probably made by al-Kindi himself. — 62, 19. After lisj-^j must be
inserted tjoli' , as in Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam (see the note). The two words
are parenthetical. — 65,19. For iX+^l jl read J^s.^1 jl . — 67,1. For
i^JsA read I jjcf . (I had made this correction before seeing that Ibn
Hajar actually has the reading.) — 69, 3. The reading of the MS, ^>Uit «
(the usual license), is required. — L. 10. The readings given by Ibn Hajar,
LgJ and LjcXac , are the correct ones, as shown by the context. — 71, 1
For the bare name SjlaJv , • as the partial name of a man otherwise

Book Notices 193
unidentified, two references, 71, 1 and 59, 1, are given in the Index. In
the present passage the man is evidently Rabi'a ibn Farruh (f c. 140); in
59, 1 the name is not «Ji-Ov , but «-o. , namely Rabi' ibn Yunus, the
chamberlain of al-Mansur, as the context makes quite certain. — L. 9. For
the second ^j£- read ^\ . — 77, 9. Abu '1-Bahtari. — 79, 9. For „»-o
iXjvj ij-A-?} /+*¦ read iXj'»j ^ )j+£ (j-o .— L. 11. Read xJyix . —
80, 8. Read /jyaJ . — L. 9. In the Index, p. 175, the name al-Ja'di is put
by itself. But this was merely a nisba of Ashab, who is named in this
• — ?
same line. — L. 12. Read Jul and w^^j . — 81, 16. The last four words
in the line must be canceled. Someone was misled by the adjective
^i'wCiJl into thinking of the district jUj>j..ciJl in Upper Egypt. Hence
the conflate text (into which a second o«-it then came by accident).
These people came only from the eastern al-Hauf and from the Syrian
desert; see 72, 7.-82, 4. Read »j Jl .^L. 10. Read &J-u=» "his tribe,"
J J O '
or xJ-*j&. "his tie of kinship"? The reading of the text is impossible. —
L. 11. Read LsbIjLu and lj-yL=>L . — L. 12. The meter requires U-C) . —
83,4. Both meter and sense demand ^><Sb . — 84, 1. Instead of %.jJ)
„vaj read ,j-oiL£!l , i. e., "the whole month"; cf. the following line. —
L. 4. Read ^vAamXxJ. . — L. 9. Transfer the a to the second half-verse. —
85, 11. For Jj_«a.S' read vIm^u .— L. 12. Read ^/dSi\ .— L. 17. Read
J^yHl (asplur. of ^jLo).— L. 18. Point ^X— 88, 6. Write ^jt
as one word. — 92, 15. For ^y> ^- read ^yA ^. (see the note). —
93,17. Read JUa-Ls . — 96,14. The meter requires the pointing (J^oXo .
w Ji ^ Of £-
— 98,18. For iS*^: (j' rea(l ic^2* ij' • ^his is a verb, not a proper
name. Correct the Index accordingly. — 101,10. Another gap in the
text. It is plain that something, probably one line of a MS, has fallen
out after the word ^ .— L. 11. Point xj£ .— 102, 15. Point ^U*l .—
L. 18. The meter requires ,j*l v (the verb, without hamza). — 103, 13.
Instead of sLus- , which fits neither meter nor sense, read »L*^ : " They
appear with foreheads black from butting against the prayer-mats." The

191 The American Journal op Semitic Languages
immediate context makes the emendation certain. — 104, 13. The name is
-^aj ^yj ^ ; cf. 78, 5, etc. — 105, 15. The meter requires *-^-M . —
108, 9. Should not the last name in the line be (Ji}v« ? Cf. 127, 11;
131,13; 139,13.-109,7. For vot^ xjJ\ read ^T, jouT.— L. 19. For
^jjL, if read ^jjCv^i .— 110, 1. Read ,jl .— L. 16. After the first JU
insert LocVa. . — 113, 3. Read *.«/LrJ|. . — 114, 3. The text reading,
,_3UX«/..*J! , is the correct one; a mere neophyte. — 115, 10. Read <j&J<3t
and Lsi>U.— 116,8. Read JuLU .— L. 9. Why change oU: ?— 119,3.
Read v^..ci.Ai . — L. 4. Read ,^yo in place of ,j-»-* . — L. 9. Several
words, at least, are missing after ^it..jb»! . — L. 19. The reading of the
MS, sJ (not u5J), is correct. The editor has failed to notice that there
is a considerable gap in the text after this word. — 121, 15. For L«l read
Lot. — 122,9. ^jl must not be changed to ,jt (see note). — 124,3. Read
s= 9
«ajJ| ; see above, p. 185, note. — L. 12. Read kJOl^ , "openly," "face
to face."— L. 13. Read ^U» , as in MS and Ibn Hajar.— 126, 16. The
name is <X»^ ,jJ tX+^-1 . — 127, 17 f. There is a considerable gap here,
and the fact ought to be noticed that it comes just after the word Li-A^l
at the end of 1. 17. — 128, 1. ^yo i^l SLLLa. ought not to be in the
*-» sos -¦ s
Index of Places, etc. (p. 211)! — L. 4. For »ya read --s . The text of
this poem is not in very good shape. — L. 7. For ,*.gib.j read |vg-ftAi. .
,^OCl^ SO OS'
— L. 11. For ^ ^j.j£ read ^-sl ^Tj-jI . — L. 12. For ^muJ read o^£aJ ,
as meter and sense require. — 133,14. Insert JoLa after tX_g-ii« . — L. 16.
The editor says: "Before Jj-ftJ; something evidently is omitted!" I
cannot see, however, that anything is omitted; the text seems to me to
be just right as it stands. — 134, 4. The text of this half- verse is in ter-
rible condition. For *.a#.j| (!) read *J0 +] ; " They will find out who
is to be deposed, whether thou or they!" For Jk^biM rv-gJ'Ls read
Jj^sit |*#£>'li .— L. 5. Read JU3| and Igliel? .— 135, 5. pU is
impossible. The original must have been either Jbuol (as in Ibn Hajar),

Book Notices 195
"the show-figures with the tall hats and all those who approved them,"
or else *Ls I (feeling certainly ran high enough to justify the use of such
a word).— L. 7. Read JU4-' • — L. 8. Read ^jS-JLJii and x*Jai'. — L. 10.
'09' 09
Read ,-*-tXj r*-' • — E. 12. Read .-ft&o . 137, 1. Judging from what
Gottheil says of the remaining traces in the MS, the missing words at the
end of the line are y& l*j£ , which makes good sense. — L. 2. Insert
oyo before jUl .— LI. 9, 11. The verb is ^•o.Aa.J .--138, 11. For
Lg-ii read U.*i . — L. 12. Cancel the words ic^v^t <^->VJ ! The clause
is conflate, and the other name is the right one. — L. 13. For ^yj..o read
hy* . — 140, 5. Only the name is missing; and that is given (in corrupt
s
form?) in 141, 5. L. 8. Read Jo^ .— 142, 11. The reading of the MS
' O '
(to be pointed u^i.) is the correct one, and there should be no ques-
' * ' '9
tion of changing it. — Read !cX*iw . — 144,7. Read JaiLw , with Ibn
Hajar. This is the oft-quoted phrase from the Koran, VII, 148. — 145,
19. At the point where the period stands, in this line, something has
been lost from the text. The words ^Uy* ,>¦? J-^S-fl /^t>; are a
part of the quoted ivords of the letter, and not by any means those with
which the quotation originally began. That the gap is very old, and the
resulting mutilated text very misleading, may be seen from Ibn Hajar
(quoted in Gottheil's note), whose text speaks of " the letter of al-Fadl
ibn Marwan to the amir of Egypt." But al-Fadl (the wazir of al-
Mu'tasim) did not write the letter! There can be no doubt whatever on
this point, in view of 146, 3, with the context immediately preceding, and
the explicit statement in 146, 14 that Ahmad ibn al-Hasib was the one
who wrote it. The omitted passage can hardly have been less than two
lines in extent, and may have been more. — 146, 1. The hamza should of
course be deleted in oly=»^Lj . The volume contains a good many
other instances of this same wrong use, for which the blame is probably
to be put upon the printer and the proofreaders. — L. 2. Read (jU . —
^aJI is correct. — L. 5. Read ^£ )I<X? ? — L. 13. The unpointed word
which Gottheil 'punctuates aui'f^ is the imperative xajI^. The suffix
in auJI and sjdfc refers to the s~> j\ bo of the preceding line. —
L. 19. Read J-JavJJ . — 147, 19. The original text of the beginning of
the letter, in this recension, was probably: -yol *aj aouuI L$j!

196 The American Journal of Semitic Languages

a

t^»<fl« i»5ol.o ,^1 ^waaximJI . Ibn Hajal" gives a somewhat free

reproduction here.— 148, 1, 2. These two lines are in bad shape. Is it
not possible to read the words which are indistinct in the MS? As for
v. x:
what is printed here : In the first line, L».Ai should be l*x> , and -..*Ij
is probably wrong. In the second line, it would seem better to read
Li'Lft/JOuul , L+Ai , and L»j . — 151, 2. This kunya is made into an ism in
the Index, and the man who bore it is also confused there with the Abu
'TJbaid who is mentioned in 152, 9 if., 15 ff. The latter does not appear
in the Index at all. — 153, 15. Al-Warrada is the name of a place on the
road from Syria to Egypt. Add it to the Index, accordingly. — 154, 6.
The text should not be altered (see note); it is right as it stands. —
L. 8. Read ,_^c. in place of the first .jj . — L. 17. It is not easy to see
why this name, al-Madara'i, should have made so much trouble. Gottheil
himself printed it correctly in the Journal of the Am. Or. Society,
XXVII (1906), p. 238!— 155, 1. In the Index, this Ibn Qutaiba is wrongly
identified with the one named on pp. 148 f. — 157, 6 ff. As the poem is
printed here, only the third line is comprehensible; the second and
fourth lines are absolutely meaningless, besides being metrically impos
sible. — L. 6. For solvit read sjIaJI . This poem is laudatory through-
out, not sarcastic. — L. 7. Instead of «-*.aaJI itiLww^JI. read |VaaXw.aJI«
J.aa*»J| ; "One who pursued a straight course, save for the cliffs and the
sand- wastes which were in it"; that is, as straight and even as any path
can be which must encounter impassable deserts and mountains.— L. 9.
In the first half-verse read L&.(X» instead of U&-.J . In the second half-
) o 9 o
verse there is one word too many. The original was probably >x. s.v ««
auJj ,^yo , which fits the meter exactly. Under the influence of the
parallelism of the first half-verse, the verb was introduced by some
copyist. But no verb in the second person singular is metrically possible
here. The whole verse: "Thou didst permit slander (of thyself) to
him who wished it; but its burden was borne by him who perpetrated
it."— 158, 11. For ^AaJ! read ^^11.-159,8. Read ^L— L. 14.
Read S-o^.— 160, 16. For ^«x. read t\+s£ .— 161, 7. The nisba
added to the name Abu Tahir in the margin of the MS (see note) is not
^jc J| but ^^OcXJI ; thus in Ibn Hallikan, as well as in the Husn, and
elsewhere. — 162, 9. For the second "Muhammad" read "Ahmad." —
163, 6. For o^l read cX-t^l . -L. 8. The words j^lil J, sL, do

Book Notices 197
not appear to belong to the text at all, but look like a marginal note on
some corrupt reading (in one of the parent MSS?). — 165, 4. For ibl.tXJl
Ji 9
read SLsl. jJI . This gives the answer to Gottheil's query in this same
line, where he thinks that the name of a fixed star is given. It is a comet
that is described! — L. 7. For UtftXs,! *& read 1*jo <X=»t Swytf'. —
L. 10. For xlftkl! read iLUUl .
C. C. Tokbet
Yale University

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02548 3422