^{page 15 note 1} Isḥāq, Ibn, Sīra (ed. Wüstenfeld, , Göttingen, 1858–1859), 638–52.Google Scholar Other sources rely mainly on Ibn Isḥāq's account. See also Ṭabarī, , Annals (ed. De Goeje, ), i,Google Scholar 1432 ff.; al-Athīr, Ibn, al-Kāmil (ed. Tornberg, , 1867), II, 128–32;Google ScholarKathīr, Ibn, al-Bidāya (Cairo, 1932), IV, 67–74;Google Scholaral-Nās, Ibn Sayyid, ‘Uyūn al-athar (Cairo, 1937), II, 40–8;Google Scholaral-Suhaili, , al-Rauḍ al-unuf (Cairo, 1914), II, 167–76;Google Scholaral-Iṡbahānī, , al-Aghānī (Būlāq, 1868), IV,Google Scholar 40 ff.

^{page 15 note 2} Sīra, 449, 508, 511.

^{page 15 note 3} ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 46.

^{page 15 note 4} ibid., II, 44.

^{page 15 note 5} In poem no. XCIV in Hirschfeld's edition of the Dīwān of Ḥassān b. Thābit (Gibb Memorial Series, XIII, 1910). Unless otherwise stated, numbers refer to this edition throughout the article. The poem is on p. 188 in Barqūqī's edition (Cairo, 1929) and p. 44 in the Tunis edition (Tunis, A.H. 1281).

^{page 15 note 6} Sīra, 649.

^{page 16 note 1} The story of the theft is told in full in the notes to the poem concerned, presumably by Ibn Ḥabīb or al-Sukkarī, in the various editions of Ḥassān's Dīwān. See pp. 51 ff. in Hirschfeld's edition.

^{page 16 note 2} ḥalīf.

^{page 16 note 3} Sīra, 640.

^{page 17 note 1} A note by al-Sukkarī which precedes the last 28 poems in Hirschfeld's edition of the Dīwān (based on the British Museum MS) indicates the end of the poems which Ibn Ḥabīb actually dictated, and states that ‘the remainder I copied out of his own books; he did not dictate it’. The same note is found in the Paris MS and in one of the Istanbul MSS (Ahmet III No. 2613). These three MSS are identical and it is obvious, for reasons which cannot be stated here, that the arrangement of the poems in them represents the original arrangement of Ibn Ḥabīb. Hirschfeld states (Introduction, p. 1) that the note is not found in the St. Petersburg MS, and that the 28 poems are missing altogether from the Berlin MS. The poems are mostly slander, and 21 of them fall into three groups slandering various members of the Qurashite houses of Hāshim, Umayya, and Asad.

It is difficult to be absolutely certain as to whether Ibn Ḥabīb deliberately withheld the poems, particularly in view of the paucity of the information available about him (see Yāqūt, , Mu‘jam al-udabā’ (Gibb Memorial Series, VI, 1906–1927), VI, 473Google Scholar–6, for stories concerning his interruption of the dictation of the poems of Ḥassān on discovering Tha‘lab among his audience, and again on discovering a certain judge Abū Ṭāhir). The above-mentioned note does not make it certain that the omission was deliberate (contrary to Hirschfeld's assertion, Introduction, p. 1, footnote), but likely.

It will be out of place to discuss this question here, but the following observations point to the possibility of the omission having been the result of doubts entertained by Ibn Ḥabīb himself as to their authenticity:

(1) The fact that he himself, possibly deliberately, did not dictate them.

(2) They are omitted altogether from the Berlin MS.

(3) Six of them must have been omitted from the MS or MSS which were the ultimate source or sources of Barqūqū's edition.

(4) One (no. CCIV) is not found in any other edition, one is doubted by Ibn Hishām, and a third is merely a repetition of another.

^{page 18 note 1} p. 646.

^{page 18 note 2} See n. 1, p. 28 below.

^{page 18 note 3} pp. 646, 647.

^{page 18 note 4} p. 651.

^{page 19 note 1} See n. 3–4, p. 15 above.

^{page 20 note 1} It is of interest to note that in Ibn Isḥāq's version of the story, told on the ultimate authority of the woman herself, who is mentioned by name, the woman states that she sent the razor with ‘a boy from the tribe’. Yet although that part of the story is quoted by Ibn Isḥāq, and by ‘Āṡim b. ‘Umar b. Qatāda and ‘Abdullāh b. Abī Najīḥ, ‘both of them’, Ibn Hishām adds,‘It is said that the boy was her son’.

^{page 20 note 2} e.g. ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 41.

^{page 20 note 3} Sīra, 643, etc.

^{page 20 note 4} Sīra, 641. See also Ṭabarī and other sources already cited.

^{page 20 note 5} Ibn Isḥāq relates this episode in a later part of his work. See Sīra, 993.

^{page 20 note 6} See ‘Uyūn al-athar, n, 41, quoting al-Bukhārī.

^{page 20 note 7} See Sīra, 507 ff., for a list of non-Muslims who died at Badr. Ibn Sayyid al-Nās (op. cit.) makes a point of stating that according to all historians of the maghāzī, it was Khubaib b. Isāf who killed al-Ḥārith b. ‘Āmir. See also Ibn Sa'd, Ṭahaqāt (ed. Sachau), III.2, 85.

^{page 21 note 1} Sīra, 567, 639, and all other authorities cited above.

^{page 21 note 2} Sīra, 646, 647.

^{page 21 note 3} ibid., pp. 648 and 644 respectively.

^{page 22 note 1} This is the reading in various sources. As the commander of the expedition usually acted as imām the reading imāmuhum could only be accepted as a further instance of padding by the forger-versifier.

^{page 22 note 2} This is the form of the name found in all the sources cited above. See also Tāj al-‘arūs and the Qāmūs.

^{page 23 note 1} II, 283; Ibn al-Athīr, IV, 76.

^{page 23 note 2} Perhaps in the sense of ‘least’; or it may be a reference to the fact that the Prophet (whose Umma they were) was the last of the apostles.

^{page 24 note 1} See n. 1, p. 17 above.

^{page 24 note 2} According to the full story, the impact of the theft on ‘religious’ opinion in Macca was severe. al-Ḥārith went into forced exile for ten years, while others less fortunate were severely dealt with. One, Duyaik, had his hand cut off. The instrument used happened to be blunt and he died the following day. The fullest account of the story is in a long note found in all editions of the Dīwān of Ḥassān b. Thābit, and must be by Ibn Ḥabīb himself or by al-Sukkarī.

^{page 25 note 1} Sīra, 641, etc.

^{page 25 note 2} See n. 2, p. 24 above.

^{page 25 note 3} Reading qarm with Ibn Isḥāq. Hirschfeld and Barqūqī (p. 233) have qawm, and Barqūqī goes to great pains to justify this reading on the grounds that the poet is considering the person concerned as equal to a whole tribe. The argument does not sound convincing in this case.

^{page 26 note 1} Sīra, 645.

^{page 26 note 2} op. cit., 247–9, 251.

^{page 26 note 3} Barqūqī quotes the lines, however, in an appendix containing a few additions from the Sīra and the Aghānī.

^{page 27 note 1} al-Jāḥiຓ interpreted this line in a literal sense, and produced it as a proof that they were cannibals (see Kitāb al-bukhalā', ed. al-Ḥājirī, , Cairo, 1948, 216).Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Only Barqūqī adopts the order of the lines as they appear in the Sīra.

^{page 28 note 1} p. 67.

^{page 28 note 2} al-Kāmil, ed. Wright, , Leipzig, 1864, p. 288.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 3} Sīra, 651.

^{page 29 note 1} No. CXI; Sīra, 650–1.

^{page 29 note 2} Sīra, 652.

^{page 29 note 3} al-Imāma wa'l-siyāsa, ed. Rāfi‘ī, (Cairo, 1904), 347.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 4} Such poems are nos. VI, VII, IX, X, etc. A study of these poems in the Dīwāns proves late authorship anc1 bears out fully Ibn Qutaiba's assessment of the situation.

^{page 29 note 5} On the other hand the poet al-Aḥwaṡ, a descendant of ‘Āṡim b. Thābit b. al-Aqlaḥ, boasted of the miraculous protection afforded to his ancestor by the wasps. (See Aghānī, Būlāq, IV, 40.) The line concerned is: