^{page 11 note 1} Maranj or Marang is the name of a castle in India, according to the Burhán-i-Qáṭi’, but I have been unable to find any mention of it elsewhere.

^{page 11 note 2} [Or Quṣdár. See Le Strange's Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, pp. 331–3.— E. G. B.]

^{page 12 note 1} Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí b. Mushkán was the Wazir of Sulṭán Mas‘úd b. Ibráhím. ‘Awfí in his account of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán (Lubábu’l-Albáb, ed. Browne, vol. ii, p. 246) says: “Of Thiqatu’l-Mulk he writes as follows, at the time when the chief seat of the Ministerial Office was filled with so much distinction by him”; and most of the qaṣídas composed in his praise by Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d also contain a panegyric on Sulṭán Mas’úd. Of these I will only cite the following couplet:—

“Neither is there such an ornament of the Empire as Thiqatu’l-Mulk, Nor such an Empire-maker as [Sulṭán] Mas‘úd !”

Abu’l-Faraj-i-Rúní has also written qaṣídas in his praise. In one of these he says:—

“Thiqatu’l-Mulk, the King's treasurer and confidential adviser, Khwája Ṭáhir — may God's Eye watch over him ! ”

From this couplet it appears that he held the rank of “Kháṣṣ” (confidential adviser, or Privy Councillor) before that of Wazír (Premier). Saná’í also has composed poems in his praise, and in his Kár-náma, after praising Sulṭán Mas‘úd, he says:—

“Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí: the King is as the Prophet and he as the Saint. Since Heaven made thee manifest there is [but] one Earth and [one] Ṭáhir, [one] Ṭáhir.”

He was also praised by Mukhtárí of Ghazna, by whom this quatrain was written:—

“Ṭáhir Thiqatu’l-Mulk, great Chief-Justice ! The heads of chiefs bow to thy written edict !

Since his heart regards mercy in the world, reckon life abiding and pass by the world !”

His biography is wanting in the A’tháru’l-Wuzará (“Traits of the Wazírs”) composed by Sayfu’d-Dín Ḥájji b. Niámu’l-Faḍlí (Or. 1920 of the British Museum) and the Daṣtúru’l-Wuzará (“Manual of Ministers”) of Ghiyáthu’d-Dín Khwándamír (Or. 234 of the British Museum). In the poems of the poets his name and title appear as above, “Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí.” The only authority for the statement that his father ‘Alí was the son of Mushkán is the statement of Niámi-i-‘Arúḍí of Samarqand (Chahár Maqála, Browne's translation, p. 74). This Mushkán was the father of Abú Naṣr Manṣúr b. Mushkán, who died in a.h. 431 (= a.d. 1039–1040), who was secretary to Sulṭán Maḥmúd and his son Mas‘úd, author of the Maqámát of Bú Naṣr Mushkán, and teacher of Abu’l-Faḍl Bayhaqí, author of the “History of Mas‘úd” (Ta’ríkh-i-Mas’údí). For the biography of Abú Naṣr Mushkán, see Ṣaláḥu’d-Dín Ṣafadí's Wáfí bi’l-Wafayát (Add. 23,359 of the British Museum, f. 15), Ibnu’l-Athír's Chronicle under the events of the year a.h. 431, and the History of Abu’l-Faḍl Bayhaqí passim. It would therefore appear that Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí b. Mushkán was the nephew of Abú Naṣr Mushkán. I have not been able to ascertain the date of his death, which, however, appears to have taken place after a.h. 500 (= a.d. 1106–7) and before a.h. 510 (= a.d. 1116–17).

^{page 23 note 1} It is not clear who this Abu’l-Faraj was, but apparently he cannot be identified with Abu’l-Faraj-i-Rúní, as the authors of many Tadhkiras have supposed. For Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d certainly did not compose this fragment during his first imprisonment, the entire duration of which did not exceed ten years, for how then could he say “for nineteen years I have been a captive”? And during his second imprisonment he remained on the very best of terms with Abu’l-Faraj-i-Rúní; for in a qaṣída which he addressed to him from prison and which begins—

“O Master’ Bu’l-Faraj, thou dost not remember me, so that this sad heart of mins may be gladdened !”

it is clear beyond all doubt that it is Abu’l-Faraj-i-Rúní to whom he is speaking, since in the course of the poem he addresses him as “O Rúní.” Nor can Abu’l-Faraj Naṣr b. Rustam, the governor of Lahore, be intended, as is stated in the printed edition of the Díwán, for he was the subject of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d’s praises in many qaṣídas dedicated by the poet to him. Mas‘úd also composed an elegy on his death, from which it appears that he died in the reign of Sultán Ibráhím. How, then, could Sa‘d-i-Salmán say that he had been a prisoner for nineteen years, seeing that the whole period of his imprisonment during the reign of Sulṭán Ibráhím was only ten years? Therefore the Abu’l-Faraj to whom allusion is here made cannot be either of these two.

^{page 24 note 1} There still remains one difficulty which has not been solved, namely, the period at which Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d composed this qiṭ‘a which he addressed to Abu’l-Faraj. For its implication is that he had been imprisoned for nineteen years, and had again teen cast into prison at the time when he composed it. Now if we suppose that he composed the fragment in question at the beginning of his second imprisonment, what is meant by his having been a prisoner for nineteen years ? While if we suppose that he composed it after his second imprisonment, then it would appear that he was imprisoned three times, for which supposition we have no warrant, since nowhere in his poems does he allude to a third imprisonment.

^{page 26 note 1} This appears from the number of great poets who assembled at his court, such as Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán, Mukhtárí of Ghazna, Saná’í of Ghazna, Sayyid Ḥasan of Ghazna, ‘Abdu’l-Wási‘ Jabalí, and others mentioned in the Lubábu’l-Albáb ; as well as from the books composed for and dedicated to him, such as the Kalíla and Dimna [translated from the Arabic of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ into Persian prose] by Naṣru’lláh b. ‘Abdu’l-Ḥamíd, the Ḥadíqatu’l-Ḥaqíqat of Saná’í, and the Bazm-árá-yi Fakhrí by al-‘Utbí. (See vol. ii of the Lubábu’l-Albáb, p. 287.)

^{page 30 note 1} In the Memoirs of Dawlatsháh (ed. Browne, p. 47, 1. 24—p. 48, 1. 9), as well as in the lithographed edition of the Díwán of Mas‘úd (of which the editor, no doubt, in the biographical portion used Dawlatsháh as his source), a fragment is ascribed to our poet which implies that at the close of his life he became a hermit and an anchorite, and adopted a mode of life similar to that of the Ṣúfís and Gnostics. This fragment begins:—

“When now I perceived with the eye of certainty that the World is the Abode of Decay. …”

The style of this fragment, however, presents an obvious dissimilarity to that which prevails in Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d’s poems, which, moreover, give not the faintest hint that he at any time adopted the life or practices of the Ṣúfí mystics. It is also implied in two verses of the fragment in question (Dawlatsháh, ed. Browne, p. 48, II. 5–6) that the writer, abandoning the praise of kings, had devoted his talents to the praise and glorification of God and to the celebration of the virtues of the Prophet and his family; whereas no such poems are to be found in the actually existing manuscripts of Mas‘úd's Díwán. In all probability this fragment is really by Saná’í, whose poema it greatly resembles in style.

^{page 31 note 1} The last verse appears to be corrupt, and is, at any rate to me, unintelligible.

^{page 32 note 1} [Riḍwán is the name of the guardian of Paradise.—E. G. B.]

^{page 34 note 1} For in this qaṣída is also contained praise of Sulṭán Ibráhím.

^{page 35 note 1} The lithographed Díwán reads , and Taqí Káshí for .

^{page 37 note 1} For the remainder of this qaṣída, see the Lubábu’l-Albáb, vol. ii, pp. 177–9. There is in that text a lacuna which would lead one to suppose that the qaṣída in question is by Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d, whereas it was really composed by Rashídí in reply to Mas‘úd. Moreover, in two passages in Rashídí's poems in praise of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d the word “Wazír” is incidentally mentioned amongst his titles. This is certainly incorrect, and there must be some mistake in the expression, for at no time did Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d hold such rank, though there is a faint possibility that during the period when he was in the service of Sayfu’d-Dawla Maḥmúd this ruler conferred on him the title of Deputy-Wazír. Finally, to remove possible confusion, we may observe that one of Mas‘úd's qaṣídas in praise of Abu’r-Rushd Rashíd-i-“Kháṣṣ” (in praise of whom he has composed many other poems) is, in consequence of the similarity of name, erroneously attributed by the author of the Majma‘u’l-Fuṣaḥd to Rashídí of Samarqand.

^{page 40 note 1} MS. .

^{page 41 note 1} [Meaning, of course, that the Art of Poetry, as it were, had died with the subject of the elegy.—E. G. B.]

^{page 42 note 1} À propos of Sayyid Muḥammad Náṣir, attention must be called to the fact that there is in the Díwán of Mas‘úd an elegy on the death of a certain “Sayyid Ḥasan.” Both the Majma‘u’l-Fuṣaḥá and the Ṭihrán lithographed edition of the Díwán, misled by similarity of names, have mistaken him for Sayyid Ḥasan-i-‘Alawí of Ghazna, the well-known poet and the brother of this same Sayyid Muḥammad Náṣir. In order to remove this misconception, we may remark that Sayyid Ḥasan of Ghazna survived until the reign of Khusrawsháh b. Bahrámsháh (a.h. 552–9 = a.d. 1157–1164, according to the best authorities), whose praises are celebrated in his Díwán, and that this poet's death is recorded as having taken place in a.h. 565 (= a.d. 1169–1170), that is to say, nearly fifty years after the death of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d, who therefore cannot have written an elegy on his death.

^{page 44 note 1} Saná’í's qaṣída in praise of Mukhtárí is well known, and occurs in all copies of Saná’í's Díwán. It begins:—

^{page 46 note 1} According to the Burhán-i-Qáṭi’, zar, besides its ordinary sense of ‘gold,’ has the meaning of ‘albino.’

^{page 49 note 1} I.e. Ṭayyán of Bam in the province of Kirmán, known as “Zházh-Khá” (“the dirt-eater”), an opprobrious term which Riḍá-qulí Khán (Majma‘u’l-fuṣaḥá, vol. i, p. 328) confesses himself unable to explain satisfactorily.

^{page 49 note 2} I have not looked for them in the Díwán of Mu‘izzí.

^{page 51 note 1} This meaning of (in the sense of “arising,” “growing up,” “sprouting from the earth”) is embodied in the compound verb .