^{page 694 note 1} I.e. Mas‘úd, the son of Sa‘d, the son of Salmán (Mas‘úd ibn Sa‘d ibn Salmán), the affiliation being expressed in the Persian fashion by the iḍáfat. Thus we find indifferently “Maḥmúd-i-Subuktigín” and “Maḥmúd ibn Subuktigín,” “Abú ‘Alí-i-Síná” (Avicenna) and ‘Abú ‘Alí ibn Síná,” and so on. In Persian works of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries of the Christian era, such as the History of Bayhaqí, the Qábús-náma, the Lubábu’l-Albáb, the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát, the Tabaqát-i-Náṣiri, the Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá of ‘Aṭṭár, etc., this Persian usage is almost universal, the Arabic ibn being but rarely employed.

^{page 694 note 2} These words are given as from the Ḥadá’iqu’s-Siḥr by Ghulám ‘Alí A'zád in his Subḥatu’l-Marján fí Áthári Hindústán, but are not to be found in the copy of the former work which I have consulted, but which is, perhaps, defective.

^{page 695 note 1} See the lithographed Ṭihrán edition, pp. 95 et seqq., and pp. 72–75 of the tirage-à-part of Browne's translation of the work published in the J.R.A.S. for July and October, 1899.

^{page 695 note 2} See vol. ii of Browne's edition of the Lubábu’l-Albáb, pp. 246–252.

^{page 695 note 3} See Browne's edition of Dawlatsháh, pp. 47–49.

^{page 696 note 1} The sources which I have used for reference, and whence I have extracted the verses here and hereinafter cited from the poems of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán, are two manuscripts of the Díwán in the British Museum bearing the class-marks Egerton 701 and Add. 7,793 (see Rieu's Persian Catalogue, pp. 548–9), besides the selections given by Taqí Káshí in his tadhkira, those given by Riḍá-qulí Khán in his Majma‘u’l-Fuṣaḥá, and the Ṭihrán lithographed edition, which is the most complete, though some qaṣídas not contained in it are to be found in the four sources first mentioned.

^{page 697 note 1} I.e. I am like the pearl, which is esteemed for its own intrinsic value; not like the ashes, which, though born of (i.e. produced by) fire, the noblest element, are in themselves worthless.

^{page 698 note 1} I.e. ‘Uthmán Mukhtárí of Ghazna, who in turn has been praised by Saná’í in a well-known qaṣída beginning:—

^{page 698 note 2} The Ṣáhib Isma‘íl b. ‘Abbád, the celebrated minister of the Buwayhids Mu’ayyidu’d-Dawla and Fakhru’d-Dawla, a most notable scholar and patron of learning. He was born in A.D. 936 and died in A.D. 995.

^{page 700 note 1} The passage in the Riyáḍu’sh-Shu‘ará occurs on fol. 407b of the British Museum manuscript, Add. 16,729. The fact that Mas‘ud-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán, like so many Persian poets of this period, composed verses in Arabic as well as Persian is sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of Wálih's contention: for no one will pretend either that Arabic was Mas‘úd's native language, or that it is an easier language than Hindustání.

^{page 701 note 1} I have met with no writer who has noticed this point and described our poet as “of Lahore” except Ghulám ‘Alí Khán A'zád in his Subḥatu’l-Marján fí Áthári Hindustán. According to Mr. N. Bland (Journal Asiatique for 1853, série v, vol. 2, p. 356) the same statement is made in the Khizána-i-‘ámira, but thia assertion I have been unable to verify, as the British Museum manuscript is defective.

^{page 703 note 1} By the word ḥaḍrat Ghaznín is here meant, for ḥaḍrat in the language of the old writers means the capital or metropolis. Thus the Arab historians always make use of this term in speaking of Baghdad, while ath-Tha‘álibí, who was contemporary with the Sámánids, always speaks of Bukhárá as “ḥaḍrat” in his Yatímatu’d-Dahr. So Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d constantly employs it in speaking of Ghaznín, e.g. in the qaṣída beginning:—

^{page 704 note 1} By “Sulṭán Raḍí” and “ahíru’d-Dawla” is meant Sulṭán Ibráhím of Ghazna, to whom these titles belonged. In histories, as well as in ‘Awfí's Lubábu’l-Albáb and Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát, he is generally called “Sulṭán Raḍí,” without other name or title, from which it appears that it was by this title that he was generally known.

^{page 709 note 1} Although the compound hama-dán means “all-knowing,” the inhabitants of the city of Hamadán have the reputation of being extremely stupid, as appears in the following well-known verses generally ascribed to the celebrated Badí‘u’z-Zamán al - Hamadání, though Ibn Khallikán (vol. i, p. 113 of de Slane's translation) ascribes them to another author:—“Hamadán is my native place; I mast allow it that honour; but it is the vilest of cities. Its children are, for ugliness, like old men; and its old men, for reason, like children.”

^{page 710 note 1} Mas‘úd's Díwán contains poems in praise of a certain Khusraw Malik, and at first sight it might be supposed that Khusraw Malik the last King of Ghazna is intended. But if we consider the date of Mas‘úd's death (A.H. 515 = A.D. 1121–2) and that of Khusraw Malik (A.H. 587 = A.D. 1191), this idea will be instantly dispelled. Moreover, this Khusraw Malik is the son of Malik Arslán, as Mas‘úd says in a qaṣída wherein he sings his praises:—

^{page 711 note 1} All these titles were official, not mere laudatory epithets. Those of ‘Izzu’l-Milla and Ṣaní‘u Amíri’l-Mú’minín were conferred on him from the metropolis of Baghdad by one or other of the Caliphs al-Qá’im or al-Muqtadí bi-amri’lláh, and for each one Mas‘úd composed a qaṣída to congratulate Maḥmúd. Both these qaṣídas occur in his Díwán. In one he says :—

And in another place he says:—

^{page 713 note 1} I.e. Muḥammad b. Jábir b. Sinán aṣ-Ṣábí al-Ḥarrání al-Battání, who died in A.H. 317 (= A.D. 929), the well-known astronomer and mathematician. In this verse al-Battání has been shortened to al-Batání to suit the metre.

^{page 713 note 2} Add. 7,697, a very fine old MS. dated A.H. 685 (= A.D. 1286). See Rieu's Catalogue, pp. 451–452.

^{page 715 note 1} That is, having regard to the fact that this qaṣída is in praise of Sayfu’d-Dawla Maḥmúd; for the New Year's Day (March 21, the Vernal Equinox) fell in the month of Rajab in the years A.H. 421–423 (= A.D. 1030–1032), and again in the years A.H. 498–500 (= A.D. 1105–1107); but in the former cycle he was probably yet unborn, while in the second he was probably dead, or at least dethroned and despoiled, while Mas‘úd, after he had been imprisoned on account of Sayfu’d-Dawla in A.H. 480 (= A.D. 1087–8), never again mentioned his name.

^{page 716 note 1} This date, Wednesday, Shawwál 6, A.H. 509, is equivalent to Wednesday, February 22, A.D. 1116.

^{page 716 note 2} This passage, though it must have existed in their copies, is not to be found in either of the two manuscripts of the British Museum, nor in the lithographed edition published at Ṭihrán, nor in a transcript of the Constantinople MS. made for Professor Browne.

^{page 717 note 1} See pp. 714–715, supra.

^{page 718 note 1} This is the earliest possible date: for we cannot assume that he composed the qaṣída in which he describes himself as being 62 years of age in the first year of the reign of Mas‘úd, since the other qaṣida in which he describes himself as being 60 years of age is in praise of the same monarch. He must, therefore, have been at most 63 years of age in the third year of Mas‘úd's reign.

^{page 722 note 1} Niámí-i-‘Arúḍí says (p. 74 of the tirage-à-part of Browne's translation) that Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán was imprisoned for twelve years in the reign of Sulṭán Ibráhím, and both he and ‘Awfí appear to imply that the whole of this period was passed in the Castle of Náy. Both of these propositions are false, and the inference is contradicted by the poet's own words, as will shortly appear. The other tadhkira-writers have followed these two authors in both errors, as was to be expected. The second error, namely that his whole period of imprisonment was spent at Náy, arises from the rare opportunity for a word-play which the name afforded the poet, since Náy, as a common noun, means “flute,” “trumpet,” and “throat.” Of this opportunity he takes full advantage, and indulges in all manner of puns, amphibologies, and similar figures, so that the name became familiar to all; while the names of Sú and Dahak, not lending themselves to such treatment, are seldom mentioned in his poems, and have therefore remained comparatively unknown.

^{page 723 note 1} I have not been able to determine the positions of Sú and Náy, which appear to have been two insignificant castles, possessing neither importance nor celebrity sufficient to cause the old geographers to mention them. Dahak, however, is one of the stations on the road between Zaranj, the capital of Sistán, and Bust, which is within the confines of Zábulistán, that is, of the kingdom of Ghazna. See de Goeje's Bibl. Geogr. Arab., Iṣṭakhrí, pp. 249–250; Ibn Ḥawqal, p. 305; Muqaddasí, p. 350.

^{page 725 note 1} Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d has a qaṣida lamenting the death of ‘Alí Kháṣṣ, and another praising and congratulating Muḥammad b. ‘Alí Kháṣṣ b. Kháṣṣ, one hemistich of which runs as follows:—

“The son of the King's Kháṣṣ (page in waiting) hath become the King's Kháṣṣ.”

In the same qaṣída he also alludes to the name of Sulṭán Ibráhím, so that it appears that ‘Alí Kháṣṣ died during his reign, and that he conferred the father's office on the son Muḥammad. It is not certain what were the functions of a “Kháṣṣ” or “Kháṣṣa”; they must have corresponded approximately to those of a page in waiting (písh-khidmat-i-makhṣúṣ), or lord of the bedchamber (Amín-i-Ḥuḍúr), or lord high chamberlain (Ḥájibu’d-Dawla), or the like.

^{page 726 note 1} Thus in the two British Museum manuscripts, but the lithographed Ṭihrán edition reads “ten years,” which is evidently an error.

^{page 727 note 1} In this qaṣída, some of the verses of which are cited in the text, the poet makes no mention of Sulṭán Ibráhím indicating that Abu’l-Qásim was his Kháṣṣa (chamberlain, or page in waiting), but in another qaṣída, wherein he laments the death of this same Abu’l-Qásim-i-Kháṣṣa, he explicitly mentions the name of Sulṭán Ibráhím. From this last qaṣída it also appears that Abu’l-Qásim pre-deceased him. The poem in question begins:—

“Perhaps thou dost imagine that Fortune will deal faithfully with thee: think not thus: look at its insolence.”

After some verses of admonition and philosophical resignation he says:—

“If thou desirest to see a warning picture, look at the death of the favourite chamberlain of the Sulṭán of the Age,

‘Imádu’d-Dawla Abu’l-Qásim, whose high state would have introduced a fresh order into the world.”

And at the conclusion of the poem he says:—

“There hath not been and hath not flourished anyone like thee, for there was none whose patron was, like thine, the Royal Defender of the Faith

ahíru’d-Dawla wa’d-Dín Abu’l-Muaffar Ibráhim, by whom Church and State were adorned and glorified.

Fortune hath given him all Empire till Eternity; God hath endowed him with dominion until the Day of Resurrection.”

^{page 731 note 1} The expression “ Wolf of Joseph,” i.e. the wolf whom Joseph's brethren charged with devouring him, is commonly used by the Persians to denote an innocent person who is suspected because appearances are against him, e.g. in the verse:—

“ A wolf with blood-stained mouth who has not torn Joseph.”

^{page 731 note 2} See p. 72 of the separate reprint of Browne's translation of the Chahár Maqála, and n. 1 at foot of same. It is curious that this error of “ 572 ” for “ 472 ” occurs in all available copies of the book.

^{page 732 note 1} The Haft Iqlím and Majma‘u’l-Fuṣaḥá, however, putting the event after its proper time, write “five hundred …,” though they place the death of Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d in A.H. 515 (= A.D. 1121–2).

^{page 732 note 2} Should anyone be inclined to wonder how Niámí-i-‘Arúḍí, who was contemporary with Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d-i-Salmán, could commit so many errors in dealing with one single question, we answer that if the objector will consider how many gross errors and extraordinary mistakes, almost defying correction, he perpetrates in the concluding portion of this very story in speaking of Shihábu’d-Dín Qutulmush and Sulṭán Muḥammad at the Gate of Hamadán, in regard to matters which he professes to have heard with his own ears, he will be overcome with astonishment, and will recognize the fact that one who can make such mistakes in matters of which he professes to have been orally informed, may well be excused for any mistakes concerning contemporary events of which he had not such direct accounts. This, indeed, is the way of Niámí-i-‘Arúḍí: so long as he speaks of matters of common knowledge, he is very sound and sensible, but directly he enters into any historical question, he makes slips, and commits incessant errors in continuous succession. This is a very curious fact, and I fail to understand the cause of all these blunders, whereof the strangest concern facts which he professes to have heard at first hand, and relates as matters of which he had direct knowledge. It is precisely in such matters that he commits the grossest errors.

^{page 733 note 1} Another proof of Niámí-i-‘Arúḍi’s error in stating that Sulṭán Ibráhím died leaving him in prison.

^{page 733 note 2} Some verses from this qaṣída have been already cited on p. 703, supra.

^{page 737 note 1} The word Sháh in the usage of the older Persian writers is equivalent to “Prince” at the present day, that is to say, it was applied both to the King and to the more important of his sons who were in the direct succession to the throne. This usage is common in the ancient and medieval writers. In this mathnawí the poet generally speaks of Shírzád as Sháh, although his father Mas‘úd, whom he also alludes to as Sháh, was alive. So likewise in his other qaṣídas he applies the title of Sháh both to Sayfu’d-Dawla Maḥmúd and to his father Sulṭán Ibráhím. At the present day the word Sháh is exclusively applied to the reigning monarch, never to princes even of the highest rank, nor to the Crown Prince himself.

^{page 738 note 1} The word Shikáwandí means literally tunneling or mining, but here it is used metaphorically in the sense of traducing and slandering.

^{page 739 note 1} Maranj, or Marang, is the name of a castle in India (Burhán-i- áṭi‘), of which I have been unable to discover any further particulars.

^{page 739 note 2} The death of Abú Naṣr-i-Fársí took place in the reign of Malik Arslán, as Mas‘úd-i-Sa‘d says in a qaṣída in his praise:—

“ O King, Abú Naṣr-i-Fársí surrendered up his life to thee.”

His death must therefore have taken place between the years A.H. 509 and 511 (= A.D. 1115–1118), which was the period of the reign of Malik Arslán. For further biographical particulars concerning Abú Naṣr-i-Fársí, see the Lubábu’l-Albáb of Muḥammad ‘Awfí, ed. Browne, vol. i, p. 71.