HISTORY OF TABARI VOLUME 1 PART 9

HISTORY OF TABARI

VOLUME 1

General Introduction

Translator's Foreword

 

The Life and Works of al-Tabari

The History and Its English Translation

The History in Islam and the West

  The preceding long list of Tabari's writings contains very few titles devoted predominantly to historical or biographical research, and a perusal of the biographical sketch presented here makes itquite clear that the outward course of his life was comparatively little influenced by his occupation with history. These are incontrovertible facts. Even the availability of more bibliographical information than we have is unlikely to refute them. Tabari's importance as a scholar in his time and his role as a participant in contemporary affairs were the result of his scholarly activities in the legal and religious sphere. Yet, the outstanding significance of History was realized while he was still alive. It was welcomed by the students who heard Tabari lecture on it or received his ijazah to study and transmit it. They went on to use it in their own works, as was done, for instance, by the author of Aghani (see above, n. 127). Its uniqueness was praised by a contemporary such as Ibn al-Muqhallis (see above, p. 132). A writer on world history writing in a rather different tradition, al-Mas'udi, was acquainted with Tabari as an important historian. About a generation after Tabari's death, he spoke of History as "a work superior to all other historical works because of the abundant information it contains" and declared it "an extremely useful work," for, he reasoned, Tabari's position as the leading jurist and religious scholar of his time made it possible for him to know all there was to know about history [455• See Mas'udi, Muruj, I, i f., ed . Pellat, 1, 15; Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography2, 5o8. For government experience as a necessity for the historian, see above, n. 453 . Al-Mas 'udi's relationship with Tabari is problematic. He once mentioned Tabari as his oral authority (Mas'udi, Tanbih, 267). Thus, it would seem that he knew him personally(?). See also Khalidi, Islamic Historiography, r48. Muruj (IV, 145, ed. Pellat, II, 145) expressly refers to History and elsewhere mentions Tabari as a source of historical information (Muruj, V, 8, 40, ed . Pellat, a, 184, 202). None of the references can, however, be traced to History. Could al- Mas 'iadI have quoted from memory what he had heard long ago in Tabari's lectures?].

  Tabari became known primarily by his History. It was, as M. J. de Goeje put it, the great work "whose fame has never faded from his own day to ours [456. See de Goeje in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, XXIII, 3b (Edinburgh, 1888 ). I owe this reference to Muth's work].  His biographers would, of course, not fail to praise his other accomplishments, and they mention those in the field of history as merely one aspect of his work and not the first and foremost [457. Irshad, VI, 423, ed. Rifii, XVIII, 40, introduces Tabari as "a hadith scholar, jurist , Qur'an reader, and historian " ( in this order ). Dhahabi, 'Ibar, II, 146 , mentions Tafsir first, and then Ta'rikh. On the other hand, Qifti, Muhammadan, 263 f., speaks of "the author of the famous History and Tafsir." Of course, not much can be made of this] but for Muslims, he was the historian of Islam. When it was necessary to distinguish him from other Tabaris, it was as Tabari the historian.

  As was already suggested by O. Loth [458. See Loth, "Tabari 's Korancommentar," 590. Loth says that ) in contrast to Tafsir), History had no competitors . This, however, rather oversimplifies the situation], the explanation for this development is not far to seek. Tabari's works on jurisprudence and hadith continued to be admired, and his Qur' anic scholarship set an enduring and always respected standard of excellence. Yet, works on law and religion always were at the center of an enormous literary activity, and no matter how traditional much of it was or seemed to be, new tendencies and concerns constantly left their changing imprint on them. History, on the other hand, was, in accordance with the basic character of Muslim historiography, never really superseded. It remained the unique source for the period it covered, even when other sources for it were still available. Later historians constantly used Tabari's work, at first directly, but then, in the course of time, usually indirectly through other histories such as the one of Ibn al-Athir. The new works offered much of Tabari's information in a shortened form and, naturally, added much subsequent history. Thus, they were easier to handle and had the advantage of being of greater interest for the ma jority of readers who wanted to learn about events close to their own times . Some, if not many, later historians continued to use Tabari and even seek out earlier sources, but manuscripts became increasingly difficult to find. Ibn Khaldun copied a document at first from Ibn al-Athir and was only later able to collate the text as it appears in Tabari [459. See Ibn KhaldUn, Muqaddimah, 11, 139, n. 751] .  This was more like the exception that confirmed the general rule. Tabari always remained the historian of Islam, but his original work receded from general view.

  Early translations into Persian and Turkish languages further attest to the fame of History. They show, however, a similar tendency toward adaptations of the original text . According to our philological understanding of the term, they could hardly be called translations . A Turkish translation , incidentally, was published already in 1844 and served as a source for some studies by contemporary Western scholars.

  The history of the European acquaintance with Tabari's History in a way constituted a reversal of the chronological process. The Arabic and Muslim works which attracted the curiosity of early Orientalists were generally those of more recent dates and, in particular, those of current use in the Near East . The historians whose works were introduced in seventeenth - century Europe , such as the histories of al-Makin and Abu al- Fida', were acquainted with Tabari 's work as a rule only at second or third hand [460. For Instance , L. Marracci knew History through al -Makin. See Nallino, "Lefonti arabe ," 11, 96, n. i. Marracci did not know Tafsir, of course.] .  Only later did the search for the original text start. It was a slow process, and it began in earnest only at the end of the eighteenth century. After the publication of the Leiden edition in the last quarter of the nineteenth century , the stage was reached where the later excerptors and adapters of Tabari in Arabic as well as Persian and Turkish were disregarded by modern historians, except, of course, for whatever information not found in Tabari they were able to contribute.

  The name of Tabari the historian had, however, been long familiar in the West. B. d'Herbelot (1625-95), whose Bibliotheque Orientale was published posthumously in 1697 , featured a substantial article on "Thabari " ( Bibliotheque, 1014 ). He started out by describing him as " the most famous of all Tabaris on account of the general History from the creation of the world to the time in which he lived that was published by him." The special article he devoted to History (Bibliotheque, 866 f.) gives as good a summary of the work's history as could be found in the West until more than a century had passed. It deserves to be quoted here in full on account of its historical interest . Practically all of its contents was derived by d'Herbelot from the great bibliographical work of Hajji Khalifah (16o9-57), whose lifetime overlapped with his own [461. D ' Herbelot used Galland's manuscript of Hajji Khalifah . See Laurens, Barthelemi d'Herbelot, 17. For his indirect use of Tabari , see Laurens , 58. Hajji Khalifah 's lengthiest Tabari entry is in connection with History; that on Tafsir is much briefer. See Hajji Khalifah, ed. Yaltkaya, 297 f.].

  TARIKH AiThabari. C'est le titre d'une Histoire fort celebre, qui passe pour le fondement des autres Histoires Musulmannes. Elle a ete composee par Abou Giafar Mohammed Ben Giorair, natif du Thabarestan, qui mourut i'an 310. De l'hegire. Elle commence a la Creation du Monde, & finit en Van 300 [462. Hajji Khalifah has 309 (for the latter date , see below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, xv)] de 1'hegire. Elle porte encore le titre particulier de,Tarikh alomam v almolouk. Elie est aussi souvent citee sous le titre de Tarikh Giafari, & les Persans la nomment aussi ,Tarikh pesser Giorair, l'Histoire du fils de Giorair.

  Ebn AlGiouzi ecrit, que cette Histoire dans son Original contient plusieurs volumes, & que l'Edition que nous avons entre les mains n'en est qu 'un Abbrege, & Ebn AlSobki rapporte dans ses Thabacat, que Thabari ayant demande a ses amis, s'ils prendroient plaisir a lire une Histoire de tous ce qui etoit arrive dans le Monde jusqu'a son temps, ils luy repondirent, qu'ils la liroient volontiers s'il etoit possible de la trouver, & que cet Auteur leur ayant dit, qu'il avoit compile trente mille feiiilles sur cette matiere, ses amis luy repliquerent, que tout le temps de leur vie ne suffiroit pas pour les lire. Sur cecy, Thabari leur dit, qu'il l'abbregeroit autant qu'il pourroit, & c'est cet Abbrege, dit Sobki, qui nous est reste entre les mains.

  Cet Abbrege a ete traduit en Langue Persienne par Abou A'li Mohammed Allali [463. I, c., a misreading of al-Bal'ami], Vizir des Sultans Samanides, duemps de Mansour Ben Nouh , Pan 352 . de 1'hegire. Cette meme Histoire a ete traduite en Langue Turquesque par un Auteur incertain , & c'est celle que l'on trouve communement entre les mains des Turcs. Abou Mohammed A'bdallah Ben Mohammed AlFargani a fait la continuation de l'Histoire de Thabari, & 1'a publiee sous le titre de Selat.

  Abou Hassan Mohammed Ben A ' bdalmalek A1Hamadhani , mort l' an 521 . de l'hegire , y a fait un autre Supplement.

  In the nineteenth - century West, "history " was about to replace "philosophy " as the fundamental culture symbol of the age. With it came a long period of the avid study of everything that could be understood as "history ." The occupation with Tabari's historical work gained in intensity, as is chronicled in F.-C . Muth' s very useful survey of Tabari's History as mirrored in European scholarship published in 1983 . Tabari ' s other works meanwhile continued to be all but unknown to Western scholars . It was only near the end of the century that O. Loth called attention to Tafsir , when a manuscript of the work had become known ( see above , n. 383).

  Not surprisingly, if quite inaccurately, Tabari was describedshades of Herodotus !-as "Vater der arabischen Geschichte" by A. D. Mordtmann , who in 1848, relying on the recently published Turkish translation, collected History' s information on Tabaristan ( see Bibliography, below, under Mordtmann ). After the publication of the Leiden edition, the interest of scholars soon turned to the challenging task of disentangling the source situation in the original text of History. This was a promising undertaking, owing to the fact that Tabari himself, in his way, was careful to hint at the sources employed by him throughout his work. The name of J. Wellhausen should be mentioned here as that of the highly regarded pioneer in this field (see above, n. 2o6). The work has been continued with a good measure of success, but much more remains to be done.

  It was, and has remained , more difficult to gain an insight into the manner in which Tabari used his sources . In other words, what was his approach to the writing of history and his view of history in general and the historical data he surveyed in his work? What considerations determined his choice of a given source in preference to other sources that might have been available to him? What, if anything, did he omit, thereby altering trends and historical interpretation, be it consciously or unconsciously ? Beyond a general Baghdad- centrism that was indicated by his own residence in the capital and by the audience for which he was writing, what were his views on historical events and personalities ? We hear, for example, that he predicted the failure of Ibn al - Mu'tazz's revolt as soon as it happened . When he was informed about it, he inquired about the new wazir and chief judge. Hearing their names, he expressed the view that the choice of such accomplished men who were ahead of their times in a period of general retrogression was wrong and Ibn al-Mu'tazz would not last [464. The report goes back to a1-Mu afa , with a suspiciously vague isnad connecting it to Tabari . See Mu ' afa, falis, 1, 472, quoted in TB, X, 98 f. (above, n. 18). The name of the chief judge is al-Masan b , al-Muthanna; he must be the same individual as Abu al -Muthanna Ahmad b . Ya'qub, mentioned below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, 189.91 . It may be noted that Tabari figures among the transmitters of the story of 'A'ishah that promotes the idea of a steady deterioration in history; see Rosenthal , " Sweeter than Hope," 25.]. If this is the correct understanding of the reported remark , he seems to have meant that the course of historical events depended upon prevailing trends and the government must conform to the trends of the times in order to master them . Such express statements are rare in Tabari 's case . They are also often, as in the given example, of dubious historicity. The answers to the questions raised must be sought by means of internal evidence.

  The present translation has as one of its purposes that of furthering this discussion . Whatever might come of it, the fact remains that Tabari 's History is our greatest single source of information for much of the early centuries of Muslim history. The existence of a standard work of this kind is apt to exercise a certain restrictive influence and to promote the tendency to rely on it unduly. Such was arguably the case with Tabari's History for quite some time. It hardly is any longer. His History is now ready to take its proper place in Muslim historiography-not at the head, but at the very center.

The History and Its English Translation

The Text

  Scholars interested in the history of libraries in Islam usually cite the Egyptian historians al-Musabbihi and Ibn Abi Tayyi', who lived, respectively, around the turn of the fourth/tenth and sixth/twelfth centuries. Brief remarks from the works of these historians illustrate the large site of Muslim libraries in general as well as, in particular, the high esteem in which Tabari's History was held. According to al-Musabbihi, the Fatimid caliph al-'Aziz, who reigned from 975 to 996, spent one hundred dinars for a copy of History that was offered to him. He then found out that his library already contained more than twenty copies of the work, including one in Tabari's own hand. According to Ibn Abi Tayyi', 1,220 copies of History were in the library of the Fatimid palace complex when Saladin took over in 567/1171 [465. See Magrizi , Khllal,1, 408 f., cited, for instance , by Mez, Renaissance, 164f.; Pedersen, Arabic Book, 118 f. Al - Magrizi has 1 , 2oo but the correct 1,220 is preserved in Abu Shamah, Rawdatayn, 1, 200, 1. 4, ed. Cairo, t956,1, 507, 1. 7, and Ibn Kathir, Bidayah, XII, 266, year 5 67. See Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography2, 5o. One may wonder whether 20 in 1 ,220 has something to do with the figure of " more than twenty" in al-Musabbihi] We are not told whether these were complete sets or individual volumes. Whatever it was, the figure of 1,220 seems to be a somewhat exaggerated guess. It is, however, quite possible that an autograph of Tabari found its way into the possession of royal bibliophiles and that the Fatimid rulers, conscious of their position in history, collected as many volumes as they could of a work that reflected the past glory of Islam to which they themselves aspired in vain. At a much later date, the Ottoman sultans had the same abundant means and the same motivation for acquiring choice copies of History. It is thus not by chance that today, the best of the preserved manuscripts are found in Istanbul and complete sets can be reconstructed from the library holdings there. While Tabari manuscripts are preserved in numerous European and Middle Eastern libraries, it is usually only individual volumes and not the entire work.

  For modern scholars trained in the proper technique of text edition, it was natural to look especially to Istanbul for manuscripts to be used in the planned edition of History. In the second half of the nineteenth century, this was no simple task; but M. J. de Goeje and his co-workers succeeded admirably in obtain ing the necessary manuscript material and preparing an edition which presented an accurate text with a full critical apparatus and a good deal of additional information. In addition to the chief mover of the project, de Goeje (1836-1909), the honor roll of famous Orientalists of the past century who participated in the enterprise included J. Barth (1851-1914), S. Fraenkel (1855-1909, 1. Guidi (1844-1935(, S. Guyard (1846-84), M. Th. Houtsma (1851-1943), P. De Jong (1832-1890), D. H. Muller (1846-1912), Th. NoIdeke (1836-i930), E. Prym 11843-1913), V. Rosen (1849-19o8), and H. Thorbecke (1837-901 [466. See Fuck, Arabische Studien, in particular, 212 ff.]. The publisher was the great house of E. J. Brill, which accomplished the difficult task of printing between the years 1879 and 19oi. All editorial material, such as the brief summaries of the contents accompanying the individual volumes , the introduction, the glossary of noteworthy terms, and the model index, was written in Latin, as was fitting at the time for an inter-European enterprise. The full Latin title of the edition, which chose Kitab Ta'rikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk for the Arabic title page (see above, 131), was Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari, which led scholars often to refer to it as Annales.

  The Leiden edition had practically nothing in the way of predecessors [467. See Muth, passim], and it has as yet not been replaced. Manuscripts in the collections of the Topkapisarayi in Istanbul were not accessible at the time . As far as our present knowledge goes, they are the only significant manuscript material not used in the Leiden edition, although the chance of making new discoveries remains. It would seem that the oldest portion of a manuscript of History is a number of folios bound into Ms. Kopriilii, I, 1047, covering the years 64-66 [468. The Istanbul manuscripts have been studied by R. Stephen Humphreys, who presented a preliminary report on his findings at the meeting of the American Oriental Society in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in April 1985..].

  The Istanbul material was largely used by the editor of the Cairo edition, Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, who had made himself a respected name as the editor of many important texts. His edition began to appear in 1969 and was reprinted repeatedly. Ibrahim omitted the critical apparatus of the Leiden edition. He basically restricted himself to indicating the variant readings of the Topkapisarayi manuscripts , with the exception of Ms. Revankosk, no.15 5 5 (Karatay, Catalogue, no. 5735, see below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, xv f.). He also used some manuscript material from Egypt and India. It seems that he mainly listed variants he considered significant. He adopted the sound principle of showing the pagination of the standard Leiden edition in the margin of his text and thereby established the proper manner of reference for all who work on History. This procedure must be continued in any future edition, including the new scientific edition which it is hoped will some day be published and supersede the Leiden edition.

  In connection with establishing the Arabic text, there was no pressing need to consult the Persian and Turkish versions. No case has as yet been made that these reworkings of the original could be of any real help, except, perhaps, with respect to additions not appearing in the available manuscripts. Even less useful are all the abridgments of the Arabic, the retranslations of the Persian version into Arabic, and the like. However, the difficult task of a bibliographical description of all this material remains to be undertaken, even if the results promise to be meager, at least as far as Tabari's original text is concerned.

  A work such as History allows the incorporation in the text of additions at certain stages of the manuscript tradition. Such additions might have entered the text during Tabari's lifetime, coming from his own hand or that of others who might or might not have acted with his knowledge and approval. Later authors who used History show some such additions or corrections to the accepted text. There is a strong likelihood that they were not responsible for them but followed some manuscript authority. The chronological arrangement, in particular, facilitated insertions. Professional copyists would not normally have tampered with the text they copied, but scholarly readers might have made marginal additions which eventually entered the text. Usually, additions that came about in this manner cannot be expected to have left an express indication of their origin in the text; but History, II, 1368-72, contains what is specifically stated to be  an addition in the biography of 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz not from the work of Abu Ja'far, to the beginning of the caliphate of Yazid b. 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan." The situation is less clear in History, II, 835-43. The passage which raised doubts already in the mind of its editor is poorly attested in the manuscript tradition. It is also not found in the Topkapisarayi manuscript. It is thus difficult to accept it as a Tabarian addition, although this is not entirely precluded; the passage may go back to notations which Tabari had made for himself and which he had intended to insert in the appropriate places. In all the minor instances of additions or omissions, the decision as to whether they go back to Tabari must be made in each case individually. Probably, very many can indeed be considered as somehow connected to Tabari (see below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, xvii ff.). Such small problems remain to be solved, before a definitive text of History is in our hands. Nothing of the sort, however, can be assumed to affect the understanding of the historical contents as Tabari meant it to be understood.

Previous Translations

  Arabists are fond of recalling that the various editors of History were supposed to provide translations of the volumes edited by them, but only Theodor Noldeke took up the idea and published his justly celebrated Geschichte der Perser and Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden ( E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1879, reprinted Graz, 1973). His translation covered History, I, 813-1067; he omitted some brief portions as having no immediate bearing upon Persian history (I, 890,1.4-892,1. 113, 901,1.1-917,1.17, 966,1. 15- 981,1. 2 ) [469. When Noldeke was urged to prepare a second edition of his Tabari translation, he spoke of it as " perhaps the best I have ever done" (letter to Goldziher, dated September it, 19ro ; see Robert Simon , /gndc Goldziher, 340). Tabari's much less detailed and scattered treatment of ancient Iranian mythological history was translated by Christensen ( see below, translation , n. 151)].  It is regrettable that the other editors did not follow Noldeke' s example. Their long and intimate occupation with the text uniquely qualified them for the task. Their translations, had they been published, would have been most helpful to subsequent translators and might have stimulated translations into other languages. Above all, the existence of History in translation would have constituted a strong incentive for historians who were not Near Eastern specialists to make use of it in their work.

  Under the direction of G. E. von Grunebaum, Elma Marin translated Tabari's treatment of the caliphate of al-Mu'tasim from History, II,1164-1329. Her work was published by the American Oriental Society in New Haven in 1951 . Individual passages of some lines to a number of pages in length have , of course, been translated in many publications, as was dictated by their particular subject matter.

  It can be assumed that quite a few Arabists dreamed of preparing a complete translation, but their names went unrecorded, or, at least, are unknown to this writer [470. See also Muth, I. *As of December 1987 , nine volumes of the English translation have been published]. J. A. Williams contemplated the task, and D. M. Dunlop tried to organize a collaborative effort while being a professor at Columbia University. A translation of the whole by one person has certain advantages. It makes for much greater uniformity in approach and execution. As it demands a total long-term immersion in the text , it holds the promise of yielding unexpected insights. However, the chances of bringing such a major enterprise to final fruition are small. Collaboration by a number of scholars offers a better chance for success. Upon the initiative of Ehsan Yarshater of Columbia University, such a collaborative effort was initiated in 1971. It proved possible for Michael G. Morony, a participant in the project, to arrange for a division of the entire text into portions of about two hundred pages each, distributed over thirty-eight volumes. Thus, the chore of finding capable and willing translators could begin. It was thought impractical to postpone publication until all volumes were completed. The first three volumes (XXVII, XXXV, and XXXVIII) appeared in 1985 under the aegis of the State University of New York Press, which, like E. J. Brill before, had voluntarily declared itself ready to undertake the difficult work of publication in the service of scholarship. The present hope is that the entire task will be completed by 1995. As was the case with the Leiden edition, financial support had to be found. Strenuous efforts on the part of Ehsan Yarshater succeeded in surmounting this hurdle, but the search for funds has to continue in order to keep the enterprise going.

  Toward the end of achieving a desirable degree of uniformity in presentation and format, some directions were deemed necessary to be given to the translators . At the same time, it was realized that the quality of the work might be enhanced if each translator relied primarily on his own judgment and expertise . A generous allowance of space was set aside for annotation , but again, it was left to the individual translator to make the difficult choice of what required annotation and how much information the footnotes should contain . General introductory remarks for each volume were suggested in order to provide all the necessary observations to be made in connection with a given volume, while keeping in mind the quite different character of the various sections of History.

  The system of transliteration employed in the translation follows by and large a practice that has by now become standard in the scholarly publications of Arabists and Islamicists . This writer wishes, however, to express disagreement with the choice of -iyy-(-uww-J for - iy- (uw). Under the influence of the Encyclopaedia of Islam , this transliteration is widely used . It is plainly wrong, and not just a simple matter of convention. For the rendering of names of localities, exact transliteration was recommended as the norm , except for a very few place names that have accepted English forms of long standing; thus al - Kufah ( with the retention of the definite article ), but Mecca, and not Makkah . Doubts as to what constitutes an accepted form are many . With the growing Western familiarity with Near Eastern geography, these doubts have not diminished but rather have increased . Accurate transliteration thus seemed preferable . The definite article in the names of frequently mentioned and quoted authors has often been omitted, especially in bibliographical references , and it is ( almost) always Tabari, instead of al-Tabari.

  A special concern has been how to best serve those readers who might not know Arabic . In fact, it is hoped that specialists will find the translation useful ; but a translation primarily addresses itself to those not fully familiar with the original language. This regard for non-Arabists has led , for instance, to the insistence upon an unambiguous rendering of dates and upon providing chapter headings . It has also influenced the choice of the secondary literature in the footnotes , with the understanding that Arabic and Islamic studies have not yet progressed to the state where the secondary literature is sufficiently developed to make possible reliance on it exclusively . For Qur'an quotations, the translation of A. J. Arberry was suggested with some hesitation, but again, it was left to the individual translator to decide upon the most suitable renditions.

  There was never any doubt as to which edition should constitute the basis for the translation , as the Leiden text is the only scientific edition in existence . Translators were, however, aware of the Cairo edition and the need to consult it wherever it was thought to contain a superior text . No priority was assigned to consulting manuscripts . Translators who had the opportunity were encouraged to do so . The gain to be obtained from the consultation of manuscripts did not loom large as a rule , but it is undeniable that in any occupation with ancient texts , no matter how carefully edited , recourse to manuscripts is of value , if only for the purpose of ascertaining that the available printed editions are indeed reliable.

  The hope was expressed that the translations should be accurate and faithful to the original and, at the same time, idiomatic and fluent in English . This great ideal , if constantly invoked, is rarely achieved anywhere . Editorial and stylistic help has been provided to the extent possible . The translator 's individuality could never be entirely suppressed nor, indeed , should it be.

  The only liberty that the translators were asked to take with the Arabic text affects the presentation of isnads , the chains of transmitters that served Tabari as an indication of his sources. A literal translation would typically run like this : " A told me that B told us : C told us on the authority of D, on the authority of E that F said ...." A less clumsy rendering was chosen to take its place, to wit: "According to A - B - C - D - E - F ...." Occasional exceptions as required by the flow of the narrative were permitted. The simplification is fully justified in view of the less cluttered text page resulting from it and the amount of space saved. It conceals , however, the numerous variations in the form of the isnads indicated by Tabari . These variations are important for a more precise understanding of the source situation . Scholars concerned with source problems must have recourse to the Arabic text.

  At this time , the halfway mark in the project is not far off. When the entire work is completed , a retrospective on its genesis and execution will improve and enlarge upon the present brief and preliminary remarks.

CONTINUED