It is altogether fitting that the city of Mashhad, which is so close to the birthplace of Abo’l-fazl Bayhaqi, should have been selected
as the place in which to hold a conference to honour his memory. It is also a source of great satisfaction that the University of Mashhad should have decided to honour Abo"1-Fazl Bayliaqi in particular, for Bayhaqi, although undoubtedly one of the great historians of Iran, and in Some ways unique as an historiographer, has until recent times been curiously neglected. It was the late Sa"Id Nafisi who rescued him almost from oblivion, and who collated, from the works of other historians, quotations from the lost portions of Bayhaqi"s history, and professor Mojtaba Minovi has also drawn attention to the importance of Bayhaqi"s work.
In this paper, I would like to say a few words about Abo’l-fazl Bayhaqi as an historiographer; in other words, to discuss his view of history, as far as this may be ascertained from his work, and to pick out those features of his style, and treatment of his material, which seem to me to be distinctive.
1- In the first place, Bayhaqi has given us a few clues as to his general approach to the writing of history, his view of the value of history as a subject for study, and his idea of the requisites for a good historian. His views on these matters are set out most fully in a discourses (Khutba) which occurs at the beginning of Vol. X, in the section on Khvarazm (1). It reads as follows:
“ Know that civilized men are called civilized by virtue of their heart and mind, and their hearts and minds are sterengthened or weakened by what they hear and see. Until they experience good and evil, or hear tell of these, they know nothing of either joy or sorrow in this world. One should realize, therefore. that the eyes and ears are the look outs and spies of the heart and mind, for they transmit to the latter what they see and hear, and the heart and mind make use of whatever the eyes and ears report to them. The heart and mind then submit what is reported to them to the intellect, which is the arbiter of justice, so that the true may be separated from the false; the intellect retains what is useful, and rejects what is useless.
“ It is for this reason that men are eager to learn about what is concealed from them, to know what they have not hitherto known, to hear tell of what they have not previously heard, and to learn of events and obtain information about the world, both about what has happened in the past and what has not yet happened. Now, you can either learn about past history the hard way, by traveling round the world, enduring all sorts of hardships, and searching out the historical information you want, or, you can study reliable books, and furnish yourself with accurate information from them.”
Surely one of the most beguiling defences of the armchair traveller
ever written :
“ As for the history of the future, this remains a closed book, and is totally inscrutable. For if man could foresee the future, he would experience nothing but good, and no evil would befall him. "None knows the Unseen save Almight God" (2). Although this is the case, wise men tie themselves into knots in their search for it, and gyrate frantically round the subject, and discourse with great seriousness about it, as you will readily discover, if you look into the matter.
“ Past history is of two kinds — no third category is recognized: one must derive one"s source material either from what one hears from others, or from what one reads in books. It is a necessary condition that one"s informant be reliable and truthful, and that one"s intellect should testify to the probability of the story, and the word of God (the Qur"an ) will be of assistance in this regard (3). As has been said:” do not give credence to reports which do not commend themselves to your judgment as being accurate.” The object of writing an historical work is that, whatever historical information is given should not be rejected by the (reader"s) intellect, but should be believed by the person who hears it, and scholars should not only listen to it but make use of it.
“ (Unfortunately), most ordinary people are so constituted that they prefer the absurd and impossible, such as stories about demons and fairies, and the evil spirits which inhabit the deserts, mountains and oceans, as when some fool creates a commotion, and a crowd of other fools gathers round him; then he says, "in a certain ocean we saw an island, and five hundred of us landed on it. we baked bread, and set up our cookingpots. when the fire got really hot, and the heat penetrated the ground, the earth moved, and when we looked hard at it, we saw it was a fish." Or again, "On a certain mountain we saw such and such, and an old sorceress had changed a man into a donkey, and another, old sorceress changed him back again into human form by anointing his ear with some unguent or other", and other nonsense of this sort, which, read at night-time to ignorant people, induces sleep.
“ But those people who read the truth, so that they may believe it, are reckoned to be learned men, but their number is extremely small. Such people accept the true, and reject the false. As Bo"l - Fath Busti (God"s mercy be upon him;) has well said:
"Men"s intellects have checks and balances, by which means they arrive at the Tightness of a matter, and these balances are called experience".
“ So I, who have undertaken the writing of this history, have considered it to be an essential condition, that what I write I should either have witnessed myself, or should have obtained an accurate account
from a reliable source The purpose of this lengthy excursus has belli clearly to establish how much care I have taken in the writing of this history. Even though most of the people referred to in this history are now dead, and very few of them are still alive, and the truth is, as Bu Tamam has put it:
"Those years, and the people who crowded the stage, have all passed away; both are naught but dreams",
nevertheless, I have no choice but to complete this history, so that the name of those great men may be kept alive, and also so that there may remain some memorial of myself. For people will read this history after I have gone, and the greatness of this dynasty will be established for all time. May the Ghaznavid house live for ever!” (4) In the above passage, Bayhaqi lays great emphasis on the need for a careful evaluation of historical sources in order to arrive at the truth, and he returns to this theme again and again. If he has not himself witnessed the events which he describes, he insists on reliable witnesses — even in matters of relatively unimportant detail. For instance, when describing the wardrobe of the vazir khvaja Ahmad "Abd al-Samad" he says:” I heard this from his (the vazir"s) trusted companions, such as Abu Ibrahim Qa"ini, his steward.” (5)
Never for one moment, however, are we allowed to forget that Bayhaqi was the actual eye-witness of many of the events he records in his history. Like a recurring leitmotif, the phrase” I, Abo" l-Fazl” , saw such-and-such with my own eyes, is to be found throughout his work. To give just a few examples:” I,Abo"l-Fazl, was watching him...” (6);” I,Abo"l-Fazl, had a double spell of duty at court this day. I saw all these events, and recorded them in the day-book for that year” (7);” In the vazir"s court, where I, Abo"l-Fazl, used to see him standing” (8);” I, Abo"l-Fazl, had gone with the Amir to the Bagh-i Sad-Hazareh, and there I saw the leaders of these Hindus...” (9);” And all this was observed by the eyes of me, Abo"l-Fazl...” (10); and, as a variant:” I was standing there, looking on; everything I say is based on my own observation, or is taken from the inventory and the day-book which I possess” (11).
Never for one moment, either, are we allowed to forget that Bayhaqi is the author of this history. In the case of many historical chronicles, scholars have had to devote years of research to establishing their authorship. In some cases, all efforts to discover their authorship, either through internal evidence, or by means of stylistic or linguistic comparison with other works, have failed, and in bibliographies and catalogues of manuscripts they are still attributed to that prolific writer "anon". By contrast, through the Tarikh-i Mas"udi runs the constant refrain,” thus says Abo"l-Fazl Bayhaqi” .
Bayhaqi also takes unusual pains to stress his own integrity as an historian. For example, when he feels he has to make some derogtory remarks about the character of Bu Sahl Zuzani, the Head of the correspondence Department {divan-i risalat), he hastens to assert that in so doing he is not motivated by any personal grudge; on the contrary, his sole interest is historical accuracy:
“ Bu Sahl Zuzani became puffed up in the most appalling manner, and he represented to the people that the office of vazir had been offered to him (Bu Sahl), but he had turned it down, and it was he who had brought forward the khvaja. Anybody who had any sense knew that it
was not so. Sultan Mas"ud (may God be pleased with him!) was too intelligent, too noble, and too shrewd to give the vizarat to anyone else while the khvaja was still alive; for he knew the rank and capabilities of every one, and had taken their measure. The clear proof that what I have said is true is that, when the khvaja had gone to Harat, the Amir (Mas"ud) used to review in his mind the various officials, and he used to call to mind khvaja Ahmad "Abdal-Samad, and he used to say, "there is no one more fitted for this office than he when I reach the proper place in my history, I will give a full account of this incident. I du not make these remarks because I have suffered any injury at the hands of Bu Sahl, for he and the rest of that crowd are all dead, and "it is clear to me that I have no great amount of time left to me. But I will reveal the truth, and I know that scholars, and men of the world,
Who today read these words, will not blame me for what I have written” (12).
As he got older, Bayhaqi became increasingly concerned that posterity should regard him as an historian of integrity and impartiality.
In the year 450/1059, "for instance, when Bayhaqi was sixty-five years of age, and, Farrukhzad was on the throne, we find him reverting to this theme:
“ Of this group of whom I shall speak, one or two are still alive, but ^retirement. It is some years since khvaja Bu Sahl Zuzan died and finally paid the penalty for his misdeeds. (13)
But I am not going to say anything about that. Although I dislike him very much, in no way will I — since I have reached the age of sixty-five and will soon be following in his footsteps — in no way will I, in this history which I am writing, give utterance to words which will lead to accusations of partiality or malevolence, so that the readers of this work will say, "Shame on the old man!" On the contrary, I will tell the story in such a way that my readers will agree with me, and not censure me” (14).
2- The next feature of Bayhaqi"s work to which I would like to drow attention is its inordinate length. As is well known, the extant portion of the whole, work, which was probably called Tarikh-i Al-i Sebiiktigin and is said to have totalled thirty volumes, comprises only Vols, vii-ix and part of vols, vi and x. The whole thirty volumes covered the incredibly short span of forty-two years, from 409/1018-19 to 451/1059-60, and the extant portion, usually known as the Tarikh-i Bayhaqi or the Tarikh-i Mas"udi, covers only about eleven years, from 421/1030 to 432/1041. The immense amount of spece allotted to the events of each year, allowed Bayhaqi to go into detail to an extent which I believe to be unique in Persian historiography. This detail has variously been regarded as " tedious ", or "the chief merit " of Bayhaqi"s history. Although it must be admitted that the vast scope of the work has militated against the exercise of any self-discipline by the historian in the selection of his material, and has encouraged him to pad the work out with extraneous anecdotes and digressions of all kinds, on balance I am inclined to agree with the verdict that Bayhaqi” may not inaptly be described as an " oriental pepys” (15). Bayhaqi has the same insatiable delight in the minutiae of everyday life, and the same consuming interest in people — a point which I shall come back to later.
There are many passages in the Tarikh-i Mas"udi which illustrate Bayhaqi"s love of detail. I will select only three examples. The first is Bayhaqi"s description of the robes worn by the vazir Khvaja Ahmad "AW al-Samad at his investiture in the year 423/1032:
“ There was a robe of ciclatoun (16) of purest white, with an extremely fine design, (17) and a turban of finest muslin, long but extremely fine, of superlative quality, and a fine embroidered Tiraz robe,(18) and a long chain, and a girdle studded with a thousand mesqals of turquoises” (19).
My second example is Bayhaqi"s description of the imposing cavalcade which accompanied Ahmad Inaltigin on his appointment as commander-in-chief in India in 422/1031 :
“ Ahmad Inaltigin came forward wearing a ruby-coloured robe, and made obeisance, and an extremely fine cavalcade of fully-armed men passed by, composed of officers, Dailamites and other regiments (20) which had been placed under his command. Following them came one hundred and thirty royal ghulams, (21) most” of whom had been set free by the Amir (Mas"ud), and who carried their letters of manumission in their hands and presented them to Inaltigin. These ghulams were under the command of three officers of the palace ghulams; they carried three lion standards, and short spears after the fashion of the palace guards. (22) Following them came the kettledrums, and Ahmad"s personal standard ofVed brocade, surmounted by a gilded ball, and then seventy-five ghulams, and many led horses and dromedaries.” (23).
My third example is Bayhaqi"s description of a drinking party to which Sultan Mas"ud invited some court officials in the year 432/1040, to celebrate the departure of his son Mawdud to his governorate of Balkh and Tukharistan:
“ The Amir, after they had departed, said to "Abd al-Razzaq, "what do you say to a few bumpers of wine?" (24) He replied, "On a day such as this, when my lord is happy, and my lord"s son has departed, as intended, with his vazir and nobles, and when we have enjoyed such a meal, (25) on what better day could we drink? The Amir said, "It will have to be informal, for we are going into the country, and we will drink in the Bagh-i Piruzi." Large quantities of wine were immediately brought from the maydan to the garden, and some fifty large wine glasses and flagons were set down in the middle of a small tent, and the glasses were passed round. The Amir said, "Let us play fair, and drink glass for glass, so that there is no foul play." Then the glasses were passed round, each one containing half a man of wine, and the level of merriment rose, and the minstrels began to sing. Bo"1-Hasan drank five, at the sixth he threw in the sponge, (26) and at the seventh he lost his senses; at the eighth he began to vomit, and the servants then carried him out. The head of Bo"l-"Ala the physician fell forward at the fifth glass, and they carried him out. Khalil Da"ud drank ten glasses, and Siyabiruz nine; then they were both carried out to the Ku-yi Dailaman ("street of the Dailamites") (27) Bu naim drank twelve, and then left hurriedly. Da"ud Maymandi fell down drunk, and the minstrels and jesters all became drunk and departed. Only the Sultan and "Abd al-Razzaq were left. The Khvaja drank eighteen, and then made his obeisance prior to leaving, saying, "if you give me any more, your servant will both forget his manners and lose his wits!" The Amir laughed, and gave him permission to leave. The vazir arose, and left with great dignity. The Amir went on drinking, and consumed twenty-seven glasses, each of half a man. (28) Then he got up, called for a bowl and some water, and his prayer-mat; he rinsed out his mouth, and performed his mid-day prayers, and the afternoon prayers as well, and to all appearances you would have said that he had not drunk a drop. All this was witnessed by my own eyes by me, Abo"l-Fazl. Then the Amir mounted his elephant and went back to the palace.” (29). These examples have been picked at random; they could easily be multiplied a hundred times. Some may find such detail tedious, but personally I find it" brings history to life, and adds colour and flavour to the chronicle of events. In my first two examples, apart from the great historical and sociological value of the detailed information given by Bayhaqi on such matters as dress and costume, military organization and weapons, and so on, the scenes are described with the clarity and vividness of a color photograph. The third example, apart again from its sociological value and its human interest, is remarkable for the unusual candour and realism with which the scene is portrayed. The charge is often made, particularly by those who have not read them, that Persian historical works are nothing but lists of dynasties and battles. Here, at least, we have a history which gives the lie to this accusation. Indeed, Bayhaqi justifies the inclusion of anecdotes and, as Barthold has pointed out, he” quite consciously contrasts his book with those chronicles, where all that may be read is that a certain sultan sent such and such a general to some war or other; on a certain day they fought or made peace; this one beat or that one this; they proceeded there.” (30)
3- The third feature of Bayhaqi"s work which I think is deserving of special mention, is his character-drawing. Instead of being just cardboard figures, his princes, nobles, courtiers and bureaucrats live and breathe. Bayhaqi"s use of anecdote, of course, is largely responsible for the rounding out of his characters. We have already had an example of this in the anecdote of the drinking-party quoted above. Bayhaqi specifically says that he does not intend his anecdotes to be taken merely as good stories, but he expects his readers to draw the appropriate moral from them, and he also says that he deliberately includes stories which illustrate the character of his dramatis personae, so that his readers can see what sort of people they were :
“ Whoever reads these passages must regard them with the eye of intelligence and should look upon them as a lesson, and not simply as anecdotes, so that it may be firmly established what great men these were.”
Bayhaqi then announces his intention of narrating yet another anecdote, and goes on:
“ I considered it the more necessary to include this story, because books, especially histories, are enlivened (31) by such things. (32) Words give rise to words, (33) so that the pleasure of my readers may be increased, and they will go on reading, I hope.” (34).
At the end of this particular anecdote, he again stresses this point:
“ Everyone is capable of deducing from this anecdote what great men these were. All are gone now, but this good report of them has survived as their memorial. My object in telling this story was that my readers might derive benefit from it, and some might even find it of practical use. Now that I have finished it, I will get back to my history.” (35). Perhaps one of- the most striking character sketches contained in the Tarikh-i Mas"udi is that of the great vazir, Khvaja Ahmad b. "Abd al-Samad. Not only do we get a very full picture of Khvaja Ahmad himself, but also of his personal relationships with the leading men of his day — with Sultan Mas"ud himself, with his archenemy Bu Sahl Zuzani, formerly "Ariz and later the head of the divan-i risalat, and so on. Khvaja Ahmad energes as a man of great integrity and strength of character, and also a man of tolerance and humanity. Under a despotic system of government, those closest to the ruler stand in the greatest danger, and one admires the uncompromising way in which the vazir on many occasions gave advice to the Sultan which he was well aware was highly displeasing to the ruler. His refusal to bend to the royal will, if he did not think the latter to be in the best interests of the state, had caused Mas"ud"s father to burst out:” How long must I put up with the airs of Khvaja Ahmad? Don"t I have other people who are capable of holding the office of vazirt" (36).
Bayhaqi brings out very clearly Khvaja Ahmad"s great reluctance, after the ill -treatment which he had suffered during the reign of Sultan Mahmud as the result of intrigues, again to accept public office. In fact, he had taken a vow never again to accept employment in the service of the sultan (37). It took Sultan Mas"ud a long time to overcome this reluctance to re-enter the public service, and the bad relations which later developed between the ruler and his vazir are ample vindication of the vazir"s attitude. After he became vazir, khvaja Ahmad tried to disarm any suspicions the Sultan might have, by adopting a simple mode of dress and life • At his investiture, khvaja Ahmad received a splendid khil"at, or robe of honour, but he did not wear it when he appeared at court the following day:
“ He was wearing a robe made after the fashion of former times, and a Nishapuri or Qa"ini turban” (in place of the sumptuous one he had received at his investiture) (38).
The outstanding instance of the vazir"s courage in opposing the wishes of the Sultan is undoubtedly his opposition to Mas"ud"s proposal to campaign in India in 428/1037. Bayhaqi"s account of the proceedings in the Sultan"s privy council affords us excellent insights into the character of the principal officers of state. Mas"ud opened the proceedings by declaring in unequivocal terms that he was determined on the campaign against Hansi, some sixty miles from Delhi. He then said,” now tell me your views on the matter without dissimulation.” The Commander-in-Chief immediately said that he was a military man, and would fight wherever the Sultan ordered him; the question of the advisability of this particular campaign, he said, was a political matter, and consequently a matter for the vazir. He then turned to his subordinate officers (39) and said,” Do you agree?” They replied,” wedo.” The vazir turned to the "Ariz and to Bu Nasr and said,” The Commander-in-Chief and the hajibs have removed the responsibility from their shoulders and placed it on mine, and have washed their hands of the matter. What do you say?” The "Ariz (40) who was an obstinate (41) man, said:” As you know, my profession is that of "Ariz; I do not know about anything beyond that. The job of being "Ariz is so exacting that I have no time to.concern myself with anything else.” (42) Bu Nasr Mushkan(34) said,” It looks as though this problem has fallen on the khvaja(Ahmad). One must give a beliberate answer, for our lord has so commanded. I w-ill say what I think and, relying on the magnanimity of our lord, will not dissemble” . (44) The vazir said:” In no way do 1 consider it expedient that our lord should go to India,” and went on to give his reasons for this opinion. Bu Nasr ably seconded him, but Sultan Mas"ud stuck to his original decision. After the counsellors had left the Sultan"s presence, they said among themselves,” This lord of ours is endowed with an obstinate determination to have his own way which exceeds all bounds and reasonable measure. No one could have spoken more openly than we did, and it was impossible to say anything more (45) without being disrespectful. As to what he predicted to be God"s will, well, we shall see” . (46)
The dialogue quoted above not only has the stamp of authenticity, but it remarkable in a number of ways — for its revelation of the character of the principal officers of the Ghaznavid state at that time, for its insight into the relationship between these officials and the Sultan, and most of all, for its extraordinary candour. Even though Bayhaqi was writing after the death of Mas"ud, the freedom with which he voices criticism of a member of the Ghaznavid ruling house is both unusual and refreshing.
Another extremely interesting example of the vazir"s courage in opposing the wishes of Sultan Mas"ud, is recorded by Bayhaqi under the events of the year 422/1031, when the Sultan decided to arrest two of his principal military commanders, "Al Eryaruq, commander-in-chief of the Ghaznavid army in India, and Asightigin Ghazi, commander of the army of khurasan. It is clear from the pages of Bayhaqi that the vazir, khvaja Ahmad b. "Abd al-Samad, strongly disapproved of the Sultan"s action.
One gets the distinct impression, however, that the vazir was not in this instance prepared to express his disapproval in quite the uncompromising terms which he used on the occasion of Mas"ud"s campaign in India in 428/1037, discussed above. It is possible that the vazir, in 422/1031, did not feel sufficiently secure in his own office to take the firm stand which he took in 428/1037. It seems to me, however, that a more likely explanation is that the vazir considered himself less justified in opposing the Sultan in a mainly military matter like the removal from office of two generals, whereas the Sultan"s decision to march on Hansi carried with it political and diplomatic implications which were very much the concern of the vazir. Indeed, this is the burden of the vazir"s reply to Mas"ud, when the Sultan announced his intention of arresting Eryaruq, and asked the vazir"s opinion.” The vazir reflected for a considerable while, and then said, "Long live the lord of the world! I have taken an oath that I will not be guilty of disloyalty in anything which affects the interests of the kingdom. The business of generals and armies is an extremely difficult and delicate one, and is entrusted to the king. If Your Majesty will permit it, I beg to be excused from giving my opinion in this one particular matter. The king should do whatever he thinks best, and should issue his orders accordingly. If I were to say anything on this matter, it might be that my opinion would conflict with that of the king, and the king might be vexed with me”.
Mas"ud pressed the vazir to speak out, insisting that he had need of his advice, and the vazir responded, saying,” Now I can speak” (i. e., after being pressed to do so by the Sultan) (47).
Khvaja Ahmad said that, although Eryaruq had behaved unwisely in India, since he entered the service of Mas"ud he had not been guilty of anything to cause the Sultan a moment"s anxiety. The drinking bouts with his cronies were an easy matter to deal with.” In one interview” , said the vazir,” I can set this right, without your having to say a word about the matter. Your Majesty"s empire has expanded; we need men of action, and men like Eryaruq are hard to come by” (48).
Once again, one is impressed by the vazir"s wisdom and knowledge of human nature, and by the frankness with which he expresses his opinions. Once again, the Sultan disregarded the excellent advice given him by the vazir. While outwardly pretending to accept the vazir"s advice, he secretly continued to plot the overthrow of the two generals. After the arrest of Eryaruq, the vazir, although extremely upset by the turn of events, made no further effort to intervene. In private, speaking to his friend and Bayhaqi"s patron, Bu Nasr Mushkan, he bemoaned the loss of Eryaruq.” I would have stood surety for him,” he exclaimed.” This lord of ours... will turn everything upside down. Ghazi too is undone — mark my words.” Then he got up and went to his office, where he remained, deep in thought. Then the old wolf said to himself,” A group of people have conspired to bring this about, some of them members of the old guard, some of them parvenus, (49) and they are pursuing their own ends. God grant that it will turn out all right in the end.” (50)
4- In the course of reading the Tarikh-i Mas’udi, we learn much about the duties of the secretarial class, and about Bayhaqi"s attitude to his job and general philosophy of life. One of the most interesting passes gives Bayhaqi"s views on the status of " royal servants" (khidmatkar-i Sultan), and gives advice to royal servants on how to avoid being suspected by the Sultan of having a desire for self- aggrandizement and self-enrichment — a problem which has faced royal servants during all periods of history. As this passage has already been translated by professor Bosworth, however, I will not repeat it here (51).
Bayhaqi, despite his readiness to comment freely on the actions of princes, is under no delusions about the realities of power.” Kings say what they like” he remarks,” and no one can argue with them.” (52) " Fear for one"s life" is always the other side of the coin inscribed " hope of receiving bread." Commenting on the fall of the rebellious commander Ahmad Inaltagin, Bayhaqi says:” From the time of Adam to this day, it has so happened that no servant has rebelled against his master who has not lost his head; and since it is written in books, there is no need to make a long story about it” (53) Rebellion seems to him to be a particularly pointless action:” Rebellion against one"s master does not turn out well, and one is npt given much time to enjoy it. "He who draws the sword of rebellion shall perish by it"“ (54).
Bayhaqi appears to be a bit of a social snob, or perhaps we should say that he likes his nobles to be noble. His comments on the Indian Tilak, who rose to favour under Sultan Mahamud and was promoted to high military command by Sultan Mas"ud, are interesting.” Throughout his career” , says Bayhaqi,” the fact that he was the son of phlebotomist (or surgeon-barber; hajjam) did not operate to his detriment. However, if in addition to possessing such character, intellectual ability and spirit, he had been of noble birth, he would have shown up to even better advantage, for inherited nobility and natural talent are an
Sultan Mas"ud pretended to restore the two generals to favour, and they made this the excuse for a special celebration. Eryaruq got down to some really serious drinking:” his usual practice was, when he sat down to drink, to drink solidly for three or four days and nights” (61). On this occasion, after he had been drinking for two days, the Sultan excused his non-appearance at court, and sent him fifty flagons of wine by the hand of one of Eryaruq"s greatest friends, the siahdar Amirak khammarchi {"the vintner "). The latter found Eryaruq rolling around like a ball (chun guy shoda);” as was his wont, Eryaruq kept on falling asleep and waking up again, and taking some noodle soup (rishta) and then some more wine, until he did not have the least idea of what he was doing” (62). Finally, when Eryaruq was totally incapacitated, he received a summons to go to court;” he did not have the use of either his arms or his legs” (63). On his arrival at court, he was immediately arrested;” if he had not been drunk” , comments Bayhaqi,” and they had tried to seize him, it would. have taken them rather longer” (64). To Bayhaqi"s penchant for gossip, we owe this amazingly vivid and circumstantial account. How much more exhilarating is this sort of historical writing, than the "in the year so-and-so such-and-such a person incurred the displeasure of the sultan and was imprisoned", type of writing, of which there are plentiful examples in Persian historiography.
6- The final topic on which I would like to touch is Bayhaqi"s style. His style seems rather to have baffled the authorities, who seem to have arrived at widely differing opinions of it. Sa"id Nafisi, for instance, described it as an” archaic and sometimes complicated style” (65). To Minovi, on the other hand, it is” a model for composition in an accurate and sparing language” (66). Abo"l-Fazl"s fellow -Bayhaqi, Ebn Fondoq, regarded the style of the Tarikh-i Al-i Sebuktigin as” lucid and eloquent” (ba fasahat va balaghat), (67) and considered Bayhaqi"s lost work, the Zinat al-Kuttab, as” without peer” among works on that art. (68) Elliot considered that” the style of the work is a most singular kind of colloquial Persian, written down without any attempt at order and the due arrangement of the sentences; the construction is consequently often very perplexed and the meaning obscure” . (69) Is it possible to reconcile these conflicting opinions?
I confess that I do not understand the assessment made by the late Professor Sa"id Nafisi. If one were to agree that Bayhaqi"s style is "archaic", which I do not, this would not be surprising in view of the early date of the text. After all, the fact that it was written in the middle of the 5th/11th century means that the Tarikh-i Mas’udi is one of the earliest major historiographical works in Persian which have come down to us. As to the charge of being " complicated ", the complexity, in general, arises from the colloquial word order which upset Sir Henry Elliot, who was doubtless more familiar with the more polished and rotund productions of later historians. Actually, the assessments of Minovi and Elliot are easily reconcilable. Elliot lays emphasis on the colloquial character of Bayhaqi"s style, and I think this is precisely what Minovi means when he says,” In point of style and language also is his "book very interesting; it is full of special words, terms expressions and turns of phrase that make his writing lively” . (70) "Lively"; if I had to choose one word to describe Bayhaqi"s style, I think "lively" is the word I would select. It is this quality, more than any other, which distinguishes Bayhaqi"s writing from what Professor Bosworth calls the” turgidity of "Utbi and the jejuneness of Gardizi” . (71)
The Tarikh-i Mas"udi abounds in colloquialisms and idioms of all kinds, not to mention colourful expressions. I will quote just a few examples to show what I mean:
“ Another big problem was that the commander-in-chief, Ghazi, was such a cunningfellow that the Devil himself could not ensnare him in his toils"". (72) Elsewhere, Ghazi is referred to as” the most cunning of the cunning” , (gurbuzi az gurbuzan), and Eryaruq, the commander-in-chief in India, as” the most stupid ass imaginable” {khari az khardn). (73).
In the passage in wich Bayhaqi hints that Ahmad Inaltigin, the commander-in-chief in India, was an illegitimate son of Sultan Mah-mud, he supports his allegation by saying that Inaltigin was the "sneeze" {"atseh), or, as we would say in English, the " spit and image ", of Mah-mud. (74)
The fact that even eminent men like the great vazir, Khvaja Ahmad Hasan b. "Abd al-Samad, did not always use the polite phrases of ta"arof, but lapsed into the vernacular, gives credibility to Bayhaqi"s account. When we read that the vazir while still incensed by the abuse which had been heaped upon him by a drunken jurisprudent (faqih) named Hasiri and his companions, referred to them as” those contented cuckolds” (kashkhanan), we feel that we are reading the ipsissima verba of the vazir. The term " cuckold " recalls the frequent use of the word qaltaban,” pimp” , in the Masnavi of Jalal al-Din Rumi, Rumi uses the world qaltaban in much the same way as kashkhan is used in my example from Bayhaqi, as a term of affectionate exasperation. The rest of the vazir"s remarks are also very racy:
“These contented cuckolds have forgotten Ahmad Hasan, because they have had the field to themselves for a while; they have weakened the authority of the vazir, and have held him in contempt. Let us show them the width of the blanket (gelim), so that they may awake from their dream”. (75)
The whole of the Hasiri anecdote is a splendid example of the colloquial character of BAYHAQIs style, and contains many proverbial expressions. Hasiri is saved from punishment by the intercession of Bayhaqi"s patron, Bu Nasr Mushkan, who exhorts the vazir in a quite remarkable speech, reminiscent of portia"s famous” quality of mercy” speech in” The Merchant of Venice” :” Great men have said, "Mercy goes hand in hand with power", and they have held the exercise of mercy to be most worthy when a person has the power to take revenge. God (may His name be magnified!) has shown your lordship His power and also His mercy, when He granted you release from such trial* and tribulations and delivered you from prison. It is therefore incumbent upon your lordship to return good for the evil which any person may do to him, that that person may be shamed and filled with remorse.” Bu Nasr goes on to remind the vazir of the story of Ma"mun and Ibrahim, but” there is no need for me"", he says,” to tell you that story; that would be like "carrying dates to Basra" (76) — or, as we would say, "carrying coals to Newcastle". Another example of a proverbial expression, this time an extremely unusual one, occurs at the beginning of the Hasiri anecdote. Commenting on the fact that the vazir had now found an opportunity to crush Hasiri, Bayhaqi adds,” and once he had found mud, he knew how to wallow in it (va chun khak yaft, maragha danist kard — maragha apparently being a masdar of place, not used in Arabic, from the root m. r. gh, meaning” to roll in the dust” “ to wallow” ). (77)
In conclusion, I would like briefly to recapitulate those features of Bayhaqi"s historical writing which, in my opinion, make him one of the greatest of Persian historiographers: first, his insistence on historical accuracy and the reliability of his sources; second, his scrupulous attention to detail, which may make his work prolix, but at the same time adds enormously to its interest, and to its historical and sociological value. There is some indication that Bayhaqi was conscious of the great length of his work. On one occasion, for instance, he remarks:” I have recorded the oath and the contract in another book I have written, entitled Maqamat-i Mahmudi; (78) therefore I have not repeated them here, for that would be too prolix (sakht derdz shodi}” ; (79) third, his brilliant delineation of character; fourth, his philosophical, realistic and humane attitude to life, and his unusual interest in natural phenomena:” In Nishapur in 400/1009-10,” he informs us,” it snowed sixty -eight times” ; (80) fifth, his skill as raconteur, as a writer of Memoirs in the style of pepys; and sixth, his lively and vivid style of writing. Abo"l-Fazl Bayhaqi is revealed by his own writings as an historiographer of the first rank, even if his digressions and” flashback” technique do get a little tedious at times; still, as Bayhaqi himself would say,” No man is faultless; perfection belongs to God alone” . (81)
