^{page 226 note 1} Amedroz, however (see JBAS., 1906, p. 854), expresses the opinion that the Paris codex embodies part of a later recension of the work, comprising “added matter, drawn probably from authorities to which the author had later access”.

^{page 226 note 2} The first three emirs were recognized and given their titles by the caliph al-Mustakfí in 334 (946); and the last emir was deposed by Ṭughrul-beg in 447 (1055). 'Ali ibn Buwayh first grew powerful as early as 321 (933), however, and a Buwayhid appears to have held fiefs from the Seljuqids up to 490 (1097).

^{page 228 note 1} The first of these titles is given in the zij, and by Ath., the f.n. making no mention of a title. The second is given by t.g. and Kh.A., the latter of whom adds, moreover, husám al-dawlah.

^{page 228 note 2} See Encyclopædia of Islām, i, 95. I find since writing that these kunyahs have already been identified—by ProfessorRoss, (see “On three minor dynasties in northern Persia”, Asia Major, vol. ii, 210, note)Google Scholar, and also that in the ráḥat al-ṣudúr (Gibb Memorial New Series, ii), p. 105, our Abú Kálijár is actually called Abú '1-Hayjá. In this passage the word ibn has been omitted after the word Abú'l-Hayjá, so that it reads as if sulṭán aldawlah were Abú' l-Hayjá's (Abú Kálijar's) title. This omission has also caused the author of the article, sulṭán, in the Encyclopædia, iv, 543, to assert that al-Malik al-Raḥím was entitled sulṭán al-dawlah. Cf. the confusion in H.A., noted below. But there is no other instance of a Buwayhid's taking a title already used, and no other mention of this as a title of al-Raḥím's.

^{page 229 note 1} Encyclopædia, i, 95.

^{page 229 note 2} ta'ríkh-i ál-i sabuk-tigín, ed. Morley (Bibliotheca Indica). Náṣir-i Khusraw uses the odd mixture Abá Kálinjár: see safar-námeh, ed. Schefer (text), 85, 91 (trans.) 236 (here the all-important word pisar is not translated, so the passage reads as if Abú Kálíjár were still alive—in 443), 248, 249.

^{page 229 note 3} Encyclopædia of Islām, i, 94–5, 1003–4—accounts based on Ath. and M.Kh.

^{page 229 note 4} In f.n., xiv, note, the fact has escaped the editor that the five sons of Abú Kálíjár are shown as well as those of the Jalál al-Dawlah, doubtless because their names are separated from their father's name by a column written at right-angles. But there is no doubt that these are the names of Abú Kálijár's sons. For one thing his name is written specially large as a “heading” to theirs, so that one should not take them (as from their position one might) for the names of the Majd al-Dawlah's family; and, for another, the zíj is borne out in naming them as it does by Ath.

^{page 230 note 1} It is a curious coincidence that the f.n., 172, should also attribute only five sons to Abú Kálíjár.

^{page 230 note 2} In f.n., xv, note, the editor reads three of these kunyahs differently. For my Abú Naṣr he reads Abú Shujá', for Abú Dulaf Abú Dáma, and for Abú 'l-Ḥusayn Abú 'l-Ḥasan. The zíj lacks, except in the bigger headings, nearly all vowel, and a great many diacritical, points: hence the spelling intended is sometimes uncertain.

^{page 230 note 3} Correct Kh.A., 119, where the text has Khusraw ibn Fírúz.

^{page 230 note 4} Ath. (B.), ix, 204.

^{page 230 note 5} M.Kh., and Kh.A. have Sa'id for Sa'd.

^{page 230 note 6} S.J. ff. 81a and 82b.

^{page 231 note 1} S.J., f. 2b.

^{page 231 note 2} Ath. (B.), ix, 199.

^{page 231 note 3} S.J., f. 47b. What Khwárizm-sháh ?—possibly Ismá'íl ibn Altúntásh, who, on being driven from his capital in 432 (1040–1), had sought refuge with the Seljuqids. See Bayhaqí, op. cit., 866–7, and Ath. (B), ix, 189.

^{page 232 note 1} Dh., f. 197a. M.Kh., 52, states that the Jalál al-Dawlah was given the laqab malik al-mulúk, but possibly this is merely an Arabic version of sháhánsháh, which had been used by several of the earlier Buwayhids. Cf. chahár maqáleh (Gibb Memorial, xi, trans.), 19, note 4. The word malik is also found on many earlier Buwayhid and Sámánid coins, but only in what may be called “prefatory” titles, which were used by provincial potentates during the fourth century in describing themselves, and were not officially conferred.

^{page 232 note 2} Ath. (B.), ix, 204.

^{page 232 note 3} Dh.. f. 176a.

^{page 233 note 1} Ath. (B.), ix, 192–3, 195, 205, 209; Dh., ff. 194a, 197a: M.Kh., 52–3. Dh., f. 176a (notice of Jalál al-Dawlah) states that al-'Azíz yielded up his sovereignty of his own accord to Abú Kálíjár.

^{page 233 note 2} S.J., f. 78b.

^{page 233 note 3} f.n., 133. He began building in 432 (1040–1), and finished in 440 (1048)—see Yáqút: mu'jam al-buldán, iii, 349.

^{page 233 note 4} Ath. (B.), ix, 196–7.

^{page 234 note 1} Ath. (B.), ix, 199; M.Kh., 53; t.g., 432. Ḥ.A., f. 95a confuses Abú Kálíjár with his father, the Sulṭán al-Dawlah.

^{page 234 note 2} f.n., 119.

^{page 234 note 3} Ath. has Jannáb.

^{page 234 note 4} Ath. (B.), ix, 203–4: Recueil, i, 2–3; M.Kh., 53; Ḥ.A., loc. cit. S.J.. f. 2b states that it was near al-Ahẇáz that Abú Kálíjár died, and on 15th jumádà'l-úlà.

^{page 235 note 1} Ath. (T.), ix, 387.

^{page 235 note 2} Ibid., 403–4.

^{page 235 note 3} Ath. (B.), ix, 226.

^{page 235 note 4} S.J., f. 29b.

^{page 236 note 1} Her name is given in the f.n., 166, and by S.J., f. 81a. It is stated in the introduction to the f.n., p. xiv, that she is referred to in the zíj. But I think it is clear that the sayyidah there mentioned is really a much more famous lady, the mother of the Majd al-Dawlah, who did, in fact, as the zíj adds, reign twenty years and die in 418 (1027–8)—the date, which is much too early for our sayyidah, being again given in “abjad” notation: tá-yá-ḥá.

^{page 236 note 2} Ath. (B.), ix, 207, 208–9; M.Kh., 54.

^{page 236 note 3} Ath. (B.), ix, 210.

^{page 236 note 4} It was these skirmishes that caused Náṣir-i Khusraw, then on his way home, to write: “I stayed in Mahrúibán because they said that the roads were unsafe on account of the sons of Abá Kálinjár, who were fighting and quarrelling with one another . . .” see safar-námeh (text), 91 (trans.), 249.

^{page 237 note 1} Ath. (B.), ix, 219–20, 222.

^{page 237 note 2} Ibid., 222; M.Kh., 54.

^{page 237 note 3} Ath. (B.), ix, 225–6; M.Kh., loc. cit., states that al-Raḥím occupied Fárs in person this year.

^{page 237 note 4} S.J., f. 10a.

^{page 238 note 1} See Le Strange, , The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 202Google Scholar; Ath. (B.), ix, 227–9; M.Kh. 54–6.

^{page 238 note 2} S.J., f. 14a.

^{page 238 note 3} Ath. (B.), ix, 244; t.g., 433; H.A., loc. cit. (this may be merely a copyist's error, however).

^{page 238 note 4} The f.n., on the other hand, being concerned only with the affairs of Fárs, ignores al-Raḥím practically altogether, stating that he died soon after his father (which is misleading); and makes Abú Kálíjár's effective successor Fúlád Sutún, p. 172 (Abú Naṣr = al-Raḥím, Abú Manṣúr = Fúlád Sutún).

^{page 238 note 5} Ath. (B.), ix, 226.

^{page 238 note 6} M.Kh., 56; Kh.A., 120.

^{page 238 note 7} S.J., f. 81a.

^{page 239 note 1} The identity of the al-Fasawí of Ath. with the ṣáḥib-i 'ádil of the f.n. is established by S.J., ff. 27b and 81a.

^{page 239 note 2} Ath. (T.), ix, 344.

^{page 239 note 3} f.n., 166.

^{page 239 note 4} Ath. (T.), ix, 349.

^{page 239 note 5} Ath. (T.), 401. By an error in the index to Tornberg's edition, this reference is attached to Ibn Máafannah—owing probably to the fact that both he and al-Fasawí were called al-'ádil Abú Manṣúr. But that it should really be attached to al-Fasawí is clear, since Ibn Máfannah had died ten years, earlier.

^{page 239 note 6} f.n., 139.

^{page 239 note 7} Possibly this means that he had striven to reconcile them.

^{page 239 note 8} S.J., f. 81a, names him Burmúzeh (?).

^{page 240 note 1} S.J., f. 27b; f.n., 166; M.Kh., 56; Kh.A., 120.

^{page 240 note 2} f.n., 172.

^{page 240 note 3} Encyclopædia of Islām, iv, 241.

^{page 240 note 4} f.n., 166.

^{page 240 note 5} Ibid.; S.J., f. 81a; M.Kh., 56; Kh.A., 120. t.g., 433, followed by M.Kh. and Kh.A., puts Fúlád Sutún's death in 448, saying that he had reigned eight years. But the authority of S.J. is, of course, far superior: his whole account of the subsequent contest between Faḍlawayh and Qáwurd follows convincingly on this beginning, and is dated in detail. Perhaps the error is due to a reckoning of Fúlád's reign as from the death of Abú Kálíjár instead of from the arrest of al-Raḥím. The editor of the ṭabaqát-i náṣiri (Bibliotheca Indica), 174, note, states that it was in 459 that Faḍlawayh killed Fúlád Sutún, but he cites no authority for the statement.

^{page 241 note 1} Jahram was famous for the castle of Khurshah (see Le Strange, op cit., 254), where Faḍlawayh was later besieged by the Niẓám al-Mulk (f.n., 131; S.J., f. 117b).

^{page 241 note 2} S.J., f. 82b; f.n., 166. In Recueil, ii, 31, it is stated that Qáwurd took Shíráz in 455 (the next year), perhaps because it was not, in fact, till then that he first decisively beat Faḍlawayh.

^{page 241 note 3} S.J., f. 29b.

^{page 242 note 1} S.J., f. 48b.

^{page 242 note 2} S. J. has Káfúr here, but—apart from the consideration that this would be a most unlikely name for a Daylamite (being usually reserved, facetiously, for negro slaves)—elsewhere he has Kám-rú and Kám-rawá, which latter, since it agrees with the zíj's, I have taken to be the correct version of this name.

^{page 242 note 3} S.J., f. 55b.

^{page 243 note 1} S.J., f. 11b; Ath. (B.), ix, 229.

^{page 243 note 2} Ath. (B.), ix, 231.

^{page 243 note 3} S.J., f. 29b.

^{page 243 note 4} Ath. (B.), x, 3.

^{page 243 note 5} S.J., f. 87b; Ath. (T.), x, 15.

^{page 243 note 6} Unless qumm wa qáshán has here been written in error for qirmísín or qirmásín.

^{page 244 note 1} S.J., f. 99b.

^{page 244 note 2} M.Kh., 57.

^{page 244 note 3} Ath. (B.), x, 26–7, places the campaign against Faḍlawayh in 464 (1071–2), and calls him Faḍlún—possibly confusing him with the Shaddádid of Arrán, against whom, though he does not mention it, Alp Arslán had moved in 460 (1067–8), see S.J., f. 111b. But S.J.'s time-table of Alp Arslán's reign is in general far more detailed, and I think, more convincing in passages where they disagree, than Ath.'s.

^{page 245 note 1} t.g., 433; M.Kh., 57; Kh.A., 120–1.

^{page 245 note 2} S.J., f. 230b.