Qāshānī, the First World Historian: Research on His Uninvestigated Persian General History, Zubdat Al-Tawārīkh

OSAMU OTSUKA THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

QĀSHĀNĪ, THE FIRST WORLD HISTORIAN: RESEARCH ON HIS UNINVESTIGATED PERSIAN GENERAL HISTORY, ZUBDAT AL-TAWĀRĪKH

SUMMARY It is well-known that Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, a historian at the court of the Ilkhanid rulers Ghazan and Öljeitü, claimed to be the true author of Rashīd al-Dīn’s famous Persian general history, the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. While his claim has been addressed in many previous studies, it has not been comprehensively examined via philological study. This article is the first attempt to make a philological study of all the surviving manuscripts of Qāshānī’s so far uninvestigated Persian general history, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. A close analysis of these manuscripts reveals that the compilation of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was ordered by Ghazan in 700/1300-1, and that the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, written in 706/1307, draws almost entirely from this book. As the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh covers a larger geographical area than the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, it has great potential not just for reconsidering the compilation process of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, but also for reconstructing the history of the Ilkhanids. Keywords: Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī; Rashīd al-Dīn; Zubdat al-Tawārīkh; Jāmi‘ al-Tawā- rīkh; Persian historiography; Ilkhanids.

RÉSUMÉ Il est bien connu qu’Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, l’historien de cour des souverains ilkhanides Ghazan et Öljeitü, affirmait être le véritable auteur de la célèbre histoire générale en persan de Rashīd al-Dīn, le Jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh. Si cette prétention a déjà été souvent discutée dans de précédents travaux, le Zubdat al-tawārīkh de Qāshānī n’a pas encore été méthodiquement examiné du point de vue de la philologie. Cet article se veut la première tentative d’une étude philologique de tous les manuscrits existants de cette histoire générale en persan. Une analyse attentive révèle que le livre fut entrepris sur ordre de Ghazan en 700/1300-1 et aussi que le second volume du Jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh fut composé en 706/1307 presque entièrement sur la base du Zubdat al-tawārīkh. Comme les événe- ments rapportés dans le Zubdat al-tawārīkh couvrent une zone géographique plus large, le livre présente un grand potentiel non seulement pour mieux comprendre la façon dont fut élaboré le Jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh, mais aussi pour faire l’histoire des Ilkhanides. Mots clés : Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī ; Rashīd al-Dīn ; Zubdat al-tawārīkh ; Jāmi‘ al- tawārīkh ; historiographie persane ; Ilkhanides.

119 STUDIA IRANICA 47, 2018, pp. 119-149 120 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

INTRODUCTION * The Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, written by the Ilkhanid vizier Rashīd al-Dīn (d. 1318) in 1307,1 is a Persian general history that is divided into three volumes: 1- History of the Mongols; 2- History of the World; 3- Geo- graphy of the World.2 Not only has this work been highly admired as an important primary source on the history of the Mongols, but it is also considered to be the ‘first world history’, which includes not just descrip- tions of Iran, but also of China, India, and Europe. This is described in John A. Boyle’s “Rashīd al-Dīn: The First World Historian,” as follows: Beginning with Adam and the Patriarchs the volume recounts the history of the pre-Islamic kings of Persia; of Muḥammad and the Caliphate down to its extinction by the Mongols in 1258; of the post- Muḥammadan dynasties of Persia; of Oghuz and his descendants, the Turks; of the Chinese; of the Jews; of the Franks and their Emperors and Popes; and of the Indians, with a detailed account of Buddha and Buddhism. Volume II is in fact the first universal history.3

* An earlier version of this article was published in Japanese as “Shijōhatsu no Sekaishika Kāshānī: Shūshi Hensan ni Kansuru Shinkenkai (Qāshānī, the First World Historian: A New Perspective on the Compilation Process of the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh),” Seinan Ajia Kenkyū (Bulletin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies) 80 (2014), pp. 25-48. The research for this article was supported by JSPS: KAKENHI Grant Number 12J10596, The Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation: Research Grant, and Heiwa Nakajima Foundation: Scholarship for Japanese to Study Abroad. I thank Dr David Durand-Guédy for revising French abstract of this article. 1 According to the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was dedicated to the eighth Ilkhanid ruler Öljeitü (r. 1304-1316) in 10 Shawwāl 706/14 April 1307 (TUA, f. 160a; TUH, p. 54). Two manuscripts of the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū have been preserved. One is the Istanbul manuscript (Süleymaniye Library, Ms. Ayasofya 3019/3: TUA), copied in 1351. The other is the Paris manuscript (Bibliothèque nationale, Ms. Suppl. persan 1419: TUP), copied in the nineteenth century. As it is believed that the Paris manuscript was copied directly from the Istanbul manuscript (Murtaḍawī 1385sh., p. 495), the Istanbul manuscript is important for this work. Although an edition of the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū (TUH) was made based on the Istanbul manuscript, plenty of problems have been identified in its text. Therefore, I use not only this edition, but also the best manuscript in this article. 2 The contents of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh are mentioned in the introduction to volume one (JTM, I, pp. 15-20). However, prior to about 1310, the contents may have appeared in four volumes rather than three. It is written in the introduction to the Jāmi‘ al-Taṣānīf-i Rashīdī, composed in about 1310, that the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was divided into four volumes: 1-History of the Mongols; 2-History of the World; 3- Genealogy of the Peoples of the World; 4-Geography of the World (MTR, pp. clix- clx). 3 Boyle 1971, p. 21. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 121

This opinion, that the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh should be considered as the first world history, is held by most scholars,4 and this work has long been regarded as an extremely valuable source of information.5 However, one claim has the potential to discredit this widespread opinion. It is well-known that Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī (d. after 1323-4), a historian contemporary of Rashīd al-Dīn, claimed to be the true author of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. While his claim has been addressed by many previous studies,6 it has not been comprehensively examined via philological study. This article presents the first attempt to clarify the true meaning of his claim, via consultation of all the surviving manuscripts of Qāshānī’s Persian general history, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. Although a great deal of research has been conducted on the manuscripts of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, most has focused on the first rather than the second volume.7 As is evident from the fact that Muḥammad Rawshan edited the first chapter of the second volume and titled it ‘History of Iran and Islam’ (Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Īrān wa Islām, ed. M. Rawshan, 3 vols., Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1392sh./2013), based wrongly on Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (d. 1430)’s revised edition of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, a lack of basic understanding prevails about the contents of the second volume.8 By consulting the uninvestigated manuscripts of Qāshānī’s Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, it is possible to gain a clear understanding of the true compilation process of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh.

I. QĀSHĀNĪ AND THE JĀMI‘ AL-TAWĀRĪKH I.1. Qāshānī’s claim Qāshānī repeatedly criticized Rashīd al-Dīn in his own work, the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, and claimed to be the true author of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawā- rīkh. He described Rashīd al-Dīn’s dedication of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh to Öljeitü as one of the most important events of the year 706/1306-7, as follows: On Friday of 10 [Shawwāl 706/14 April 1307], the minister of Iran, Khwāja Rashīd al-Dīn dedicated my compilation and literary composition, titled the Kitāb-i Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh to the king [Öljeitü], by

4 Although they are too numerous to mention here, see for example Jahn 1965, p. x; Jahn 1967, p. 81; and Pfeiffer 2013, p. 62. 5 For example, Edward G. Browne stated: “It is doubtful whether any Persian prose work can be compared to it in value, at any rate in the domain of history” (Browne 1951, III, p. 75). 6 For example, see Melville 2008, pp. 462a-462b; Kamola 2013, pp. 244-248. 7 For details, see Uno 2011. 8 Otsuka 2016. 122 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

the hands of rejected Jews. As a reward, he received fifty tumān from lands, village, and fields. Twenty tumān of the income from these places will reach him in total every year. However, regardless of the fact that he promised to give me half (bā wujūd-i wa‘da-yi tanṣīf),9 he did not give me any money. I made a great deal of effort and composed for several years.10

Qāshānī’s claim can be summarized as follows: (1) Qāshānī is the author of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh; (2) Rashīd al-Dīn stole Qāshānī’s work; (3) Rashīd al-Dīn dedicated Qāshānī’s work to Öljeitü and received all the rewards; and (4) Qāshānī did not receive any recognition. Qāshānī repeated the same claim in the last chapter of his Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū.11

I.2. Comments on Qāshānī’s claim The claim made by Qāshānī in the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū was first noted by Charles Schefer, the former owner of the Paris manuscript.12 The claim came to be accepted by Edgard Blochet, who doubted Rashīd al-Dīn’s overall authorship of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Comparing the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh with Qāshānī’s Persian general history, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Blochet concluded that Rashīd al-Dīn stole Qāshānī’s work, and dedicated it to Öljeitü in his own name.13 However, most scholars did not accept this opinion;14 nowadays, the common view is that Rashīd al-Dīn used an entourage of research assistants and compilers, perhaps including Qāshānī. Scholars have also sometimes objected to Qāshānī’s claim to authorship by criticizing him. For example, Yuri E. Bregel introduces the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh in his comprehensive bibliographical work as follows: The Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, compiled in Öljeitü’s reign (703-716/1304- 1316), is a general history from the age of Adam to the fall of Bagh- dad that comprises a preface (pre-Islamic history) and two chapters: 1. Pre-Islamic kings of Persia and 2. From Muḥammad onwards. As

9 Mahīn Hamblī interpreted these terms to read “ bā wujūd-i wa‘da bi taṣnīf ”. However, in terms of meaning and letter shape in the Istanbul manuscript, I interpret these terms as “ bā wujūd-i wa‘da-yi tanṣīf ”. 10 TUA, f. 160a; TUH, pp. 54-55. 11 TUA, f. 241b; TUH, pp. 240-241. 12 Schefer 1895, p. 12. 13 Blochet 1910, pp. 128-157. This opinion is translated into the Persian language (Murtaḍawī 1385sh., pp. 452-544). However, prior to his work published in 1910, Blochet had a negative view of Qāshānī’s claim (Blochet 1898, pp. 43-44; Blochet 1905, pp. 283-284). 14 For example, see Qazwīnī 1339sh., pp. 296-297; Nafīsī 1363sh., I, p. 151; Id., II, pp. 733-734; Ṣafā 1372sh., pp. 1231-1232; Mudarrisī Zanjānī 1364sh., pp. 1-2, 15; Āl-i Dāwūd 1373sh., p. 173b; Daftary 2004, pp. 48-49; Afshār 1386sh., p. xvi; Melville 2008, pp. 462a-462b. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 123

mentioned by Ismā‘īl Khān Afshār, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh is nothing but a collection of some previous historical works (e.g. ‘Utbī’s al-Yamīnī, Nīshāpūrī’s Saljūq-nāma). When compiling the last version of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh at the order of Rashīd al-Dīn, however, Abū al-Qāsim Kāshānī did not just copy it verbatim, he added his name to the work.15

The Zubdat al-Tawārīkh is the work used by Blochet as the basis for his argument for his acceptance of Qāshānī’s claim. Although it has long been neglected by scholars,16 Alexander H. Morton, who recently consulted the history of the Saljuqids in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, did write some articles that addressed this issue. In this context, it is notable that Morton also admitted to Qāshānī’s authority in the same way as Blochet.17 The key to the solution of this problem appears to be Qāshānī’s general history, which bears a close resemblance to the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. For this reason, Blochet and Morton, the only two scholars to compare the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh with the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, supported Qāshānī’s claim, while almost all others have not.18 Because just two chapters of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh have been edited —i.e. the history of the Saljuqids (ZTS) and the history of the Isma‘ilis (ZTI)—, the entirety of the text has never been known to scholars. Thus, it has repeatedly been assumed that Rashīd al-Dīn was a leading historian and that Qāshānī was the original author’s assistant, without consulting the works of the latter. As Qāshānī called Rashīd al-Dīn “my master” (makhdūm-i man)19 and dedicated one of his works, the ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, to him,20 it became clear that the two had a patron-client relationship. At the same time, however, this does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Qāshānī was Rashīd al-Dīn’s assistant. It is notable that there are no contemporaries who noted that Qāshānī assisted Rashīd al-Dīn with the composition of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. On the other hand, Blochet and

15 Bregel 1972, p. 321. 16 This was not mentioned in the latest comprehensive research on Persian historiography (Melville 2012). 17 Morton 2004, pp. 23-25; Morton 2010, p. 167. 18 Ismā‘īl Khān Afshār was the only scholar who consulted the text of the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh and did not accept Qāshānī’s claim. As Afshār compared the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh with previous Persian historical works, he concluded that the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh was plagiarized from earlier literature (Afshār 1312sh., pp. 28-29). How- ever, if we evaluate the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh from such a perspective, the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, which has almost the same contents and chapters, must also be considered a plagiarized work. Afshār did not mention this point, and severely criticized the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, while highly commending the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh. 19 TUA, f. 160a; TUH, p. 55. 20 AJI2, f. 3b. 124 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

Morton, who admitted to Qāshānī’s authority, were able to consult just a small portion of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, and so did not have a complete picture of this work. As a result, the discussions of these earlier scholars are insufficient for the purpose; it is now appropriate to examine Qāshānī’s career and his so far uninvestigated historical work, the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh.

II. WHO WAS QĀSHĀNĪ? As evidenced by the entry of the Encyclopædia Iranica, no detailed information is available about Qāshānī’s career.21 He refers to himself as “Abū al-Qāsim ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad b. Abī Ṭāhir al-Qāshā- nī”22 in his own works (the last portion, “ b. Abī Ṭāhir ”, is absent from some manuscripts23). The exact dates of Qāshānī’s birth and death remain unknown.24 However, because Hindū-shāh b. Sanjar Nakhjiwānī (d. ca. 1330) wished him longevity (dāmat ayyām-hu) in his Tajārib al-Salaf,25 composed in 724/1323-4, it can be assumed that he died at some point after this. In this work, Qāshānī was praised as “ a king of learned men, a model of historians ” (malik al-afāḍil, qudwat al-mu’arrikhīn).26 Because he came from the Abū Ṭāhir family of potters,27 Qāshānī had a thorough knowledge of this craft and even wrote a short treatise on ceramic manufacture. He, however, proclaimed himself not a potter, but a historian (mu’arrikh)28 and a mathematician (ḥāsib).29 It does appear that Qāshānī was a historian at the courts of the Ilkhanid rulers, Ghazan (r. 1295-1304) and Öljeitü (r. 1304-16), and had close asso- ciations with their viziers, Rashīd al-Dīn and Tāj al-Dīn ‘Alī-shāh

21 Soucek 1985. 22 AJI1, f. 60b; AJI2, f. 2b; AJL, f. 124b. For his name, Qāshānī, qāf (rather than kāf) is used with consistency. 23 AJI1, f. 2a; AJL, f. 3b; ZTB, f. 1b; ZTH1, f. 2a; ZTT1, ff. 189b-190a; TUA, f. 138a. In addition, the element “ Abū al-Qāsim” is absent from the Hyderabad manuscript (ZTH2, f. 2a). 24 His date of death is only mentioned as 836/1432-3 in the Kashf al-Ẓunūn, composed in the 17th century (KZ, p. 951). However, because this date is later than the century when Qāshānī lived, it lacks credibility. 25 This work describes Islamic history from the time of Muḥammad to the Abbasid dynasty and was based on the Arabic Kitāb al-Fakhrī, composed in 1302. Hindū- shāh is the father of Muḥammad b. Hindū-shāh Nakhjiwānī, who is the author of the famous Dastūr al-Kātib. 26 TS, p. 325. Hindū-shāh mentioned his name as “ Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Qāsim Kāshī ”. His contemporary, Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī (d. ca.1344), also mentioned his name in this form (TG, p. 7). 27 This family name came from his great grandfather, Abū Ṭāhir. For further information about this family, see Watson 1985. 28 ZTT1, f. 190a. 29 AJI2, f. 2b. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 125

(d. 1324). He was famous for authoring three works at the Ilkhanid court: (i) ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, a mineralogy book, composed in 700/1300-1 and initially dedicated to Rashīd al-Dīn, before being re-dedicated to Tāj al- Dīn; (ii) Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, a general history that was ordered in 700/1300-1 and initially dedicated to Ghazan, before being re-dedicated to Öljeitü; and (iii) Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, a chronology of the reign of Öljeitü, composed the year after Öljeitü’s death.30 Although his first work has been consulted by art historians31 and his third has been discussed by historians,32 few scholars have studied his second work, the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh.

III. WHAT IS THE ZUBDAT AL-TAWĀRĪKH? III.1. Surviving manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh The only scholar to show an interest in the manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh and to conduct some basic research on them was Ḥamīd Riḍā Dālwand. He discovered that the Tbilisi manuscript (National Center of Manuscripts, Ms. P84),33 one of six manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh identified by Muḥammad Taqī Dānish-pazhūh, is, in fact, one of the Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf, and not part of the work in question.34 Unfortunately, however, Dālwand did not do any further philological research. Here, I enumerate the existing manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, some of which consist of almost the entire work while others exist only in fragmented forms. The list below sets out the manuscripts with which I am acquainted, or for which I have found records: (i) Tehran, Tehran University Central Library, Ms. 5715.35 256 folios. Naskh. 25 lines. Size: 23 cm × 16 cm (17 cm × 11 cm). Formerly belonging to the libraries of Sa‘īd Nafīsī and ‘Abbās Iqbāl.36 Copy dated 25 Jumādā Ist 717/28 July 1317 by ‘Abd al- Wahhāb b. Akhī Muḥammad b. Jastān b. Akhī Muḥammad al- Biyābānakī at the caravansary of Rashīd al-Dīn in Sulṭānīya. Encompasses the history of the prophets and caliphs from creation to the Abbasids (the first few folios are lacking, starting with the middle of Jamshīd’s account, missing the years 256-607/869-1211).

30 Soucek 1985. 31 For example, see Allan 1973. 32 For example, see Melville 1998. 33 Mudabbir Chārburjī 1384sh., pp. 185-186. 34 Dānish-pazhūh 1364sh., pp. 284b-285b; Dālwand 1382sh. 35 Dānish-pazhūh 1357sh., pp. 74b-75a. 36 Iqbāl Āshtiyānī 1324sh., p. 40. 126 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

(ii) Berlin, State Library, Ms. Minutoli 237.37 224 folios. Nasta‘līq.38 17 lines. Size: 25.5 cm × 17.5 cm (18.5 cm × 12 cm). Copy datable to between the 16th and 17th century. Encom- passes the history of the prophets and caliphs from creation to the Umayyads (missing the years after 65/684-5). (iii) Tehran, Tehran University Central Library, Ms. 9067.39 407 folios. Nasta‘līq. 19 lines. Size: 24 cm×18 cm (18 cm×13 cm). Formerly belonging to the library of I. Kh. Afshār. Copy dated Muḥ- arram 989/1581. This is the most complete manuscript, encompas- sing the history of the prophets and caliphs from creation to the Abbasids (the first few folios are lacking, missing the years after 430/1038-9), and the history of the peoples of the world. (iv) Tehran, Tehran University Central Library, Ms. Adabīyāt 35J.40 36 folios. Nasta‘līq. 19 lines. Size: 24 cm×18 cm (18 cm×14 cm). Copy dated Muḥarram 989/1581. Encompasses the history of the Ghaznavids. This copy is a portion of manuscript (iii). (v) Hyderabad, Telangana State Archives and Research Institute, Ms. 121.41 127 folios. Nasta‘līq. 21 lines. Size: 24.5 cm×15 cm (18 cm×10 cm). Copy datable to the 17th century. Encompasses the history of the prophets and kings from creation to the Sassanids. (vi) Hyderabad, Telangana State Archives and Research Institute, Ms. 459.42 67 folios. Nasta‘līq. 21 lines. Size: 24.5 cm×15 cm (18 cm×10 cm). Copy datable to the 17th century. Encompasses the histories of the Jews and the Chinese. This copy is a portion of manuscript (v). (vii) Tehran, Tehran University Central Library, Ms. 5210.43 116 folios. Nasta‘līq. 22 lines. Size: 22 cm×17.5 cm (16 cm × 14.5 cm). Copy dated Dhū al-Qa‘da 1311/1894 by Faḍl Allāh Khān

37 Pertsch 1888, pp. 385-386. 38 Although Wilhelm Pertsch noted that this manuscript was copied in Shikasta hand, I judge that it was copied in Nasta‘līq hand. 39 Dānish-pazhūh 1364sh., pp. 284b-285b. 40 Dānish-pazhūh 1339sh., p. 147. Although this manuscript has been identified as the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, as a result of my comprehensive philological research, I suggest that this is a portion of the Tehran manuscript (Tehran University Central Library, Ms. 9067) that was registered separately. 41 The manuscript catalogue of this institute has not been published. 42 Although this manuscript has been identified as Qāshānī’s Tārīkh-i Banī Isrā’īl in this institute’s handwriting register, as a result of my comprehensive philological research, I suggest that this is a portion of the Hyderabad manuscript (Telangana State Archives and Research Institute, Ms. 121) that was registered separately. 43 Dānish-pazhūh 1345sh., pp. 4152b-4153a. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 127

Ḥaqīq, copied directly from manuscript (iii). Encompasses the history of the Isma‘ilis. (viii) Tehran, Walī-‘aṣr Mosque, Ms. ? (not examined).44 Copy datable to the 19th century. Encompasses the history of the prophets and caliphs from creation to the rightly guided caliphs. (ix) Qazvin, no details (not examined).45

Because Dānish-pazhūh and Karl Jahn did not mention the details of the libraries holding manuscripts (viii) and (ix), these remain unknown. Unfortunately, as is clear from the list above, no complete Zubdat al- Tawārīkh manuscript remains and no exact information is available about this work. Nevertheless, mainly using the manuscripts (iii) and (iv), it is possible to reconstruct the original contents of this work, as follows: (i) General Preface, (ii) Creation, (iii) Pre-Islamic history, (iv) Islamic history, (v) History of Aleppo, (vi) History of Diyarbakir and Mosul, (vii) History of Irbil, (viii) Tahirids, (ix) Samanids, (x) Ghaznavids, (xi) Saljuqids, (xii) Khwarazmshahids, (xiii) Salghurids, (xiv) Isma‘ilis, (xv) Ayyubids, (xvi) Ghurids, (xvii) History of Maghrib, (xviii) Saljuqids of Rum, (xix) Oghuz Turks, (xx) Chinese, (xxi) Jews, (xxii) Franks, and (xxiii) Hindus.46 As these contents show, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh and the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh are closely-related, although there are some differences, for example in the case of the history of the Salju- qids, as pointed out by Morton.47 In addition, because the chapters (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (xv), (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) are not present in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, we can conclude that the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh covers a larger geographical area than the former work and contains original historical information.

44 Dānish-pazhūh 1364sh., pp. 285a-285b. With the exception of the description published by Dānish-pazhūh, no information is available concerning this library. Although the Walī-‘aṣr mosque in Tehran seems to be the same as the present-day Qanbar ‘Alī Khān (Ḥaḍrat-i Walī-‘aṣr) mosque, I have been unable to find the manuscript mentioned by Dānish-pazhūh in the catalogue of this library (Ḥusayn Ḥakīm 1386sh.). 45 Jahn 1963, p. 200. 46 Also see Table 1, infra. There are some lacunae and disorder in the folios; thus, I placed each chapter in chronological order. It is possible that the order of its contents is different from the original version. 47 Morton 2010, p. 167; for the case of the history of the Isma‘ilis, see MTS, pp. 61- 103. 128 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

III.2. General preface to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh The general preface to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh contains a large amount of information that relates to the purpose of the author. After praising Öljeitü, Qāshānī continues, as follows: According to his [Öljeitü’s] absolute order—may his kingship last forever!—, the request of the age, and the change of the events, I [Qāshānī] wanted to write the history of the fourth region (iqlīm), which is the best place of the seven countries (haft kishwar) and the most selected part of the world (rub‘-i maskūn), with the careers of pādshāhs and sulṭāns of each period, who were leaders and chiefs of the land of Iran (zamīn-i Īrān), and information concerning maliks, prophets, and caliphs of each era, from the period of the selected person Adam—peace be upon him!—to nowadays which is the year 700 in the lunar calendar [1300-1 of the solar calendar], based on Muslim’s way of thinking, briefly. From historical and contemporary sources, I selected and abridged some authoritative and famous historical books including, for example, [The History of] Kamāl al- Dīn Ibn Athīr, Ta’rīkh Sa‘īd Kātib Wāqidī, and Maghāzī, as the amulet and appendix of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Because, in truth, the history of Persians and Arabs is a part of the whole, a branch of the main, or a river of the sea, in comparison with it [the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh].48 As is clear from this citation, Qāshānī’s purpose was simply to provide a concise history of the kings of Iran, as well as the prophets and caliphs, from creation to the year of 700/1300-1, that would serve as an appendix of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, by the order of Öljeitü. Qāshānī’s sources for this work were Ibn Athīr (d. 1233),49 Wāqidī (d. 823), and the author of the Maghāzī (probably Ibn Isḥāq). It is also noteworthy that Qāshānī did not mention the title of his work, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, in the preface but only at the beginning of chapter two.50 Although previous studies have suggested that the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was composed during the reign of Öljeitü, between 1304 and 1316,51 Qāshānī claims that he completed this work at an earlier date. Because the date of compilation, 700/1300-1, falls within the reign of Ghazan, before

48 ZTB, f. 2a ; ZTH1, ff. 2a-2b. Part of the preface of this work was already transcribed by Blochet (1910, pp. 140-142). See also my complete transcript of the preface (Table 2). 49 We can see the citation from Ibn Athīr in its text (ZTT1, f. 198b; ZTI, p. 45). 50 ZTT1, f. 66b; ZTT3, f. 85a. Because this part remained blank in the Berlin manuscript (ZTB, f. 102b), the title Lubb al-Tawārīkh is written on its front page and fore edge in its owner’s hand. 51 For example, see Jahn 1963, p. 200; Bregel 1972, p. 321. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 129

Öljeitü’s enthronement, this citation implies that the writing of the general history had already begun during Ghazan’s reign. However, there is an issue with this preface that necessitates verification based on other sources: it was written not for Ghazan but Öljeitü.

III.3. Chapter prefaces in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh The general preface to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh notes that the contents of this work are divided into three parts: a foreword (muqaddama) concerning history from Adam to Noah; chapter (qism) one on Pre-Islamic history; and chapter two discussing Islamic history.52 The chapters of the history of the world are not introduced in the general preface. Instead, each chapter starts with its own preface. In addition, the author mentions his name in prefaces that relate to the histories of the Isma‘ilis and Jews.53 The Zubdat al-Tawārīkh therefore appears to be a collection of various historical works, rather than a well-organized one. In particular, the preface that deals with the history of the Isma‘ilis is longer and more detailed than the general preface. It is written that, by the order of Ghazan, Qāshānī composed a compendium of histories of the peoples of the world (jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh-i sāyir-i umam-i ‘ālam) including the Turks, Tajiks, Hindus, Jews, [peoples from] the countries of Khaṭā, Chīn, and Manzī, the Franks, Nazarenes (naṣārā), Muslims, Christians (tarsā), Arabs, Persians, and peoples of the East and West; and subsequent to this, he supplemented the history of the Isma‘ilis to his Jāmi‘ al-Tawā- rīkh.54 Qāshānī’s argument that he composed this history as an appendix, or as one part of his Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, mentioned in the general preface as well as one that precedes the history of the Isma‘ilis, can also be seen in the preface to the histories of the Franks and Chinese.55 Qāshānī also claimed that his purpose for composition was to write a history of the peoples of the world (tārīkh-i jumla-yi aṣnāf-i ‘ālam) in the preface to the history of the Saljuqids.56 In addition, in the preface to the history of the Jews, he mentions that he started to write this history after finishing the history of the Hindus.57 It is clear, therefore, that Qāshānī continued to write chapters of his history of the world, one after another. In fact, he used the title Zubdat al-Tawārīkh just for the first part of his general history

52 ZTB, ff. 2a-2b; ZTH1, f. 2b. 53 ZTT1, ff. 189b-190a; ZTI, p. 3; ZTH2, f. 2a. 54 ZTT1, ff. 189b-190a; ZTI, pp. 3-4. Based on this description, Morton admitted to Qāshānī’s authority (Morton 2004, pp. 23-25). 55 ZTT1, ff. 308a, 370a, 370b; ZTH2, ff. 63b, 65a. 56 ZTT1, f. 277b. 57 ZTH2, f. 2a. 130 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018 concerning Pre-Islamic and Islamic history,58 and called the latter part, the history of the peoples of the world the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. In Qāshānī’s view, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh might be included in his history of the world. Although we might call it the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, if we do so, we may confuse it with Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Therefore, I refer to Qāshānī’s work as the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh in this article.

III.4. Date of composition of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh As previously described, Qāshānī mentioned the year of composition, 700/1300-1, in his general preface. In addition, as the same year of composition was mentioned in the histories of the Saljuqids of Rum,59 as well as in the histories of Diyarbakir and Mosul, the Chinese, Franks, and Hindus in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh,60 it is clear that Qāshānī started to compose these chapters under Ghazan’s reign. Ghazan’s name was also mentioned as a patron of his history of peoples of the world.61 As noted in Qāshānī’s other work, the ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, “when the author of this book [Qāshānī] was ordered to collect the history of the world (tawārīkh-i ‘ālam) by the king of justice, Ghāzān Khān, I found out about the history of India as follows: …”,62 it is obvious that he started to write a history of peoples of the world during the reign of Ghazan. In addition, given the fact that the chapter that deals with the history of the Hindus has three different dates of composition, 700/1300-1, 702/1302- 3, and 703/1303-4,63 it is likely that this section took four years to complete. This is explained by the fact that Qāshānī composed the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh chapter-by-chapter, and therefore, its chapters display different dates. This also explains why the name of Öljeitü is mentioned in the general preface, written in 700/1300-1. Because a number of dated events within Öljeitü’s reign are mentioned in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, it is clear that Qāshānī continued to update his history of peoples of the world during the reign of this sovereign; these include the events of 711/1311-2,

58 ZTT1, f. 66b; ZTT3, f. 85a. 59 However, as the last event in the entry on the Saljuqids of Rum took place in the winter of 701/1301-2 (ZTT1, f. 255b), Qāshānī might have continued to write after 700/1300-1. 60 ZTT1, ff. 254b, 255b (Fig. 1), 273b, 315b, 316b, 323a, 335b; ZTH2, f. 63a. 61 ZTT1, ff. 190a, 370a, 370b; ZTI, p. 3; ZTH2, ff. 2a, 63b, 65a. However, as Qāshānī’s prayer for Ghazan in the history of the Jews is a prayer for the deceased (ZTH2, f. 2a), and he did not mention the date of composition here, we cannot deny the possibility that this chapter was composed after Ghazan’s death. 62 AJI2, ff. 50b-51a. There are two versions of manuscript of the ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir: one is dedicated to Rashīd al-Dīn (AJI2), the other is dedicated to Tāj al-Dīn ‘Alī Shāh (AJI1 and AJL). This sentence only exists in the former version. 63 ZTT1, ff. 335b, 351a, 347a. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 131

712/1312-3 and 715/1315-6 within the section on the history of the Hindus,64 and 708/1308-9 and 709/1309-10 in the section on the history of Irbil.65 The confusion that the general preface, which has the date 700/ 1300-1, was written not for Ghazan but Öljeitü, seems to be due to the fact that Qāshānī rewrote it during Öljeitü’s reign. We therefore conclude that the compilation of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was started by the order of Ghazan, in 700/1300-1, and that the first edition was apparently composed by 703/1303-4, while Ghazan was still alive. Finally, around 715/1315-6, the revised version was dedicated to Öljeitü.

IV. THE SECOND VOLUME OF THE JĀMI‘ AL-TAWĀRĪKH RECONSIDERED IV.1. General preface to the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh If we conclude that the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was composed during Ghazan’s reign, how can we explain its similarity with the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, considered to be Qāshānī’s source? The key to this problem seems to be found in the general preface to the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. The first volume of this work, which deals with the history of the Mongols, has received more attention than the second, which deals with the history of the world, perhaps because the second volume does not include detailed information about the contemporary period of the author. It is nevertheless very strange that no scholars have mentioned the preface to the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh when discussing this source. In the Istanbul manuscript (Topkapı Palace Library, Ms. Hazine 1654), the oldest copy of the second volume of the Persian Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh dated 3 Jumādā Ist 717/14 July 1317, we read: According to God’s support, information on the seven regions (iqlīm) from the East to the West was collected. And I [the author] wanted to write the history of the fourth region (iqlīm), which is the centre of the seven countries (haft kishwar) and the best and the most selected part of the world (rub‘-i maskūn), with the careers of pādshāhs and rulers of the land of Iran (Īrān-zamīn), from the period of Adam to nowadays which is the year of 700 of the lunar calendar [1300-1 of the solar calendar], based on a Muslim’s way of thinking. Of course, all responsibility for this lies with the author. I selected and abridged books of contemporaries, as the amulet and appendix

64 ZTT1, ff. 345b, 346a. This section was inserted in the history of the Hindus, whose event can be dated to 715/1315-6, in the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū (TUA, ff. 215b-220a; TUH, pp. 184-194). 65 ZTT1, ff. 274b, 275a. This section was inserted in the history of Irbil in the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū. In this work, the history of Irbil continues up to an event which occurred in Muḥarram 717/1317 (TUA, ff. 184a-186b; TUH, pp. 110-116). 132 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

of historical books. Because, in truth, it is a part of the whole, a branch of the main, or a river of the sea.66 If one takes into account the preface to the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, one may get the impression that it is written in a very simple and similar style to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. It is surprising that no mention is made of the name of the author and work. At the same time, it is shorter by about a half, and less detailed than the general preface to the Zubdat al- Tawārīkh.67 There are three significant differences between these two texts: there is no mention of a patron’s name; there is no mention of a source; and there is no mention of the title, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Most importantly, Rashīd al-Dīn does not mention himself by name, but just refers to a “preacher who prays to God (du‘ā-gū-yi ḥāmid-i qadīma-yi karīm)”.68 Finally, it is strange that the recorded date of the composition of this work is 700/1300-1, during Ghazan’s reign. We know that Rashīd al-Dīn started to compose the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh by the order of Öljeitü,69 therefore based on this comparison of their prefaces, it is probable that the former might be an abridgement of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh.

IV.2. Chapter prefaces in the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh Each chapter of the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh has its own preface. However, Rashīd al-Dīn did not mention his own name in any of these sections, with the single exception of the preface to the history of the Isma‘ilis. Here, without mentioning the name of his patron, he wrote the name of the author, “Rashīd al-Ṭabīb”, and explained that he started to write this history of the Isma‘ilis as a supplement to the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, after writing histories of other peoples of the world, including the Turks, Chinese, Hindus, Jews, Nazarenes (naṣārā), Franks, people of the West, and Persians.70 This preface is similar to that of the history of the Isma‘ilis in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, as is also the case for its general preface. It may suggest that this chapter of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh is an abridgement of the corresponding chapter of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. In the Jāmi‘ al-

66 JTT1, ff. 1b. 67 See Table 2. 68 JTT1, f. 1b. There are a few extant manuscripts that preserve the general preface to the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Almost all of them have the same text (JTG, f. 1b; JTL, f. 1b; JTR2, f. 1b; JTR3, f. 1b; JTME, f. 1b). One is replaced by the name Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Bukhārī (JTT2, f. 1b). For further details on the surviving manuscripts of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, see Otsuka 2016, pp. 58-61. 69 JTM, I, pp. 1-9. 70 JTI, pp. 1-2. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 133

Tawārīkh, the name of Ghazan is deleted and the name of Qāshānī is replaced by that of Rashīd al-Dīn.71 It is also strange, yet noteworthy, that the author’s name in this chapter is written in a very simple style, as just “Rashīd al-Ṭabīb”. Normally, when an author mentions his name in the preface to his work, it is usually to present himself in a more detailed style, including the ism, kunya, and nisba in pre-modern Persian historiography. In the introduction to the first volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Rashīd al-Dīn refers to himself as “Faḍl Allāh b. Abī al-Khayrāt al-mulaqqab bi-Rashīd Ṭabīb Hamadānī”,72 while in his later works he uses different, but similar, styles including “Faḍl Allāh b. Abī al-Khayr b. ‘Ālī/‘Alī al-mushtahar/al-mashhūr/al-mulaqqab bi-Rashīd/al-Rashīd al-Ṭabīb/Ṭabīb”.73 Even though he was commonly called “Rashīd al-Ṭabīb”, this was not his formal name. Although he sometimes employed a simple style, such as “Rashīd al-Ṭabīb”74 or “Faḍl Allāh”75 in his texts, this was not suitable for the preface to his works, where he usually used the formal style.76 In addition to the history of the Isma‘ilis, three prefaces of the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh mention the title of this work.77 Although some prefaces of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh mention that the chapter will be composed as a supplement to the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, some introductory sections of Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh mention instead that the chapter is part of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. This subtle difference in these texts possibly means that when Rashīd al-Dīn started to write his general history, a history of the world entitled Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, had already been composed by Qāshānī.

71 Compare this preface with ZTT1, ff. 189b-190b; ZTI, pp. 1-5. 72 JTM, I, p. 35. 73 SHP, f. 1b; TR, I, p. 307; Id., II, pp. 457, 510, 633, 653, 705, 833, 841; MT, pp. 40, 253; MS, p. 95; LH, I, pp. 130, 131, 147, 165, 243, 245, 345, 363; Id., II, pp. 513, 573, 667, 687, 705, 812, 875, 883; BH, pp. 1, 95, 103, 155, 163, 169, 275, 323-324, 331, 341, 351, 393, 401; AA, pp. 1, 190, 192, 224, 237, 242, 249, 256, 267, 349, 412, 415; WN, pp. 35, 113, 132, 133, 180, 218, 236, 239. Sometimes “ b. ‘Ālī ” is omitted from his name, or sometimes “ al-Hamadānī ” is added. 74 JTM, II, pp. 1283, 1311; TR, I, pp. 85, 99, 131, 165, 243, 335; Id., II, pp. 615, 821; AA, p. 180. 75 LH, I, pp. 137, 139. 76 It is noteworthy here that quite a few manuscripts remain that contain a chapter on the history of the Isma‘ilis. For example, among six manuscripts, which were introduced in footnote 68, only one manuscript includes it, but the author’s name has been removed (JTT2, f. 266b). 77 JTS, p. 3; JTB, p. 1; JTH, p. 2. 134 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

IV.3. Date of composition of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh Rashīd al-Dīn started to write the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawā- rīkh at the order of Öljeitü, who was enthroned on 17 Dhū al-Ḥijja 703/ 21 July 1304.78 However, the date of composition of the general preface is mentioned as 700/1300-1. In addition, several other dates of composition exist in the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, including 703/1303-4 and 705/1305-6 in the history of the Hindus,79 704/1304-5 in the history of the Chinese,80 and 705/1305-6 in the history of the Franks.81 These dates are technically included within the reign of Öljeitü. He, however, was enthroned two weeks before the end of the year 703/ 1303-4. Did he order Rashīd al-Dīn to compose the history of the peoples of the world during these two weeks? Above all, could Rashīd al-Dīn have even started to compose the history of the Hindus on such a tight schedule? In the case of other parts of the second volume, even if he worked collaboratively with many able assistants, could he newly compose the history of the world from the beginning, so admired by modern scholars? Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (d. 1323) noted that the painter ‘Afīf al-Dīn was illustrating Rashīd al- Dīn’s work in 705/1305-6.82 If this work was the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, then some chapters of this work were composed during that year. Such a short time period of composition nevertheless implies that the project of writing the history of the world had already begun during the reign of Ghazan.

V. THE REAL INTENTION OF QĀSHĀNĪ’S CLAIM

V.1. The Zubdat al-Tawārīkh as the main source of the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh It is clear that the contents of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh and the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh are closely related, and that the date of composition of the former is earlier than the latter. Above all, in the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, initiated after Ghazan’s death, the author declares that it was written during his reign. This evidence suggests the possibility that Rashīd al-Dīn composed the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh based almost entirely on the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, a totally opposite scenario to the prevailing dogma that Qāshānī copied Rashīd al- Dīn’s work. The second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh itself provides evidence in support of this possibility.

78 TUA, f. 149b; TUH, p. 30. 79 JTH, pp. 4, 66, 73. 80 JTK, pp. 7, 11, 34, 37. 81 JTF, pp. 17, 18, 19, 39, 122. 82 MAA, pp. 478-479. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 135

One of the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh is the Edinburgh manuscript (Edinburgh University Main Library, Ms. Or. 20), an Arabic version of this work that was copied in 714/1314-5.83 At the start of chapter two, the following text is written in red letters (see Fig. 2):84

القسم الثانی من زبدة التواريخ فی ذکر احوال سيد االصفياء محمد المصطفی عليه افضل الصلوات و اکمل التحيات و ذلک علی ثلثة اقسام

Amazingly, the chapter title of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh states that the title of this work is the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. A reproduction of this folio was provided by Sheila Blair.85 Although everyone can access this out-of- place expression as one of the chapters of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, nobody has ever noticed its existence.86 Above all, it is written in the colophon of chapter one in the Edinburgh manuscript that the author of this work [Rashīd al-Dīn] finished writing this section on 2 Rajab 706/7 January 1307.87 It thus appears that the first part of the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was not completed until this year, the same date that the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was dedicated to Öljeitü. It is notable that this description is present not just in the Arabic version of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, but in almost all Persian versions as well.88 It is written in the oldest surviving Persian manuscript of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, copied in 1317, as follows:89

قسم دوم از زبدة التواريخ در ذکر سيد االصفياء محمد مصطفی عليه افضل الصلوات و التحيات و خلفاء رضوان ﷲ عليھم اجمعين تا آخر روزگار المعتصم (کذا) با- و احداث و وقايع که به زمان ھر يک واقع شده از فتوحات و ظھور ملوک و استيالی متغلبان به اطراف و غير آن. و آن مشتمل است بر چھار طبقه

83 There are different opinions concerning the relation between this manuscript and the London manuscript of the Arabic Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, copied in 714/1314-5 (Khalili Collection, Ms. 727). Sheila Blair pointed out that the two manuscript fragments can be seen to belong to a single copy of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, which was later divided, and transmitted separately (Blair 1995, pp. 15-36). In this article, thus I set the date of copy of the Edinburgh manuscript as 714/1314-5. 84 JTE, f. 39a. 85 Blair 1995, p. 20. 86 In fact, this description has been mentioned in some Persian manuscript catalogues. For example, see Browne 1908, p. 24. 87 JTE, f. 38b. 88 JTT1, f. 51b; JTR1, f. 58b; JTT2, f. 57b; JTG, f. 57a; JTL, f. 55a; JTQ, f. 18b; JTMS, f. 26b; JTR2, f. 48a; JTR3, f. 58b. Only one manuscript of the Persian version, copied in the nineteenth century contains the chapter title “Chapter two of the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh” (JTME, f. 47a). It seems that the copyist of this manuscript replaced the title Zubdat al-Tawārīkh with Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. 89 JTT1, f. 51b. 136 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

Fig. 1: The Tehran Manuscript of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh (ZTT1, f. 255b). © Central Library and Documentation Center of the University of Tehran.

Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 137

Fig. 2: The Edinburgh Manuscript of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh (JTE, f. 39a). © Edinburgh University Main Library Special Collections.

138 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

No less important is the fact that the chapter title “Chapter two of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh” is also present in the oldest manuscripts of the Arabic and Persian versions of the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, copied when Rashīd al-Dīn was still alive. At minimum, it is possible to conclude that this part of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was composed in 1307, and based mainly on the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. Broadly, if we believe that the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was composed based mainly on the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, it becomes possible to explain a range of contradictions that are contained in the text of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. For example, by deleting the names of Ghazan and Qāshānī from the preface to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Rashīd al-Dīn rewrote the text for the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh so as not to contradict his own work, as ordered by Öljeitü. In this process, Qāshānī’s writing style was changed to that of Rashīd al-Dīn’s. Two cases are presented here as symbolic examples. The first is a phrase taken from the preface to the history of the Chinese. It is written in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, for example, that “the king of Islam, Ghāzān Khān, ordered him [the author] to write an appendix of the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh concerning the history of the events of Khaṭā, the origin of the dynasty, and the peoples [and] the kings of those countries, in a concise way”.90 In contrast, in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, this description was rewritten as: “the king of Islam ordered the author to write an appendix concerning the history of that kingdom and its kings, in a concise way”.91 Thus, in this re-working, Rashīd al-Dīn deleted the sentences that would contradict the compilation process of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, including Ghazan’s name and the fact that the history of the Chinese is composed as a supplement of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. In addition, the date of composition of this chapter, 700/1300-1, is replaced in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh with 704/1304-5, the date after Ghazan’s death.92 Similarly, in the history of the Hindus, the date of composition, 705/1305-6, is only mentioned in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh,93 and is not included in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. Thus, as this chapter in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh has three different composition dates, 700/1300-1,94 702/1302-3,95 and 703/ 1303-4,96 it is also probable that Rashīd al-Dīn composed the history of the Hindus in 705/1305- 6, based on the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. Although Rashīd al-Dīn modified the

90 ZTH2, f. 63b; ZTT1, f. 370a. 91 JTK, p. 8. 92 ZTH2, f. 63a; JTK, p. 7. 93 JTH, p. 73. 94 ZTT1, ff. 254b, 255b, 273b, 315b, 316b, 323a, 335b; ZTH2, f. 63a. 95 ZTT1, f. 351a. 96 ZTT1, f. 347a. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 139 text of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh so as not to contradict his own work, a number of out-of-place expressions are nevertheless present in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh because of the quick and careless compilation process.

V.2. A new perspective on the compilation process of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh On the basis of the discussion above, it is possible to conclude that the actual intention of Qāshānī’s claim that he was the real author of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh is that he wanted it known that almost the entire second volume of this work was actually an imitation of his own completed general history, although only Rashīd al-Dīn received recognition for it. It is apparent that Qāshānī completed the first edition of his general history during the reign of Ghazan. Because he was one of the court historians of the ruler, it is no wonder that he was able to enjoy significant benefit from all sorts of historical sources and foreign informants gathered in Tabriz. He continued to write new chapters one after another and it is possible that he might have wanted to name his work “Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh”. This is probably the reason why each chapter of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh has its own preface. Ghazan died in 1304, Öljeitü was enthroned, and Rashīd al-Dīn, who was commissioned to write the history of the Mongols at the order of the former, dedicated it instead to the new ruler. At the same time, however, Rashīd al-Dīn was ordered to enlarge this work to encom- pass the history of the world. However, because he was busy with admini- strative work as a vizier and did not have enough time, he paid close attention to the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh of Qāshānī, who had a close relationship with him. As a result, Rashīd al-Dīn took the simplest route and modified the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, a work that was almost completed, and entitled it the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. It is unclear who made this modification, Rashīd al-Dīn himself, Qāshānī on his order, or other historians. However, the presence of several contradictions in the text of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh suggests that it is highly unlikely that Rashīd al-Dīn completed this work himself: Rashīd al-Dīn would have certainly modified these contradictions had he checked.97 Nevertheless, he dedicated the three volumes of this work to Öljeitü, at the end of this process.

97 According to the description in the introduction to the first volume of the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh, the second volume is divided in two parts (bāb). The first part is the history of Öljeitü, while the second part is the history of the world, divided into two chapters (qism). Of these, the first chapter is the history of the world, while the second chapter is a supplement. The first chapter is divided into two sections (faṣl): the first section is the history of prophets, caliphs, kings, and peoples from Adam to the author’s time; the second section is the history of the peoples of the world (JTM, I, pp. 19-20). However in the main text, the term “chapter (qism)” is used as a lower category, dividing the first section into Pre-Islamic history and Islamic history. The 140 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

I do not conclude, of course, that Rashīd al-Dīn plagiarized, as claimed by Qāshānī. It was a normal practice for a historian to quote passages drawn from a text by a former author without mentioning his name in the pre-modern period. Rashīd al-Dīn himself says the following regarding his use of quotations in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: I [Rashīd al-Dīn] copied out everything I found written in the well- known books of every nation, everything that was known to every tribe through uninterrupted tradition, everything that the wise and learned of every group had reported according to their belief – all this I copied out without change of alternation.98 In this regard, it is clear that Rashīd al-Dīn’s main source was Qāshānī’s Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, and Qāshānī’s historiographical enterprise is originally different from that of Rashīd al-Dīn.

VI. RECEPTION OF THE ZUBDAT AL-TAWĀRĪKH It should be made clear that Qāshānī was not merely one of Rashīd al- Dīn’s assistants, but was an independent historian, as it appears from available evidence of his contemporaries. For example, Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī (d. after 1344) quoted from the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh when writing his history and geography of Luristan.99 Although there are no surviving manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, which contain the chapter on Luristan, this evidence implies that the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was a larger general history. After Qāshānī’s death, his work and name were also cited in the work of later historians, such as Abarqūhī’s Firdaws al-Tawārīkh, composed in 1405-6; Muḥammad Mūsawī’s Aṣaḥḥ al-Tawārīkh, composed in ca. 1428- 47; Mīr-khwānd’s Rawḍat al-Ṣafā, composed in 1498; Musliḥ Lārī’s Mir’āt al-Adwār, composed in 1566; and Bidlisī’s Sharaf-nāma, composed in 1596.100 Even if some might just mention the title, at least its title has never been forgotten among the later historians. It is also mentioned in a comprehensive bibliographical work, the Kashf al-Ẓunūn.101 Although the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was one of the famous historical works in the pre- modern Persian historiographical tradition, modern scholars, who evalu- ated Rashīd al-Dīn’s achievement excessively, have never paid attention to it, and sometimes criticized it by considering it is a work of plagiarism.

table of contents that Rashīd al-Dīn gave in the preface does not show the real contents of its second volume. 98 JTM, I, p. 12; English translation, based mainly on Thackston 2012, p. 4b. 99 TG, p. 537; NQ, pp. 192, 281. 100 FT, f. 3b; AT, f. 2b; RS, p. 17; MA, pp. 9-10; SHN, p. 23. 101 KZ, p. 951. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 141

CONCLUSION Qāshānī began to write his general history on the order of Ghazan. His Zubdat al-Tawārīkh was composed earlier than the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, and covers a larger geographical area. In addition, the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh is based mainly on Qāshānī’s Zubdat al-Tawārīkh. Therefore, from the point of view of its contents, we should give the title of “the first world historian” to Qāshānī, even though the Zubdat al-Tawā- rīkh does not include the history of the Mongols.102 Above all, because several contradictions remain in the second volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawā- rīkh, whose text sometimes does not match the compilation process of this work, it is suggested that we should reconsider the value of its second volume. There are some discussions concerning the relationship of these works. As the entire edition of these works has not been published, and above all because we have a preconceived idea that Rashīd al-Dīn was a great historian, the master narrative that the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh was the first world history has never been reconsidered. By recognizing Qāshānī’s historiographical achievement, we will be able to understand the Ilkhanid historiography with more precision. Finally, I would like to point out that the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh contains original information, which was not used by Rashīd al-Dīn, including the author’s contemporary history of the Saljuqids of Rum. Therefore, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh has great potential not just for reconsidering the compilation process of the Jāmi‘ al- Tawārīkh, but also for reconstructing the history of the Ilkhanids.

Osamu OTSUKA, Associate Professor The University of Tokyo 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153-8902 Japan

102 There are no extant manuscripts of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh containing the history of the Mongols. However, as Qāshānī pointed out in his Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū (TUA, f. 137a; TUH, p. 2) that his Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh included the history of the Mongols, we cannot deny the possibility that he also wrote the history of the Mongols. 142 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

APPENDIX

Table 1: Reconstructed Contents of the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh *

CONTENTS MANUSCRIPTS General Preface ZTB, ff. 1b-2b; ZTH1, ff. 1b-3a Foreword: Creation ZTT1, ff. 1a-4a; ZTB, ff. 2b-8a; ZTH1, ff. 3a-10a Chap. 1: Pre-Islamic history ZTT3, ff. 1a-84b; ZTT1, ff. 4a-66b; ZTB, ff. 8a- 102b; ZTH1, ff. 10a-127b Chap. 2: Islamic history ZTT3, ff. 85a-256a; ZTT1, ff. 66b-187b; ZTB, ff. 102b-224b History of Aleppo ZTT1, ff. 269a-269b History of Diyarbakir and Mosul ZTT1, ff. 269b-273b History of Irbil ZTT1, ff. 274a-275a Tahirids ZTT1, ff. 275a-275b Samanids ZTT1, ff. 275b-276b Ghaznavids ZTT2 Saljuqids ZTT1, ff. 277b-294b, lacuna, 266a Khwarazmshahids ZTT1, ff. 266a-268b, 256a-265b Salghurids ZTT1, ff. 295b-306a Isma‘ilis ZTT1, ff. 189a-238a; ZTT4 Ayyubids ZTT1, ff. 238b-243b Ghurids ZTT1, ff. 243b-247b History of Maghrib ZTT1, ff. 247b-249a Saljuqids of Rum ZTT1, ff. 249b-255b Oghuz Turks ZTT1, ff. 356a-368b Chinese ZTT1, ff. 370a-378b; ZTH2, ff. 62b-67b Jews ZTT1, ff. 380a-411b; ZTH2, ff. 1b-61b Franks ZTT1, ff. 308a-328b Hindus ZTT1, ff. 329a-354b

* The chapters highlighted in this list are not present in the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 143

Table 2 General Prefaces to the Jāmi‘ al Tawārīkh and the Zubdat al-Tawā kh

حمد و مدح و سپاس و آفرين و شکر بیقياس بر حضرت حمد و مدح وآفرين حضرت جھانآفرين را که صانع ص جھانآفرين که صانع صنايع غريب و مبدع بدايع عجيب است، بر غريب و مبدع بدايع عجيب است، و شکر و ستايش پروردگاری پروردگاری که مظھر عجايب و مظھر بدايع و غرايب است، که مظھر عجايب و مصدر غرايب و بدايع است، منزه از اض منزه از اضداد و انداد و معراء و مبراء از قرين و مقارنه اشباه و وانداد، معرا از قرين و مقارنه ـ جل جالله و تعالی و عم نوال ازواج و اوالد ـ جل جالله تعالی و عم نواله و توالی ـ، و توالی ـ. آفريدگاری که تحريک زبان را ترجمان سراسر مکتوبات و برھان سراير مکنونات خواطر و ضماير کرد، صانعی که چھره اطباق رواق آفاق را به حذاق جواھر نجوم منور و مزين کرد، قادری که به قبضۀ تقدير، چندين اشکال منير از قالب تصوير تقدير کرد، قاھری که از روی تسخير، چندين اجرام مستدير در گرداب تدوير تحرير [داد و ز و,] ا ھر علويات را با جواھر سفليات در سلک کلک خيط ترتيب وجود او کشيد، و نھاد آدم را که عالم [صغ -ری] و علت غايی آفرينش است در سلسلۀ مرتبۀ :اخری او انداخت. و صالت صلوات متواليات و درود تحف تحيات و صلوات متواليات و درود متواتر بر روضۀ سلطان کاي متواترات بر روضۀ سلطان کاينات و نقاوه و خالصۀ موجودات، و خالصۀ موجودات، مقتداء انبياء، محمد مصطفی و بر ريا مقتداء انبياء، محمد مصطفی ـ صلی ﷲ عليه و آله و سلم ـ و آل و خلفاء و ايمۀ مھديين و صحابه و تابعين و انصار و اعوان و او اوالد نامدار آن حضرت باد. مطھر او باد. ّاما بعد، جامع اين حکايات و مؤلف اين مقدمات و مقرر اما بعد، محرر اين کلمات و مقرر اين مقاالت و جامع اين کلمات، ابو القاسم عبد ﷲ بن علی بن محمد القاشانی بر رای ترتيب و مؤلف اين ترکيب که دعاگوی حامد قديمۀ کريم است، مطالعان اين تأليف و تنسيق، و مستفيدان اين تصنيف و تلفيق، آرای مطالعان اين کتاب عرض میدارد که عرض می دارد که چون روزگار به عدل و رأفت خدايگان عالم، پادشاه بنیآدم، خاقان الترک و العجم، سلطان سالطين العالم، ظل ﷲ فی االرض، ناصر عباد ﷲ، حافظ بالد ﷲ، غياث الدنياء و الدين، قامع الکفرة و المشرکين، قاھر الفجرة و المتمردين، مالذ المؤمنين، اولجايتوسلطان بن ارغ ونخان بن آباقاخان بن ھوالکو خان [بن تولویخان] بن جنکيزخان ـ خلد ﷲ سلطانه و اعلی شأنه ـ بياراست، و از آثار عدل و عاطفت و مآثر مرحمت وتربيت، عرصۀ عالم از منکرات و محظورات بپيراست ـ که ايام دولت او، ما طلع الصباح و نادی المنادی بحی علی الفالح پاينده ومستدام باد! ـ به حق الملک العالم، تاييد يزدانی و يمن فر دولت ايلخانی، از تاريخ و تأليف ساير عالم تلفيق، و جماھير مشاھير بنیآدم مجموع ھفت اقاليم، از ابتداء مشرق تا انتھاء مغرب فراغی نموده، در سبب تصانيف آن سلک کلک تحرير و تقرير به موجب ملتمس وحسب قضاء زمان و سبب انقال منعقد ومنتظم گشت، بر وفق ملتمس فرمان نافذه ـ خلد ملکه ـ و دوران، تواريخ ساير طوايف عالم و سيرت و سريرت جما حسب مقتضاء زمان وسبب انقالب حدثان خواست که تاريخ اقليم مشاھير امم بنی آدم تاليف يافت و در سلک کلک منعقد و من رابع که زبدۀ ھفت کشور و نقاوۀ اقاليم ربع مسکون است، مشتمل گشت، به عون تاييد يزدانی ويمن ربانی، مجموع ھفت اقاليم بر احوال پادشاھان و سالطين ھر زمان، مھتر[ان] و سروران ابتداء مشرق تا انتھاء مغرب خواست که تاريخ اقليم رابع که واس زمين ايران، و احوال ملوک و انبياء و خلفاء ھر عصر از زمان ھفت کشور است و زبده و نقاوۀ ربع مسکون تاليف و تصنيف آدم صفی ـ عليه السالم ـ تا غايت وقت که تاريخ سنۀ سبعمايۀ مشتمل بر احوال پادشاھان و فرماندھان ايران زمين از دور آد ھاللی است، بر زعم اھل اسالم بر سبيل ايجاز و اختصار ببايد غايت وقت که تاريخ سنۀ سبعمايه است بر زعم اھل اسالم. و الع نوشت، واز کميت متقدمان و کيفيت متأخران عصر و ھر زمان علی الراوی. اختيار و انتخاب از چند پاره کتاب تواريخ معروف معتبر مشتھر و از کتب متاخران انتخاب و التقاط کند، التقاط کرده آمد؛ چون کمال الدين ابن اثير و تاريخ سعيد کاتب واقدی و مغازی و غير آن، تا به تميمه و ضميمۀ جامع التواريخ و تميمه و ضميمۀ کتب تواريخ شود. شود، چه از روی حقيقت، تاريخ عجم و عرب به نسبت با آن و به حقيقت، اين جزوی است از کلی، و فرعی است تاريخ جزوی است از کلی، و فرعی از اصلی، ونھری از بحری اصلی، ونھری از بحری. و اين کتاب مشتمل است بر مقدمه و است. و اصول آن مشتمل است بر يک مقدمه و دو قسم. قسم. (JTT1, f. 1b) (ZTB, ff. 1b-2a; ZTH1, ff. 1b-2b) 144 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary sources AA Rashīd al-Dīn, As’ila wa Aj’iba-yi Rashīdī, ed. R. Sha‘bānī, vol. 2, Islamabad: Markaz-i Taḥqīqāt-i Fārsī-yi Īrān wa Pākistān, 1371sh./1993. AJI1 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Ms. Ayasofya 3614. AJI2 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Ms. Ayasofya 3613. AJL Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, ‘Arā’is al-Jawāhir, London, British Library, Ms. Or. 9605. AT Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh al-Mūsawī, Aṣaḥḥ al-Tawārīkh, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Ms. Turhan Valide Sultan 224. BH Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Bayān al-Ḥaqā’iq, ed. H. Rajab- zāda, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1386sh./2008. FT Abarqūhī, Firdaws al-Tawārīkh, St. Petersburg, National Library, Ms. Dorn 267. JTB Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Banī Isrā’īl, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1386sh./2007. JTE Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Main Library, Ms. Or. 20. JTF Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Ifranj, Pāpān wa Qayāṣira, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1384sh./ 2005. JTG Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Tehran, Golestān Palace Library, Ms. 2256. JTH Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Hind wa Sind wa Kashmīr, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1384sh./2005. JTI Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Ismā‘īliyān, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1387sh./2008. JTK Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Aqwām-i Pādshāhān-i Khatāy, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1385sh./2006. JTL Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, London, British Library, Ms. I.O. Islamic 3524. JTM Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, ed. M. Rawshan and M. Mūsawī, 4 vols., Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz, 1373sh./1994-5. JTME Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Tehran, Mellī Library, Ms. F1606. JTMS Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Tehran, Majles Library, Ms. 8734. JTQ Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Qom, Masjed-e A‘ẓam Library, Ms. 3569. JTR1 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, St. Petersburg, National Library, Ms. PNS46. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 145

JTR2 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, St. Petersburg, National Library, Ms. Khan 62. JTR3 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, St. Petersburg, National Library, Ms. PNS47 JTS Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i Āl-i Salchūq, ed. M. Rawshan, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1386sh./2007. JTT1 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Library, Ms. Hazine 1654. JTT2 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh, Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Library, Ms. Ahmet III 2935. KZ Kātib al-Jalabī, Kashf al-Ẓunūn ‘an Asāmī al-Kutub wa al-Funūn, ed. G. Flügel, vol. II, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1990. LH Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Laṭā’if al-Ḥaqā’iq, ed. H. Rajab- zāda, 2 vols., Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1394sh./2015. MA Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥammad Lārī, Mir’āt al-Adwār wa Mirqāt al-Akhbār, ed. J. Sāghrawāniyān, vol. I, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1393sh./2014. MAA Ibn al-Fuwaṭī al-Shaybānī, Majma‘ al-Ādāb, ed. M. al-Kāẓim, vol. I, Tehran: Wizārat-i Farhang wa Irshād-i Islāmī, 1416H./1995-6. MS Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Mabāḥith-i Sulṭānīya, ed. H. Rajab-zāda, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1394sh./2015. MT Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Miftāḥ al-Tafāsīr, ed. H. Rajab- zāda, Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1391sh./2013. MTR Raschid-eldin, Histoire des Mongols de la Perse, ed. É. Quatremère, Amsterdam: Oriental Press, 1968, pp. cxlvii-clxxv. MTS Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, Majma‘ al-Tawārīkh al-Sulṭānīya, ed. M. Mudarrisī Zanjānī, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭṭilā‘āt, 1364sh./1985-6. NQ Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī Qazwīnī, Nuzhat al-Qulūb, ed. G. Le Strange, Leiden - London: E. J. Brill – Luzac & Co., 1915. RS Mīr-khwānd, Rawḍat al-Ṣafā, ed. ‘A. Parwīz, vol. I, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Khayyām, 1338sh./1960. SHN Sharaf Khān Bidlīsī, Sharaf-nāma, ed. V. Véliaminof-Zernof, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Asāṭīr, 1377sh./1998-9. SHP Rashīd al-Dīn, Shu‘ab, Istanbul, Topkapı Palace Library, Ms. Ahmet III 2397. TG Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī, Tārīkh-i Guzīda, ed. ‘A. Nawā’ī, Tehran: Inti- shārāt-i Amīr-i Kabīr, 1364sh./1985-6. TR Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Tawḍīḥāt-i Rashīdī, ed. H. Rajab- zāda, 2 vols., Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1394sh./2015. TS Hindū-shāh b. Sanjar Nakhjiwānī, Tajārib al-Salaf, ed. ‘A. Iqbāl, Tehran: Kitāb-khāna-yi Ṭahūrī, 1357sh./1978-9. TUA Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Ms. Ayasofya 3019/3. TUH Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, ed. M. Hamblī, Tehran: Shirkat-i Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī wa Farhangī, 1384sh./2005. 146 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

TUP Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ms. Suppl. persan 1419. WN Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh b. Abī al-Khayr b. ‘Ālī al-Hamadānī, Waqf- nāma-yi Rab‘-i Rashīdī, ed. M. Mīnuwī and Ī. Afshār, Tehran: Intishā- rāt-i Anjuman-i Āthār-i Millī, 2536Shsh./1977-8. ZTB Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Berlin, State Library, Ms. Minutoli 237. ZTH1 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Hyderabad, Telangana State Archives and Research Institute, Ms. 121. ZTH2 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Hyderabad, Telangana State Archives and Research Institute, Ms. 459. ZTI Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, ed. M. T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Muṭāli‘āt wa Taḥqīqāt-i Farhangī, 1366sh./1987-8. ZTS Khwāja Imām Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshābūrī, Saljūq-nāma, ed. I. Kh. Afshār, Tehran: Kulāla-yi Khāwar, 1332sh./1953. ZTT1 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Tehran University, Ms. 9067. ZTT2 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Tehran University, Ms. Adabīyāt 35J. ZTT3 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Tehran University, Ms. 5715. ZTT4 Abū al-Qāsim Qāshānī, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, Tehran University, Ms. 5210.

II. Secondary sources Afshār 1386sh. Afshār, Ī., “Dībācha,” in Abū al-Qāsim ‘Abd Allāh Kāshānī, ‘Arā’is al- Jawāhir wa Nafā’is al-Aṭā’ib, ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Alma‘ī, 1386sh./2007, pp. v-xxiv. Afshār 1312sh. Afshār, I. Kh., “Saljūq-nāma-yi Ẓahīrī-yi Nīshābūrī wa Rāḥat al-Ṣudūr-i Rāwandī,” Majalla-yi Mihr 2/1 (1312sh./1933), pp. 26-30. Āl-i Dāwūd 1373sh. Āl-i Dāwūd, ‘A., “Abū al-Qāsim Kāshānī,” in Dā’irat al-Ma‘ārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. VI, Tehran: Markaz-i Dā’irat al-Ma‘ārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī, 1373sh./1994, pp. 173a-174a. Allan 1973 Allan, J. W., “Abū’l-Qāsim’s Treatise on Ceramics,” Iran 11 (1973), pp. 111-120. Blair 1995 Blair, Sh. S., A Compendium of Chronicles: Rashid al-Din’s Illustrated History of the World, London: The Nour Foundation, 1995. Blochet 1898 Blochet, E., “Études sur l’histoire religieuse de l’Iran,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 38/1 (1898), pp. 26-63. ——— 1905 Blochet, E., Catalogue des manuscrits persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale, vol. I, Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1905. ——— 1910 Blochet, E., Introduction à l’histoire des Mongols de Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din, Leiden - London: E. J. Brill - Luzac & Co., 1910. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 147

Boyle 1971 Boyle, J. A., “Rashīd al-Dīn: The First World Historian,” Iran 9 (1971), pp. 19-26. Bregel 1972 Bregel, Yu. E., Persidskaia Literatura: Bio-bibliograficheskiĭ Obzor, vol. I, Moscow: Nauka, 1972. Browne 1908 Browne, E. G., “Suggestions for a Complete Edition of the Jami‘u’t- Tawarikh of Rashidu’d-Din Fadlu’llah,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1908), pp. 17-37. ——— 1951 Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia, 4 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951. Daftary 2004 Daftary, F., Ismaili Literature: A Bibliography of Sources and Studies, London: I. B. Tauris, 2004. Dālwand 1382sh. Dālwand, Ḥ. R., “Zubdat al-Tawārīkh-i Jamāl al-Dīn ‘Abd Allāh Kāshānī wa Dast-niwīs-i Tiflīs,” Āyina-yi Mīrāth 21(1382sh./2003), pp. 72-85. Dānish-pazhūh 1339sh. Dānish-pazhūh, M. T., Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Khaṭṭī-yi Kitāb-khāna-yi Dānishkada-yi Adabīyāt, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1339sh./1960. ——— 1345sh. Dānish-pazhūh, M. T., Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Khaṭṭī-yi Kitāb-khāna-yi Markazī-yi Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, vol. XV, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānish- gāh-i Tihrān, 1345sh./1967. ——— 1357sh. Dānish-pazhūh, M. T., Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Khaṭṭī-yi Kitāb-khāna-yi Markazī wa Markaz-i Asnād-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, vol. XVI, Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Intishārāt wa Chāp-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1357sh./1979. ——— 1364sh. Dānish-pazhūh, M. T., Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Khaṭṭī-yi Kitāb-khāna-yi Markazī wa Markaz-i Asnād-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, vol. XVII, Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Intishārāt wa Chāp-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1364sh./1985. Ḥusayn Ḥakīm 1386sh. Ḥusayn Ḥakīm, M., Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Khaṭṭī-yi Madrasa-yi Qanbar ‘Alī Khān (Ḥaḍrat-i Walī-‘aṣr), Qom: Majma‘-i Dhakhā’ir-i Islāmī, 1386sh./2007. Iqbāl Āshtiyānī 1324sh. Iqbāl Āshtiyānī, ‘A., “Nuskhahā-yi Muṣawwar-i Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh-i Rashīdī,” Yādgār 2/3 (1324sh./1945), pp. 33-42. Jahn 1963 Jahn, K., “Study on Supplementary Persian Sources for the Mongol History of Iran,” in Sinor, D. (ed.), Aspects of Altaic Civilization, Bloomington: Indiana University, pp. 197-204. ——— 1965 Jahn, K., Rashīd al-Dīn’s History of India: Collected Essays with Fac- similes and Indices, The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1965. ——— 1967 Jahn, K., “Rashīd al-Dīn as World Historian,” in Bečka, J. (ed.), Yádnáme-ye Jan Rypka: Collection of Articles on Persian and Tajik Literature, Prague: Academia, 1967, pp. 79-87. Kamola 2013 Kamola, S. T., Rashīd al-Dīn and the Making of History in Mongol Iran, Ph. D. Dissertation: The University of Washington, 2013. 148 O. O T S U K A StIr 47, 2018

Melville 1998 Melville, Ch., “The Īlkhān Öljeitü’s Conquest of Gīlān (1307): Rumour and Reality,” in Amitai-Preiss, R. and Morgan, D. O. (ed.), The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, Leiden - Boston - Köln: Brill, 1998, pp. 73-125. ——— 2008 Melville, Ch., “JĀME‘ AL-TAWĀRĪK,” in Encyclopædia Iranica, E. Yarshater (Gen. ed.), vol. XIV (2008), pp. 462a-468b. ——— 2012 Melville, Ch., “The Mongol and Timurid Periods, 1250-1500,” in Melville, Ch. (ed.), Persian Historiography, London - New York: I. B. Tauris, 2012, pp. 155-208. Morton 2004 Morton, A. H., The Saljūqnāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, Cambridge: The Trustees of the Gibb Memorial, 2004. ——— 2010 Morton, A. H., “Qashani and Rashid al-Din on the Seljuqs of Iran,” in Suleiman, Y. (ed.), Living Islamic History: Studies in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010, pp. 166-177. Mudabbir Chārburjī 1384sh. Mudabbir Chārburjī, S., Fihrist-i Tafṣīlī-yi Nusakh-i Khaṭṭī-yi Fārsī-yi Anstītū-i Kikilīdza-yi Tiflīs, vol. I, Tehran: Wizārat-i Umūr-i Khārija, 1384sh./2005-6. Mudarrisī Zanjānī 1364sh. Mudarrisī Zanjānī, M., “Muqaddama-yi Muṣaḥḥiḥ,” in Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, Majma‘ al-Tawārīkh al-Sulṭānīya, ed. M. Mudarrisī Zanjānī, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭṭilā‘āt, 1364sh./1985-6, pp. 1-57. Murtaḍawī 1385sh. Murtaḍawī, M., Masā’il-i ‘Aṣr-i Īlkhānān, Tehran: Bunyād-i Mawqūfāt- i Duktur Maḥmūd Afshār, 1385sh./2006-7. Nafīsī 1363sh. Nafīsī, S., Tārīkh-i Naẓm wa Nathr dar Īrān wa dar Zabān-i Fārsī tā Pāyān-i Qarn-i Dahum-i Hijrī, 2 vols., Tehran: Intishārāt-i Furūghī, 1363sh./1984-5. Otsuka 2016 Otsuka, O., “Shūshi Dainikan Sekaishi Kōtei no Shomondai: Mohanmad Roushan no Kōteibon ni Taisuru Hihanteki Kentō wo Chūshin ni [Some Problems on Editing the Second Volume of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh: Critical Review on Muḥammad Rawshan’s Editions],” Ajia Afurika Gengo Bunka Kenkyū [Journal of Asian and African Studies] 91 (2016), pp. 41-61. Pertsch 1888 Pertsch, W., Verzeichniss der Persischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1888. Pfeiffer 2013 Pfeiffer, J., “The Canonization of Cultural Memory: Ghāzān Khan, Rashīd al-Dīn, and the Construction of the Mongol Past,” in Akasoy, A., Burnett, Ch. and Yoeli-Tlalim, R. (ed.), Rashīd al-Dīn: Agent and Mediator of Cultural Exchanges in Ilkhanid Iran, London - Turin: The Warburg Institute, 2013, pp. 57-70. Qazwīnī 1339sh. Qazwīnī, M., “Ḥawāshī-yi Marḥūm Qazwīnī bar Kitāb-i Introduction à l’histoire des Mongols de Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din par E. Blochet. 1910,” Nashrīya-yi Dānish-kada-yi Adabīyāt-i Tabrīz 12/3 (1339sh./ 1960), pp. 288-300. Q Ā S H Ā N Ī, T H E F I R S T W O R L D H I S T O R I A N 149

Ṣafā 1372sh. Ṣafā, Dh., Tārīkh-i Adabīyāt dar Īrān, vol. III/2, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Firdaws, 1372sh./1993-4. Schefer 1895 Schefer, Ch., “Notice sur les relations des peuples musulmans avec les Chinois,” in Centenaire de l’École des Langues Orientales Vivantes 1795-1895, Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1895, pp. 1-43. Soucek 1985 Soucek, P. P., “ABU’L-QĀSEM ‘ABDALLĀH KĀŠĀNĪ,” in Encyclo- pædia Iranica, E. Yarshater (Gen. ed.), vol. I, 1985, pp. 362b-363a. Thackston 2012 Thackston, W. M. (tr.), Classical Writings of the Medieval Islamic World: Persian Histories of the Mongol Dynasties, vol. III, London - New York: I. B. Tauris, 2012. Uno 2011 Uno, N., “Shūshi Daiikkan Mongorushi no Kōtei Tekisuto wo Meguru Shomondai [Problems Pertaining to the Revised Edition of the Vol. 1 ‘History of Mongols’ of the Jāmi‘ al-Tawārīkh],” in Yoshida, J. (ed.), Mongorushi Kenkyū [Mongolian History Studies], Tokyo: Akashi Shoten, 2011, pp. 44-64. Watson 1985 Watson, O., “ABŪ ṬĀHER,” in Encyclopædia Iranica, E. Yarshater (Gen. ed.), vol. I, 1985, pp. 385a-387a.