^{page 252 note 1} Mas'ūdi¯ Murūj al-dhahab wa-ma'ādin al-jawhar, edited and translated by Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille; revised and corrected by Charles Pellat, Publications de l'Université Libanaise, Section des Études Historiques, 11 (Beirut: 1971–9), vol. 4, section 2565 (I have also consulted the original edition, v. 6, Paris 1871). The segment (sections 2565–2575 in the Pellat edition) is translated in the Appendix; section numbers are cited in brackets.

^{page 252 note 2} See von Grunebaum, G. E., “Avicenna's Risāla fī ‘l-'išsq and courtly love,” JNES 11 (1952), pp. 234–6Google Scholar; Giffen, Lois Anita, Theory of Profane Love Among the Arabs, Studies in Eastern Civilization, 3 (New York, 1971), pp. 142–3Google Scholar, who notes merely that the account “confirms the impression … that, as early as the third [eighth] century, love was a widely discussed topic and that many aspects of it were considered”; Bell, J. N., Love Theory in Later Hanbalite Islam (Albany, 1979), p. 109Google Scholar. Bouvat, L. cites the debate as an instance of Yaḥyā's interest in, and patronage of, learning (Les Barmécides d'apres les historiens Arabes et Persons, Paris, 1912, pp. 49–50)Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 3} On the scholars said to have participated in the debate see von Grunebaum, , “Courtly love”, pp. 235–36Google Scholar; on the theological schools of the time see Hodgson, M. G. S., The Venture of Islam (Chicago, 1974), 1:372–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 253 note 4} On the terms munāsabah “affinity” and mushākalah “resemblance” see Bell, , Love Theory, pp. 76, 107–19Google Scholar; the notion appears to be Aristotelian in origin (ibid., p. 246, n. 26), but, as Bell notes (p. 108), “In most cases the idea of affinity, like other Greek elements in Muslim love theory, was ilbt taken directly from the writings of Plato and Aristotle or their successors but from a common stock of sayings attributed to the major intellectual figures of antiquity”.

^{page 253 note 5} Although a number of these motifs are recognizably Platonic or Aristotelian in origin (see n. 4 ), the manner in which they are formulated suggests their existence as commonplaces rather than as well-developed philosophical concepts. Compare the list given by Bell, , Love Theory, pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 6} In the tenth century al-Daylamī (albeit from a different perspective) was to criticize the mutakallimūn for not going beyond such notions in their definitions of love (Bell, , Love Theory, p. 109Google Scholar; see al-Daylamī, Abū al-Ḥasan, Kitāb 'atf al-alif al-ma'lūf 'aid al-lām al-ma'ṭūf, edited by Vadet, J.-C., Textes et traductions d'auteurs orientaux, 20, Cairo, 1962, pp. 31–2)Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 7} Cf. Walzer, R., “Aristotle, Galen, and Palladius on love,” Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy (Oxford, 1962), p. 49 n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 255 note 8} See Bell, , Love Theory, p. 75Google Scholar for some views on this notion, apparently originating in Plato's Symposium, but presumably modified by later commentary.

^{page 255 note 9} On this ḥadīth see Giffen, , Theory, p. 55Google Scholar; Bell, , Love Theory, p. 109Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 10} Grunebaum, G. E. von, Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition (London, 1955), pp. 97–8Google Scholar; see also idem, Medieval Islam (Chicago, 1962), pp. 226–7.

^{page 256 note 11} Lanham, Richard A., The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New Haven, 1976, p. 191)Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 12} Lanham, R. A., “Opaque style and its uses in Troilus and Criseide,” Studies in Medieval Culture, 4 (1973), p. 169Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 13} See Kennedy, George A., Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill, 1980), pp. 44, 94Google Scholar.

^{page 257 note 14} Lanham, Motives, pp. 12–13. See also Partner, Nancy F., “The new Cornificius: medieval history and the artifice of words,” in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, edited by Breisach, Ernest, Medieval Institute Publications, Studies in Medieval Culture, 19 (Kalamazoo, 1985), pp. 5–59Google Scholar.

^{page 257 note 15} See further on this topic Meisami, J. S., “Dynastic history and the ideal of kingship in Bayhaqi's Tārīkh-i Mas'ūdī,” paper delivered to the Middle East Literary Seminar, Princeton, 04 1988 (to be published in Edebiyat)Google Scholar.

^{page 258 note 16} According to Daylamī, in the course of a debate on love at the court of al-Ma'mūn the Mu'tazilī Thumāmah ibn Ashras is said to have remarked to the faqīh Yaḥyā ibn Aktham, “It is your task to answer questions on divorce or on the case of a pilgrim who has slain a beast; this [defining love] is our profession [fa-ammā hādhā fa-ṣinā' atinā]” ('Atf al-alif al-ma'lūf, p. 31; compare Mas'ūdī, Murūj, sections 2574, 2577, and see note 17 to the Appendix).

^{page 259 note 17} For a review of sources on the history of the Barmakids see Bouvat, , Les Barmécides, pp. 5–23Google Scholar; Sourdel, D., Le vizirat 'Abbaside (Damascus, 1959), pp. 128–9Google Scholar; EI ², 1:1033–36, s.v. “al-Barāmika”. For the account of Ja'far's death and the “myth” of the affair with 'Abbāsah, see also EI ², 1:14, s.v. ';“Abbasa”; Bouvat, , Les Barmécides, pp. 113–9Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 18} Mas'ūdī does not identify the 'Alid, Yaḥyā ibn 'Abd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan, although he relates two different accounts of his death (see section 2505). The accsount of Yaḥyā's revolt in Tabaristān in 792–3 and the story of his release by Ja'far are given by Ṭabarī (Annales, edited by Guyard, S. and Goeje, M. J. de, vol. 3, Leiden 1879–1881, 612–24, 669–74Google Scholar) and Bal'amī (V Aged'or des Abbasides, translated by Zotenberg, Hermann, Paris, 1983, pp. 124–5, 129–30Google Scholar); see also El², 3:233, s.v. “Hārūn al-Rashīd”.

^{page 260 note 19} Ṭabarī, , Annales, 3:669Google Scholar; the informant (Abū Muḥammad al-Yazīdī) begins, “If anyone says that Rashīd killed Ja'far for a cause other than [his release of] Yaḥyā ibn 'Abd Allāh ibn Ḥasan, do not believe him”.

^{page 260 note 20} Ibid., 3:683; for the full account see 667–88. Ṭabarī also mentions the unease of Yaḥyā ibn Khālid at Ja'far's familiarity with the Caliph, and his fear that it would bring evil consequences upon himself (ibid., 3:676; cf. ibn, Muḥammad 'Abdūs al-Jahshiyādrī, Kitāb al-wuzarā' wa- al-kuttāb, edited by al-Saqqā, Muṣṭafā, al-Ibyārī, Ibrāhīm, and 'Abd al-Ḥafiẓ? Shiblī, Cairo, 1938, pp. 224–5)Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 21} Bal'amī, , L'Age d'or, p. 133Google Scholar. Bal'amī attributes the motive for the marriage to Ja'far's discomfort at being thrown constantly into ‘Abbāsah's company (p. 130), but, like Ṭabarī, considers that he reciprocated her passion. Both Ṭabarī and Bal'amī attribute ‘Abbāsah's exposure to the vengeful act of a slave girl with whom she had quarrelled (Annales, 3:677; L'Age d'or, p. 130), while Mas'ūdī considers it brought about by Zubaydah (sections 2593–4).

^{page 261 note 22} See Bal'amī, . L'Age d'or, pp. 133–4Google Scholar; Mas'ūdī, , Kitāb al-tanbīh wd' l-ishrāf, edited by de Goeje, M. J., Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 8 (Leiden, 1894), p. 346Google Scholar; and see also Jahshiyārī, , Wuzara', p. 265Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 23} Later sources (particularly Persian) embroider considerably on the earlier accounts. According to 'Abd al-Jalīl Yazdī's Tārīkh Āl Barmak (begun in 1380), for example, Hārūn caused 'Abbāsah to be nailed alive inside a coffin, which was then weighted and thrown into the Tigris. Moreover, while the earlier sources state that she had only a single child (a son) by Ja'far, who was spared by Hārūn (some late sources give them as many as three children), Yazdī informs us that Hārūn ordered their two sons, Ḥasan and Husayn, to be burned alive in a furnace and their ashes thrown into the Tigris. See Bouvat, , Les Barmecides, pp. 116–19Google Scholar; Bouvat's reliance on such late sources (even in the context of what he terms the “legend” of the fall of the Barmakids) must be questioned.

^{page 261 note 24} See especially J. Horovitz, EI ², 1:14, s.v. “'Abbāsa”, and Bouvat, , Les Barmécides, pp. 113–9Google Scholar. The chief arguments against the veracity of the story seem to be as follows: (1) The age difference between Ja'far and 'Abbāsah. Horovitz's assumption that 'Abbāsah would have been around forty, and therefore Ja'far's senior, at the time of the supposed intrigue, “put[s] all ideas of a youthful romance out of the question”. But neither the date of the intrigue nor the age of either party at the time can be reliably established; moreover, the presumed age difference by no means precludes the possibility of an older woman's infatuation for a younger man, a possibility suggested by Mas'ūdī's version of the affair. (2) That 'Abbāsah was thrice married and that her second husband died some eleven years before Ja'far's execution. Horovitz adduces in evidence a verse by Abū Nuwās “in which he recommended the caliph, should he want to have a traitor killed, to marry him to 'Abbāsa”, and states that the commentaries “give the names of ‘Abbasa's' [three] husbands without mentioning that of Dja'far” (see Dīwān Abī Nuwās, edited by Wāṣif, Maḥmūd, Cairo, 1898 p. 174Google Scholar; the verses are addressed to al-Amīn). Abū Nuwās composed many invectives against Ja'far; the verses, if authentic, would seem to confirm rather than refute the story. (3) An anecdote in Jahshiyārī's Kitāb al-wuzarā' in which Masrūr al-Khādim (who in most accounts other than Mas'ūdī's was Ja'far's executioner) answered a question about the cause of Hārūn's anger at the Barmakids by saying, “It seems you wish to hear what the common people say: the claim that it was because of a woman, or because of the censers in the Ka'bah … No, by God!, it was not due to anything of the sort, but to the ennui and the envy of our masters” ((Wuzarā' p. 253; the reference to “censers” alludes to the story that Ja'far persuaded the Caliph to keep censers burning continually in the Ka'bah, indicating a wish to convert the shrine into a fire-temple; see also Sourdel, Vizirat, p. 167). Masrūr's response, which reflects the atmosphere of courtly intrigue in Baghdad, does not invalidate other possible factors (personal, political) but points to an underlying moral cause, and is thus very much in keeping with Mas'ūdī's outlook. (4) Bouvat comments on the similarity of the “legend's” general outlines to materials in the 1001 Nights (Les Barmécides, pp. 120–2); such similarities, however, do not indicate common sources as much as they do common interpretive paradigms (cf. Meisami, “Dynastic history”; see also de Fouchécour, C.-H., Moralia: Les notions morales dans la littérature persane du 3e/9e au 7e/13e siècle, Bibliothèque iranienne, 32, Paris, 1986, pp. 295–6)Google Scholar. Such arguments, in short, can neither confirm nor disprove the authenticity of the story, the universal popularity of which demonstrates that it was considered “true”, if not in a factual, at least in an exemplary sense. That other causes for the catastrophe (including complex psychological motives related to the Hārūn/Ja'far/'Abbāsah triangle) existed is without question; that these causes were of less interest to some historians at least suggests that rather than excluding the Ja'far-'Abbāsah affair we should explore the reasons for its presence and specific treatment in the histories in which it occurs.

^{page 262 note 25} See Lanham, , Motives, especially pp. 1–35Google Scholar, and the discussion by Partner, , “The new. Cornificius,” pp. 39–54Google Scholar.

^{page 262 note 26} Arnaldez, R., EI ², 2:769, 770Google Scholar, s. v. “Falsafa”. The philosopher Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistānī (d. ca. 985) criticised the mutakallimūn who, “in his opinion, are not very far from the materialist heretics; they ultimately propound similar pernicious doctrines. Though their intention is to defend religion, they undermine it. [Their] method . . . is based upon dialectic and sophistic argumentation. They are overcome by passion and fanaticism, by blind adherence to authority; they are riven by contentiousness, plagued by skepticism. . . . In contrast, philosophy . . . is inquiry into everything in the world; it is ascertaining the truth without passion and without uncritical submission to authority” (Kraemer, Joel, Philosophy in the Renaissance of Islam: Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistāni and His Circle, The Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, The Shiloah Institute, Tel Aviv University, Studies in Islamic Culture and History Series, 8, Leiden, 1986, p. 138)Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 27} The Mu'tazilah, their roots firmly in the philological school of Baṣrah, employing a “strictly grammatical method” of exegesis (Arnaldez, R., EI ₂, 3:791)Google Scholar, were aligned with the “Arab” sciences, the Shī'ites and their sub-sects, proponents of falsafahand of esoteric ta'wīl, with the “foreign” sciences (see Peters, F. E., Aristotle and the Arabs, New York, 1968, pp. 172–9)Google Scholar. The tension between the two is well illustrated by the debate on the relative merits of grammar and logic between the philologist Abū Sa'īd al-Sīrāfī and the philosopher Mattā ibn Yūnūs in 932; see Kraemer, Joel L., Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam: The Cultural Revival during the Buy id Age, The Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. The Shiloah Institute, Tel Aviv University, Studies in Islamic Culture and History Series, 7 (Leiden, 1986), pp. 110–13Google Scholar; Mahdi, Muhsin, “Language and logic in classical Islam,” in Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, edited by von Grunebaum, G. E. (Wiesbaden, 1970), pp. 51–83Google Scholar. On the Mu'tazilite connection with the sciences of language see further Stetkevych, S. P., “Toward a redefinition of ‘Badī’ poetry,” JAL 12 (1981), pp. 1–29Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 28} Cf. Mas'ūdī, , Tanbīh, pp. 76–84Google Scholar. On the importance of the Persian contribution to Islamic thought see especially Peters, , Aristotle, pp. 41—55Google Scholar. Peters notes in particular the great number of hellenizing scholars who came to Baghdad not from Byzantium but “from . . . towns in the Iranian highlands and the borders of the eastern steppe, an area which, until the sixth century, had been as little known to the Byzantines as it had to Herodotus” (p. 42), and observes that in Eastern Iran prior to Islam “four sophisticated religions were in competition . . . each possessing a body of Scripture, i.e., a literary tradition, with appropriate methods of exegesis, and incorporating a considerable body of profane learning: cosmology, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine, some of it Iranian, some Indian, and a good deal of it Greek” (p. 53). While it is these disciplines which are represented in the Magian's speech, the emphasis therein on celestial influences suggests possible affiliations with the Magians of Western Iraq as well; see Bidez, Joseph and Cumont, Franz, Les Mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanés et Hystaspe d'après la tradition grècque (Paris, 1938), 1: pp. 70–3Google Scholar, 131–42. On the Magians in Islamic Iraq see also Morony, Michael G., Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (Princeton, 1984), pp. 280–305Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 29} See Khalidi, Tarif, Islamic Historiography: The Histories of al-Mas'ūdī (Albany, 1975), especially pp. 52–5Google Scholar, 134–5; Shboul, Ahmad M. H., al-Mas'ūdī and his World: A Muslim Humanist and his Interest in Non-Muslims (London, 1979), pp. 29–54Google Scholar. On intellectual progress see Mas'ūdī, Tanbīh, p. 76Google Scholar.

^{page 264 note 30} Cf. Grunebaum, von, “Courtly love,” p. 236, n. 18, who notes also the absence of the topic militat omnis amansGoogle Scholar.

^{page 264 note 31} On the use of love poetry as a resource for writings on love theory see Giffen, Lois Anita, “Love poetry and love theory in medieval Arabic literature”, in Arabic Poetry: Theory and Development, edited by Grunebaum, G. E. von (Wiesbaden, 1973), pp. 11–4Google Scholar. Giffen regards the theoretical and poetic writings as complementary, as, clearly, did authors like Ibn Ḏa'ud and al-Washsha'. See also idem, Theory, pp. 117–8.

^{page 265 note 32} See von Grunebaum, , “Courtly love”, pp. 235–7Google Scholar. The link between kalām and the languagebased “Arab” sciences (see n. 27 above), including adab and poetry, is further strengthened by the high proportion of poets and men of letters numbered among the Mu'tazilah, and especially those originating from Baṣrah, including such figures as Bashshār ibn Burd, Abū Nuwās, Abū al-'Atāhiyah, al-Aṣma'ī, and later al-Jāḥiẓ. See Vadet, J. C., L'esprit courtois en Orient dans les cinq premiers siècles de l'Hégire (Paris, 1968), p. 169Google Scholar, and Stetkevych, “‘Badī’ poetry”.

^{page 265 note 33} Vadet, , L'esprit courtois, p. 223Google Scholar. Giffen notes that, while 'Abbās's poetry does not figure largely in works on love theory, “it is quite possible . . . to conceive of his poetry as having served as an especially effective vehicle for the dissemination of such ideas, which . . . passed also into more general currency in the conversation, storytelling, poetry, and the adab literature of the Abbasid period” (“Love poetry”, pp. 118–9).

^{page 265 note 34} As exemplified by the following verses, composed at the instigation (it is said) of Yaḥyā Barmakī for the purpose of reconciling the Caliph with a favourite concubine: “Each of the lovers was angry, longing [for the other], distressed. / She turned from him despite herself, and he from her, despite himself, but both were sorely tried by their suffering. / Rejoin your loved ones whom you have abandoned; the impassioned heart can scarcely avoid (its object); / but when aversion takes control of you, inconstancy follows, and the quest becomes difficult” (cited by Vadet, , L'esprit courtois, p. 225Google Scholar. A slightly different version attributes the role of conciliator to Ja'far Barmakī; see Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-Aghānī, Beirut, 1956, 5:218)Google Scholar. The verses (with slight variation) are quoted by Ibn Dā'ūd in his chapter entitled “Self-abasement before the beloved is a quality of the refined,” without mention of their occasion; see Kitāb al-Zahrah (The Book of the Flower), edited by Nykl, A. R. and Tuqan, Ibrahim, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 6 (Chicago, 1932), p. 58Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 35} Giffen, , Theory, pp. 117–8Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 36} Cf. the remarks by Jāḥiẓ cited by Stetkevych, , “‘Badī’ poetry,” pp. 12–13Google Scholar, which begins: “[The Mutakallimūn] selected . . . expressions for their concepts and they derived names for them from the speech of the Arabs and adopted terminology for things for which there was no word in the language of the Arabs. Thus they have set the precedent in this for all those who came after, and the model for all who followed.” Giffen notes that in Jāḥiẓ's Risālat al-qiyān love is portrayed “in such a way that it seems that the lovers, real or feigned, experienced or acted out the extravagances of the love poetry which the qiyān sang. There is no boundary between the fancies of poetry and the real life conduct of those smitten by 'ishq or pretending it. Art imitates life and life imitates art” (“Love poetry”, p. 116; emphasis added).

^{page 266 note 37} von Grunebaum, , “Courtly love”, pp. 234–5Google Scholar. Von Grunebaum also states that Ibn Dā'ūd, finding among his contemporaries few poetic reflections of his views on love, was obliged to choose his examples from poets “one or two centuries his seniors” (see also Giffen, , “Love poetry”, p. 116)Google Scholar; but a glance at the index shows that both his contemporaries and the poets of Rashīd's age (a century earlier) are well represented. Most often cited (excepting anonymous verses) is al-Buḥturī (85 citations), followed by Abū Tammām (49), Dhū al-Rummah (39), Jamīl (22), Majnūn of the Banī 'Āmir (21), and Jarīr (20).

^{page 266 note 38} The Muwashshā informs us that some of these rubrics were engraved by elegant lovers in signet rings which might be given as keepsakes to a loved one, indicating that the Zahrah was a favourite text for the refined élite; see Raven, Wim, “Ibn Dā'ūd al-Iṣbahānī and Greek wisdom”, Tenth Congress of the Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Proceedings (Edinburgh, 1982), p. 70Google Scholar. Raven notes that “at least one collection of such rhymed maxims” resembling Ibn Dā'ūd's rubrics existed prior to his work: Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (ca. 809–73), in his Nawādir al-falāsifah, “gives some twenty-five rhyming maxims from antiquity, allegedly originating from the signet rings of Socrates, Diogenes, Plato and others”.

^{page 267 note 39} Raven has suggested that they used a common source (ibid., pp. 69–70). Many passages are also found in Daylamī's Kitāb 'atfal-alif al-ma'lūf; see the Appendix.

^{page 267 note 40} Giffen, , Theory, p. 12Google Scholar; on the Kitab al-zahrah see ibid., pp. 8–13, and see also Vadet, , L'esprit courtois, pp. 273–316Google Scholar.

^{page 267 note 41} Giffen, , Theory, p. 14Google Scholar; on the Muwashshā see ibid., pp. 13–15, and see also Vadet, , L'esprit courtois, pp. 317–51Google Scholar. Although Giffen avoids the term “courtly love” as having been “invented for a later European phenomenon”, her use of “chivalrous” in its place is perhaps even less appropriate for a notion which developed in an urban, courtly milieu.

^{page 267 note 42} See Mas'ūdī, Murūj, sections 2514–16, 2535–8, 2550.

^{page 268 note 43} Cf. Vadet, , L'esprit courtois, p. 200Google Scholar.

^{page 268 note 44} See Mas'ūdī, Murūj, sections 2503–5, 2511, 2519, 2538–9, 2544–6, 2547, 2548, 2550.

^{page 269 note 45} Ibid., sections 2525–9. Ja'far's support of Ma'mūn is said to have been a cause of Hārūn's destruction of his erstwhile favourite; it is noteworthy that in this matter Ja'far and Zubaydah, who according to Mas'ūdī was his betrayer, were in opposition.

^{page 269 note 46} Mas'ūdī states explicitly that Hārūn “made it appear that he intended to make the pilgrimage” in order to establish the truth of Zubaydah's story (2595), and that he secretly commanded the imprisonment of the Barmakids and confiscation of their properties while outwardly pretending continued friendship with Ja'far (2595–6). While most sources assert that Masrūr al-Khādim was Ja'far's executioner, Mas'ūdī introduces a certain “Yāsir, called Rikhlah”, in this role.

^{page 269 note 47} Cf. Khalidi, , Islamic Historiography, p. 135Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 48} Lanham, , Motives of Eloquence, p. 10Google Scholar.

^{page 270 note 49} Ibid., p. 198.

^{page 270 note 50} Lanham's comments on the limitations of “scientific” history are instructive: “Motive is the causality of history. What if, as with dramatic motive, a principle of indeterminacy animates it? We cannot imagine a historian saying, ‘Well, he did it just for the hell of it.’ Nor, ‘He did it because he thought someone in his position ought to do something like that.’ Nor, ‘He thought that if he acted like a statesman people might mistake him for one.’ Scientific history must be fundamentally serious and purposive. It must assume . . . that people do things for reasons and that these reasons make sense within a single orchestration of values that can be charted, if not always by the people involved, then by the recording historian. . . . Scientific history postulates the reality it seeks. How else can you talk about accuracy? There must be something to measure against. Such history, or rather such a positivist attitude towards the past, never credits the surface of an account. It always tries to see through it. If the surface defines experience alien to the facts postulated then that surface is wrong” (ibid., pp. 191–2; emphasis added).

^{page 270 note *} I have indicated only the more important variants; the notes to Pellat's edition of the Murūj al-dhahab indicate differences with the Barbier de Meynard edition and most of the parallels with Daylamī's Kitāb 'atf al-alif al-ma'lūf. P = Murūj, Pellat edition; BM = Barbier de Meynard edition; Daylamī 1962: seen. 6 above; Daylamī 1980 = Le traité d'amour mystique, trans. Vadet, J.-C., Hautes études orientales, 13 (Geneva, 1980)Google Scholar. Some materials also appear in Ibn Dā'ūd, Kitāb al-zahrah (see n. 34 above), pp. 15–18, in substantially the same form as in Mas'ūdī.

^{page 271 note 1} BM: ibn Haytham. Daylamī 1962 (p. 30) attributes this saying to Ibrāhīm al-Naẓẓām.

^{page 271 note 2} laysa yuḥaddu li-sī atihi; Daylamī 1962 (p. 79): laysa li-ḥiddatihi kāsir wa-las'atuhu lā ṭūqā, “its violence cannot be checked nor its sting averted”; attributed to al-Naẓẓām.

^{page 271 note 3} akhfā wa-aḥarra min al-jumar; Daylamī 1962 (p. 52): akhfā ma'khūdhan min al-khamr, “its power is more mysterious than (that of) wine”. Pellat notes, “This saying is not found in Daylamī”.

^{page 271 note 4} Daylami 1962 (p. 79): “Love penetrates the heart as the rain-cloud's moisture penetrates the sands. It is a despotic ruler by whom the wits are led and by whom wills are commanded. Every inherited or acquired (possession) is lawful to it”. The last phrase (wa-kullu (ṭarifīn wa-talīdin dūnahu wa-manāḥin lahu) is not in BM.

^{page 271 note 5} Daylamī 1962 (p. 79): “Love conquers the innermost self [yaghlibu al-bawātin, for P and BM: yukhtamu 'alā al-nawāẓir] and is impressed upon the heart; it rises into the body and hastens to the liver. The lover is (marked by) illusory fancies and changeable notions; no creature remains pure to him nor is any promise certain” (cf. Daylamī 1980, p. 130). Compare Daylamī 1962 (p. 80; attributed to “the philosophers”): fa-inna[hu] 'ashshasha ft jiwār al-qalb wa-shariba min jadāwil al-kabid, “It grazes near the heart and drinks from the streams of the liver”.

^{page 271 note 6} Daylamī 1962 (p. 31): “spontaneity [ṭalāqah, for P and BM: ṭalāwah, “elegance”] of character”. For the preceding statement see ibid. p. 42.

^{page 271 note 7} fa-lā yuṣīdu bihā illā ahl al-takhāluṣ fī nawā'ibihi; Daylamī 1962 (p. 42): illā ahl al-takhālus wa-al-taḥābbī [cf. also ibid. p. 80: fī al-taḥābbī] “those sincere in mutual love”.

^{page 272 note 8} Daylamī 1962 (p. 31): “Love is more subtle than a mirage; it is a clay kneaded with sweetness and fermented in a vessel of seduction”; cf. ibid. p. 80: “Love is more subtle than wine”.

^{page 272 note 9} So misnumbered in P.

^{page 272 note 10} laṭīf al-murabbā; Daylamī 1962 (p. 41): laṭīf al-madhāq, “sweet tasting”.

^{page 272 note 11} yamshī fī al-arā; Daylamī 1962 (p. 41): fī al-arwāḥ, “among the spirits”; BM has yaqbiḍu, “contracts” for P: yufīdu, “overflows”.

^{page 272 note 12} Properly Ma'mar ibn 'Abbād, as in Daylamī 1962 (p. 31).

^{page 272 note 13} Daylamī 1962 (p. 80): “. . . he is excited by every promise and rejoices at every desire; he is nourished by vain hopes and cherishes his aspirations. The least (gift) he would present to his beloved is to be slain by her or overpowered by her”.

^{page 273 note 14} bi-aysari 'l-ḥāyati, yastarīḥu ilā liqā ḥabībihi wa-ilā 'l-ṭarūqi bi-fanā'ihi wa-yaltadhdhu biṭarūqi khiyālihi; not in Daylamī or BM.

^{page 273 note 15} Daylamī 1962 (pp. 13, 73) attributes the last two statements (with slight variation) to Abū Ḥafṣ al-Ḥaddād; for the second he gives “When God wishes to ennoble someone he afflicts him With (love)” (mā arāda allāhu ī zāzi'abdin ibtalāhu bihi; Vadet, translates, “Dieu n'a jamais voulu glorifier le fidèle auquel II a envoyé ce tourment” (Daylamī 1980, p. 122)Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 16} Daylamī 1962 (p. 13): “(Love) pervades [yasūbu, for P and BM: lā yashnu'uhu, “will not despise it”] only the heart of a man characterized by excellence [barāah, for P: barāah, “purity”] and beauty of form”; the second part of the saying is attributed to Ḥammād ibn Abī Ḥanīfah. Cf. ibid. (p. 80) where the entire passage is attributed to Ḥammād; Vadet (Daylamī 1980 p. 131) gives Ḥammād ibn Khalīfah (?).

^{page 273 note 17} Daylamī 1962 (p. 31) attributes a similar statement (“love consists of sudden notions which visit the lover and occupy him totally; this is what is called love”) to Yaḥyā ibn Aktham, in a discussion with Thumāmah ibn Ashras in the presence of Ma'mūn.

^{page 274 note 18} Daylamī 1962 (p. 30) attributes these views (cited with some variations) to Aristotle.

^{page 274 note 19} Daylamī quotes Aristotle as saying that the cause of the destruction of the wits is “the desiccation of the brain due to the departure of the soul”, followed by his response to Cebes' (?) question, “Why does the brain desiccate and destroy the reason?”: “Persistence in desire heats the blood which, when heated, turns to black bile. When the black bile increases it engenders a fixed idea; when this idea becomes uncontrollable, the temperature increases and the yellow bile is inflamed. When this is heated it becomes turbid and corrupt; when corrupt, it turns to black bile, becomes an element of it, and makes the blood boil” (1962 p. 77; cf. Daylamī 1980 pp. 127–8).

^{page 275 note 20} Daylamī's longer version consists of further responses by Aristotle to his disciples' questions (1962 pp. 77–9, and see also pp. 113–4).

^{page 276 note 21} Daylamī attributes these materials ultimately to the astronomer Aratus (1962 pp. 28–9; cf. Daylamī 1980 p. 68).

^{page 276 note 22} Compare Daylamī 1962 p. 29.