Page 14 - 47176

2 THE TAIUUMAN AL-ASHWAQ

as ‘ vain and ainatorious and in order to refute his critics
the author issued a second recension, represented Leiden
641 and Brit. ]\Ius. 754’, containing Ulc same poems with
a commentarij and a new preface, in which lie decltvres that
he composed these poems, while visiting tlie holy places at
Mecca, in the months of Rajah, Sha'ban, and Ramadan,
611 A.H. The third recension is represented Bodl. (Uri)
1276, Munich 524’ , Berlin 7750 and 7751, and the MS. cited
by I.Iajji Khalifa (Fluegel’s edition), ii, 270. It agrees with
the second in giving the date of composition as 611 A.rr., but
includes a statement of the circumstances which caused the
author to write his commentaiy.
M}?^ MS. .seems to be unique ’ in so far as it contains
the preface belonging to the first recension and also the
additional statement which differentiates the third recension
from the second.
Dozy, as I have said, believed that the true date of
composition, namely 598 a.h., was given l&'- the author in
j
the preface to the first recension; and that on publishing
the second recension he post-dated it by thirteen years.
‘ To wipe out the memory of his offence the poet not only
proved by means of his commentary that Heavenl}’-, not
earthly, love was the theme that inspired him, but he also
pretended that the poems were composed at a different time;
by which artifice, though he could not deceive those who had
read them before, he might dupe anyone who had heard
people talk of them and the scandal produced by them.’ ®
well to set forth the evidence more fully than he has done.
Before considering the justice of Dozy’s criticism it will be

I shall therefore summarize the contents of the prose sections
which form an introduction to the text of the poems.

* Perhap.s I should .say ‘ alino.sb unique since Pertsch’s description of
(iotha 2209, which is defective at the beginning, leads me to svippo.se that
it resembles my MB. in this particular. The tlotha MS., however, has
the date (ill a . h . , which is wanting in mine.
- Ldrl'.n Citt., ii, 77. The la.st clause, as jn-inted, run.s ; ‘ qui do iis de<iue
magna oft’ensione cuius causa exstiterant, fando audiverant,’ i.e. ‘ the
scandal which hail produced them’. Dozy cannot have meant to write this.