|
Ancient Iran as a model state in Ibn KhaldÙn’s political theory
Mohsen Zakari
In an attempt to orient his potential readers to the content of
his monumental universal history of mankind, Ibn KhaldÙn [= IK]
sought to give it a title that would depict its precise content and
scope, thus, as you all know, it became “The Book of the ‘Ibar, the
record of the origins and events of the Days of the Arabs, Persians
and Berbers, and of those of their contemporaries who were
possessors of great power.” Following Muhsin Mahdi, I translate
‘ajam as ‘Persians’ rather than ‘non-Arabs’ because Ibn KhaldÙn
mentions another non-Arab people (Berbers) and thus does not seem to
be using ‘ajam as a collective noun for all non-Arabs.[1]
Despite his claim of following a universal approach and treatment,
we notice that only three nations or cultures are listed by name:
The Arabs, Persians, and Berbers.
Ibn KhaldÙn was a fourteenth-century author living in
North
Africa, a part of the great Islamic civilization, which had almost
ceased to exist anywhere, in particular in the areas of
Western North Africa.
His primary motivation was to find the causes of decline and decay
of cultures. That he chooses ancient Persia as a historical example
in documenting his theory of the rise and fall of civilizations is
very revealing of the interest he had gained for the culture and
civilization in the eastern parts of the Islamic world. Focusing on
this aspect of the ‘Ibar, Walter Fischel wrote: “It is to be
regretted that by discarding Ibn KhaldÙn’s account of
Zoroastrianism, many of the Iranists failed to take notice of Ibn
KhaldÙn’s investigation which, though not original and culled from
earlier sources, constitutes an important contribution for the
understanding of Ibn KhaldÙn’s historiographical outlook and
approach to his sources.”[2]
It is true, Ibn KhaldÙn treats the history of ancient
Persia
extensively in the Muqaddima as well as in the historical
portions of the ‘Ibar. His fair and systematic handling of
Persian past, and his praise of the contribution of Iranian culture
to human civilization encompass both the ancient Iran and Iran in
the Islamic period. At the time he was writing, a variety of
sources, often with confused and contradictory reports, were
available to him. It is of interest to see how he chose, summarized,
and synthesized this material in support of his theory of
civilization. A comparison of his treatment of Greek science and
culture with that of Iran could be also conducive to verifying his
historical objectivity and methodology.[3]
Here I propose to examine his view of ancient Iran as the epitome of
a power-state and say a few words about his sources and the use
which he makes of them.
IK distinguishes three kinds of state in terms of government and
purpose:
1. SiyÁsa madaniyya (politeia): this is the
government of the ideal state formulated in the political philosophy
of Plato in the Republic, and of Aristotle in the
Nicomachean Ethics.[4]
IK considers this as a hypothetical and theoretical exercise of the
philosophers only [this siyÁsa is functional when that which
is incumbent upon every citizen of the community comes out
naturally, so that there is no need of governors altogether]. Such a
community is called al-madÐna al-fÁÃila (The Virtuous City =
Republic; F. Rosenthal aptly translates ‘political utopianism’), and
a Neoplatonic version of it is articulated by al-FÁrÁbÐ.[5]
2-3. The concrete governments and their goals are divided into
two broad types of regimes: those concerned with man’s well-being in
this and the next world (i.e. siyÁsa shar‘iyya ‘the regime of
Law’ or siyÁsa dÐniyya ‘religious regimes’), and those which
concern themselves with his well-being in this world alone (i.e.
siyÁsa ‘aqliyya ‘rational regimes’ or regimes devised by man’s
practical reason without the ‘light of God’ to help them). This in
turn is subdivided into two kinds: The rational regime the primary
concern of which is to attend the common good, and the rational
regime, which is there to safeguard the interests of the ruling body
alone.[6]
IK knew only one pure example of the regime of Law (namely
khilÁfa or imÁma, the ideal Islamic theocracy) and one
pure example of the rational regime whose end is the common good,
“Such was the regime of the Persians”. All other rulers, Muslim and
non-Muslim, rule mostly in accordance with the rules of the rational
regime the prime goal of which is to preserve the private interest
of the ruler. Under this despotic rule the common good has a
subordinate status.[7]
The distinction between siyÁsa dÐniyya, based on divine
revelation and exercised by the khalÐfa or ImÁm, and
siyÁsa ‘aqliyya, based on laws devised by reason and exercised
by malik or sultan in the dawla or mulk is
fundamental. IK does not delve on the sharБa to describe its
significant features in detail for us to contrast it with other
systems. Instead he refers his readers to al-MÁwardÐ’s AÎkÁm
al-sulÔÁniyya “Ordinances, or Principles of Government,” where a
successful attempt was undertaken to synthesize the apparent
distinctions between theory and practice in the orthodox view of
ideal government. The true Islamic khilÁfa was that of the
khulafÁ rÁshidÙn, the period of the ‘rightly-guided’ caliphs
regarded as the golden age of the caliphate, after which it turned
into mulk of the Umayyads and the other caliphs. The ideal
Muslim caliphate IK defined as imÁma, following the example
of al-MÁwardÐ who represents the Sunni Islamic political theory, was
the best form of government.[8]
Under the Umayyads and the ‘AbbÁsids the khilÁfa remained but
only in name. The power had been transferred from the Arab
aristocracy to autocratic rulers in the Persian style, governing
after the Persian model. This was inaugurated by the decline of Arab
solidarity and ‘aÒabiyya as well as the dwindling force of
political Islam.
In theory, like all Muslim jurists, IK is convinced about the
superiority of the caliphate, based on the sharБa, to that
of mulk, which is developed independent from it. Nonetheless,
his interest and his inquiry were centered on the power-state. He
contrasted the imÁma with the mulk as a man made,
exclusively this-worldly, temporal state.[9]
Although the main concern of mulk is focused on mundane
affairs, the presence of religion still makes the achievement of
this goal easier and better. Hence he still recognizes the religion
or the Islamic sharБa as a very important factor in the
existing power-state. The ideal demands of the sharБa could
not be achieved that easily, any how. As can be seen, his method is
empirical, but his envisaged state ruled by sharБa remains
almost as speculative as siyÁsa madaniyya of the
philosophers. Observation of reality and experience of actual
politics form his views on mulk, whereas falÁsifa rely
on ‘hypothesis and supposition’. This power-state is described, as
we shall see, in terms of the Persian imperial tradition as
expounded in the Andarz-literature (collections of gnomic
sayings).
The tradition of praising ancient
Persia
as the model monarchy, the perfect rational regime (as opposed to
religious ones) is classical.[10]
Al-Mas‘ÙdÐ explains that the ancient Persian dynasties had occupied
the most temperate of the seven geographical zones into which the
earth is divided. Furthermore they were recognized by the other
ancient nations as preeminent in glory and power. As successors to
the kings of Babylon, the first Persian dynasty institutionalized
the monarchic principle and perfected the art of government and of
statecraft. It is primarily in this sphere that the Persians
excelled.[11]
IK has adopted his notion of the ancient Iranian empire as a
model of statecraft directly from al-Mas‘ÙdÐ, but the idea itself
was already present in the historical monographs of earlier
generations as well as in the more popular Mirrors for Princes (marÁyÁ
al-umarÁ’, ‘Fürstenspiegel’). However, these mirrors or
political tracts and the early Muslim authors who used them do not
present any systematic analysis of duties, relations and measures,
rather an amalgamation of political wisdom thrown together in a more
or less uncontrived manner. What IK did was to mold their teachings
in ways to make them fit his general theory of the ‘umrÁn. As
one modern author put it, where earlier historians had detected
patterns and deduced insights, IK detected laws. (Khalidi 144). In
any case the longevity of this appraisal from Plato to Ibn KhaldÙn
is a matter of great importance in historical research.
Although IK rightly claims to have laid the foundations of an
entirely new science, that of the sociology of history, he is well
aware and acknowledges that various elements of his thought had been
expressed and developed by earlier scholars, though none had
exhausted the subjects they dealt with. He singles out Ibn
al-Muqaffa‘ and AbÙ Bakr al-ÓurÔÙshÐ (ca. 451-520/1059-1126) as
examples, and writes, “The statements of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and the
excursions of political subjects in his treatises also touch upon
many of the problems of our work. However, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ did not
substantiate his statements with arguments as we have done. He
merely mentioned them in passing in the flowing prose style and
eloquent verbiage of the rhetorician. Similarly the judge AbÙ Bakr
al-ÓurÔÙshÐ also had the same idea in his KitÁb SirÁj al-mulÙk.
He divided the work into chapters that come close to the chapters
and problems of our work. However, he did not achieve his aim or
realize his intention. He did not exhaust the problems and did not
bring clear proofs. He sets aside a special chapter for a particular
problem, but then he tells a great number of stories and traditions
and he reports scattered remarks by Persian sages such as Buzurjmihr
and MobedhÁn, … etc.”[12]
There is striking continuity in the writing of Mirrors for
Princes. Ibn al- Muqaffa‘ wrote and translated mirrors in the 2nd/8th
century and they were still being written in Persian in the medieval
tradition at the beginning of the last century. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘
discusses temporal government and the conduct of rulers in his
Adab al-KabÐr, Adab al-ÑaghÐr (his?), and RisÁlat al-ÒaÎÁba
“Epistle on Companions.” In the AK (73) he states that kingship is
based on one of three factors: 1. Religion (mulk dÐn), 2. The
will to power (mulk Îazm), or 3. Personal desire (mulk
hawÁ). The first is the best kind of kingship; the second might
give stability but is likely to meet with opposition; and the third
is ephemeral.[13]
These are clearly in full accord with IK’s division of government
into the regime of Law, and the two kinds of national regimes: in
one the ruler works for the common good, in the other only for the
satisfaction of his own selfish interests (shahwa).
There are still a host of other similar sources of inspiration
for our author to take note of. In the chapter “Human civilization
requires political leadership for its organization,” where IK offers
the above outline of the different kinds of government, it is to
notice that after a short classification he reproduces the
relatively long ‘Ahd-nÁma of ÓÁhir b. al-Íusayn as support
for his view points. He says: “The best and most comprehensive
written exposition of this subject [i.e. politics] is the letter of
ÓÁhir b. al-Íusayn, al-Ma’mÙn’s general, to his son ‘Abd AllÁh.” (MQ
541). ÓÁhir’s ‘Ahd-nÁma, the original version of which is
preserved in full by Ibn AbÐ ÓÁhir ÓayfÙr (d. 280/893) in his
KitÁb BaghdÁd, may be considered as an early opuscule in the
Arab-Persian Mirrors for Princes literature, a genre which was to
reach its full flowering two or three centuries later in such works
as those of Kay KÁ’Ùs (QÁbÙs-nÁma), NiÛÁm al-Mulk (SiyÁsat-nÁma,
“The Book of Government”), al-ÓurÔÙshÐ (SirÁj al-mulÙk ‘The
Light of kings’), and al-GhazÁlÐ (NaÒÐÎat al-mulÙk, ‘Counsel
for kings’). Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ had shown the way with his works on the
conduct of rulers.[14]
In ÓÁhir’s tract, we find concisely expressed many of the precepts
inculcated by later authors who wrote at greater length and with a
wealth of illustrative anecdotes. Noteworthy is the ostensibly
Islamic nature of this epistle. However, we may assume that some of
the ultimate inspiration of ÓÁhir’s epistle was Persian.[15]
In fact, ÓÁhir b. al-Íusayn’s ‘Ahd-nÁma is only a modern
recast of ‘Ahd ArdashÐr ‘Covenant, or Testament of ArdashÐr’.[16]
‘Ahd ArdashÐr, a very popular Mirror for Princes, constitutes an
authoritative formulation of the old Persian concept of kingship. It
comprises the postulate that religion must serve the king through
being one of the most important instruments by means of which he
maintains power. “You must know that there will never be a concealed
religious leader and a declared royal leader together in one kingdom
without the religious leader usurping what is in the hand of the
royal leader; for religion is a foundation and kingship is a pillar,
and the lord of the foundation is closer to the whole building than
is the lord of the pillar.”[17]
In order to demonstrate the workings of the Andarz, in
particular that of ‘Ahd ArdashÐr, on the formation of
IK’s political thought, here I concentrate on only two maxims as
examples. ‘Ahd ArdashÐr (98) says: “There is no might
except with men, no men except with wealth, no wealth except with
cultivation (‘imÁra; from the same root as ‘umrÁn, and
practically identical with it), and no cultivation except with
justice and good politics.”[18]
Most authors of the mirrors have this maxim. Kay KÁ’Ùs b. Iskandar
(485/1092), the author of the QÁbÙs-nÁma (written 475/1082)
reproduces it as: “The king’s continuance is dependent on his
forces, and the prosperity of the countryside on the peasantry. Make
it your constant endeavor to improve cultivation and to govern well;
for, understand this truth: good government is secured by armed
troops, armed troops are maintained with gold, gold is acquired
through cultivation, and cultivation is sustained through payment of
what is due to the peasantry, by just dealing and fairness.”[19]
Another contemporary, Ibn BalkhÐ, whose narrative (i.e. FÁrs-nÁma
dedicated to MuÎammad MalikshÁh, r. 498-511/1104-17) of the
pre-Islamic Persian kings is the oldest independent Persian prose
history of them which has come down to us, writes: “The foundation
of the kingdom of the Persians,” he asserts, “was based on justice
and their way of living on equity and liberality. Whenever one of
them made his son heir apparent, he enjoined upon him the following
maxim: ‘There is no kingdom without an army, no army without wealth,
no wealth without material prosperity, and no material prosperity
without justice.’”[20]
Keeping on with his criticism of the inadequacies in the work of
his predecessors, IK goes on to explain, “For instance, we have the
speech of the MobedhÁn before BahrÁm b. BahrÁm in the story of the
owl reported by al-Mas‘ÙdÐ. It runs: ‘O king, the might of royal
authority materializes only through the religious law, obedience
toward God, and compliance with His commands and prohibitions. The
religious law persists only through royal authority. Mighty royal
authority is accomplished only through men. Men persist only with
the help of property. The only way to property is through
cultivation (‘imÁra). The only way to cultivation is through
justice. Justice is a balance set up among mankind. The Lord set it
up and appointed an overseer for it, and that (overseer) is the
ruler.”[21]
There is a statement by AnÙshirwÁn, to the same effect: “Royal
authority exists through the army, the army through money, money
through taxes, taxes through cultivation, cultivation through
justice, justice through the improvement of officials, the
improvement of officials through the forthrightness of viziers, and
the whole thing in the first place through the ruler’s personal
supervision of his subjects’ condition and his ability to educate
them, so that he may rule them, and not they him.”[22]
Ibn KhaldÙn adopts this aphorism, which expresses the
interdependence of authority, army, finance and prosperity, for
creating his systematic exposition of the development and decline of
the power-state. Referring to the famous octagonal saying from the
pseudo-Aristotelian Book on Politics,[23]
which is also a classical Mirror for Princes, he says, “In this
book, the author referred to such general ideas as we have reported
on the authority of the MobedhÁn and AnÙshirwÁn. He arranged his
statements in a remarkable circle that he discussed at length. It
runs as follows: ‘The world is a garden the fence of which is the
dynasty. The dynasty is an authority through which life is given to
proper behavior. Proper behavior is a policy directed by the ruler.
The ruler is an institution supported by the soldiers. The soldiers
are helpers who are maintained by money. Money is sustenance brought
together by the subjects. The subjects are servants who are
protected by justice. Justice is something familiar (or harmonious),
and through it, the world persists. The world is a garden….’- and
then it begins again from the beginning. These are eight sentences
of political wisdom. They are connected with each other, the end of
each one leading into the beginning of the next.” (MQ 65; tr.
I, 81-82). IK once also says: The edifice of the state rests on two
indispensable foundations. The first, understood as army, is power
and ‘aÒabiyya, the second is money, which sustains the army
and creates the conditions necessary for the ruler. Disintegration
befalls the dynasty at these two foundations.
(MQ, tr.
II, 118-19).
The adÐb and historian al-Mas‘ÙdÐ recognized religion as
an important phenomenon in history and emphasized its role in human
civilization. This view is evident in his treatment of the
historical and contemporary conditions of diverse socio-political
and religious groups. This approach is particularly visible in his
account of Sasanian
Persia.
Quoting from the Persian politico-religious wisdom literature,
al-Mas‘ÙdÐ emphasizes the idea that temporal authority (mulk)
and religion (dÐn) were indispensable with one another.[24]
He says: “Religion and kingship are two brothers, and neither can
dispense with the other. Religion is the foundation of kingship, and
kingship protects religion. For whatever lacks a foundation must
perish, and whatever lacks a protector disappears.”[25]
Muslim authors usually attribute the view that dÐn and
mulk, religion and politics, were twins to ArdashÐr I, the
founder of the Sasanian dynasty.[26]
Ibn KhaldÙn later developed this point.[27]
However, the ancient Iranian axiom al-dÐn wa-al-dawla, or
al-dÐn wa-al-mulk, or al-mulk wa-al-dÐn ta’amÁn “Politics
(secular power) and religion are twin brothers,” though also turned
into a Prophetic ÎadÐth, changes its sense to some extent in
IK.[28]
The regime of Law revealed by God and being more perfect and
comprehensive, comprises the principles of rational regimes. It is
not a community in which worldly desires and otherworldly goals
coexist in harmony. Nor are religion and kingship twin-brothers.
“The regime of Law is a single regime within which mundane ends are
subordinated to man’s end in the world to come.” (Mahdi 239). What
he, as a Muslim scholar, cannot, and will not acknowledge, is that
the greater part of the political system of the sharБa is
from the old, the caliph having replaced the king, without any
visible distinction.
Mirrors are concerned with the art of government. Their authors
are learned men often experienced in political affairs. Their method
is that of anecdotes based on or resulting from political aphorisms.
Their goal is to teach by advice and example. Their teachings
articulate the noble characteristics of a prince in terms of good
education, justice, circumspection, firm command, steadfastness in
fulfilling vows and promises, generosity and compassion. For IK “An
aphorism is a one-line novel.” So where Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (or the
author of AÑ) says: ghÁyatu al-nÁs wa-ÎÁjÁtihim ÒalÁÎ al-ma‘Ásh
wa-al-ma‘Ád “Man’s ultimate goal is good order in this world and
in the next,” IK derives his differentiation between khilÁfa
and mulk from it. Where Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ places the
preservation of man and the good order of his life here and in the
hereafter on the co-existence of religion and reason (dÐn wa-‘aql),
giving priority to the first, again he is followed by IK.
IK held the Andarz-tradition in high respect and
extensively used them for developing his political theory of
government. The compilers of numerous Andarz-nÁma had failed
to materialize the potential inherent in what they propagated: they
had to wait for the genius of one IK to explore and modernize the
rules, which govern society in a magnificent perceptible system.
[1]
Muhsin Mahdi, Ibn KhaldÙn’s philosophy of history, London
1957, 63-64. That IK is using ‘ajam for Persians is also
obvious in the body of the work, see for example, p. 1067: the
‘ajam ‘Persian’ who constitute the majority of the
population of the East; p. 334: like the Persian rulers with the
‘AbbÁsids.
[2]
Ibn KhaldÙn in
Egypt,
Berkley and Los Angeles 1967, 129. See also F. Rosenthal, “Ebn KaldÙn,”
Encyclopedia Iranica, 1998, VIII, 32-35.
[3]
There was a vivid contrast between the readiness of the Muslims
to accept the Persian tradition and their refusal to borrow from
the classical Greek or the Roman and Byzantine political
tradition. “The Muslims regarded this as something alien and
inferior.” W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic political thought,
Edinburgh 1968, 80-81.
[4]
His Politics was not well-known to Muslims? Al-Mas‘ÙdÐ,
TanbÐh 68, knows it under the title SiyÁsat al-mudun.
[5]
Ibn KhaldÙn, K. al-‘Ibar [= MQ], Beirut 1961, 540;
translated by F. Rosenthal, The Muqaddima, 3 vols. London
1958, II, 137.
[6]
MQ 540-41; tr. II, 137-38. Compare also MQ 337;
tr. I, 386.
[7]
M. Mahdi 252; al-ÓurÔÙshÐ, SirÁj al-mulÙk 45-47 speaks of
siyÁsa nabawiyya and siyÁsa iÒlÁÎiyya. The latter
was the siyÁsa practiced by the Persians, he says.
[8]
See H. Gibb, “al-MÁwardÐ’s theory of the khilÁfah,” IC 11
(1937), 291-302.
[9]
E. Rosenthal, Political thought in Medieval Islam,
Cambridge 1958, 27.
[10]
M. Mahdi, Ibn KhaldÙn 249. Mahdi cites Plato (ca.
427-347), Laws iii, 693 D ff.; and Aristotle, Politics
v. 10. 1310b36-1311a7. To these we can add
Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato.
[11]
TanbÐh 92; T. Khalidi, Islamic Historiography. The
histories of Mas‘ÙdÐ, Albany 1975, 89, 91.
[12]
MQ 65-66; tr. I, 82-83. For several other references to
SirÁj al-mulÙk and how IK criticizes and uses it see
MQ 274, 491, 492. Rosenthal’s translation has still another,
III, 17, which is missing in the edition I have used. This
monumental political treatise contains sixty-four chapters, in
which political thought has been somewhat subordinated to
ethical considerations. This work had a great influence on
contemporary and later political thinkers including IK.
[13]
A. Lambton, “Islamic political thought,” in The Legacy of
Islam, Oxford 1974, 409. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s proposition is
quoted also by al-ÓurÔÙshÐ, SirÁj al-mulÙk 47.
[14]
C. E. Bosworth, “The ÓÁhirides,” JSS 14 (1969), 55. For
that early age, Ibn al-NadÐm mentions a KitÁb siyÁsat
al-mulÙk by ÓÁhir’s contemporary, the general AbÙ Dulaf
al-‘IjlÐ, and a KitÁb tadbÐr al-mulk wa-al-siyÁsa by
al-Ma’mÙn’s official Sahl b. HÁrÙn.
[15]
This ‘Ahd is analyzed and translated into English by C.
E. Bosworth, “An early Arabic Mirror for Princes: ÓÁhir DhÙ
l-YamÐnayn’s epistle to his son ‘AbdallÁh (206/821),” JNES
28 (1969),
[16]
‘Ahd ArdashÐr. Ed. IÎsÁn ‘AbbÁs. Beirut 1967.
[17]
F. Steppat 452; ‘Ahd ArdashÐr 54.
[18]
‘Ahd ArdashÐr
98. F. Rosenthal (MQ, tr.
I, 80n) cites a saying by Seth from
al-Mubashshir’s MukhtÁr al-Îikam 5: “If a ruler thinks
that he can amass property through injustice, he is wrong, for
property can be amassed only through cultivation of the soil (‘imÁrat
al-arÃ).” This in turn has a parallel in ‘Ahd ArdashÐr
(99): “There is no cultivation (‘umrÁn) where the sultan
acts unjustly.” Moreover, on one of AnushirwÁn’s signet rings
was carved: al-‘imÁra (MurÙj, I, 309). Al-GhazÁlÐ
(F. R. C. Bagley, Counsel for kings, London 1964, 46)
says: “The development or desolation of this universe depends
upon kings; for it he is just, the universe is prosperous and
the subjects are secure, as was the case in the time of
ArdashÐr…”
[19]
QÁbÙs-nÁma, tr. 213;
E. Rosenthal,
Political thought 80.
[20]
Lambton, IV, 100. This is the same tradition as expressed by a
Mawbad in al-Mas‘ÙdÐ, MurÙj, I, 294, and in different
words by AnÙshirwÁn in I, 311; see below.
[21]
MQ 64; tr. I, 80; cf. MurÙj, I, 294. ÓÁhir has
quoted an abbreviated form of this saying in his ‘Ahd-nÁma.
Cf. MQ, tr. I, 80, II, 139.
[22]
MQ 65; tr. I, 80-81; cf. MurÙj, I, 311, sec. 631;
al-Tha‘ÁlibÐ, ThimÁr al-qulÙb 178; idem, al-TamthÐl
136; al-Tha‘ÁlibÐ al-MarghÐnÐ, Ghurar 482; al-ÓurÔÙshÐ,
SirÁj al-mulÙk 45; al-WaÔwÁt, Ghurar al-khaÒÁ’iÒ,
Cairo (?) 62; ‘Abd
AllÁh b. YÙsuf Ibn RiÃwÁn, al-Shuhub al-lÁmi‘a
fÐ al-siyÁsa al-nÁfi‘a,
ed. ‘AlÐ SÁmÐ al-NashshÁr, Casablanca 1984 (26?); al-AsadÐ,
al-TaysÐr, 158-59;
[23]
This is identical with Sirr al-asrÁr, “Secretum
Secretorum,” ed. ‘Abd al-RaÎmÁn BadawÐ, in his al-UÒÙl
al-YÙnÁniyya, Cairo 1954, 126-28. Here sentences from
ArdashÐr are attributed to Aristotle. See also al-Mubashshir b.
FÁtik, MukhtÁr al-Îikam 222. For references to Ibn
Juljul, Ibn AbÐ UÒaybi‘a, and SÁ‘id al-AndalusÐ, see MQ,
tr. I, 81 n. 29.
[24]
TanbÐh 2; cited by Shboul, Mas‘ÙdÐ 285, 295 n. 3.
[25]
R. C. Zaehner, The dawn and twilight of Zoroastrianism,
London 1961, 284; cites MurÙj, I, 289.
[26]
‘Ahd ArdashÐr 53, 97; M. Boyce, The letter of
Tansar-nÁma, Roma 1968, 33-34; = TÁrÐkh-i ÓabaristÁn
17; Ps-al-JÁÎiÛ, K. al-TÁj 2-3; Ibn Qutayba, ‘UyÙn,
I, 13; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd al-farÐd, I, 27; QudÁma
b. Ja‘far, K. al-kharÁj, folio 169 f.; al-Mas‘ÙdÐ,
MurÙj, I, 289; al-‘ÀmirÐ, al-Sa‘Áda wa-al-is‘Ád 207;
IkhwÁn al-ÑafÁ’, 1928, IV, 33; al-RÁghib al-IÒfahÁnÐ,
MuÎÁÃarÁt, I, 167; al-TawÎÐdÐ, ImtÁ‘, II, 32, 33;
al-Tha‘ÁlibÐ al-MarghÐnÐ Ghurar 481; al-BÐrÙnÐ, India
48; al-MÁwardÐ, NaÒÐÎat al-mulÙk 142-43 (with extra
references); al-ÓurÔÙshÐ, SirÁj al-mulÙk 53;
al-ZamakhsharÐ, RabБ al-abrÁr, IV, 234; Ibn ÍamdÙn,
Tadhkira, I, 292; UsÁma, LubÁb 18; Ibn Hudhayl,
‘Ayn al-adab wa-al-siyÁsa, Beirut 1981, 264; al-NuwayrÐ,
NihÁya, VI, 34, 35; A. Jeffrey, “al-BÐrÙnÐ’s contribution to
comparative religion,” in al-BÐrÙnÐ commemoration volume,
Calcutta 1951, 125-60; G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba? F.
Rosenthal, A history of Muslim Historiography, Leiden
1968, 117, 543-44; DihkhudÁ, AmthÁl u-Îikam 1614; M.
MuÎammadÐ, al-Tarjuma wa-al-naql 105; WadÁd al-QÁÃÐ,
“‘AlÁqat al-mufakkir bi-al-sulÔÁn al-siyÁsÐ fÐ fikr AbÐ ÍayyÁn
al-TawÎÐdÐ,” Festschrift for IÎsÁn ‘AbbÁs, Beirut 1981,
230-31. This aphorism attributed to ArdashÐr by numerous
authors, became one of the stock themes of the writes of
mirrors.
[27]
See on this in particular, G. Babica, Politique et religion
chez Ibn KhaldÙn, Alger 1968.
[28]
E. Rosenthal, Political thought 8; ‘Ahd ArdasÐr
53, 97; al-ÀbÐ, Nathr al-durr, VII, 68, 87; Ibn ‘Abd
al-Barr, Bahja, I, 333 “‘AlÐ b. AbÐ ÓÁlib”; on this see
Fritz Steppat, “From ‘Ahd ArdashÐr to al-Ma’mÙn: A Persian
element in the policy of the MiÎna,” Festschrift for IÎsÁn
‘AbbÁs, Beirut 1981, 451-54.
|
