nformation on the Sasanides. Hamza treats his materials in
a spirit of much more freedom and independence than Tabari, but to us
the compiling process of Tabari is far more convenient.

[Sidenote: Masudi.]

Masudi in his "Meadows of Gold" affords us many a supplement to Tabari's
narratives derived from reliable Persian sources. But Masudi works very
unequally, accepts a good deal that is suspicious provided only it is
entertaining, and as regards detail he is by no means over exact.

As an historical authority, the Persian redaction of Tabari, so
remarkable in many of its aspects, and achieved by Muhammad Belami or by
others under his guidance, has but little value. I designate this work
as "Persian Tabari" and have used it in the splendid Gotha manuscript
and in Zotenberg's French translation. I have also consulted the Turkish
version of Belami in a Gotha Manuscript.

[Sidenote: Tabari more valuable than Firdausi.]

All these writers and others present us collectively a tolerably rich
and vivid portrait of Persian tradition of the Sasanide times. But the
best comprehensive statement of the story of the Sasanides on the basis
of this tradition is furnished us by Tabari, all his shortcomings
notwithstanding and despite the pre-eminence which Firdausi's poem
possesses as such.

[Sidenote: Ibn Kelbi.]

But in his narrative of this period Tabari had laid under contribution
reports which were not of Persian origin. For the history of the Arab
princes of Hira, which is so intimately related to that of the Persian
empire, Tabari's chief authority was Hisham bin Muhammad called Ibn
Kelbi a man who, like his father Muhammad bin Saib Kelbi before him, has
rendered, however often modern criticism may take exception to the
unscientific system of both the writers, the greatest service in
connection with the collection of the scattered information on the
history of ancient Arabs. We know of a few of the numerous writings,
large and small, of Ibn Kelbi which are enumerated for us in the
_Fihrist_ and which probably are at the root of Tabari's chapters. It is
quite possible that Tabari borrows many of the secondary sources of Ibn
Kelbi. It is surprising that the latter is cited as an authority on the
Persian history itself, on the reigns of Ardeshir, Peroz, Khosrau I,
Harmizd IV, Khosrau II, and Yazdegerd III. We are not cognisant of any
work of his on the History of Persia. But it may be conjectured that
occasionally in his hi