for a knowledge of the history that thus we have at our command all manner of dissonant reports about the Sasanide epoch. But we have to observe all the same that the character and the tendency of the several versions are almost all along consistent and further more that often we have more recensions than one which differ but little and which have one and the same ground-work or prototype. The question whether this difference is older or younger than the _Khoday-Nameh_ has more literary than historical significance. [Sidenote: Translation of _Khoday-Nameh_ into Arabic. Its general fidelity to the original.] [Sidenote: The Arabic translation may be pieced together from various sources.] We should decide all this with much more certainty did we possess but one direct rendering made from the Pahlavi into Arabic. Above all we have to deplore the loss of Ibn Mukaffa's history of Persian Kings which is always assigned the first place among translations of the Persian Book of Kings by Hamza and other authorities. This distinguished man who only late in life exchanged the faith of his forbears for that of Islam, and who never professed the latter with over much zeal, translated a series of Pahlavi writings into Arabic including the _Khoday-Nameh_. He was a courtier, and passed for a good Arabic poet and one of the best rhetorical writers of his time. The famous Wazir Ibn Mukla counted him among "the ten most eloquent men." He must consequently have striven to suit his rendering of the book of Persian kings to the taste of his contemporaries. But we have no sufficient grounds to assume that he introduced arbitrary and material alterations into his translations or even that he greatly elaborated the rhetorical passages of the original text or invested them with an altogether different garb. Such a suspicion is contradicted by the coincidences with other sources which, like Firdausi, are independent of him. There is little probability of Ibn Mukaffa's work being again brought to light in its entirety. But on the other hand, it will indeed be possible to gather together in course of time more and more stray passages belonging to the book; though it is to be feared, unfortunately that these fragments will prove more to be preserved as efforts of rhetoric than because of their intrinsic value. A few extracts of this nature we find in Ibn Kotaiba's _Oyun-al Akhbar_. Among these citations which I owe to the goodness of Rosen, there is one tolerably long on the death of Peroz. Now the same fragment, little curtailed, is in the chronicle of Said bin Batrik or Eutychius, the patriarch of Alexandria. We should, therefore, be inclined from the first to derive other information in Eutychius on the Sasanides from Ibn Mukaffa. And our predisposition is supported by the circumstance that the history of the dynasty as given in a manual by the same Ibn Kotaiba and which is styled _Kitab al Maarif_, brief as it is, betrays as in the