The Narrators of Barmakid History and Independent Works on the Family

Regarding the Barmakids, the most renowned family of viziers throughout the Abbasid period, many aspects remain unclear despite the abundance of historical, literary, and biographical sources.

 Identifying the earliest and most important transmitters of accounts about this family, examining the numerous historical and narrative works written about them, and comparing and conducting a stylistic analysis of these works and accounts may help clarify some of these unresolved issues. 

This article introduces the most important transmitters of these accounts, as well as the known monographs on the Barmakids dating from the 4th century AH onward.

The sources for research on the Barmakids—the most renowned family of viziers and administrators of the Abbasid era—can be divided into two main groups:

The first group consists of a vast body of reports which, in accordance with the importance of this family and the fundamental role they played in shaping the political and administrative organization and social life of their own era and subsequent centuries, have been scattered across a wide range of subject categories within the written works of the Islamic period. 

These works can themselves be divided into several categories:

• Historical sources, such as Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk, al-Kāmil, and Futūḥ al-Buldān.

• Geographical works, such as al-Buldān, Muʿjam al-Buldān, and Āthār al-Bilād.

• Local histories, such as Taʾrīkh Bukhārā, Taʾrīkh Ṭabaristān, Mazārāt Balkh, and Faḍāʾil Balkh.

• Historical and literary biographical dictionaries, such as Wafayāt al-Aʿyān and Muʿjam al-Udabāʾ.

• Biographical and genealogical sources, such as al-Lubāb.

• Works of adab, including al-ʿIqd al-Farīd, al-Aghānī, ʿUyūn al-Akhbār, and Akhbār al-Shuʿarāʾ.

• The dīwāns of Arab and Persian poets, including those of Abū Nuwās, al-Aṣmaʿī, al-Ḥimyarī, Khāqānī, Muʿizzī, and Manūchihrī.

• Works concerning the institution of the vizierate, such as those of al-Jahshiyārī and al-Ṣābī.

In modern scholarship, in addition to the books and articles devoted to individual members of the family or to the Barmakids collectively, numismatic sources, historical-geographical studies, and literary research should also be taken into consideration.

The second group consists of historical-narrative works written about the Barmakids, which should be regarded as a form of dynastic history. We shall discuss and introduce these works later. 

Before doing so, however, it is necessary to mention some of the most prominent transmitters of the Barmakids’ reports.

These reports were principally collected and transmitted by two individuals. 

The first was ʿUmar b. Azraq al-Kirmānī, known by the kunyah Abū Jaʿfar or Abū Ḥafṣ, who narrated historical reports concerning the family in his Taʾrīkh Āl Barmak.

 The second was Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad b. Ghassān, to whom most of the historical-narrative accounts concerning the Barmakids can ultimately be traced.

Both men obtained their reports from transmitters who were contemporaries of the Barmakids and were often close associates of the family, or even members of it themselves.

ʿUmar b. Azraq al-Kirmānī is mentioned in al-Ṭabarī’s Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk primarily as a transmitter of reports concerning the Abbasid caliphs Mūsā al-Hādī and Hārūn al-Rashīd.

 In al-Jahshiyārī’s al-Wuzarāʾ, he is cited as a transmitter of reports concerning al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā al-Barmakī, and probably of other reports concerning the family whose transmitters are not explicitly identified.

Ibn ʿAsākir likewise regards him in Taʾrīkh Dimashq as an authority for reports concerning Khālid b. Barmak’s relations with Muḥammad b. ʿAlī and Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-ʿAbbāsī, and explicitly states that he authored a book entitled Akhbār al-Barāmika wa-Faḍāʾiluhum (Accounts of the Barmakids and Their Virtues).

Little is known about Ibn Azraq’s life. However, some of his reports from al-Jāḥiẓ indicate that he was his contemporary and that he personally heard some accounts concerning the Barmakids from him. 

We also know that he himself met some of the prominent figures associated with the Abbasid daʿwa. It therefore appears that he lived from approximately the mid-second to the middle of the third century AH.

Among the most important individuals from whom Ibn Azraq obtained his reports about the Barmakids were:

• Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Khālid al-Barmakī, who entered Abbasid service after his father’s death. Numerous accounts concerning the Barmakid family were transmitted from him (e.g., al-Ṭabarī, 3:572–573, 575, 603; al-Jahshiyārī, 148–186, 182, 234–235).

• Isḥāq al-Balkhī, the poet, who was already an elderly man during Ibn Azraq’s lifetime. He had witnessed Barmak’s arrival at the court of Hishām and transmitted an account of it.

• Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-Mawṣilī, who transmitted reports from his father, Ibrāhīm (Ibn Khallikān, 1:202; 6:222).

• Saʿīd b. Maslama b. Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik.

• Some of the surviving figures associated with the Abbasid daʿwa.

• Most importantly, ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAlī, the grandson of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAbbāsī. Reports concerning Khālid’s activities during the Abbasid revolution, as well as his position and that of his sons within the Abbasid administration, were transmitted from him.

In any case, Ibn Azraq’s book is no longer extant, but his reports have survived scattered throughout other sources. There is also a treatise entitled Taʾrīkh Āl Barmak, which apparently consists entirely of his reports. 

The largest collection of Ibn Azraq’s accounts concerning the Barmakids can be found in Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿAdīm’s (d. 660 AH) Bughyat al-Ṭalab fī Taʾrīkh Ḥalab, which, as Ibn al-ʿAdīm himself explicitly states, draws from Ibn Azraq’s Akhbār al-Barāmika.

To substantiate the point that Ibn al-ʿAdīm had made use of written sources, many of which are now lost, Iḥsān ʿAbbās studied Bughyat al-Ṭalab and compiled a work entitled Shadharāt min Kutub Mafqūda fī al-Tārīkh (Fragments from Lost Historical Books). Part of this work consists of a collection of Ibn Azraq’s reports.

These reports, however, primarily concern Khālid b. Barmak and his relations with the early Abbasids. 

In addition to the transmitters previously mentioned as Ibn Azraq’s sources, a number of relatively obscure individuals also transmitted material to him, including:

•  Bishr b. Ḥarb al-Ṭāliqānī
•  Bishr b. Fāris, a shaykh from the people of Bāmiyān
•  Abū Yaḥyā Khalīl al-Shīʿī
•  Hārūn b. Dīzūyah
•  ʿAlī b. Faraj
•  and ʿAlī b. ʿIṣmah, who is also a transmitter of reports concerning Khālid b. Barmak in al-Ṭabarī’s history.

Another was a certain Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, who provides detailed information about al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā and Yaḥyā b. Abī Maryam al-Madanī, a boon companion of Hārūn. It has been strongly suggested that he was the son of Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Khālid al-Barmakī. Finally, al-Jāḥiẓ, who transmitted from the Muʿtazilite Thumāmah b. Ashras, was also among Ibn Azraq’s transmitters.

Interestingly, the origins of some of the transmitters of Barmakid reports whom Ibn Azraq drew upon correspond to the very region associated with Barmak’s original role as the religious or administrative custodian of the Nawbahār temple at Balkh—namely, eastern Iran, particularly Ṭukhāristān, Bāmiyān, Balkh, and Ṭāliqān.

Ibn Azraq al-Kirmānī’s narrative concerning the Barmakids may, perhaps as a result of his connections with later members of the family, be understood as deliberately emphasizing the importance that the Abbasids had attributed to Barmak and Khālid b. Barmak before the establishment of their state, greatly magnifying their status.

Nevertheless, two of Ibn Azraq’s earliest reports suggest that Barmak, although there is no genuinely reliable and precise information about him, and Khālid, owed their rise in the history of Islam as mawālī to the Umayyads, particularly to the support of Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik and his son Maslamah, who had risen alongside Khālid at court.

As for the transmitters from whom Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān derived his accounts of the Barmakids, with only one or two exceptions, they were different from Ibn Azraq’s transmitters. 

Most of them, however, were likewise close associates of the Barmakids, members of Hārūn’s circle, or contemporaries of Ibn Ghassān who were authors in their own right, although no trace of their works has survived.

There is disagreement concerning the name and epithet of Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān.

 In Taʾrīkh al-Barāmika (edited by ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Qarīb, Tehran, 1312 Sh./1933–34), which consists of a collection of his reports, his name appears in this form. 

In Akhbār al-Barāmika, however, translated by Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī and also known as Ikrām al-Nās, his name and epithet appear in several forms: Abū al-Qāsim Ghassān Muḥammad Ṭāʾifī, Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad Ṭāʾifī, and Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Ṭāʾifī. 

In one place, he is given as Abū al-Ḥasan Ṭāʾifī. 

If this epithet is correct, his full name should be understood as Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Ghassān al-Ṭāʾifī.

In addition to being a transmitter of reports concerning the Barmakids, Ibn Ghassān also collected and compiled these reports, of which several recensions and manuscript copies have survived. 

Since he transmitted some of these reports from Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-Mawṣilī, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Khālid al-Barmakī, and Yaḥyā b. Aktham—the first two of whom are also among Ibn Azraq’s transmitters—it would appear that he likewise lived around the middle of the third century AH.

Other transmitters associated with Ibn Ghassān, some of whom are known to us, include:

• Ghassān, his father
• Ibrāhīm b. al-Mahdī
• Abū al-Ḥasan Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn, a secretary who wrote a book about al-Faḍl al-Barmakī and had read it to him while in prison
• Isḥāq b. Ḥafṣūyah
• Isḥāq b. Sulaymān b. Jaʿfar
• Ḥasan b. Jaʿfar b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid
• Ḥasan b. Sahl, the vizier, and his son
• Aḥmad al-ʿAttābī, the poet of al-Faḍl b. ʿAbbās, who may have been a grandson of al-Faḍl al-Barmakī, that is, the son of ʿAbbās b. al-Faḍl
• Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn b. Jaʿfar, one of the eloquent men of his age and a boon companion of the Barmakids, who had written a book about the Barmakids
• Yaʿqūb b. Khālid b. ʿUthmān, one of al-Faḍl’s close associates
• Abū al-Ḥasan Aḥmad b. Ḥudhayfah
• Abū al-Ḥasan ʿĪsā b. Mūsā al-Karkhī
• Ḥassān b. Muḥammad
• Layth b. Qāsim al-Baṣrī, one of Hārūn’s secretaries
• Mūsā b. Yaḥyā al-Barmakī
• Abū ʿAlī Qāsim b. Muḥammad, the author of several books
• Farrukh the secretary, a mawlā of Jaʿfar al-Barmakī.

Some of Ibn Ghassān’s reports—for example, in Akhbār al-Barāmika—suggest that he may have been a government official closely connected with the Abbasid and Barmakid establishments. However, historical sources do not mention anyone named Ghassān as a transmitter of reports concerning the Barmakids.

Works Devoted to the History of the Barmakids

The books devoted specifically to the history of the Barmakids are as follows:

1. Akhbār al-Barāmika

The Persian text of Akhbār al-Barāmika contains most of the reports attributed to Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān concerning the origins of the Barmakids, their emergence within the Umayyad administration, the family’s political activities during the Abbasid period, and their eventual downfall. Apart from certain epic and narrative elements, these historical tales are generally consistent with the historical reports.

It is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion concerning the author of the original Arabic text, which is no longer extant, or concerning its translator or translators into Persian, especially given the contradictions found within the work itself. 

Before examining these issues, it should be noted that two manuscript copies of the work are known: one belongs to the University of Lahore Library, while the other is among the manuscripts of the Shaykh Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī shrine and is currently preserved in Russia.

 Both manuscripts bear the title Akhbār al-Barāmika. Another version, which was lithographically printed in Bombay more than a century ago, bears the title Ikrām al-Nās fī Taʾrīkh Āl Barmak.

In the Lahore manuscript, Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad Ṭāʾifī, or Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Ṭāʾifī, whom we previously suggested may be identical with Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, is consistently identified as the author of the Arabic text. In Ikrām al-Nās—another recension or version of the same work—Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ṭāʾifī is mentioned as the author in only one place. 

Elsewhere, it is stated that Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ṭāʾifī, the author of the Arabic text, was the father of the Persian translator. No such statement appears in the Lahore manuscript.

Since these two manuscripts represent separate recensions of the same text—a phenomenon also found in other historical, narrative, and epic works such as the Abū Muslim-nāma and Zamjī-nāma—it seems likely that the scribe or redactor of this version of Akhbār al-Barāmika added material of his own. The considerable differences between the two manuscripts in wording, expressions, and presentation, despite their preservation of essentially the same reports and narratives, support this conclusion.

In any case, none of these three versions identifies a translator whose name indicates a relationship with Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ṭāʾifī. On the other hand, both the Lahore manuscript and Ikrām al-Nās identify a person named Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Lābarī—in the Lahore manuscript, fol. 138b, Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ālabrī—as the first author or compiler of the book.

 Elsewhere in Ikrām al-Nās, this individual appears under the name Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad and is described as the first translator of Akhbār al-Barāmika. It is explicitly stated that he arranged the translation after Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn b. ʿUmar al-Harawī, producing it in a smooth and fluent style.

Nothing is known about Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Harawī. However, based on the statement in Ikrām al-Nās, and on the fact that Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Abbarī—or al-Lābarī—is said to have translated the book into Persian during the reign of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna, it follows that Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Harawī must have preceded him.

The Lahore manuscript does not contain these details. At its conclusion, however, after identifying ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ālabrī as the author of the book, it states that Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī translated it from Arabic into Persian. 

The latter attribution appears in the preface of all versions of the work. Curiously, however, the title page of Ikrām al-Nās identifies the work as one of the compositions of Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī.

The story concerning the reason for translating the book into Persian—namely, Sultan Maḥmūd’s interest in tales of generosity and in the story of the Barmakids’ downfall—is attributed to Baranī and is related in the Lahore manuscript through Imām Qaffāl, who had spoken before the sultan about the Barmakids. This account must presumably relate to the translator who worked during Maḥmūd of Ghazna’s reign, although his name is not given here.

Taken together, these details suggest that Akhbār al-Barāmika was originally a collection of reports by Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, and, most probably, was collected and compiled by him himself.

 In the fourth century AH, Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Harawī translated it, after which ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ābrī undertook another translation and recension for Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna. Finally, Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī translated the work into Persian once again for Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq, the Sultan of Delhi.

Although the manuscripts explicitly state this latter point, and Baranī himself describes his translation as more fluent and leaves the judgment to his readers, it appears that Baranī may actually have revised and edited an earlier Persian translation, while perhaps translating additional reports and incorporating them into the work.

It is also possible that the book resulted from the translation of two Arabic texts, one by Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān and another by ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Lābarī, which Baranī subsequently combined into a single work. Several points support this possibility: first, Baranī quotes al-Lābarī directly in several places; and second, in some passages he describes al-Lābarī as the author of the Arabic text, a detail that further supports the possibility outlined above.

Akhbār al-Barāmika begins with the familiar legendary narrative, for which no historical source or corroborating chain of transmission is available, concerning Barmak’s arrival at the Umayyad court and his encounter with ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. The author notes that although Barmak attained a high position within the caliph’s administration, he did not convert to Islam, whereas his son Khālid embraced Islam and became one of the distinguished and trusted secretaries of al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik.

The narrative then moves directly to Khālid’s association with al-Manṣūr al-ʿAbbāsī and his service as the caliph’s secretary, without discussing the chronology of Khālid’s life and activities under the Umayyads or his role in the Abbasid movement.

From this point onward, the material concerning the Barmakids is presented without chronological continuity or systematic organization, in the form of numerous anecdotes, which are given individual titles in the version known as Ikrām al-Nās and are embellished with narrative and epic elements. The central theme of these accounts is the emphasis on the generosity, chivalry, and other virtues of the Barmakids.

The work also contains some unique accounts concerning the killing of Jaʿfar, the torture of al-Faḍl and Yaḥyā in prison, the causes of the Barmakids’ downfall, and Hārūn’s subsequent remorse. It also preserves reports concerning the Barmakids’ religious beliefs and practices.

Some of the reports in the book are attributed to members of the Barmakids’ circle, including their protégés, protégés-in-training, and close associates, who, following the family’s downfall, praised their virtues and implicitly or explicitly condemned the actions of Hārūn and the other opponents and conspirators who had acted against them.

One of the longest and most compelling sections of the work concerns the correspondence between Hārūn and Jaʿfar al-Barmakī’s mother, or, according to another version, a debate between the two concerning the reason for the caliph’s anger toward the family following Jaʿfar’s execution.

The book concludes with a letter that Yaḥyā al-Barmakī allegedly wrote to Hārūn from prison, followed by Hārūn’s harsh reply. It then relates several poems that were supposedly found after Yaḥyā’s death, composed in his voice and dealing with justice, judgment, and the punishment of tyranny. These poems are said to have deeply moved Hārūn.

As noted above, some of the reports in the work have a distinctly legendary or fictionalized character. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the majority of its narratives are based on genuine historical reports, which can be found, albeit often only in abbreviated form, in reliable historical sources. The author or translator appears to have embellished these accounts with additional details and narrative elements, to the extent that the work may initially appear legendary or fictional.

The translator of the book, whom Baranī identifies in one passage as Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Abbarī, and whom he calls the second translator, was himself aware of this issue, or had apparently been told explicitly that the reports in the book appeared to be fabricated. He responds to such criticism by declaring, in effect, that the accounts of the Barmakids’ generosity and charity are so numerous that they could not possibly fit into written records. He continues:

 “But those accounts that are well known and widely reported … I have translated into Persian at the command of the supreme authority … When certain misers examine the accounts of their generosity and their deeds, they become short of breath because they see things contrary to their own nature … and say that most of these stories appear to be fabricated. It is no secret how sensitive and devoted to truth Sultan Maḥmūd Sabuktakīn al-Ghāzī is. Throughout the inhabited world, who would have the courage to translate a false account of generous men so that it might come before the supreme authority? Unless a story actually took place, it would not be translated as truthful.”

A comparison of this book with reliable historical works likewise demonstrates that the core substance of its narratives has a historical basis and antecedent. The additional embellishments should be understood as reflecting popular perceptions and ideas concerning the virtues and qualities attributed to the Barmakids. In an environment marked by oppression, poverty, and hypocrisy, people may have projected their innermost aspirations through praise of the Barmakids’ generosity, excellence, justice, and chivalry, thereby finding a form of emotional consolation in these narratives.

In addition to its historical significance, Akhbār al-Barāmika may also be of interest to scholars of the Persian language and lexicographers, particularly because of its vocabulary and expressions. Among its noteworthy usages are:

بر خود یافته (bar khod yāfta) — withdrawn into oneself, sorrowful, or dejected.

عمل سازندگی (ʿamal sāzandegī) — composing a melody or performing music.

نامه پرداختن (nāma pardākhtan) — to compose or fabricate a letter.

فراهمی آوردن جراحت (farāhamī āvardan-e jerāḥat) — to treat a wound and cause it to close.

پس آمد (pas āmad) — to overcome, succeed in dealing with, or accomplish something.

ندانستگی (nadānestegī) — ignorance, lack of knowledge, or ineptitude.

تاباک (tābāk) — strength, vigor, or agitation/excitement.

کاره (kāra) — affairs, business, matters, or activity.

And many other expressions of similar linguistic interest.

2. Akhbār al-Barāmika

Akhbār al-Barāmika is the title of another Persian work on the history of the Barmakids. It consists of reports attributed to Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, who is referred to in the work as the author (muṣannif) of Akhbār Āl Barmak. Nothing is known about the identity of the translator. Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān was discussed above in connection with the preceding work.

It should be noted here that some of the reports in Akhbār al-Barāmika and Akhbār al-Barāmika are broadly similar, although they differ in certain details, omissions, and additions.

 For example, the present work contains an extensive account of Barmak’s arrival in Damascus, describing him as the descendant of a family of Sasanian viziers whose ancestors had all held the office of vizier from the time of Ardashīr Bābakān until the fall of the Sasanian Empire. According to the same account, Barmak had converted to Islam in Balkh before arriving in Damascus.

Akhbār al-Barāmika, however, does not contain these details and at times appears to contradict them. The account in Akhbār al-Barāmika is attributed to Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, whereas the corresponding account in Akhbār al-Barāmika is attributed to Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭāʾifī, who elsewhere is identified as Abū al-Qāsim Ghassān al-Ṭāʾifī.

Here, as in Akhbār al-Barāmika, the narrative thread is broken after Barmak’s arrival at the Umayyad court, and the next account suddenly resumes in the court of Hārūn during the vizierate of Yaḥyā al-Barmakī.

Despite these similarities, the central content of a number of the reports in this work differs from that of Akhbār al-Barāmika. These reports may therefore be regarded as continuations of other accounts transmitted by Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, and the two books, Akhbār al-Barāmika and Akhbār al-Barāmika, may in some respects be considered complementary works.

If this is the case, it may be conjectured that the translator of Akhbār al-Barāmika was also Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Harawī, the first translator of Akhbār al-Barāmika, or ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Lābarī, who translated Akhbār al-Barāmika for Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna. ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Qarīb, the editor of Akhbār al-Barāmika, likewise dated the work, on stylistic grounds, to the fourth or fifth century AH, which would be compatible with the period in which al-Lābarī and Sultan Maḥmūd lived.

The fact that some expressions in this book are repeated in the Siyāsat-nāma attributed to Niẓām al-Mulk also indicates that the translation of Akhbār al-Barāmika predates the sixth century AH. The length of the work, which amounts to approximately one-third of Akhbār al-Barāmika, further strengthens the hypothesis that Akhbār al-Barāmika was originally part of Akhbār al-Barāmika and was separated from it for some reason.

Another significant point is that in each of the two books, individual reports are attributed to particular transmitters: each story or report is related from a specific narrator. Since the transmitters cited in Akhbār al-Barāmika and Akhbār al-Barāmika are also different, this may further support the possibility that the two books were originally parts of a single work.

A khbār al-Barāmika*, edited and introduced by ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Qarīb, was published in Tehran in 1312 Sh./1933–34. The Persian vocabulary and expressions found in the work are also noteworthy and deserve further linguistic study. Among them are:

و استاندن (wastāndan) — to reprimand, hold accountable, or punish;

تپش (tapaš) — the intensity of heat, or the heat affecting a part of the body;

مهمانی خوردن (mehmānī khordan) — to attend a feast or visit someone as a guest and eat food;

شخودن (šakhūdan) — to scratch or drag one’s claws across something;

رنجه شدن (ranja šudan) — to trouble oneself by going somewhere, as in the expression qadam ranja kardan;

باد سرد کشیدن (bād-e sard kešīdan) — figuratively, to sigh and express regret;

along with many other expressions of considerable linguistic interest.

3. Taʾrīkh Āl Barmak

Tārīkh Āl Barmak is the title of another independent Persian work on the history of the Barmakid family. It was written by ʿAbd al-Jalīl Yazdī, who began composing it in the ninth century AH for Sultan Selim I of the Ottoman Empire and completed it during the early reign of Sultan Sulaymān.

The copyist who transcribed the work in 921 AH appears to have been a learned man, since he explicitly stated that he had found numerous errors in the book and that, had it not been for the sultan’s command, he would not have undertaken its transcription.

Tārīkh Āl Barmak begins with a report transmitted by Muḥammad b. Abī al-Qāsim, known by the kunya Abū al-ʿAynāʾ, according to which an elderly man who had reached the age of 120 and had served as the muezzin of the Abbasid caliph Mūsā al-Hādī related the following story in the presence of al-Wāthiq bi-Allāh:

He claimed to have personally seen Barmak cure Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik when the caliph fell ill and his physicians were unable to treat him. In gratitude, the caliph granted Barmak valuable estates (iqṭāʿāt), after which Barmak settled permanently in Damascus.

Some of the reports in this work are similar to those found in Akhbār al-Barāmika. Here, however, the author has expanded upon them considerably, embellishing them with Arabic proverbs and Persian poetry. The result is an engaging work consisting of narratives that, for the most part, have a historical basis.

A manuscript of Tārīkh Āl Barmak is preserved in the Paris Library, and Charles Schefer published portions of it, accompanied by a French translation, commentary, and introduction, in his collection of Persian literature.

4. Tārīkh Āl Barmak

Tārīkh Āl Barmak is a Persian work on the history of the Barmakids, arranged into six chapters, each containing several narratives transmitted by different authorities. The identity of its author, compiler, or translator is unknown.

Its fluent and mature prose, along with certain expressions, terminology, poetry, and the form of its script, suggests that its present recension is no later than the sixth or seventh century AH, although, like Akhbār al-Barāmika, its underlying Persian text may ultimately date to the fourth or fifth century AH.

The first report is attributed to ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq—apparently a mistaken form of the name ʿUmar b. Azraq al-Kirmānī—and concerns the origins of the Barmakids, as well as their extraordinary wealth, status, and power as custodians of the Buddhist temple at Balkh.

This account includes details concerning the etymology and appearance of Nawbahār, the arrival of Islam in Transoxiana, and Barmak’s conversion to Islam at the hands of Imam ʿAlī in Medina. It further relates that his people opposed him, that he fought and fled with Ṭalkhān (the Turkic Tarkhān), killed him, and that his son Khālid subsequently fled to Kashmir. None of these details is found in any of the surviving independent works devoted to the Barmakids.

The second chapter concerns the life of Khālid al-Barmakī and contains reports attributed to Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān. Here too, the period between Barmak’s arrival at the court of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān or Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik and the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd is passed over without any narrative concerning this period.

The chapter instead relates the story of Hārūn’s designation as heir, al-Hādī’s attempts to remove him from the succession, al-Hādī’s death, Hārūn’s accession to the caliphate, and Yaḥyā al-Barmakī’s appointment as vizier.

Some of the reports in this work resemble those found in Akhbār al-Barāmika and Akhbār al-Barāmika, although they are often presented here in greater detail. Other accounts appear to be unique to this work, such as the report transmitted by Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid concerning al-Faḍl’s administration of Khurāsān and Transoxiana and his treatment of the inhabitants of those regions, as well as the account attributed to Yaḥyā b. Aktham concerning the causes of the Barmakid family’s downfall.

Other transmitters represented in the work include ʿAwn b. Muḥammad, who transmitted from Shukr b. Ibrāhīm al-Asadī, and Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Warrāq, known as al-Anṣārī al-Sāmirī.

A summary of this work was published by Charles Schefer in his collection of Persian texts.

5 - Aʿlām al-Nās bi-Mā Waqaʿa li-l-Barāmika min Banī al-ʿAbbās

Aʿlām al-Nās bi-Mā Waqaʿa li-l-Barāmika min Banī al-ʿAbbās is an Arabic work by Shaykh Muḥammad, known as Diyāb al-Itlīdī. Based on evidence such as his citation of al-Suyūṭī’s Mushtahā al-ʿUqūl fī Muntahā al-Nuqūl, the work cannot have been written earlier than the tenth century AH.

At first glance, its title suggests that the book should concern the Barmakids, or at least provide a detailed account of their downfall and the causes of their extinction. In reality, however, the work is a relatively brief history of the caliphs from the time of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb to the Abbasid caliph al-Rāḍī bi-Allāh, together with accounts of several famous events and various items of cultural and literary information.

The material concerning the Barmakids occupies only a few pages of the section dealing with the caliphate of Hārūn al-Rashīd, under the heading “The Cause of the Killing of the Barmakids and What Happened to Them with al-Rashīd.”

In this section, al-Itlīdī first introduces Jaʿfar b. Yaḥyā al-Barmakī as Hārūn’s vizier from the beginning of his caliphate. He does not, however, discuss Yaḥyā al-Barmakī or his efforts to secure Hārūn’s accession to the caliphate.

In discussing the causes of the Barmakids’ downfall, al-Itlīdī attributes the relevant reports to several authorities: Ibrāhīm b. Isḥāq, who transmitted from Abū Thawr Ẓāhir b. Ṣaqlāb; al-Mubarrad, who transmitted from Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Māristānī; and Yaḥyā b. Aktham, who transmitted from Ismāʿīl b. Yaḥyā al-Hāshimī.

According to these reports, Maymūna, Hārūn’s sister—not ʿAbbāsa—was married to Jaʿfar. She subsequently devised a stratagem that enabled her to gain access to him and became pregnant by him. She then threatened Jaʿfar, ordering him not to speak to anyone about the matter.

Al-Itlīdī identifies several additional factors that contributed to the Barmakids’ downfall, including:

Jaʿfar’s enormous wealth and influence;

the attention paid to Jaʿfar by government officials and the general population;

the magnificence and splendor of his court;

Jaʿfar’s arrogance toward the caliph;

the attribution of Hārūn’s authority and caliphate to the presence and support of the Barmakid family; and

Zubayda’s hostility toward the Barmakids.

According to al-Itlīdī’s account, Masrūr the eunuch did not kill Jaʿfar in his own house. Rather, acting on the caliph’s orders, he brought Jaʿfar to the palace, where he was subsequently executed.

Many of the details contained in these narratives appear to be unique to this work and are not found in either the historical sources or the historical-narrative works concerning the Barmakids. The book also preserves several poems composed in praise and condemnation of the Barmakids.

Aʿlām al-Nās was printed in 1303 AH at the al-Sharqiyya Press in Egypt.

Sources

Ibn ʿAsākir, Tahdhīb Taʾrīkh Dimashq, edited by ʿAbd al-Qādir Badrān, Beirut, 1979 / 1399 AH.

al-Itlīdī, Shaykh Muḥammad, Aʿlām al-Nās bi-Mā Waqaʿa li-l-Barāmika min Banī al-ʿAbbās, Egypt, al-Sharqiyya Press, 1303 AH.

Akhbār al-Barāmika, transmitted by Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, edited by ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Qarīb, Tehran, 1312 Sh.

Akhbār al-Barāmika, attributed to Abū al-Qāsim b. Ghassān, manuscript of the University of the Punjab, Lahore.

Tārīkh Āl Barmak, Paris manuscript; abridged, annotated, and published in the Schefer collection: Schefer, C., Chrestomathie persane, Paris, 1886.

al-Jahshiyārī, Kitāb al-Wuzarāʾ wa-l-Kuttāb, edited by ʿAbd Allāh al-Sāwī, Baghdad, 1357 AH.

al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk, Leiden edition.

ʿAbbās, Iḥsān, Shadharāt min Kutub Mafqūda fī al-Tārīkh, Beirut, 1408 AH / 1988.

Yazdī, ʿAbd al-Jalīl, Tārīkh Āl Barmak, Paris manuscript; abridged and annotated in the Schefer collection, same publication details.

Bosworth, C. E., “Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar al-Kirmānī and the Rise of the Barmakids,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies **57, no. 2 (1994), 268–282. 

Bulliet, R. W., “Naw Bahār and the Survival of Iranian Buddhism,” Iran **14 (1976), 140–145.