Sources of Attar’s “Memorial”

Since Attar did not trouble to specify the precise sources upon which he drew in compiling the Memorial, these are to be identified on the basis of internal evidence. It cannot be claimed that anything like a complete analysis has been attempted, for such a task (wanting direct clues) is obviously very intricate and laborious, requir- ing a prolonged research. So far, however, it has been established as certain that Attar consulted the authors and texts here listed.

1) Hekayat al-mashayekh of Abu Mohammad Ja’fer ibn Mohammad al-Kholdi (d. 348/959). Attar quotes from al-Kholdi once directly (II, 51); in the supplementary section of the Memorial his biography is briefly given (II, 284-85), but that part of the text is of very doubtful authenticity. For further in formation on al-Kholdi, described by Hojwiri (Kashf al-mahjub, trans. R. A. Nicholson, p. 156) as “the well-known biograph- er of the Saints”, see C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Suppl. I, p. 358.

2) Ketab al-Loma’ of Abu Nasr ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Ali al-Sarraj (d. 378/988). Mentioned specifical- ly in the supplement (II, I82-83) where a bio- graphical notice is given; though this reference is of questionable value, the section in which it occurs being very likely a later addition, Attar’s use of this fundamental text can be deduced from many contexts.

3) Tabaqat al-Sufiva of Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Mohammad ibn al-Hosain al-Solami (d. 412/1021). This celebrated author, whose biogra- phies of the Sufis Attar undoubtedly used, is cited thrice in the supplement (II, 263, 308, 326).

4) Helyat al-auliya of Abu No’aim Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-E’fahani (d. 430/1038). Though Abu No’aim is not specifically named, it is clear that Attar knew and used this encyclopaedic work.

5) al Resala of Abu ‘l-Qasem al-Qoshairi (d. 465/1072). Cited by name in the main text (II, 135) and the supplement (II, 200, 207, 309, 332, 333), it is abundantly evident that Attar leaned very heavily on this authoritative exposition of Sufi doctrine.

6 ) Kashf al-mahjub of Abu’l-Hasan al-Hojwiri (d. c. 467/1075. Named once in the main text (II, 68), Hojwiri is verbally cited without acknowl- edgment in a number of passages. This was the easier to contrive, since Hojwiri himself wrote in Persian When dealing with certain individual Sufis, Attar appears to have had access to some of their own writings, either direct or through quotation by others, as well as to special monographs on their lives and acts. Two obvious instances are al- Sahlaji’s biography of Abu Yazid al-Bestami, and al-Dailami’s biography of Ibn Khafif. Further ref- erence to these two books will be found in my notes on the relevant texts.

Though in his prefatory remarks Attar lays much weight upon the “words” of the Sufis as his overriding preoccupation, in fact he put at least equal stress on their “acts” or the legends of their preternatural powers. In setting out his materials he took as his model the Tabaqat al- Sufiya of al-Solami, in which the Sufis are treat- ed more or less in chronological order; he may well also have known al-Ansari’s Persian version of this book, which Jami later used as the foun- dation of his Nafahat al-ons. It is to be noticed, however, that Attar abandoned al-Solami’s arrangement of the Sufis by “classes”; he also found the Tabaqat inadequate on the human side. For valuable as that work undoubtedly is as an anthology of Sufi dicta, to Attar, who was interested at least as much in the personalities of the Sufis as in what they said and wrote, it need- ed to be supplemented with biographical details. So to eke out al-Solami’s somewhat austere fare, he combined with the Tabaqat the human and superhuman materials contained in the Hekayat of al-Kholdi, the Resala of al-Qoshairi, and the

Kashf al-mahjub of Hojwiri. The following table is self-explanatory in establishing the relation- ship between the Memorial and its forerunners.