642 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [Nov., 1911. 
he same verses are differently worded: One distic 
or hemistich of a Ruba’i in one collection is mixed up with 
that of another. Words and phrases have in the same way 
been changed and distorted by less intelligent scribes in the 
second, third, and subsequent copies. 
2. In many instances, verses not specifically noted or pre- 
poh Spi 
fixed by (<2! Yor ple; ¥ have been attributed to Shaykh Abu 
Sa‘id, because they were so Abu Sa‘id-like; though their 
authorship might be claimed by others. 
Diwans of Sa‘di, Khusrau, and Jami; the Mathnavis 
of Maulana Jalal’u-d-Din Rumi, Farid’u-d-Din ‘Attar, Nizami 
of Ganja and others were probably collected during the lifetime 
of their authors. But the tetrastiches of Abu Sa‘id ibn Abu’l 
Khayr and many other saints, like those, I believe, of Khayyam 
of Nishapiir, who was a philosopher and mathematician, stand 
in a different category. The more bulky is their collection of 
Quatrains the less genuine they are. Sprenger, in his Ou le 
atalogue, in noticing the Asiatic Society’s copy of Abu Sa‘id’s 
Ruba‘iyat, MS. No. 1398 (New No. O(a) 62), remarks that 
‘* these of course are not all the Ruba‘iyat of the poet.”’ Such 
is also my opinion regarding a large number of the Quatrains, 
which I have traced out among the Ruba‘iyat of other writers. 
The text of the Ruba‘iyat copied from the British Museum 
also contains verses attributed to other eminent personages. 
ithout making an attempt to determine the authorship of 
many of the Quatrains contained in the British Museum Codex 
No. 289 is attributed to Shah Sanjan Khafi (d. 599 A.H.). 
No. 295 is attributed to Khwaja Hasan of Qandahar. 
0. 392 is attributed to Maulina Ya‘qab Charkhi (9th 
century A.H.). 
_ No. 368 is attributed to Shaykh Abu’l Hasan Khurg@ni 
(died 425 a.m.) and also to ‘ ar-i-Khayyam of Nishapir. 
No. 314 is found in Jami exactly with a slight variation in 
