The Introduction takes up all the problems posed by the Preface, but vrith differences in emphasis, method, and content.

In contrast to the restrained and detached statements of the Preface, the Introduction indicates the merits or excellence

(fadâ’il) of history, the laboriousness and Intricacy of its method,

and the nobility of its purposes or uses.® The distinction between mere copying and critical enquiry is repeated, but the former is now specifically described as the cause of the numerous errors (maghâlit) and fanciful accounts (awhâm)* reported by leading historians, while the latter is definitely related to the principles (usûl) of action, the rules (qawâ'id) of politics, the nature of culture, and the comparison of analogous and varying conditions.® Critical enquiry becomes one with wisdom, philo­ sophy, or science, i.e., with the exploration of the nature of things. In contrast to the Preface, the Introduction endeavours to ex­ plore the principles and method of history, and indicate that ignoring them leads to errors in historical accounts while knowing them can help the historian to detect and rectify such errors.®

“ O I s -6.7-8. *0

16

* Cf. B q I 7, which adds awhdm after maghdlit in the title of the Introduction. ‘ 0 1 8-9.

* This is indicated in the title Ibn Khaldûn chose for the Introduction by the phrase: ‘ and the scrutiny of its method’ (uia-tahMi madhdhibih). The text that follows shows that this phrase in its context does not mean the ‘ establish­ ment of principles ’ as De Slane chose to translate it (Prolégomènes I 13). The principles of the new science are not established prior to the first section of

This is done through twelve specific yet typical examples of reported information in which historians have erred according to Ibn Khaldûn. The examination of the causes {asbâb) of such error is intended to illustrate and bring to light the various phases of the relation between the knowledge of the internal and the cjrternal aspects of history. In most of them, criticism of the possibility or probability of the events themselves is coupled with the criticism of the authorities who transmitted them, their character, and their sources.*

The first nine of the twelve examples form a group that is concerned with: (i) ancient history (examples one to three), and (2) the behaviour, character, and ancestry of prominent Muslim rulers (examples four to nine). They all illustrate how error can result from the ignorance of the permanent aspect of history, i.e., the universal nature of man and society. However, this permanent aspect of history is not first formulated and then applied to these examples. The passage introducing these examples merely presupposes it and indicates that it could be formulated through critical rational enquiry, and through the comparison of events taking place in various times.® The examples are intended to show how this could be done. We shall illustrate Ibn Khaldûn’s method through the analysis of the first example, and then indicate the additional contribution of the rest to the argument.

The first example is concerned with the number of the Israelites when they emerged from the desert. Mas'ûdî and others had reported that it numbered 600,000 or more male adults, twenty years of age or older.® According to Ibn Khaldûn, this number is exaggerated. He presents various arguments to Book One ( 0 I ff.). Ibn Kbaldûn bimself in tbe Introduction refers tbe reader to Book One for tbe estabUsbment and demonstration of bis principles (cf. 0

I 10: IS [adding al-awwal (tbe first) after kitâb (book) witb M S C of Q, B?];

cf. above p. 146 n. i).

* In general, Ibn Kbaldûn’s use of autbority-criticism in tbese examples is indirect. He does not attack tbe character, knowledge, or training of bis author­ ities, but through criticising some of their reports and showing their inherent impossibility or improbability, he intimates that these authorities erred in specific instances and the reasons for their errors, viz., the fact that they did not consistently follow the method of critical enquiry and did not fully under­ stand the underlying basis of history.

• 0 I 9-10. ‘ The past and the friture are more similar to each other than water is to water.’

“ 0 I 9 ff. ; cf. Mas'ûdî Murûj 1 92-94, where the number ‘ 600,000 adults ’ is reported; Num. i : 46 reports 603,550 (cf. the round number in Ex. 12: 37; Num. 1 1 : 2 1 ) with the important exception of the tribe of Levi (cf. Num. 1 : 47).

support his contention. The first is drawn from the economics of war: such a large army, he argues, could not be adequately supplied either by Egypt or by Syria. The second is from military strategy: an army of that magnitude could not success­ fully engage in battle. The third is based on a comparative study of more recent armies that had conquered more extensive areas than had the Israelite army, and yet were far smaller. The fourth is based on genealogy : Moses was only four generations removed from Jacob (Israel), and no people can multiply so fast in four generations.“ Then he proceeds to use this particular example as a basis for criticizing the general attitude of historians who are fond of exaggerating the number of various armies. He finds the reasons for such exaggeration to be ignorance of these arguments, psychological interest in the strange and the bizarre, prevalence of thoughtlessness, absence of a critical attitude relative to falsehood and fabrication, lack of moderation and justice in examining information, and lack of research which encourages acceptance of fabrication.®

The second and third examples deal vrith the supposed con­ quests of the Yemenite rulers, the Tabâbi'a, and the supposed existence of Iram, a town said to have been built by the ancient Arabs of ‘Âd. Ibn Khaldûn criticizes the origin of the infor­ mation, shows that its absence in accounts where it should have been mentioned casts doubt upon its authenticity, and discounts it as fabrication by mythographers. Philology and geography are the two new disciplines whose authority is invoked in the argu­ ment against these accounts.®

“ 0 1 9-12. The genealo^ of Moses reported by Mas'ûdî (Murûj I 92: 5-6) is identical with that given in the Old Testament: he is the son of Amram (lived 1 37 years, Ex. 6 ; 20) the son of Kohath (Uved 133 years, Gen. 46: 1 1 ; Ex. 6 :16 , i8) the son of Levi (lived 137 years, Gen. 29: 34; Ex. 6: 16) the son of Jacob and Leah (Jacob lived 147 years, Gen. 47: 28 [Mas'ûdî reports 140 years]). The Book of Numbers (its authorship, composition, as well as the above-mentioned census) continues to pose numerous difficulties for Bible criticism. Counting women and children, the total number discussed here would be well over two millions which is larger than the estimated population of Egypt during that period. Modem students of the Bible prefer the theory that the above census was in fact the census of David (II Sam. 24) misplaced from its original context. Ibn Khaldûn knew of that theory ( 0 1 11) and thought that even for the time of David the number would be exaggerated. For literature on the analysis of the Book of Numbers, cf. F. H. Woods ' Hexateuch ’ Dictionary of the Bible (New York 1903) II 363-76; G. Harford-Battersby ' Numbers ’ ibid. I ll 567-73.

* 0 1 11 -12 , cf. SI, II 78-79- ’ GliSff-

Examples four to nine are primarily concerned with the criti­ cism of the character of Mushm rulers. They deal with Islamic history which was familiar to Muslim historians and rulers who were interested in it for pohtical, social, and religious reasons. Ibn Khaldûn uses these examples to illustrate new problems of the internal aspects of history. His procedure is similar to that used in the first three examples. He tries to shift the argument from the criticism of the authorities who transmitted the reports to the consideration of the content of the reports themselves. These accounts were reported by one or more of the most respected Mushm authorities whom Ibn Khaldûn accepts as generally reliable and whose works he uses extensively. The examples are, therefore, intended to illustrate how and why competent authorities go astray in reporting their information, and how their works should be studied by a historian who follows the method of critical enquiry.

In considering the content of these reports, Ibn Khaldûn studies the character of the rulers in question by referring to their words and deeds. He mentions the general conditions of religious sentiment, social behaviour, and political practice in the societies they ruled, explaining the nature and effectiveness of the religious and social restraints which condemned certain actions and sanctioned others.“ Finally, he shows how circum­ stances gave rise to envy and discontent among groups which opposed these ruling families and how reports against them were fabricated and circulated. These reports were accepted by eminent historians who, through lack of knowledge of the internal aspect of history, committed the error of copying them uncritically. From this point of view, all previous historians were at fault, with the qualification that the leading historians were in general more reliable and their errors were the result of occasional blunders and slips (zallât), while the uncritical imitators merely copied and popularized these errors.® For the latter, true and false reports stand on the same level. That is why Ibn KLhaldûn does not mention them except as a group and does not take issue with them on particular details. On the other hand, when a leading

“ In some cases he quotes respected authorities to prove his contentions (of. Q I 23, 27-28, 33-34).

historian like 'Tabari or Mas'ûdî, a leading Koran commen­ tator like Tha'âlibî (d. 1035/427)* or Zamakhsharî (d. 1144/538),® or a leading theologian like Bâqillânî (d. 1013/403)® commits an error, there might be reasons which, if explored, could throw light on the nature of the discipline under examination.

All this is intended to serve his primary purpose which is to explore the various aspects of the distinction between the external and internal aspects of history. Neither the specific errors nor the incidental reasons for conunitting them are the purpose

{gharad) of the discussion ; it is, rather, the revelation of a secret (sirr) which according to him had hitherto gone unnoticed,

namely, that the proper writing of history demands a knowledge of the nature of historical events and the constant examination of re­ ported information on the basis of such knowledge, accepting what agrees with it and rejecting the rest.* Piecemeal historical infor­ mation is the partial and external expression of something deeper and more general; and if a historian is ignorant of that deeper aspect of history, he cannot understand the external information reported to him or distinguish between true and false information.

While discussing the first group of nine examples illustrating how errors could result from the ignorance of the permanent aspect of history, another aspect emerges, namely, slow and gradual change (tabaddul) ending in relative heterogeneity.® That is why instead of closing the discussion, Ibn Khaldûn introduces a new distinction in which change is contrasted to permanence and heterogeneity to homogeneity. The second group of three examples is intended to illustrate this contrast by detecting errors of historians who ignored the idea of change, and who did not take into account the fact that forms of government, languages, arts, and the way of life are never the same in two periods.

From the discussion of change and its importance for under­ standing, and writing about, history, a transition is made to the discussion of the basic change taking place in the Islamic world since the tenth/fourth century. The new conditions prevailing in the fourteenth/eighth century are considered sufficient reason for writing the ‘Ibar. This is done in the form of an appendix

(fâ'ida) which starts by stating the relation of universal to

“ 0 1 1 7 ; 1 350-51. ’ 0 l 3 2 : G ^ I , I i 9 7 . ' 0 1 4 4 - 4 6 .

> 0 1 i 7 ; G ^ l 289ff. *

0143

44

specialized history and then elaborates the dissimilarity between the conditions prevailing in the Islamic world in the two periods, i.e., the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. The earlier period had been studied by many leading historians. From among these, Ibn Khaldûn singles out two: Mas'ûdî, who wrote a universal history called the Meadows of GolcF and who was considered by Ibn Khaldûn the most revered of Muslim historians,® and Bakrî (d. 1094/487)* who lived in a time when the conditions described by Mas'ûdî had not changed significantly and, there­ fore, wrote a work restricted to historical geography called the

Routes and Kingdoms.* Both of these historians supply the reader

with economic and sociological information and come nearer to what Ibn Khaldûn conceived to be the proper way of writing history. His praise of Mas'ûdî in particular is significant, since he was the most important representative of the philosophically oriented tradition in Islamic historiography. After a short description of the conditions prevailing in the Islamic world of the fourteenth century and after stating some of their causes, Ibn Khaldûn indicates the need for a history that will study these conditions and follow in the footsteps of Mas'ûdî.® Thus, the Introduction, like the Preface, ends with a statement about the ‘Ibar. In both cases, the work that is to follow and its character are organically related to the previous discussion of history; in both cases it is shown that there is a gap that needs to be filled in the historical literature of the experts.

3. Ibn ELhaldûn takes up for the third time the discussion of