however, does not preclude the possibility of an Indian interpreter
translating the original text to the Persian who spoke a modern Indian
tongue. Several passages speak to the fact that the author of the
Introduction is the physician. Why should Ibn Moqaffa pretend that
Burzoe earnestly studied medicine and practised it? Moreover, the
section is familiar with those principles of Indian medicine of which
Ibn Moqaffa could otherwise know little and the exposition of which he
had no call to deal with. The entire situation seems to me to harmonise
with the circumstances of the Persian physician. Specially noteworthy is
the encomium on the Persian sovereign.

[Sidenote: Ibn Moqaffa took liberties with the Pehlevi.]

This is, however, not equivalent to saying that the Arabic text is an
exact replica, down to details, of the original of Burzoe. In the first
place it has to be observed that Ibn Moqaffa was no pure translator at
all but a regular redactor of his model. His object was to prepare a
work suitable to the taste of his highly educated readers and at the
same time entertaining and instructive. He proceeded, therefore, not
only with a tolerably free hand as an artist in words but added good
many things of his own. Above all here we have to bear in mind the trial
of Dimna. That this chapter is an addition by a Muslim who would not let
pass in silence the acknowledgement of clever but demeaning intrigue was
already recognised by Benfey and we need not doubt but that it
originated with Ibn Moqaffa. I would also claim, for Ibn Moqaffa the
somewhat unimportant history of the anchorite and his guest. The manner
of his narrative we learn from his own preface. It is especially to be
noted that here also as in the trial of Dimna he recounts anecdotes
after the Indian fashion.