A literary history of Persia - The Literary History of Persia, Volume 4

THIS volume concludes the task which I undertook more than twenty-two years ago, and which represents the labour of a life-time, for ever since I began the study of Persian in the summer of 1880, being then only eighteen years of age, the desire to write a complete Literary History of Persia has increasingly possessed me. The first instalment, “from the earliest times until Firdawsí,” carried the history down to the early days of the eleventh century of the Christian era, and was published in 1902; and the continuation, down to the Mongol Invasion in the middle of the thirteenth century, in 1906, both these volumes being published by Mr Fisher Unwin. Fourteen years elapsed ere the third volume, entitled A History of Persian Literature under Tartar Dominion (A.D. 1265-1502), saw the light. The reasons which led me to issue it in a form and under a title differing somewhat from its predecessors are explained on p. viii of the Preface, but essentially it constitutes the third volume of the Literary History of Persia, just as this, which deals with the last four centuries (A.D. 1500-1924), and is entitled, as foreshadowed in the same Preface (p. ix), A History of Persian Literature in Modern Times, is to be regarded as the fourth and last volume of the work.

Although I cannot regard this present volume as superior to its three predecessors in form or interest, and am fully aware of its defects, I think that it contains more new matter and represents more original research than the others. Owing to the opinion prevalent not only in Europe, but to a considerable extent in Turkey and India also, that poetry is the only department of Persian literature which merits much attention, and that little poetry worth reading has been produced since the time of Jámí, the literature of the last four centuries has been very much neglected, and the sources of which I have made use are almost exclusively Persian, and, until the nineteenth century is reached, when printing and lithography were gradually introduced into Persia, chiefly manuscript. In the formation of my Persian library I have always had regard to the requirements of my work rather than to mere beauty of illumination, illustration, or hand-writing, and I have been singularly fortunate in acquiring the very interesting collection of the late Sir Albert Houtum Schindler and a number of the rare and precious manuscripts collected by the late Ḥájji 'Abdu'l-Majíd Belshah. To Mr A. G. Ellis I am indebted for the generous loan, often for a period of several years, of many rare books to which I could not otherwise have obtained access; while for constant and ungrudging help I am under the deepest obligations to his successor in the Oriental Book Department of the British Museum, Mr E. Edwards, as well as to Dr L. Barnett, the Head of that Department.

I wish that I could have profited more by the counsel of my Persian friends, especially Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín and Ḥájji Mírzá Yaḥyá of Dawlatábád, during the progress of this work, but to my old acquaintance Ḥusayn Dánish Bey of the Ottoman Public Debt, a notable man of letters both in Persian and Turkish, I am indebted for many valuable and illuminating observations. Another old friend, Sayyid Ḥasan Taqí-záda, fortunately chanced to visit this country after an absence of some fourteen years while the last sheets of this book were passing through the Press, and he most kindly read through the proofs and favoured me with numerous observations and corrections which will be noticed under the Errata and Addenda. From well-read and intelligent Persians the European student of their language can learn many things not to be found in books, at any rate in books to which he has access, while their taste and judgement, even if at times he cannot wholly agree with them, are almost always suggestive and deserving of consideration. Only a few days ago I received a visit from the learned Shaykh Káẓim ad-Dujaylí, an Arabic-speaking Shí'a of 'Iráq who has recently joined the teaching staff of the London School of Oriental Studies, and I enquired of him what, in his opinion, were the best Arabic books on Shí'a doctrine. He at once named the five following works, none of which I had previously heard of, much less seen, though all have been printed or lithographed in Persia:

(1) Kashfu'l-Ghiṭá fí Akhbári Áli'l-Muṣṭafà, by Shaykh Ja'far al-Kabír.

(2) Kitábu'l Qawánín, by al-Qummí.

(3) Kitábu Rasá'ili'sh-Shaykh Murtaḍà al-Anṣárí.

(4) Jawáhiru'l-Kalám, by Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥasan.

(5) Kitábu'l-Wasá'il, by Ḥájji Mírzá Ḥusayn an-Núrí.

I will not attempt to thank individually all those who by their sympathy and interest have encouraged me in my book, or who by their skilful craftsmanship have given it form and substance. The writing of it has been a pleasure, and the completing of it is a source of thankfulness and satisfaction. Even its errors and imperfections will, I trust, by provoking criticism and stimulating research, serve to advance and extend our knowledge of the subject, and if, as I hope, I have been single-minded in this aim, I shall prefer the reasoned criticism of competent scholars to the undiscriminating praise of over-zealous friends, even as Sa'dí says:—

“Thou who recountest my virtues, thou dost me harm in sooth:
Such is my outward seeming, but thou hast not known the truth.”

EDWARD G. BROWNE.

June 12, 1924.

p. 170, l. 14. “Read (‘ways,’ ‘passages’) for (‘Tombs’), which gives no good sense.” [T.z.] The washing of the feet before praying is a Sunní practice; the Shí'a confine themselves to mere stroking of the foot (masḥ) with the damp hand. The clasping of the hands mentioned in the succeeding míṣrá' is also characteristic of the Sunnís; the Shí'a let them hang down by their sides.

p. 187, l. 14. “For . No Shí'a could have written this verse without exposing himself to the charge of blasphemy.” [T.z.]

p. 188, last three lines. “The Asrár-i-Shahádat ^xiiia is commonly ascribed to Mullá Áqá-yi-Darbandí, entitled ‘the Promoter of mourning for the Holy Family’ (Murawwij-i-'Azá-dárí-yi-Ahl-i-Bayt).” [T.z.]

p. 220, last paragraph. “Mention should be made of the poems of Ṣafí-'Alí Sháh, and of his versified Persian commentary on the Qur'án.” [T.z.] (I can find no mention of him in the Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá , the Riyáḍu'l-'Árifín, the Bustánu's-Siyáḥat, or any of the Catalogues at my disposal.)

p. 221, “Rúdagí,” and p. 299, “Rúdakí” should be identical in spelling, and I believe that the latter form is the more correct.

p. 222. “Mention should be made of V. Zhukovski's collection of Persian Taṣnífs, with Russian translations, published at St Petersburg in 1902. Berezine also published nine Taṣnífs with English translations set to music and adapted to the piano.” [T.z.] (I find that I possess the former work, which is entitled ?? but I cannot identify the latter.)

p. 338. “Two half-verses (miṣrá') have been accidentally omitted after l. 7. The two verses should run thus” [T.z.]:—

p. 355, l. 1. There is some difference of opinion as to the proper vocalization of the place-name which I have written “Tanukábun.” Taqí-záda thinks it should be “Tunukábun,” while Riḍá-qulí Khán in his Anjuman-árá-yi-Náṣiri gives it as “Tanakábun.”

pp. 369-370. “The titles ‘Muḥaqqiq-i-Ardabílí’ and ‘Muqaddas-i-Ardabílí ’ both belong to Mullá Aḥmad, so that the first line on p. 370 should read “The same mujtahid of Ardabíl, also entitled Muḥaqqiq,” etc.

p. 370, last line. “Ḥájji Mírzá Ḥasan-i-Shírází and Ḥájji Mírzá Ḥasan-i-Ashtiyání are not to be mentioned in the same breath. The former was to the latter as a king is to a petty local governor.” [T.z.]

p. 373. “Áqá Jamál-i-Khwánsárí was the author of the well-known book on the superstitions of Persian women entitled Kitáb-i-Kulthúm Nana. His father, Áqá Ḥusayn-i-Khwánsárî, was called Ustádu'l-Kull fí'l-Kull (‘the Master of All in All’), and, besides many facetiœ, wrote glosses on the Shahíd-i-thání's commentary on the Lum'a.” [T.z.]

p. 378, ll. 19 et seqq. “Many similar catechisms (with such titles as Risála-i-'amaliyya, Mas'ila, Nukhba, and the like) have been composed in the last century, and as many as a hundred may have been printed. One of the best known is the Jámi'u'sh-Shattát of Mírzá Abu'l-Qásim ibnu'l-Ḥusayn ar-Riḍawí al-Qummí, author of the Kitáb-i-Qawánín.” [T.z.] Concerning the last-named writer, see Edwards's Catalogue of Persian printed books, cols. 60 and 61.

p. 393, ll. 8-9. “'Alí Awsaṭ succeeded his father Ḥusayn as Imám, not 'Alí Akbar, who, together with the infant 'Alí Aṣghar, perished at Karbalá.” [T.z.]

p. 407, l. 14. “The Jámi'-i-'Abbásí was completed in 20 chapters, and has been printed repeatedly, but the first five chapters are often published separately for the instruction of children in elementary religious duties.” [T.z.] According to Edwards (op. cit., cols. 407-8) chapters vi-xx were subsequently added to Shaykh-i-Bahá'í's unfinished work by Niẓám b. Ḥusayn-i-Sáwají.

p. 407, fourth line from the end, and p. 435, l. 5. “The Abwábu'l-Janán was not by Mullá Muḥsin-i-Fayḍ, but, so far as I remember, by Mullá Ḥusayn Wá'iẓ-i-Káshifí, the author of the well-known Anwár-i-Suhaylí.” [T.z.] The real author appears to have been Muḥammad b. Fatḥu'lláh Rafí'u'd-Dín, called ‘Wá'iẓ-i-Qazwíní’ (‘the Preacher of Qazwín’). See Edwards, op. cit., cols. 405-6.

p. 410. “Sayyid Muḥammad Báqir of Rasht was only a third- or fourth-rate theologian, and Mullá Aḥmad-i-Niráqí (p. 411) only of the second class. Much more important, though omitted here, are:—

p. 430. “Shaykh Aḥmad al-Aḥṣá'í was not an admirer and follower but a great enemy of Mullá Ṣadrá. Of modern Persian philosophers mention should have been made of Mírzá Abu'l-Ḥasan-i-Jilwa, who died only some twenty years ago.” [T.z.] I met him in Ṭihrán in the winter of 1887-8. See my Year amongst the Persians, p. 149.

p. 435. “One of the best of Mullá Muḥsin's works is the Kalimát-i-Maknúna (‘Hidden Words’), of which mention should have been made here.” [T.z.]

p. 441. “Dr Muḥammad of Kirmánsháh, called Kufwí, who died in 1326/1908, specialized in cardiac diseases, and first called attention to a peculiar murmur (called in French ‘empiolement’) characteristic of embolism, on which he published a monograph in French. ^xvia He also wrote several medical treatises on the Diseases of Women and Children in Persian.” [T.z.]

p. 454, l. 1. “For I'timádu'd-Dawla read I'timádu's-Salṭana.” [T.z.]

p. 468. “Newspapers existed in Persia before A.D. 1851, in the reign of Muḥammad Sháh (A.D. 1835-1848) and even in the later days of his predecessor Fatḥ-'Alí Sháh. See the Káwa newspaper passim, especially No. 6 of the New Series (Dawra-i-Jadid).” [T.z.] The article in question appeared in the issue of June 8, 1921, pp. 14-16. It mentions a rather vague report of a Persian newspaper published at Dihlí in A.D. 1798, and a much more definite report of one published in Ṭihrán in 1253/1837-8.

p. 486, end. “The articles to which reference is here made were not by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán but by myself, writing under the penname of Muḥaṣṣil (‘Student’).” [T.z.] ^xvib p. 488. “To say ‘Mírzá Káẓim-záda,’ ‘Sayyid Jamál-záda,’ ‘Taqi-záda Khán’ and the like is as contrary to Persian usage as to say in English ‘Sir Grey’ for ‘Sir Edward Grey’ and the like. Such titles as ‘Mírza,’ ‘Sayyid’ and Ḥájji can only be prefixed, as ‘Khán,’ ‘Beg’ and the like can only be suffixed, to personal names, such as Ḥasan, 'Alí and Muḥammad, not to patronymics.” [T.z.]^xvic

The rise of the Ṣafawí dynasty in Persia at the beginning of the sixteenth century of the Christian era was an event Historical importance of the Ṣafawí dynasty. of the greatest historical importance, not only to Persia herself and her immediate neighbours, but to Europe generally. It marks not only the restoration of the Persian Empire and the re-creation of the Persian nationality after an eclipse of more than eight centuries and a half, but the entrance of Persia into the comity of nations and the genesis of political relations which still to a considerable extent hold good. Mr R. G. Watson in the brief retrospect with which he opens his excellent History of Persia from the beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the year 1858 ^3a shows a true appreciation of the facts when he takes this period as his starting-point, for in truth it marks the transition from mediaeval to comparatively modern times. The Arab conquest in the middle of the seventh century after Christ overthrew the Zoroastrian religion and the Sásánian Empire, and reduced Persia to the position of a mere province of the Caliphate, until the Caliphate itself was destroyed by the Mongols or Tartars in the middle of the thirteenth century. Both before and after this momentous event there were, it is true, independent or quasi-independent dynasties ruling in Persia, but these were generally of Turkish or Tartar origin, like the Ghaz-nawís, Saljúqs, Khwárazmsháhs, and Houses of Chingíz and Tímúr; or, if Persian like the Buwayhids, exercised control over a portion only of the old Persian Empire. To the Ṣafawí dynasty belongs the credit of making Persia “a nation once again,” self-contained, centripetal, powerful and respected, within borders practically identical in the time of Sháh 'Abbás the Great (A.D. 1587-1628) with those of the Sásánian Empire. It was then that Iṣfahán, whither he transferred the seat of government from Qazwín, became, as the Persian saying runs, “Half the world” (Niṣf-i-Jahán), or “Medio mundo” as Don Juan of Persia has it, abounding in splendid buildings and skilful craftsmen, frequented by merchants from distant lands, and visited by diplomatic missions, not only from India, Transoxiana and Turkey, but from almost every European state from Russia to Spain and Portugal.

Yet, in spite of its importance and the abundant materials available, no good complete history ^4a of the Ṣafawí dynasty Lack of a satisfactory complete history of the dynasty. has yet been written. The outlines given by Sir John Malcolm and Sir Clements Markham in their histories of Persia are inadequate in scope and inaccurate in detail, and are based on very limited materials, and those not by any means the most authentic. The abundance and variety of the materials, the inaccessibility of many important sources of information, and the polyglot character of the documents concerned constitute serious obstacles to one who aspires to treat Four important unpublished Persian sources. adequately of this period. The four most important contemporary Persian records of its earlier portion, down to the death of Sháh 'Abbás the Great, are the Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, containing the biography of Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín, that celebrated saint of the thirteenth century from whom the dynasty derives its name; the Nasab-náma-i-Silsila-i-Ṣafawiyya on the genealogy of the family, with valuable biographical details of its earlier representatives not to be found elsewhere; the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh, completed in A.D. 1577, only about a year after the death of Sháh Ṭahmásp, whose reign together with that of his father and predecessor Sháh Isma'íl, the founder of the dynasty, it records; and the Ta'ríkh-i-'Álam-árá-yi-'Abbásí , an immense monograph on the reign of Sháh 'Abbás the Great. Not one of these has been published, ^5a much less translated, and all except the last are very rare even in manuscript. Of the Nasab-náma and the 'Álam-ára I am fortunate enough to possess copies which formerly belonged to the late Sir Albert Houtum-Schindler, while the incomparable generosity of Mr A. G. Ellis placed at my disposal manuscripts of the two other histories mentioned Untrustworthiness of later Persian compilations. above. And though the authors of later general histories in Persian, such as Riḍá-qulí Khán in his supplement to Mírkhwánd's Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, have made use of some of these works, they too often not merely abridge but grievously distort the passages they cite.

Of such wanton distortion the following is a good instance. In July, A.D. 1599, Sháh 'Abbás the Great sent to Europe A flagrant example of perverted history. a mission accredited to the Courts of Russia Poland, Germany, France, Spain, England and Scotland, and to the Pope of Rome and the Seniory of Venice. This mission included Ḥusayn 'Alí Beg ^5b as Persian Envoy, with four Persian gentlemen or “knights” (caballeros, as they are called in Don Juan of Persia's narrative), fifteen Persian servants, the celebrated Sir Anthony Sherley with fifteen English attendants, two Portuguese friars, and five interpreters. Travelling by way of the Caspian Sea and the Volga, they first visited Moscow, where they remained for five or six months; thence through Germany to Italy, where they were not permitted to go to Venice for fear of offending an Ottoman envoy who happened to be there at the time, but were well received at Rome, where they arrived in April, 1601, and remained for two months. Thence they proceeded by ship from Genoa to the south of France and so to Spain, where three of the four “Persian knights” adopted the Catholic faith and took the names of Don Philippe, Don Diego and Don Juan of Persia.

Sir Anthony Sherley, whose relations with his Persian colleague had from the first been very strained, separated “Don Juan of Persia.” himself from the mission at Rome, but up to that point the independent accounts written by himself and some of his companions ^6a enable us to check Don Juan's narrative. Don Juan, however, having apostasized from Islám, dared not return to Persia to meet the fate of a renegade, so that for the tragic sequel we must turn to the Persian historians. In the 'Álam-árá-yi-'Abbásí under the year 1022/1613-4 ^6b we find an account of the arrival at Iṣfahán of ambassadors from the King of Spain, accompanied by several Christian priests and a Persian envoy returning from Europe. ^6c The latter, who had incurred the Sháh's displeasure, was incontinently put to death in the most cruel manner, without being permitted any opportunity for explanation or apology; and the Sháh then explained to the Spaniards that he had dealt thus with him because of sundry treasonable and disrespectful acts of which he had been guilty during his mission, such as opening letters sealed with the royal seal and making known their contents; wearing mourning on the occasion of the Queen of Spain's death; and selling the credentials to the Pope with which he had been provided to a merchant who should impersonate him and derive what profit he could from the transaction. “But,” the Sháh concluded, “the chief of his faults and the chief reason for his punishment was that he behaved so ill towards the attendants who accompanied him, and vexed them so much, that several of them adopted the Christian faith and remained in Europe in order to escape from his tyranny, so that zeal for Islám required his punishment, and thus he received his deserts.”

Turning now to Riḍá-qulí Khán's supplement to the Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, a general history of Persia compiled about A.D. 1858, we find an account of the same event obviously copied, with very slight modifications, from the 'Álam-árá-yi-'Abbásí , but with one important and most wanton alteration, for Sháh 'Abbás is there represented as saying that the chief of his ambassador's faults was that several persons were disposed to embrace Islám and come to Persia, but the Persian envoy treated them so ill that they repented of their intention, returned to the Christian faith, and remained in that country. For this deliberate falsification of history I can only account by supposing that Riḍá-qulí Khán did not wish to encourage the idea that a Persian Muslim could possibly become a Christian; but the moral I wish to draw is that the later Persian historians must be used with great caution, and that every statement should, where possible, be traced to contemporary records.

Before leaving this subject, I must refer to an erroneous conjecture of Sir John Malcolm's arising from an inadequate An error of Sir John Malcolm's. use of the Persian sources. In the year 1002/ 1593-4, being the seventh year of Sháh 'Abbás's reign, Jalál, the Chief Astrologer, foretold disaster to the occupant of the Throne, and advised that the Sháh should abdicate for a few days and substitute for himself some person worthy of death on whom the prediction of the stars might be fulfilled. This was accordingly done, and a man named Yúsufí was made king for three days, at the conclusion of which he was put to death, and Sháh 'Abbás resumed the Throne. Sir John Malcolm ^8a says that this Yúsufí, “whom Persian authors take care to tell us was an unbeliever,” was “probably a Christian,” but this is an error; he belonged to a heterodox Muslim sect called Nuqṭawiyya (“People of the Point”) who believed in metempsychosis and other heretical doctrines, and of whose appearance and destruction a full account is given by the 'Álam-árá-yi-'Abbásí ^8b and reproduced in the Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá. It is therefore essential, if a true history of the Ṣafawís is to be written, that we should go back to the original sources, and, as a preliminary, that these sources, at present existing only in manuscript, should be published.

The Persian histories, however, are only part of the material available for such a work: the numerous and in Turkish sources of information. some cases excellent Turkish chronicles, published and unpublished, dealing with this period, and especially with the Turco-Persian wars which continued almost without intermission during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, constitute an indispensable supplement and corrective. Almost more im- Firídún Bey. portant is Firídún Bey's great collection of Turkish State Papers entitled Munsha'át-i-Saláṭín , compiled some time before 991/1583 and published at Constantinople in two volumes ^8c in 1274/1858. The diplomatic correspondence contained in this valuable and insufficiently-appreciated book is arranged chronologically and is partly in Turkish, partly in Arabic, and partly in Persian. From the time of Tímúr onwards much of it is concerned with contemporary Persian affairs, and of the last half of the first volume a large portion consists of letters interchanged between the Sulṭáns Báyazíd II (A.D. 1482-1512), Salím I (A.D. 1512-1520), and Sulaymán I (A.D. 1520-1566) on the one hand, and Sháh Isma'íl (A.D. 1500-1524) and his son and successor Sháh Ṭahmásp (A.D. 1524-1576) on the other. There are also valuable journals of certain campaigns, such as that which culminated in the Battle of Cháldirán, so disastrous to the Persians, on August 23, 1514, wherein the movements of the Ottoman army and the incidents of their outward and homeward marches are chronicled day by day. Other State Papers, both Persian and Turkish, which exist only in manuscript, have hitherto remained practically unexplored.^9a

A third class of materials of which it is impossible to overestimate the importance consists of the writings of Contemporary European narratives. Europeans who visited Persia during this period on diplomatic, missionary or commercial business. Thanks to the liberal attitude of Sháh 'Abbás the Great towards Christians, the number of these in his and the succeeding reigns was very large. The best general account of them and their works with which I have met is that given by the late M. Charles Schefer, in the Introduction (pp. i-cxv) to his edition of l'Estat de la Perse en 1660 ^9b by le Père Raphaël du Mans, Superior of the Capuchin Mission at Iṣfahán, a man singularly qualified by his high character and intellectual attainments, as well as by his prolonged sojourn of fifty years (A.D. 1644-1696) in Iṣfahán, to speak with authority. The works enumerated by M. Schefer ^10a are variously written in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Portuguese and Spanish, but many of the more important have appeared in two or three different languages. Of their authors (excluding the earlier Venetian envoys to the Court of Úzún Ḥasan, such as Caterino Zeno, Josepho Barbaro and Ambrosio Contarini, most of whom visited Persia during the latter half of the fifteenth century, and consequently before the rise of the Ṣafawí dynasty) the best known are Anthony Jenkinson, the Sherley brothers, Cartwright, Parry and Sir Thomas Herbert of the English, and of the others Antonio di Govea, Don Garcias de Silva Figuerosa, Olearius, Teixeira, Pietro della Valle, Tavernier, Thevenot, and last but not least Chardin and Pétis de la Croix. M. Schefer does not carry his survey beyond the seventeenth century, but the final downfall of the Ṣafawís before the Afghán onslaught in A.D. 1722 found an able historian in the Jesuit Père Krusinski, while letters from some of the Dutch merchants in Iṣfahán, a few of which have been published by H. Dunlop in his Perzië (Haarlem, 1912; pp. 242-7), serve to illuminate the tragic details of that disaster. From this time until the rise of the present Qájár dynasty towards the end of the eighteenth century comparatively few Europeans visited or resided in Persia, a fact due partly to the unsettled state of the country, and the consequent difficulties in the way of missionary or commercial enterprises, and partly to the changed political conditions. The object of the numerous diplomatic missions from various European countries which visited Persia during and immediately before the Ṣafawí period was, in nearly all cases, to seek her cooperation in combating the formidable power of the Ottoman Turks, which was at its height during the period which began with their conquest of Constantinople in A.D. 1453 and culminated in the reigns of Sulṭáns Salím “the Grim” and Sulaymán “the Magnificent” (A.D. 1512-1566), of whom the former conquered Egypt and the Holy Cities and assumed the title of Caliph, while the latter only failed by the narrowest margin to capture Vienna. So formidable did the Turkish menace appear to European statesmen that Busbecq, Ferdinand's ambassador at the Court of Sulaymán, expressed himself in the following remarkable words: “'Tis only the Persian stands between us and ruin. The Turk would fain be upon us, but he keeps him back. This war with him affords us only a respite, not a deliverance.” ^11a In A.D. 1722 when the Ṣafawí dynasty, long degenerate, finally collapsed, Persia was left for the moment a negligible quantity, the Turks had ceased to be a menace to Europe, and the bitter sectarian quarrel which lay at the root of two centuries of Turco-Persian warfare gradually lost much of its virulence, especially after the development of the more conciliatory policy of the great Nádir Sháh. Under these changed conditions the earlier European policy became at once unnecessary and impossible.

From this brief survey of the sources whence our knowledge of the Ṣafawí dynasty is derived, we must now pass Chief characteristics of the Ṣafawí dynasty. to the consideration of its chief characteristics. These, though clear enough in general outline, present a series of very interesting problems which even yet cannot be regarded in all cases as definitely solved. These problems group themselves under the headings of Nationality, Religion, Art and Literature, and in this order we shall now proceed to consider them.

It has been said above that to the Ṣafawís belongs the credit of making Persia, after the lapse of eight centuries In what sense the Ṣafawí movement may be described as “Nationalist.” and a half, “a nation once again.” This is true, but the nationalism which thus found expression was very different in several respects from the various forms of nationalism with which we are familiar at the present day. Language and race, which are the key-notes of the latter, played a very small part in it compared with religion. At no time was the mutual hatred of Turk and Persian more violent and bitter than during the eight years (A.D. 1512-1520) when Sulṭán Salím “the Grim,” and Sháh Isma'íl, the founder of the Ṣafawí power, were the respective protagonists of the two nations. The despatches of this period, recorded by Firídún Bey, pass from the realm of diplomacy to that of vulgar abuse, and “rascally Red-heads” (Awbásh-i-Qizil-básh) is the politest expression wherewith the Turkish Sulṭán refers to his Persian foes. The cause of this intense hatred, equally adequate and obvious, will be discussed under the heading of “Religion,” but it did not extend to race or language. When America entered the late War it was stated in the newspapers that in certain towns the people, to give vent to their hatred of everything German, collected all the German books they could find and burned them. No Turk or Persian of the sixteenth century would have given expression to his feelings of hostility in so puerile a fashion. On the contrary, it is a remarkable fact that while Sulṭán Salím and Sháh Isma'íl both possessed considerable poetic talent, the former wrote almost exclusively in Persian, and the latter, under the penname of Khaṭá'í, almost exclusively in Turkish. ^13a Ottoman hatred was directed against the heretical Qizil-básh as mis-believers, not as Persians (Írání), while the Persian language (Fársí) continued to hold its position as the polite idiom of literature and diplomacy. And though the ancient conflict between Írán and Túrán was familiar to all educated Turks and Persians in the classical Sháh-náma, or “Book of Kings,” of Firdawsí, Salím, in the following curious exordium to a despatch written in April, 1514 (Ṣafar, 920), ^13b compares himself to the legendary Persian kings Firídún, Kay-Khusraw and Dárá, while likening his Persian opponent Sháh Isma'íl to the Turkish protagonist Afrásiyáb:

[After the doxology] “But to proceed. This excellent address hath been issued on our part, we who are the Refuge of the Caliphate, ^13c the slayer of the infidels and polytheists, the extirpator of the foes of the Faith, the humbler of the Pharaohs' pride, ^14a the tarnisher of the Kháqán's ^14b crowns, the King of those who fight and strive for Religion, whose pomp is as that of Firídún, whose Court is as that of Alexander, whose justice and equity is as that of Kay-Khusraw, that Dárá of noble descent, Sulṭán Salím Sháh, son of Sulṭán Báyazíd, son of Sulṭán Muḥammad Khán, to thee, who art the ruler of the Persians, the most mighty general and puissant leader, the Ḍaḥḥák ^14c of the time, the Dáráb of the combat, the Afrásiyáb of the age, the famous Amír Isma'íl.”

On the other hand I have only found one verse wherein Sháh Isma'íl is definitely identified with the Persian as contrasted with the Shí'a cause. This verse occurs in the Aḥsanu 't-Tawáríkh ^14d and runs:

“The illuminator of the crown and throne of the Kayánians, ^14e
The upholder of the star of the Káwayán.”^14f

For the rest, the seven tribes who formed the back-bone of the Qizil-básh army were, as their names Rúmlú, Shámlú,

More than a century after Isma'íl's death, when the capital had been transferred from the north of Persia to Iṣfahán, Turkish seems still to have been the language generally spoken at Court. ^15b These instances, to which might be added many more, will suffice to show how different was the spirit which animated the Ṣafawí revival (though it undoubtedly produced that homogeneity which is the basis of national sentiment) from the Nationalism of the modern Pan-Turanians and “Young Persians,” who put the extension and purification from foreign elements of the national language in the foremost place in their programme. At the present time the Turkish nationalists of Angora proclaim their new Caliph in Turkish instead of in the time-honoured Arabic, while Ríḍá Khán, the Persian military dictator, strives to introduce in his army a purely Persian military terminology.

Although the Muhammadans, according to their own statements, are divided into seventy-two or seventy-three Essential nature of the Shí'a doctrine. different sects, ^15c in later times at any rate, when certain controversies, such as those connected with Free Will and Predestination and the Creation of the Qur'án, have sunk into a subordinate position, it may fairly be said that the capital and cardinal division is into the People of the Sunnat and the People of the Shí'a. Scattered communities of the latter are found in Asia Minor, Syria (where they are called Mutawallí, pl. Matá-wila ), India and other Muhammadan lands, but in Persia only is the Shí'a doctrine not only that held by the great majority of the people, but also the State Religion. Before considering how it was raised to this position by the Ṣafawís about the year A.D. 1500, we must briefly consider its essential nature, and here we cannot do better than quote Shahristání, the learned author of the Kitábu'l-Milal, or “Book of Sects,” who died in the middle of the twelfth century, and who writes of them ^16a as follows:

“THE SHÍ'A.—They are those who took the side of (Sháya'ú) 'Alí in particular, declaring him to be Imám and Shahristání cited. Khalífa by explicit written deed, public or secret, and believing that the Imámate cannot quit his posterity; and that, should it do so, it is only by reason of wrong wrought by another, or prudential renunciation on his own part. ^16b They assert that the Imámate is not a question of expediency but of principle: it does not depend on popular choice, so that an Imám can be set up by their appointment, but is an essential of Religion which it is not permissible for even the Apostle of God to ignore or neglect, and which cannot be transferred or committed to the common people. They are united in their assertion as to the necessity of such explicit designation [of the Imám on the part of his predecessor] and the established innocence of the Imáms of all sins, small or great, and also in their principles of recognition and repudiation, alike in word, deed and faith, save in cases of ‘prudential concealment’ (taqiyya), in which point, however, some of the Zaydís oppose them. As to the actual transmission of the Imámate, however, there is much discussion and difference of opinion, and at each such transmission and stage there is an argument, a doctrine and a schism. There are five [principal] divisions, the Kaysánis, the Zaydís, the Imámís, the Extremists (Ghulát) and the Isma'ílís, of whom some incline in their principles to the Mu'tazila, some to the Sunna and some to Anthropomorphism (tashbíh).”

Put in a briefer, clearer and more concrete form, this means that all the Shí'a reject and repudiate the first three Why the Shí'a doctrine especially appeals to the Persians. of the “Four Orthodox Caliphs” (al-Khulafá'-u'r-Ráshidún ), Abú Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmán, who were elected, and hold that 'Alí, the cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad and the husband of his daughter Fáṭima, should have succeeded him, and had in fact been nominated by him as his successor; and that after 'Alí the succession continued in his family by Divine Right. But even within this family there was no place for election, each Imám specifically choosing and nominating his successor, as the Prophet had chosen and nominated 'Alí. Amongst those who agreed in these general principles, however, there was plenty of room for disagreement as to details. Some of the Shí'a were content that the Imám should be descended from 'Alí, and were therefore ready to recognise Muḥammad ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya, “the son of the Ḥanafite woman”; others, including the “Sect of the Seven” or Isma'ílís and the “Sect of the Twelve” or Imámís, with which last we are chiefly concerned, limited the succession to the children born to 'Alí by his wife Fáṭima, the Prophet's daughter. With the third Imám Ḥusayn, 'Alí's younger son by Fáṭima, a new factor came into operation, for, according to quite early and respectable historians, such as al-Ya'qúbí, ^18a a daughter of the last Sásánian king of Persia, Yazdigird III, was given to him in marriage and bore him a son named 'Alí and entitled Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, who was the Fourth Imám, and who combined in himself direct descent from the Prophet through his daughter Fáṭima and from the ancient Royal House of Persia. Small wonder that to him and his descendants the loyal devotion of the Persians was so freely rendered!

Thus we see that the quarrel between Sunní and Shí'a is by no means one of names and personalities only, but of The difference between Shí'a and Sunní one of principle, not merely of persons. the essentially antagonistic doctrines of Democracy and the Divine Right of Kings. The Arabs are, and always have been, in large measure democratic in their ideas, while the Persians have ever been disposed to see in their Kings divine or semidivine beings. And if the idea of a humanly-elected head of the State be repugnant, how much more that of an Imám, or Vice-gerent of the Prophet, chosen by popular suffrage? Hence the Imámí and Isma'ílí sects of the Shí'a have always had their stronghold in Persia, though under the Sunní Turkish dynasties of the Ghaznawís and Saljúqs they were kept in a state of subordination. ^18b They were more favoured under the Buwayhids and some of the Mongols, notably Gházán and Khudá-banda (Uljáytú), but they first obtained unquestioned supremacy throughout the whole of Persia under the Ṣafawís.

Who, then, were these Ṣafawís, when did they so ve- Origin of the Ṣafawís. hemently adopt the Shí'a doctrine, and how did they succeed in establishing their supremacy? Ṣafawí is the adjective formed from Ṣafí, a notable Ṣúfí saint, named in full Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín, who died in Gílán in A.D. 1334 at the age of 85 in the odour of sanctity, and who claimed to be descended in the twentieth degree from Músá Káẓim the seventh Imám. ^19a That he was really a man of note in his own time is proved beyond doubt by the way in which his contemporary, the great statesman and historian Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, speaks of him in his letters, ^19b and also by the fact that an immense biography of him, the Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, was composed shortly after his death, largely from data supplied by his son Ṣadru'd-Dín, which has been used directly or indirectly by all the historians of the great dynasty whereof he was the ancestor. Sháh Isma'íl, the actual founder of the dynasty, was sixth in descent from him, but I have found no evidence to prove that he himself adopted the violent Shí'a views characteristic of his descendants. The little evidence available points rather the other way, for in a letter written to Isma'íl's son Sháh Ṭahmásp in A.D. 1529-30 by the Uzbek leaders, they say that, according to what they have heard, Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín was a good Sunní, and express their astonishment that Ṭahmásp “neither follows the example of His Holiness Murtaḍá 'Alí, nor that of his forefather.” ^19c Khwája 'Alí, grandson of Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín and great-great-grandfather of Sháh Isma'íl, is the first member of the House who shows a strong Shí'a bias ^19d and holds converse in his dreams with the Imáms, and his grandson Junayd and his great-grandson Ḥaydar are the first to assert their claims with the sword and to die on the field of battle.

At the beginning of the fifteenth century, then, the Ṣafawís were simply the hereditary pírs, murshids, or spiritual directors of an increasingly large and important order of darwíshes or Ṣúfís which drew its adherents not only from The Ṣafawís originally a religious order. Persia but from the Turkish provinces of Asia Minor, where they appear to have carried on an active propaganda. ^20a How successful this promised to become in later days is shown by the dreadful massacre of some forty thousand of the Shí'a perpetrated in his dominions by Sulṭán Salím “the Grim” as a preliminary to his great campaign against Sháh Isma'íl in A.D. 1514. ^20b To these devoted darwíshes or muríds, as their war-cry cited above (p. 15) sufficiently shows, the head of the Ṣafawí House, even after he had ceased to be a Shaykh and had become a Sháh, continued to be regarded as the pír or murshid. Chardin, Raphaël du Mans, ^20c and other reputable authorities have scoffed at the title “Great Sophi,”

It would appear that an idea prevailed in Europe (based, perhaps, on vague recollections of the Magi or Wise Men from the East) that Sophi was derived from , an opinion which Don Juan of Persia ^21a is at pains to refute; for, having described how Sháh Isma'íl immediately after he had conquered Tabríz adopted the title of “gran Sophi de Persia,” he adds: “no Sophi por sabio, como algunos mal en-tendieron, pensando que venia de Sòpos vocablo Griego, sino de Sophi, que es vocablo Persiano, y quiere dezir, lana, ō algodon ” (“Not Sophi in the sense of wise, as some have erroneously supposed, thinking it to come from the Greek word , but from Sophi, which is a Persian word meaning wool or cotton”).^21b

The rapid rise to power of Isma'íl is one of the most remarkable events in Persian history, especially in view of his forlorn and threatened childhood. His father, Shaykh Ḥay-dar, was killed in A.D. 1490 when he was only about three years of age, ^21c and he and his two brothers, of whom the elder, Sulṭán 'Alí, also fell in battle about A.D. 1495, were in constant danger from the Turkmán rulers of the “White Sheep” dynasty, and had many hair-breadth escapes in which they owed their lives to the devoted loyalty of their faithful Ṣúfís. Only seven of these accompanied Isma'íl when, at the age of thirteen, he set out from Láhiján for Ardabíl to win a kingdom or perish in the attempt, but at every stage he received reinforcements, so that at Ṭárum his army numbered fifteen hundred men, and by the time he reached Arzinján on his way to attack Farrukh-Yasár, king of Shír-wán, it had increased to seven thousand. Within a year he had taken Tabríz, been crowned king of Persia, and, despite Sháh Isma'íl enforces the Shí'a doctrine at Tabríz. the attempts of his counsellors to dissuade him, imposed the Shí'a doctrine on his subjects. He was warned that two-thirds of the people of Tabríz were Sunnís, and that the introduction into the prayers and professions of Faith of the distinctively Shí'a clauses, and more especially the cursing of the first three Caliphs, Abú Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmán, might lead to trouble. “God and the Immaculate Imáms are with me,” he replied, “and I fear no one. By God's help, if the people utter one word of protest, I will draw the sword and leave not one of them alive.” ^22a He was as good as his word, and when the above-mentioned anathema was uttered all men were commanded, on pain of death, to exclaim, “May it (i.e. the curse) be more, not less!” (Bísh bád, kam ma-bád!).

Ruthless and bloodthirsty as he showed himself, Sháh Isma'íl, as depicted by contemporary Venetian travellers,

The closest historical parallel to the Ṣafawí movement is, I think, afforded by the propaganda in favour of the Parallel between Ṣafawí and 'Abbásid propaganda. 'Abbásids carried on by Abú Muslim in Persia with so great a success in the first half of the eighth century of our era. Both were consciously religious and only unconsciously, though none the less truly, racial; the chief difference was that the later movement had to confront in the person of the Ottoman Sulṭán Salím a far more energetic and formidable antagonist than the earlier in the Umayyad Caliph Marwán, and hence its more limited success; for while the 'Abbásid cause triumphed throughout almost the whole of the Eastern lands of Islám, the Ṣafawí triumph was limited to Persia,

One of the most curious and, at first sight, inexplicable Remarkable lack of great poets under the Ṣafawís. phenomena of the Ṣafawí period is the extraordinary dearth of notable poets in Persia during the two centuries of its duration. Architecture, miniature-painting and other arts flourished exceedingly; the public buildings with which Sháh 'Abbás adorned his realms, and especially his capital Iṣfahán, have not ceased to command the admiration of all who beheld them from his time until the present day; and Bihzád and the other artists who flourished at the Tímúrid court of Herát found worthy successors in Riḍá-yi-'Abbásí and his colleagues. Yet, though poets innumerable are mentioned in the Tuḥfa-i-Sámí ^25a and other contemporary biographies and histories, there is hardly one (if we exclude Jámí, Hátifí, Hilálí and other poets of Khurásán, who were really the survivors of the school of Herát) worthy to be placed in the first class. During the seventy stormy years of Tímúr's life there were at least eight or ten poets besides the great Ḥáfiẓ, who outshone them all, whose names no writer on Persian literature could ignore; while during the two hundred and twenty years of Ṣafawí rule there was in Persia, so far as I have been able to ascertain, hardly one of conspicuous merit or originality. I say “in Persia” advisedly, for a brilliant group of poets from Persia, of whom 'Urfí of Shíráz (d. A.D. 1590) and Ṣá'ib of Iṣfahán (d. A.D. 1670) are perhaps the most notable, adorned the court of the “Great Moghuls” in India, and these were in many cases not settlers or the sons of emigrants, but men who went from Persia to India to make their fortunes and returned home when their fortunes were made. This shows that it was not so much lack of talent as lack of patronage which makes the list of distinctively Ṣafawí poets so meagre. The phenomenon is noticed by Riḍá-qulí Khán in the preface to his great anthology of Persian poets entitled Majma'u-l-Fuṣaḥá , ^25b composed in the middle of the last century, as well as by European scholars like the late Dr Ethé, who have written on Persian poetry; with this difference, that the European writers commonly speak of Jámí as the last great Persian poet, and consider that during the four centuries which have elapsed since his death Persia has produced no poet of eminence, while Riḍá-qulí Khán, rightly as I think, places certain modern poets of the Qájár period, notably such men as Qá'ání, Furúghí and Yaghmá, in the first rank.

That no great poet should have arisen in Persia in days otherwise so spacious and so splendid as those of the Ṣafawís Reasons for this dearth of poets. seemed to me so remarkable that I wrote to my learned and scholarly friend Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín, to whose industry and acumen students of Persian owe so much, to ask him, first, whether he accepted this statement as a fact, and secondly, if he did, how he explained it. In reply, in a letter dated May 24, 1911, he wrote as follows:

“There is at any rate no doubt that during the Ṣafawí period literature and poetry in Persia had sunk to a very Mírzá Muḥammad Khán's views on this subject. low ebb, and that not one single poet of the first rank can be reckoned as representing this epoch. The chief reason for this, as you yourself have observed, seems to have been that these kings, by reason of their political aims and strong antagonism to the Ottoman Empire, devoted the greater part of their energies to the propagation of the Shí'a doctrine and the encouragement of divines learned in its principles and laws. Now although these divines strove greatly to effect the religious unification of Persia (which resulted in its political unification), and laid the foundations of this present-day Persia, whose inhabitants are, speaking generally, of one faith, one tongue, and one race, yet, on the other hand, from the point of view of literature, poetry, Ṣúfíism and mysticism, and, to use their own expression, everything connected with the ‘Accomplishments’ (as opposed to the ‘Legalities’), ^27a they not merely fell far short in the promotion thereof, but sought by every means to injure and annoy the representatives of these ‘Accomplishments,’ who were generally not too firmly established in the Religious Law and its derivatives. In regard to the Ṣúfís particularly they employed every kind of severity and vexation, whether by exile, expulsion, slaughter or reprimand, slaying or burning many of them with their own hands or by their sentence. Now the close connection between poetry and Belles Lettres on the one hand, and Ṣúfíism and Mysticism on the other, at any rate in Persia, is obvious, so that the extinction of one necessarily involves the extinction and destruction of the other. Hence it was that under this dynasty learning, culture, poetry and mysticism completely deserted Persia, and the cloisters, monasteries, retreats and rest-houses [of the darwíshes] were so utterly destroyed that there is now throughout the whole of Persia no name or sign of such charitable foundations, though formerly, as, for instance, in the time of Ibn Baṭúṭa, such institutions were to be found in every town, hamlet and village, as abundantly appears from the perusal of his Travels, wherein he describes how in every place, small or great, where he halted, he alighted in such buildings, of which at the present day no name or sign exists. Anyone ignorant of the circumstances of the Ṣafawí period might well wonder whether this Persia and that are the same country, and the creed of its inhabitants the same Islám; and, if so, why practically, with rare exceptions, there exists now not a single monastery throughout the whole of Persia, while in those parts of Turkey, such as Mesopotamia, Kurdistán and Sulaymániyya, which did not remain under the Ṣafawí dominion, there are many such buildings just as there were in Ibn Baṭúṭa's days.

“At all events during the Ṣafawí period in place of great poets and philosophers there arose theologians, great indeed, but harsh, dry, fanatical and formal, like the Majlisís, the Muḥaqqiq-i-thání, Shaykh Ḥurr-i-Ámulí and Shaykh-i-Bahá'í, etc.”

Most professional poets in the East are primarily panegyrists, and if Riḍá-qulí Khán is correct in his assertion Panegyrics on themselves little esteemed by the Ṣafawí kings. that the Ṣafawí kings, especially Ṭahmásp and 'Abbás the Great, expressed a wish that laudatory poems should be addressed to the Imáms rather than to themselves, another and a more creditable cause for the diminution of poets in their realms is indicated. More material benefits were to be looked for from the Great Moghuls ^28a than from the Imáms, and hence the eyes and feet of the more mercenary poets turned rather to Dihlí than to Karbalá. But to religious poetry commemorating the virtues and sufferings of the Imáms a great impetus was given in Persia, and of these poets Muḥtasham of Káshán (d. A.D. 1588) was the most eminent. But, besides these more formal and classical elegies, it is probable that much of the simpler and often very touching verse, wherein the religious feelings of the Persians find expression during the Muḥarram mourning, dates from this period, when every means was employed to stimulate and develop these sentiments of devotion to the House of 'Alí and detestation of its oppressors. On the other hand the dramati-sation of these moving scenes, which now form so remarkable a feature of the Muḥarram mourning (Ta'ziya), and are often described by European writers as “Miracle Plays,” seems to have taken place at a much later period. That careful writer Olearius spent the month of Muḥarram, A.H. 1047 (May-June, 1637) at Ardabíl, the sanctuary of the Ṣafawí family, and gives a very full description of all that he saw, the mournings, wailings, lamentations and cuttings culminating on the 'Áshúrá, the tenth day of the month or Rúz-i-Qatl, but he makes no mention of any dramatic representations, so that it is pretty certain that none existed at that time. To elucidate this point I addressed enquiries to two well-informed and intelligent Persian friends, Sayyid Taqí-záda and Mírzá Ḥusayn Dánish. The former expressed the opinion that while the solemn recitations known as Rawḍa-khwání (i.e. the reading from the pulpit of the Rawḍatu'sh-Shuhadá , or “Garden of the Martyrs,” and other similar books) dates from Ṣafawí times, the Ta'ziya-gardání, shabíh, or “Passion Play” was of much later date, and perhaps owes something to European influences. The latter also placed the origin of these “Passion Plays” (of which Sir Lewis Pelly's translations give a good idea to the English reader) about the end of the eighteenth or beginning of the nineteenth century, i.e. at the beginning of the Qájár period, and incidentally cited the following interesting verses by Shaykh Riḍá-yi-Kurd in illustration of the view that the Persian dislike of 'Umar is due not less to the fact that he conquered Persia and overthrew the Sásánian dynasty than to his usurpation of the rights of 'Alí and Fáṭima:

“'Umar broke the back of the lions of the thicket:
He cast to the winds the thews and sinews of Jamshíd.
This quarrel is not about the usurpation of the Caliphate from 'Alí:
Persia has an ancient grudge against the House of 'Umar.”

In conclusion we must not omit to notice another step taken by the Ṣafawí kings which added greatly to the consolidation of Persia and the prevention of a continued outflow of men and money from the country, namely the exaltation and popularisation of Mashhad, Qum and other holy cities of Persia, whereby the tide of pilgrims was to a considerable extent confined within the limits of their Empire, in which, as we have seen, the most sacred shrines of Karbalá, Najaf and Mashhad 'Alí were long included before they finally fell under Turkish dominion.^30a

I am indebted to my friend Mr H. L. Rabino, of H.B.M.'s Consular Service, for the following valuable notes on the celebration of the Muḥarram mourning at Baghdád as early as the fourth Muhammadan (tenth Christian) century. I have only the text of the two passages (one in German and the other in Persian): the reference was probably given in the accompanying letter (December 23, 1922), which has unfortunately been mislaid. I have an impression that they are taken from one of Dorn's articles, probably published in the Mélanges Asiatiques. The whole quotation runs as follows:

“Die ‘ta'sieh’ wurden in Baghdad i. J. 963 von der Buwaihiden Mu'iss-ed-daula eingeführt, wie uns Ahmed b. Abu'l-Feth in seinem Werke (Inscr. Mus. As. No. 567^a) berichtet.”

“It is related in the History of Ibn Kathír the Syrian that Mu'izzu'd-Dawla Aḥmad ibn Buwayh issued orders in Baghdád that during the first ten days of Muḥarram all the bazaars of Baghdád should be closed, and that the people should wear black for mourning and betake themselves to mourning for the Chief of Martyrs [the Imám Ḥusayn]. Since this procedure was not customary in Baghdád, the Sunní doctors regarded it as a great innovation; but since they had no control over Mu'izzu'd-Dawla, they could do nothing but submit. Thereafter every year until the collapse of the Daylamite [or Buwayhid] dynasty, this custom of mourning was observed by the Shí'ites in all countries during the first ten days of Muḥarram. In Baghdád it continued until the early days of the reign of Ṭughril the Saljúq.”

That Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín, the saintly recluse of Ardabíl from whom the Ṣafawí kings of Persia derived their descent Proofs of the fame, influence and greatness of Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín. and their name, was really an important and influential person in his own day, is a fact susceptible of historical proof. He who wins a throne and founds a great dynasty destined to endure for more than two centuries is apt, if he be of lowly origin, to create, or allow to be created, some legend connecting his ancestors with famous kings, statesmen or warriors of old, or otherwise reflecting glory on a House which, till he made it powerful and illustrious, held but a humble place in men's esteem. But Sháh Isma'íl, sixth in descent from Shaykh Ṣafí (as we shall henceforth call him for brevity), who founded the Ṣafawí dynasty about the beginning of the sixteenth century of the Christian era, and raised Persia to a position of splendour which she had scarcely held since the overthrow of the ancient and noble House of Sásán by the Arabs in the seventh century, had no occasion to resort to these devices; for whether or no Shaykh Ṣafí was directly descended from the seventh Imám of the Shí'a, Músá Káẓim, and through him from 'Alí ibn Abí Ṭálib ^32a and Fáṭima the Prophet's daughter (and his claim is probably at least as good as that of any contemporary Sayyid), two facts prove that in his own time (the thirteenth century) he was highly accounted as a saint and spiritual guide.

The first and more important of these two facts is the concern shown by that great Minister Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍ- The high esteem in which he was held by the Minister Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh. lu'lláh for his welfare, and the desire to win his favour and intercession. In the very rare collection of the Minister's letters known as the Munsha'át-i-Rashidí ^33a there occur two documents affording proof of this. The first is a letter (No. 45 of the collection, ff. 145^b-149^a of the MS.) addressed to Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín himself, offering to his monastery (Khánqáh) a yearly gift of corn, wine, oil, cattle, sugar, honey and other food-stuffs for the proper entertainment of the notables of Ardabíl on the anniversary of the Prophet's birthday, on condition that prayers should be offered up at the conclusion of the feast for the writer and benefactor. The second (No. 49, ff. 161^a-169^b) is addressed by Rashíd to his son Mír Aḥmad, governor of Ardabíl, enjoining on him consideration for all its inhabitants, and especially “to act in such wise that His Holiness the Pole of the Heaven of Truth, the Swimmer in the Oceans of the Law, the Pacer of the Hippodrome of the Path, the Shaykh of Islám and of the Muslims, the Proof of such as attain the Goal, the Exemplar of the Bench of Purity, the Rose-tree of the Garden of Fidelity, Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'l-Millat wa'd-Dín (may God Most High perpetuate the blessings of His Holy Exhalations!) may be well pleased with and grateful to thee.” ^34a These letters, and especially the second, which is filled with the most exaggerated praises of Shaykh Ṣafí, sufficiently prove the high repute which he enjoyed amongst his contemporaries.^34b

The second fact germane to our thesis is that comparatively soon after his death a most extensive monograph The great monograph on his life entitled Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá. on his life, character, teachings, doctrines, virtues and miracles was compiled by one of his followers, the darwísh Tawakkul ^34c ibn Isma'íl, commonly called Ibnu'l-Bazzáz, apparently under the inspiration and direction of Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín, who succeeded his father Shaykh Ṣafí as head of the Order and held this position for fifty-eight years (A.D. 1334-1392). This rare and important book has never been printed, ^34d but is the chief source of all later accounts of the head of the family and dynasty, in most of which it is frequently and explicitly cited. A much later recension of it was made in the reign of Sháh Ṭahmásp (A.D. 1524-1576) by a certain Abu'l-Fatḥ al-Ḥusayní. I have personal knowledge of only three manuscripts, Add. 11745 of the British Museum; ^35a No. 87 of the Pote Collection in the library of King's College, Cambridge; ^35b and a fine copy made at Ardabíl in 1030/1621, now belonging to Mr A. G. Ellis, who, with his customary generosity, placed it at my disposal for as long as I required it. This exhaustive work comprises an Introduction, twelve chapters, and a Conclusion, each of which is divided into numerous sections, ^35c and its contents are summarized by Rieu with his usual precision. It contains interesting matter, diluted by much that is wearisome save to a devoted disciple, and represents on a more extensive scale the type of hagiography familiar to all Persian students in such books as the Manáqibu'l-'Árifín of Aflákí, available in the English version of Redhouse ^35d and the French of Huart. ^35e The extracts from it included in most later histories of the family, notably the Silsilatu'n-Nasab-i-Ṣafawiyya, ^35f will suffice to satisfy the curiosity of most readers, though a careful perusal and analysis of the original work would undoubtedly yield results of value, most of the anecdotes and sayings being vouched for by Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín. But before further discussing Shaykh Ṣafí and his descendants something more must be said about his ancestors.

That the seventh Imám Músá Káẓim had, besides the son 'Alí Riḍá who succeeded him in the Imámate, another The seventh Imám Músá Káẓim. son named Ḥamza, from whom Shaykh Ṣafí claimed descent, is a fact vouched for by the historian al-Ya'qúbí, ^36a but the next dozen links in the chain (including five Muḥammads without further designation) are too vague to admit of identification. The earliest ancestor of the Ṣafawís who is invested with any Fírúzsháhi-Zarrín-kuláh. definite attributes is Fírúzsháh-i-Zarrín-kuláh (“Golden-cap”), who is stated by the Silsilatu'n-Nasab to have been made governor of Ardabíl, henceforth the home and rallying-point of the family, by a son of Ibráhím-i-Adham, here represented as king of Persia. Ibráhím-i-Adham, however, though reputed of kingly race, renounced the world, became a notable saint, and died about A.D. 780 in Syria, and history knows nothing of any son of his who succeeded to a throne in Persia or elsewhere. Fírúzsháh died after a prosperous life at Rangín in Gílán,

Hitherto we have suffered from the exiguity of biographical details, but now we are rather embarrassed by Scope, size and contents of the Ṣafwatu'ṣṢafá. their abundance. The Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, it is true, probably contains all that can now be known about Shaykh Ṣafí, but it is a voluminous work, containing some 216,000 words, and written in a fairly simple and direct style without much “stuffing” (ḥashw) or rhetorical adornment, so that anything approaching a full analysis of its contents would in itself constitute a volume of considerable size. It is lamentably deficient in dates, and in general deals rather with the spiritual than the material aspects of the life of Shaykh Ṣafí and his director Shaykh Záhid-i-Gílání. Stated as briefly as possible, its contents are as follows:

Introduction (in 2 sections). Shaykh Ṣafí's advent foretold by the Prophet and by former saints, such as Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí.

Chapter I (in 11 sections, two of which are further subdivided). Early life of Shaykh Ṣafí. His genealogy. Portents preceding his birth. His birth and childhood. His search for a spiritual director. He finally meets Shaykh Záhid of Gílán. His life as a disciple of this holy man. His succession to the supremacy of the Order. His spiritual affiliation up to the Prophet. Characteristics and miracles of Shaykh Záhid.

Chapter II (in 3 sections). Some of the miracles of Shaykh Ṣafí, whereby he delivered men from the perils of the sea and of deep waters, of mountains, mist and snow, and from foes, bondage and sickness.

Chapter III (in 3 sections). Some of the miracles wrought by the favourable or unfavourable regards of Shaykh Ṣafí.

Chapter IV (in 6 sections, two of which are further subdivided). Some of Shaykh Ṣafí's sayings, and his explanations of verses of the Qur'án, traditions of the Prophet, utterances of the Saints, and allegorical verses of the poets.

Chapter V (in 3 sections). Some of Shaykh Ṣafí's miracles connected with the Jinn, with animals, and with inanimate objects.

Chapter VI (undivided). Ecstacies and devotional dancing of Shaykh Ṣafí.

Chapter VII (in 5 sections). Various miracles of Shaykh Ṣafí, such as thought-reading, foretelling future events, converse with the dead, etc.

Chapter VIII (in 27 sections). Further examples of the virtues, powers, pious actions, effective prayers, intuitions and views of Shaykh Ṣafí, vouched for by his son Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín.

Chapter IX (in 2 sections). Last illness and death of Shaykh Ṣafí.

Chapter X (in 3 sections). Posthumous miracles of Shaykh Ṣafí.

Chapter XI (in 3 sections). The fame and greatness of Shaykh Ṣafí and his vicars (Khulafá) throughout the world.

Chapter XII (in 2 sections). Miracles wrought by Shaykh Ṣafí's disciples.

Conclusion.

That so comparatively small a portion of this voluminous work should be biographical is disappointing but not sur- Characteristics of Muslim hagiographies. prising, for how can those who regard themselves as belonging to the Timeless and Placeless (Lá Makán) be expected to trouble themselves about dates or similar details? All these hagiographies, indeed, have a similar character, and deal chiefly with the pious sayings, devout practices and supernatural achievements (karámát) of those whose lives they record. That these karámát ^40a have an interest of their own in connection with Psychical Research has been recognised by D. B. Macdonald in his excellent book on The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam ^40b and by Cl. Huart in his Saints des Derviches Tourneurs. ^40c The latter classifies the psychical Psychical phenomena. phenomena recorded in his original, the Maná-qibu'l-'Árifín (composed about 718/1318, only some thirty years earlier than the Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá , which was very probably modelled on it), as follows: dreams; knowledge of future events; second sight and divination of hidden objects; thought-transference; luminosity of bodies, human and inanimate; automatic opening of closed doors; ubiquity; anaesthesia and immunity against poisons; action on material objects at a distance; production of the precious metals; abnormal muscular, digestive and sexual powers and physical enlargements of the body; shifting features and instability of countenance; apparitions; psychotherapy; replies to difficult questions; conversions to Islám; sermons to animals; vengeance of the Saints; mental alienation; protracted seclusion and fasting; talismans; sudden disappearances. Examples of all, or nearly all, of these phenomena are to be found in the Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, while a smaller but fairly representative selection is contained in the Silsilatu'n-Nasab, but a detailed examination of them, though not without interest and value, would be out of place in this volume. It must be noted, however, that certain aspects of these Muslim saints, as recorded by their disciples and admirers, are to Western minds somewhat repellent; their curses are no less effective than their blessings, and their indulgences no less remark- Repellent characteristics of Muslim Saints. able than their abstentions, while grim jests on the fate of such as have incurred their displeasure are not uncommon. Thus a certain prince named Siyámak, son of Shírwánsháh, when setting out for the Mongol camp (urdú), spoke in a disparaging manner of Shaykh Záhid's disciples, and threatened on his return to pull down or burn their monasteries. When this was reported to the Shaykh he merely remarked, playing on the prince's name, that Siyámak would become Siyáh-marg (meaning “the Black Death”); which saying was duly fulfilled, for, having in some way incurred the wrath of the Mongol sovereign, he was, after the barbarous fashion of these people, wrapped up in black felt and kicked or trampled to death. ^41a To Shaykh Záhid, on the other hand, Gházán Khán ^41b the Mongol Ílkhán showed the greatest respect, especially after the saint had exhibited his powers of mind-reading, which so impressed Gházán that he insisted on kissing his feet.

Externally the life of Shaykh Ṣafí, especially after he became the disciple of Shaykh Záhid and settled at Ardabíl,

Shaykh Záhid's full name, as given in the Ṣafwatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, is Táju'd-Dín Ibráhím ibn Rawshan Amír ibn Bábil ibn Account of Shaykh Záhid. Shaykh Pindár (or Bundár) al-Kurdí as-Sanjání, and the mother of his grandfather Bábil is said to have been a Jinniyya. The title of Záhid (“the Ascetic” or “Abstemious”) was given to him by his Director Sayyid Jamálu'd-Dín for reasons which are variously stated. He gave his daughter Bíbí Fáṭima in marriage to Shaykh Ṣafí, to whom she bore three sons, of whom the second, Ṣadru'd-Dín, ultimately succeeded his father as head of the Order. The author of the Silsilatu'n-Nasab was one of his descendants, who were collectively known as Pír-záda and apparently continued to enjoy high consideration during the whole Ṣafawí period.

From the data given by the Silsilatu'n-Nasab, viz. that

Shaykh Abdál Pír-záda presenting the captured horse of
the Uzbek leader, Dín Muḥammad Khán, to Sháh 'Abbás
the Great
From a MS. of the Silsilatu'n-Nasab-i-Ṣafawiyya (H. 12,
f. 80^a) in the Library of Professor E. G. Browne

Shaykh Záhid was 35 years older than Shaykh Ṣafí, that Shaykh Záhid dies and is succeeded by Shaykh Ṣafí. both died at the age of 85, and that the latter died in 735/1334, we may conclude that the former died about 700/1300; and this is corroborated by the further statement that his grandson Ṣadru'd-Dín was born in 704/1305, four years after his death. Shaykh Ṣafí now became head of the Order, and held this position for 35 years, when he died, ^43a and was in turn succeeded by his son Ṣadru'd-Dín. He Shaykh Ṣafí's poetry. produced some poetry both in the dialect of Gílán (in which also several of his conversations with Shaykh Záhid were conducted) and likewise in ordinary Persian. Though one of his quatrains ^43b testifies to his love of 'Alí (“how much soever he in whose heart is a grain of love for 'Alí may sin, God will forgive No evidence that he was a Shí'a. him” are his words), I find no evidence that he held those strong Shí'a views which subsequently characterised his descendants. There is, indeed, a piece of evidence to the contrary in the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh, an important unpublished history of the first two Ṣafawí kings composed in the reign of Sháh Ṭahmásp and including the years A.H. 901-985 (A.D. 1495-1577) . ^43c In a letter of remonstrance addressed to this ruler by the Uzbek 'Ubayd Khán in 936/1529-1530 the following sentence occurs: ^43d

“We have thus heard concerning your ancestor, His sainted Holiness Shaykh Ṣafí, that he was a good man and an orthodox Sunní, and we are greatly astonished that you neither follow the conduct of Murtaḍá 'Alí nor that of your ancestor.”

He did much, however, to extend and develop the Order of which he was the Superior, and his influence is illustrated Influence of Shaykh Ṣafí in Asia Minor. by a statement of Mawláná Shamsu'd-Dín Barníqí of Ardabíl, quoted in the Silsilatu'n-Nasab , ^44a that the number of those who came to visit him along one road only—that from Marágha and Tabríz—in the course of three months amounted to some thirteen thousand. Many if not most of these must have come from Asia Minor, so that even at this early date the Order was establishing and consolidating itself in regions where it was afterwards destined to cause the greatest anxiety to the Ottoman Sulṭáns.^44b

Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín succeeded his father at the age of 31 in 735/1334 and controlled the affairs of the Order for Ṣadru'd-Dín succeeds his father in 735/1334. 59 years until his death in 794/1392. He also composed verses in Persian, and is besides credited with many miracles, the most celebrated of which was his recovery and restoration to Ardabíl of the door of the principal mosque which had been carried off by the Georgians when they raided that city about 600/1203-4. ^44c Amongst the most celebrated of his disciples was the poet Qásimu'l-Anwár, whose orthodoxy was somewhat suspect, and who was expelled from Herát by Sháh-rukh under circumstances which I have discussed elsewhere. ^44d That Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín's influence and activities also aroused the suspicions of neighbouring potentates is shown by the action of Malik-i-Ashraf, ^45a who lured His influence arouses jealousy. him to Tabríz and kept him in confinement there for three months, when, warned by a dream, he released him, but subsequently attempted to recapture him and compelled him to flee into Gílán. Other holy and learned men suffered at the hands of this tyrant, and one of them, the Qáḍí Muḥyi'd-Dín of Barda'a, depicted in such vivid colours the odious oppression of Malik-i-Ashraf to Jání Beg Khán son of Uzbek, the ruler of the Dasht-i-Qipcháq, that the latter invaded Ádhar-báyján, defeated Malik-i-Ashraf, and put him to death. According to the Silsilatu'n-Nasab ^45b he also had an interview with Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín, treated him with great respect, and confirmed to him the possession of certain estates whereof the revenues had formerly been allocated to the shrine at Ardabíl.

Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín, like his father Shaykh Ṣafí, performed the pilgrimage to Mecca at the end of his life, and Ṣadru'd-Dín is succeeded in 794/1392 by his son Khwája 'Alí. is said to have brought back with him to Ardabíl the Prophet's standard. Shortly after his return he died, in 794/1392, and was succeeded by his son Khwája 'Alí, who controlled the affairs of the Order for thirty-six years until his death on Rajab 18, 830 (May 15, 1427). This happened in Palestine, where he is buried, his tomb being known as that of “Sayyid 'Alí 'Ajamí.” ^45c Like his father and grandfather he was a worker of miracles and a poet, and over two hundred of his Persian verses are quoted in the Silsilatu'n-Nasab. In him strong Shí'a tendencies reveal themselves: instigated by the Ninth Imám Muḥammad Taqí in a dream he converts the people of Dizful, by a miraculous stoppage of their river, to a belief in and recognition of the supreme holiness of 'Alí ibn Abí Ṭálib; and he exhorts Tímúr, whose regard he had succeeded in winning by a display of his psychical powers, to “chastise, as they deserve, the Yazídí Kurds, the friends of Mu'áwiya, because of whom we wear the black garb of mourning for the Immaculate Imáms.” ^46a More celebrated is his intercession with Tímúr on behalf of a number of Turkish prisoners (asírán-i-Rúm) whose release he secured, and whose grateful descendants, known as “the Turkish Ṣúfís” (Ṣúfiyán-i-Rúmlú), became the most devoted adherents and supporters of the Ṣafawí family.^46b

Shaykh Ibráhím, better known as Shaykh Sháh, succeeded his father in 830/1427 and died in 851/1447-8.

Shaykh Ḥaydar (the “Sechaidar” of Angiolello), like his father Junayd, whom he succeeded, found favour in the Shaykh Ḥaydar (A.D. 1456-1488). eyes of the now aged Úzún Ḥasan, his maternal uncle, who gave him in marriage his daughter Marta, Ḥalíma, Bakí Áqá or 'Álam-sháh Begum, whose mother, the celebrated Despina Khátún (“Despina-caton”), was the daughter of Kalo Ioannes, the last Christian Emperor of Trebizond, of the noble Greek family of the Comneni. ^47c The anonymous Venetian merchant whose narrative is included in the Italian travels in Persia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries ^48a describes him as “a lord about the rank of a count, named Secaidar, of a religion or sect named Sophi, reverenced by his co-religionists as a saint and obeyed as a chief. There are,” he continues, “numbers of them in different parts of Persia, as in Natolia (Anatolia) and Caramania (Qaramán), all of whom bore great respect to this Secaidar, who was a native of this city of Ardouil (Ardabíl or Ardawíl), where he had converted many to the Suffavean (Ṣafawí) doctrine. Indeed he was like the abbot of a nation of monks; he had six children, three boys ^48b and three girls, by a daughter of Assambei (Ḥasan Bey, i.e. Úzún Ḥasan); he also bore an intense hatred to the Christians.” He it was who, divinely instructed in a dream, bade his followers adopt in place of the Turk- Origin of the term Qizil-básh. mán cap (ṭáqiya-i-Turkmání) the scarlet cap of twelve gores (Táj-i-duwázda tark) ^48c from which they became universally known as “Red Heads” (Qizil-básh in Turkish; Surkh-sar in Persian). “They are accustomed,” says the anonymous Venetian merchant cited above (p. 206 of the Italian Travels), “to wear a red caftan, and above that a high conical turban made with a dozen folds, representing the twelve sacraments of their sect, or the twelve descendants of 'Alí.”^48d

Shaykh Ḥaydar, like his father, fell in battle against the hosts of Shírwánsháh and his Turkmán allies at Ṭabar-sarán near Darband. Twenty-two years later his death was avenged and his body recovered and brought to Ardabíl by Shaykh Ḥaydar killed in battle in 893/1488. his redoutable son Sháh Isma'íl, who was at this time (Rajab 20, 893: June 30, 1488) ^49a only a year old.

Nothing could appear more unpromising than the position of the three little sons of Shaykh Ḥaydar, who were for the Isma'íl and his two brothers. moment entirely at the mercy of their father's enemies. Sulṭán Ya'qúb, the son of Úzún Ḥasan, however, shrank from killing them for the sake of their mother, who was his sister, and contented himself with exiling them to Iṣṭakhr in Fárs, where they were placed in the custody of the governor Manṣúr Beg Parnák. According to Angiolello, ^49b however, the three boys were confined on an island in the “Lake of Astumar” (identified by the translator with Lake Van) inhabited by Armenian Christians, where they remained for three years and became “very much beloved, especially Ismael, the second, for his beauty and pleasing manners,” so that when Rustam, the grandson of Úzún Ḥasan, after the death of his uncle Ya'qúb, sent a message to demand their surrender, intending to put them to death, the Armenians not only made excuses for not giving them up but enabled them to escape by boat to the “country of Carabas” (Qará-bágh). In the Persian accounts, however, Rustam is credited with their release from Iṣṭakhr, because, being at war with his cousin Bay-sunqur, he thought to strengthen himself by an alliance with them and their numerous devoted followers. He accordingly invited the eldest brother Sulṭán 'Alí to Tabríz, received him with much honour, conferred on him all the paraphernalia of sovereignty and the title of Pádisháh, and despatched him to attack Baysunqur, whom he defeated and slew in a battle near Ahar. Having thus got rid of his rival, Rustam sought to rid himself of his ally, who, warned by one of his Turkmán disciples, fled to Ardabíl, but was Isma'íl's brother Sulṭán 'Alí is killed. overtaken by his enemies at the neighbouring village of Shamásí and killed in the ensuing skirmish in the year 900/1494-5. ^50a His two brothers, however, reached Ardabíl in safety, and were concealed by their faithful followers during the house-to-house search instituted by the Turkmáns, until an opportunity presented itself of conveying them secretly into Gílán, first to Rasht, where they remained for a short period, estimated Isma'íl in hiding in Láhiján. at anything from seven to thirty days, and then to Láhiján, the ruler of which place, Kár-kiyá Mírzá 'Alí, accorded them hospitality and protection for several years. It is related that on one occasion when their Turkmán foes came to look for them he caused them to be suspended in a cage in the woods so as to enable him to swear that they had no foothold on his territory.

To the valour and devotion of Isma'íl's disciples, the “Ṣúfís of Láhiján,” contemporary European writers testify Devotion of Isma'íl's followers. as forcibly as the Persian historians. “This Sophi,” says the anonymous Italian merchant, ^50b “is loved and reverenced by his people as a god, and especially by his soldiers, many of whom enter into battle without armour, expecting their master Ismael to watch over them in the fight…The name of God is forgotten throughout Persia and only that of Ismael remembered.” “The Suffaveans fought like lions” is a phrase which repeatedly occurs in the pages of the Venetian travellers. Yet for all this, and the numbers and wide ramifications of the Order (“from the remotest West to the limits of Balkh and Bukhárá,” says the rare history of Sháh Isma'íl, speaking of the days of his grandfather Junayd), it is doubtful if their astounding successes would have been possible in the first instance but for the bitter internecine feuds of the ruling “White Sheep” dynasty after the death of the great and wise Úzún Ḥasan in A.D. 1478, from which time onwards their history is a mere welter of fratricidal warfare.

Isma'íl was only thirteen years of age when he set out from the seclusion of Láhiján on his career of conquest.

Having captured Baku (Bádkúya, Bádkúba) Isma'íl, advised in a dream by the Imáms, decided to raise the siege of Battle of Shurúr. Isma'íl is crowned at Tabríz. 907/1501-2. Gulistán and march on Ádharbáyján. Alwand and his “White Sheep” Turkmáns endeavoured to arrest his advance, but were utterly defeated at the decisive battle of Shurúr with great slaughter. Alwand fled to Arzinján, while Isma'íl entered Tabríz in triumph and was there crowned King of Persia. Henceforth, therefore, we shall speak of him as Sháh Isma'íl, but by the Persian historians he is often entitled Kháqán-i-Iskandar-shán (“the Prince like unto Alexander in state”), as his son and successor Sháh Ṭahmásp is called Sháh-i-Dín-panáh (“the King who is the Refuge of Religion”).

Already Sháh Isma'íl and his partisans had given ample proof of their strong Shí'a convictions. Their battle-cry on the day they slew Shírwánsháh was Alláh! Alláh! wa 'Alí waliyyu'lláh (God! God! and 'Alí is the Friend of God!”), ^52b while Alwand was offered peace if he would embrace this doctrine and pronounce this formula. ^53a But now Sháh Isma'íl resolved that, with his assumption of the Energetic measures adopted by Sháh Isma'íl to propagate the Shí'a doctrine. kingly rank, the Shí'a faith should become not merely the State religion but the only tolerated creed. This decision caused anxiety even to some of the Shí'a divines of Tabríz, who, on the night preceding Isma'íl's coronation, represented to him that of the two or three hundred thousand inhabitants of that city at least two-thirds were Sunnís; that the Shí'a formula had not been publicly uttered from the pulpit since the time of the Imáms themselves; and that if the majority of the people refused to accept a Shí'a ruler, it would be difficult to deal with the situation which would then arise. To this Sháh Isma'íl replied, “I am committed to this action; God and the Immaculate Imáms are with me, and I fear no one; by God's help, if the people utter one word of protest, I will draw the sword and leave not one of them alive.” ^53b Nor did he content himself with glorifying The cursing of the first three Caliphs instituted. 'Alí and his descendants, but ordained the public cursing of the first three Caliphs of the Sunnís, Abú Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmán, and that all who heard the cursing should respond “May it be more, not less!” (Bísh bád, kam ma-bád!) or suffer death in case of refusal.

Immediately after his coronation, according to the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh, ^54a he ordered all preachers (Khuṭabá)

Of the anger and alarm aroused by these proceedings in the neighbouring kingdoms, and especially in the Ottoman Rival rulers in Persia at this time, 907/1501-2. Empire, we shall have to speak presently, but first we may with advantage give from the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh ^55a the list of potentates in Persia itself who at this time claimed sovereign power: (1) Sháh Isma'íl in Ádharbáyján; (2) Sulṭán Murád in most of 'Iráq; (3) Murád Beg Báyandarí in Yazd; (4) Ra'ís Muḥammad Karra (? ) in Abarqúh; (5) Ḥusayn Kiyá-yi-Chaláwí in Samnán, Khwár and Fírúzkúh; (6) Bárík Parnák in 'Iráq-i-'Arab; (7) Qásim Beg ibn Jahángír Beg ibn 'Alí Beg in Diyár Bakr; (8) Qáḍí Muḥammad in conjunction with Mawláná Mas'úd in Káshán; (9) Sulṭán Ḥusayn Mírzá (the Tímúrid) in Khurásán; (10) Amír Dhu'n-Nún in Qandahár; (11) Badí'u'z-Zamán Mírzá (the Tímúrid) in Balkh; and (12) Abu'l-Fatḥ Beg Báyandarí in Kirmán.

Many of these petty rulers (Mulúku'ṭ-Ṭawá'if) were quite insignificant, and several of them I cannot even identify.

Of the increasingly strained relations between Turkey and Persia, culminating in the Battle of Cháldirán (August, 1514), we shall have to speak very shortly, but we must first conclude our brief survey of Sháh Isma'íl's career of conquest. To describe in detail his incessant military activities would be impossible in a work of the scope and character of this book, and only the barest summary is possible.

During the years A.H. 911-915 (A.D. 1506-1510) Sháh Isma'íl's conquest in the West, A.D. 1506-1510. Isma'íl was for the most part busy in the West. He first entered Hamadán and visited the tomb of the Imám-záda Sahl 'Alí. A serious revolt of the “Yazídí” Kurds ^58a next demanded his attention. Their leader, Shír Ṣárim, was defeated and captured in a bloody battle wherein several important officers of Sháh Isma'íl lost their lives. To their relatives the Kurdish prisoners were surrendered to be put to death “with torments worse than which there may not be.” War was next waged against the conjoined forces of Sulṭán Murád, the thirteenth ^58b and last of the “White Sheep” dynasty, and 'Alá'u'd-Dawla Dhu'l-Qadar (the “Aliduli” of the Italian travellers of this period), who, refusing Isma'íl's proposal that he should “set his tongue in motion with the goodly word 'Alí is the Friend of God, and curse the enemies of the Faith” (to wit, the first three Caliphs), appealed for help to the Ottoman Turks. Sháh Isma'íl, however, was Baghdád taken in A.D. 1508. not to be denied, and successively captured Diyár Bakr, Akhláṭ, Bitlís, Arjísh, and finally in 914/1508 Baghdád itself, whereby he obtained possession of the Holy Shrines of Karbalá and Najaf, so dear to Shí'a hearts, where he hastened to offer prayers and thanksgivings. At Ḥuwayza he showed that, ardent Shí'a Ghulát punished at Ḥuwayza. Shí'a as he was, he would not tolerate the exaggerated veneration of 'Alí characteristic of the Ghulát, represented there by certain Arabs called Musha'shi', who venerated 'Alí as God, and, invoking his name, would cast themselves on sharp swords without sustaining injury, after the fashion of the modern 'Ísáwiyya of North Africa. Their leader, Mír Sulṭán Muḥsin, died about this time, and was succeeded by his son Sulṭán Fayyáḍ, who claimed for himself divine honours. ^59a Sháh Isma'íl ruthlessly suppressed these heretics, and proceeded Submission of Luristán. to Dizful and Shúshtar, receiving the submission of the Lur chieftain Sháh Rustam, who won his favour by “the utterance of prayer and praise in the Lurí tongue with extreme sweetness.” Thence Sháh Isma'íl made his way eastwards to Fárs, encamped for a while at Dárábjird, and organised a great hunting expedition, of which the special object was a kind of mountain goat Doings in Fárs. which yields the “animal antidote” (pádzahr-i-ḥaywání ). ^59b He also put to death the Qáḍí Muḥammad-i-Káshí, who held the high ecclesiastical office of Ṣadr, and replaced him by the Sayyid-i-Sharíf of Astar-ábád, who was descended on his mother's side from the celebrated Jurjání. He further erected at Qaṣr-i-Zar a mausoleum in memory of his brother Sulṭán Aḥmad Mírzá, who had died there, and, under the title of Najm-i-Thání (“the Second Star”), appointed Amír Yár Aḥmad-i-Khú-zání of Iṣfahán to succeed “the First Star,” Amír Najmu'd-Dín Mas'úd of Rasht, who had recently died and been buried at Najaf. The poet Ummídí celebrated this appointment in a very ingenious and sonorous qaṣída beginning:

From Fárs Sháh Isma'íl marched into Shírwán (where Shaykh Sháh, the son of Farrukh-Yasár, had re-established Attacks Shírwán. himself), recovered the body of his father Shaykh Ḥaydar and conveyed it to Ardabíl for burial, as already related, and took Darband.

So far Sháh Isma'íl had been chiefly occupied in putting down minor princes and pretenders and in consolidating Two powerful external enemies, the Uzbeks and Ottomans. his power in Persia, of which he had to the West and North-West greatly enlarged the territories, and had almost restored the ancient frontiers of Sásánian times. Hitherto he had hardly come into conflict with the two powerful enemies who were destined to give so much trouble to himself and his successors, to wit the Uzbeks of Central Asia and the Ottoman Turks. Of his relations with these formidable rivals we must now speak, but, before doing so, a few more words may be said of Sháh Isma'íl's character and appearance. As usual, a much more vivid picture of these is given by contemporary Sháh Isma'íl's appearance and character as depicted by contempotary European travellers. travellers than by his own countrymen, though his courage, energy, cruelty and restless activity are sufficiently apparent in the Persian chronicles of his reign. At the age of thirteen, when he began his career of conquest, he was, according to Caterino Zeno, ^60a “of noble presence and a truly royal bearing, as in his eyes there was something, I know not what, so great and commanding, which plainly showed that he would yet some day become a great ruler. Nor did the virtues of his mind disaccord with the beauty of his person, as he had an elevated genius, and such a lofty idea of things as seemed incredible at such a tender age…He had vigour of mind, quickness of perception, and a personal valour… never yet…equalled by any of his contemporaries.” Angio-lello ^61a speaks of “his beauty and pleasing manners” when he was a child, and relates ^61b how, in his campaign against 'Alá'u'd-Dawla (“Alidoli”), “he supplied himself with provisions, paying for everything, and proclaiming abroad that everyone might bring supplies to the camp for sale, and that anyone taking anything without paying for it would be put to death.” “This Sophi,” he says a little further on, ^61c “is fair, handsome, and very pleasing; not very tall, but of a light and well-framed figure; rather stout than slight, with broad shoulders. His hair is reddish; he only wears moustachios, and uses his left hand instead of his right. He is as brave as a game-cock, and stronger than any of his lords; in the archery contests, out of the ten apples that are knocked down, he knocks down seven; while he is at his sport they play on various instruments and sing his praises.” “He is almost worshipped,” he remarks in another place, ^61d “more especially by his soldiers, many of whom fight without armour, being willing to die for their master. While I was in Tauris [Tabríz] I heard that the king is displeased with this adoration, and being called God.” The anonymous merchant describes him ^61e at the age of thirty-one as “Very handsome, of a magnanimous countenance, and about middle height; he is fair, stout, and with broad shoulders, his beard is shaved and he only wears a moustache, not appearing to be a very heavy man. He is as amiable as a girl, left-handed by nature, is as lively as a fawn, and stronger than any of his lords. In the archery trials at the apple he is so expert that of every ten he hits six.” The same writer, on the other hand, after describing his massacre of Alwand's soldiers, of the male and female kinsmen of Sulṭán Ya'qúb, of three hundred courtezans of Tabríz, of “eight hundred avaricious Blasi” ^62a who had been brought up under Alumut [i.e. Alwand], of “all the dogs in Tauris,” and of his own mother [or stepmother], concludes, “From the time of Nero to the present, I doubt whether so bloodthirsty a tyrant has ever existed.” He presented, in short, the strangest blend of antithetical qualities; and we are alternately attracted by his personal charm, his unquestionable valour, generosity and—within certain limits—justice, and repelled by actions, such as those recorded above, revealing a savagery remarkable even in that cruel and bloodthirsty age. His courage was shown not only on the field of battle but in the chase. Hearing after his conquest and occupation of Baghdád of a singularly fierce man-eating lion which had its lair in a thicket and terrified the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, he insisted, in spite of all remonstrances, in destroying it single-handed with the bow he knew so well how to use. ^62b At the age of thirteen he had already slain a fierce bear in like manner in a cave near Arzinján. ^62c When “immense treasures” fell into his hands on the capture of one of the Caspian ports, “he divided them amongst his men, keeping nothing for himself .” ^62d Yet the same traveller who reports this instance of generosity and political foresight (for in consequence of it “he was joined by numbers, even those who were not Suf-faveans flocking to his standard in hopes of receiving gifts of this nature from the valiant Ismael”) describes how the Sháh with his own hand cut off the head of the unfortunate young prince “Alumut,” ^62e captured by treachery, whom he himself had seen bound in chains in a tent; and tells of even darker deeds wrought at Tabríz on the occasion of the Sháh's second entry into that city in A.D. 1520. ^63a Towards the Sunnís Ruthless repression of Sunnís. he showed himself ruthless, sparing neither eminent divines like the learned Farídu'd-Dín Aḥmad, a grandson of the celebrated scholar Sa'du'd-Dín-i-Taftázání, who for thirty years had held the office of Shaykhu'l-Islám in Herát, ^63b nor witty poets like Banná'í, who perished in the massacre of Qarshí in 918/1512. But perhaps the most conspicuous instance of a ferocity which pursued his foes even after their death was his treatment of the body of his old enemy Muḥammad Khán Shaybání, or Shaybak, the Uzbek, of which we shall have to speak very shortly.

It has already been stated that the foreign relations of Sháh Isma'íl, after he had cleared Persia of the “White Foreign relations of Persia at this period. Sheep” and other rivals for the sceptre of that ancient kingdom, were chiefly with three Powers, the Tímúrids, who still kept a precarious hold on Herát and portions of Khurásán and Central Asia; the formidable Uzbeks of Transoxiana; and the Ottoman Turks. With the last two, rigid Sunnís in both cases, the relations of Persia were, and continued to be, uniformly hostile; with the Tímúrids, themselves menaced by the Uzbeks, comparatively friendly and at times even cordial. The aged Sulṭán Ḥusayn ibn Bayqará, whose brilliant and luxurious court at Herát was so famous a centre of literature and art, ^63c is reckoned amongst the rulers who, with less success than Sháh Isma'íl, endeavoured to replace the Sunní by the Shí'a doctrine in their dominions; ^63d and Bábur, whether from conviction or policy, showed enough partiality towards the Shí'a faction to cause grave disaffection amongst his Central Asian Sunní subjects. ^64a There existed, then, in this case no such essential cause of enmity as in the two others, while a common hatred of Shaybání Khán and his redoutable Uzbeks naturally tended to unite Bábur to Isma'íl.

It is beyond the scope of this work to enter into a detailed account of the decline of the Tímúrid and the rise of the Shaybání or Shaybak Khán and the Uzbeks. Uzbek power, of which ample particulars may be found in Erskine's and other works. ^64b Suffice it to say that Shaybání or Shaybak Khán, a direct descendant of Chingíz Khán, ^64c first became prominent about A.D. 1500, when he captured Samarqand and Bukhárá, and later Táshkand and Farghána. He invaded Khurásán in 911/1505-6, in the year of Sulṭán Ḥusayn's death, and in the course of the next year or two practically exterminated the Tímúrids, with the exception of Bábur and Badí'u'z-Zamán, of whom the latter sought refuge with Sháh Isma'íl. It was not until 916/1510-11, however, that he came into direct conflict with Sháh Isma'íl, whom he had provoked by a raid on Kirmán in the previous year and a most insulting letter in reply to Isma'íl's politely-worded remonstrance. ^64d Sháh Isma'íl was not slow to respond to his taunts, and, the rest of his realms being for the moment tranquil, at once marched into Khurásán to meet him, visiting on his way Death of Shaybání in battle, Dec. 1510. the Shrine of the Imám 'Alí Riḍá at Mashhad, so sacred in Shí'a eyes. The decisive battle was fought on Dec. 1 or 2, 1510, at Ṭáhir-ábád near Merv, where, after a stubborn and protracted conflict, the Uzbeks were utterly defeated and Shaybání killed. When his body was found under a heap of slain, Sháh Isma'íl ordered the limbs to be cut off and distributed to different parts of his kingdom, and the head to be stuffed with straw and sent as a grim gift to the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd II at Constantinople. ^65a The bones of the skull he caused to be Barbarous treatment of his remains. mounted in gold and made into a drinking-cup for his own use, and one hand he sent to Áqá Rustam Rúz-afzún, the ruler of Mázandarán, by a special messenger, Darwísh Muḥammad Yasá'úl, who cast the hand on to Rustam's skirt as he sat amidst his courtiers at Sárí, crying “Thou didst say, ‘My hand on Shaybak Khán's skirt’ (dast-i-man-ast u dáman-i-Shaybak Khán): ^65b lo, his hand is now on thy skirt!” So astounded were those present by this audacity that none lifted a hand to stay the messenger's departure, and Rustam received so great a shock that he soon afterwards sickened and died. Of the drinking-cup the following grim anecdote is told. One of Shaybání's trusted advisers, Khwája Kamálu'd-Dín Ságharchí, saved his life by professing the Shí'a faith, and was admitted into the service of Sháh Isma'íl. One day at a banquet the latter, pointing to the drinking-cup, asked him if he recognized the skull of his late master. “Yes, glory be to God,” replied Kamálu'd-Dín; “and how favoured by fortune was he! Nay, fortune still abides with him, so that even now he rests in the hands of so auspicious a being as thyself, who continually drinks the Wine of Delight!”

Shaybání Khán was sixty-one years of age at the time of his death and had reigned eleven years. He was, as already stated, a fanatical Sunní and had grievously persecuted the Shí'a in his dominions: now it was the Sunnís who suffered in their turn at the hands of Sháh Isma'íl. The Uzbek power, in spite of this disaster, was far from being broken, and, though a formal peace was concluded between them and the Persians a few months afterwards, they had an ample revenge at the battle of Ghujduwán, where Bábur and his Persian allies suffered a disastrous defeat and many of their leaders, including Najm-i-Thání, were slain in November, 1512. During the whole of the sixteenth century they were a constant menace to Persia, and accounts of their raids into Khurásán occur with monotonous iteration in the pages of the Persian historians of this period.

We must now turn to the far more important relations of Persia with the Ottoman Turks at this period, on which Firídún Bey's collection of Turkish State Papers. more light is thrown by the State Papers so industriously compiled and edited by Firídún Bey in 982/1574 under the title of Munsha'át-i-Salá-ṭín (“Correspondence of the Kings”) ^66a than by most of the Persian or Turkish historians. These letters, which passed between successive Ottoman Sulṭáns and neighbouring rulers, as well as between them and their sons, ministers and governors, are sometimes in Turkish and sometimes in Persian or Arabic. Unfortunately many of them are undated. They have hitherto been so little used that no apology is needed for summarizing the contents or indicating the purport of such of them as concern the Ṣafawís down to the death of Sháh Isma'íl in 930/1523-4, that is, during the reigns of the Ottoman Sulṭáns Báyazíd II (886-918/1481-1512), Salím I (918-926/1512-1520), and the first four years of Sulaymán “the Magnificent” (926-930/1520-1524).

(1) From Ya'qúb Pádisháh of the “White Sheep” dynasty to Sulṭán Báyazíd, announcing the defeat and death of Shaykh Ḥaydar (Sháh Isma'íl's father), (p. 309). This letter, in Persian, is undated, but must have been written soon after Shaykh Ḥaydar, who is called the “President of the people of error” (Sar-i-ḥalqa-i-arbáb-i-ḍalál), was killed on June 30, 1488. The writer assumes that the news of the destruction of “these misguided rebels, enemies of the Prophetic Dispensation and foes of Church and State” will be welcome to all good Muslims.

(2) Sulṭán Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (p. 311). Congratulations are offered to Ya'qúb on the victory of “the Báyandarí ^67a hosts of salvation” over the “misguided Ḥaydarí faction” (gurúh-i-ḍálla-i-Ḥaydar-iyya ).

(3) From Sháh Isma'íl to Sulṭán Báyazíd II, requesting that his disciples in Asia Minor may not be prevented from visiting him at Ardabíl (p. 345). This letter, undated and in Persian, is important as proving how numerous were the partisans of the Ṣafawís in the Ottoman dominions.

(4) Sulṭán Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (pp. 345-6). The Ottoman Sulṭán says that, having investigated the matter, he finds that the motive of many of these pilgrims is not the desire to fulfil a pious duty, but to escape from the obligation of military service.

(5) From Sháh Isma'íl to Sulṭán Báyazíd on the same subject, also in Persian and undated (pp. 346-7). He explains that he has been compelled to enter Ottoman territory to chastise his foes, but intends thereby no unfriendly or disrespectful act towards Báyazíd, and has strictly enjoined his soldiers to respect the persons and property of the inhabitants.

(6) Sulṭán Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (p. 347). Báyazíd accepts Isma'íl's assurances, and has ordered his officials to co-operate with him in a friendly spirit.

(7) From Alwand, the Áq-Qoyúnlú ruler of Persia, to Sulṭán Báyazíd, in Persian, except the Arabic prologue, and undated (pp. 351-2). Alwand announces the arrival of Báyazíd's envoy Maḥmúd Áqá Cháwúsh-báshi with his master's letter, urging the Báyandarí or Áq-Qoyúnlú family to unite against their common enemy, the “rascally Red-heads” (Awbáshi-Qizil-básh ). Alwand promises to do his best, whether his relations help him or not, provided he can count on material and moral support from Báyazíd.

(8) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (pp. 352-3). He commends Alwand's resolve, and promises help against the “rebellious horde of the Qizil-báshes” (ṭa'ifa-i-bághiya-i-Qizil-báshiyya).

(9) From Báyazíd to Ḥájji Rustam Beg the Kurd, in Persian, dated Rabí' i, 908/September 1502 (p. 353). He asks for correct information as to the doings of the Qizil-báshes and the result of their struggle with the Áq-Qoyúnlú or Báyandarí princes, to be communicated to his envoy Kaywán Cháwúsh.

(10) Ḥájji Rustam's reply to the above, in Persian and undated (pp. 353-4). The writer states that the “religion-rending Qizil-báshes” (Qizil-básh-i-Madhhab-kharásh), having defeated Alwand and Murád of the Áq-Qoyúnlú family, are now seeking an alliance with Egypt against the Ottoman Turks, and are advancing on Mar'ash and Diyár Bakr.

(11) From Sulṭán Báyazíd to Sulṭán Ghúrí of Egypt, in Arabic, dated 910/1504-5 (pp. 354-5). This letter contains an allusion to “the man who has appeared in the Eastern countries and defeated their ruler and overcome their peoples,” which, as appears from the answer, refers to Sháh Isma'íl, or possibly Sháh-qulí.

(12) Answer to the above, in Arabic, undated (pp. 355-6). This letter contains a reference to “the victory of the misguided Qizil-báshí faction in the Eastern countries,” described as a “public calamity which has appeared in those regions.”

These are the only letters in Sulṭán Báyazíd's correspondence directly connected with the Ṣafawís, though there are Growth of the bitter hostility between Persia and Turkey. others of interest to students of Persian history addressed to Sulṭán Abu'l-Ghází Ḥusayn (911/ 1506), the poet Jámí, ^69a the philosopher Jalálu'd-Dín Dawání, and the Shaykhu'l-Islám of Herát Farídu'd-Dín Aḥmad-i-Taftázání (913/1507), who was put to death by Sháh Isma'íl three years later for refusing to subscribe to the Shí'a doctrine. Before we consider the State Papers of Sulṭán Salím's reign, something more must be said of the beginnings of that bitter strife between Turkey and Persia which is one of the most prominent features of the whole Ṣafawí period, and has done so much to undermine the unity and weaken the power of Islám. And here we cannot do better than quote the opening paragraph of old Richard Knolles's ^70a account of the formidable Shí'a revolt in Anatolia promoted by the celebrated Sháh-qulí (“King's servant”), called by the Turks Shayṭán-qulí (“Devil's servant”), the son of Ḥasan Khalífa a disciple of Isma'íl's father Shaykh Ḥaydar.

“After so many troubles,” says Knolles, “Bajazet gave himself unto a quiet course of life, spending most part of The Shí'a rising in Asia Minor. his time in study of Philosophy and conference with learned men; unto which peaceable kind of life he was of his own natural disposition more enclined than to Wars; albeit that the regard of his State and the earnest desire of his Men of War drew him oftentimes even against his Will into the Field. As for the Civil Government of his Kingdom he referred it wholly to his three principal Bassaes, Alis, Achmetes and Jachia, ^70b who at their pleasure disposed of all things. After that he had in this quiet and pleasing kind of life to his great contentment passed over five years, of a little neglected Spark suddainly arose such a Fire in Asia as was hardly after with much blood of his People and danger of that part of his Empire quenched; the reliques whereof yet trouble those superstitious People at this day. Which thing was brought to pass by the crafty device of Chasan Chelife and Schach Culi his Boy (whom some call Teckel Scachoculu and others Techellis), ^70c two Hypocritical Persians; who flying into those countries and with the counterfeit shew of feigned Holiness having procured to themselves a great name amongst those rude People, with a number of windy headed Followers (filled with the novelty of their new Doctrine) raised first such a diversity of opinions about the true successors of their untrue Prophet, and afterwards such a Rebellion amongst the People, as that the one yet remaineth, and the other was not in a good while after without great bloodshed appeased.”

There follows a lengthy account of this dangerous rebellion, in which the Turks suffered several severe reverses and lost many notable officers, including the Grand Vezír Khádim 'Alí Pasha, ere the rebels were dispersed, killed, or driven into Persia. Instead of rewarding or comforting the fugitives, however, Sháh Isma'íl put many of them to death at Tabríz, because, as Knolles says, ^71a they had plundered a caravan of rich merchants; but, according to the most modern Turkish historian, ^71b in order to clear himself of complicity in the eyes of Báyazíd. Knolles adds that “Techellis himself (i.e. Sháh-qulí), to the terror of others, was burnt alive”; but, according to the Turkish historian, he fell at the same time as 'Alí Pasha in the battle of Gyuk Cháy, between Síwás and Qayṣariyya, in which statement the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh ^71c agrees. “Techellis thus put to Massacre of Shí'a throughout the Turkish Empire. flight,” continues Knolles, “Jonuses ^71d caused strait inquisition to be made through all the Cities of the lesser Asia for all such as had professed the Persian Religion; and them whom he found to have borne Arms in the late Rebellion he caused to be put to death with most exquisite torments and the rest to be burnt in their Foreheads with an hot Iron, thereby forever to be known; whom together with the Kinsfolks and Friends of them that were executed or fled with Techellis he caused to be transported into Europe and to be dispersed through Macedonia, Epirus and Pele-ponnesus , for fear lest if Techellis, now fled into the Persian Kingdom, should from thence return with new Forces, they should also again repair unto him and raise a new Rebellion. This was the beginning, course, and ending of one of the most dangerous Rebellions that ever troubled the Turkish Empire; wherein all, or at leastwise the greatest part, of their Dominions in Asia might have been easily surprised by the Persian King, if he would thoroughly have prosecuted the occasion and opportunity then offered.” These events are placed by Knolles in A.D. 1508, but by the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh in 917/1511-12, the year before Báya-zíd's death.

It is curious that little or nothing is said by the Persian historians about this massacre of the Shí'a in Turkey, which von Hammer describes as one of the most dreadful deeds ever perpetrated in the name of Religion, not excepting the cruelties of the Inquisition or the Massacre of St Bartholomew. That most of the Turkish historians ignore it is less astonishing, since it can hardly be a matter of pride for them. Knolles appears to be mistaken in placing it in the reign of Báyazíd II, for there can hardly have been two such massacres, and one certainly took place in 1514 after the accession of Salím, as witnessed by Nicolo Giustiniani in an account dated October 7 of that year. ^72a The number of victims is placed by Sa'du'd-Dín, Soláq-záda and 'Alí Abu'l-Faḍl, the son of Idrís of Bitlís, at 40,000. The particulars given by the last-named writer, quoted by von Hammer in the original Persian verse transliterated into the Roman character, are as follows:^72b

Von Hammer's translation, which can hardly be bettered, runs as follows:

“Der Sultan wohlbewandert, voll Verstand,
Schickt kund'ge Schreiber aus in jedes Land;
Aufzeichnen sollen sie nach Stamm und Stammen
Die Jünger dieses Volks mit Nahm und Nahmen.
Von sieben Jahren bis auf siebzig Jahr
Bring' im Diwan die List' ein jeder dar.
Es waren Vierzigtausend grad enthalten
In den Verzeichnissen von Jung und Alten,
Die Bringer dieser Listen wurden dann
Gesandt an die Statthalter mit Ferman.
Wo immer hin die Feder war gekommen,
Ward Fuss für Fuss das Schwert zur Hand genommen.
Es wurden hingerichtet in dem Land
Mehr als die Zahl, die in den Listen stand.”

Turning now once more to the Munsha'át of Firídún Sulṭán Salím's Persian correspondence. Bey, we find the following letters belonging to the reign of Sulṭán Salím which bear on his relations with Persia.

(13) From Sulṭán Salím to 'Ubayd Khán the Uzbek, in Persian, dated the end of Muḥarram, A.H. 920 (March 27, 1514), only five months before the Battle of Cháldirán (pp. 374-7). In this long letter, sent by the hand of a certain Muḥammad Bey, Salím denounces “that vile, impure, sinful, slanderous, reprehensible and blood-thirsty Ṣúfí-cub” (to wit Sháh Isma'íl), “at whose hands the people of the Eastern lands are rendered desperate”

and calls upon 'Ubayd Khán to do his part in avenging the death of his father Shaybak Khán.

(14) Answer to the above, also in Persian, dated the end of Jumáda ii, 920 (August 21, 1514), pp. 377-9. In this letter 'Ubayd Khán describes how he has already avenged his father and slain “the lesser dog, agent and lieutenant of the greater dog (i.e. Sháh Isma'íl), who in his quintessential folly had conferred on him the title of Najm-i-Thání,” ^74a and promises to aid the Turkish Sulṭán in extirpating the “inconsiderable remnant” () of the “rascally infidels and heretical ‘Red-heads’” ().

(15) From Sulṭán Salím to Sháh Isma'íl, in Persian, dated Ṣafar, 920 (April, 1514), pp. 379-381. This letter, written in the most arrogant and offensive tone, calls on Isma'íl to repent of his heresies and evil practices, especially the cursing of “the two Shaykhs” (Abú Bakr and 'Umar), and threatens, should he continue obdurate, to invade and wrest from him “the lands which he has usurped by violence.”

(16) From Sulṭán Salím to Muḥammad Beg Áq-Qoyúnlú, in Persian, dated the end of Ṣafar, 920 (April 25, 1514), pp. 381-2, congratulating him on the sound Sunní principles of himself and his family and subjects, and inviting his co-operation against the “heretical ‘Red-heads’.”

(17) Reply to the above, in Persian, dated the end of Rabí' ii, 920 (June 23, 1514), p. 382. From this it appears that Salím's letter was brought by an envoy named Aḥmad Ján, who took back the answer, and that the writer was in great fear that the correspondence might be discovered.

(18) Sulṭán Salím's second letter to Sháh Isma'íl, in Persian and undated, pp. 382-3. In this letter Salím lays claim to the Caliphate, accuses Sháh Isma'íl and his family of heresy and immorality, and calls on him to repent and suffer Persia to be annexed to the Ottoman dominions.

(19) Sulṭán Salím's third letter to Isma'íl, in Turkish, dated the end of Jumáda i, 920 (July 23, 1514) and written from Arzinján, taunting him with his apparent unwillingness to try the fortune of battle.

(20) Sháh Isma'íl's reply to Sulṭán Salím's three letters, in Persian and undated (pp. 384-5). This is apparently the letter to which Creasy refers in his History of the Ottoman Turks (ed. 1877, pp. 136-7), for the writer hints that Salím's secretary must have written under the influence of bang or opium, and sends a gold casket filled with a special preparation of one or both of these narcotics, sealed with the Royal Seal, by the hand of his messenger Sháh-qulí Ághá.

(21) Sulṭán Salím's fourth letter to Isma'íl, in Turkish, dated the end of Jumáda ii, 920 (August 21, 1514), again challenging him to battle.

Shortly after this last letter was written, namely early in the month of Rajab, ^75a 920 (August—September, 1514), a The Battle of Cháldirán, August, 1514. great battle was fought between the Turks and Persians at Cháldirán, situated some 20 parasangs from Tabríz, where 3000 of the former and 2000 of the latter were slain, but the Turkish artillery decided the day, and Sháh Isma'íl, notwithstanding the valour shown by him and his devoted followers, was forced to give way and to fall back beyond Tabríz, which was occupied by the Turks on Rajab 16, 920 (Sept. 6, 1514). Many men of note on both sides were slain; of the Turks Ḥasan Pasha, Begler-begi of Rumelia, who commanded the left wing of the Ottoman army, Ḥasan Bey, Governor of Morea, Uways Bey of Caesarea, Ayás Bey of Latakia, and many other high civil and military officials; of the Persians Amír Sayyid-i-Sharíf of Shíráz, a protagonist of the Shí'a doctrine, Amír 'Abdu'l-Báqí, a descendant of the noted saint Sháh Ni'matu'lláh of Kirmán, Sayyid Muḥammad Kamúna of Najaf, Khán Muḥammad Khan, and many others.

Sulṭán Salím, greatly elated by his success, immediately despatched the usual bombastic proclamations of victory Sulṭán Salím's proceedings after the victory of Cháldirán. (fatḥ-náma) to his son Sulaymán, to the Khán of the Crimea, to the Kurdish chieftains, to Sulṭán Murád, the last of the Áq-Qoyúnlú or “White Sheep” dynasty, to Sháh Rustam of Luristán, to the Governor of Adrianople, and others. The texts of these documents are given by Firídún Bey (pp. 386-96), but they are followed (pp. 396-407) by a document of much greater historical value, namely a detailed journal of the movements of the Turkish army from the time they marched out of Adrianople on Muḥarram 3, 920 (March 20, 1514) until they returned to winter at Amásiya at the end of the same year (Nov.-Dec., 1514). They marched in 105 stages from Adrianople to Tabríz by way of Constantinople, Caesarea, Síwás, Arzinján, Cháldirán, Khúy and Marand; thence back to Amásiya in 58 stages, by way of Nakhjuwán, Jisr-i-Júbán, and Bayburt. They erected a pyramid of the skulls of their enemies on the field of battle, handed over to Ja'far Bey one of Sháh Isma'íl's wives who fell into their hands, and massacred Khálid Bey and 150 of his Qizil-básh companions at the village of Sáḥilán the day before they entered Tabríz, in which city, however, they seem to have behaved with moderation, as even the Persian historian of Sháh Isma'íl testifies. ^77a Sulṭán Salím remained there only about a week (Sept. 6-14, 1514), when he departed, taking with him the Tímúrid Prince Badí'u'z-Zamán, the fugitive son of the late Sulṭán Abu'l-Ghází Ḥusayn ibn Bayqará, ^77b and a number of skilled artisans whom he proposed to settle in his dominions. Within two or three weeks of his departure Sháh Isma'íl was back in Tabríz. According to Sir John Malcolm, ^77c “the effect of so great a reverse upon the sanguine mind of Isma'íl was deep and lasting, and though before of a cheerful disposition he was never afterwards seen to smile.” But as a matter of fact the defeat, decisive as it was, had little permanent effect, since the discontent and nostalgia of the Janissaries compelled the Ottoman Sulṭán to withdraw from Persian territory, and, save for the extirpation of the little Dhu'l-Qadar dynasty ^77d at Kamákh near Arzinján in the spring of A.D. 1515, his martial ardour was fully occupied, until his death in A.D. 1520, with the subjection of Egypt, Syria and Arabia.

Sháh Isma'íl, on his return to Tabríz after the battle of Cháldirán, sent a very polite and apologetic letter ^77e by the hand of Núru'd-Dín 'Abdu'l-Wahháb to Sulṭán Salím, who, apparently, vouchsafed no reply, but some months later (end of Rajab, 921 = Sept. 9, 1515) wrote in Turkish a long letter to 'Ubayd Khán the Uzbek inciting him to persecute the Shí'a.^77f

The documents connected with Sulṭán Salím's reign fill another 84 pages of Firídún Bey's compilation, ^78a but, with one notable exception, contain only incidental abusive references to Sháh Isma'íl. The exception is formed by two poems, one in Persian and the other in Turkish, addressed to Sulṭán Salím by an unpatriotic Persian named Khwája Iṣfahání, probably identical with Khwája Mawláná-yi-Iṣfahání, a fanatical Sunní who attached himself to the Uzbek Shaybak Khán, and whose death is recorded in the Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh under the year 927/1521.^78b

The following verses from the Persian poem will suffice to give an idea of its character.