<text in Arabic script omitted>

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”) * 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 * 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, * 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 * 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, * 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), * 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.”