Their Doctrine, which is intricate and ingenious, I have described at some length in the Prolegomena (pp. 405-415)

Isma'ílí Doctrine. to this volume, and it could be illustrated by an abundance of material, much of which may be found set forth with learning and discrimination in the admirable works of de Sacy, Guyard, de Goeje, &c., while much more (e.g., the full accounts given in the Jahán-gushá and the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh) is still unpublished. In essence, their Inner Doctrine (reserved for those fully initiated) was philosophical and eclectic, borrowing much from old Íránian and Semitic systems, and something from Neo-Platonist and Neo-Pythagorean ideas. It was dominated throughout by the mystic number Seven: there were Seven Prophetic Periods (those of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muḥammad, and Muḥammad b. Isma'íl), and each of these Seven great Prophets was succeeded by Seven Imáms, of whom the first was in each case the trusted ally and intimate, though “Silent” (Ṣámit), confidant of his “Speaking” (Náṭiq) chief, and his “Foundation” (Asás) or “Root” (Sús). The last of these Seven Imáms in each cycle was invariably followed by Twelve Apostles (Naqíb), with the last of whom that Prophetic Cycle came to an end and a new one began. The sixth of the Seven Prophetic Cycles, that of the Prophet Muḥammad, ended with the Seventh Imám, Isma'íl, and his naqíbs; and Isma'íl's son Muḥammad (whose grandson the first Fáṭimid Caliph, 'Ubaydu'lláh the Mahdí, claimed to be) inaugurated the seventh and last cycle. This great principle of the Seven Prophetic Cycles corresponded on the one hand with the Five Grades or Emanations of Being, which, with God and Man, made up the Sevenfold Universe, and was typified on the other in the Seven Degrees of Initiation through which the proselyte advanced to the Innermost Doctrine. Every ceremony of religion and every object of the natural universe was but a type or symbol of these Esoteric Mysteries; a wonderful Sacrament, meaningless to the profane formalist and man of science, but to the initiated believer fraught with beauty and marvel. And, as we know from de Sacy's researches, it was the first business of the dá'í, or propagandist, to arouse the curiosity of the neophyte as to this esoteric significance of all things by such questions as: “Why did God create the Universe in Seven Days?” “Why are there Seven Heavens, Seven Earths (or Climes), Seven Seas, and Seven Verses in the Opening Chapter of the Qur'án?” “Why does the Vertebral Column contain Seven Cervical and Twelve Dorsal Vertebræ?” The objection that neither this doctrine nor anything greatly resembling it had been taught by any of the Prophets whom they enumerated was met by the explanation that, according to a universal Law, while the Prophet was revealed, the Doctrine was concealed, and that it only became patent when he was latent. In every case the practical aim of the Isma'ílí dá'í or missionary was to induce the neophyte to take an oath of allegiance to himself and the Imám whom he represented, and to pay the Imám's money (a sort of “Peter's-pence”), which was at once the symbol of his obedience and his contribution to the material strength of the Church with which he had cast in his lot.

At the epoch of which we are now speaking al-Mustanṣir (Abú Tamím Ma'add), the eighth Fáṭimid Caliph (reigned A.D. 1035-94), was the supreme head of all the Isma'ílís, whom the rival claims of his sons, Musta'lí and Nizár, divided Al-Mustansír, the eighth Fáṭimid Caliph. after his death into two rival groups, a Western (Egyptian, Syrian, and North African) and an Eastern (Persian), of which the latter (afterwards extended to Syria) constituted the Assassins properly so-called. Al-Mustanṣir's predecessor, the probably insane al-Ḥákim bi amri'lláh (“He who rules according to God's command”), had concluded a reign of eccentric and capricious tyranny, culminating in a claim to receive Divine honours, by a “disappearance” which was almost certainly due to the murderous hand of some outraged victim of his caprice or cruelty, though some of his admirers and followers, the ancestors of the Syrian Druzes of to-day (who derive their name from al-Ḥákim's minister ad-Duruzí, who encouraged him in his pretensions), pretended and believed that he had merely withdrawn himself from the gaze of eyes unworthy to behold his sacred person. * The confusion caused by this event had subsided when al-Mustanṣir came to the throne in A.D. 1035, and his long reign of nearly sixty years may justly be regarded as the culminating point of the power and glory of the Isma'ílí or Fáṭimid dynasty, whose empire, in spite of the then recent loss of Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis, still included the rest of North Africa, Egypt, Sicily, Malta, and varying portions of Syria, Asia Minor, and the shores of the Red Sea. Indeed, in A.D. 1056 Wásiṭ, and two years later Baghdád itself, acknowledged al-Mustanṣir the Fáṭimid as their lord, while the allegiance of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, lost for a while to him in A.D. 1070-71, was regained for a time in 1075; and, though Damascus was lost in the same year, Tyre, Sidon, and Acre were occupied by his troops in 1089.

A description of al-Mustanṣir's Court, of his just and wise rule, and of the security and prosperity of his subjects, has been Náṣir-iKhusraw. left to us by one of the most remarkable and original men whom Persia produced at this, or, indeed, at any other epoch—to wit, the celebrated poet, traveller, and Isma'ílí missionary, Náṣir-i-Khusraw, called by his fellow-religionists “the Proof” (Ḥujjat) of Khurásán. He is briefly mentioned in two places (ff. 286^a and 290^a of the British Museum Manuscript Add. 7,628) of the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh , in connection with the successor to his see, * Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ. The first of these passages runs as follows:—

“Náṣir-i-Khusraw, attracted by the fame of al-Mustanṣir, came from Khurásán to Egypt, * where he abode seven years, * performing the Pilgrimage and returning to Egypt every year. Finally he came, after performing the [seventh] Pilgrimage, to Baṣra, * and so returned to Khurásán, where he carried on a propaganda for the 'Alawís [i.e., Fáṭimid Caliphs] of Egypt in Balkh. His enemies attempted to destroy him, and he became a fugitive in the highlands of Simingán, where he remained for twenty years, content to subsist on water and herbs. Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ, the Ḥimyarite, of Yaman,*

came from Persia to al-Mustanṣir bi'lláh * disguised as a carpenter, and asked his permission to carry on a propaganda in the Persian lands. This permission having been accorded to him, he secretly inquired of al-Mustanṣir in whose name the propaganda should be conducted after his death; to which the Caliph [al-Mustanṣir] replied, ‘In the name of my elder son, Nizár’; wherefore the Isma'ílís [of Persia] maintain the Imâmate of Nizár. * And ‘Our Master’ [Sayyid-ná, i.e., Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ] chose [as the centres of his propaganda] the castles of Quhistán, as we shall presently relate.”

The second reference (f. 290^a) is too long to translate in full, and is cited, in what profess to be the ipsissima verba of Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ. Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ, from the already-mentioned Sar-guzasht-i-Sayyid-ná . According to this passage, Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ's full name was al-Ḥasan b. 'Alí b. Muḥammad b. Ja'far b. al-Ḥusayn b. aṣ-Ṣabbáḥ al-Ḥimyarí, but he would not allow his followers to record his pedigree, saying, “I would rather be the Imám's chosen servant than his unworthy son.” His father came from Kúfa to Qum, where Ḥasan was born. From the age of seven he was passionately fond of study, and till the age of seventeen he read widely and voraciously. * Hitherto, like his father, he had belonged to the Sect of the Twelve; but about this time he fell under the influence of a Fáṭimid dá'í named Amír Ḍarráb, “and before him,” he adds, “of Náṣir-i-Khusraw, the ‘Proof’ of Khurásán.” * The propaganda, he adds, had not met with much success in the time of Sulṭán Maḥmúd of Ghazna, * though previously Abú 'Alí b. Símjúr and the Sámánid Prince Naṣr b. Aḥmad, * with many persons of humbler condition, had embraced the Isma'ílí doctrine in Persia. After many long conferences and discussions with Amír Ḍarráb, Ḥasan remained unconvinced, though shaken; but a severe illness, from which he scarcely expected to recover, seems to have inclined him still further to belief. On his recovery he sought out other Isma'ílí dá'ís, 'Bú Najm-i-Sarráj (“the Saddler”), and a certain Mú'min, who had been authorised to engage in the propaganda by Shaykh [Aḥmad b.] 'Abdu'l-Malik [b.] 'Aṭṭásh, a prominent leader of the Isma'ílís in Persia, mentioned both by al-Bundárí * and Ibnu'l-Athír. * This man was subsequently captured and crucified on the reduction of the Isma'ílí stronghold of Sháh-dizh or Dizh-kúh, near Iṣfahán, about A.H. 499 (= A.D. 1105-6). Mú'min ultimately, with some diffidence (for he recognised in Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ a superior in intelligence and force of character), received from the distinguished proselyte the bí'at, or oath of allegiance to the Fáṭimid Caliph. In Ramaḍán, A.H. 464 (May-June, 1072) Ibn 'Aṭṭásh, whose proper sphere of activity or “see” was Iṣfahán and Ádharbayján, came to Ray, saw and approved Ḥasan b. Ṣabbáḥ, and bade him go to Egypt, to Cairo, the Fáṭimid capital. Accordingly, in A.H. 467 (A.D. 1074-75) he went to Iṣfahán, whence, after acting for two years as Ibn 'Aṭṭásh's vicar or deputy, he proceeded to Egypt by way of Ádharbayján, Mayáfáriqín, Mawṣil, Sinjár, Raḥba, Damascus, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, and thence by sea. On his arrival at his destination on August 30, A.D. 1078, he was honourably received by the Chief Dá'í (Dá'i'd-Du'át) Bú Dá'úd and other notables, and was the object of special favours on the part of al-Mustanṣir, whom, however, he was not privileged to see in person, though he remained at Cairo for eighteen months. At the end of this period he was compelled —by the jealousy of Musta'lí and his partisans, especially Badr, the commander-in-chief, as we are informed—to leave Egypt; and he embarked at Alexandria in Rajab, A.H. 472 (January, A.D. 1080), was wrecked on the Syrian coast, and returned by way of Aleppo, Baghdád, and Khúzistán to Iṣfahán, which he reached at the end of Dhu'l-Ḥijja, A.H. 473 (June, 1081). Thence he extended his propaganda in favour of Nizár, the elder son of al-Mustanṣir, to Yazd, Kirmán, Ṭabaristán, Dámghán, and other parts of Persia, though he avoided Ray, for fear of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk, who was eager to effect his capture, and had given special instructions to that effect to his son-in-law Abú Muslim, the Governor of Ray. * Finally he reached Qazwín, and, by a bold stratagem, fully described in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, * obtained possession of the strong mountain fortress of Alamút, originally Áluh-ámú't, a name correctly explained by Ibnu'l-Athír (x, 110) as ta'límu'l-'aqáb, “the Eagle's Teaching”; more often, but, as I think, less correctly, as “the Eagle's Nest.” * As noticed by most historians, by an extraordinary coincidence the sum of the numerical values of the letters comprised in the name of this castle (1 + 30 + 5 + 1 + 40 + 6 + 400 = 483) gives the date (A.H. 483 = A.D. 1090-91) of its capture by Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ.