Mr Gibb, following up this clue, devoted a chapter (the Gibb's researches into the history of the Turkish Ḥurúfís seventh, pp. 336-388) in the first volume of his History of Ottoman Poetry to the Ḥurúfís, and especially to two of the Turkish Ḥurúfí poets, Nesímí * and Refí'í, of whom the latter was a disciple of the former. Mr Gibb was unable to trace the Ḥurúfís beyond the middle of the seventeenth century, but gives (pp. 381 et seqq.) two interesting extracts from Turkish chronicles showing the fierce persecution of which the sect was on several occasions the object. The first extract (from the Memoirs of Turkish Divines entitled Shaqá'iqu'n-Nu'-mániyya , which Gibb renders as “the Crimson Peony”) relates how the Persian Muftí of Constantinople, Fakhru'd-Dín-i-'Ajamí, a pupil of as-Sayyid ash-Sharíf al-Jurjání, * seized and caused to be burned to death as heretics certain Ḥurúfís who had succeeded in gaining the confidence and favour of the reigning Sulṭán Muḥammad II, the “Conqueror” of Constantinople, who, apparently, for all his power, was unable to protect them from the fury of the 'ulamá and the fanaticism of the orthodox. It is even related that the Muftí was so carried away by his religious zeal that, in blowing the fire kindled for his victims, he singed the long beard for which he was conspicuous. The second extract (from Laṭífí's Biographies of Turkish poets) denounces the heresies and “blasphemous nonsense” of a Ḥurúfí poet named Ta-manná'í, who with others of the sect was put to death by sword and fire in the reign of Sulṭán Báyazíd, who, as we have seen above, * was defeated by Tímúr at the Battle of Angora in 804/1402 and died soon after. As it was in this same year that Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí was put to death, * it is evident that his doctrines had become widely diffused (from Astarábád to Adrianople) even during his life-time, and that they aroused the fiercest execration of the orthodox. Mr Gibb says that as he had failed to discover any record of later movements on the part of the Ḥurúfís, he was inclined to think that the activity of the sect did not extend much beyond the close of the fifteenth century; and that such organization as it may have possessed was probably de- The Bektáshí Order of der­vishes is the present reposi­tory of Ḥurúfí doctrines stroyed in the persecutions to which it was sub­jected in the reign of Báyazíd. But as a matter of fact their activity continues down to the present day, the Bektáshí dervishes being still the representatives and repositories of the Ḥurúfí doctrines. As lately as 1291/1874-5 there was published a Turkish denunciation of the sect entitled “the Revealer of Mysteries and Repeller of Miscreants: a Refutation of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ḥurúfís and Bektáshís,” by Isḥáq Efendi, who is very well informed concerning the matters about which he writes and gives a clear and accurate account of the doctrines which he denounces. He divides his treatise into three chapters, of which the first treats of the origin of Faḍl[u'lláh] the Ḥurúfí, and the principles and laws of certain of the Bektáshís; the second of the blas­phemies of Firishta-záda's Jáwidán; and the third of the blasphemies contained in the other Jáwidáns. He men­tions a persecution of the Bektáshís by Sulṭán Maḥmúd in 1241/1825-6, in which the Turkish poet 'Árif Ḥikmat Bey acted as chief inquisitor; and says that he was moved to the compilation and publication of his work by the impudence of the Bektáshís in daring to print and publish the 'Ishq-náma, or “Book of Love,” of Firishta-záda ('Abdu'l-Majíd ibn Firishta 'Izzu'd-Dín) in 1288/1871-2. He says that “the books which these persons (i.e. the Bektáshís or Ḥurúfís) call Jáwidán are six in number, of which one was composed by their original misleader Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí, while the other five are the works of his Khalífas” (Vice-gerents or Successors). “In these five books,” he adds, “their heresies and blasphemies are very evident, and they are wont to teach and study them secretly amongst themselves”; but “Firishta-záda in his Jáwidán, entitled 'Ishq-náma, did in some measure conceal his blasphemies.”

“After a while,” continues the author, “the evil doctrines of those heretics became known amongst men, and the son of Tímúr [viz. Míránsháh] caused Faḍl the Ḥurúfí to be put to death, after which he tied a rope to his legs, had him dragged publicly through the streets and bazaars, and rid this nether world of his vile existence.

“Thereupon his Khalífas (vicars or lieutenants) agreed to disperse themselves through the lands of the Muslims, and devoted themselves to corrupting and misleading the people of Islám. He of those Khalífas who bore the title of al-'Alí al-A'lá (‘the High, the Supreme’) came to the monastery of Ḥájji Bektásh in Anatolia and there lived in seclusion, secretly teaching the Jáwidán to the inmates of the monastery, with the assurance that it represented the doctrine of Ḥájji Bektásh the saint (walí). The inmates of the monastery, being ignorant and foolish, accepted the Jáwidán, notwithstanding that its obvious purport was the denial of all divine obligations and the pandering to the lusts of the flesh; named it ‘the secret’; and enjoined the utmost reticence concerning it, to such a degree that if anyone enters their order and afterwards reveals ‘the secret,’ they consider his life as forfeit. By this their so-called ‘secret’ are meant certain blasphemous passages in the Jáwidán, hinted at by detached letters like alif (<text in Arabic script omitted>), wáw (<text in Arabic script omitted>), jím (<text in Arabic script omitted>), and zayn (<text in Arabic script omitted>), for the interpreting of which symbols they have compiled a treatise entitled ‘the Key of Life’ (Miftáḥu'l-Ḥayát). This they name ‘the Secret,’ and should one possess it he understands the Jáwidán, which without this aid is unintelligible. They were thus careful to conceal their secret for fear lest the doctors of religion ('ulamá) should obtain some inkling of its nature and should suppress it; and thus, since 800/1397-8, they have succeeded in secretly seducing many.”

The author then goes on to expose and denounce the different tricks and stratagems by which they strive to win men, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to their heresies, and adds:

“From all this it is plain that these people [the Bektáshís] are not really Shí'ites, but are essentially a polytheistic sect [Mushrikún], who, though unable to win over to themselves the Jews and Christians, how­ever much they affirm their doctrines, do attract some of those Muslims who are partial to the Shí'ite doctrine. So when I questioned certain Bektáshí neophytes, they declared themselves to be of the Ja'farí [i.e. the Imámí or Shí'a] sect, and knew nothing of the mysteries of the Jáwidán, imagining themselves to be of the Shí'a. But when I enquired of a learned Persian traveller named Mírzá Ṣafá his opinion concerning the Bektáshís, he replied, ‘I have associated much with them, and have carefully investigated their religion, and they deny [the necessity of] actions prescribed by the Holy Law.’ He thus decisively declared their infidelity. We take refuge with God from their ignorance!”

During the Easter Vacation of 1897 I had the opportunity of examining with some care two Ḥurúfí manuscripts be­longing to the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, * which I described in the J.R.A.S. for 1898 (pp. 61-94) in an article entitled “Some Notes on the Literature and Doctrines of the Ḥurúfí Sect.” One of these MSS., dated 970/1562-3,

The Istiwá­náma contains the Istiwá-náma of Amír Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, a mathnawí poem in Persian on Alexander the Great's quest after the Water of Life, and a glossary of the dialect words occurring in the Jáwidán-i-

The Maḥabbat­náma Kabír. The other, dated 895/1489-90, contains the Maḥabbat-náma, of which there is reason to believe that Faḍlu'lláh himself was the author.