‘Of the child in its cot, ere its lips yet are dry
From the milk of its mother, “Maḥmúd” is the cry!
Maḥmúd, the Great King, who such order doth keep
That in peace from one pool drink the wolf and the sheep!’”

More important in the history of Persia than the dynasties of Ghazna and Ghúr were the Khwárazmsháhs, or Kings of The Khwárazm­sháhs. Khiva, who began with a favourite cup-bearer of Maliksháh named Anúshtigín in A.D. 1077, * and, after completely displacing the Seljúqs, their former masters and suzerains, ended with the gallant Jalálu'd-Dín Mankoburní, the last bulwark of Islám against the devas­tating hordes of heathen Mongols (A.D. 1220-31). The power of this dynasty began in A.D. 1127 with the accession of the crafty and ambitious Atsiz, rumours of whose intentions reached Sanjar in the summer of A.D. 1138, and prompted him to march against Khwárazm. Atsiz was on this occasion defeated with heavy losses, which included his son, * over whom he mourned most bitterly, and Khwárazm was taken and given in fief by Sanjar to his nephew, Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Sulaymán Sháh. But no sooner had Sanjar retired to Merv than Atsiz returned, regained possession of his capital, and sought to avenge himself by inciting the heathen of Cathay (Khaṭá) to attack Sanjar, whom they utterly routed in the summer of A.D. 1141, killing 100,000 of his soldiers, taking captive his wife, and driving the Seljúq King back on Tirmidh and Balkh, while Atsiz himself, having declared his inde­pendence, occupied Merv and killed or carried away captive a number of its leading men, including the theologian Abu'l-Faḍl al-Kirmání. * This was, according to Ibnu'l-Athír, the first defeat sustained by Sanjar, and, as we have seen, was but the prelude to far worse disasters. In Níshápúr, which was occupied for a while, but otherwise unmolested, by Atsiz, Sanjar's name was suppressed in the khuṭba from May 28 till July 27, A.D. 1142. About a year after this, Sanjar again besieged Khwárazm, but, failing to take it, con­cluded a treaty of peace with Atsiz, whose death took place on July 30, A.D. 1156, only a short time before his rival's.

With the names of Sanjar and Atsiz * are inseparably asso­ciated the names of four great Persian poets—Mu'izzí, Anwarí,

Four poets specially asso­ciated with Sanjar and Atsiz. Adíb Ṣábir, and Rashídu'd-Dín Waṭwáṭ, whose work will be considered in detail presently. The first of these was Sanjar's poet-laureate, and his father, Burhání, held the same position. * The high honour Mu'izzí, Sanjar's poet-laureate. in which he was held by his sovereign enhanced the tragedy of his death, which was caused by a stray arrow fired by Sanjar's hand in A.D. 1147-48. The death of Adíb Ṣábir was yet more tragic. According to Adíb Ṣábir. Dawlatsháh (p. 93 of my edition), he was sent by Sanjar to Khwárazm to keep a watch on Atsiz, nominally, as it would appear from Juwayní's Jahán-gushá, as an ambassador. Atsiz hired two assassins to go to Merv and murder Sanjar. Adíb Ṣábir wrote private information of this to Sanjar, enclosing portraits or descriptions of the two assassins, and his missive was carried to Merv by an old woman in her shoe. The assassins were identified and put to death, and Atsiz, on receiving news of this, caused Adíb Ṣábir to be bound hand and foot and drowned in the Oxus. The date of this event is given by Dawlatsháh as A.H. 546 (= A.D. 1151-52), but according to the Jahán-gushá, a much better authority, it took place in or before A.H. 542 (A.D. 1147), and A.H. 538 (= A.D. 1143-44), the date given by Dr. Ethé, is still more probable.

Concerning Anwarí and Rashídu'd-Dín “Waṭwáṭ” (“the Swallow,” so called from his small stature and insignificant Anwarí and Rashídu'd-Dín Waṭwáṭ. appearance) I shall only mention in this place their connection with the campaigns discussed above. Waṭwáṭ, who was the secretary and Court-poet of Atsiz, had aroused the anger of Sanjar in the first instance by writing a qaṣída, which began—

Chún Malik Atsiz bi-takht-i-mulk bar ámad,
Dawlat-i-Saljúq u ál-i-ú bi-sar ámad
.

“When King Atsiz on the throne of power ascended,
The luck of Seljúq and his House was ended.”

Later, while Sanjar was besieging Atsiz in the fortress or Hazár-asp (a name which, being interpreted, means “a thousand horses”) in the autumn of A.D. 1147, he ordered Anwarí, who had accompanied him on the campaign, to com­pose a taunting verse, which, inscribed on an arrow, should be shot into the besieged town. Anwarí accordingly wrote:—

Ay Shah! hama mulk-i-zamín ḥasb turást;
Wa'z dawlat u iqbál jahán kasb turást:
Imrúz bi-yak ḥamla Hazárasp bi-gír!
Fardá Khwárazm u ṣad hazár asp turást!

There is little point, except the play on the name Hazárasp, in this verse, which means:—

“O King! all the dominion of earth is accounted thine;
By fortune and good luck the world is thine acquisition:
Take Hazárasp to-day with a single assault,
And to-morrow Khwárazm and a hundred thousand horses (ṣad hazár asp) shall be thine!”

The following reply from Waṭwáṭ's pen was shot back on another arrow:—*

Gar khiṣm-i-tu, ay Sháh, shawad Rustam-i-gurd,
Yak khar zi Hazárasp-i-tu na-t'wánad burd!

“If thine enemy, O King, were Knight Rustam himself,
He could not carry off from thy Hazárasp (or thy thousand
horses) a single ass!”

Thereafter Sanjar sought eagerly to capture Waṭwáṭ, and, having at length succeeded, ordered him to be cut into seven pieces. Muntakhabu'd-Dín Badí'u 'l-Kátib, * an ancestor of the author of the Jahàn-gushà, who relates the story, suc­ceeded in appeasing the King by making him laugh. “O King,” he said, “I have a request to prefer. Waṭwáṭ” (“the Swallow”) “is a feeble little bird, and cannot bear to be divided into seven pieces: order him, then, to be merely cut in two!” So Waṭwáṭ was pardoned because he had enabled Sanjar to enjoy a laugh.

To complete our brief survey of the political state of Persia at this period, it remains to consider that power which, though The Isma'ílís of Alamút, or Assassins. not a kingdom, was more than Seljúq, Ghaznawí, Ghúrí, or Khwárazmsháh in the wide influence which it wielded and the terror it inspired—to wit, the Assassins, or Isma'ílís of Alamút. The circum­stances which led to the establishment of that power in Persia, and the change in its character wrought by the “New Propaganda” of Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ, have been already described in a previous chapter. That redoubtable heresiarch was still flourishing in the reign of Sanjar, for he did not die until the year A.D. 1124. For many years he had never stirred from the Castle of Alamút—hardly, indeed, from his own house—though his power reached to Syria, and his name was a terror throughout Western Asia. Austere in his way of living, he put to death his two sons on the suspicion of forni­cation and wine-bibbing, and named as his successor his asso­ciate, Kiyá Buzurg-Ummíd, who died in A.D. 1137-38, and was followed by his son Muḥammad, who died in A.D. 1162.

It would be impossible in a work like the present to follow in detail the history of the Assassins or Isma'ílís of Alamút Achievements of the Assassins. during the period which we are now considering, but the sect is so interesting and characteristic a feature of the times that certain manifestations of their activity must needs be recorded in order to present a true picture of the age. Under almost every year in the great chronicle of Ibnu'l-Athír mention occurs of the name of this redoubtable organisation, which, on the death of the Fáṭimid Caliph al-Mustanṣir, definitely severed its connection with the parent sect of Egypt and North Africa. Their political power began with the seizure of the mountain-stronghold of Alamút (“the Eagle's teaching,” áluh-ámù't) in A.H. 483 (= A.D.1090-91), which date, by a curious coincidence noticed by most Persian historians of the period, is exactly given by the sum of the numerical values of the letters composing this word. Their first great achievement was the assassination, two years later, of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk, which was followed at short intervals by the assassination of Barkiyáruq's mother's wazír, 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán as-Sumayramí (A.D. 1097); * Unrú Bulká (A.D. 1100); Janáḥu'd-Dawla, in the mosque at Ḥims (A.D. 1102); the Qáḍí Abu'l-'Alá Sa'íd of Níshápúr (A.D. 1105-6); Fakhru'l-Mulk, one of the sons of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk (A.D. 1106-7); the qáḍìs, or judges, of Iṣfahán and Níshápúr, and 'Abdu'l-Wáḥid of Rúyán in Ṭabaristán (A.D. 1108-9); Mawdúd, in the Mosque or Damascus (A.D. 1113-14); Aḥmadíl b. Wahsúdán, in Baghdád (A.D. 1116-17); the Qáḍí Sa'd al-Hirawí at Hamadán (A.D. 1125-26); 'Abdu'l-Latíf b. al-Khujandí (A.D. 1129); the Fáṭimid Caliph al-Ámir bi'amri'lláh (A.D. 1130); Abú 'Alí b. Afḍal, the wazìr of his successor and cousin, al-Ḥáfidh (A.D. 1132); the 'Abbásid Caliph al-Mustarshid (A.D. 1135); his son and successor, ar-Ráshid (A.D. 1137-38); Jawhar, a favourite courtier of Sanjar (A.D. 1139-40), and many other persons of lesser note. Of course there were savage reprisals on the part of the orthodox: thus we read of a persecution of “heretics and free-thinkers” at Níshápúr in A.D. 1096; of a massacre of Báṭinís ordered by Barkiyáruq in June, A.D. 1101; of the crucifixion of Sa'du'l-Mulk, the wazìr, with four Báṭinís, and of the notorious Ibn 'Aṭṭásh and some of his followers in A.D. 1106-7; of a massacre of seven hundred Báṭinís at Ámid in A.D. 1124; of a yet greater slaughter of them by Sanjar in A.D. 1127, to avenge the death of the minister Mu'ínu'l-Mulk; and of 'Abbás of Ray, one of their most relentless foes, killed in A.D. 1146-47, who used to build pyramids of their skulls.