A literary history of Persia - The Literary History of Persia, Volume 2

WE have already spoken, in Chapter V, of the rising power of the Khwárazmsháhs, or Kings of Khiva, who were descended from Anúshtigín, the cup-bearer of Maliksháh. At the period which we have now reached, viz., the beginning of the thirteenth century of the Christian Era, 'Alá'u'd-Dín Muḥammad, the great-grandson of the stiff-necked Atsiz, sat on the throne of Khwárazm, whence he ruled over an empire which, for a few years, rivalled in extent that of the Seljúqs in their most prosperous days. At the time of which we are now speaking, it extended from the Ural Mountains to the Persian Gulf, and from the Indus almost to the Euphrates, and included nearly the whole of Persia except the provinces of Fárs and Khuzistán. That this empire of Khwárazm contained in itself the elements of a stability greater than that of its predecessors and victims, the empires built up by the houses of Ghazna, Seljúq or Ghúr, is in the highest degree improbable; but, in the normal course of events, it might easily have endured for a century or more. The event which annihilated it, amongst many things of far greater value, was a catastrophe which, though probably quite unforeseen, even on the very eve of its incidence, changed the face of the world, set in motion forces which are still effective, and inflicted more suffering on the human race than any other event in the world's history of which records are preserved to us; I mean the Mongol Invasion.

In its suddenness, its devastating destruction, its appalling ferocity, its passionless and purposeless cruelty, its irresistible though short-lived violence, this outburst of savage nomads, hitherto hardly known by name even to their neighbours, resembles rather some brute cataclysm of the blind forces of nature than a phenomenon of human history. ^427a The details of massacre, outrage, spoliation, and destruction wrought by these hateful hordes of barbarians, who, in the space of a few years, swept the world from Japan to Germany, ^427b would, as d'Ohsson observes, be incredible were they not confirmed from so many different quarters. How they impressed contemporary writers may be judged by the following extract from that sober and careful historian, Ibnu'l-Athír, who thus opens his account of the matter under the year A.H. 617 (A.D. 1220-21):

“For some years I continued averse from mentioning this event, deeming it so horrible that I shrank from recording it, and ever withdrawing one foot as I advanced the other. To whom, indeed, can it be easy to write the announcement of the death-blow of Islám and the Muslims, or who is he on whom the remembrance thereof can weigh lightly? O would that my mother had not born me, or that I had died and become a forgotten thing ere this befell! Yet withal a number of my friends urged me to set it down in writing, and I hesitated long; but at last came to the conclusion that to omit this matter [from my history] could serve no useful purpose.

“I say, therefore, that this thing involves the description of the greatest catastrophe and the most dire calamity (of the like of which days and nights are innocent) which befell all men generally, and the Muslims in particular; so that, should one say that the world, since God Almighty created Adam until now, hath not been afflicted with the like thereof, he would but speak the truth. For indeed history doth not contain aught which approaches or comes nigh unto it. For of the most grievous calamities recorded was what Nebuchadnezzar inflicted on the children of Israel by his slaughter of them and his destruction of Jerusalem; and what was Jerusalem in comparison to the countries which these accursed miscreants destroyed, each city of which was double the size of Jerusalem? Or what were the children of Israel compared to those whom these slew? For verily those whom they massacred in a single city exceeded all the children of Israel. Nay, it is unlikely that mankind will see the like of this calamity, until the world comes to an end and perishes, except the final outbreak of Gog and Magog. For even Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him; but these [Tartars] ^428a spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes. Verily to God do we belong, and unto Him do we return, and there is no strength and no power save in God, the High, the Almighty, in face of this catastrophe, whereof the sparks flew far and wide, and the hurt was universal; and which passed over the lands like clouds driven by the wind. For these were a people who emerged from the confines of China, and attacked the cities of Turkistán, like Káshghar and Balásághún, and thence advanced on the cities of Transoxiana, such as Samarqand, Bukhárá and the like, taking possession of them, and treating their inhabitants in such wise as we shall mention; and of them one division then passed on into Khurásán, until they had made an end of taking possession, and destroying, and slaying, and plundering, and thence passing on to Ray, Hamadán and the Highlands, and the cities contained therein, even to the limits of 'Iráq, ^428b whence they marched on the towns of Ádharbayján and Arrániyya, destroying them and slaying most of their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant; and all this in less than a year; this is a thing whereof the like hath not been heard. And when they had finished with Ádhar-bayján and Arrániyya, they passed on to Darband-i-Shirwán, and occupied its cities, none of which escaped save the fortress wherein was their King; wherefore they passed by it to the countries of the Lán and the Lakiz and the various nationalities which dwell in that region, and plundered, slew, and destroyed them to the full. And thence they made their way to the lands of Qipcháq, who are the most numerous of the Turks, and slew all such as withstood them, while the survivors fled to the fords and mountain-tops, and abandoned their country, which these Tartars overran. All this they did in the briefest space of time, remaining only for so long as their march required and no more.

“Another division, distinct from that mentioned above, marched on Ghazna and its dependencies, and those parts of India, Sístán and Kirmán which border thereon, and wrought therein deeds like unto the other, nay, yet more grievous. Now this is a thing the like of which ear hath not heard; for Alexander, concerning whom historians agree that he conquered the world, did not do so with such swiftness, but only in the space of about ten years; neither did he slay, but was satisfied that men should be subject to him. But these Tartars conquered most of the habitable globe, and the best, the most flourishing and most populous part thereof, and that whereof the inhabitants were the most advanced in character and conduct, in about a year; nor did any country escape their devastations which did not fearfully expect them and dread their arrival.

“Moreover they need no commissariat, nor the conveyance of supplies, for they have with them sheep, cows, horses, and the like quadrupeds, the flesh of which they eat, [needing] naught else. As for their beasts which they ride, these dig into the earth with their hoofs and eat the roots of plants, knowing naught of barley. And so, when they alight anywhere, they have need of nothing from without. As for their religion, they worship the sun when it arises, and regard nothing as unlawful, for they eat all beasts, even dogs, pigs, and the like; nor do they recognise the marriage-tie, for several men are in marital relations with one woman, and if a child is born, it knows not who is its father.

“Therefore Islám and the Muslims have been afflicted during this period with calamities wherewith no people hath been visited. These Tartars (may God confound them!) came from the East, and wrought deeds which horrify all who hear of them, and which thou shalt, please God, see set forth in full detail in their proper connection. And of these [calamities] was the invasion of Syria by the Franks (may God curse them!) out of the West, and their attack on Egypt, and occupation of the port of Damietta therein, so that Egypt and Syria were like to be conquered by them, but for the grace of God and the help which He vouchsafed us against them, as we have mentioned under the year 614 (A.D. 1217-18). Of these [calamities], moreover, was that the sword was drawn between those [of the Muslims] who escaped from these two foes, and strife was rampant [amongst them], as we have also mentioned: and verily unto God do we belong and unto Him do we return! We ask God to vouchsafe victory to Islám and the Muslims, for there is none other to aid, help, or defend the True Faith. But if God intends evil to any people, naught can avert it, nor have they any ruler save Him. As for these Tartars, their achievements were only rendered possible by the absence of any effective obstacle; and the cause of this absence was that Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh had overrun the [Muslim] lands, slaying and destroying their Kings, so that he remained alone ruling over all these countries; wherefore, when he was defeated by the Tartars, none was left in the lands to check those or protect these, that so God might accomplish a thing which was to be done.

“It is now time for us to describe how they first burst forth into the [Muslim] lands.”

Now all this was written nearly thirty years before the crowning catastrophe, to wit, the sack of Baghdád and the extinction of the Caliphate, took place; for this happened in February, A.D. 1258, while Ibnu'l-Athír concludes his chronicle with the year A.H. 628 (A.D. 1230-31), and died two years later. Nor did he witness the horrors of which he writes, but only heard them from terrified fugitives, of whose personal narratives he records several under the year with which his chronicle closes.

“Stories have been related to me,” he says, “which the hearer can scarcely credit, as to the terror of them [i.e., the Mongols] which God Almighty cast into men's hearts; so that it is said that a single one of them would enter a village or a quarter wherein were many people, and would continue to slay them one after another, none daring to stretch forth his hand against this horseman. And I have heard that one of them took a man captive, but had not with him any weapon wherewith to kill him; and he said to his prisoner, ‘Lay your head on the ground and do not move’; and he did so, and the Tartar went and fetched his sword and slew him therewith. Another man related to me as follows:—‘I was going,’ said he, ‘with seventeen others along a road, and there met us a Tartar horseman, and bade us bind one another's arms. My companions began to do as he bade them, but I said to them, “He is but one man; wherefore, then, should we not kill him and flee?” They replied, “We are afraid.” I said, “This man intends to kill you immediately; let us therefore rather kill him, that perhaps God may deliver us.” But I swear by God that not one of them dared to do this, so I took a knife and slew him, and we fled and escaped.’ And such occurrences were many.”^431a

Yáqút al-Ḥamawí the geographer, another eminent contemporary writer (born A.D. 1178 or 1179, died A.D. 1229), and a friend of the great historian above cited, has also left us a picture of the terror inspired by the Mongols, from whose hands he just succeeded in escaping. Besides occasional references in his great Geographical Dictionary, the Mu'jamu'l-'Buldán , there is preserved in the pages of Ibn Khallikán's Biographies (de Slane's translation, vol. iv, pp. 12-22) the text of a letter which he addressed to al-Qáḍi'l-akram Jamálu'd-Dín Abu'l-Ḥasan 'Alí ash-Shaybání al-Qifṭí, Wazír of the King of Aleppo, from Mawṣil, which he had finally, after many hairbreadth escapes, succeeded in reaching in his flight from Merv. This letter, written in A.H. 617 (A.D. 1220-21), describes in glowing language the rich libraries of Merv, which caused him to forget home, friends, and country, and on the contents of which he browsed “with the avidity of a glutton,” and the wonderful prosperity of Khurásán, which, says he, “in a word, and without exaggeration, was a copy of Paradise.”

“How numerous,” he continues, “were its holy men pre-eminent for virtue! How many its doctors whose conduct had for motive the conservation of Islám! The monuments of its science are inscribed on the rolls of Time; the merits of its authors have redounded to the advantage of religion and the world, and their productions have been carried into every country. Not a man of solid science and sound judgment but emerged like the sun from that part of the East; not a man of extraordinary merit but took that country for his settling-place, or longed to go and join its inhabitants. Every quality truly honourable and not factitious was to be found amongst them, and in their sayings I was enabled to cull the roots of every generous impulse. Their children were men, their youths heroes, and their old men saints; the evidences of their merit are clear, and the proofs of their glory manifest; and yet, strange to say, the King who ruled over these provinces (i.e., 'Alá'u'd-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh) abandoned them with unconcern, and said to himself, ‘Take to the open country, or else you will encounter perdition!’ … The people of infidelity and impiety roamed through those abodes; that erring and contumacious race (the Mongols) dominated over the inhabitants, so that those palaces were effaced from off the earth as lines of writing are effaced from paper, and those abodes became a dwelling for the owl and the raven; in those places the screech-owls answer each other's cries, and in those halls the winds moan responsive to the simoom. Old friends who enter there are filled with sadness, and even Iblís himself would bewail this dire catastrophe… Verily to God do we belong and unto Him do we return! It was an event sufficient to break the back, to destroy life, to fracture the arm, to weaken the strength, to redouble sadness, to turn grey the hair of children, to dishearten the bravest, and to stupefy the intelligence! … In a word, had not the term of my life been appointed for a later period, it would have been difficult for my friends to have said, ‘The unfortunate man is escaped or is arrived!’ and they would have struck their hands together like people who are disappointed; while he would have been joined to the millions of millions, or even more, who perished by the hands of the infidels.”

The hateful appearance and disgusting habits of the invaders added to the horror inspired by their unscrupulous perfidy and cold-blooded cruelty. The Arab invasion of Persia no doubt wrought much devastation and caused much suffering, but the Arabs were, in the phrase of their Spanish foes, “knights … and gentlemen, albeit Moors,” and if they destroyed much, they brought much that was noble and admirable in its stead. The Mongols, on the other hand, in the words of d'Ohsson, their admirable historian ^433a (pp. vi-vii of vol. i),—

“surpassing in cruelty the most barbarous people, murdered in cold blood, in the conquered countries, men, women, and children; burned towns and villages; transformed flourishing lands into deserts; and yet were animated neither by hate nor vengeance, for indeed they hardly knew the names of the peoples whom they exterminated. One would suppose that history had exaggerated their atrocities, were not the annals of all countries in agreement on this point. After the conquest, one sees the Mongols treat as slaves the feeble remnant of the conquered nations, and cause to groan under a frightful tyranny those whom the sword had spared. Their government was the triumph of depravity; all that was noble and honourable was abased, while the most corrupt men, attaching themselves to the service of these ferocious masters, obtained, as the price of their vile devotion, riches, honours, and the power to oppress their fellow-countrymen. The history of the Mongols, therefore, stamped with their barbarity, offers only hideous pictures, though, being closely connected with that of several empires, it is necessary for a proper understanding of the great events of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.”

The only virtues which these Mongols or Tartars possessed were those generally called military—to wit, discipline, subordination, and obedience to their superior officers carried to the highest degree. All promotion went by personal merit; failure, disobedience, or incapacity was punished not only by the death of the offender himself, but of his wife and children. The highest officer, if he incurred the anger of his emperor, must submit before all his troops to personal chastisement at the hands of the meanest messenger sent by his master to reprimand him. Yet, though they held life so cheaply, the Mongols rarely had recourse to courage where falsehood and deceit could enable them to gain their ends. If death was the punishment of resistance, it was also in most cases the consequence of surrender. If they spared any of the inhabitants of a town which had surrendered to or been reduced by them, it was either to profit by their skill and craftsmanship or to employ them against their countrymen and co-religionists in the vanguard of their next assault. Droves of wretched and outraged captives accompanied the advancing hordes, and, when the next point of resistance was reached, were first employed to erect the engines of the besiegers, then driven forward at the point of the sword to the breaches effected in the city walls to fill with their bodies moat and trench, and were finally, if they still escaped death, put to the sword to give place to a new batch of victims drawn from the prisoners yielded by the fresh conquest. The cruelty of the Mongols was calculated and deliberate, designed to strike with a paralysis of terror those whom they proposed next to attack, while they deemed it safer to leave behind their advancing hosts smoking ruins and a reeking charnel-house rather than risk any movement of revolt on the part of the miserable survivors of their assault.

To trace in detail the history of the Mongols, or even of their doings in Persia, is altogether beyond the scope of this book. Those who desire full information on this matter can find it either in d'Ohsson's great work or in Sir Henry Howorth's History of the Mongols. D'Ohsson, in particular, has made admirable use of the Arabic and Persian authorities, which he fully describes and criticises on pp. x-lxviii of the Exposition prefixed to the first volume of his work. The five most important Muhammadan sources are: (1) The Arabic Chronicle of Ibnu'l-Athír, already cited; (2) the Arabic Life of Sulṭán Jalálu'd-Dín Mankobirni, written by his private secretary, Shihábu'd-Dín Muḥammad an-Nasawí; (3) the Persian Ta'ríkh-i-fahán-gushá, or History of the World-Conqueror, by 'Alá'u'd-Dín 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní, the secretary of Hulágú Khán; (4) the Persian fámi'u't-Tawáríkh, or Compendium of Histories, of Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'llah; and (5) the Persian Tajziyatu'l-Amṣár, better known as the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf. Of the first of these there are two editions, Tornberg's and that of Cairo; of the second, an edition and French translation by M. Houdas (Paris, 1891 and 1895); and of the last (or at least of its first half), an edition and German translation by Hammer Purgstall (Vienna, 1856), and a Persian lithograph. The third and fourth are, unfortunately, at present inaccessible except in manuscript.^435a

Although the disaster of the Mongol Invasion could not, probably, have been averted, it was undoubtedly facilitated and provoked by the greed, treachery, and irresolution of 'Alá'u'd-Dín Muḥammad, King of Khwárazm. By his greed, because, as Ibnu'l-Athír observes, he had weakened or destroyed most of the neighbouring Muhammadan States to build up for himself an unstable and unwieldy empire; so that when he fled before the Mongols, abandoning his people to their fate, no Muhammadan prince was left to unite the forces of Islám against the heathen; by his treachery, because his murder of Mongol merchants and envoys gave Chingíz Khán the best possible excuse for attacking him, and thus learning the weak and defenceless condition of Persia; and by his irresolution, because at the first reverse he passed from arrogant and boastful defiance to the extreme of panic and indecision, until, about two years after his treacherous murder of the Mongol ambassador, he died, a wretched and hunted fugitive, in an island of the Caspian Sea. It needed the gallant deeds of his son Jalálu'd-Dín to save from ignominy the memory of the once mighty Empire of Khwárazm.

Another source of weakness to the resisting power fo Islám was the quarrel which had arisen between Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh and the 'Abbásid Caliph an-Náṣir, who, suspecting his too powerful vassal of coveting the very metropolis of Baghdád, strove, after the manner of the later Caliphs, to weaken him by intrigues, and even, as hinted by Ibnu'l-Athír and explicitly stated by al-Maqrízí, encouraged the Mongols, at whose hands his posterity was destined to perish and his house to fall, to invade his territories. ^436a The mischief appears to have begun with the discovery, on the capture of Ghazna by Khwárazmsháh, of a correspondence between the Caliph and the fallen House of Subuktigín, from which it appeared that the Caliph had been inciting them to revolt against their suzerain. Khwárazmsháh retaliated by denouncing the validity of the 'Abbásid title to be regarded as the pontiffs of Islám, set up a certain Sayyid as a rival claimant to their spiritual authority, and, at a time when he should have been straining every nerve to meet the storm which threatened his north-eastern frontier, undertook a futile campaign against Baghdád, whereof the disastrous issue was precipitated and accentuated by a winter of such severity as was almost unknown in those regions.

Although it appears probable that nothing could long have averted the impending calamity, its actual incidence was due to one of those “pacific missions” of which we hear so much in these days. It seemed good to Chingíz Khán to send to Utrár, an important frontier-town of Khwárazm, a company of merchants laden with the wares of his country. As to the numbers engaged in this mission, considerable difference of opinion exists: according to an-Nasawí there were four merchants only, all Muhammadans and all subjects of Khwárazmsháh; while other writers raise the number to four hundred and fifty. ^436b These were barbarously murdered by the Governor of Utrár, with the connivance of Khwárazmsháh, who affected to believe that they were in reality Mongol spies. Thereupon Chingíz Khán despatched an embassy, consisting of two Mongols and a Turk named Bughrá, to the Court of Khwárazmsháh to protest against this wanton violation of the laws of hospitality and the comity of nations, and to demand that the Governor of Utrár should be given up to them, failing which, they added, Khwárazmsháh must prepare for war. His only answer was to kill Bughrá and send back the two Mongols, whose beards he had shaved off. Thereupon the Mongols held a quriltáy, or general assembly, at which it was decided to attack the Empire of Khwárazm.

In spite of a trifling initial success, Muḥammad Khwárazm-sháh remained inactive and remote from the point of danger, entrusting the defence of the frontier to the Governors of the threatened towns, and waiting, it is said (though perhaps only to extenuate his cowardice and irresolution) a moment which the astrologers should declare favourable for his enterprise. And while he thus waited, in the autumn of A.D. 1219, the storm burst on Transoxiana. Utrár fell after a siege of five or six months; its Governor, the murderer of the merchants, was taken alive and put to death by having molten silver poured into his eyes and ears; and the survivors of the massacre which ensued were driven to Bukhárá, there to be employed against their co-religionists in the manner already described. After Úzkand and two or three other small towns had been sacked, Jand was reduced after a short siege, and plundered for nine days, but the inhabitants were, for a wonder, spared. Banákat next fell; Khujand was gallantly defended by Tímúr Malik; and in the early part of the year A.D. 1220 the Mongol hosts were masters of Bukhárá, which they plundered and burned, massacring a great number of the inhabitants, and outraging their wives, sisters, and daughters. Amongst those who, preferring death to dishonour, died fighting were the Qáḍi Badru'd-Dín, the Imám Ruknu'd-Dín, and his son. The turn of Samarqand came next; it surrendered on the fourth day of the siege, was plundered in the usual way, and a large number of its inhabitants killed or reduced to slavery.

Meanwhile Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh continued to retreat, warning the inhabitants of the towns through which he passed to do the best they could for themselves, since he could not protect them. Believing that the Mongols would not dare to cross the Oxus, he halted for a while at Níshápúr, but three weeks later, learning that they were already in Khurásán, he fled westwards to Qazwín, whence he turned back into Gílán and Mázandarán. There, being deserted by most of his followers and attacked by pleurisy, he died, a miserable and hunted fugitive, on an island in the Caspian, nominating his son, the brave Jalálu'd-Dín, as his successor. His mother, Turkán Khátún, together with his wives, children, and jewels, fell into the hands of the Mongols. Khwárazm next fell, and, irritated by the stubborn resistance which it had offered, the Mongols put to the sword nearly all the inhabitants except the artisans and craftsmen, who were transported into Mongolia. According to the author of the fámi'u't-Tawáríkh, ^438a the besieging army numbered 50,000, and each man of them had twenty-four prisoners to kill! Amongst those who perished was the venerable and pious Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá. ^438b The inhabitants of Tirmidh were similarly treated, and in addition, because one old woman was found to have swallowed a pearl, their corpses were eviscerated.

The bloodthirsty ferocity of the Mongols seems to have increased in proportion to their successes, and seldom indeed, from this time onwards, do we hear of any mercy shown by the Tartars to the inhabitants of the towns which they subdued. At Balkh, at Nuṣrat-Kúh, at Nasá, at Níshápúr, at Merv, and elsewhere, the same atrocious massacres invariably followed the capture or surrender of the town. Those slain at Merv alone are computed by Ibnu'l-Athír at 700,000, but the author of the fahán-gushá raises their number to the enormous total of 1,300,000, “not counting those whose corpses remained hidden in obscure retreats.” At Níshápúr the heads of the slain were cut off, lest any living creature might be overlooked amongst them, and built into pyramids, the heads of men, women, and children being kept apart. Herát fared somewhat better, but Bámiyán, where a Mongol prince was slain in the attack, was utterly destroyed, not even spoils of war being taken, so that for a hundred years it remained a desert void of inhabitants. That nothing might be wanting to complete the ruin which they had wrought, the Mongols frequently destroyed all the grain which they did not need, and often, a few days after they had retired from a town which they had sacked, used to send a detachment to revisit its ruins and kill such poor wretches as had emerged from the hiding-places which had sheltered them from the first massacre. This happened at Merv, where 5,000 survivors of the terrible slaughter mentioned above were thus destroyed. Torture was freely used to make the vanquished disclose hidden treasure, and, as might be expected of those who held human life so cheaply, the treasures of literature and art preserved in these ancient cities were ruthlessly destroyed. Juwayní says that, in the Musulmán lands devastated by the Mongols, not one in a thousand of the inhabitants survived; and declares that even should nothing happen thereafter until the Resurrection to check the increase of population in Khurásán and 'Iráq-i-'Ajam, the population of these two provinces could never attain the tenth part of what it was before the Mongol invasion. ^439a It was the terror of the Mongol deeds which lent such deadly meaning to their stereotyped summons to surrender which they addressed to the inhabitants of each doomed city:—“If you do not submit, how can we tell what will happen? God only knows what will happen!”^440a

The habits and customs of the Mongols, disgusting in themselves, were in several respects especially repugnant to Muhammadan feeling. They were ready to eat not only things unclean in Islám, but things essentially loathsome, rats, cats, dogs, and even worse: “Cibi eorum,” says Jean de Plan Carpin, “sunt omnia quœ mandi possunt; vidimus eos etiam pediculos manducare.” ^440b Not only did they dislike washing themselves: they made it a penal offence, nay, even a capital offence, to wash hands or garments in running water. It was also a capital offence with them to kill animals by cutting their throats, the only way in which, according to the Muhammadans, they can be lawfully killed when intended for food; instead of this it was their practice to cut open the body, and, inserting the hand, to squeeze or tear out the heart. ^440c In general they were, however, tolerant to the verge of latitudinarianism in matters of religion, and accorded certain privileges, such as exemption from taxes, to the ministers of all creeds, as well as to physicians and certain other classes of men. With Chingíz Khán, indeed, it was a political principle to favour all religions equally, but to give his adhesion to none; and Qubiláy Khán (A.D. 1257-94) was the first of his house to adopt a definite creed, to wit, Buddhism; while Taqúdar (Aḥmad) Khán (A.D. 1282-84) and Gházán Khán (A.D. 1295-1304) were the first to embrace Islám, in which religion the successors of the latter in Persia continued. Thus were the aims of the Christians, who had great hopes of winning the Mongols to their faith and dealing a death-blow to Islám, frustrated; and the most permanent and precious fruits of the various Christian missions sent to the Mongol Court of Qaráqorum are the valuable records of their travels and experiences left by Jean de Plan Carpin (Planocarpini), Rubruquis (Guillaume de Ruysbroek), and other monks and priests, who bravely faced a thousand dangers and hardships in the hopes of winning so great a victory for their Church. Yet it was some time before the Christian potentates of Europe realised that the great Khán of the Tartars, who continued from time to time to address to them letters in the Mongol language and Úyghúr script, was no longer to be regarded as a possible convert to Christianity, as clearly appears from a letter addressed to Uljáytú Khudá-banda by Edward II., dated from Northampton on October 16, 1307. ^441a Yet, apart from mere political rapprochements between the Mongols and the potentates of Europe, which aimed at combined action against the Muslims, the support of the Armenians, and the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muhammadan dominion, certain tribes belonging to the Mongol confederation, such as the Keraites, actually professed Christianity, certain princesses of the blood-royal, such as Úrúk Khátún, were apparently genuinely attached to that religion, ^441b and two of the Íl-Kháns of Persia, Taqúdar Aḥmad and Uljáytú Khudá-banda, both in later days vehement professors and supporters of the Muhammadan doctrine, were actually baptized in infancy, in each case under the name of Nicolas.^441c

Infinitely destructive and disastrous as it was to life, learning, and civilisation, and especially to the Arabian culture, which, as we have already seen, maintained itself with such extraordinary vitality in Persia for six centuries, long after the wave of Arab conquest had utterly subsided, the Mongol invasion did, perhaps, contain some quickening elements, and the Mongol character, for all its reckless ferocity, some potentialities of good. One of its few good effects was the extraordinary intermixture of remote peoples, resulting in a refreshing of somewhat stagnant mental reservoirs, which it brought about. In Europe it was a cause, if not the chief cause, of the Renaissance, for it thrust the Ottoman Turks out of the obscurity of Khurásán into the prominence of Constantinople, and was thus ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Byzantine Empire and the dispersion of the Greeks and their treasures into Europe. It also, by the breaking down of a hundred frontiers and the absorption of dozens of States, great and small, enabled travellers like Marco Polo to make known to Europe the wonders, hitherto so jealously guarded, of nearly the whole of Asia. And within Asia it brought together, first in conflict and then in consultation, Persians and Arabs with Chinese and Tibetans, ^442a and confronted, on terms of equality which had not existed for five or six centuries, the doctors of Islám with Christian monks, Buddhist lamas, Mongol bakhshís or medicine-men, and the representatives of other religions and sects.

Of course, matters were very much improved when Hulágú Khán's successors in Persia abandoned their heathen superstitions and embraced the religion of Islám, which soon resulted in their alienation from their pagan kinsmen of Qaráqorum and their identification with, and final absorption into, the conquered people over which they ruled. But even Hulágú Khán, the destroyer of Baghdád and deadly foe of Islám, was the patron of two of the greatest Persian writers of this period, the astronomer Naṣíru'd-Dín of Ṭús and the historian 'Aṭá Malik of Juwayn, author of the Ta'ríkh-i-fahán-gushá , or “History of the Conqueror of the World,” i.e., Chingíz Khán. Two other historians, 'Abdu'lláh b. Faḍlu'lláh of Shíráz, better known as Waṣṣáf-i-Ḥaḍrat, and the Wazír Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, both of whom flourished in the reign of Gházán Khán (A.D. 1295-1304), must certainly be ranked amongst the greatest of those who have written in the Persian language on this important branch of knowledge. Persian literature, indeed, in the narrower sense of that term, can hardly be said to have suffered permanently from the Mongol Invasion, since three of the greatest and most famous poets of Persia, Sa'dí of Shíráz, Farídu'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár, and Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí were contemporary with it, and many other most famous poets were subsequent to it; but the destruction of Baghdád as the metropolis of Islám, and its reduction to the rank of a provincial town, struck a fatal blow at the semblance of unity which had hitherto subsisted amongst the Muhammadan nations, and at the prestige and status in Persia of the Arabic language, which, hitherto the chief vehicle of all culture, henceforth becomes practically the language of the theologians and philosophers only, so that after the close of the thirteenth century we shall relatively seldom have occasion to speak of Arabic works produced in Persia.

We must now proceed to consider, in broad outlines only, the several periods of Mongol ascendancy in Persia, which may be said to extend from the first invasion of that country by Chingíz Khán in A.D. 1219 to the death of Abú Sa'íd Khán in A.D. 1335, to which succeeded half a century of anarchy, culminating in another Tartar invasion, that of Tímúr-i-Lang, or “Lame Tímúr,” better known in Europe as Tamerlane (A.D. 1380-1400). This last event, which forms the transition to what may fairly be called the history of Modern Persia, lies outside the scope of this volume, which only extends to the Mongol period properly so called; and it is only mentioned here as a landmark which the reader should keep in view.

The first period of Mongol ascendancy may be called, in Stanley Lane-Poole's nomenclature, that of the Great Kháns (Chingíz, Ogotáy, Kuyúk, and Mangú, A.D. 1206-57), during which the whole empire conquered by the Mongols was ruled from Qaráqorum by lieutenants or pro-consuls directly appointed from the Mongol metropolis. At the great quriltáy held in A.D. 1251, at the beginning of Mangú's reign, two expeditions were resolved on, each of which was entrusted to one of Chingíz Khán's grandsons, both brothers of the reigning emperor Mangú, namely, the expedition against China, directed by Qubiláy Khán; and that against Persia, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, directed by Hulágú Khán.

The second period, which may be called that of the heathen Íl-Kháns, or hereditary viceroys of Persia and Western Asia, begins with the arrival of Hulágú Khán on the hither side of the Oxus in January, 1256, and ends with the killing of Baydú on October 5, 1295. During this period Islám was gradually regaining strength, and fighting with ever-increasing success the battle against Buddhism and Christianity, while the bonds uniting the Persian Íl-Kháns with the Mongols of the “mother country” were undergoing gradual dissolution. It is worth noticing, as illustrating the gradual change of religious feeling amongst the Mongol settlers in Persia, that, while the violent death of Aḥmad Taqúdar in August, 1283, was, in part at least, caused by his zeal for Islám, ^444a the equally violent death of Baydú twelve years later was largely due to his dislike of that religion and his predilection for Christianity; ^444b while the first act of his successor, Gházán, was to make public profession of the Muhammadan faith, and to destroy the Christian churches and Buddhist temples which had been erected in Persia. At a later date (A.D. 1300) he even ordered that all the bakhshís, or Mongol priests, resident in Persia should either sincerely embrace Islám or else leave the country, on pain of death. ^445a Yet on the accession of Gházán Khán in A.D. 1295 the heathen and anti-Muslim faction of the Mongol nobles and generals, disgusted at his zeal for Islám, formed a conspiracy to dethrone him which was quenched in their blood. ^445b Ten years later, when Islám was thoroughly re-established as the dominant religion in Persia, we find some of the Mongol princesses and nobles endeavouring to induce Uljáytú Khudá-banda to renounce the Muhammadan faith and return to the religion of his ancestors, but of course without success; ^445c and this appears to be the last manifestation in Persia of Mongol paganism, which in earlier days showed itself in such revolting forms as the sacrifice of girls chosen for their extreme beauty to the manes of deceased Mongol emperors, and the wholesale murder of all persons met by the funeral cortège, lest the news of the death should become known before it was officially proclaimed.^445d

To return now to the periods of Mongol ascendancy which we have just distinguished. In the first, or purely destructive period, we have to consider two separate waves of invasion, that of Chingíz Khán (A.D. 1219-27), and that of Hulágú Khán (A.D. 1255-65). The first fell chiefly on Khurásán, and extended westwards as far as Ray, Qum, Káshán, and Hamadán. During it were performed those prodigies of valour wrought by Jalálu'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh and chronicled so fully and graphically by his secretary, Shihábu'd-Dín Muḥammad of Nasá, who accompanied him until he met his death at the hands of a Kurd on August 15, A.D. 1231. The second wave of Hulágú's invasion broke on Khurásán at the beginning of A.D. 1256, engulfed alike the heretical Isma'ílís of Alamút and Kúhistán and the orthodox Caliphate of Baghdád, and was only stemmed by the gallant Mamelukes of Egypt at the battle of 'Ayn Jálút, which was fought on Friday, September 3, A.D. 1260, and resulted in a decisive victory for the Egyptians, notable as the first victory gained by the Muslims over the Mongols since the death of Jalálú'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh thirty years before. Henceforth the spell was broken, and the Muslims, perceiving that their terrible foes were, after all, not invincible, plucked up a fresh courage which showed itself on many a blood-stained field, notably at the battle of 'Ayntáb, on April 16, 1277, when Baybars (al-Malik adh-Dháhir) utterly defeated the Mongol army, of whom 6,770 were left dead on the field. Still greater was the victory obtained at Marju'ṣ-Ṣafar, near Damascus, on April 23, 1303, by the Egyptians under al-Maliku'n-Náṣir, who brought with him on his triumphal entry into Cairo 1,600 Mongol prisoners in chains, each carrying round his neck the head of another Mongol slain in the battle, while in front marched a thousand spearmen, each carrying another Mongol head on his lance.

We have already sufficiently described the savage proceedings of Chingíz Khán's troops in the first invasion, and those who desire to follow in detail the miseries suffered by Utrár, Jand, Banákat, Bukhárá, Níshápúr, Samarqand, Khabúshán, Ṭús, Isfará'in, Dámghán, Simnán, Nakhshab, Urganj (also called Kúrkánj and, by the Arabs, Jurjániyya), Tirmidh, Balkh, Nuṣrat-Kúh, Nasá, Kharandar, Merv, Herát, Kar-dawán, Bámiyán, Ghazna, Ray, Qum, Marágha, Arbíl, Káshán, Baylaqán, Hamadán, and scores of other Persian towns and hamlets, can find it all set forth in the Ta'ríkh-i-fahán-gushá , the fámi‘u’t-Tawáríkh, or the works of d'Ohsson or Sir Henry Howorth, from which they may also convince themselves that the sufferings endured by Persia and Asia Minor were almost equalled by those of Central Asia and China, and almost surpassed by those of Eastern Europe. During the reign of Qubiláy Khán (A.D. 1260-94), when Marco Polo was making his memorable journeys through the Mongol Empire, that empire had attained its greatest extent, nay, perhaps a greater extent than any other empire has ever attained; for it included China, Corea, Cochin-China, Tibet, India north of the Ganges, Persia, most of Asia Minor, the Crimea, and a large part of Russia, as far west as the Dnieper. ^447a In Persia, as we have seen, their empire practically collapsed on the death of Abú Sa'íd in A.D. 1335, and in China about fifty years later, but in Russia their dominion endured until the close of the fifteenth century. ^447b The last remnants of the Mongol Empire, the Khánates of Khiva (i.e., Khwárazm) and Bukhárá, only lost their independent existence some thirty and odd years ago (A.D. 1868 and 1872), while the Khánate of the Crimea was extinguished in 1783, and a lineal descendant of this house, Sulṭán Qirím-Giráy Kattí Giráy, married a Scotch wife and settled in Edinburgh.^447c

Across the dark days of Chingíz Khán's invasion, when the Persian sky was obscured by the smoke of burning towns, and the Persian soil was soaked with the blood of her children, the personality of Jalálu'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh flashes like some brilliant but ineffectual meteor. A more dauntless prince, perhaps, never fought a more desperate fight, and he deserved a better fate than to die at last (in A.D. 1231), helpless and unarmed, at the hands of a Kurdish mountaineer. We have seen how his father, 'Alá'u'd-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazm-sháh, changed by the terror of the Mongols from the likeness of a ravening wolf into that of a timid hare, died miserably, a hunted fugitive, on an island in the Caspian Sea, in A.D. 1220; while his proud and cruel grandmother, Turkán Khátún, whose last act before abandoning Khwárazm was to murder in cold blood the helpless princes of the Houses of Seljúq, Ghúr, and other royal lines there detained as hostages, ^448a was carried captive by Chingíz to Qaráqorum, in A.D. 1223, and by him bidden to halt and weep a last adieu to her country as she was conducted across the frontiers of Khwárazm. ^448b For the moment Jalálu'd-Dín, girt with his father's sword and fortified by his father's blessing, could only fly before the storm towards the Indian frontier; ^448c and here it was that one of his most celebrated achievements was performed. He and his little army were overtaken on the banks of the Indus by a Mongol host of greatly superior strength. After offering a desperate resistance, in which he displayed the most conspicuous gallantry, from dawn till mid-day, and finally perceiving that the battle was irretrievably lost, he made a final and desperate charge; then, turning quickly, he stripped off his armour, and, with his horse, plunged into the river and swam across it to the other side, followed by the survivors of his army, many of whom perished by drowning or by the arrows of the Mongols. ^448d Rallying the remnants of his army, he first repelled the attack of an Indian prince named Júdí; then, encouraged by this success and strengthened by fresh reinforcements and supplies, threatened Qarája, Prince of Sind, and Íltatmish, Prince of Dihlí, and, in spite of their alliance against him, maintained himself on their territories until the retreat of the pursuing Mongols permitted him to re-enter Persia and endeavour to regain possession of his father's Empire.

His achievements and adventures during the remaining eight years of his life may be read in detail in the monograph of his secretary, an-Nasáwí, of which not only the Arabic text but an excellent French translation has been published by M. Houdas. His hand was against every man, for he had to contend not only with the Mongols, who were ever on his tracks, but with the faithlessness of his brother, Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, and the disloyalty of Buráq Ḥájib, the ruler of Kirmán. And, as if this was not enough, he must needs attack the Caliph of Baghdád, chastise the Turkmáns and the Assassins, and invade Georgia. In A.D. 1223 we see him storming through Kirmán, Fárs, and Iṣfahán to Ray; in 1225 he defeats and slays the Caliph's general Qushtímúr, pursues his army almost to the gates of Baghdád, takes Tabríz, and successfully attacks the Georgians; in 1226, having reduced Tiflís, he has to hasten back to the south-east of Persia to punish Buráq Ḥájib for a treacherous intrigue with the Mongols; in 1227, having chastised the Turkmáns and the Assassins, he defeats the Mongols at Dámghán, and puts to death four hundred of them who fall into his hands, defends Iṣfahán against them, and again, hearing that the Georgians are forming a confederacy against him, turns back thither, kills four of the greatest champions in single combat, and inflicts on them a crushing defeat; in 1229, while striving to organise a league of Muslim princes against the Mongols, he is surprised and put to flight by an army of 30,000 Mongols under Noyán Chormághún, but succeeds in taking Ganja (now Elizavetpol). But after this his fortune seems to fail and his energy to flag; he takes to drink and grows purposeless, melancholy, and even maudlin, as shown by his exaggerated and unreasoning grief over the death of his favourite, Qilij; and, finally, fleeing from the Mongols, is, as we have seen, murdered in a Kurdish village on August 15, 1231. Much uncertainty prevailed as to his fate, which even the great historian Ibnu'l-Athír declared himself unable to ascertain; and for twenty-two years after his death rumours were constantly arising in Persia that he had reappeared, while several impostors who pretended to be he were arrested, examined, and put to death by the Mongols. ^450a This, indeed, is no unique phenomenon in the case of a national hero who is the last hope of a lost cause; the same thing happened, for example, in the case of our English Harold, and the parallel is rendered closer by the fact that popular tradition in both cases represents the hero as withdrawing from the world, living the life of an anchorite, and dying at last, at a ripe old age, in the odour of sanctity.^450b

Chingíz Khán died in China on August 18, 1227, in the twenty-second year of his reign and the sixty-sixth of his age,

On the death of Ogotáy his widow, Turákína, carried on the government until her eldest son, Kuyúk, could return to Reign of Kuyúk. Mongolia from the campaign against Russia and Poland in which he was engaged at the time of his father's death. The great quriltáy at which he was formally elected was remarkable for the number of representatives of foreign and more or less subject nations who attended it, amongst whom were included representatives of the Caliph of Baghdád, the Shaykhu'l-fabal, or Grand Master of the Assassins of Alamút, and two monks sent by the Pope, one of whom was John of Planocarpini (Jean de Plan Carpin), to whose memoirs we have already alluded. The latter, who presented letters from the Pope dated August, 1245, were well received, for two of Kuyúk's Ministers, Kadak and Chingáj, professed the Christian religion, which their influence caused their master to regard with some favour; but the representatives of the orthodox Caliph and of the heretical Shaykhu'l-fabal were dismissed with menaces which were soon to be made good. The Christians, indeed, were already inclined to overlook the atrocities committed on their co-religionists in Russia and Poland, and to hail the Mongols as the destroyers of Saracen power; ^452a besides the Papal representatives sent to the great quriltáy, a Dominican mission was sent to Baydú, in Persia, in A.D. 1247, while a mission headed by Rubruquis (Guillaume de Ruysbroek) was despatched by St. Louis from Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, on February 10, 1249. This last did not arrive at Qaráqorum until the end of A.D. 1253, when Kuyúk had been succeeded by Mangú.

Kuyúk died in April, 1248, and was succeeded by his cousin Mangú, the son of Tulúy, the son of Chingíz, who Reign of Mangú. was crowned on July 1, 1251. The grandsons of Ogotáy, greatly incensed at the passing of the supreme power out of their branch of the family, conspired against him, but were captured ere they could effect anything, and put to death. Two great expeditions were resolved on at this same quriltáy of 1251, against China and against Persia. The former was entrusted to Qubiláy, the latter to Hulágú, both brothers of the Emperor Mangú. With the arrival of Hulágú in Persia we enter the second of the three periods of Mongol dominion (A.D. 1256-95), that, namely, of the heathen Il-Kháns, when Persia and Western Asia were assigned to a particular branch of the Mongol royal family, who, though subject to the Great Khán, became practically independent even before their conversion to Islám finally identified them with their subjects and cut them off from their heathen kinsmen in Mongolia and China. We may, therefore, for our purposes, ignore the glories of “Kubla Khan” and the splendours of his capital, “Xanadu” or “Kambalu” (Khán-báligh—i.e., Pekin), made familiar to English readers by Coleridge and Longfellow, and confine our attention to the doings of Hulágú (“the great captain Aläu” of Longfellow) and his descendants, the Íl-Kháns of Persia.

Hulágú started from Qaráqorum in July, 1252, having received special instructions to exterminate the Assassins and to destroy the Caliphate of Baghdád. He was accompanied by a number of Chinese engineers and artillerymen ^453a to assist Hulágú. him in his siege operations. He proceeded slowly at first, spent the summer of 1254 in Turkistán, and only reached Samarqand, where he remained for forty days, in September, 1255. At Kesh he was met, in January, 1256, by Arghún, who had been re-appointed Governor-General of Persia by Mangú in A.D. 1253, and who was accompanied by his chief secretary, or ulúgh-bitikji, Bahá'u'd-Dín Juwayní, and his son, 'Aṭá Malik Juwayní. The latter was attached to Hulágú in the capacity of secretary, accompanied him through this momentous campaign, was present at the sack of Alamút, the chief stronghold of the Assassins, and was thus in a position to make use of the most authentic and authoritative materials for composing his great history, the fahán-gushá, to which we have repeatedly had occasion to allude.

Of the earlier history of the Assassins, or Isma'ílís of Alamút, we have already spoken. The first of them was Résumé of the history of the Assassins. the celebrated Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ, the contemporary of 'Umar Khayyám and originator of the “New Propaganda,” whose power may be said to date from his capture of the fortress of Alamút on Rajab 6, A.H. 483 (= September 4, A.D. 1090), and who died on May 23, A.D. 1124. ^453b He was a stern man, and, having put to death both his sons for disobedience to the religious law, he appointed to succeed him his colleague, Kiyá Buzurg-ummíd, from whom the remaining six Grand Masters of the Order were directly descended. This man's son Muḥammad succeeded him on his death on January 20, A.D. 1138, and died on February 21, A.D. 1162. He in turn was followed by his son Ḥasan, called by his followers Ḥasan 'alá dhikrihi's-salám, or “Ḥasan, on whose mention be peace.” This Ḥasan boldly declared himself to be, not the descendant of Kiyá Buzurg-ummíd, but of the Fáṭimid Imám Nizár b. al-Mustansir, in whose name the “New Propaganda” had been carried on: in other words, the Imám himself, not merely his representative. He had already in his father's lifetime shown signs of such ambitions, which had been sternly repressed, some two hundred and fifty of his partisans being put to death and an equal number expelled from Alamút. But on his father's death he was in a position to give effect to his designs, and on Ramaḍán 17, A.H. 559 (= August 8, A.D. 1164), he held a great assembly of all the Isma'ílís, which he called 'Íd-i-Qiyámat, or “The Feast of the Resurrection,” and, in a khuṭba or homily which he preached, not only declared himself to be the Imám, but announced that the letter of the Law was henceforth abrogated, and that all the prescriptions of Islám were intended not in a literal, but in an allegorical sense. This announcement, being favourably received and generally acted on by his followers, greatly added to the horror with which the orthodox Muslims regarded them, and it was from this time, according to Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, that they began to be called Maláḥida, i.e., the heretics par excellence, though Ḥasan chose to name his new abode Mú'min-ábád, or “the Believer's Town.” He greatly elaborated the Isma'ílí doctrine in its philosophical aspects, and instituted a fresh propaganda, which he called Da'wat-i-Qiyámat, or “the Propaganda of the Resurrection.” Finally he was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Ḥusayn ibn Námáwar, a scion of the once great house of Buwayh or Daylam, at Lamsar, on January 10, A.D. 1166. He was succeeded by his son, Núru'd-Dín Muḥammad, who began by extirpating all the surviving Buwayhids, including his father's murderer, as an act of vengeance. He followed his father's doctrines and practices, and possessed, it is said, considerable literary ability and knowledge of philosophy. He it was who converted the great philosopher, Fakhru'd-Dín Rází by “weighty and trenchant arguments”—in other words, gold and the dagger—if not to his doctrines, at least to a decent show of respectfulness towards the formidable organisation of which he was the head, and this was, indeed, the beginning of the philosopher's good fortune, since the handsome allowance which he received from Alamút on condition that he refrained from speaking ill of the Isma'ílís, as had formerly been his wont, enabled him to present himself in a suitable manner to the princes of Ghúr, Shihábu'd-Dín and Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, and even to the great Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh himself.

Muḥammad, the son of Ḥasan 'alá dhikrihi's-salám, died on September 1, A.D. 1210, and was succeeded by his son, Jalálu'd-Dín, who utterly reversed the policy of his father and grandfather, abolished all antinomianism, and declared himself an orthodox Muslim, whence he was known as Naw-Musul-mán , “the New Musulmán,” or “Convert to Islám.” He made formal profession of his fealty to the 'Abbásid Caliph an-Náṣir li-díni'lláh, entered into friendly relations with the surrounding Muslim princes, sent his mother (in A.D. 1210) to Mecca to perform the Pilgrimage, and, in order to convince the doctors of Qazwín (who, as near neighbours of Alamút, were least inclined to believe in the bonâ fide character of his conversion) of his sincerity, invited them to send a deputation to inspect his libraries and destroy all such books as, in their opinion, savoured of heresy. All were at last convinced of the genuineness of his professions, and the Caliph showed him honours so marked as to arouse the jealousy of Khwárazmsháh, and cause the beginning of that estrangement between Khwárazm and Baghdád which had such fatal results. ^455a He also allied himself with the Atábek Mudhaffaru'd-Dín Uzbek (A.D. 1213-15) against Náṣiru'd-Dín Manglí, and—alone of the Grand Masters of Alamút— resided for a year and a half beyond the shadow of his fastnesses in 'Iráq, Arrán, and Ádharbayján. Later he allied himself with Jalálu'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh, but, on the appearance of Chingíz Khán on the scene, he deemed it prudent to tender his allegiance to him, his ambassadors being the first to do homage to the heathen conqueror when he crossed the Oxus. This act probably put the final touch to the disgust which his actions had inspired in the sect of which he was the supreme pontiff, and very shortly afterwards, on November 2 or 3, A.D. 1220, he died suddenly, poisoned, as it was supposed, by some of his women. He was succeeded by his only son, 'Alá'u'd-Dín, then only nine years of age, whose wazír acted at first as his regent, and inaugurated his reign by putting to death, even by burning, a number of the late Grand Master's female relatives whom he suspected, or pretended to suspect, of complicity in the death of Jalálu'd-Dín Naw-Musulmán .

According to Rashídu'd-Dín, 'Alá'u'd-Dín, when about fifteen years old, developed a moody melancholia which made it dangerous to approach him with any unwelcome news, or to inform him of any circumstance likely to displease him. During his reign the great astronomer Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí, author of the well-known treatise on Ethics known as the Akhláq-i-Náṣirí, was kidnapped by Náṣiru'd-Dín, the Isma'ílí Governor of Quhistán, ^456a and sent to Alamút, where he remained as an honoured, if unwilling, guest until it was captured by the Mongols. This fact has a double importance, literary and historical: literary, because, as already remarked (p. 220 supra), it is probable that, by confusion of names, a garbled version of it was incorporated in the pseudo-autobiography of Náṣir-i-Khusraw, who lived more than a century and a half earlier; historical, because it was Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí who first induced the unfortunate Ruknu'd-Dín Khursháh, of whom we shall speak directly, to surrender himself into the hands of the perfidious Mongols, ^457a and afterwards persuaded Hulágú, when he was deliberating on the fate of al-Musta'ṣim bi'lláh, the last 'Abbásid Caliph, that no heavenly vengeance was likely to follow his execution. ^457b What irony that this double-dyed traitor should be the author of one of the best-known works on Ethics written in Persian!

'Alá'u'd-Dín married very young, and his eldest son Ruknu'd-Dín Khúrsháh was born when he was only eighteen years of age. Between him and this son, whom he originally nominated as his successor, so great a jealousy gradually grew up that he desired to revoke this nomination; but the Isma'ílís, acting on their old principle, that an explicit nomination to the Imámate by an Imám was irrevocable, refused to allow it, and on the last day of Shawwál, A.H. 653 (= December 1, A.D. 1255), 'Alá'u'd-Dín was found murdered at Shír-kúh. The actual murderer, Ḥasan of Mázandarán, was killed by order of Ruknu'd-Dín, and his body was afterwards burned; but it was believed that Ruknu'd-Dín himself incited Ḥasan to do this deed, in proof of which Rashídu'd-Dín adduces the fact that he caused Ḥasan to be assassinated instead of dealing with him by more regular and legal methods, for fear of the disclosures which he might make under examination. This historian, after remarking that no parricide escapes the swift and condign vengeance of Heaven (in proof of which he cites the cases of Shírúyè the Sásánian and al-Muntaṣir, the 'Abbásid Caliph, both of whom murdered their fathers and lived but a short while to enjoy the fruits of their crime), points to the curious coincidence that Ruknu'd-Dín finally surrendered himself into the hands of his destroyers on the last day of Shawwál, A.H. 654 (= Sunday, November 19, A.D. 1256), exactly a year, according to the lunar reckoning of the Muḥammadans, after his father was found murdered.

We must now return to Hulágú's expedition, which we left at Kesh in January, 1256. Tún and Khwáf, two of the strongholds of the Assassins in Quhistán, were the first places to bear the brunt of his attack. Both were taken about the end of March, 1256, and all the inhabitants of the latter over ten years of age were put to death, save a few girls of exceptional beauty, who were reserved for a worse fate. Then began the usual tactics of the Mongols, who, as already said, were wont to gain all they could by lying promises ere they unsheathed the sword which no oath could blunt and no blood satiate. Ruknu'd-Dín, torn by conflicting fears, had neither the courage to resist to the bitter end nor the prudence to seek by a full and instant submission the faint chance of a prolonged though ignominious life. He tried to bargain, but always it was he who gave while the Mongols merely promised, ever tightening their nets upon him. He surrendered some of his strongholds on the understanding that the garrisons and inhabitants should be spared, and sent his brother, Sháhinsháh, with 300 other hostages, to Hulágú; but soon, on some pretext, Sháhinsháh was put to death at Jamál-ábád, near Qazwín (whence, says Juwayní, the Qazwínís were afterwards wont to use the expression “sent to Jamál-ábád” as a euphemism for “executed”), and at a later date all the Isma'ílís who had surrendered, even to the babes in their cradles, were ruthlessly slaughtered. Some of the stalwarts were for a desperate resistance, and, even after Ruknu'd-Dín Khúrsháh had sought and obtained from Hulágú Khán a yerlígh, or written guarantee of safety, they repulsed a Mongol attack with great slaughter. But, as already said, the end came on November 19, when Ruknu'd-Dín gave himself up to the Mongols, and Alamút and Maymún-Dizh were pillaged and burned. 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní obtained permission from his master, Hulágú, to select from the world-renowned library of Alamút such books as he deemed most valuable and free from all taint of heresy, as well as some astronomical instruments which he coveted, and he has also left us a pretty circumstantial account of the strong and cunning workmanship which made the Castle of Alamút so long impregnable. According to a historical work by Fakhru'd-Dawla the Buwayhid which he found in the library, it was originally constructed by one of the princes of Daylam in A.H. 246 (= A.D. 860-61). Of the remaining strongholds of the Assassins in Persia (for the Syrian branch was never extirpated in such fashion, and their remnants still exist in that country), Lamsar was taken on January 4, A.D. 1257, while Gird-i-Kúh was still unsubdued in A.H. 658 (= A.D. 1260), when Minháj-i-Siráj was writing his Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí (ed. Nassau Lees, p. 418).

As for the unfortunate Ruknu'd-Dín, he was taken to Hama-dán, and was at first well treated by his captors. A Mongol girl for whom he had conceived a passion was given him to wife, and he was presented with a hundred dromedary stallions, whom it pleased him to see fight with one another—a taste more degraded, if not less appropriate to his condition and pretensions, than his father's eccentric fancy for pasturing sheep. But on March 19, A.D. 1257 (at his own request, according to Juwayní and Rashídu'd-Dín, though this we may be permitted to doubt), he was sent off under escort to Qaráqorum to appear before Mangú Khán, the Mongol Emperor. On the way thither he was compelled to summon his officers in Quhistán to surrender their castles, of which the inhabitants, in spite of promises of safety, were of course massacred by the Mongols as soon as they had left the shelter of their walls, 12,000 of them being put to death in Quhistán alone. At Bukhárá Ruknu'd-Dín was roughly handled by his warders, and, on his arrival at Qaráqorum, Mangú Khán ordered him to be put to death, observing that it was a pity that the post-horses had been uselessly fatigued by bringing him so far, and issuing instructions that all of his surviving followers were to be ruthlessly destroyed. Vast multitudes must have perished, without doubt, but not all, for remnants of the sect, as I was informed by a very intelligent and observant Bábí dervish of Kirmán, of whom I saw a great deal when I was in Cairo in the early part of the year 1903, still exist in Persia, while in India (under the name of “Khojas” or “Khwájas”) and Chitrál (under the name of “Mullás”), as well as in Zanzibar, Syria, and elsewhere, they still enjoy a certain influence and importance, though it requires a great effort of imagination to associate their present pontiff, the genial and polished Ághá Khán, with the once redoubtable Grand Masters of Alamút and the “Old Man of the Mountain”—“Le Vieux” of Marco Polo's quaint narrative.

The extirpation of the Assassins won for Hulágú Khán the applause of the orthodox Muhammadans, but his next procedure was one which only those whose position rendered it impossible for them to speak freely could mention without expressions of the utmost horror. Six months after the unfortunate Ruknu'd-Dín Khúrsháh had been sent to meet his doom at Qaráqorum, Hulágú Khán, having destroyed the Assassins root and branch, sent from Hamadán, which he had made his head-quarters, a summons to the Caliph al-Musta'ṣim bi'lláh to surrender himself and Baghdád, for five centuries the metropolis of Islám, to the Mongols. Two months later, in November, 1257, Hulágú took the field. He was accompanied by several Muhammadan princes, such as Abú Bakr b. Sa'd-i-Zangí, the Atábek of Shíráz, chiefly known as the patron of the great poet and writer, Sa'dí, and Badru'd-Dín Lúlú, the Atábek of Mosul, to whom Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí so often refers in his charming manual of history, the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí; also by his secretary 'Aṭá Malik Juwayní, author of the often-quoted Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá , and Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí, the astronomer. Already the Caliph had sent Sharafu'd-Dín 'Abdu'lláh ibnu'l-Jawzí as ambassador to Hulágú while he was still at Hamadán, but his reply to the Mongol ultimatum being, as usual, deemed unsatisfactory and evasive, the main Mongol army under Hulágú advanced directly upon Baghdád from the east, while another army under Bájú Noyán fetched a compass from the north by way of Takrít, near Mosul, so as to approach the doomed city from the west. The former army, according to Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí, ^461a exceeded 30,000 men, while the latter, according to the author of the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí ^461b (who, however, probably exaggerates) was 80,000 strong. The Caliph's available troops, on the other hand, according to the authority last named, amounted only to 20,000 men.

The first encounter took place at Takrít, where the Caliph's soldiers succeeded in destroying the bridge by which Bájú Noyán intended to cross the Tigris. Their success, however, was of brief duration, and soon the Mongols were swarming into Dujayl, al-Isḥáqí, Nahr Malik, Nahr 'Ísá, and other dependencies of Baghdád, while the panic-stricken inhabitants of these places fled to seek refuge in the metropolis. The ferry-men, as we learn from the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí, profited by the panic, exacting from the terrified fugitives for a passage across the river golden bracelets, precious stuffs, or a fee of several dínárs. The next encounter took place at Dujayl on or about January 11, 1258. Here again the Caliph's army, commanded by Mujáhidu'd-Dín Aybak, entitled ad-Dawídár aṣ-Ṣaghír (the Under-Secretary of State), and Malik 'Izzu'd-Dín b. Fatḥu'd-Dín, achieved a trifling initial success, in spite of the numerical inferiority of their forces; but during the night the Mongols, aided very probably by the Chinese engineers whom they had brought with them, succeeded in flooding the Muslim camp, an achievement which not only materially conduced to the defeat of the Caliph's army, but greatly aggravated the ensuing slaughter of the fugitives, especially the infantry. Of this battle, à propos of the invasion of Persia by the Arabs in the seventh century of our era, and the misplaced contempt of the well-armed and sumptuously equipped Persians for the tattered and half-naked Bedouin, the author of the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí (ed. Cairo, p. 72) gives the following personal account from his friend Falaku'd-Dín Muḥammad b. Aydímir.

“I was,” says he, “in the army of the Under-Secretary when he went forth to meet the Tartars on the western side of the City of Peace (Baghdád), or the occasion of its supreme disaster in the year A.H. 656 (began January 8, A.D. 1258). We met at Nahr Bashír, one of the dependencies of Dujayl; and there would ride forth from amongst us to offer single combat a knight fully accoutred and mounted on an Arab horse, so that it was as though he and his steed together were [solid as] some great mountain. Then there would come forth to meet him from the Mongols a horseman mounted on a horse like a donkey, and having in his hand a spear like a spindle, wearing neither robe nor armour, so that all who saw him were moved to laughter. Yet ere the day was done the victory was theirs, and they inflicted on us a great defeat, which was the Key of Evil, and thereafter there befell us what befell us.”

Most of the fugitives perished in the quagmires produced by the artificial flood already mentioned, except such as succeeded in swimming the river and escaping through the desert into Syria, and a few who, with the Dawídár, succeeded in reentering Baghdád. The Dawídár and 'Izzu'd-Dín urged the Caliph to escape by boat, whilst there was yet time, to Baṣra, but the Wazír Ibnu'l-'Alqamí (according to the author of the Ṭabaqát-í-Náṣirí, p. 427) opposed this plan, and, while the Caliph still hesitated, the Mongols encompassed the city on every side. The siege proper seems to have begun on January 22: on the 30th a general assault was made, and on February 4 the Caliph again sent Ibnu'l-Jawzí to Hulágú with costly presents and offers of surrender. A few days later, lured by the usual false and specious promises of clemency, he gave himself up, and, together with his eldest and second sons, Abu'l-'Abbás Aḥmad and Abu'l-Faḍá'il 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán, was cruelly put to death by order of Hulágú. As to the manner of his death, great uncertainty prevails, but the story that he was starved to death in his treasure-house, popularised by Longfellow in his poem “Kambalu,” is less probable than the account given by most of the Muslim historians that he was wrapped in a carpet and beaten to death with clubs. Some such fate certainly befell him, for it was against the Mongol practice to shed royal blood, and when one of their own princes was executed they generally adopted the barbarous method of breaking his back.

The sack of Baghdád began on February 13, 1258, and lasted for a week, during which 800,000 of the inhabitants were put to death, while the treasures, material, literary, and scientific, accumulated during the centuries while Baghdád was the metropolis of the vast empire of the 'Abbásid Caliphs were plundered or destroyed. The loss suffered by Muslim learning, which never again reached its former level, defies description and almost surpasses imagination: not only were thousands of priceless books utterly annihilated, but, owing to the number of men of learning who perished or barely escaped with their lives, the very tradition of accurate scholarship and original research, so conspicuous in Arabic literature before this period, was almost destroyed. Never, probably, was so great and splendid a civilisation so swiftly consumed with fire and quenched with blood. “Then there took place,” in the words of the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí, where it describes the storming of Baghdád, “such wholesale slaughter and unrestrained looting and excessive torture and mutilation as it is hard to hear spoken of even generally; how think you, then, of its details? There happened what happened of things I like not to mention; therefore imagine what you will, but ask me not of the matter!” And remember that he who wrote these words (in A.D. 1302, only forty-four years after the even of which he speaks) lived under a dominion which, though Muslim, was still Mongol, that, namely, of Gházán, the great-grandson of Hulágú.

There is a good deal of doubt as to the part played by the Caliph's wazír, Mu'ayyidu'd-Dín Muḥammad ibnu'l-'Alqamí, in the surrender of Baghdád. In the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí (pp. 423 et seqq.) he is denounced in the bitterest terms as a traitor who deliberately reduced the numbers and strength of the garrison, and afterwards induced the Caliph to surrender, his motive in this being partly ambition, but chiefly a burning desire to avenge certain wrongs done to followers of the Shí'a sect, to which he himself belonged, by the Caliph's eldest son. Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí, on the other hand, warmly defends him against this charge, which, he says, is disproved by the fact (communicated to him by Ibnu'l-'Alqamí's nephew, Aḥmad ibnu'ḍ-Ḍaḥḥák) that, on the surrender of Baghdád, the wazír was presented by Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí to Hulágú, who, pleased with his appearance and address, took him into his favour and associated him with the Mongol resident, 'Alí Bahádur, in the government of the ruined metropolis, which, he argues, he would not have done if he had known him to have betrayed the master whose favour he had so long enjoyed. It must be borne in mind, however, that these two men, Ibnu'l-'Alqamí, the ex-wazír of the Caliph, and Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí, who, for all his ethical and religious treatises, betrayed his Isma'ílí hosts and fellow-countrymen and helped to compass the Caliph's death to gain the favour of a bloodthirsty and savage heathen like Hulágú, both belonged to the sect of the Shí'a, as did also the worthy author of the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí; and for my part, I fear that the fact reported by the latter must probably be interpreted in quite the opposite way to that which he has adopted. It would, at any rate, thoroughly accord with all that we know of the Mongols, and particularly of Hulágú, to suppose that Ibnu'l-'Alqamí, seduced by fair promises and blinded by a religious fanaticism which preferred (as is not unfrequently the case) a heathen to a heretic, and possibly acting in conjunction with his co-religionist Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí, now exalted to the rank of Hulágú's wazír, betrayed Baghdád and the Caliph into the hands of the Mongols, who, as usual, showed him favour until their object was completely achieved and they had made all the use of him they could, and then got rid of him as quickly as possible. This conjecture is, I think, supported by the fact that he died in May, 1258, only three months after his master, whom he is accused of having betrayed. Yet the matter is doubtful, and will, in all probability, never now be certainly cleared up, so let him who will not follow Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí in praying that God may be merciful to him at least refrain from the curses showered upon him by the author of the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí, who shows a far greater fanaticism for the Sunní cause than does Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí (a historian of extraordinary sense, moderation, and good feeling) for the Shí'a.

The account of the Caliph al-Musta'ṣim's character with which the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí concludes leaves us with the impression of an amiable but weak ruler, ill-fitted to grapple with the fearful peril which overshadowed all his days ere it finally overwhelmed him. He was attentive to his religious duties, gentle, continent in word and deed, a good scholar and calligraphist, devoted to his books, and very considerate towards his attendants; but, on the other hand, timid in action, undecided in judgement, and ignorant of statecraft. He refused to follow the evil custom generally followed by his predecessors of keeping his sons and other nearer male relatives in confinement, lest they should conspire against him or seek to usurp his place; and on one occasion, when a young servant had fallen asleep on the ground beside him while he was reading in his library, and in his sleep had rolled on to the carpet specially spread for him, and even put his feet on the cushion against which he was leaning, he signed to the librarian to wait till he had left the room, and then to wake the lad, lest he should be overcome with fear and confusion on account of what he had done. In love of books and encouragement of men of letters the wazír Ibnu'l-'Alqamí was not behind his master: his library comprised ten thousand volumes, including many rare and precious works, and many authors and poets dedicated their works to him. He was also, according to Ibnu'ṭ-Ṭiqṭiqí, from whom all these particulars are derived, not only liberal, but quite devoid of the love of wealth.

Like the author of the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí, I should have preferred to end this volume of mine, so far as the historical portion of it is concerned, with some event less lamentable than this, the supreme catastrophe of Islám and of the Arabo-Persian civilisation of the 'Abbásid Caliphate. But here is the natural point at which to interrupt my Literary History of Persia: a history which I hope some day to continue in another volume, or in other volumes, down to our own times. But, so far as this volume is concerned, it remains only for me to discuss in two concluding chapters the literature of the period which I have just attempted to sketch in outline; a period, roughly speaking, which comprises the first fifty or sixty years of the thirteenth century of our era.

IN this chapter I propose to speak of the principal writers of the period described in the last, leaving only the Persian poets, concerning at least three of whom there is a good deal to be said, for the concluding chapter of this volume. These writers may be divided into three classes, viz. (1) those of Persian birth who wrote exclusively or chiefly in Persian; (2) those of Persian birth who wrote exclusively or chiefly in Arabic; and (3) non-Persian authors who wrote in Arabic, but who, either because of some special connection with Persia or Persian topics, or because of their influence and importance in the world of Islám generally, cannot be altogether passed over even in a book treating primarily of the Literary History of Persia only. Practically, however, it will be more convenient to ignore this distinction, and to consider them together, class by class, according to the subject on which they wrote, without regard to the language which they employed, since at this time the Arabic language was still generally used in Persia as the language of culture, learning, and science, and only fell from this position with the fall of the Caliphate and the destruction of Baghdád, the metropolis of Islám.

Let us begin with the historians, biographers, and geographers, to the most important of whom we have already had Historians, biographers, and geographers. frequent occasion to refer. Foremost amongst these, and, indeed, amongst the chroniclers of all time and all lands, is 'Izzu'd-Dín ibnu'l-Athír al-Jazarí (that is, a native of Jazíratu'bni 'Umar, near Mosul),

Another general historian of merit who belongs to this period, and who, like Ibnu'l-Athír, wrote in Arabic, is the Jacobite Christian Yuḥanná Abu'l-Faraj, better known as Barhebræus (Ibnu'l-'Ibrí, i.e., “the son of the Jew,” his father Ahrún, or Aaron, having been converted from Judaism to Christianity), or by the name Gregorius, which he assumed in Abu'l-Faraj Barhebræus. A.D. 1246, when he was made Bishop of Gubos, near Maláṭiyya. He was born at that town in A.D. 1226, fled with his father, who was a physician, from the terror of the advancing Mongols, to Antioch in 1243, and thence visited Tripoli. In 1252 he was promoted to the see of Aleppo, and in 1264 he was elected Mafriyán, or Catholicus, of the Eastern Jacobites, during which period he resided alternately at Mosul and in Ádharbayján (Tabríz and Marágha), in the north-west of Persia. He died at the last-mentioned place on July 30, A.D. 1286. His history, the Mukhtaṣaru Ta'ríkhi 'd-Duwal (“Abridgement of the History of Dynasties”), was originally written in Syriac, and the Arabic version was made towards the end of his life at the request of certain Muslims of note. It was published by Pococke with a Latin translation at Oxford in A.D. 1663; a German translation appeared in A.D. 1783; and a new and excellent edition by the Jesuit Ṣáliḥání was printed at Beyrout in A.D. 1890. This last, which comprises 630 pages, contains, besides the text, a short life of the author, a full index of names, and useful chronological tables. The history treats of ten dynasties, viz. (1) the Patriarchs (al-Awliyá) from the time of Adam; (2) the Judges of Israel; (3) the Kings of Israel; (4) the Chal-dæans; (5) the “Magians,” i.e. the Persian Kings from the mythical Gayúmarth down to the last Darius, who was defeated and killed by Alexander the Great; (6) the ancient or “idolatrous” Greeks; (7) the Kings of the “Franks,” by which term he means the Romans; (8) the Byzantine or “Christian” Greeks; (9) the Muslims; (10) the Mongols, whose history is carried down to the accession of Arghún in A.D. 1284. A very interesting account of Barhebræus and his times is given by Professor Nöldeke in his Sketches from Eastern History (pp. 236-256 of the English translation of Mr. John Sutherland Black), and to this we refer such as desire further information about his life and work.

Of the general historians who wrote in Persian during this period, the most notable is, perhaps, Minháj-i-Siráj of Júzján,

One other general history composed during this period deserves, perhaps, a passing mention from the fact that it was one of the earliest Arabic chronicles published in Europe. This is the Kitábu'l-Majmú'i'l-Mubárak of Jirjís (or 'Abdu'lláh) b. Abi'l-Yásir b. Abi'l-Makárim al-Makín b. al-'Amíd, whereof the text, accompanied by a Latin translation, was printed at Al-Makín. Leyden in A.D. 1625, by the learned Dutch Orientalist Erpenius (Thomas van Erpe), with the title Historia Saracenica, arabice olim exarata a Georgio El macino et latine reddita opera Th. Erpenii. An English translation by Purchas appeared in the following year, and a French translation by Vattier in 1657, so that this book, with the later chronicle of Abu'l-Fidá, Prince of Ḥamát (born A.D. 1273, died A.D. 1331), was for a long while the chief Arabic source for the history of Islám accessible to European scholars. On this ground only is it mentioned here, for the author, who was born in A.D. 1205 and died in A.D. 1273, was an Egyptian Christian, not connected in any way with Persia.

We pass now to those historians and biographers who treated of a particular dynasty, monarch, period, province, town, or Special historians and biographers. class, including those who wrote biographical dictionaries. In the chapter treating of the House of Subuktigín or Dynasty of Ghazna, we repeatedly had occasion to refer to al-'Utbí's Ta'ríkhu'l-Yamíní, or history of Sulṭán Maḥmúd Yamínu'd-Dawla of Ghazna.

Of the House of Seljúq, the dynasty which succeeded the House of Ghazna, there also exists an important monograph in Al-Fatḥ alBundárí. Arabic, of which the third and last recension (that now rendered accessible to scholars in Houtsma's excellent edition) dates from this time. The history in question, which has been frequently referred to in the chapters of this book treating of the Seljúq period, was originally composed in Persian by the Minister Anúshirwán b. Khálid, who died, according to the 'Uyúnu'l-Akhbár, ^472a in A.H. 532 (= A.D. 1137-38). It was afterwards translated into Arabic, with considerable amplifications and additions, by 'Imádu'd-Dín al-Kátib al-Iṣfahání in A.D. 1183; and this translation was edited in an abridged and simplified form in A.D. 1226 by al-Fatḥ b. 'Alí b. Muḥammad al-Bundárí. The relations of these recensions to one another are fully discussed by Houtsma in the illuminating Preface which he has prefixed to his edition of the last of them, that of al-Bundárí, which, as he points out, exists in two recensions, a longer one represented by the Oxford MS., and a shorter one represented by the Paris Codex. To al-Bundárí we are also indebted for an Arabic prose epitome of the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí, of which an excellent manuscript (Qq. 46 of the Burckhardt Collection) is preserved in the Cambridge University Library. Professor Nöldeke, on p. 77 of his Iranisches Nationalepos, has called attention to the possible importance of this work as an aid to the reconstitution of a more correct text of the Sháhnáma.

Amongst the histories of particular dynasties composed in this period, a very high place must be assigned to one which 'Aṭá Malik-iJuwayní. has been largely used in the last chapter, I mean the Persian Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá, or “History of the World-Conqueror” (i.e., Chingíz Khán), of 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní. The importance of this book has been sufficiently emphasised, and the circumstances of its author have been sufficiently described already. That no edition of this work has ever been published, in spite of the excellent materials for such which exist, especially in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, ^473a is nothing less than a scandal which it is one of my chief ambitions to remedy. It consists of three volumes or parts, of which the first treats of the origin and history of the Mongols and the conquests of Chingíz Khán; the second of the Khwárazmsháhs; and the third of the Assassins, or Isma'ílís of Alamút and Kúhistán, and of Hulágú's campaign against them. D'Ohsson, who made large use of this book in compiling his Histoire des Mongols, is, I think, unduly severe on the author, whose circumstances compelled him to speak with civility of the barbarians whom it was his misfortune to serve.

Shibábu'd-Dín Muḥammad b. Aḥmad an-Nasawí (i.e., of Nasá, in Khurásán), the secretary and biographer of the gallant An-Nasawí. Jalálu'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh, next claims our attention. His memoirs of this ill-fated prince, like the work last mentioned, have been repeatedly referred to in the last chapter, and are accessible in the Arabic text and French translation published by M. Houdas (Paris, 1891, 1895). They were written in A.H. 639 (= A.D. 1241-42), some ten years after the death of Jalálu'd-Dín, with whom the author was closely associated throughout the greater part of his adventurous career, and their interest and importance are well indicated by M. Houdas in the Preface which he has prefixed to his translation, from which we may cite a few of the most salient paragraphs.

“Aussi, sauf de rares moments qu'il consacra à remplir des missions de confiance, En-Nesawi ne quitta point Djelâl ed-Dîn pendant la plus grande partie de son règne, et il était encore auprès de lui la veille du jour où ce prince allait dans sa fuite succomber sous le poignard d'un Kurde sauvage. Non seulement il a assisté à la plupart des événements qu'il raconte, mais le plus souvent il y a pris personellement une part plus ou moins active, aussi peut-on dire jusqu'à un certain point que sa ‘Vie de Mankobirti’ constitue de véritables mémoires.

“Grâce à la confiance dont l'honorait le sultan, grâce aussi à ses relations intimes avec les plus hauts personnages de l'empire, En-Nesawi a pu voir les choses autrement qu'un spectateur ordinaire; il lui a été loisible d'en pénétrer les causes ou d'en démêler les origines. Et, comme il ne composa son ouvrage que dix ans après la mort de son maître, on comprend qu'il ait pu parler en toute franchise sur tous les sujets qu'il traitait. On sent du reste dans son récit que, si parfois il exprime ses critiques avec une certaine réserve, c'est qu'il ne veut pas être accusé d'ingratitude envers celui à qui il dut toute sa fortune. Peut-être aussi avait-il encore à cette époque à ménager la réputation de quelques-uns de ses amis quoique, sous ce rapport, il ne semble pas cacher ses vrais sentiments. Dans tous les cas la modération même dont il use est un gage de sa sincérité.

“Non content de décrire ce qu'il a vu ou de rapporter ce qu'il a entendu dire, En-Nesawi apprécie les événements dont il parle: il en recherche les causes et en tire des renseignements souvent curieux si on se reporte à ces époques lointaines. Il semble que, tout en admirant le Kámil d'Ibn El-Athîr, il sente la sécheresse un peu trop marquée de cette chronique et qu'il ait voulu montrer, pour sa part, qu'on pouvait employer une forme plus attachante, où la curiosité de l'esprit trouvait sa satisfaction et où la raison rencontrait un aliment qui lui convenait.

“En-Nesawi manie la langue arabe avec beaucoup d'élégance; néan-moins on sent dans son style l'influence persane…”

To this excellent appreciation of the man and his book it is unnecessary to add anything more in this place.

We come now to biographers, amongst whom Ibn Khallikán holds the highest place, not only amongst his contemporaries, but amongst all Muslim writers. His celebrated work the Ibn Khallikán. Wafayátu'l-A'yán (“Obituaries of Men of Note”), begun at Cairo in A.D. 1256 and completed on January 4, 1274, is one of the first books of reference which the young Orientalist should seek to acquire. The text was lithographed by Wüstenfeld in 1835-43, and has since been printed at least twice in Egypt, while it is accessible to the English reader in the Baron MacGuckin de Slane's translation (4 vols., London, 1843-71). The author, a scion of the great Barmecides, or House of Barmak, was born at Arbela in September, 1211, but from the age of eighteen onwards resided chiefly in Aleppo, Damascus, Cairo, and Alexandria, where he held several important scholastic and judicial posts, and finally died in October, 1282. Later supplements to his great biographical dictionary were written by al-Muwaffaq Faḍlu'-lláh aṣ-Ṣaqá'í (down to A.D. 1325), and Ibn Shákir (died A.D. 1362), and it was translated into Persian by Yúsuf b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. 'Uthmán in A.D. 1490, and again by Kabír b. Uways b. Muḥammad al-Laṭífí in the reign of the Ottoman Sulṭán Selím (A.D. 1512-19).

Coming now to biographers of special classes or professions, we have to mention two important works in Arabic and one Biographers of special classes. in Persian which belong to this period, to wit, al-Qifṭí's Notices of the Philosophers, Ibn Abí Uṣaybi'a's Lives of the Physicians and 'Awfí's Biographies of Persian Poets entitled “The Marrow of Understandings” (Lubábu'l-Albáb). All these either have been published or are in process of publication, al-Qifṭí by Dr. Julius Lippert (Leipzig, 1903), Ibn Abí Uṣaybi'a by A. Müller (Königsberg, 1884), and the Lubáb, of which one volume was published in 1903, while the other is still in the press, by myself. Let us consider them in the above order.

Jamálu'd-Dín Abu'l-Ḥasan 'Alí b. Yúsuf al-Qifṭí was born at Qifṭ, in Upper Egypt, in A.D. 1172. His paternal ancestors came originally from Kúfa, while his mother belonged to the great Arab tribe of Quḍá'a. He studied with ardour in Cairo and Al-Qifṭí. Qifṭ till he reached the age of fifteen, when his father Yúsuf was appointed by Saladin (Ṣaláḥu'd-Dín) to a high judicial post in Jerusalem, whither the family transferred their residence. About A.D. 1201 our author's father, Yúsuf, went to Ḥarrán, celebrated even in the early 'Abbásid period as the centre of Greek philosophic culture in Asia, and hence called Hellenopolis, where he became wazír to al-Malik al-Ashraf. Thence, after performing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he retired to Yemen, where he ultimately died in A.D. 1227. His son, our author, meanwhile had gone to Aleppo, where he was placed in charge of the Ministry of Finance, and received the title of al-Qáḍi'l-Akram. He seems to have been not only an upright and capable servant of the State and a diligent seeker after knowledge, but a ready helper and patron of men of learning, the geographer Yáqút, driven westwards from Khurásán, as we have seen, before the Mongol Invasion, being one of those to whom he extended hospitality and protection. Though desiring above all things leisure to pursue his studies, he was obliged in A.D. 1236 to accept office for the third time, and it was as Wazír to al-Malik al-'Azíz that he died twelve years later, in December, 1248. Fuller details of his life, mostly derived from Yáqút's Mu'jamu'l-Udabá (of which an edition is now being prepared by Professor Margoliouth, of Oxford, for publication in the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series), will be found in the interesting and sympathetic Introduction which Dr. Lippert has prefixed to his edition of the Ta'ríkhu'l-Ḥukamá, and in which he is summed up as “an Arabian Wilhelm von Humboldt.” He wrote much, and Yáqút, who predeceased him by nearly twenty years, enumerates the titles of about a score of his works, nearly all of which, unfortunately, appear to be lost, destroyed, as A. Müller supposes, by the Mongols when they sacked Aleppo in A.D. 1260. Even the Ta'ríkhu'l-Ḥukamá, in the form wherein it now exists, is, in the opinion of its learned editor, Dr. Lippert, only an abridgement of the original. The book, in the recension which we possess, contains 414 biographies of philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, and astronomers belonging to all periods of the world's history from the earliest times down to the author's own days, and is rich in materials of great importance for the study of the history of Philosophy. It has been freely used by several contemporary and later writers, notably Ibn Abí Uṣaybi'a, Barhebræus, and Abu'l-Fidá. The arrangement of the biographies is alphabetical, not chronological.

Ibn Abí Uṣaybi'a, the author of the Ṭabaqátu'l-Ḥukamá, or “Classes of Physicians,” was born at Damascus in A.D. 1203,

Muḥammad 'Awfí, the author of the often-cited Lubábu'l-Albáb , and also of an immense collection of anecdotes entitled Muḥammad 'Awfí. Jawámi'u'l-Ḥikáyát wa Lawámi'u'r-Riwáyát, next claims our attention. He derived his nisba of 'Awfí, as he himself tells us in a passage which occurs in vol. i of the latter work, from 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán b. 'Awf, one of the most eminent of the Companions of the Prophet, from whom he professed to be descended. His earlier life was chiefly passed in Khurásán and Transoxiana, especially in Bukhárá, whence he presently made his way to India, and attached himself to the court of Sulṭán Náṣiru'd-Dín Qubácha, to whose Wazír, 'Aynu'l-Mulk Ḥusayn al-Ash'arí, he dedicated his biography of Persian poets, the Lubábu'l-Albáb. When in April, 1228, the above-mentioned prince lost his kingdom and his life at the fall of the fortress of Bhakar, 'Awfí, like the historian Minháj-i-Siráj, of whom we have already spoken, passed into the service of the conqueror, Shamsu'd-Dín Íltatmish, to whom he dedicated his Jawámi'u'l-Ḥikáyát . This, with a few additional particulars as to the dates when he visited different towns and the eminent poets and other persons with whom he was acquainted, is practically all that is known of his life. As to his works, the Jawámi'u'l-Ḥikáyát still remains unpublished, though manuscripts of it are not rare, a particularly fine old copy which formerly belonged to Sir William Jones and is now in the Library of the India Office (W. 79) being specially deserving of mention. This vast compilation of anecdotes of very unequal worth is divided into four parts, each comprising twenty-five chapters, each of which in turn contains a number of stories illustrating the subject to which the chapter is devoted. The style is very simple and straightforward, in which particular it offers a forcible contrast to 'Awfí's earlier and more important work, the Lubábu'l-Albáb. This latter—“the oldest Biography of Persian Poets,” as Nathaniel Bland called it in his classical description of one of the only two manuscripts of it known to exist in Europe ^478a —was largely used by Ethé in the compilation of numerous and excellent monographs on the early Persian poets, but has otherwise been almost inaccessible to scholars until the publication of my edition, of which one volume appeared in 1903, while the other is nearly complete and should appear in the course of 1906. It is, on account of its antiquity, and the large number of otherwise unknown or almost unknown poets whose biographies it gives, a work of capital importance for the history of Persian Literature, but in many ways it is disappointing, since the notices of most of the poets are as devoid of any precise dates or details of interest as they are inflated with turgid rhetoric and silly word-plays, the selection of poems is often bad and tasteless, and, while several poets of great merit, such as Náṣir-i-Khusraw and 'Umar Khayyám, are entirely omitted, many mediocrities, especially towards the end of vol. i, where the author treats of his contemporaries at the Court of Sulṭán Náṣiru'd-Dín Qubácha, are noticed in exaggerated terms of praise in articles of quite unnecessary length. Yet, in spite of these defects, the work, containing as it does notices of nearly three hundred Persian poets who flourished before Sa'dí had made his reputation, is of the very first importance, and, when properly exploited, will add enormously to our knowledge of this early period of Persian Literature. Yet it is hard to avoid a certain feeling of annoyance and irritation when one reflects how easily the author, with the means at his disposal, could have made it far more interesting and valuable.

We come now to local histories, of which the most import- Local hístories. Ibn Isfandiyár. ant composed in Persian during this period is the History of Ṭabaristán of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. Isfandiyár. We know little of the author save what he himself incidentally tells us in the pages of his book, which represents him as returning from Baghdád to Ray in A.H. 606 (= A.D. 1209-1210), and finding there in the Library of King Rustam b. Shahriyár the Arabic history of Ṭabaristán composed by al-Yazdádí in the time of Qábús b. Washmgír (A.D. 976-1012); on this he based his own Persian work. Shortly afterwards he was obliged to return to Ámul, whence he went to Khwárazm, at that time, as he says, a most flourishing city and a meeting-place of men of learning. Here he remained at least five years, and discovered other materials germane to his subject which he incorporated in his book, on which he was still engaged in A.H. 613 (= A.D. 1216-17). His subsequent history is unknown, and we cannot say whether or no he perished in the sack of Khwárazm by the Mongols in A.D. 1220, or whether he had previously returned to his home in Mázandarán. Of his book not much need be said, since its value can be judged from the abridged translation of it which I published as the second volume of the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series. It contains a great deal of legendary matter in the earlier part, but much historical, biographical, and geographical information of value in the Muhammadan period, and in particular many details concerning persons of local celebrity, but of considerable general interest, notably poets who wrote verses in the dialect of Ṭabaristán, which seems at that time to have been extensively cultivated as a literary vehicle. Ibn Isfandiyár's chronicle is naturally brought to an end with the death of Rustam b. Ardashír in A.H. 606 (= A.D. 1209-10), but a later hand has carried on the record as far as A.H. 750 (= A.D. 1349-50).

Local histories of the type of Ibn Isfandiyár's work are numerous, and constitute a well-defined division of Persian ad-Dubaythí. Literature. We have, for example, such local histories of Iṣfahán, Shíráz, Yazd, Qum, Herát, Sístán, Shushtar, &c., besides several others of Ṭabaristán. Of these last several were published by Dorn, but in general this class of works exists only in manuscript, though a few have been lithographed in the East. But there is another kind of local history which may more accurately be described as a local Dictionary of Biography, treating, generally in alphabetical order, of the eminent men produced by a particular town or province. Such a book was composed on the learned men of Baghdád by Ibnu'l-Khaṭíb (b. A.D. 1002, d. 1071) in Arabic in fourteen volumes, and at the period of which we are now speaking a Supplement to this, also in Arabic, was written by Abú 'Abdi'lláh Muḥammad ad-Dubaythí, who died in A.D. 1239. This book does not, so far as is known, exist in its entirety; there is a portion of it at Paris, and what I believe to be another portion in the Cambridge Library. This last is on the cover ascribed to Ibnu'l-Khaṭíb, but as he died, as stated above, in A.D. 1071, and as the volume contains matter referring to the year A.H. 615 (= A.D. 1218-19), it evidently cannot be his work, but rather the Supplement. As this volume, which is of considerable size, contains only a portion of one letter ('ayn) of the alphabet, the work must have been of a very extensive character.

We next come to books of Geography and Travel, of which I will here mention only three, all written in Arabic. The most Geographies and Travels. Yáqút. important of these, to which I have already referred in the last chapter, is the great Geographical Dictionary of Yáqút, entitled Mu'jamu'l-Buldán , published by Wüstenfeld in six volumes (1866-71). Yáqút b. 'Abdu'lláh, born in A.D. 1179 of Greek parents, and hence called “ar-Rúmí,” was enslaved in boyhood, and passed into the possession of a merchant of Ḥamát, whence he took the nisba of al-Ḥamawí. He received an excellent education and travelled widely, his journeys extending south-east as far as the Island of Kísh in the Persian Gulf, and north-east to Khurásán and Merv, where, as we have seen, he was busily at work in the splendid libraries which then graced that city when the terrible Mongol Invasion drove him in headlong flight to Mosul. There, in the spring of A.D. 1224, he completed his great work, the Mu'jamu'l-Buldán, a most precious book of reference for all that concerns the geography and much that touches the history of Western Asia, accessible, so far as the Persian part is concerned, to non-Orientalists in M. Barbier de Meynard's Dictionnaire Géographique, historique et littéraire de la Perse et des contrées adjacentes (Paris, 1871). He is also the author of two other geographical works, the Maráṣidu'l-Iṭṭilá' (edited by Juynboll at Leyden, 1850-64), and the Mushtarik, which treats of different places having the same name, edited by the indefatigable Wüstenfeld at Göttingen in 1846. Besides these he composed a Dictionary of Learned Men, entitled Mu'jamu'l-Udabá, of which a portion is to be edited by Professor D. S. Margoliouth in the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series; and a work on Genealogies. A good and sympathetic appreciation of Yáqút is given by Von Kremer in his charming Culturgeschichte des Orients, vol. ii, pp. 433-6.

Another geographer and cosmographer of a less scientific type is Zakariyyá b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmúd al-Qazwíní,

A few words should be said about the traveller Ibn Jubayr, whose travels were published by the late Professor W. Wright Ibn Jubayr. at Leyden in 1852. He was a native of Granada, and enjoyed a considerable reputation not only as a scientific writer, but as a poet. He made three journeys to the East, performing on each occasion the Pilgrimage to Mecca. He started on his first journey on February 4, 1183, and returned towards the end of April, 1185. His second journey, to which he was moved by the news of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin (Ṣaláḥu'd-Dín), began in April, 1189, and ended in the middle of September, 1190. His third journey was prompted by the death of his wife, to whom he was greatly attached, and led him first from Ceuta to Mecca, where he remained for some time, and thence to Jerusalem, Cairo, and Alexandria, at which last place he died on November 29, 1217. His first journey is that whereof he has left us a record.

Passing now to the Philosophers, the two chief ones of this period, of whom something has been already said in Philosophers. Fakhru'd-Dín Rází. the last chapter, are Fakhru'd-Dín Rází and Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí. The former was born on February 7, 1149, studied in his native town, Ray, and at Marágha, journeyed to Khwárazm and Transoxiana, and finally died at Herát in A.D. 1209. His literary activity was prodigious: he wrote on the Exegesis of the Qur'án, Dogma, Jurisprudence, Philosophy, Astrology, History, and Rhetoric, and to all this added an Encyclopædia of the Sciences. Brockelmann (Gesch. d. arab. Litt., vol. i, pp. 506-08) enumerates thirty-three of his works of which the whole or a portion still exists. One of his latest works is probably a treatise which he composed at Herát in A.D. 1207 in reprobation of the pleasures of this world. One of his works on Astrology, dedicated to 'Alá'u'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh, and hence entitled al-Ikhtiyárátu'l-'Alá'iyya, was originally composed in Persian, as was his Encyclopædia, composed for the same monarch in A.H. 574 (= A.D. 1178-79).

Of Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí also mention has been made in the preceding chapter. He was born, as his nisba implies, at Ṭús in A.D. 1200; ^484a was for some while, as we have seen, though much against his will, associated with the Assassins; and, on the surrender of Alamút and Maymún-Dizh, passed into Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí. the service of Hulágú the Mongol, by whom he was held in high honour. Accompanying the Mongol army which destroyed Baghdád, he profited by the plunder of many libraries to enrich his own, which finally came to comprise, according to Ibn Shákir (Fawátu'l-Wafayát, vol. ii, p. 149), more than 400,000 volumes. He enjoyed enormous influence with his savage master Hulágú, who, before undertaking any enterprise, used to consult him as to whether or no the stars were favourable. On one occasion he saved the life of 'Alá'u'd-Dín al-Juwayní, the Ṣáḥib-Díwán, and a number of other persons under sentence of death, by playing on Hulágú's superstitions. In the building of the celebrated observatory at Marágha, begun in A.D. 1259, he was assisted by a number of men of learning, whose names he enumerates in the Zíj-i-Ílkhání. He died at Baghdád in June, 1274. He was a most productive writer on religious, philosophical, mathematical, physical, and astronomical subjects, and no fewer than fifty-six of his works are enumerated by Brockelmann (vol. ii, pp. 508-512). Most of them are, of course, in Arabic, which was still in his time the Latin of the Muhammadan East, and the language of science, but he also wrote a number of books in Persian, and even, as Ibn Shákir twice remarks in his biography in the Fawátu'l-Wafayát (vol. ii, p. 151), composed a great deal of poetry in that language. His prose works in Persian include the celebrated treatise on Ethics (the Akhláq-i-Náṣirí); the Bíst Báb dar ma'rifat-i-Usturláb (“Twenty Chapters on the Science of the Astrolabe”); the Risála-i-Sí Faṣl (“Treatise in Thirty Chapters”) on Astronomy and the Calendar; the celebrated Zíj-i-Ílkhání, or almanac and astronomical tables composed for Hulágú Khán; a treatise on Mineralogy and precious stones, entitled Tansúq-náma-i-Ílkhání; and several other tracts on Philosophy, Astronomy, and Mathematics, besides a treatise on Ṣúfí ethics entitled Awṣáfu'l-Ashráf, and another on Geomancy. Of his Arabic works the Tajrídu'l-'Aqá'id (on scholastic or religious Philosophy) is probably the most celebrated. For a fuller account of his works, see Brockelmann, the Fawátu'l-Wafayát of Ibn Shákir, and the Majálisu'l-Mú'minín, &c. The last-mentioned work quotes from Shahrazúrí's History of the Philosophers a very severe criticism of him, which declares, amongst other damaging statements, that his scientific reputation was less due to his actual attainments than to his violent temper and impatience of contradiction, which, taken in conjunction with the high favour he enjoyed at the Court of Hulágú, made it imprudent to criticise or disparage him. Of his Persian poems little seems to have survived to our time, and Riḍá-qulí Khán in his immense Anthology, the Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá (vol. i, pp. 633-34), only cites of his verses six quatrains and a fragment of two couplets. It may be added that at p. 374 of the same volume he gives five quatrains of the earlier philosopher, Fakhru'd-Dín Rází, of whom we have already spoken. Another astronomer whose name should at least be mentioned is al-Jaghminí of Khwárazm, who is generally believed to have died in A.D. 1221, though considerable uncertainty exists as to the period at which he flourished, and only one of his works, the Mulakhkhaṣ, seems to be preserved.

Of a few other Arabic-writing authors of this period it is sufficient to mention the names. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides. and physician Maimonides (Abú 'Imrán Músá b. Maymún) of Cordova, who in later life was physician to Saladin (Ṣaláḥu'd-Dín), and who died in A.D. 1204, is too great a name to be omitted, though he Shaykh alBúní. has no connection with Persia. Also from the Maghrib, or Western lands of Islám, was the Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín al-Búní († A.D. 1225), one of the most celebrated and most prolific writers on the Occult Sciences. From the West also (Malaga)

We come now to a much more important group of writers, the great Ṣúfís and Mystics of this period, amongst whom are Ṣúfís and Mystics. included some of the most celebrated names in this branch of thought and literature, including two of Arabian race, whose singular eminence makes it very doubtful whether the once popular view, that Ṣúfíism is essentially an Aryan reaction against the cold formalism of a Semitic religion, can be regarded as tenable. These two are 'Umar ibnu'l-Fáriḍ, the Egyptian mystical poet, and Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí, the illustrious theosophist of Andalusia. Besides these we have to speak of the two Najmu'd-Díns, called respectively Kubrá and Dáya; Shaykh Rúzbihán; and Shaykh Shíhábu'd-Dín 'Umar Suhra-wardí. A few words may also be devoted to Ṣadru'd-Dín of Qonya (Iconium), the most notable of Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín's disciples, and perhaps one or two other contemporary Mystics, excluding the two great mystical poets, Shaykh Farídu'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár and Mawláná Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, who will be discussed at some length in the next chapter.

In point of time Shaykh Abú Muḥammad Rúzbihán b. Abí Naṣr al-Baqlí, nicknamed Shaṭṭáḥ-i-Fárs (“the Braggart of Rúzbihán. Fárs”), ^490a was the earliest of the Mystics above mentioned, for he died in Muḥarram, A.H. 606 (= July, A.D. 1209) at his native place, Shíráz. His tomb is mentioned in the Arabic work (British Museum MS. Or. 3,395, f. 110^b) correctly entitled Shaddu'l-Azár, but commonly known as the Hazár Mazár (“The Thousand Shrines”), which was composed about A.D. 1389 by Mu'ínu'd-Dín Abu'l-Qásim Junayd of Shíráz on the saints of his native town. It is there stated that Shaykh Rúzbihán in his youth travelled widely, after the customary fashion of these Ṣúfí dervishes, visiting 'Iráq, Kirmán, the Ḥijáz, and Syria; and that he composed a great number of works, of which some thirty, according to the Persian Shíráz-náma (composed in A.D. 1343 by a grandson of the eminent mystic, Shaykh Zarkúb), were celebrated, including a mystical commentary on the Qur'án, entitled Laṭá'ifu'l-Bayán, or “Subtleties of Enunciation”; the Mashrabu'l-Arwáḥ, or “Fount of Inspiration of Souls”; the Manṭiqu'l-Asrár, or “Language of Mysteries,” &c. He also wrote verses in Persian, of which the following are specimens:—

“That which the eyes of Time have never seen,
And which no tongue to earthly ears hath told,
Its tint hath now displayed in this our day:
Arise, and in our day this thing behold!”
* * * *
“From Farthest East to Threshold of the West
I in this age am guide to God's Straight Road.
How can the Gnostic pilgrims me behold?
Beyond the Far Beyond's my soul's abode!”

He preached regularly in the Jámií'i-'Atíq, or Old Mosque, for fifty years, and died at the age of eighty-four, so that his birth must be placed about A.D. 1128. The Atábek Abú Bakr b. Sa'd, the patron of the poet Sa'dí, was his friend and admirer, and he had studied with Shaykh Abu'n-Najíb Suhrawardí (died A.D. 1167-68) in Alexandria. A few further particulars, and several marvellous stories of the kind so common in hagiological works, may be gleaned from the notice of him which Jámí has inserted in his Nafaḥátu'l-Uns (ed. Nassau Lees, pp. 288-290).

Abu'l-Jannáb Aḥmad b. 'Umar al-Khíwaqí (of Khiva or Khwárazm), commonly known as Shaykh Najmu'd-Dín Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá. “Kubrá,” next demands notice. His title Kubrá (whereby he is distinguished from the other celebrated Najmu'd-Dín called Dáya), is, according to the most authoritative and plausible explanation, an abbreviation of the nickname aṭ-Ṭámmatu'l-Kubrá (“the Supreme Calamity”), given to him by his companions on account of his great vigour and skill in debate and discussion. He was also nicknamed Walí-tirásh (“the Saint-carver”), because it was supposed that any one on whom his glance fell in moments of divine ecstasy and exaltation attained to the degree of saintship; and Jámí (Nafaḥát, p. 481) has some wonderful anecdotes to show that this beneficent influence was not limited to human beings, but extended to dogs and sparrows. His title, Abu'l-Jannáb, is said to have been given to him by the Prophet in a dream, its interpretation being that he was sedulously to avoid the world.

That Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá was one of the many victims who perished in the sack of Khwárazm by the Mongols in A.H. 618 (= A.D. 1221) is certain, and it is a proof of the high esteem in which he was held that out of some 600,000 slain on that fatal day he alone is mentioned by name in the Jámi'u't-Ṭawáríkh . “Since Chingíz Khán,” says the author of that work (India Office MS. No. 3,524 = Ethé, 2,828, f. 499^b), “had heard of that Shaykh of Shaykhs and Pole-star of Saints Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá (on whom be God's mercy), and knew somewhat of his character, he sent him a message to say that he intended to sack Khwárazm and massacre its inhabitants, and that one who was the greatest man of his age should come out from it and join him, now that the moment had arrived for the incidence of the catastrophe. ‘That I should come forth from amongst them,’ replied the Shaykh, ‘would be an action remote from the way of virtue and magnanimity.’ And afterwards he was found amongst the slain.” Still further evidence is afforded by a poem on his death composed by al-Mu'ayyad b. Yúsuf aṣ-Ṣaláḥí, and quoted by al-Yáfi'í in his Mirátu'z-Zamán, or “Mirror of Time” (British Museum MS. Or. 1,511, f. 341), of which the two following verses:—

“Who hath seen an Ocean of Learning [drowned] in Oceans of Blood?”

and—

“O Day of Disaster of Khwárazm, which hath been described, Thou hast filled us with dread, and we have lost Faith and Renown!”

suffice to confirm the place, occasion, and manner of his death. On this historical foundation several less credible stories have been raised; these are given by Jámí (Nafaḥátu'l-Uns, pp. 486-7) in the following form:—

“When the Tartar heathen reached Khwárazm, the Shaykh [Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá] assembled his disciples, whose number exceeded sixty. Sulṭán Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh had fled, but the Tartar heathen supposed him to be still in Khwárazm, whither consequently they marched. The Shaykh summoned certain of his disciples, such as Shaykh Sa'du'd-Dín Ḥamawí, Raḍiyyu'd-Dín 'Alí Lálá and others, and said, 'Arise quickly and depart to your own countries, for a Fire is kindled from the East which consumes nearly to the West. This is a grievous mischief, the like of which hath never heretofore happened to this people’ (the Muslims). Some of his disciples said, ‘How would it be if your Holiness were to pray, that perhaps this [catastrophe] may be averted from the lands of Islám?’ ‘Nay,’ replied the Shaykh, ‘this is a thing irrevocably predetermined which prayer cannot avert.’ Then his disciples besought him, saying, ‘The beasts are ready prepared for the journey: if your Holiness also would join us and depart into Khu-rásán, it would not be amiss.’ ‘Nay,’ replied the Shaykh; ‘here shall I die a martyr, for it is not permitted to me to go forth.’ So his disciples departed into Khurásán.

“So when the heathen entered the city, the Shaykh called together such of his disciples as remained, and said, ‘Arise in God's Name, and let us fight in God's Cause.’ Then he entered his house, put on his Khirqa (dervish robe), girded up his loins, filled the upper part of his Khirqa, which was open in front, with stones on both sides, took a spear in his hand, and came forth. And when he came face to face with the heathen, he continued to cast stones at them till he had no stones left. The heathen fired volleys of arrows at him, and an arrow pierced his breast. He plucked it out and cast it away, and therewith passed away his spirit. They say that at the moment of his martyrdom he had grasped the pigtail of one of the heathen, which after his death could not be removed from his hand, until at last they were obliged to cut it off. Some say that our Master Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí refers to this story, and to his own connection with the Shaykh, in the following passage from his odes:—

‘Má az án muḥtashamán-ím ki sághar gírand;
Na az án muflisakán ki buz-i-lághar gírand!
Bi-yakí dast may-i-kháṣṣ-i-Ímán núshand:
Bi-yakí dast-i-digar parcham-i-káfar gírand!’

‘O we are of the noble band who grasp the Cup of Wine,
Not of the wretched beggar-crew who for lean kids do pine:
Who with one hand the Wine unmixed of fiery Faith do drain,
While in the other hand we grasp the heathen's locks amain!’

“His martyrdom (may God sanctify his spirit!) took place in the year A.H. 618 (= A.D. 1221). His disciples were many, but several of them were peerless in the world and the exemplars of their time. Such were Shaykh Majdu'd-Dín of Baghdád, Shaykh Sa'du'd-Dín of Ḥamát, Bábá Kamál of Jand, Shaykh Raḍiyyu'd-Dín 'Alí Lálá, Shaykh Sayfu'd-Dín Bákharzí, Shaykh Najmu'd-Dín of Ray, Shaykh Jamálu'd-Dín of Gílán, and, as some assert, our Master Bahá'u'd-Dín Walad, the father of our Master Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, was also of their number.”

Of Shaykh Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá's works two at least are preserved in the British Museum. One, a short tract in Arabic of two or three pages only, has as its text the well known aphorism of the Mystics, “The ways unto God are as the number of the breaths of His creatures”: the other, in Persian, is entitled Ṣifatu'l-Ádáb, and treats of the rules of conduct which should be observed by the Ṣúfí neophyte. The great Mystic poet, Farídu'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár, as pointed out by Mírzá Muḥammad in his Introduction to Mr. R. A. Nicholson's edition of the Tadhkiratu'l-Awliyá (vol. i, p. 17), alludes in terms of the greatest respect to Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá in his Madhharu'l-'Ajá'ib, or “Display of Marvels,” and was himself, according to Jámí's Nafaḥát (p. 697), a disciple of his disciple Majdu'd-Dín of Baghdád, of whom in this connection we may say a few words.

Shaykh Abú Sa'íd Majdu'd-Dín Sharaf b. al-Mu'ayyad b. Abi'l-Fatḥ al-Baghdádí is said by Jámí to have come to Majdu'd-Dín al-Baghdádí. Khwárazm originally as a physician to attend on Khwárazmsháh, though from references to other accounts this appears very doubtful. In any case he seems to have attached himself to Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá as one of his disciples, but gradually, as it would appear, he came to regard himself as greater than his master, until one day he observed, “We were a duck's egg on the sea-shore, and Shaykh Najmu'd-Dín a hen who cherished us under his protecting wing, until finally we were hatched, and, being ducklings, plunged into the sea, while the Shaykh remained on the shore.” Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá, hearing this, was greatly angered, and cursed Majdu'd-Dín, saying, “May he perish in the water!” This saying was reported to Majdu'd-Dín, who was greatly alarmed, and sought by the most humble apologies and acts of penance to induce his master to revoke the curse, but in vain; and shortly afterwards Khwárazmsháh, under the combined influence of jealousy and drink, caused him to be drowned in the river. Najmu'd-Dín (somewhat illogically, as we may venture to think), was greatly incensed at this act, which, according to the story, was but the fulfilment of his own prayer, and prayed God to take vengeance on the King, who, greatly perturbed, sought in vain to induce the Shaykh to withdraw his curse. “This is recorded in the Book,” was the Shaykh's answer: “his blood shall be atoned for by all thy kingdom: thou shalt lose thy life, along with very many others, including myself.” As to the date of Majdu'd-Dín's death there is some doubt, the alternative dates A.H. 606 and 616 (= A.D. 1209-10 or 1219-20) being given by Jámí.

Sa'du'd-Dín Ḥamawí was another of the disciples of Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá who attained some celebrity, and is said Sa'du'd-Dín Ḥamawí. by Jámí (Nafaḥát, p. 492) to have composed a number of works, of which only the Kitáb-i-Maḥbúb , or “Book of the Beloved,” and the Sajanjalu'l-Arwáḥ, or “Mirror of Spirits,” are mentioned by name. These books are described by Jámí as full of “enigmatical sayings, cyphers, figures, and circles, which the eye of understanding and thought is unable to discover or solve.” He seems to have been subject to prolonged trances or cataleptic seizures, one of which lasted thirteen days. Specimens of his verses, both Arabic and Persian, are given in the Nafaḥát, according to which his death took place about the end of A.H. 650 (= February, 1253), at the age of sixty-three. He was acquainted with Ṣadru'd-Dín al-Qúnyawí, of whom we shall speak further on in connection with Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí.

We now come to the other Najmu'd-Dín, known as “Dáya,” who was, according to Jámí, the disciple both of Najmu'd-Dín Dáya. Najmu'd-Dín Kubrá and of Majdu'd-Dín. In his most important work, the Mirṣádu'l-'Ibád, or “Watch-tower of [God's] Servants,” of which a fine old MS. (Or. 3,242) transcribed in A.H. 779 (= A.D. 1377-78) is preserved in the British Museum, he gives his full name (f. 130^a) as Abú Bakr 'Abdu'lláh b. Muḥammad Sháháwar, and explicitly speaks (f. 17^a) of Majdu'd-Dín Baghdádí—“the King of his time”—as his spiritual director. Of his other works, the Baḥru'l-Ḥaqá'iq, or “Ocean of Truths,” written at Sívás in Asia Minor, whither he had fled from the advancing Mongols, in A.H. 620 (= A.D. 1223), is the most celebrated. In Asia Minor he foregathered, according to Jámí, with Ṣadru'd-Dín of Qonya and the celebrated Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí. He died in A.H. 654 (= A.D. 1256).

Shaykh Shihábu'd-Dín Abú Ḥafṣ 'Umar b. Muḥammad al-Bakrí as-Suhrawardí was another eminent mystic of this Shihábu'd-Dín Suhrawardí. period, who was born in Rajab, A.H. 539 (=January, 1145), and died in A.H. 632 (= A.D. 1234-5). Of the older Shaykhs who guided his first footsteps in the mystic path were his paternal uncle, Abu'n-Najíb as-Suhrawardí, who died in A.H. 563 (= A.D. 1167-68), and the great Shaykh 'Abdu'l-Qádir of Gílán, who died about two years earlier. Of his works the most famous are the 'Awárifu'l-Ma'árif, or “Gifts of [Divine] Knowledge,” and Rashfu'n-Naṣá'iḥ, or “Draughts of Counsel.” The former is common enough in manuscript, and has been printed at least once (in A.H. 1306 = A.D. 1888-89) in the margins of an edition of al-Ghazálí's lḥyá'u'l-'Ulúm published at Cairo. Ibn Khallikán, in the article which he devotes to him (de Slane's translation, vol. ii, pp. 382-4), quotes some of his Arabic verses, and speaks of the “ecstasies” and “strange sensations” which his exhortations evoked in his hearers. “I had not the advantage of seeing him,” says this writer, “as I was then too young.” Sa'dí of Shíráz, who was one of his disciples, has a short anecdote about him in the Bústán (ed. Graf, p. 150), in which he is represented as praying that “Hell might be filled with him if perchance others might thereby obtain salvation.” He was for some time the chief Shaykh of the Ṣúfís at Baghdád, and seems to have been a man of sound sense; for when a certain Ṣúfí wrote to him: “My lord, if I cease to work I shall remain in idleness, while if I work I am filled with self-satisfaction: which is best?” he replied, “Work, and ask Almighty God to pardon thy self-satisfaction.” He must not be confused with the earlier Shaykh Shihábu'd-Dín “al-Maqtúl.” Shihábu'd-Dín Yaḥyá b. Ḥabsh as-Suhrawardí, author of the Ḥikmatu'l-Ishráq, or “Philosophy of Illumination,” a celebrated theosophist and thaumaturgist, who was put to death at Aleppo for alleged heretical tendencies by Saladin's son, al-Maliku'dh-Dháhir, in the year A.H. 587 or 588 (= A.D. 1191 or 1192) at the early age of thirty-six or thirty-eight, and who is, in consequence, generally distinguished by the title of al-Maqtúl, “the slain.” This latter seems to have been a much more original and abler, if not better, man, and his “Philosophy of Illumination,” still unpublished, impressed me on a cursory examination as a remarkable work deserving careful study.

We now come to one who is universally admitted to have been amongst the greatest, if not the greatest, of the many Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l'Arabí. mystics produced in Muslim lands—to wit, Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí, who was born at Murcia, in Spain, on July 28, A.D. 1165, began his theological studies at Seville in A.D. 1172, and in A.D. 1201 went to the East, living in turn in Egypt, the Ḥijáz, Baghdád, Mosul, and Asia Minor, and finally died at Damascus on November 16, A.D. 1240. As a writer he is correctly described by Brockelmann (vol. i, pp. 441 et seqq.) as of “colossal fecundity,” 150 of his extant works being enumerated. ^497a Of these the most celebrated are the Fuṣúṣu'l-Ḥikam (“Bezels of Wisdom”) and the Futúḥátu'l-Makkiyya (“Meccan Victories” or “Disclosures”), of which the first, written at Damascus in A.D. 1230, has been repeatedly lithographed, printed, translated, and annotated in the various lands of Islám, while the second, a work or enormous extent, has also been printed in Egypt. The fullest account of his life with which I am acquainted occurs in al-Maqqarí's Nafḥu'ṭ-Ṭíb min Ghuṣni'l-Andalusi'r-Raṭíb (“the Breath of Fragrance from the fresh branch of Andalusia,” Cairo ed. of A.H. 1302 = A.D. 1884-85, vol. i, pp. 397-409), and a very full biography is also given by Jámí in the Nafaḥátu'l-Uns (ed. Nassau Lees, pp. 633-45). He was, like most of the mystics, a poet; many of his verses are quoted in the Naf'u'ṭ-Ṭíb, and his Díwán has been lithographed by Mírzá Muḥammad Shírází, of Bombay, in a volume of 244 pages. His poems are described by Jámí as “strange and precious.” By many doctors of theology he was looked at askance as a heretic, and in Egypt several attempts were made to kill him, but his admirers were both numerous and enthusiastic, and at the present day, even in Shí'ite Persia, he still exercises a great influence, greater, perhaps, than any other mystagogue. He claimed to hold converse with the Prophet in dreams; to have received his khirqa, or dervish-cloak, from Khiḍr; and to know the science of alchemy and the “Most Great Name” of God. He was acquainted with the mystical poet, 'Umar ibnu'l-Fáriḍ, and asked his permission to write a commentary on his Tá'iyya, or T-qaṣída, to which request the other replied, “Your book entitled al-Futúḥátu'l-Makkiyya is a commentary on it.” He believed in the value of dreams, and in man's power to render them by his will veridical: “It behoves God's servant,” he said, “to employ his will to produce concentration in his dreams, so that he may obtain control over his imagination, and direct it intelligently in sleep as he would control it when awake. And when this concentration has accrued to a man and become natural to him, he discovers the fruit thereof in the Intermediate World (al-Barzakh), and profits greatly thereby; wherefore let man exert himself to acquire this state, for, by God's permission, it profiteth greatly.” His style is obscure, probably of set purpose, after the fashion of the Muslim Theosophists and mystics, whose unorthodox ideas must always be clad in words which are susceptible of a more or less orthodox interpretation, if they would not share the fate of Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr al-Ḥalláj or Shaykh Shihábu'd-Dín “al-Maqtúl.” Thus on one occasion Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín was taken to task for the following verse which he had composed:—

“O thou who seest me, while I see not Thee,
How oft I see Him, while He sees not me!”

He at once repeated it again with the following additions, which rendered it perfectly unexceptionable:—

“O Thou who seest me ever prone to sin,
While Thee I see not willing to upbraid:
How oft I see Him grant His grace's aid
While me He sees not seeking grace to win.”

In this connection I cannot do better than quote what Gobineau, ^499a with his usual insight into the mind of the East, says of a much later philosopher, Mullá Sadrá, for his words are equally true of Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín and his congeners. “Le soin qu'il prenait de déguiser ses discours, il était nécessaire qu'il le prit surtout de déguiser ses livres; c'est ce qu'il a fait, et á les lire on se ferait l'idée la plus imparfaite de son enseignement. Je dis á les lire sans un maître qui posséde la tradition. Autrement on y pénétre sans peine. De génération en génération, ses éléves ont hérité sa pensée véritable, et ils ont la clef des expressions dont il se sert pour ne pas exprimer mais pour leur indiquer á eux sa pensée. C'est avec ce correctif oral que les nombreux traités du maître sont aujourd'hui tenus en si grande considération, et que, de son temps, ils ont fait les délices d'une société ivre de dialectique, âpre á l'opposition religieuse, amoureuses de hardiesses secrétes, enthousiaste de tromperies habiles.” The Fuṣúṣu'l-Ḥikam is seldom met with unaccompanied by a commentary, and it is doubtful if even with such commentary its ideas can be fully apprehended without assistance from those who move in those realms of speculation in which their author lived and from which he drew his intellectual energy. No mystic of Islám, perhaps, with the possible exception of Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, has surpassed Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín in influence, fecundity, or abstruseness, yet, so far as I am aware, no adequate study of his works and doctrines has yet been made in Europe, though few fields of greater promise offer themselves to the aspiring Arabist who is interested in this characteristic aspect of Eastern thought.

In a book dealing primarily with Persian literature it would, perhaps, be out of place to speak at much greater length of a writer whose only connection with Persia was the influence exerted by him, even to the present day, through his writings. One of the Persian mystic poets and writers of note who came most directly under his influence was Fakhru'd-Dín 'Iráqí, who attended Ṣadru'd-Dín Qúnyawí's lectures on the Fuṣuṣu'l-Ḥikam, his master's magnum opus, and was thereby inspired to write his remarkable Lama'át, which long afterwards (in the latter part of the fifteenth century of our era) formed the text of an excellent and elaborate commentary by Mullá Núru'd-Dín 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán Jámí, entitled Ashi'atu'l-Lama'át. Awḥadu'd-Dín of Kirmán, another eminent mystic poet of Persia, actually met and associated with Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí, and was doubtless influenced by him; and I am inclined to think that a careful study of the antecedents and ideas of the generation of Persian mystics whom we shall have to consider early in the next volume will show that no single individual (except, perhaps, Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí) produced a greater effect on the thought of his successors than the Shaykh-i-Akbar (“Most Great Shaykh”) of Andalusia.

The following is a specimen of his verse, of which the Arabic original will be found in al-Maqqarí's Nafḥu't-Ṭíb (ed. Cairo, A.H. 1302), vol. i, p. 400.

“My Soul is much concerned with Her,
Although Her Face I cannot see:
Could I behold Her Face, indeed,
Slain by Her blackened Brows I'd be.
And when my sight upon Her fell,
I fell a captive to my sight,
And passed the night bewitched by Her,
And still did rave when Dawn grew bright.
Alas for my resolve so high!
Did high resolve avail, I say,
The Beauty of that Charmer shy
Would not have made me thus to stray.
In Beauty as a tender Fawn,
Whose pastures the Wild Asses ken;
Whose coy regard and half-turned head
Make captives of the Souls of Men!
Her breath so sweet, as it would seem,
As fragrant Musk doth yield delight:
She's radiant as the mid-day Sun:
She's as the Moon's Effulgence bright.
If She appear, Her doth reveal
The Splendour of the Morning fair;
If She Her tresses loose, the Moon
Is hidden by Her night-black Hair.
Take thou my Heart, but leave, I pray,
O Moon athwart the darkest Night,
Mine Eyes, that I may gaze on Thee,
For all my Joy is in my sight!”

Ibnu'l-Fáriḍ whose full name was Sharafu'd-Dín Abú Ḥafṣ 'Umar, must next be noticed, for though, like Ibnu'l-'Arabí,

Unlike Ibnu'l-'Arabí, he was by no means a voluminous writer, for his literary work (at any rate so far as it is preserved) is all verse, “of which the collection,” as Ibn Khallikán says (vol. ii, p. 388, of de Slane's translation), “forms a thin volume.” His verses are further described by this writer (loc. cit.) as displaying “a cast of style and thought which charms the reader by its grace and beauty, whilst their whole tenour is in accordance with the mystic ideas of the Ṣúfís.” Besides his strictly classical verses, he wrote some more popular poetry of the kind entitled Mawáliyát. Of these Ibn Khallikán gives some specimens, one of which, on a young butcher, is remarkable not only for its bizarre character, but as being almost identical in sense with a quatrain ascribed in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída to the Persian poetess Mahsatí (or Mahastí, or Mihastí).^503a

Like Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín, Ibnu'l-Fáriḍ saw the Prophet in dreams, and received instructions from him as to his literary work. ^503b He never, it is said, wrote without inspiration; sometimes, as Jámí relates, ^503c he would remain for a week or ten days in a kind of trance or ecstasy, insensible to external objects, and would then come to himself and dictate thirty, forty, or fifty couplets—“whatever God had disclosed to him in that trance.” The longest and most celebrated of his poems is the Tá'iyya, or T-qaṣída, which comprises seven hundred and fifty couplets. “He excels,” says al-Yáfi'í, “in his description of the Wine of Love, in his Díwán, which comprises the subtleties of gnosticism, the Path, Love, Yearning, Union, and other technical terms and real sciences recognised in the books of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs.” ^503d In personal appearance he was, according to his son Shavkh Kamálu'd-Dín Muḥammad, “of well-proportioned frame, of comely, pleasing, and somewhat ruddy countenance; and when moved to ecstasy by listening [to devotional recitations and chants] his face would increase in beauty and radiance, while the perspiration dripped from all his body until it ran under his feet into the ground.” “Never,” adds Kamálu'd-Dín, “have I seen one like unto him in beauty of form either amongst the Arabs or the Persians, and I of all men most closely resemble him in appearance.”

The best edition of Ibnu'l-Fáriḍ's Díwán with which I am acquainted is that published by the Shaykh Rushayd b. Shálib ad-Daḥdáḥ al-Lubnání at Paris in 1855, with a French preface by the Abbé Bargès, Professor of Hebrew at the Sorbonne. Besides the text of the poems, it contains two commentaries, one by Shaykh Ḥasan al-Búríní, purely philological, the other, by Shaykh 'Abdu'l-Ghaní an-Nábalúsí, explaining the esoteric meaning.

The following is a rather free translation of a poem in the Díwán of Ibnu'l-Fáriḍ (edition of ad-Daḥdáḥ, pp. 263-268) which has always seemed to me both typical and beautiful:—

“Where the Lote-tree at the bending of the glade
Casts its shade,
There the Lover, led by passion, went astray,
And even in the straying found his way.

In that southerly ravine his heart is stirred
By a hope in its fulfilment long deferred:
'Tis the Valley of 'Aqíq; ^504a O comrade, halt!
Feign amazement, if amazement makes default!
Look for me, for blinding tears mine eyes do fill,
And the power to see it lags behind the will.
Ask, I pray, the Fawn who haunts it if he knows
Of my heart, and how it loves him, and its woes.
Nay, my passionate abasement can he know
While the glory of his beauty fills him so?
May my heart, my wasted heart, his ransom be!
His own to yield no merit is in me!
What think'st thou? Doth he deem me then content,
While I crave for him, with this my banishment?
In sleepless nights his form I vainly try
To paint upon the canvas of the eye.
If I lend an ear to what my mentors say
May I ne'er escape their torments for a day!
By the sweetness of my friend and his desire,
Though he tire of me, my heart shall never tire!
O would that from al-'Udhayb's limpid pool
With a draught I might my burning vitals cool!
Nay, far beyond my craving is that stream:
Alas, my thirst and that mirage's gleam!”

Since in this book Arabic literature necessarily occupies a secondary place, it is impossible to discuss more fully the work of this remarkable poet, who, while strongly recalling in many passages the ideas and imagery of the Persian mystical poets, excels the majority of them in boldness, variety, and wealth of expression. Too many of those who have written on Ṣúfíism have treated it as an essentially Aryan movement, and for this reason it is particularly necessary to emphasise the fact that two of the greatest mystics of Islám (and perhaps a third, namely Dhu'n-Nún of Egypt, who, in the opinion of my friend Mr. R. A. Nicholson, first gave to the earlier asceticism the definitely pantheistic bent and quasi-erotic expression which we recognise as the chief characteristics of Ṣúfíism) were of non-Aryan origin.