A literary history of Persia - The Literary History of Persia, Volume 3

		PAGE
PREFACE		vii
BOOK I
THE MONGOL IL-KHÁNS OF PERSIA, FROM THE DEATH OF HÚLÁGÚ TO THE EXTINCTION OF THE DYNASTY (A.H. 663-737 = A.D. 1265-1337)
CHAPTER
I.	THE MONGOL IL-KHÁNS OF PERSIA (A.D. 1265-1337)	3
II.	THE HISTORIANS OF THE ÍL-KHÁNÍ PERIOD	62
III.	THE POETS AND MYSTICS OF THE ÍL-KHÁNÍ PERIOD	105
BOOK II
FROM THE BIRTH TO THE DEATH OF TÍMÚR-I-LANG, COMMONLY CALLED TAMERLANE (A.H. 736-807 = A.D. 1335-1405)
IV.	THE PERIOD OF TÍMÚR	159
V.	THE POETS AND WRITERS OF THE TIME OF TÍMÚR	207
BOOK III
FROM THE DEATH OF TÍMÚR TO THE RISE OF THE ṢAFAWÍ DYNASTY (A.H. 807-907 = A.D. 1405-1502)
VI.	HISTORY OF THE LATER TÍMÚRID PERIOD	379
VII.	PROSE WRITERS OF THE LATER TÍMÚRID PERIOD	421
VIII.	POETS OF THE LATER TÍMÚRID PERIOD	461
INDEX		549

div align="center">

FOURTEEN years have elapsed since the second volume of my Literary History of Persia, ^viia of which the present work is in fact, if not in name and form, a continuation, was published. That the appearance of this continuation, which comprises the period between Sa'dí and Jámí, and extends from the death of Húlágú the Mongol to the rise of the Ṣafawí dynasty (A.D. 1265-1502), has been so long delayed is due to a variety of causes, at one of which, operative for five or six years (A.D. 1907-12), I have hinted in the Preface (p. xx) to my Persian Revolution of 1905-9. While Persia was going through what repeatedly appeared to be her death-agony, it was difficult for anyone who loved her to turn his eyes for long from her present sufferings to her past glories. Often, indeed, I almost abandoned all hope of continuing this work, and that I did at last take up, revise and complete what I had already begun to write was due above all else to the urgency and encouragement of my wife, and of one or two of my old friends and colleagues, amongst whom I would especially mention Dr T. W. Arnold and Mr Guy le Strange.

The delay in the production of this volume has not, however, been altogether a matter for regret, since it has enabled me to make use of materials, both printed and manuscript, which would not have been available at an earlier date. In particular it has been my good fortune to acquire two very fine collections of Persian and Arabic manuscripts which have yielded me much valuable material, namely, at the beginning of 1917, ^viiia some sixty manuscripts (besides lithographed and printed books published in Persia) from the Library of the late Sir Albert Houtum-Schindler, and at the beginning of 1920 another forty or fifty manuscripts of exceptional rarity and antiquity collected in Persia and Mesopotamia by Ḥájji 'Abdu'l-Majíd Belshah. So many Persian works of first-class importance still remain unpublished and generally inaccessible save in a few of the great public libraries of Europe that the possession of a good private library is essential to the student of Persian literature who wishes to extend his researches into its less familiar by-paths.

I regret in some ways that I have had to produce this volume independently of its two predecessors, and not in the same series. Several considerations, however, induced me to adopt this course. Of these the principal ones were that I desired to retain full rights as to granting permission for it to be quoted or translated, should such permission be sought; and that I wished to be able to reproduce the original Persian texts on which my translations were based, in the numerous cases where these were not accessible in printed or lithographed editions, in the proper character. For this reason it was necessary to entrust the printing of the book to a press provided with suitable Oriental types, and no author whose work has been produced by the Cambridge University Press will fail to recognize how much he owes to the skill, care, taste and unfailing courtesy of all responsible for its management.

I hope that none of my Persian friends will take exception to the title which I have given to this volume, “A History of Persian Literature under Tartar ^ixa Dominion.” I have known Persians whose patriotism has so far outrun their historical judgment as to seek to claim as compatriots not only Tímúr but even Chingíz and Húlágú, those scourges of mankind, of whom the two last mentioned in particular did more to compass the ruin of Islamic civilization, especially in Persia, than any other human beings. When we read of the shocking devastation wrought by the Mongols through the length and breadth of Central and Western Asia, we are amazed not so much at what perished at their hands as at what survived their depredations, and it says much for the tenacity of the Persian character that it should have been so much less affected by these barbarians than most other peoples with whom they came in contact. The period covered by this volume begins with the high tide of Mongol ascendancy, and ends with the ebb of the succeeding tide of Túránian invasion inaugurated by Tímúr. Politically, during its whole duration, Túrán, represented by Tartars, Turks and Turkmáns, lorded it over Írán, which, nevertheless, continued to live its own intellectual, literary and artistic life, and even to some extent to civilize its invaders. It is my hope and purpose, should circumstances be favourable, to conclude my survey of this spiritual and intellectual life of Persia in one other volume, to be entitled “A History of Persian Literature in Modern Times,” covering the last four hundred years, from the rise of the great Ṣafawí dynasty, which restored the ancient boundaries and revived the national spirit of Persia, to the present day.

There remains the pleasant duty of expressing my thanks to those of my friends and fellow-students who have most materially helped me in the preparation of this work. Nearly all the proofs were carefully read by two Government of India Research Students of exceptional learning, ability and industry, Muḥammad Shafí', a member of my own College and now Professor of Arabic in the Panjáb University, and, on his departure, by Muḥammad Iqbál, a young scholar of great promise. To both of these I owe many valuable emendations, corrections and suggestions.

Of the twelve illustrations to this volume four (those facing pp. 8, 66, 74 and 96) have already appeared in the edition of the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá published in 1912 by the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Trust” (vol. xvi, 1, pp. lxxxvii, 147, 154 and 222), and are reproduced here by the kind permission of my fellow trustees. To my old friend Professor A. V. Williams Jackson, of Columbia University, and to Messrs Macmillan, his publishers, I am indebted for permission to reproduce the photograph of the Tomb of Ḥáfiẓ at Shíráz which originally appeared in his Persia, Past and Present (p. 332), and here appears facing p. 310. The facsimile of Jámí's autograph facing p. 508 of this volume is reproduced from vol. iii (1886) of the Collections Scientifiques de l'Institut des Langues Orientales du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères à St Pétersbourg: Manu-scrits Persans, compiled with so much judgment by the late Baron Victor Rosen, to whose help and encouragement in the early days of my career I am deeply indebted. The six remaining illustrations, which are new, and, as I think will be generally admitted, of exceptional beauty and interest, were selected for me from manuscripts in the British Museum by my friends Mr A. G. Ellis and Mr Edward Edwards, to whose unfailing erudition and kindness I owe more than I can say. Three of them, the portraits of Sa'dí, Ḥáfiẓ and Sháh-rukh, are from Add. 7468 (ff. 19, 34 and 44 respectively), while the portraits of Húlágú and Tímúr are from Add. 18,803, f. 19, and Add. 18,801, f. 23. The colophon of the beautifully written Qur'án transcribed at Mawṣil in A.H. 710 (A.D. 1310-11) for Úljáytú (Khudá-banda) and his two ministers Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh and Sa'du'd-Dín is from the recently acquired Or. 4945. ^xia All these have been reproduced by Mr R. B. Fleming with his usual taste and skill.

Lastly I am indebted to Miss Gertrude Lowthian Bell, whose later devotion to Arabic has caused her services to Persian letters to be unduly forgotten, for permission to reprint in this volume some of her beautiful translations of the odes of Ḥáfiẓ, together with her fine appreciation of his position as one of the great poets not only of his own age and country but of the world and of all time.

EDWARD G. BROWNE.

April 5, 1920.

I.	Húlágú. (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	Frontispiece
II.	Bátú's court on the Volga	To face page	8
III.	Colophon of oldest MS. of the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá	To face page	66
IV.	Enthronement of Ogotáy	To face page	74
V.	Colophon of Qur'án transcribed for Úljáytú, Rashídu'd-Dín and Sa'du'd-Dín. (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	To face page	78
VI.	Mongol siege of a Chinese town	To face page	96
VII.	Tímúr-i-Lang (Tamerlane). (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	To face page	180
VIII.	Ḥáfiẓ and Abú Isḥáq. (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	To face page	274
IX.	The Ḥáfiziyya or Tomb of Ḥáfiẓ	To face page	310
X.	Sháh-rukh. (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	To face page	382
XI.	Sa'dí. (Phot. by Mr R. B. Fleming)	To face page	484
XII.	Jámí's autograph	To face page	508

p. 311, l. 11. The date given is evidently wrong, for Karím Khán reigned from A.H. 1163-1193 (A.D. 1750-1779).

pp. 411, l. 16, and 412, l. 26. One of the two dates (A.D. 1472 and 1474) here given is wrong, but I do not know which.

Although to the student every period in the history of every nation is more or less interesting, or could be made Great epochs in Persian history, and their connection with World-history so with sufficient knowledge, sympathy and imagination, there are in the history of most peoples certain momentous epochs of upheaval and reconstruction about which it behoves every educated person to know something. Of such epochs Persia, for geographical and ethnological reasons, has had her full share. A glance at the map will suffice to remind the reader that this ancient, civilized and homogeneous land, occupying the whole space between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, forms, as it were, a bridge between Europe and Asia Minor on the one hand and Central and Eastern Asia on the other, across which bridge from the earliest times have passed the invading hosts of the West or the East on their respective paths of conquest. The chief moments at which Persian history thus merges in World-history are as follows:

(1) The Persian invasion of Greece by the Achaemenian kings in the fifth century before Christ.

Enumeration of seven of these epochs

(2) Alexander's invasion of Persia on his way to India in the fourth century before Christ, resulting in the overthrow of the Achaemenian dynasty and the extinction of Persia as a Great Power for five centuries and a half.

(3) The restoration of the Persian Empire by the House of Sásán in the third, and their often successful wars with the Romans in the fourth and following centuries after Christ.

(4) The Arab invasion of the seventh century after Christ, which formed part of that extraordinary religious revival of a people hitherto accounted as naught, which in the course of a few years carried the standards of Islám from the heart of desert Arabia to Spain in the West and the Oxus and Indus in the East.

(5) The Mongol or Tartar invasion of the thirteenth century, which profoundly affected the greater part of Asia and South-eastern Europe, and which may be truly described as one of the most dreadful calamities which ever befel the human race.

(6) The second Tartar invasion of Tamerlane (Tímúr-i-Lang or “Limping Tímúr”) in the latter part of the fourteenth century.

(7) The Turco-Persian Wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which gave Persia at that time so great an importance in the eyes of Europe as a potential check on Turkish ambitions, and caused her friendship to be so eagerly sought after by the chief Western nations.

Of these seven great epochs in Persian history the fourth and fifth are the most important and have had the greatest The Arab and Mongol invasions of Persia compared and contrasted and most profound influence. In all points save one, however, the Arab and Mongol invasions were utterly dissimilar. The Arabs came from the South-west, the Tartars from the Northeast; the Arabs were inspired by a fiery religious enthusiasm, the Tartars by mere brutish lust of conquest, bloodshed and rapine; the Arabs brought a new civilization and order to replace those which they had destroyed, the Tartars brought mere terror and devastation. In a word, the Tartars were cunning, ruthless and bloodthirsty marauders, while the Arabs were, as even their Spanish foes were fain to admit, “Knights…and gentlemen, albeit Moors.”

The one point of resemblance between the two was the scorn which their scanty equipment and insignificant appearance aroused in their well-armed and richly-equipped antagonists before they had tasted of their quality. This point is well brought out in that charming Arabic history the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí, whose author wrote about A.D. 1300, some fifty years after the Tartars had sacked Baghdád and destroyed the Caliphate. After describing the Arab invasion of Persia and the merriment of the Persian satraps and officers at the tattered scabbards, slender lances and small horses of the Arabs, he relates, à propos of this, the account ^5a given to him by one of those who “marched out to meet the Tartars on the Western side of Baghdád on the occasion of its supreme catastrophe in the year 656/1258,” and tells how to meet one of their splendidly appointed champions in single combat there rode forth from the Mongol ranks “a man mounted on a horse resembling a donkey, having in his hand a spear like a spindle, and wearing neither uniform nor armour, so that all who saw him were moved to laughter.” “Yet ere the day was done,” he concludes, “theirs was the victory, and they inflicted on us a great defeat, which was the Key of Evil, and after which there befell us what befell us.”

It is almost impossible to exaggerate either the historical importance or the horror of this great irruption of barbarians Terrible character and lasting effects of the Mongol invasion out of Mongolia, Turkistán and Transoxiana in the first half of the thirteenth century. Amongst its results were the destruction of the Arabian Caliphate and disruption of the Muhammadan Empire, the creation of the modern political divisions of Western Asia, the driving into Asia Minor and subsequently into Europe of the Ottoman Turks, the stunting and barbarizing of Russia, and indirectly the Renaissance. As regards the terror universally inspired by the atrocious deeds of the Tartars, d'Ohsson in his admirable Histoire des Mongols observes ^5b that we should be tempted to charge the Oriental historians with exaggeration, were it not that their statements are entirely confirmed by the independent testimony of Western historians as to the precisely similar proceedings of the Tartars in South-eastern Europe, where they ravaged not only Russia, Poland and Hungary, but penetrated to Silesia, Moravia and Dalmatia, and at the fatal battle of Liegnitz (April 9, 1241) defeated an army of 30,000 Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Poles commanded by Henry the Pious, Duke of Silesia. Already two years before this date the terror which they inspired even in Western Europe was so great that the contemporary chronicler Matthew Paris, writing at St Albans, records under the year A.D. 1238 that for fear of the Mongols the fishermen of Gothland and Friesland dared not cross the North Sea to take part in the herring-fishing at Yarmouth, and that consequently herrings were so cheap and abundant in England that year that forty or fifty were sold for a piece of silver, even at places far from the coast. In the same year an envoy from the Isma'ílís or Assassins of Alamút by the Caspian Sea came to France and England to crave help against those terrible foes by whom they were annihilated twenty years later. he met with little encouragement, however, for the Bishop of Winchester, having heard his appeal, replied: “Let these dogs devour each other and be utterly wiped out, and then we shall see, founded on their ruins, the Universal Catholic Church, and then shall truly be one shepherd and one flock!”

The accounts given by Ibnu'l-Athír, Yáqút and other contemporary Muhammadan historians of the Mongol in- Matthew Paris cited vasion have been cited in part in a previous volume ^6a and need not be repeated here, but it is instructive to compare them with what Matthew Paris says about those terrible Tatars, who, for reasons which he indicates, through a popular etymology connecting them with the infernal regions, became known in Europe as “Tartars.” Under the year A.D. 1240 he writes of them as follows:^6b

“That the joys of mortal man be not enduring, nor worldly happiness long lasting without lamentations, in this same year a detestable nation of Satan, to wit the countless army of Tartars, broke loose from its mountain-environed home, and, piercing the solid rocks (of the Caucasus) poured forth like devils from the Tartarus, so that they are rightly called ‘Tartars’ or ‘Tartarians.’ Swarming like locusts over the face of the earth, they have brought terrible devastation to the eastern parts (of Europe), laying them waste with fire and carnage. After having passed through the land of the Saracens, they have razed cities, cut down forests, overthrown fortresses, pulled up vines, destroyed gardens, killed townspeople and peasants. If perchance they have spared any suppliants, they have forced them, reduced to the lowest condition of slavery, to fight in the foremost ranks against their own neighbours. Those who have feigned to fight, or have hidden in the hope of escaping, have been followed up by the Tartars and butchered. If any have fought bravely for them and conquered, they have got no thanks for reward; and so they have misused their captives as they have their mares. For they are inhuman and beastly, rather monsters than men, thirsting for and drinking blood, tearing and devouring the flesh of dogs and men, dressed in ox-hides, armed with plates of iron, short and stout, thickset, strong, invincible, indefatigable, their backs unprotected, their breasts covered with armour; drinking with delight the pure blood of their flocks, with big, strong horses, which eat branches and even trees, and which they have to mount by the help of three steps on account of the shortness of their thighs. They are without human laws, know no comforts, are more ferocious than lions or bears, have boats made of ox-hides which ten or twelve of them own in common; they are able to swim or manage a boat, so that they can cross the largest and swiftest rivers without let or hindrance, drinking turbid and muddy water when blood fails them (as a beverage). They have one-edged swords and daggers, are wonderful archers, spare neither age, nor sex, nor condition. They know no other language but their own, which no one else knows; for until now there has been no access to them, nor did they go forth (from their own country); so that there could be no knowledge of their customs or persons through the common intercourse of men. They wander about with their flocks and their wives, who are taught to fight like men. And so they come with the swiftness of lightning to the confines of Christendom, ravaging and slaughtering, striking everyone with terror and incomparable horror. It was for this that the Saracens sought to ally themselves with the Christians, hoping to be able to resist these monsters with their combined forces.”

So far from such alliance taking place, however, it was not long before the ecclesiastical and temporal rulers of Early European envoys to the Mongol capital Christendom conceived the idea of making use of the Tartars to crush Islám, and so end in their favour once and for all the secular struggle of which the Crusades were the chief manifestation. Communications were opened up between Western Europe and the remote and inhospitable Tartar capital of Qaraqorum; letters and envoys began to pass to and fro; and devoted friars like John of Pian de Carpine and William of Rubruck did not shrink from braving the dangers and hardships of that long and dreary road, or the arrogance and exactions of the Mongols, in the discharge of the missions confided to them. The former, bearing a letter from the Pope dated March 9, 1245, returned to Lyons in the autumn of 1247 after an absence of two years and a half, and delivered to the Pope the written answer of the Mongol Emperor Kuyúk Khán. The latter accomplished his journey in the years 1253-5 and spent about eight months (January— August, 1254) at the camp and capital of Mangú Khán, by whom he was several times received in audience. Both have left narratives of their adventurous and arduous journeys which the Hakluyt Society has rendered easily accessible to English readers, ^8a and of which that of Friar

Bátú, the grandson of Chingíz, holds his Court on the Volga
From an old MS. of the
Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh in the
Bibliothèque Nationale
To face p. 8

William of Rubruck especially is of engrossing interest and great value. These give us a very vivid picture of the Tartar Court and its ceremonies, the splendour of the presents offered to the Emperor by the numerous envoys of foreign nations and subject peoples, the gluttonous eating and drinking which prevailed (and which, as we shall see, also characterized the Court of Tímúr 150 years later), and the extraordinary afflux of foreigners, amongst whom were included, besides almost every Asiatic nation, Russians, Georgians, Hungarians, Ruthenians and even Frenchmen. Some of these had spent ten, twenty, or even thirty years amongst the Mongols, were conversant with their language, and were able and willing to inform the missionaries “most fully of all things” without much questioning, and to act as interpreters. ^9a The language question, as affecting the answer to the Pope's letter, presented, however, some difficulties. The Mongols enquired “whether there were any persons with the Lord Pope who understood the written languages of the Ruthenians, or Saracens, or Tartars,” but Friar John advised that the letter should be written in Tartar and carefully translated and explained to them, so that they might make a Latin translation to take back with the original. The Mongol Emperor wished to send envoys of his own to Europe in the company of Friar John, who, however, discountenanced this plan for five reasons, of which the first three were: (1) that he feared lest, seeing the wars and dissensions of the Christians, the Tartars might be further encouraged to attack them; (2) that they might act as spies; (3) that some harm might befall them in Europe “as our people are for the most part arrogant and hasty,” and “it is the custom of the Tartars never to make peace with those who have killed their envoys till they have wreaked vengeance upon them.” So Friar John and his companions came at last to Kieff on their homeward journey, and were there “congratulated as though they had risen from the dead, and so also throughout Russia, Poland and Bohemia.”

The history of the diplomatic missions ^10a which passed between Europe and Tartary in the thirteenth and four- Diplomatic relations of the Mongols with Europe teenth centuries has been admirably illustrated by Abel-Rémusat in his two classical Mémoires sur les Rélations politiques des Princes Chrétiens, et particulièrement les Rois de France, avec les Empereurs Mongols. Fac-similes are here given, with printed texts and in some cases Latin or French translations, of nine Mongol letters conveyed by different envoys at different periods to the French Court. The originals of these, measuring in some cases more than six feet in length, may still be seen in the Archives in Paris. The arrogance of their tone is very noticeable; still more so the occurrence in the Latin version of a letter to the Pope from Bachú Núyán of a very ominous and characteristic phrase which is also noticed by the contemporary Persian historian Juwayní. “Si vultis super terram vestram, aquam et patrimonium sedere,” runs the letter, “oportet ut, tu Papa, in propriâ personâ ad nos venias, et ad eum qui faciem totius terrae continet accedas. Et si tu præceptum Dei stabile et illius qui faciem totius terrae continet non audieris, illud nos nescimus Deus scit.” ^10b So Juwayní says ^10c that, unlike other great rulers and conquerors, they never indulged in violent and wordy threats when demanding submission or surrender, but “as their utmost warning used to write but this much: ‘If they do not submit and obey, what do we know [what may happen]? the Eternal God knows’!” As to what would inevitably happen if the Tartars were resisted (and often even if they were not resisted) men were not long left in doubt. “Wherever there was a king, or local ruler, or city warden who ventured to oppose, him they annihilated, together with his family and his clan, kinsmen and strangers alike, to such a degree that, without exaggeration, not a hundred persons were left where there had been a hundred thousand. The proof of this assertion is the account of the happenings in the various towns, each of which has been duly recorded in its proper time and place.”^11a

Whether any such letters exist in the records of this country I do not know, but in 1307, shortly after the death of Edward I (to whom they had been accredited), two Mongol ambassadors, whose names are given as Mongol envoys visit Edward II at Northampton in 1307 Mamlakh and Túmán, ^11b came to Northampton and carried back with them an answer from Edward II written in Latin and dated October 16, 1307. The principal object of this and previous missions was to effect an alliance between the Mongols and the European nations against the Mu-hammadans, especially the Egyptians. To attain this end the wily Mongols constantly represented themselves as disposed to embrace the Christian religion, a deceitful pretence which the more readily succeeded because of the belief prevalent in Europe that there existed somewhere in Central or “Prester John” Eastern Asia a great Christian emperor called “Prester John,” generally identified with Úng Khán the ruler of the Karíts (or Kerá'its), a people akin to the Mongols, with whom at the beginning of his career Chingíz Khán stood in close relations, and who had been converted to Christianity by Nestorian missionaries. ^11c But as a matter of fact Islám had been the official religion of the Mongol rulers of Persia for at least ten years before the above-mentioned ambassadors obtained audience of Edward II.

The contemporary Oriental histories of the Mongols are singularly full and good, ^12a and include in Arabic Ibnu Excellence and abundance of materials for Mongol history 'l-Athír's great chronicle, which comes down to the year 628/1231; Shihábu'd-Dín Nasá'í's very full biography of his master Jalálu'd-Dín Mankobirní, the gallant Prince of Khwárazm who maintained so heroic and protracted a struggle against the destroyers of his house and his empire; the Christian Abu'l-Faraj Bar-Hebraeus, whose Arabic history (for he wrote a fuller chronicle in Syriac) comes down to 683/1284, two years before his death; and Yáqút the geographer, most of which have been discussed and quoted in a previous volume. Of the three chief Persian sources, the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá of Juwayní, the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf, and the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh, a good deal will be said in the next chapter, but one may be permitted to express regret that the last-mentioned history, one of the most original, extensive and valuable existing in the Persian language, still remains for the most part unpublished and almost inaccessible .^12b

Of the three best-known European histories of the Mongols, and of the point of view represented by each,

European histories of the Mongols (1) d'Ohsson something must needs be said here. First there is Baron d'Ohsson's admirable Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz Khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan, ^12c a monument of clear exposition based on profound research. While recognizing, as every student of the subject must recognize, the immense importance and far-reaching effects of the Mongol conquests, he finds this people utterly detestable: “their government,” he says, “was the triumph of depravity: all that was noble and honourable was abased; while the most corrupt persons, taking service under these ferocious masters, obtained, as the price of their vile devotion, wealth, honours, and the power to oppress their countrymen. The history of the Mongols, stamped by their savagery, presents therefore only hideous pictures; but, closely connected as it is to that of several empires, it is necessary for the proper understanding of the great events of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.”^13a

Next in point of time is Sir Henry Howorth's great History of the Mongols in four large volumes. ^13b His (2) Sir Henry Howorth view of the Tartars differs somewhat from d'Ohsson's, for he sees in them “one of those hardy, brawny races, cradled amidst want and hard circumstances, in whose blood there is a good mixture of iron, which are sent periodically to destroy the luxurious and the wealthy, to lay in ashes the arts and culture which only grow under the shelter of wealth and easy circumstances, and to convert into a desert the paradise which man has painfully cultivated. Like the pestilence and the famine the Mongols were essentially an engine of destruction; and if it be a painful, harassing story to read, it is nevertheless a necessary one if we are to understand the great course of human progress.” ^13c After enumerating other luxurious and civilized peoples who have been similarly renovated by the like drastic methods, he asserts that this “was so to a large extent, with the victims of the Mongol arms; their prosperity was hollow and pretentious, their grandeur very largely but outward glitter, and the diseased body needed a sharp remedy; the apoplexy that was impending could probably only be staved off by much blood-letting, the demoralized cities must be sown with salt and their inhabitants inoculated with fresh streams of vigorous blood from the uncontaminated desert.” ^14a With more justice he insists on the wonderful bringing together of the most remote peoples of the East and West which was the most important constructive effect of the Mongol conquest, and concludes: “I have no doubt myself…that the art of printing, the mariner's compass, firearms, and a great many details of social life, were not discovered in Europe, but imported by means of Mongol influence from the furthest East.”

The third book which demands notice, chiefly on account of its influence in Turkey in generating the Yeñi Túrán,

(3) Léon Cahun or Pan-Turanian movement, of which it is not yet possible exactly to appraise the political importance, is M. Léon Cahun's Introduction à l'Histoire de l'Asie: Turcs et Mongols, des Origines à 1405. ^14b This writer goes very much further than Howorth in his admiration of the Mongols and the various kindred Turkish peoples who formed the bulk of their following. A note of admiration characterizes his description of their military virtues, ^14c their “culte du drapeau, la glorification du nom turc, puis mongol, le chauvinisme”; ^14d their political combinations against the Sásánian Persians, ^14e and later against the Islamic influences of which Persia was the centre; their courage, hardihood, discipline, hospitality, lack of religious fanaticism, and firm administration. This book, though diffuse, is suggestive, and is in any case worth reading because of its influence on certain chauvinistic circles in Turkey, as is a historical romance about the Mongols by the same author, translated into English under the title of The Yeñi Túrán, or “New Turanian” Movement The Blue Banner. Of the Yeñi Túrán movement I have spoken briefly elsewhere, ^15a and this is hardly the place to discuss it more fully, though it has perhaps a greater significance than I was at that time disposed to think. On the literary side it aims at preferring Turkish to Arabic and Persian words, idioms and vehicles of expression, and at combating Arabic and Persian influences and traditions; while on the political side it dreams of amalgamating in one State all the Turkish and kindred peoples west and east of the Caspian Sea (including the Mongols on the one hand and the Bulgarians on the other), and of creating a great Turkish or Turanian Empire more or less coextensive with that of Chingíz Khán. The ideas of this school were chiefly embodied in a fortnightly publication entitled Turk Yurdu (the “Turkish Hearth”) inaugurated in December, 1911.

It is not, however, with the Mongol Empire as a whole, but with Persia under Mongol dominion that we are here State of Persia under the Mongols chiefly concerned, nor is it necessary to record in detail the history of the Mongol Íl-kháns who succeeded Húlágú, which can be read in full in the pages of d'Ohsson and Howorth. Considering what Persia suffered at the hands of the Tartars, it is wonderful how much good literature was produced during this period.

Relative immunity of South Persia Generally speaking the South of Persia, lying apart from the main track of conquest to the West, suffered much less than the North, West and Centre. Iṣfahán suffered a massacre in which one famous poet at least perished, ^15b but Shíráz, owing to the timely and prudent submission of its ruler, escaped almost scatheless, a fact to which Sa'dí ingeniously alludes in the panegyric on his patron prefixed to the Bústán, where he says:^16a

“Alexander, by means of a Wall of brass and stone, narrowed the
road of Gog from the world:
Thy barrier to the Gog of Paganism is of gold, not of brass like
the Wall of Alexander.”

“By the ‘Gog of Paganism,’” says the commentator, “Chingíz Khán is meant. The King-Atábek made peace with him by money, so that the Musulmáns of Shíráz were saved from the hands of his tyranny. The author ascribes pre-eminence to his patron because, says he, ‘Alexander barred Gog's advance with a brazen barrier, but thou didst check the advance of the Gog of Paganism with gold.’”

Twenty-five years before Sa'dí wrote this, Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad ibn Qays of Ray, flying before the first fury of the Tartar irruption, had found at Shíráz a haven of refuge wherein to complete his interrupted work on the Ars Poetica and prosody of Persia; ^16b and the life of Shíráz seems to have gone on fairly tranquilly and suffered relatively little disturbance during those stormy days.

Another point to be noted is that, while all learning suffered from the wholesale massacres of scholars and des- Why certain branches of learning suffered less than others struction of mosques, libraries, and other pious foundations, some branches of learning suffered much less than others. For theology and philosophy, for example, the pagan Mongols naturally cared little; but they attached considerable importance to medicine, botany, astronomy and other natural sciences, were especially desirous that their achievements should be fully and accurately recorded by competent historians, and were not altogether indifferent to the praises of poets. At no other period, as will be pointed out more fully in the next chapter, were so many first-rate histories written in Persian; but it must be remembered that the writers were, as a rule, men whose education reposed on the more scholarly tradition of pre-Mongol days, and that such historical works as the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá of Juwayní and the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh of Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh were isolated phenomena, hardly approached in excellence in later days. The Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída is as inferior to the latter as it is superior to the over-estimated histories of Mírkhwánd and Khwándamír which will be discussed in the concluding chapter of this volume. On the whole, then, it may be safely said that, allowing for the terrible crisis through which Persia was passing, when heathen rulers dominated the land, and Christians and Jews lorded it over Muslims, the period of Mongol ascendancy, from the death of Húlágú Khán on February 8, 1265, until the death of the last Mongol Íl-khán, Músá, in 1337, was wonderfully rich in literary achievements.

Before passing to the detailed consideration of these achievements, a brief sketch must be given of the external history of this period, which is divided into two nearly equal halves by the reign of Gházán, who, though not the first Mongol Íl-khán to embrace the religion of Islám, was the first to restore it to its position of supremacy and to purge the land of Mongol heathenism.

The first successor of Húlágú was his son Abáqá (or Abaqá), who was crowned on June 19, 1265, a date chosen as Abáqá, A.D. 1265-1282 auspicious by the famous astronomer and philosopher Naṣíru'd-Dín of Ṭús, whose brilliant scientific and dubious political achievements have been discussed in a previous volume. ^17a His life was now drawing towards its close, but we hear of him once again five Last days and death of Naṣíru d-Dín of Ṭús years later, in 669/1270-1, when he was called in to treat Abáqá, who had been gored by a wild cow on one of his hunting expeditions. The wound suppurated and an abscess formed which none of the Íl-khán's other medical advisers dared to open. Naṣíru'd-Dín successfully performed the operation. He died in the following year at the age of seventy-five. Bar-Hebraeus gives him a brief but laudatory notice in his Mukhtaṣaru'd-Duwal, ^18a describing him as “the Keeper of the Observatory at Marágha and a man of vast learning in all branches of philosophy.” “Under his control,” he continues, “were all the religious endowments in all the lands under Mongol rule. He composed many works on logic, the natural sciences and metaphysics, and on Euclid and the Almagest. He also wrote a Persian work on Ethics ^18b of the utmost possible merit wherein he collected all the dicta of Plato and Aristotle on practical Philosophy, confirming the opinions of the ancients and solving the doubts of the moderns and the criticisms advanced by them in their writings.”

Abáqá was thirty-one years of age when he became ruler of Persia, and whether or no there was any truth in the rumour Abáqá favours the Christians that he was actually baptised into the Christian Church at the desire of his bride Despina, the natural daughter of Michael Palaeologus, ^18c he consistently favoured the Christians, and, indeed, appears to have owed his elevation to the throne to their influence, exercised through Doquz Khátún, the widow of his father and predecessor Húlágú, who survived her husband about a year, and who never failed to befriend her co-religionists in every possible way. ^18d Abáqá's diplomatic relations with the Popes and Christian kings of Europe are, however, in all probability to be ascribed rather to political than religious motives. He was in correspondence with Clement IV, who wrote him a letter from Viterbo in 1267; Gregory X in 1274; and Nicolas III, who in 1278 sent to him and to his overlord the great Qúbiláy (“Kubla”) Khán an embassy of five Franciscan monks. One of his embassies even penetrated as far as England and was apparently received by Edward I, but the records of it seem to be scanty or non-existent. ^19a The political object of these negotiations was to arrange for a combined attack on the still unsubdued Muslims of Egypt and Syria, the natural and deadly foes of the Mongols; and the inducement held out to the Christians was the possession of the Holy Land for which they had so long striven. Fortunately for the Muhammadans, Islám possessed in the Mamlúk Sulṭán Baybars, called al-Malik aẓ-Ẓáhir, a doughty champion well qualified to meet the double peril which menaced his faith and his country. Already in 1260, before he was elected king, he had driven Húlágú's Mongols out of Ghaza and routed them at 'Ayn Jálút, driven back the Crusaders in Syria, and broken the power of the Syrian branch of the Assassins; and in April, 1277, he inflicted on the Mongols another great defeat at Abulustayn, leaving nearly 7000 of them dead on the field of battle. ^19b When Abáqá subsequently visited the battle-field, he was deeply moved, even to tears, by the numbers of the Mongol slain. Bitter hatred subsisted during all this period between the Mongol Íl-kháns and the Egyptian Mamlúks, and no more dangerous or damaging charge could be preferred against a subject of the former than an accusation of being in communication with the latter. Every Muslim subject of the Mongols must needs walk very warily if he would avoid such deadly suspicion, and, as we shall see hereafter, the favourite method of ruining a hated rival was to denounce him to the Mongol government as having relations with Egypt.

From our present point of view we are less concerned with the Mongol rulers and generals than with the Persian The Juwayní family functionaries whom they found indispensable in the civil service (like the Arabs in earlier times), and amongst whom were included men of remarkable talents. Conspicuous amongst these was the Juwayní family, notably Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad the Ṣáḥib-Díwán , his brother 'Alá'u'd-Dín 'Aṭá Malik, and his son Bahá'u'd-Dín. The Ṣáḥib-Díwán's grandfather, also entitled Shamsu'd-Dín, but distinguished by the epithets Buzurg (“the Great”) and Múy-diráz (“the long-haired”), had been Prime Minister to Quṭbu'd-Dín Khwárazmsháh, while his father, Bahá'u'd-Dín, had held the office of Mustawfi'l-Mamálik (approximately equivalent to Chancellor of the Exchequer). He himself had held the office of Prime Minister for ten years under Húlágú Khán, and was continued in this position by Abáqá. His brother, 'Alá'u'd-Dín is chiefly interesting to us as one of the finest historians whom Persia ever produced, and in this capacity he will be considered in the next chapter; but he was also a great administrator, and was for twenty-four years governor of Baghdád. ^20a His son Bahá'u'd-Dín was governor of Persian 'Iráq and Fárs, while another son Sharafu'd-Dín Hárún was a poet and a patron of poets. ^21a A full and critical account of this talented family, based on researches equally extensive and minute, is given by Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín, one of the finest and most critical Persian scholars whom I ever met, in his Introduction to the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá (vol. i, pp. xix-xcii), to which the reader may refer for much detailed information which considerations of space render it impossible to reproduce here. The Juwayní family, alike in their love of literature and learning, their princely generosity, their administrative capacity, and their tragic fate, irresistibly recall to one's mind another great Persian family of statesmen, the celebrated House of Barmak or Barmecides of “the Golden Prime of good Haroun Alraschid.” ^21b Their influence was great and widespread; their connection with literature, both as writers and as patrons of poets and men of learning, extensive; and the jealousy of less fortunate rivals which embittered their lives and finally brought about their destruction commensurate with the power and high positions which they so long enjoyed. The first to die of those mentioned above, and one of the few who was fortunate enough to die a Death and character of Bahá'u 'd-Dín Juwayní natural death, was Bahá'u'd-Dín, son of the Ṣáḥib-Díwán and governor of Persian 'Iráq. His death took place in 678/1279 at the early age of thirty. He was a terribly stern governor, who inspired the utmost terror in the hearts of his subjects, and whose ferocity went so far that he caused his little son, and he a favourite child, to be put to death by his executioner because in play he had caught hold of his beard. The historian Waṣṣáf gives many other instances of his implacable sternness, of which a selection will be found in Howorth's History of the Mongols; ^21c but it is fair to add that under his stern administration the utmost security prevailed in the provinces which he administered, while he eagerly cultivated the society of poets, scholars and artists. His father the Ṣáḥib-Díwán mourned his death in the following verse:

“Muḥammad's son! Thy slave is Heaven high;
One hair of thee the Age's Mart might buy;
Thy Sire's support wert thou: bereft of thee
His back is bent as brow o'er beauty's eye.”

The following verse was composed by Hindúsháh to commemorate the date of his death:

“On the eve of Saturday the seventeenth of Sha'bán's month
In the year three score and eighteen and six hundred from the Flight ^22a
From the world Bahá'u'd-Dín, that great wazír, in Iṣfahán
Fled. Ah, when on such another ruler shall Time's eyes alight?”

This was the first of the misfortunes which befel the Juwayní family, and which were largely due to their un- Misfortunes of Juwayní family grateful protégé Majdu'l-Mulk of Yazd, whose ambition led him to calumniate both the Ṣáḥib-Díwán and his brother 'Alá'u'l-Mulk 'Aṭá Malik. While still subordinate to the Ṣáḥib-Díwán, Majdu 'l-Mulk addressed to him the following quatrain:

“I said, ‘I'll ever in thy service be,

Intrigues of Majdu'l-Mulk Not come like larch and go like willow tree’: ^23a
He who despairs is bold and sharp of tongue;
Cause me not, Friend, thus desperate to be!”

By traducing the Ṣáḥib-Díwán to Abáqá, he finally induced that monarch to associate him in the government with his rival, and this dual control gave rise to endless friction and recriminations. On one occasion he sent another quatrain to the Ṣáḥib-Díwán as follows:

“Into the Ocean of thy grief I'll dive,
And either drown, or pearls to gather strive;
'Tis hard to fight with thee, yet fight I will,
And die red-throated, or red-cheeked survive.”^23b

To this the Ṣáḥib-Díwán sent the following answer:

“Since to the King complaints thou canst not bear
Much anguish to consume shall be thy share.
Through this design on which thou hast embarked
Thy face and neck alike shall crimson wear.”

Ultimately Majdu'l-Mulk succeeded in arousing Abáqá's suspicions against the Ṣáḥib-Díwán's brother, 'Alá'u'l-Mulk Disgrace and punishment of 'Aṭá Malik-iJuwayní 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní, who was arrested, paraded through the streets of Baghdád, tortured, and forced to pay large sums of money which he was alleged to have misappropriated. Matters might have gone yet worse with him had not Abáqá's sudden death on April 1, 1282, put an end to his persecution and Release of 'Aṭá Malik and death of Majdu'l-Mulk brought about his release from prison, while soon afterwards his enemy Majdu'l-Mulk fell a victim to the popular fury, and was torn in pieces by the mob, his dismembered limbs being publicly exhibited in the chief cities of Persia. On this well-merited punishment of the old and inveterate foe of his family 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní composed the following quatrain:

“For some brief days thy guile did mischief wreak;
Position, wealth and increase thou didst seek:
Now every limb of thine a land hath ta'en:
Thou'st over-run the kingdom in a week!”

'Aṭá Malik, however, did not long survive his foe, for he too Death of 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní in A.D. 1283 died in the spring of 1283.

In one curious particular connected with Abáqá's death all the historians agree. He had, in the usual Mongol fashion, been drinking deeply with his favourites and boon-companions. Feeling uneasy, he had Death of Abáqá withdrawn from them for a moment into the palace garden when he suddenly cried out that a large black bird was threatening him, and ordered some of his servants to shoot it with arrows. The servants hastened to him in answer to his call, but no bird was to be seen, and while they were still searching for it, Abáqá fell down in a swoon from which he never awoke.^25a

A few other events of Abáqá's reign merit a brief mention. The Assassins, in spite of all they had suffered at Renewed activity of Assassins the hands of the Mongols, so far recovered themselves as to attempt the life of 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní in 670/1271-2, while four years later, in 674/1275-6, they actually succeeded, under the leadership of the son of their last Grand Master Ruknu'd-Dín Khursháh, in regaining possession of Alamút, though they Internecine wars of Mongol princes were shortly afterwards subdued and destroyed by Abáqá. Internecine wars between various Mongol princes began to be prevalent in Abáqá's reign, as, for instance, that between Yúshmút and Nogáy at Aq-sú in 663/1264-5, the year of Abáqá's accession, and that between Abáqá and Nikúdar the son of Chaghatáy in 667/1268-9. Further turmoil was caused by the repeated raids of the Nikúdarís, and by the revolt of Revolt of Buráq Buráq in Khurásán. The defeat of the latter by Abáqá's troops was due almost entirely to the valour of Subutáy, in allusion to which a contemporary poet says:

“'Gainst the army of thy love not one could stand save only I,
As against Buráq of all Abáqá's captains Subutáy.”

^25b

On the death of Abáqá two rival candidates appeared on the scene, his brother Takúdar ^25c (who, on his conversion to Islám took the additional name of Aḥmad) and his Aḥmad Takúdar A.H. 681-683 (A.D. 1282-1284) son Arghún. A majority of the Mongol nobles preferred the former, and he was accordingly proclaimed on May 6, 1282, under the title of Sulṭán Aḥmad Takúdar. One of his earliest public acts was to show his devotion to the religion which he had adopted by letters addressed to the doctors of Baghdád ^26a and to Qalá'ún, Sultan of Egypt, ^26b in which he expressed his desire to protect and foster the religion of Islám and to live on terms of peace and amity with all Muslims. His letter to Qalá'ún, dated Jumáda I, A.H. 681 (August, 1282), was entrusted to two special envoys, Quṭbu'd-Dín-i-Shírází and the Atábek Pahlawán, and Qalá'ún's answer was dated the beginning of Ramaḍán of the same year (December 3, 1282).

However gratified the Muslims may have been at the conversion of Aḥmad Takúdar and the evidences of sin- Aḥmad Takúdar defeated, captured and slain by Arghún cerity afforded by his conduct, the Mongols were far from sharing this satisfaction, and in the following year (682/1283-4), a formidable conspiracy of Mongol nobles to depose Aḥmad Takúdar and place his nephew Arghún on the throne came to light. Qunqurátáy, one of the chief conspirators, with a number of his accomplices, was put to death on January 18, 1284, but Arghún successfully revolted against his uncle, whom he ultimately captured and put to death on August 10 of the same year, and was proclaimed King on the following day.

One of Arghún's first acts was to make his son Gházán governor of Khurásán, Mázandarán, Ray and Qúmis. His Reign of Arghún A.H. 683-690 (A.D. 1284-1291) formal recognition as Íl-khán of Persia by his over-lord Qúbiláy Khán (“Kubla Khán”) was brought from China in the following year by Urdugaya.

During the reign of Aḥmad Takúdar the fortunes of the Ṣáḥib-Díwán and his family, threatened for a while The ṢáḥibDíwán put to death by the intrigues of Majdu'l-Mulk, revived once more, but they were finally eclipsed by the accession of Arghún. On the death of his master, Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad the Ṣáḥib-Díwán, fearing Arghún's anger, fled to Qum, where he was overtaken by Arghún's messengers, brought back, and finally put to death at a place called Mú'ína near Ahar on Sha'bán 4 or 5, 683 (October 16 or 17, 1284). ^27a Before submitting himself to the headsman's hands he craved a brief respite, which was granted him. After performing the ablution, he took an augury from a Qur'án which belonged to him, and then wrote the following letter to the 'ulamá of Tabríz:

“When I sought an augury from the Qur'án, these were the words which came: ^27b ‘Verily those who said “God is our

The Ṣáḥib-Díwán's letter to the 'ulamá of Tabríz Lord,” and then were steadfast, unto them do the angels descend [saying]: “Fear not, neither be afraid. Receive good tidings of the Paradise which ye were promised!”’ Since the Creator, exalted is He, hath well maintained his servant in this perishable world, and hath not withheld from him any wish, it hath pleased Him even in this world to give him glad tidings of the World Eternal. Therefore he hath deemed it incumbent on himself to convey these glad tidings to Mawláná Muḥiyyu'd-Dín, Mawláná Afḍalu'd-Dín, Mawláná Shamsu'd-Dín, Mawláná Humámu'd-Dín and those other great divines whom time and the circumstances do not permit me to mention by name, that they may know that we have severed all ties and so departed. Let them assist me with their prayers!”^28a

He also addressed the following farewell letter and testament to his sons:^28b

“Salvation and greeting to my sons and dear ones, may God Almighty preserve them! Let them know that I en- His letter to his sons trust them to God, Mighty and Glorious is He: verily God doth not suffer that which is entrusted to Him to sustain loss. It was in my mind that perhaps a meeting might be possible, whereat my last wishes might be communicated orally, but my days are ended, and my business is now with the world to come. Do not fall short in the care of my children; incite them to study, and on no account suffer them to have aught to do with the service of the State; let them rather be content with that which God Most High hath assigned to them. If my son Atábek and his mother wish to return home, they have my permission so to do. Let Nawrúz, Mas'úd and their mother remain with Bulqán Khátún, and should she grant them estates, let them accept them and be content therewith. Whither can my chief wife go from Tabríz? Let her then remain there near the grave of me and my brothers. If they can, let them make their dwelling in the monastery of Shaykh Fakhru'd-Dín and repair thither. Múmina hath received little satisfaction from us: if she wishes to marry again, let her do so. Let Farrukh and his mother remain with Atábek. Let them leave Zakariyyá with the crown lands and other estates which I have given over to Amír Búqá. Let them petition [on his behalf]: if some land should be granted to him, well and good: if not, let him rest content. May the Almighty Creator have mercy upon us, and bless all of them. At this hour my mind is fixed on the Divine Presence, and I can write no more than this. Deal kindly with all, bond and free, and forget us not on the nights when you remember the absent.”

The Ṣáḥib-Díwán did not perish alone. Four of his sons, Yaḥyá, Faraju'lláh, Mas'úd and Atábek, were put to death soon after him, and a little later another son, Hárún. “Two brothers and seven sons,” according to the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf, ^29a constituted the sacrifice demanded by Mongol ferocity, ever ready to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, and little disposed to leave alive potential avengers. Added to these losses were the deaths in the years immediately preceding of 'Alá'u'l-Mulk 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní and Bahá'u'd-Dín, already mentioned, so that in the course of five or six years this great family of statesmen was practically effaced from the page of history.

Faṣíḥí, in his Mujmal (f. 469), quotes the two following quatrains composed by the Ṣáḥib-Díwán in his last moments:

“O Hand of Fate, which doth my heart's steps stay,
My heart submits to thy desire to slay:
With all my heart I offer thee my life;
For this throughout my life my heart did pray.”

“Look, thou who caused'st life's bright lamp to die,
Two hundred worlds thou seest extinguished lie,
Yet do the slain eternal life attain,
And those in chief who are by heathens slain.”

His death was universally lamented, even in towns like Shíráz where he was known only by his charities and good works, and which he had never visited. Amongst the verses composed on his death are the following:

“The Night in grief hath dyed her cloak, and Morn,
Heaving cold sighs, appears with collar torn:
The Sun's ^30a departure stains the sky with gore:
The Moon is veiled, the locks of Venus shorn.”

“That minister whose head o'ertopped the skies
Hath earned, in truth, of martyrdom the prize;
The Ṣáḥib-Díwán, who for thirty years
Hath kept the world secure from hurts and fears.
O cruel heavens such a life to ban!
O cruel earth, to slay so great a man!”

There were, however, others who regarded the Ṣáḥib-Díwán's fate as well deserved, on account of the part he had played in respect to his unlucky predecessor Majdu'l-Mulk. This point of view is represented in the following verses, cited in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída:

“Since Majdu'l-Mulk, by God-sent destiny,
A martyr in Naw Shahr's plain did die,
By the Ṣáḥib-Díwán Muḥammad's spite,
Who ruled the land with unrestricted might,
Two years, two months, two weeks went by, and lo,
Fate bade him drain in turn the cup of woe.
Beware how in this world thou workest harm;
Fate's scales hold equal weight of bane and balm!”

A violent death was, however, the common end of those who were rash enough to act as ministers to Mongol sovereigns. Thus Jalálu'd-Dín Simnání, who succeeded the Ṣáḥib-Díwán, was executed in August, 1289; Sa'du'd-Dawla, who succeeded him, was put to death at the end of February, 1291; Ṣadru'd-Dín Khálidí, who acted as minister to Gay-khátú, suffered the same fate in May, 1298; and Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, the most accomplished of all, was executed in July, 1318.

Arghún reigned over Persia for nearly seven years (August, 1284-May, 1291). The embassies which he sent to Sa'du'd-Dawla, the Jewish wazír Europe, and especially that of 1287-1288, of which one of the envoys, Rabban Ṣawmá, has left us an account in Syriac, ^31a mark a revival of Abáqá's policy, which had been reversed by Aḥmad Takúdar. During the latter part of Arghún's reign Sa'du'd-Dawla the Jew was his all-powerful minister. This man, originally a physician, was detested by the Muslims, who ascribed to him the most sinister designs against Islám. He was originally a native of Abhar, and afterwards practised medicine at Baghdád. He was recommended to Arghún by some of his co-religionists, and, according to the Ta'-ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf , ^31b gained the esteem and confidence of that prince not only by his knowledge of the Mongol and Turkish languages, but also by the skilful manner in which he played on Arghún's avarice by the schemes for replenishing the treasury which he unfolded. In the realization of these schemes in Baghdád he showed such ability that he was entrusted by Arghún with the financial control of the whole kingdom. His co-religionists, hitherto despised and repressed, began to benefit by his ever-increasing power, and to fill many offices of state; so much so that a contemporary poet of Baghdád wrote as follows:^32a

“The Jews of this our time a rank attain
To which the heavens might aspire in vain.
Theirs is dominion, wealth to them doth cling,
To them belong both councillor and king.
O people, hear my words of counsel true:
Turn Jews, for heaven itself hath turned a Jew!
Yet wait, and ye shall hear their torment's cry,
And see them fall and perish presently.”

Sa'du'd-Dawla's boldness and open hostility to Islám increased with his power, until he not only induced Arghún to exclude the Muslims from all high civil and military posts, ^32b but endeavoured to compass the destruction of their religion. To this end he sought to persuade Arghún that the prophetic function had passed from the Arabs to the Mongols, who were divinely commissioned to chastise the disobedient and degenerate followers of Muḥammad, and proposed to turn the Ka'ba into an idol-temple. He began to prepare a fleet at Baghdád to attack Mecca, and sent his co-religionist Khwája Najíbu'd-Dín Kaḥḥál into Khurásán with a black list of some two hundred notable and influential Muslims whose death he desired to compass. A similar but shorter list, containing the names of seventeen notable divines and theologians of Shíráz, was also prepared for him. “It is related,” says the author of the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf, “that when Arghún Khán first ascended the royal throne he greatly disliked bloodshed, so that one day, during the progress of a banquet, he looked at the number of sheep slain, and, moved by excessive compassion, said, ‘Hardness of heart and a cruel disposition alone can prompt man to sacrifice so many innocent beasts for the pleasures of the table.’ Yet this minister (Sa'du'd-Dawla) so constantly applauded evil and represented wrong as right, urging that to clear the garden of empire from the thorns of disaffection, and to purify the wells of endeavour from the impurity of suspects was required alike by prudence and discretion…, that finally, through his evil promptings and misleading counsels, the Íl-khán's heart became as eager to kill the innocent as are the infidel glances of the fair ones of Khutan, so that on the least suspicion or the slightest fault he would destroy a hundred souls. Such is the effect produced by intercourse with an evil companion and the society of wicked persons.”^33a

But just when Sa'du'd-Dawla's influence was at its highest and his schemes were approaching maturity, Arghún Arghún's last illness fell grievously sick at Tabríz. The minister, realizing that he would certainly not long survive his master, became a prey to the most acute and overpowering distress: he was unremitting in his attendance, and also, with the view of propitiating Heaven, gave away vast sums of money in charity, thirty thousand dínárs being distributed in Baghdád and ten thousand amongst the poor of Shíráz. He also liberated many captives and renewed or extended many benefactions. Some of the Mongol priests declared that the execution of Qaránqay, Húlájú, Júshkab and other Mongol princes had brought this sickness on Arghún; others that he had been bewitched by one of his wives. Sulṭán Ídájí, who was alleged to have instigated the former deed, was sacrificed in expiation, and also Júsh-kab's niece Túqjáq, who was suspected of the ensorcelment of the king; but naught availed to stay the progress of his malady, and towards the end of February, 1291, his condition was so critical that none were allowed to approach him save Júshí and Sa'du'd-Dawla. The latter secretly sent messengers to Gházán, bidding him be ready to claim the throne so soon as Arghún should have breathed his last, but nothing could now avail to save him from his foes, and he was put to death a few days before his master expired, on March 9, 1291.^34a

The death of Sa'du'd-Dawla was the signal for a general persecution of the Jews, who were plundered and in many Persecution of the Jews cases slain. In Baghdád alone more than a hundred of their chief men were killed. The collapse of the Jewish ascendancy was celebrated by Zaynu'd-Dín 'Alí b. Ṣá'id the preacher in the following Arabic qaṣída, ^34b composed in the same metre and rhyme as that quoted on p. 32 supra:

¹ “His Name we praise who rules the firmament!
These apish Jews are done away and shent.

Ill luck hath whelmed the Fortune of their State¹; ^35a
Throughout the lands they're shamed and desolate.

³ God hath dispersed their dominant accord,
And they are melted by the burnished sword.

⁴ How long they ruled in fact, though not in name,
And, sins committing, now are put to shame.

⁵ god made them wail in woe right speedily,
After that in their days they laughed with glee.

⁶ Grim captains made them drink Death's cup of ill,
Until their skulls the blood-bathed streets did fill,

⁷ And from their dwellings seized the wealth they'd gained,
And their well-guarded women's rooms profaned.

⁸ O wretched dupes of error and despair,
At length the trap hath caught you in its snare!

⁹ Vile, carrion birds, behold, in open ground
The nets of ruin compass you around!

¹⁰ O foulest race who e'er on earth did thrive,
And hatefulest of those who still survive,

¹¹ The Calf you served in place of God; and lo,
Vain, vain are all your goings to and fro!

They doomed to death your ‘Cleanser¹’ ^36a and thereby
A host of sinful souls did purify,

¹³ What time they gathered round his head upraised
Midst dust and stench, and on its features gazed.

¹⁴ God sped the soul of him who was their chief
To hell, whose mirk is dark despair and grief.

¹⁵ In molten torments they were prisonéd,
In trailing chains they to their doom were led.

¹⁶ Take warning, from this doom without reprieve;
Recite the verse: “How many did they leave!” ^{36b 17} Tugháchár, prince fulfilled with strength and zeal,
Hath caused the pillars of their power to reel.

¹⁸ His flashing falchion on their flesh did feed,
And none would hold him guilty for the deed.

¹⁹ Our Shaykh's prediction found fulfilment there,
What time he saw them rob him of his share;

That holy man, our lord Jamálu'd-Dín³, ^36c
Aided by God, endowed with angel's mien,

²¹ Devoted, walking ever in the way
Of Him the fishes in their seas obey.

²² I penned this satire, hoping to attain
The Eternal Gardens' lake-encompassed plain,

²³ And to refute that poet's words untrue
Who said, ‘Turn Jews, for Heaven hath turned a Jew.’”

Arghún was succeeded by his brother Gaykhátú, whose coronation did not take place till July 22, 1291, four months Accession of Gaykhátú (A.D. 1291- 1295) and a half after his predecessor's death. During this interval, in spite of the fact that Tugháchár and other chiefs of the Mongols had hastened to appoint governors in the different provinces, anarchy was rampant, and Afrásiyáb, of the House of Hazárasp, which had ruled over Luristán since the middle of the twelfth century, broke out in an abortive revolt and for a while held Iṣfahán.

Gaykhátú, whom the author of the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar describes as “the most generous of the children of Húlágú,”

Dissolute and extravagant character of Gaykhátú chose Ṣadru'd-Dín Aḥmad Khálidí of Zanján, better known as Ṣadr-i-Jahán, as his prime minister. Both the monarch and his minister were disposed to extravagance and prodigality, and the former at any rate to the pleasures of the table and other less reputable enjoyments. Thus it soon happened that the treasury was empty, and, money being urgently Introduction of paper money (chao) required, Ṣadr-i-Jahán determined to introduce the chao, or paper money, which was current in the Chinese Empire. To this end establishments for manufacturing the chao were erected in all the principal towns, and stringent laws were enacted to restrict the use of the precious metals as far as possible. Full descriptions of the projected paper money are preserved to us in the Ta'ríkhi-Waṣṣáf ^37a and other histories of the period. The notes consisted of oblong rectangular pieces of paper inscribed with some words in Chinese, over which stood the Muhammadan profession of faith, “There is no god but God, Muḥammad is the Apostle of God,” in Arabic. Lower down was the scribe's or designer's name, and the value of the note (which varied from half a dirham to ten dínárs) inscribed in a circle. A further inscription ran as follows: “The King of the world issued this auspicious chao in the year A.H. 693 [A.D. 1294]. Anyone altering or defacing the same shall be put to death, together with his wife and children, and his property shall be forfeited to the exchequer.” Proclamations were also sent to Shíráz and other towns explaining the advantages of the new currency, answering imaginary objections against it, and declaring that:

“If in the world this chao gains currency,
Immortal shall the Empire's glory be,”

and that poverty and distress would entirely disappear. One ingenious provision in the laws affecting the chao was that notes worn and torn by circulation were to be returned to the chao-khána, or Mint, and new notes, less by ten per cent. than the amount thus refunded, were to be given to the person so returning them.

The issue of the chao in Tabríz was fixed for the month of Dhu'l-Qa'da, 693 (Sept.-Oct., 1294). In three days the Unpopularity of the chao bazaars of Tabríz were closed and business was practically at a standstill, for no one would accept the chao, and gold and silver had been withdrawn from circulation. The popular rage was largely directed against 'Izzu'd-Dín Muẓaffar, who had been instrumental in introducing the hated paper money, and such verses as the following were composed about him:

“Pride of the Faith, ^38a Protection of the Land,
Would that thy being from the world were banned!

Hence Muslim, Guebre and Jew first magnify
God, and declare His Power and Unity;
Then, humbly praying, bow them in the dust,
And thus invoke the Judge All-wise and Just:—
‘Lord, send him not victorious, ^39a we pray:
Cause all his schemes and plans to go astray!’”

Similar disturbances broke out at Shíráz and in other cities, and, yielding to the representations of the Mongol The chao is withdrawn nobles and others, Gaykhátú finally consented to recall the obnoxious chao and abolish the paper currency which had intensified instead of ameliorating the financial crisis.

Shortly after this untoward experiment, Gaykhátú, in one of those drunken orgies which were habitual to him,

Gaykhátú insults his cousin Baydú grossly insulted his cousin Baydú, a grandson of Húlágú, and caused him to be beaten by one of his retainers. Next morning, when he came to his senses, he repented of his action, and endeavoured to conciliate Baydú by means of gifts and honours. Baydú, for reasons of expediency, concealed his resentment for the time, but soon afterwards, encouraged by certain disaffected Mongol nobles, he openly revolted against Gaykhátú, who, betrayed by his general Tugháchár, was taken prisoner and put to death at Múqán, on Thursday, 6 Jumáda 11, 694 (April 23, 1295).

Baydú was crowned soon after this at Hamadán, and after celebrating his accession in the usual drunken fashion Baydú (AprilOct., A.D. 1295) of the Mongols, ^39b proceeded to appoint Tughá-chár commander-in-chief, dismiss the late premier Ṣadr-i-Jahán, and replace him by Jamálu'd-Dín Dastajirdání. He did not, however, long enjoy the high position which he had gained, for six months after his accession he was overcome by Gházán, the son of his cousin Arghún, and, in the words of Khwándamír, ^40a “quaffed a full cup of that draught which he had caused Gaykhátú to taste.”

The accession of Gházán, the great-grandson of Húlágú, marks the definite triumph of Islám over Mongol heathenism,

Gházán (A.D. 1295-1304) and the beginning of the reconstruction of Persian independence. He was born on December 4, 1271, and was therefore not twenty-four years of age when he assumed the reins of government. At the youthful age of seven he accompanied his grandfather Abáqá on his hunting expeditions, and at the age of ten his father Arghún made him governor of Khurásán, under the tutelage of the Amír Nawrúz, the son of Arghún Ághá, who for thirty-nine years had governed various Persian provinces for Chingíz Khán and his successors. The Amír Nawrúz had Gházán's conversion to Islám embraced Islám, and it was through him that Gházán was converted to that faith, for at the beginning of his struggle with his rival Baydú he had been persuaded by Nawrúz to promise that, if God should grant him the victory, he would accept the religion of the Arabian Prophet. This promise he faithfully fulfilled; on Sha'bán 4, 694 (June 19, 1295), he and ten thousand Mongols made their profession of faith in the presence of Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín Ibráhím, ^40b the son of the eminent doctor Sa'du'd-Din al-Ḥamawí. Nor did Gházán lack zeal for his new convictions, for four months after his conversion he permitted Nawrúz to destroy the churches, synagogues and idol-temples at Tabríz. He also caused a new coinage bearing Muhammadan inscriptions to be struck, and by an edict issued in May, 1299, prohibited usury, as contrary to the Muhammadan religion. In November, 1297, the Mongol amírs adopted the turban in place of their national head-dress.

There was still, however, a considerable section of Mongols, princes, nobles and others, which regarded Gházán's Disaffection of the old-fashioned Mongol nobles conversion with active dislike. This led to sundry rebellions and intrigues, which, however, were sternly repressed; and in the course of one month, according to the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar (loc. cit., p. 85), no fewer than five Princes and thirty-seven amírs of the Mongols were put to death by Gházán and Nawrúz. Naw-rúz himself, however, in spite of all that Gházán owed him, was suspected by his master of secretly intriguing with the Sultan of Egypt, and, though he fled to Herát and sought refuge with Malik Fakhru'd-Dín Kurt, he was taken and put to death. Shortly afterwards Jamálu'd-Dín Dastajir-dání, the Ṣadr-i-Jahán ^41a and his brother Quṭb-i-Jahán, were also put to death, and the great historian and physician Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh was made prime minister. Gházán was a stern ruler; “his reign,” as Sir Henry Howorth observes , ^41b “was marked by a terrible roll of executions, and, as d'Ohsson says, there is hardly a page of Rashídu'd-Dín at this time without a notice of the execution of some public functionary.”

During a considerable portion of his reign, Gházán was at war with Egypt. His first campaign, which was Wars with Egypt in the winter of 1299-1300, culminated in the Mongol victory at Majma'u'l-Murúj near Ḥimṣ (Emessa), where the Egyptians, outnumbered by three or four to one, were completely routed. The Mongols occupied Damascus and other portions of Syria for a hundred days, during which Gházán's name was inserted in the khuṭba. In spite of Gházán's reassuring proclamation of December 30, 1299, Syria suffered heavily from the cruelties and depredations of the Mongols. ^41c In the following winter (1300-1301) Gházán again prepared to invade Syria, but was forced to retreat owing to floods and bad weather. In the following May he despatched a letter to the Sultan of Egypt, the answer to which, written in October, was delivered to him by his envoys in December, 1301. ^42a Rather more than a year later, at the end of January, 1303, Gházán again marched against the Egyptians. Having crossed the Euphrates at the date above mentioned, he visited Karbalá, a spot sanctified to him by his strong Shí'ite proclivities, and bestowed on the shrine and its inmates many princely favours. At 'Ána,

The historian Waṣṣáf is presented to Gházán in A.D. 1303 whither he next proceeded, Waṣṣáf, the court-historian, presented him with the first three volumes (out of five) of the history on which he was engaged, and which has been so often quoted or mentioned in these pages. Gházán accompanied his army for some distance further towards the West, and then recrossed the Euphrates to await the result of the campaign at Kashf, two days' journey westwards from Ardabíl. ^42b This campaign proved as disastrous to the Mongols as the previous one had been fortunate, for they Defeat of the Mongols at Marju'ṣ-Ṣuffar in A.D. 1303 were utterly defeated by the Egyptians in March, 1303, at Marju'ṣ-Ṣuffar near Damascus. The Egyptian victory was celebrated by general rejoicings in Syria and Egypt, especially, of course, at Cairo, where every house was decorated and every point of vantage crowded to see the entry of the Sultan with his victorious troops, preceded by 1600 Mongol prisoners, each bearing, slung round his neck, the head of one of his dead comrades, while a thousand more Mongol heads were borne aloft on lances, accompanied by the great Mongol war-drums with their parchment rent. ^42c Gházán's vexation was commensurate with the Egyptian Sultan's exultation, and was increased by a scornful and railing letter addressed to him by the victor. ^42d Condign punishment was inflicted by him on the Mongol generals and captains who were supposed to have been responsible for this disaster. Gházán's health seems to have been undermined by the distress resulting from this reverse to his arms, which was perhaps still further increased by the abortive conspiracy to depose Death of Gházán in A.D. 1304 him and place his cousin Álafrank the son of Gaykhátú on the throne, and he died at the early age of thirty-two on May 17, 1304.

The mourning for his death throughout Persia was universal, and appears to have been sincere, for he had restored Gházán's character Islám to the position it occupied before the invasion of Chingíz Khán, repressed paganism, and reduced chaos to order. In spite of his severity, he was merciful compared to his predecessors, and had the reputation of disliking to shed blood save when he deemed it expedient or necessary. He was, moreover, a generous patron of science and literature and a liberal benefactor of the pious and the poor. Though ill-favoured and of mean and insignificant appearance, he was brave, assiduous in all things, and gifted with unusually wide interests and keen intelligence. He was devoted alike to His interest in science arts and crafts and to the natural sciences, especially to architecture on the one hand, and to astronomy, chemistry, mineralogy, metallurgy and botany on the other. He was extraordinarily well versed in the history and genealogy of the Mongols, and, besides Mongolian, his native tongue, was more or His linguistic attainments less conversant with Persian, Arabic, Chinese, Tibetan, Kashmírí, and, it is said, Latin. Something also he knew more than his predecessors of the lands and peoples of the West, a knowledge chiefly derived from the numerous envoys of different nations who sought his capital in Ádharbayján, and reflected, as Howorth remarks (p. 487), in the work of the great historian Rashídu'd-Dín, who acted as his prime minister during the latter portion of his reign, and who was aware, for instance, that the Scotch paid tribute to the English and that there were no snakes in Ireland. ^44a Amongst the envoys who visited Gházán's court were represented the Chinese, the Indians, the Egyptians, the Spaniards (by Solivero of Barcelona), the English (by Geoffrey de Langley), and many other nations.

Gházán was also well grounded in Islám, the faith of his adoption, and showed a marked predilection for the Gházán's partiality for the Shí'ite doctrine Shí'ite form of that religion. ^44b How he enriched Karbalá we have already seen, and the shrine of the eighth Imám 'Alí ar-Riḍá at Mash-had also benefited by his charity. How far he was influenced in his conversion by sincere conviction and how much by political expediency is a matter open to discussion, but his conversion was in any case a blessing for Persia. A harsh government is always an evil thing for those subject to its sway; more evil if it be administered by a foreign, dominant caste; most evil if the administrators be also of an alien religion hostile to, or unsympathetic towards, the faith of their subjects. The Mongol dominion had hitherto been of this last and cruellest type; by Gházán's conversion it was ameliorated at once to the second, which again prepared the way for a return to the first. “When Gházán became a Muhammadan,” says Howorth (p. 486), “he definitely broke off his allegiance to the Supreme Khán in the furthest East. Hitherto the Íl-kháns had been mere feudatories of the Kháqán of Mongolia and China. They were now to become independent, and it is natural that the formulae on the coins should accordingly be changed.” Henceforth Shamans and Buddhist monks could no longer domineer over the Muslim 'ulamá; their monasteries and temples gave place to colleges and mosques. Muslim learning, enriched in some directions though impoverished in others, was once more honoured and encouraged. Nor were material improvements, tending greatly to benefit the hitherto oppressed subjects of the Íl-kháns, wanting. Gházán was at all times stern and often cruel, but he had far higher ideals of his duties towards his subjects than any of his predecessors, and he adopted practical means to give effect to these ideals. “Be sure,” he says, ^45a “that God has elevated me to be a ruler, and has confided his people to me in order that I may rule them with equity. He has imposed on me the duty of doing justice, of punishing the guilty according to their crimes. He would have me most severe with those who hold the highest rank. A ruler ought especially to punish the faults of those most highly placed, in order to strike the multitude by example.” An account of the reforms which he effected in the collection of taxes, the prevention of extortion, the repression of the idle and baneful extravagances of the dominant Mongols, the restoration of confidence and security where the lack of these had previously reduced prosperous towns to ruined and deserted hamlets, and withal the restoration of the finances of the country to a sound and healthy condition would be out of place here, especially as the matter is fully discussed by Howorth in his great history (loc. cit., pp. 487-530). The institution of the new Era, called Íl-khání or Gházání, which began on Rajab 13, 701 (March 14, 1302), was also dictated, at any rate in part, by a desire to put an end to sundry irregularities which had crept into the finance. To Gházán's credit must also be set his efforts to suppress or at least minimize prostitution, and the example he himself gave of a morality far higher than that generally prevalent amongst his countrymen at that time.

Previous Mongol sovereigns had, in accordance with the Gházán's mausoleum and charitable endowments custom of their nation, always taken measures to have the place of their burial concealed. Gházán, on the other hand, specified the place where he should be buried, and spent large sums in erecting and endowing round about his mausoleum a monastery for dervishes, colleges for the Sháfi'í and Ḥanafí sects, a hospital, a library, an observatory, a philosophical academy, a residence for sayyids, a fountain, and other public buildings. Annual endowments amounting to over a hundred túmáns, or a million pieces of money, were provided for the maintenance of these establishments, and every possible precaution was taken to secure these revenues to their original use. Round about the mausoleum and its dependent buildings grew up the suburb of Gházániyya, which soon rivalled Tabríz itself in size and surpassed it in beauty.

Gházán was succeeded by his brother Úljáytú the son of Arghún, who was crowned on July 21, 1305, under the Reign of Úljáytú (A.D. 1305-1316) name of Úljáytú Muḥammad Khudá-banda, being at the time twenty-four years of age. As a child he had, at the desire of his mother Urúk Khátún, been baptised into the Christian church under the name of Nicolas, but later he was converted to Islám by his wife, to whom he was married at a very His earlier name Khar-banda early age. In his youth he had received the curious name of Khar-banda (“ass-servant,” i.e. ass-herd or muleteer), which was afterwards changed to Khudá-banda (“servant of God”). On the former name Rashídu'd-Dín has the following verses in the preface to vol. i of his great history:

The point of these verses, which are hardly worth translating in their entirety, is that the sum of the numerical values of the nine letters constituting the words Sháh Khar-banda () is equivalent to that of the fifteen letters in the words Sáya-i-Kháṣ-i-Áfarínanda (), for the first gives 300 + 1 + 5 + 600 + 200 + 2 + 50 + 4 + 5 = 1167, and the second 60 + 1 + 10 + 5 + 600 + 1 + 90 + 1 + 80 + 200 + 10 + 50 + 50 + 4 + 5 = 1167. Since in the Muhammadan, as in the Jewish view, words giving the same numerical equivalent are in some sense identical, the King's name, Khar-banda, is shown to be equivalent to Sáya-i-Kháṣ-i-Áfarínanda , the “Special Shadow (i.e. Protection) of the Creator.” According to Dawlatsháh ^47a (an author on whose uncritical statements no reliance whatever can be placed), “when, on the death of Arghún Khán, Gházán Khán became king, Úljáytú Khán fled from him, and for some years wandered with the ass-herds in the district of Kirmán and Hurmuz, on which account he was called Khar-banda, ‘the Ass-herd.’ But others say that this is not so, but that the parents of a very beautiful child give him an ugly name, so that the evil eye may not affect him, and that on this account he was called Khar-banda.”^47b

Even before Úljáytú was crowned, it was deemed expedient to get rid of his cousin Álafrank as a possible claimant Álafrank is put to death to the throne, and he, as well as the general Harqadáq, was accordingly assassinated by three Mongol officers. Úljáytú's first act was to confirm the laws of his predecessor Gházán, and to ordain the strict observance of the Sharí'at, or Canon Law of Islám; and he appointed Rashídu'd-Dín the historian and physician, and Sa'du'd-Dín of Sáwa as joint Chancellors of the Exchequer, with absolute authority over his Persian as opposed to his Mongolian subjects. He visited the celebrated observatory of Marágha, and installed Aṣílu'd-Dín, the son of the eminent Naṣíru'd-Dín of Ṭús (who, as already mentioned, had died in 1272-3), as Astronomer-royal. ^48a Abú Sa'íd, the son and successor of Úljáytú, was born in the year of the latter's accession, and in the same year was deposed Sháh Jahán, the last sovereign of the Qará-Khitá'í dynasty of Kirmán. In the same year was founded the Sulṭániyya founded royal city of Sulṭániyya, ^48b near Zanján, which soon assumed the most majestic proportions. Now it is an almost uninhabited ruin, conspicuous only for its magnificent though dilapidated mosque; but the name of the royal founder is still remembered in the following doggerel, which I heard from an old man who accompanied me round the mosque when I visited it in November, 1887:

“O Sháh Khudá-banda, worker of injustice, two fowls for one village!”

The last line is Turkish, but I have never been able to ascertain to what it alludes.

Two months after Úljáytú's succession he received embassies from three of the Mongol rulers (of whom Tímúr Ambassadors received and despatched by Úljáytú Qá'án, Emperor of China, was the most important) to announce the truce which had just been concluded between them. Three months later arrived an embassy from Túqtáy, and shortly afterwards Úljáytú despatched ambassadors to Egypt, to assure Sulṭán Náṣir of his friendly disposition. He was also in correspondence with Philip le Bel, Edward the Second, and Pope Clement V. The bearer of the Íl-khán's letters to and from these potentates was Thomas Ildouchi, ^49a who, as d'Ohsson observes (vol. iv, pp. 590-8), evidently concealed from the European courts to which he was accredited the fact that his master Úljáytú had embraced Islám; for the letters on both sides are extant, and both Edward II (in a letter dated Nov. 30, 1307) and Pope Clement V (in a letter dated March 1, 1308) assume explicitly that Úljáytú would help them in extirpating what they describe as “the abominable sect of Mahomet.” Úljáytú, meanwhile, was preoccupied with devising some test whereby he might prove the sincerity of the numerous Jews who at this time desired to profess Islám. This was finally effected by the learning of Rashídu'd-Dín, who, as his history shows, was thoroughly conversant with Jewish tradition and doctrine, and was even accused by his enemies of being a Jew, or of regarding Judaism with undue favour. The intending proselyte was bidden to partake of camel's flesh seethed in milk, and the sincerity of his conversion was judged by his readiness to eat this doubly-unlawful food. It was about this time also (April 14, 1306) that the aforesaid Rashídu'd-Dín presented the finished portion of his great historical work, the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh to Úljáytú.

The chief wars of Úljáytú's reign were the conquest of Wars Gílán in the early summer of 1307 and the capture of Herát in the latter part of the same year. In both campaigns a gallant resistance was made, and success was not achieved by the Mongols without serious losses. In the defence of Herát especially the most conspicuous courage and resource were shown by the Ghúrí captain, Muḥammad Sám, to whose charge the city had Executions been entrusted by Fakhru'd-Dín Kurt. He was, however, ultimately taken by treachery and put to death. Amongst other notable persons who suffered death in Úljáytú's reign were Músá the Kurd, who claimed to be the Mahdí or appointed Saviour of Islám; Sa'du'd-Dín, the associate and later the rival of Rashídu'd-Dín, who was executed on a charge of peculation from the treasury; and Táju'd-Dín Áwají, an extreme Shí'ite, who had tried to convert Úljáytú to his doctrines. But what the unfortunate Táju'd-Dín failed to accomplish nevertheless Úljáytú's religious views was brought about by other means. Úljáytú belonged to the Ḥanafí sect, the doctors of which, relying on the royal favour, waxed arrogant, until the King was induced by his minister Rashídu'd-Dín to incline to the Sháfi'í doctrine. Thereupon violent disputes took place in Úljáytú's presence between the representatives of these two Sunní schools, who, in the heat of controversy, brought against each other such abominable accusations that Úljáytú was greatly annoyed with both, and even the Mongol nobles, who were by no means squeamish, professed disgust, and began to ask whether it was for this that they had abandoned the faith of their ancestors, to which they now called on Úljáytú to return. The Íl-khán was further alarmed by a violent thunder-storm by which he was overtaken about this time, and which, according to the Mongols and their bakshís or priests (who, expelled by Gházán, would appear to have returned to Persia under his successor, unless, as d'Ohsson implies, they were brought back ad hoc) was a signal of the Divine displeasure. ^50a For some time he was distracted with doubt, until at length he was persuaded by the Amír Taramtáz to follow Gházán's example and adopt the Shí'ite creed. This he ultimately did, ^51a after he had visited 'Alí's tomb and there seen a vision which convinced him that the homage of the faithful was due, after the Prophet, to 'Alí ibn Abí Ṭálib and his descendants.

Úljáytú conducted one campaign against Syria, of which the chief event was the siege of Raḥbat, which, however, the Campaign against Syria Mongols were obliged to raise when the town was reduced to the last extremity on account of the heat and the scarcity of provisions. As the result of dissensions between the brothers of the house of Qatáda who ruled Mecca alternately according to the fortune of war, Úljáytú's name was for a while substituted in public prayer in the Holy City for that of the Egyptian Sultan Náṣir.

Úljáytú died at Sulṭániyya from the sequelae of an attack of gout on December 16, 1316, at the comparatively early Death of Úljáytú in A. D. 1316 age of thirty-five. He is described as “virtuous, liberal, not readily influenced by calumny; but, like all Mongol princes, addicted to spirituous drinks, and chiefly occupied with his pleasures.” His funeral obsequies were celebrated with great pomp, and he was mourned by his subjects for eight days. He had twelve wives, who bore him six sons and three daughters, but five of the former and one of the latter died in childhood. His surviving son, Abú Sa'íd, succeeded him; his two surviving daughters were married to the Amír Chúbán, and one of them, Sátí Beg, subsequently held for a short time the position of queen in the year 1339.

Abú Sa'íd, who was in Mázandarán at the time of his father's death, was crowned in April, 1317, being then under Reign of Abú Sa'íd (A.D. 1317 -1334) thirteen years of age. The Amír Chúbán was made Amíru'l-Umará, while 'Alí-sháh was associated with Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh in the wazírate. Between these two ministers there existed a great rivalry, and it soon became evident that one or other must succumb. The victim was Rashídu'd-Dín, whose greater scrupulousness and honour placed him at a disadvantage. By the intrigues of his rival he was deposed in October, 1317, and the death of the powerful Amír Savinj in January, 1318, deprived him of his chief protector. The Amír Chúbán was anxious to reinstate him in office, but though he pleaded his advanced age and desired only to be allowed to live out the remainder of his life in peace and retirement, his rival 'Alí-sháh took alarm, renewed his intrigues, and succeeded in persuading Abú Sa'íd that Rashídu 'd-Dín and his youthful and comely son Khwája Ibráhím were guilty of poisoning the late ruler Úljáytú. Both were Execution of Rashídu'd-Dín and his son in A.D. 1318 condemned to death and executed on July 18, 1318, Rashídu'd-Dín being then over seventy years of age. His body was outraged, his houses and possessions plundered, and his relatives and connections subjected to all sorts of persecution. More will presently be said of his character, learning, charity and literary achievements.

About a month after this sad event (August, 1318) began the rebellion of Yasáwur, whose ambition led him to covet Rebellions the province of Khurásán. He succeeded in compassing the death of Yasá'úl, and, having made himself master of Khurásán, invaded and ravaged Mázandarán, but retired before Abú Sa'íd's general, Amír Ḥusayn into the Garm-sír, or hot region bordering on the Persian Gulf. About the same time a formidable conspiracy of Mongol captains, such as Iranchin, ^52a Túqmáq and Isen-búqá was formed against Chúbán, but the latter, supported by Abú Sa'íd, utterly defeated them near Úján in June, 1319, and those of the rebel leaders who did not perish in the battle were put to death with every circumstance of ignominy and cruelty at Sulṭániyya. Amongst the victims was Kinjik (or Kikhshik, or Kichik), the grand-daughter of Abáqá and wife of Iranchin, who had fought with conspicuous bravery in the battle to avenge the death of her son Shaykh 'Alí, and was now, according to Nuwayrí's account, ^53a trampled to death by horses at the command of Abú Sa'íd. Two months later Chúbán was rewarded by being given in marriage Sátí Beg, the king's sister, while the king, to commemorate his valour in this battle, took the title of Bahádur Khán.

The years 1318-1319 were remarkable for grievous famines in Asia Minor and elsewhere, followed in 1320 by Famine and hail-storms terrific hail-storms. Abú Sa'íd, much alarmed, consulted the theologians as to the cause of these calamities. They ascribed them to the laxity which prevailed about wine-drinking and prostitution, taverns and brothels being in many cases situated close to mosques and colleges. Abú Sa'íd thereupon closed all dis- Suppression of taverns orderly houses, and caused an enormous quantity of wine to be destroyed, but he allowed one wine-shop to remain for the use of travellers in each district. These measures produced a very good impression in Egypt, and facilitated the conclusion of a treaty between Abú Sa'íd and Sulṭán Náṣir, the Egyptian ruler, who had recently carried his hostility against the Assassins employed against Mongols Mongols so far as to send thirty assassins of the Isma'ílí sect from Syria to attempt the life of Qará Sunqur. Although this attempt miscarried, it greatly alarmed the Mongols, and both sides were thus prepared to come to terms and to set aside their ancient feuds. A treaty was ultimately concluded in 1323 between the two states, after a Mongol princess ^53b (a granddaughter of Bátú) had been given in marriage to Sulṭán Náṣir in 1320.

In 1322 Tímúr-Tásh the son of Chúbán revolted in Asia Minor and declared himself to be the expected Mahdí or Revolt of Tímúr-Tásh Messiah, but he was overcome by his father, pardoned, and ultimately reinstated in his government by Abú Sa'íd. About the same time Armenia was de- Armenia devastated vastated by the Egyptians, and Pope John XXII endeavoured to stir up the European powers on their behalf; to which end he wrote a letter (dated July 12, 1322) ^54a to Abú Sa'íd asking him to aid them, and exhorting him at the same time to embrace the Christian faith. He also appointed ^54b a Dominican named François de Peruse archbishop of Sulṭániyya.

Early in 1324 died the prime minister 'Alí-sháh, who was chiefly remarkable as the first Mongol wazír to die a Abú Sa'íd becomes impatient of Chúbán's power natural death. He was succeeded by Ruknu'd-Dín Ṣá'in, who enjoyed the support of the great Amír Chúbán. The power of this Amír, however, began to arouse the jealousy of Abú Sa'íd, now about twenty-one years of age, and an open rupture was precipitated by Abú Sa'íd's passion for Baghdád Khátún, the daughter of Chúbán and wife of Shaykh Ḥasan Jalá'ir, and by the intrigues of the ungrateful Ruknu'd-Dín against his benefactor. A threatened invasion of Khurásán by the Mongols of Transoxiana obliged Chúbán and his son Ḥusayn to be present in the eastern portion of the empire, while another son named Dimashq Khwája, against whom Abú Sa'íd was already incensed, remained at the court, which returned from its winter quarters at Baghdád to Sulṭániyya in the spring of 1327. Abú Sa'íd, growing daily more impatient of Dimashq Khwája's arrogance and immorality, only awaited a reasonable excuse to destroy him. Nor had he to wait long, for about this time it was discovered that Dimashq was engaged in an intrigue with one of Úljáytú's former concubines. Finding himself detected, he Dimashq Khwája put to death in August, 1327 endeavoured to escape, but was overtaken and put to death, and his head was exhibited over one of the gates of Sulṭániyya. This took place on August 25, 1327. ^55a He left four daughters, of whom the most notable was Dilshád Khátún. She was married first to Abú Sa'íd, to whom she bore a posthumous daughter who died in infancy, and afterwards to Shaykh Ḥasan Íl-khání, to whom she bore Sulṭán Uways and another son. This Sulṭán Uways reigned at Baghdád from 1356-1374, and was, as we shall see, a notable patron of poets and men of letters and learning.

Abú Sa'íd, having taken this decisive step, resolved to exterminate Chúbán and his whole family. Chúbán, warned Death of Chúbán of the king's intention, first put to death the wazír, Ruknu'd-Dín Ṣá'in, and then collected his troops, to the number of seventy thousand, and marched westwards, first to Mashhad and then to Simnán, whence he sent the venerable Shaykh 'Alá'd-Dín to intercede for him with Abú Sa'íd. The Íl-khán was not to be moved, and Chúbán continued his advance westwards until he arrived within a day's march of Abú Sa'íd. All seemed to be in Chúbán's favour, until some of his most important amírs deserted to the king, taking with them some thirty thousand men. Thereupon Chúbán retreated, first to Sáwa, where he left his wives Kardúchín and Sátí Beg, and then to Ṭabas. His followers continued to desert him until he was finally left with only seventeen persons. He then decided to take refuge at Herát with Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Kurt, who, however, betrayed him, and caused him and his chief officers to be strangled. His body was, by the Íl-khán's order, conveyed to al-Madína with great pomp, and there buried in the tomb which he had prepared for himself.^56a

Abú Sa'íd was now free to marry Baghdád Khátún, but, though she soon acquired a great influence over him, he did Fate of Chúbán's son Tímúr-Tásh, Aug. 1328 not cease persecuting her family. Another of Chúbán's sons, Tímúr-Tásh, who was governor of Asia Minor, took refuge at the Egyptian court, where he arrived on January 21, 1328. He was at first well received, sumptuously entertained, and given an allowance of 1500 dínárs a day; but the urgent demands of Abú Sa'íd for his extradition, combined with the intrigues of the Egyptian Sultan's courtiers, soon decided the latter to get rid of him. For a while he hesitated between the extradition and the execution of his once powerful guest, but finally he decided to kill him, fearing lest, if he were sent to Abú Sa'íd, the intercession of his sister Baghdád Khátún and his old friend Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, the son of the great Rashídu'd-Dín, now himself prime minister, might induce the Íl-khán to forgive him, and that, should this happen, he would certainly seek to revenge himself on the Egyptians. Tímúr-Tásh was therefore put to death in prison on the night of Thursday, August 22, 1328, and his head, embalmed and placed in a casket, was sent to Abú Sa'íd.

Of the wazír Ghiyáthu'd-Dín b. Rashídu'd-Dín the contemporary historian Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín speaks Ministry of Ghiyáthu'd-Dín b. Rashídu'd-Dín in enthusiastic terms in his Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, or “Select History,” which is dedicated to him. “That minister of good repute,” he says, “like his illustrious father, made the most admirable efforts to secure the order of the world; and inasmuch as to pardon when one has power to injure is the extreme of human perfection, and all the greatest of former ages have followed this path, and thus obtained, by their virtuous conduct, the highest honour and an enduring name, so this minister of angelic temperament, inspired by the certainty of his convictions, did even more than this, for, instead of punishing those who had wrought towards his noble family ill deeds whereof the recapitulation would disgust the hearts of my hearers, he drew the pen of forgiveness through the record of their crimes, recompensed their evil actions with good, and made each one of them an exemplar of the prosperity of this Empire, raising them to the highest ranks, and entrusting to them the most important functions, so that each now beholds with his own eyes that which he did most ardently desire.”^57a

This complaisance of Ghiyáthu'd-Dín nearly caused his destruction when the rebellious Amír Nárín Búqá sought his intercession with Abú Sa'íd at the very moment when he was plotting the minister's assassination. On this occasion, however, the king, prompted by his wife Baghdád Khátún, who hated Nárín Búqá as the destroyer of her father and brothers, intervened, and caused the rebel and his confederate Tásh-Tímúr to be executed on October 5, 1327.

The last years of Abú Sa'íd's reign saw numerous changes in the Kurt kings of Herát. Ghiyáthu'd-Dín died in October,

Kurt rulers of Herát 1329, and was succeeded by his eldest son Shamsu'd-Dín, who was so much addicted to drink that it was said that during a reign of ten months he was only sober for ten days. He was succeeded by his younger brother Ḥáfiẓ, a gentle scholar, who was assassinated in 1332, and replaced by his infant brother Mu'izzu'd-Dín, whose election was approved by Abú Sa'íd. He enjoyed a long reign of forty years, and was followed by his son, Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Pír 'Alí, in whose time the dynasty, which had endured since 1245, was extinguished by Tamerlane.

In August, 1335, Abú Sa'íd, having learned that Úzbek, the Khán of the Golden Horde, intended an invasion of his Death of Abú Sa'íd (A.D. 1335) dominions, was preparing to take the field against him when he fell ill, and died at Qará-bágh near Arrán on Nov. 30 of that year. He is described by Ibn Taghribardí as “a brave and brilliant prince of majestic appearance, generous and witty.” He was a good calligraphist, composer and musician, and is praised by this historian not only for his good moral character and for his suppression of the drink traffic, but also for his destruction of the Christian churches. It is suggested by Mírkhwánd and positively asserted by Ibn Baṭúṭa ^58a that Abú Sa'íd was poisoned by Baghdád Khátún, who was jealous of the ascendancy obtained by her younger rival Dilshád Khátún over the Íl-khán. ^58b At any rate, whether guilty or not, Baghdád Khátún was put to death.^58c

With Abú Sa'íd's death the dynasty of the Íl-kháns of Persia, founded by Húlágú Khán, practically came to an end, and a period of anarchy ensued which lasted until another great wave of conquest from the land of Túrán swept over Persia and Asia Minor thirty-five years later, led by the ruthless and irresistible conqueror Tímúr-i-Lang (“Limping Tímúr”), or, as he is commonly called in Europe, Tamerlane. By a strange coincidence, noticed in the Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn, ^58d the year of Tímúr's birth was the same as that of Abú Sa'íd's death, and the chronogram lawdh ( = “refuge!”) ^58e has been devised for it, since this word gives the date (A.H. 736) according to the Muhammadan computation, and men might well seek refuge with God from this double calamity—the death of Abú Sa'íd and the birth of Tímúr—which this year brought.

On the death of Abú Sa'íd, who left no sons, Arpa, or Accession of Arpa Arpagá'ún, a descendant of Arik-búqá, the brother of Húlágú, was, at the instance of the minister Ghiyáthu'd-Dín b. Rashídu'd-Dín, chosen as his successor. To strengthen his position, he married Sátí Beg, the widow of Chúbán and sister of Abú Sa'íd. He then marched against Úzbek and defeated him. But meanwhile Amír 'Alí Pádisháh and other amírs, dis- Músá set up as a rival claimant approving of Arpa's election, set up a rival Íl-khán in the person of Músá, a descendant of Húlágú. A battle took place between the two rivals near Marágha on April 29, 1336. Arpa was defeated, and both he and the wazír Ghiyáthu'd-Dín were put to death shortly afterwards. Músá, however, was not suffered to enjoy the fruits of victory for long: another rival, Muḥammad Sháh, also descended from Húlágú, was set up against him by Shaykh Ḥasan the Jalá'ir (called Buzurg, “the Great”). Another battle was fought at Ala-Tágh near the town of Naw-Shahr, in which, by the treachery of Shaykh Ḥasan Buzurg, Músá was routed and 'Alí Pádisháh killed. Yet another claimant was set up in the person of Túgháy-Tímúr, who joined forces with Músá, and fought another battle with Shaykh Ḥasan Buzurg near Marágha in June, 1337, in which Músá was taken prisoner and put to death (July, 1337), while Túgháy-Tímúr fled to Bisṭám. Shaykh Ḥasan, the son of Tímúr-Tásh, the son of Chúbán, now added to the confusion by producing a pretender whom he asserted to be his father Tímúr-Tásh, whose execution by the Sultan of Egypt has been already mentioned. A battle finally took place at Nakhjuwán on July 10, 1338, between the two Ḥasans, in which Ḥasan “the Greater” was defeated, while his protégé Muḥammad Sháh was taken prisoner and put to death. Shaykh Ḥasan “the Less” (the grandson of Chúbán) now quarrelled with the pretended Tímúr-Tásh, and espoused the cause of the princess Sátí Beg, the sister of the late king Abú Sa'íd and widow of his grandfather Chúbán. She was proclaimed queen in 739 (1338-9), and a reconciliation was effected between the two Ḥasans.

It is hardly worth following these intrigues further. Those who desire fuller information about them, and about the tortuous policy of Shaykh Ḥasan “the Less,” will find it in the pages of d'Ohsson and Howorth. Suffice it to say that Tugháy-Tímúr was betrayed by the astute Shaykh Ḥasan “the Less,” who then set up another puppet, Sulay-mán Khán, a descendant of Húlágú, and gave him Sátí Beg in marriage, while Ḥasan “the Greater” set up as a rival a descendant of Abáqá named Sháh Jahán Tímúr. A battle took place between the two factions near Marágha in 1340. Ḥasan “the Greater” was defeated, retired to Baghdád, deposed his puppet Sháh Jahán Tímúr, and, proclaiming himself king, founded the dynasty—more important in literary than in political history—of the Jalá'irs, who reigned until 1411 over Western Persia and Mesopotamia, with Baghdád as their capital. As for Ḥasan “the Less,” the grandson of Chúbán, he was murdered in 1343, while marching to attack his rival, by his wife 'Izzat Malik, who expiated her crime by a most cruel and ignominious death. On this event the contemporary poet Salmán of Sáwa (who, being a protégé of the rival Shaykh Ḥasan, was delighted at the death of Chúbán's grandson) has the following verses, ^60a which hardly bear translation:

The Mongol ascendancy in Persia was now at an end, and, until Tímúr's hordes swept over the country (1384-1393), it was divided into at least four kingdoms, those of the Jalá'irs, the Muẓaffarís, the Kurts and the Sar-ba-dárs, whose history will be considered in another chapter.

Besides the travels of Ibn Baṭúṭa, repeatedly cited in the notes, much light is thrown on this period by the travels in Persia of Friar Odoric of Pordenone about A.D. 1318; ^61a the particulars given about “Bousaet” or “Boussay” (i.e. Abú Sa'íd) and his kingdom by the Archbishop of Sulṭániyya in a tract written about A.D. 1330; and the narratives of the consuls who represented Venetian interests in Tabríz and other Persian towns between the years A.D. 1305 and 1332.^61b

The period of about seventy years which we are now considering is chiefly remarkable, from the literary point of This period pre-eminently that of the great historians view, for the large number of eminent Persian historians which it produced. At least eight of these deserve somewhat detailed notices, besides a rather larger number of notable poets, whose number might easily be increased if those of the second rank were included. Before considering these Persian writers, however, a few words must be said about the Arabic literature of this period of which it behoves even students whose primary interest is in Persian letters to have at least some general idea.

So long as the Caliphate endured and Baghdád remained, in theory at least, the metropolis of all orthodox Muslims,

Arabic literature in this period the Arabic language held throughout those wide domains a position analogous to that of Latin in Europe during the Middle Ages; that is to say it was not only (what it still remains) the language of theology, philosophy and science, but also to a large extent of diplomacy, polite society and belles lettres. The overthrow of the Caliphate by the Mongols greatly impaired its position and diminished its prestige, but this decline did not become very conspicuous so long as those survived whose education had been completed before Islám suffered this great disaster, that is to say for some fifty or sixty years after the fall of Baghdád. In the later periods which we have to consider a knowledge of contemporary Arabic literature, though always important, becomes less essential to the student of Persian history and letters, but at this period it is still vital, especially in the domains of history, biography and travel, not to mention theology, philosophy and science, where it continues to be indispensable.

The Arabic literature with which we are here concerned falls into three classes. First, the Arabic works of bilingual Three classes of Arabic literature important to the student of Persian Persians whose Persian writings entitle them to mention in the literary history of their country. Of this class the Qáḍi'l-Quḍát (Chief Justice) Náṣiru'd-Dín al-Bayḍáwí may be taken as an example. Al-Bayḍá (“the White”), from which he derived his cognomen, is the Arabic name of a place in Fárs so called on account of a white tomb (turbat-i-safíd)^63a

(1) Arabic works of bilingual writers who deserve mention on account of their contributions to Persian literature which renders it conspicuous. Al-Bayḍáwí is best known as the author of the famous commentary on the Qur'án entitled Asráru't-Tanzíl, which is written in Arabic; ^63b but he also wrote in Persian a history of Persia entitled Niẓámu't-Tawáríkh , whereof mention will be made in the course of this chapter. To speak of him merely as a historian of the second rank and to ignore his far more impor- (2) Arabic works which profoundly influenced Persian thought tant work as a commentator would be to do him a great injustice. Secondly, Arabic works by non-Persians which have profoundly influenced Persian thought, such as the Fuṣúṣu'l-Ḥikam and other writings of Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí, and the writings of Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín of Qonya (3) Arabic historical, geographical and biographical works (Iconium), which were the sources whence such mystical poets as Fakhru'd-Dín 'Iráqí derived their inspiration. Thirdly, and most important, Arabic historical, geographical and biographical works which throw light on the persons, places, circumstances and ideas which we shall meet with in the course of our investigations. Amongst these special mention must be made of the lives of physicians (Ṭabaqátu'l-Aṭibbá) by Ibn Abí Uṣaybi'a ^64a (d. 668/1270); the great biographical work of Ibn Khallikán (d. 681/1282) entitled Wafayátu'l-A'yán ; ^64b the Átháru'l-Bilád (“Monuments of the Lands”) of Zakariyyá b. Muḥammad al-Qazwíní ^64c (d. 682/1283); the general history, especially important for the Mongol period, entitled Mukhtaṣaru'd-Duwal of Abu'l-Faraj Bar-Hebraeus (d. July 30, 1289); ^64d the well-known history of Abu'l-Fidá, Prince of Ḥamát (d. 732/1331), entitled Al-Mukhtaṣar fí Ta'ríkhi'l-Bashar; ^64e and the illuminating travels of Ibn Baṭúṭa ^64f (d. 779/1377), which extended over a period of 24 years (1325-1349) and included not only Persia but the greater part of Asia from Constantinople to India and China, and from Arabia to Afghánistán and Transoxiana.

The student of Persian history and literature who ignores these books is cut off from some of the richest sources of Value of the Átháru'l-Bilád trustworthy information, yet they are constantly neglected even by experts who write authoritatively on the Persian poets and other kindred topics. Take only the “Monuments of the Lands” of al-Qazwíní above mentioned, consider the following list of eminent Persian poets to whom reference is made under the towns wherein they were born or where they spent their lives, and see how much information about them is given which is vainly sought in the Persian tadhkiras or “Memoirs” commonly consulted on such matters: ^64g —Anwarí (p. 242), 'Asjadí (p. 278), Awḥadu'd-Dín Kirmání (p. 164), Fakhrí of Jurján (p. 351), Farrukhí (p. 278), Firdawsí (pp. 278-9 and a verse from the Sháhnáma quoted on p. 135), Jalál-i-Ṭabíb (p. 257), Jalál-i-Khwárí (p. 243), Kháqání (pp. 272-3, where 3 bayts of his poetry are cited, and p. 404), Abú Ṭáhir al-Khátúní (p. 259), Mujír of Baylaqán (p. 345), Niẓámí (pp. 351-2), Náṣir-i-Khusraw (pp. 328-9), Abú Sa'íd ibn Abi'l-Khayr (pp. 241-2), Saná'í (p. 287), Shams-i-Ṭabasí (pp. 272-3), 'Umar-i-Khayyám (p. 318), 'Unṣurí (p. 278) and Rashídu'd-Dín Waṭwáṭ (pp. 223-4). Here, then, we have notices, some fairly full and containing matter not to be found elsewhere, of 19 important Persian poets who flourished before or during the thirteenth century, these being in many cases the oldest notices extant, ^65a since the Lubábu'l-Albáb of 'Awfí and the Chahár Maqála, “Four Discourses,” of Niẓámí-i-'Arúḍí of Samarqand are almost the only Persian works of greater antiquity which treat more or less systematically of the lives of Persian poets. And this is only one subject out of many interesting to the student of Persian dealt with in this most entertaining work.

We must now pass to the historians, who, as I have already said, are by far the most important writers of this period, for, while other periods, both earlier and later, have produced poets alike more numerous and more celebrated, none have produced historians comparable in merit to these.

Of 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní's Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá or “History of the World-Conqueror” (i.e. Chingíz Khán),

The Ta'ríkh-iJahán-gushá repeated mention was made in a preceding volume, ^65b but something more must be added here. It was completed in 658/1260, but concludes with the events of the year 655/1257, notably the destruction of the Assassins by the author's master and patron Húlágú Khán. Some few MSS. contain an Appendix describing the sack of Baghdád, which took place in the following year, but this is probably an addition by a later hand. The work comprises three parts, of which the first deals with the history of Chingíz Khán and his ancestors, and his successors down to Chaghatáy; the second relates the history of the Khwárazm-sháhs, especially of the two last rulers of this dynasty, Quṭbu'd-Dín Muḥammad and his son Jalálu'd-Dín; while the third treats of the Isma'ílí sect and especially of Ḥaṣan-i-Ṣabbáḥ and his successors, the Assassins of Alamút. The work is therefore not a general history, but a historical monograph on Chingíz Khán and his predecessors and successors, to which are added accounts of the two chief dynasties with which he came in conflict in Persia and Mesopotamia. Further particulars about this most valuable and original history are given in an article which I contributed to the J.R.A.S. for January, 1904, pp. 1-17, and the first and second of the three volumes which it comprises have already appeared (in 1912 and 1916 respectively) in the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial” Series (xvi, 1 and xvi, 2), edited by my learned friend Mírzá Muḥammad ibn 'Abdu'l-Wahháb of Qazwín, who has prefixed to the first volume ^66a a full and critical account of the work and its author, and of the family of statesmen to which he belonged, He died in March 1283. His brother Shamsu'd-Dín the Ṣáḥib-Díwán wrote this verse on his death:

“He and I, thou wouldst say, were two lamps which in unison shone;
One lamp burneth still, but alas! for the other is gone!”

Colophon of the oldest MS. of the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá in the
Bibliothèque Nationale, dated A.H. 689 (A.D. 1290)
To face p. 66

The following chronogram on his death was composed by Ṣadru'd-Dín 'Alí, the son of Naṣíru'd-Dín of Ṭús: ^67a

The Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf was intended, as its author informs us, to be a continuation of the above-mentioned his- Ta'ríkh-iWaṣṣáf tory, and may therefore most conveniently be mentioned next, although it is of slightly later date than the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh, of which we shall next speak. Its proper title is Tajziyatu'l-Amṣár wa Tazjiyatu'l-A'ṣár (the “Allotment of Lands and Propulsion of Ages”), and its author, though commonly known simply as Waṣṣáf (the “Panegyrist”) or Waṣṣáf-i-Ḥaḍrat (the “Court Panegyrist”), was properly named 'Abdu'lláh ibn Faḍlu'lláh of Shíráz. He was employed in the collection of revenue for the Mongol Government, and was a protégé of the great minister Rashídu'd-Dín, who presented him and his book to Dr Rieu's estimate of its merits and defects Úljáytú, as he himself relates, ^67b at Sulṭániyya on June 1, A.D. 1312. His history, as Rieu well says, ^67c “contains an authentic contemporary record of an important period, but its undoubted value is in some degree diminished by the want of method in its arrangement, and still more by the highly artificial character and tedious redundance of its style. It was unfortunately set up as a model, and has exercised a baneful influence on the later historical compositions in Persia.” That these criticisms are fully justified will be denied by no one who has occasion to use the work, and indeed the author himself declares that to write in the grand style was his primary object, and that the historical events which he records served merely as the material on which he might embroider the fine flowers of his exuberant rhetoric. Úljáytú, we are told, was unable to understand the passages read aloud to him by the author on the occasion of his audience; and the reader who is not a Persian scholar may form some idea of his pompous, florid and inflated style from the German translation of the first volume published with the text by Hammer in 1856. We could forgive the author more readily if his work were less valuable as an original authority on the period (1257-1328) of which it treats, but in fact it is as important as it is unreadable. It comprises five volumes, of which the contents are summarily stated by Rieu (op. cit., pp. 162-3), and there is, besides the partial edition of Hammer mentioned above, an excellent lithographed edition of the whole, published at Bombay in Rajab, 1269 (April, 1853).

Here, perhaps, mention should be made of a quasi-historical work similar in style but far inferior in value Mu'jam fí Áthári Mulúki'l'Ajam to that just mentioned, I mean the Mu'jam fí Áthári Mulúki'l-'Ajam, a highly rhetorical account of the ancient Kings of Persia down to Sásánian times, written by Faḍlu'lláh al-Ḥusayní and dedicated to Nuṣratu'd-Dín Aḥmad b. Yúsuf-sháh, Atábek of Lur-i-Buzurg, who reigned from 1296 to about 1330. This book, which is vastly inferior to the other histories mentioned in this chapter, has been lithographed at Ṭihrán, and manuscripts of it are to be found in most large Oriental libraries.^68a

We now come to the great Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh, or “Compendium of Histories,” of which incidental mention The Jámi'u'tTawáríkh has been made in the last chapter in connection with its illustrious author Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, equally eminent as a physician, a statesman, a historian, and a public benefactor. Of his public career and tragic fate we have already spoken, but something more must be said not only of the scope and contents of his history, but of his private life and literary activity. His history, unfortunately, has never yet been published in its entirety, and manuscripts of it are comparatively rare, but amongst the published portions is his life of Quatremère's critical account of the author Húlágú Khán, edited by Quatremère at Paris in 1836, with a French translation and many valuable notes, under the title of Histoire des Mongols de la Perse, écrite en persan par Raschid-eldin, publiée, traduite en français, accompagnée de notes et d'un mémoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de l'auteur. From this excellent memoir, to which those who desire fuller and more detailed information are referred, the following salient facts of Rashídu'd-Dín's life and works are chiefly taken. He His birth in 1247 was born at Hamadán about A.D. 1247, and was asserted by his enemies to have been of Jewish origin. His grandfather Muwaffaqu'd-Dawla 'Alí was, with the astronomer Naṣíru'd-Dín Ṭúsí and Ra'ísu'd-Dawla, an unwilling guest of the Assassins of Alamút when that place was taken by Húlágú in the very year of our author's birth, and was at once received into Húlágú's service. As court-physician Rashídu'd-Dín enjoyed considerable influence and honour during the reign of Abáqá, but it was in the reign of Gházán, whose accession took place in A.D. 1295, that his many merits were first fully recognized, and He becomes Prime Minister to Gházán in 1298 three years later, on the dismissal and execution of the prime minister Ṣadru'd-Dín Zanjání, called Ṣadr-i-Jahán, he was chosen by Gházán, conjointly with Sa'du'd-Dín, to succeed him. In A.D. 1303 Rashídu'd-Din accompanied Gházán as Arabic secretary in the campaign against the Syrians, and it was during this period, while the Mongol court was established at 'Ána on the Euphrates, that he presented to Gházán the author of the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf, as has been already mentioned (p. 42), on March 3, 1303.

During the reign of Úljáytú (or Khudá-banda) Rashídu'd-Dín enjoyed the same high position as under his predecessor,

Continued power and increased honour under Khudá-banda and received from the new king several singular marks of favour and confidence. He also built in Sulṭániyya, the new capital, a fine suburb, named after him Rashídiyya, containing a magnificent mosque, a college, a hospital and other public buildings, and some thousand houses. In December, 1307, he was instrumental in establishing the innocence of two Sháfi'ite doctors of Baghdád, Shihábu'd-Dín Suhrawardí and Jamálu'd-Dín, who had been accused of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with Egypt. ^70a Some two years later he He founds and endows the suburb called Rab'-i-Rashídí built another beautiful little suburb, near Gházá-niyya, the town which had grown up round Gházán's mausoleum, to the East of Tabríz, and, at great expense, brought thither the river Saráw-rúd through channels hewn in the solid rock. ^70b Immense sums of money were required for these and other admirable works of piety and public utility, but Rashídu'd-Dín, as he himself declares, had received from the generous Úljáytú such sums as no previous sovereign had ever bestowed on minister or courtier. On the transcription, binding, maps and illustrations of his numerous literary works he had, according to the Ta'ríkh-i-Waṣṣáf, expended no less a sum than 60,000 dínárs (£36,000).

Early in the year 1312 Rashídu'd-Dín's colleague Sa'du'd-Dín of Sáwa fell from power and was put to death, the prime Rivalries and intrigues mover in the intrigue of which he was the victim being the clever and unscrupulous 'Alí-sháh, who at once succeeded the dead minister in his office. Soon afterwards a dangerous intrigue was directed against Rashídu'd-Dín, but happily it recoiled on its authors and left him unscathed. Whether he, on the other hand, was responsible for the barbarous execution of Sayyid Táju'd-Dín, the Naqíbu'l-Ashráf, or “Dean of the Sharífs” (i.e. the descendants of 'Alí) is a doubtful question, which Quatremère answers in the negative.

In 1315 such acrimonious disputes broke out between Rashídu'd-Dín and 'Alí-sháh, as to who was responsible for Fall and death of Rashídu'd-Dín in A.D. 1318 the lack of money to pay the troops, that Úljáytú assigned to the management of each one different provinces of Persia and Asia Minor. Nevertheless 'Alí-sháh continued his campaign of calumny against his colleague, who succeeded only with the greatest difficulty in saving himself from disaster. The same rivalry and intrigue continued after the death of Úljáytú and the accession of Abú Sa'íd, until finally Rashídu'd-Dín, having succumbed to the attacks of his traducers, was deprived of his office in October, 1317, and ultimately, on July 18, 1318, at the age of over seventy years, was put to death with his son Ibráhím, a lad of sixteen years of age, on a charge of having poisoned the late king. His property was confiscated, his relatives were persecuted and despoiled, his pious founda- Destruction of his foundations and desecration of his tomb tions were robbed of their endowments, and the Rab'-i-Rashídí, the suburb which he had founded, was given over to rapine. He was buried in the mausoleum which he had prepared for his last resting-place, but his body was not suffered to rest there in peace, for about a century later Míránsháh the son of Tímúr-i-Lang, in one of his fits of insane brutality, caused it to be exhumed and buried in the Jews' cemetery. 'Alí-sháh, in order to testify his joy at his rival's fall, presented magnificent presents to the Sanctuary at Mecca, and, escaping the retribution which overtook most of his accomplices, died peaceably in his bed six years later (in 1324), being, as already remarked, the first minister of the Mongol Íl-kháns who had the good fortune to die a natural death. Of Rashí-du'd-Dín's son Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, who resembled him in virtue and learning, as well as in his public career and his sad end (for he too was ultimately put to death in the spring of 1336) mention has been already made in the preceding chapter.

For the conception of the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh the credit, in Quatremère's opinion, ^72a belongs to Gházán Khán, who,

General plan and execution of the Jámi'u 't-Tawáríkh foreseeing that the Mongols in Persia, in spite of their actual supremacy, would in course of time inevitably be absorbed by the Persians, desired to leave to posterity a monument of their achievements, in the shape of a faithful record of their history and conquests, in the Persian language. For the accomplishment of this great task he chose (and no better choice could have been made) Rashídu'd-Dín, at whose disposal were placed all the state archives, and the services of all those who were most learned in the history and antiquities of the Mongols. The minister, though engrossed by the state affairs of a vast empire, yet succeeded in finding time to prosecute his researches and commit them to writing, though, according to Dawlat-sháh, ^72b the only time at his disposal for this purpose was that which intervened between the morning prayer and sunrise.

Before Rashídu'd-Dín's history of the Mongols was completed, Gházán died (May 17, 1304), but his successor Analysis of the contents of the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh Úljáytú ordered it to be finished and dedicated, as originally intended, to Gházán; whence this portion of the work, generally called the first volume, is sometimes entitled Ta'ríkh-i-Gházáni, the “Gházánian History.” Úljáytú also ordered the author to write a companion volume containing a general history of the world and especially of the lands of Islám, and a third volume dealing with geography. This last has either perished, or was never actually written, but only projected, so that the work as we now know it comprises only two volumes, the first on the history of the Mongols, written for Gházán, the second on general history. The whole work was completed in 710/1310-11, though two years later the author was still engaged on his supplementary account of Úljáytu's reign.

The contents of this great history are briefly as follows:

VOL. I, ch. i. History of the different Turkish and Mongol tribes, their divisions, genealogies, pedigrees, legends, etc., in a Preface and four sections.

VOL. I, ch. ii. History of Chingíz Khán, his ancestors and successors, down to Gházán Khán.

VOL. II, Preface. On Adam and the Patriarchs and Hebrew Prophets.

Part 1. History of the ancient kings of Persia before Islám, in four sections.

Part 2. History of the Prophet Muḥammad and of the Caliphate, down to its extinction by the Mongols in 1258; of the post-Muhammadan Persian dynasties of Persia, viz. the Sultans of Ghazna, the Seljúqs, the Khwárazmsháhs, the Salgharid Atábeks of Fárs, and the Isma'ílís of the West and of the East; of Oghuz and his descendants, the Turks; of the Chinese; of the Jews; of the Franks and their Emperors and Popes; and of the Indians, with a long and full account of Sakyamuni (Buddha) and of the religion which he founded.

The above is the arrangement actually adopted in the manuscripts of the India Office and the British Museum, but Intended arrangement of the Jámi'u'tTawáríkh the divisions proposed by the author in his Introduction are slightly different, for he intended to begin the second volume with the history of the reigning king Úljáytú from his birth until 706/1306-7, and to add a supplement at the end of the same volume continuing the history of this monarch year by year. This confusing arrangement is not actually observed in most manuscripts, which, if they contain Úljáytú's reign at all, put it in its natural place, at the end of vol. i, after Gházán. Few if any of the extant manuscripts are, however, complete, though every part of the history is contained in one or other of them. In the J.R.A.S. for January, 1908 (pp. 17-37) I have given a fuller analysis of the contents, together with a scheme for the complete edition which is so much needed. Ignoring the complicated and confusing divisions made by Scheme for a complete edition of the Jámi'u'tTawáríkh in seven volumes the author, I proposed to publish the whole book in seven volumes, of which the first three, containing the history of the Turks and Mongols, would correspond to vol. i of the original, and the last four to vol. ii, as follows:

VOL. I, from the beginning to the death of Chingíz Khán.

VOL. II, from the accession of Ogotáy to the death of Tímúr (Úljáytú), the grandson of Qúbiláy Khán. ^74a VOL. III, from the accession of Húlágú ^74b to the death of Gházán, including the continuation of the history of the later Íl-kháns down to Abú Sa'íd compiled as a supplement to this portion of Rashídu'd-Dín's work in the reign of Sháh Rukh and by his command.

VOL. IV. The Introduction, the history of the ancient kings of Persia down to the fall of the Sásánian dynasty, and the biography of the Prophet Muḥammad.

VOL. V. The entire history of the Caliphate, from Abú Bakr to al-Musta'ṣim.

VOL. VI. The history of the post-Muḥammadan dynasties of Persia (Ghaznawís, Seljúqs, Khwárazmsháhs, Sal-gharís and Isma'ílís).

VOL. VII. The remainder of the work, comprising the history (from their own traditions and statements) of the Turks, Chinese, Israelites, Franks and Indians.

The Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh is remarkable not only for the extensive field which it covers and the care with which it has been compiled from all available sources, both written

Enthronement of Ogotáy, the son and successor of Chingíz, from an old
MS. of the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh in the Bibliothèque Nationale

and oral, but for its originality. It is doubtful whether any Persian prose work can be compared to it in value, at any rate in the domain of history, and it is the more to be regretted that it remains unpublished and almost inaccessible. “I will dwell no longer,” says Quatremère, ^75a “on the proofs of the extreme importance of Rashídu'd-Dín's compilation; this excellent work, undertaken in the most favourable circumstances, and with means of performing it never before possessed by any single writer, offered for the first time to the peoples of Asia a complete course of universal history and geography.” The same writer illustrates the thoroughness of Rashídu'd-Dín's work by indicating the extent to which he drew on Chinese sources, written and oral, in writing that portion of his history which bore reference to Khaṭá (Cathay), ^75b and expresses a regret, which all must share, that the geographical portion of his work is lost, or at least still undiscovered. Perhaps, as Quatremère conjectures , ^75c it perished in the destruction and looting of the Rab'-i-Rashídí which immediately followed Rashídu'd-Dín's death.

Rashídu'd-Dín composed numerous other works besides the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh, and of these and their contents a Other works by Rashídu'd-Dín detailed account is given by Quatremère. ^75d Amongst them is the Kitábu'l-Aḥyá wa'l-Áthár (the “Book of Animals and Monuments”), which comprised twenty-four chapters treating of a variety of Kitábu'l-Aḥyá wa'l-Áthár matters connected with meteorology, agriculture, arboriculture, apiculture, the destruction of noxious insects and reptiles, farming and stock-breeding, architecture, fortification, ship-building, mining and metallurgy. This work is unhappily lost.

Another of Rashídu'd-Dín's works was the Tawḍíḥát, or “Explanations,” a theological and mystical work, of Tawḍíḥát which the contents are arranged under a preface and nineteen letters. It was written at the request of Úljáytú, and is described by Quatremère from a manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale.

This was followed by another theological work entitled Miftáḥu't-Tafásír, the “Key of Commentaries,” treating of Miftáḥu'tTafásír the divine eloquence of the Qur'án, its commentators and their methods, Good and Evil, rewards and punishments, length of life, Providence, Predestination and the Resurrection of the Body. To these topics are added a refutation of the doctrine of Metempsychosis, and a definition of sundry technical terms.

“The Royal Treatise” (ar-Risálatu's-Sulṭániyya) is another similar work, undertaken on Ramaḍán 9, 706

ar-Risálatu'sSulṭániyya (March 14, 1307), as the result of a discussion on theological matters which had taken place in the presence of Úljáytú.

The Laṭá'ifu'l-Ḥaqá'iq, or “Subtle Truths,” comprises fourteen letters, and begins with an account of a vision in Laṭá'ifu'lḤaqá'iq which the author, on the night preceding Ra-maḍán 26, 705 (April 11, 1306), dreamed that he was presented to the Prophet. Its contents also are theological. This and the three preceding works are all written in Arabic, and together form what is known as the Majmú'a-i-Rashídiyya, or “Collection of the works of Rashídu'd-Dín,” of which a beautiful manuscript, dated 710/1310-11, exists at Paris. Another manuscript of the same library ^76a contains a Persian translation of the Laṭá 'ifu'l-Ḥaqá'iq, and there are also preserved there two copies of an attestation of the orthodoxy of Rashídu'd-Dín's theological views, signed by seventy leading doctors of Muslim theology. This attestation was drawn up in consequence of accusations of heterodoxy made against Rashíd by a malicious fellow whose enmity had been aroused by the frustration of his endeavours to appropriate an emolument from a benefaction for scholars and men of learning made by Gházán Khán on his death.

Another of Rashíd's works, of which, unhappily, only the general nature of the contents is known, is the Bayánu'l-

Bayánu'lḤaqá'iq Ḥaqá'iq, or “Explanation of Verities,” comprising seventeen letters, dealing mostly with theological topics, though other subjects, such as the small-pox and the nature and varieties of heat, are discussed.

The elaborate precautions (precautions which, alas! in the event proved inadequate) taken by Rashídu'd-Dín to Precautions taken by Rashídu'dDín for the preservation of his books preserve and transmit to posterity the fruits of his literary labours are very fully detailed by Quatremère, and can only be briefly recapitulated in this place. First, he caused several copies of each of his works to be made for lending to his friends and to men of letters, who were freely permitted to transcribe them for their own use. Then he caused Arabic translations of all his Persian, and Persian translations of all his Arabic works to be prepared, and of both versions he caused numerous copies to be deposited, for the use of anyone who might desire to read or copy them, in the mosque-library of the quarter called after him Rab'-i-Rashídí. He also caused one large volume, containing all of his treatises with the necessary maps and illustrations, to be prepared and deposited in the above-mentioned public library, giving it the title of Jámi'u't-taṣánífi'r-Rashídí, ^77a or “Complete collection of the works of Rashídu'd-Dín.” Of four more works treating of Medicine and the Mongol system of government he caused trilingual versions, in Chinese, Arabic and Persian, to be prepared. He further accorded the fullest liberty to anyone who desired to copy any or all of these books, and, not content with this, assigned a certain yearly sum from the revenues with which he had endowed his mosque in order to have two complete transcripts of his works, one in Arabic and one in Persian, made every year, and presented to one of the chief towns of the Muhammadan world. These copies were to be made on the best Baghdád paper and in the finest and most legible writing, and to be carefully collated with the originals. The copyists were to be carefully chosen, having regard both to the excellence and the speed of their work, and were to be lodged in the precincts of the mosque, as the administrators of the bequest might direct. Each copy, when finished, bound and ornamented, was to be carried into the mosque and placed on a bookrest between the pulpit and the miḥráb, and over it was to be repeated a prayer for the author, composed by himself, and conceived in the following terms:^78a

“O God, who revealest the most hidden secrets, and givest knowledge of history and traditions! As Thou hast graci-

Rashídu'dDín's prayer ously guided thy servant Rashíd the Physician, who standeth in need of Thine Abundant Mercy, in the composition of these works, which comprise investigations supporting the fundamental dogmas of Islám, and minute researches tending to elucidate philosophical truths and natural laws, profitable to those who meditate on the inventions of Art, and advantageous to such as reflect on the wonders of Creation, even so hast Thou enabled him to consecrate a portion of his estates to pious foundations, on condition that from these revenues should be provided sundry copies of these books, so that the Muslims of all lands and of all times may derive profit therefrom. Accept, O God, all this from him with a favourable acceptance, and cause his efforts to be remembered with thanks, and grant forgiveness for all sins, and pardon all those who shall help to accomplish this good work, and those who shall read or consult these works and put in practice the lessons which they contain. And bestow

Colophon of Qur'án transcribed for Úljáytú, Rashídu'd-Dín
and Sa'du'd-Dín in A.H. 710 (A.D. 1310-11)
Or. 4945 (Brit. Mus.), f. I^a
To face p. 78

on him a good recompense, both in this world and the next! Verily Thou art worthy of fear, yet swift to forgive!”

This prayer was also to be inscribed at the end of each copy so completed, and was to be followed by a brief doxology, also formulated by Rashídu'd-Dín, and a colophon penned by the administrator of the bequest, stating at what epoch and for what town each copy had been made, and giving his own name and genealogy, so that he also might be remembered in the prayers of the faithful. Finally the completed copy was to be submitted to the qáḍís, or judges, of Tabríz, who should certify that all the formalities prescribed by the author had been duly carried out; and it was then to be sent to the town for which it was destined, and deposited in a public library where it could be freely used by all students, and even borrowed against a bond for such sum as the librarian might deem suitable. A copy of the Arabic version of the Majmú'a-i-Rashídiyya, together with the Bayánu'l-Ḥaqá'iq and the Kitábu'l-Aḥyá wa'l-Áthár, was also to be made for one of the Professors on the foundation, who was daily to read and expound to the students some portion of the contents. Besides this, each lecturer on the foundation was obliged to make a copy of one of these works, either in Arabic or Persian, during the period occupied by his course of lectures, failing which he was to be dismissed and replaced by one more diligent than himself. The copy, when made, was to be his own, to sell, give away, or keep as he pleased. All facilities were to be accorded to persons desirous of copying any of these works in the library, but they were not allowed to be removed from its walls. In conclusion the successive administrators of the funds were exhorted to carry out zealously and literally the wishes of the benefactor, and curses were invoked on any administrator who should fail to do so.

Yet, as Quatremère observes, ^79a in spite of all these elaborate precautions, “we have lost the greater part of the works of this learned historian, and all the measures which he took have not had a more fortunate success than the precautions devised by the Emperor Tacitus to secure the preservation of his illustrious relative's writings. The action of time and the vandalism of man, those two scourges which have robbed us of so many masterpieces of antiquity, have also destroyed numerous other productions, less brilliant without doubt, but not less useful; and while worthless compilations are spread abroad in all directions and load the shelves of our libraries, we are left to lament bitterly a number of important works, of which the loss is irreparable.”

Of one such work, however, not apparently known to Quatremère, I am the fortunate possessor. This is a col- A MS. collection of Rashídu'dDín's letters lection of Rashídu'd-Dín's letters, mostly on political and financial matters, addressed to his sons and others who held various offices under the Mongol government, and collected, arranged and edited by his secretary Muḥammad of Abarqúh. For two manuscripts of this work, one old, the other a modern copy of the first, made, apparently, for Prince Bahman Mírzá Bahá'u'd-Dawla, I am indebted to the generosity of my friend Mr G. le Strange, who obtained them from the late Sir Albert Houtum-Schindler. ^80a A third manuscript volume, in English, is entitled in Mr le Strange's hand: Summary of the Contents of the Persian MS. Despatches of Rashídu'd-Dín: copied from notes supplied by Sir A. H. Schindler, and afterwards corrected by him: Dec. 1913. In view of the extreme rarity of this work and the interest of its contents, a list of the 53 despatches and letters which it contains and the persons to whom they are addressed is here appended.

1. Preface of the editor Muḥammad of Abarqúh, defective at beginning.

2. Letter from Rashídu'd-Dín to Majdu'd-Dín Isma'íl Fálí.

3. Answer to the above.

4. From Rashídu'd-Dín to his son Amír 'Alí, Governor of 'Iráq-i-'Arab, ordering him to punish the people of Baṣra for rebellious conduct.

5. From the same to his son Amír Maḥmúd, Governor of Kirmán, reprimanding him for oppressing the people of Bam.

6. From the same to his servant Sunqur Báwarchí, Governor of Baṣra, instructing him as to the policy he should pursue.

7. From the same to his sister's son Khwája Ma'rúf, Governor of 'Ána, Ḥadítha, Hít, Jibba, Ná'úsa, 'Ashára (?), Raḥba, Shafáthá (?) and Baladu'l-'Ayn, appointing him Governor of Rúm. Written from Sulṭániyya in 690/1291 (or possibly 696/1296-7).

8. From the same to the Ná'ibs of Káshán concerning the pension of 2000 dínárs assigned to Sayyid Afḍalu'd-Dín Mas'úd out of the revenues of Káshán.

9. From the same to his son Amír Maḥmúd (see No. 5 supra) ordering the distribution of food to the poor of Bam, Khabíṣ, etc.

10. From the same to his son Khwája Sa'du'd-Dín, Governor of Antioch, Tarsus, Sús, Qinnasrín, the 'Awáṣim and the shores of the Euphrates, giving him fatherly advice as to the methods of administration he should adopt, and warning him against sloth, wine-drinking, and over-fondness for music and dissipation.

11. From the same to his son 'Abdu'l-Mú'min, Governor of Simnán, Dámghán and Khwár, ordering him to appoint the Qáḍí Shamsu'ḍ-Dín Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Muḥam-mad b. 'Abdu'l-Karím of Simnán Chief Judge of that district.

12. From the same to Shaykh Ṣadru'd-Dín b. Shaykh Bahá'u'd-Dín Zakariyyá condoling with him on the death of a son.

13. From the same to Mawláná Ṣadru'd-Dín Muḥam-mad Turka'í concerning a revised and emended scale of taxation to be applied to the people of Iṣfahán and other places.

14. Proclamation from the same to his son Amír 'Alí, Governor of Baghdád, and to the people of that city, small and great, concerning the appointment of Shaykh Majdu'd-Dín as Shaykhu'l-Islám and the provision to be made for the professors, officers and students of the khánqáh of the late Gházán Khán.

15. From the same to Amír Nuṣratu'd-Dín Sitáy, Governor of Mawṣil, and Sinjár, concerning Sharafu'd-Dín Ḥasan Mustawfí.

16. Answers from the same to philosophical and religious questions propounded by Mawláná Ṣadr-i-Jahán of Bukhárá.

17. Letter from the same to his son Khwája Jalál, asking for 40 young men and maidens of Rúm to be sent to him at Tabríz to form the nucleus of a population for one of the five villages he has included in his park in the Rab'-i-Rashídí.

18. From the same to Khwája 'Alá'u'd-Dín Hindú requesting him to obtain and send various medicinal oils for the hospital in the Rab'-i-Rashídí.

19. From the same to his son Amír 'Alí, Governor of Baghdád, concerning allowances and presents to various theologians.

20. From the same to his son Khwája 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, Governor of Iṣfahán, giving him good advice.

21. From the same to his son Khwája Jalálu'd-Dín, Governor of Rúm, also giving good advice, and ordering various quantities of different herbs and drugs for his hospital at Tabríz.

22. From the same to his son Amír Shihábu'd-Dín, then Governor of Baghdád, giving him good advice, and summarizing the revenues of Khúzistán.

23. From the same to Mawláná Majdu'd-Dín Isma'íl Fálí, inviting him to be present at the marriages which he has arranged for nine of his sons with various noble ladies.

24. From the same to Qará-Búqá, Governor of Kayfí and Pálú.

25. From the same to Mawláná 'Afífu'd-Dín Baghdádí.

26. From the same in answer to a letter from the Mawlás of Qayṣariyya (Caesarea) in Rúm.

27. From the same to his son Amír Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad on his appointment as Inspector of Khurásán by Khudá-banda Úljáytú.

28. From the same to the people of Síwás concerning the Alms-house for Sayyids founded there by Gházán (Dáru's-Siyádat-i-Gházání) and the necessity of its proper maintenance.

29. From the same from Multán in Sind to Mawláná Quṭbu'd-Dín Mas'úd of Shíráz, giving an account of the journey to India which he undertook at the Íl-khán's command to greet the Indian kings and bring back various drugs and spices not obtainable in Persia.

30. From the same to Takhtákh Injú as to complaints of his tyranny made by the people of Fárs, concerning which he is sending his son Ibráhím to report.

31. From the same concerning Mawláná Muḥammad Rúmí, and the teaching in the college at Arzanján, of which he has been appointed Master.

32. From the same to Shirwán Sháh, ruler of Shábarán and Shamákhí, inviting him to visit the Garden of Fatḥ-ábád which he has made.

33. From the same to the revenue officers of Khúzistán, concerning various financial and administrative matters, and the sending of Khwája Siráju'd-Dín of Dizful to audit the accounts, make investigations, and report.

34. From the same to his son Khwája Majdu'd-Dín, ordering him to collect stores for the army destined for the occupation of India.

35. From the Seljúq ruler of Arzanján, Malik Jalálu'd-Dín Kay-Qubád b. 'Alá'u'd-Dín Kay-Qubád, asking advice on sundry matters; with Rashídu'd-Dín's replies.

36. Rashídu'd-Dín's reply to a letter from Mawláná Ṣa-dru'd-Dín Muḥammad Turka'í, written during a dangerousill-ness and containing his last will and testament as to the division amongst his children of his numerous and extensive estates and other property. To the Rab'-i-Rashídí he bequeaths a library of 60,000 volumes of science, history and poetry, including 1000 Qur'áns by various excellent calligraphers, of which 10 were copied by Yáqút al-Musta'ṣimí, 10 by Ibn Muqla and 200 by Aḥmad Suhrawardí. He enumerates by name his 14 sons, viz. (1) Sa'du'd-Dín, (2) Jalálu'd-Dín, (3) Majdu'd-Dín, (4) 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, (5) Ibráhím, (6) Ghi-yáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad, (7) Aḥmad, (8) 'Alí, (9) Shaykhí, (10) Pír Sulṭán, (11) Maḥmúd, (12) Humám, (13) Shihábu 'd-Dín, (14) 'Alí-sháh; and his 4 daughters, viz. (1) Farmán-Khánd, (2) Áy Khátún, (3) Sháhí Khátún, (4) Hadiyya Malik.

37. Rashídu'd-Dín to the same, concerning a book which he had written and dedicated to him, and sending him a present of money, choice garments, a horse and various food-stuffs.

38. From the same to the people of Diyár Bakr concerning the digging of a new canal to be called after himself, and the establishment and population of 14 villages on both sides of it, with names and plan of the new villages, which are for the most part named after his 14 sons.

39. From the same to his son Jalálu'd-Dín, Governor of Rúm, concerning the digging of a new canal from the Euphrates to be called after his late lord Gházán Khán, and the foundation of 10 villages, of which the plan and names are again given.

40. From the same to his agent Khwája Kamálu'd-Dín Síwásí, Mustawfí of Rúm, ordering him to send, by means of a merchant named Khwája Aḥmad, certain presents in cash and in kind to ten learned men in Tunis and the Maghrib (names given) in return for ten books (titles given) in 36 volumes which they had sent to the Minister, of whose generosity they had heard.

41. From the same to the authorities at Shíráz ordering them to make certain specified presents in cash and in kind to Mawláná Maḥmúd b. Ilyás who had written a book entitled Laṭá'if-i-Rashídiyya and dedicated it to Rashídu'd-Dín.

42. From the same to the authorities at Hamadán concerning the maintenance of the Pharmacy (Dárú-khána) and Hospital (Dáru'sh-Shifá) which he had founded there, and which he is sending a physician named Ibn Mahdí to inspect and report on. Written from Caesarea (Qayṣariyya) in 690/1291.

43. From the same to his son Amír Maḥmúd, Governor of Kirmán, recommending to his care and assistance Khwája Maḥmúd of Sáwa, whom he is sending on a mission to India, to Sulṭán 'Alá'u'd-Dín, and also to collect money due to Rashídu'd-Dín from his estates there.

44. From the same to his son Pír Sulṭán, Governor of Georgia, concerning the King's projected expedition to Syria and Egypt, and an intended punitive expedition of 120,000 men under ten Mongol amírs (names given) which is to pass through Georgia to chastise the rebellious people of Abkház and Trebizonde, and which Pír Sulṭán is to accompany, leaving the government of Georgia in the hands of his deputy Khwája Mu'ínu'd-Dín.

45. From the same to Shaykh Ṣafiyyu'd-Dín of Ardabíl giving, after many compliments, a list of the supplies of meat, fowls, rice, wheat, butter, honey, mást, perfumes and money which he proposes to supply to the aforesaid Shaykh's monastery (khánqáh) for the festival to be held there in commemoration of the Prophet's birthday.

46. Letter from Malik Mu'ínu'd-Dín, Parwána of Rúm, to Rashídu'd-Dín, complaining of Turkmán depredations in his province.

47. Letter from Malik 'Alá'u'd-Dín accompanying the presents of precious stuffs, aromatic drugs, animals, conserves, spices, dried fruits, carpets, oils, plate, rare timber, ivory, etc., which he is sending from India by way of Baṣra to Rashídu'd-Dín.

48. Letter from Rashídu'd-Dín to his son Amír Maḥmúd, then engaged in studying Ṣúfíism in Kirmán.

49. Letter from the same to his son Amír Aḥmad, at that time Governor of Ardabíl, containing seven recommendations (waṣiyyat), and expressing regret that he is occupying himself with Astrology.

50. Letter of condolence from the same to Mawláná Sharafu'd-Dín Ṭabasí on the death of his son, and ordering Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad of Abarqúh to supply him yearly with certain specified provisions.

51. Letter from the same to his son Sa'du'd-Dín, Governor of Qinnasrín, describing the completion of the Rab'-i-Rashídí at Tabríz, with its 24 caravansarays, 1500 shops and 30,000 houses; its gardens, baths, stores, mills, workshops, paper-mills and mint; its workmen and artisans, brought from every town and country, its Qur'án-readers, mu'adh-dhins and doctors of theology, domiciled in the Kúcha-i-'Ulamá (“Rue des Savants”); its 6000 or 7000 students; its 50 physicians from India, China, Egypt and Syria, each of whom is bound to give instruction to ten pupils; the hospital (Dáru'sh-Shifá) with its oculists, surgeons and bone-setters, to each of whom are assigned as pupils five of the writer's servants; and the allowances in kind and in money made to all of them.

52. Letter from the same to his son Khwája Ibráhím, Governor of Shíráz, describing the campaign against Kábul and Sístán, and demanding various arms and munitions of war in specified quantities.

53. Letter from the same to several of his sons concerning the attributes of learning, clemency, reason and generosity. The MS. breaks off abruptly in the middle of this letter.

These letters, which ought to be published, are of extraordinary interest on account of the light they throw on the character and manifold activities of this most remarkable man, at once statesman, physician, historian and patron of art, letters and science. We have already noticed the tragic fate which overtook him and to a large extent brought to naught his careful and elaborate plans for the preservation of his books and the beneficent institutions which he founded for the promotion of learning and charity; and the least we can do in pious memory of a truly great scholar is to perpetuate what is left of his writings.

But if Rashídu'd-Dín failed to secure the immortality of all his works, he set a fruitful example to other historians,

Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín so that it is largely due to him that this period is so conspicuous for merit in this field of knowledge. We have seen how he helped Waṣṣáf and brought him to the Íl-khán's notice. We shall now consider the work of his most illustrious follower, Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín. Of his life little is known save what he tells us incidentally in his works. He professed to be of Arab origin, tracing his pedigree to Ḥurr b. Yazíd ar-Riyáḥí, but his family had long been settled in Qazwín. His great-grandfather, Amínu'd-Dín Naṣr, was Mustawfí of 'Iráq, but later adopted the ascetic life, and was finally slain by the Mongols. His brother, Zaynu'd-Dín Muḥam-mad, held office under Rashídu'd-Dín, and he himself was appointed by the same minister, about 1311, superintendent of the finances of Qazwín, Abhar, Zanján and Ṭárumayn. For the rest, he tells us that he had from his youth upwards eagerly cultivated the society of men of learning, especially that of Rashídu'd-Dín himself, and had frequented many learned discussions, especially on history; so that, though not by training a historian, he resolved to employ his leisure in compiling a compendious universal history. Three of his works, the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, or “Select History,” the Ẓafar-náma, or “Book of Victory,” and the Nuz-hatu'l-Qulúb , or “Heart's Delight,” have come down to us. Of these, the first two are historical, the third geographical.

The Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída was composed in 730/1330, and is Ta'ríkhi-Guzída dedicated to Rashídu'd-Dín's son Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad, who was made Prime Minister in May, 1328, and, as we have seen, was put to death in Sources of the Ta'ríkhi-Guzída May, 1336. The author enumerates about two dozen of his sources, which include (1) the Síratu'n-Nabí, or Biography of the Prophet (probably Ibn Hishám's); ^88a (2) the Qiṣaṣu'l-Anbiyá (probably ath-Tha'labí's ); ^88b (3) the Risála-i-Qushayriyya; ^88c (4) the Tadh-kiratu'l-Awliyá (probably Farídu'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár's); ^88d (5) the Tadwín of Imámu'd-Dín al-Yáfi'í; ^88e (6) the Tajáribu'l-Umam ^88f (probably of Ibn Miskawayhi); (7) the Masháribu't-Tajá-rib ; (8) the Díwánu'n-Nasab; ^88g (9) the Chronicle of Muḥam-mad Jarír aṭ-Ṭabarí; ^88h (10) the history of Ḥamza of Iṣfahán; ⁸⁸ⁱ (11) the Ta'ríkhu'l-Kámil of Ibnu'l-Athír; ^88j (12) the Zub-datu't-Tawáríkh of Jamálu'd-Dín Abu'l-Qásim of Káshán; (13) the Niẓámu't-Tawáríkh of the Qáḍí Náṣiru'd-Dín al-Bayḍáwí; ^88k (14) the 'Uyúnu't-Tawáríkh of Abú Ṭálib 'Alí al-Kházin al-Baghdádí; (15) the Kitábu'l-Ma'árif of Ibn Qutayba; ^88l (16) the Ta'ríkh-i-Jahán-gushá of 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní; ^88m (17) Abú Sharaf Jarbádhaqání's Persian translation of al-'Utbí's Kitábu'l-Yamíní; ⁸⁸ⁿ (18) the Siyásat- náma (here called Siyaru'l-Mulúk) of Niẓámu'l-Mulk; ^89a (19) the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí; ^89b (20) the Saljúq-náma of Ẓahírí of Níshápúr; (21) the Majma'u Arbábi'l-Maslak of Qáḍí Ruknu'd-Dín Juwayní; (22) the Istiẓháru'l-Akhbár of Qáḍí Aḥmad Dámghání; and lastly (23) the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh ^89c of the author's late martyred master and patron Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh.

After the enumeration of his sources, most of which, as will appear from the foot-notes, are directly accessible to Different eras used in computing time us, the author describes the different eras used by different peoples, some of whom date from Adam, others from the Deluge, others from Abraham or Moses, others from the destruction of Pharaoh, others from the building of the Ka'ba or the Abyssinian invasion of Yaman, while the Greeks date from Alexander, the Copts from Nebuchadnezzar, and the pre-Islamic Quraysh from the year of the Elephant. He then discusses the confusion in chronology arising from these differences as to the terminus a quo, which is increased by the fact that the philosophers deny that the world had a beginning, while the theologians assert that it had a beginning and will have an end, but decline to define or specify either. The learned men of India, China and Europe assert that Adam lived about a million years ago, and that there were several Adams, each of whom, with his descendants, spoke a special language, but that the posterity of all save one (viz. the Adam of the Hebrews) died out. Most of the Muslim doctors of Persia, on the other hand, reckon the period between Adam and Muḥammad as six thousand years, though some say more and some less. Astronomers reckon from the Deluge, since which, at the time of writing (viz. in the year 698 of the Era of Yazdigird, i.e. about A.D. 1330) 4432 years are considered to have elapsed.

The Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída comprises an Introduction (Fátiḥa),

Contents of the Ta'ríkhi-Guzída six chapters (Báb), each of which is divided into numerous sections (Faṣl), and a conclusion (Khátima), as follows:

Introduction. On the Creation of the Universe and of Man. Chapter I, in two sections. (1) Major Prophets, and (2) Minor Prophets, and Sages, who, not being Prophets, yet worked for the cause of true religion.

Chapter II. The Pre-Islamic Kings of Persia, in four sections, viz.:

(1) Píshdádiyán, eleven Kings, who ruled 2450 years.
(2) Kayániyán, ten Kings, who ruled 734 years.
(3) Mulúku'ṭ - Ṭawá'if (Parthians), twenty - two
Kings, who ruled 318 years. ^90a
(4) Sásániyán, thirty-one Kings, who reigned 527
years.^90b

Chapter III. The Prophet Muḥammad and his Companions and Descendants, in an introduction and six sections, viz.:

Introduction, on the pedigree, genealogy and kin of
the Prophet.
(1) Life of the Prophet, his wars, his wives, secre-
taries, relations and descendants.
(2) The Orthodox Caliphs, who are reckoned as
five, al-Ḥasan being included. Duration, from
10 Rabí' 1, A.H. 11 to 13 Rabí' 1, A.H. 41 (June 6,
632-July 17, 661), when al-Ḥasan resigned the
supreme power to Mu'áwiya the Umayyad.

(3) The remainder of the twelve Imáms, excluding
'Alí and his son al-Ḥasan, who was poisoned in
49/669-70. Duration, 215 years and 7 months,
from 4 Ṣafar, A.H. 49 to Ramaḍán, A.H. 264
(March 14, 669-May, 878).
(4) Notices of some of the chief “Companions” (Aṣ-
ḥáb) and “Followers” (Tábi'ún) of the Prophet.
(5) The Umayyad “Kings” (not regarded by the
author as Caliphs), fourteen in number. Dura-
tion, 91 years, from 13 Rabí' 1, A.H. 41 to 13 Rabí' 1,
A.H. 132 (July 17, 661-Oct. 30, 749).
(6) The 'Abbasid Caliphs, thirty-seven in number.
Duration, 523 years, 2 months and 23 days, from
13 Rabí' 1, A.H. 132 to 6 Ṣafar, A.H. 656 (Oct. 30,
749-Feb. 12, 1258).

Chapter IV. Post-Islamic Kings of Persia, in twelve sections, viz.:

(1) Ṣaffárids, three Kings, who reigned 35 years,
from 253/867 to 287/900, after which date their
posterity continued for some time to rule over
Sístán.
(2) Sámánids, nine Kings, who reigned 102 years
and 6 months, from Rabí' 11, A.H. 287 to Dhu'l-
Qa'da, A.H. 389 (April, 900 to Oct.-Nov. 999).
(3) Ghaznawís, fourteen Kings, who reigned 155 years
(30 years over most of Persia, and the remaining
years in Ghazna), from 390/1000 to 545/1150-1.
(4) Ghúrís, five Kings, who reigned for 64 years, from
545/1150-1 to 609/1212-13.
(5) Daylamís (or House of Buwayh), seventeen
Kings, who reigned for 127 years, from 321/933
to 448/1056-7.
(6) Seljúqs, in three groups, viz.:

(a) Of Persia, fourteen Kings, who reigned for
161 years, from 429/1037-8 to 590/1194.
(b) Of Kirmán, eleven Kings, who reigned for
150 years, from 433/1041-2 to 583/1187-8.

(c) Of Asia Minor, eleven Kings, who reigned
for 220 years, from 480/1087-8 to 700/1300-1.

(7) Khwárazmsháhs, nine Kings, who reigned for
137 years, from 491/1098 to 628/1230-1.
(8) Atábeks, in two groups, viz.:

(a) Of Diyár Bakr and Syria, nine Kings, who
reigned for 120 years, from 481/1088-9 to 601/
1204-5.
(b) Of Fárs (also called Salgharids), eleven Kings,
who reigned for 120 years, from 543/1148-9 to
663/1264-5.

(9) Isma'ílís, in two groups, viz.:

(a) Of North Africa and Egypt (the Fáṭimid
Caliphs), fourteen anti-Caliphs, who reigned for
260 years, from 296/908-9 to 556/1160.
(b) Of Persia (the Assassins of Alamút), eight
pontiffs, who ruled for 171 years, from 483/
1090-1 to 654/1256.

(10) Qará-Khitá'ís of Kirmán, ten Kings, who reigned
for 85 years, from 621/1224 to 706/1306-7.
(11) Atábeks of Luristán, in two groups, viz.:

(a) Of Lur-i-Buzurg, seven rulers, who reigned
for 180 years, from 550/1155-6 to 730/1329-
30.
(b) Of Lur-i-Kúchak, eleven rulers, who reigned
150 years, from 580/1184-5 to 730/1329-30.

(12) Mongol Íl-kháns of Persia, thirteen Kings, who
had reigned at the time of writing 131 years, from
599/1202-3 to 730/1329-30. “Hereafter,” adds
the author, “let him who will write the con-
tinuation of their history.”

Chapter V. Account of men notable for their piety or learning, in six sections, viz.:

(1) Imáms and Mujtahids (12 are mentioned).
(2) “Readers” of the Qur'án (9 are mentioned).
(3) Traditionists (7 are mentioned).
(4) Shaykhs and Ṣúfís (about 300 are mentioned).

(5) Doctors of Divinity, Law and Medicine (about
70 are mentioned).
(6) Poets, of whom about 5 Arabic and 87 Persian
poets are mentioned. The biographies of the latter
have been translated and published by me in the
J.R.A.S. for October 1900 and January 1901, and
as a separate reprint.

Chapter VI. Account of Qazwín, the author's native town, in seven sections, viz.:

(1) Traditions concerning Qazwín. Some 40 are
given, of which 36 are said to be from an auto-
graph copy of the Tadwín of ar-Ráfi'í. ^93a Nearly
all these agree in describing Qazwín as one of the
“Gates of Paradise.”
(2) Etymology of the name of Qazwín.
(3) Notable buildings of Qazwín; its nine quarters
and architectural history from the time of Shápúr I,
who was its original founder; its conquest by the
Arabs, and conversion to Islám.
(4) Its environs, rivers, aqueducts (qanáts), mosques,
and tombs. Some of its inhabitants are said still
to profess secretly the religion of Mazdak.
(5) Notable men who have visited Qazwín, including
“Companions” and “Followers” of the Prophet,
Imáms and Caliphs, Shaykhs and 'ulamá, Kings
and wazírs, kháqáns and amírs.
(6) Governors of Qazwín.
(7) Tribes and leading families of Qazwín, including
Sayyids; 'ulamá; Iftikhárís (of whom the actual
representative, Malik Sa'íd Iftikháru'd-Dín Mu-
ḥammad b. Abú Naṣr, had learned the Mongol and
Turkí languages and writing, and had translated

Kalíla and Dimna into the first, and the Sindibád-
náma into the second); Bázdárís or Muẓaffarís;
Bishárís; Burhánís; Ḥanafís; Ḥulwánís; Khá-
lidís; Khalílís; Dabírán; Ráfi'ís; Zákánís; Zu-
bayrís; Zádánís; Shírzáds; Ṭá'úsís; 'Abbásís;
Ghaffárís; Fílwágúshán; Qaḍawís; Qaráwuls;
Tamímís; Karajís or Dulafís (one of whom was
the cosmographer and geographer Zakariyyá b.
Muḥammad b. Maḥmúd); Kiyás or Kaysís;
Mákánís; Mustawfís (the author's own family,
said to be descended from Ḥurr b. Yazíd ar-
Riyáḥí); Mú'minán; Mukhtárán; Mu'áfiyán or
Mu'áfániyán; Marzubánán; Níshápúriyán; and
Búlá-Tímúrís or Ṭábábakán.

Conclusion. A tree of dynasties, or genealogical tree, based on that devised by Rashídu'd-Dín, but improved. This tree is, however, omitted in all the manuscripts which I have seen.

Having regard to the extent of the field covered by the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, and its comparatively modest size (some 170,000 words), it is evident that it is of the nature of a compendium, and that no great detail can be expected from it. It is, however, a useful manual, and contains many interesting particulars not to be found elsewhere, while for contemporary history it is of first-rate importance, so that the need for a complete edition of the text had long been felt. Until the year 1910 the only portions accessible in print were:

(1) The whole of chapter iv, on the Post-Islamic dynasties of Persia, edited in the original, with French translation, by M. Jules Gantin (Paris, 1903). Pp. ix + 623.

(2) The whole of chapter vi, except the first section on the Traditions, containing the account of Qazwín, translated into French by M. Barbier de Meynard, and published in the Journal Asiatique for 1857 (Sér. v, vol. 10, pp. 257 et seqq.).

(3) Section 6 of chapter v, the account of the Persian poets, translated by myself in the J.R.A.S. for October 1900 and January 1901.

In 1910, however, a fac-simile of a fairly accurate and ancient MS. (transcribed in 857/1453) was published in the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial” Series (vol. xiv, 1), and this was followed in 1913 by an abridged English translation, with full Indices, by myself and Dr R. A. Nicholson (vol. xiv, 2), so that the whole work is now accessible to scholars, who can form their own opinion of its value.

In the preface of the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí speaks of a great historical poem on which he The Ẓafarnáma was then engaged, and of which he had at that time (730/1330) completed fifty and odd thousand couplets out of a total of 75,000. This poem, entitled Ẓafar-náma, the “Book of Victory,” was actually completed five years later. It is essentially a continuation of Firdawsí's Sháh-náma, and the only known manuscript (Or. 2833 of the British Museum, a huge volume of 779 folios, transcribed in Shíráz in 807/1405, and bought in Persia by Mr Sidney Churchill for the Museum about 1885) ^95a contains besides the Ẓafar-náma the revised text of the Sháh-náma on which the author had spent six years. The Ẓafar-náma begins with the life of the Prophet Muḥammad, and comes down to the author's own time, viz. to the year 732/1331-2, when Abú Sa'íd was still reigning. It comprises, as already said, 75,000 couplets, 10,000 couplets being assigned by the author to each of the seven and a half centuries of which he treats, or, according to the main chronological divisions of the work, 25,000 couplets to the Arabs, 20,000 to the Persians, and 30,000 to the Mongols. The author was forty years of age when he began it, and spent fifteen years on its composition, so that he must have been born about 680/1281-2. From Dr Rieu's description, it is evident that the historical value of this work is by no means to be neglected: “the author,” he says (loc. cit., p. 173), “is very precise as to facts and dates, and his third book will be found valuable for the history of the Mongol period. He gives, for instance, on f. 512^a, a very vivid description of the wholesale slaughter wrought by the Mongols in his native place, Qazwín. His information was partly derived from his great-grandsire, Amín Naṣr Mustawfí, who was ninety-three years old at the time.” The following extract from this portion may serve as a specimen:

Mongol siege of a Chinese town, from an old MS. of the Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh
in the Bibliothèque Nationale
To face p. 96

“Thence ^97a to the town of Qazwín, Subutáy ^97b
Like raging tiger came right speedily.
The tale of years at six, one, seven stood
When that fair town became a lake of blood,
And Sha'bán's month had counted seven days ^97c
When it was filled with woe and sore amaze.
The governor who held the ill-starred town
Muẓaffar named, a ruler of renown,
Was, by the Caliph's most august command,
Set to control the fortunes of the land.

When came the hosts of war and direful fate
Firm as a rock they closed the city gate.
Upon the wall the warriors took their place,
And each towards the Mongols set his face.
Three days they kept the ruthless foe at bay,
But on the fourth they forced a blood-stained way.

Fiercely the Mongols entered Qazwín Town
And heads held high before were now brought down.
No quarter in that place the Mongols gave:
The days were ended of each chieftain brave.
Nothing could save the townsmen from their doom,
And all were gathered in one common tomb.
Alike of great and small, of old and young,
The lifeless bodies in the dust they flung:
Both men and women shared a common fate:
The luck-forsaken land lay desolate.
Many a fair one in that fearful hour
Sought death to save her from th' invaders' power:
Chaste maidens of the Prophet's progeny
Who shone like asteroids in Virtue's sky,
Fearing the lust of that ferocious host
Did cast them down, and so gave up the ghost.
Much in that land prevails the Sháfi'ite;
One in a thousand is a Ḥanafite; ^98a
And yet they counted on that gory plain
Twelve thousand Ḥanafites amongst the slain!
In heaps on every side the corpses lay,
Alike on lonely path and broad high-way.
Uncounted bodies cumbered every street:
Scarce might one find a place to set one's feet.

In terror of the Mongol soldiery
Hither and thither did the people fly,
Some seeking refuge to the Mosque did go,
Hearts filled with anguish, souls surcharged with woe.
From that fierce foe so sore their straits and plight
That climbing forms the arches hid from sight.
The ruthless Mongols burning brands did ply
Till tongues of flame leapt upwards to the sky.
Roof, vault and arch in burning ruin fell,
A heathen holocaust of Death and Hell!”

Yet a third work produced by this industrious writer is the well-known geographical and cosmographical treatise Nuz-hatu'lQulúb entitled the Nuz-hatu'l-Qulúb, or “Heart's Delight.” Manuscripts of it are fairly common, but until 1915 the text was only generally accessible in the indifferent lithographed edition published at Bombay in 1311/1893-4. In 1915, however, a critical edition of the text was brought out by Mr G. le Strange in the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial” Series (vol. xxiii, 1), and the English translation (vol. xxiii, 2), which is now in the Press, will shortly follow.

The Nuz-hatu'l-Qulúb was composed five years later than the Ẓafar-náma, during the period of anarchy which succeeded Abú Sa'íd's death, to which the author alludes with feeling. He was persuaded, he says, to undertake the work at the request of certain friends, who felt the want of a Persian work on geography, most of the works on that sub- Sources of the Nuz-hatu'lQulúb ject being in Arabic. He enumerates amongst his sources the following works, which he has supplemented from his own observations during his travels through Persia: the Ṣuwaru'l-Aqálím of Abú Zayd Aḥmad b. Sahl al-Balkhí; ^99a the Tibyán of Aḥmad b. Abí 'Abdi'lláh; the Road-book (Masálik wa'l-Mamálik) of Abu'l-Qásim 'Abdu'lláh ibn Khurdádhbih; ^99b and a work entitled the Jahán-náma; besides nineteen other works, of which the enumeration will be found in Rieu's Persian Catalogue, pp. 418-419. The work is primarily divided into an Introduction (Fátiḥa), three Discourses (Maqála), and an Appendix (Khátima). The third Maqála is the important part of the work: all that precedes this deals with cosmography, the heavens, the earth, the three kingdoms, and man. This third Maqála, which contains the geographical portion of the work, deals first with the geography of the two holy cities of Arabia and of Jerusalem; then with the geography of Persia, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, with an appendix on the physical geography of Persia; then with the countries bordering on Persia, and some other lands never included in the Persian Empire. The Conclusion treats of the wonders of the world, especially of Persia. The book is of considerable value for a knowledge of the geography and condition of mediaeval Persia, and was largely used by Mr G. le Strange in the compilation of his Lands of the Eastern Caliphate before he published the edition mentioned on the preceding page.

Mention has been already made at the beginning of this chapter (p. 63 supra) of a small historical manual entitled Al-Baydáwí's Niẓámu'tTawáríkh Niẓámu't-Tawáríkh (the “Order of Histories” or “Dates”) by the well-known judge and Qur'án-commentator Náṣiru'd-Dín al-Bayḍáwí, whose father held the same office under the Atábek Abú Bakr b. Sa'd-i-Zangí, the patron of the great poet Sa'dí. This dull and jejune little book, compiled in the year 674/ 1275, with a continuation, apparently added by the author, down to 683/1284-5, and a further continuation, probably by another hand, to 694/1294-5, contains an outline of general history from the time of Adam to the date last mentioned. It has not been published, and is probably not worth publishing, since it is doubtful whether it contains anything new or valuable, and whether it is calculated to add to the fame which its author enjoys as a jurisconsult, theologian and commentator.^100a

Another still unpublished historical manual of this period is that properly entitled Rawḍatu Úli'l-Albáb fí tawáríkhi'l-Akábir wa'l-Ansáb (the “Garden of the Intelligent, on the The Ta'ríkh-iBanákatí histories of the great, and on genealogies”) compiled in 717/1317 by Abú Sulaymán Dá'úd of Banákat (or Fanákat) in Transoxiana. ^100b It is better known as the Ta'ríkh-i-Banákatí, is obviously and indeed admittedly inspired by Rashídu'd-Dín's great work, and comprises nine sections, called qism, as follows: (1) Prophets and Patriarchs; (2) ancient Kings of Persia; (3) the Prophet Muḥammad and the Caliphs; (4) Persian dynasties contemporary with the 'Abbásid Caliphs; (5) the Jews; (6) the Christians and Franks; (7) the Indians; (8) the Chinese; (9) the Mongols. In one respect it shows very clearly the influence of Rashídu'd-Dín's wider conception of history, for more than half the book is devoted to the non-Muslim peoples mentioned in the headings of the last five qisms, to wit the Jews, the European nations, including the Roman Emperors and the Popes, the Indians, the Chinese and the Mongols. The accounts given of these nations, though for the most part brief and dry, show some real knowledge of the chief facts, while the statements of non-Muslim religious doctrines are fair and devoid of acri- Contrast between the histories of Bayḍáwí and Banákatí, and its cause mony or fanaticism. Bayḍáwí, on the other hand, like most Persian historians not directly inspired by Rashídu'd-Dín, practically ignores all history except that which is connected with Islám and the Muhammadan peoples, the ancient Kings of Persia, and the Hebrew Prophets and Patriarchs. This contrast between these two historical manuals is probably in large measure due to the fact that Bayḍáwí lived in Fárs, which, as we have seen, lay outside the great stream of communicatíon between East and West set in motion by the Mongol dominion, while the author of the Ta'ríkh-i-Banákatí was from Transoxiana, and, as poet-laureate of Gházán Khán (701/1301-2), was doubtless familiar with the Mongol court and the many foreigners from distant lands who frequented it. His information about the Jews, Christians, Indians, Chinese and Mongols, though largely Wider range of Banákatí's knowledge and interests directly borrowed, often in the same words, from the pages of Rashídu'd-Dín, was nevertheless undoubtedly supplemented by what the author learned orally from representatives of the peoples in question. In no Persian history before the Mongol period and in few after it do we find so many references to places, people, and historical events beyond the ken of most Muslim writers; places like Portugal, Poland, Bohemia, England, Scotland, Ireland, Catalonia, Lombardy, Paris and Cologne; people like the Roman Emperors from Romulus downwards, and the Popes from St Peter to the Pope contemporary with the author, who is said to be the two hundred and second in succession; and events like the different Church Councils, the Conversion of Britain to Christianity in the time of Pope Eleutherius, the Nestorian heresy, and the like. As a specimen of one of the more interesting passages the following account of printing from wood blocks in China is worthy of attention. Having described the care with which the Chinese transcribe historical and other passages from their ancient books, he says:

“Then, according to a custom which they have, they were wont and still continue to make copies from that book in Account of Chinese printing from the Ta'ríkh-iBanákatí such wise that no change or alteration can find its way into the text. And therefore when they desire that any book containing matter of value to them should be well written and should remain correct, authentic and unaltered, they order a skilful calligraphist to copy a page of that book on a tablet in a fair hand. Then all the men of learning carefully correct it, and inscribe their names on the back of the tablet. Then skilled and expert engravers are ordered to cut out the letters. And when they have thus taken a copy of all the pages of the book, numbering all [the blocks] consecutively, they place these tablets in sealed bags, like the dies in a mint, and entrust them to reliable persons appointed for this purpose, keeping them securely in offices specially set apart to this end on which they set a particular and definite seal. Then when anyone wants a copy of this book he goes before this committee and pays the dues and charges fixed by the Government. Then they bring out these tablets, impose them on leaves of paper like the dies used in minting gold, and deliver the sheets to him. Thus it is impossible that there should be any addition or omission in any of their books, on which, therefore, they place complete reliance; and thus is the transmission of their histories effected.”

A third minor history of this period is the Majma'u'l-Ansáb (“Collection of Genealogies”) of Muḥammad ibn The Majma'u'lAnsáb 'Alí of Shabánkára, who, like Fakhr-i-Baná-katí, was a poet as well as a historian. Of this book there seem to have been two editions, the first issued in 733/1332-3, the second three years later and one year after the death of Abú Sa'íd. This work contains a summary of general history from the Creation to the time of writing, but I have unfortunately been unable to obtain or read a copy, and am indebted for these meagre particulars to Rieu's admirable Persian Catalogue, pp. 83-4. According to Ethé ^103a the original edition perished when the house of Rashídu'd-Dín's son Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad was pillaged, and the author rewrote the book from memory, completing this second edition, according to Ethé, in 743/ 1342-3.

Two rhymed chronicles of this period also deserve notice, the Sháhinsháh-náma (“Book of the King of Kings”), or Chingíz-náma (“Book of Chingíz”), of Aḥmad of Tabríz, containing the history of the Mongols down to 738/1337-8 in about 18,000 verses, and dedicated to Abú Sa'íd; and the Gházán-náma of Núru'd-Dín ibn Shamsu'd-Dín Mu-ḥammad, composed in 763/1361-2. Both works are very rare. Rieu has described a MS. of the first, copied in 800/ 1397-8, acquired by the British Museum at the sale of the Comte de Gobineau's library in 1885; ^103b and I possess a fine MS. of the latter, copied at Tabríz in 873/1468-9 for the Royal Library of Abu'n-Naṣr Ḥasan Beg Bahádur Khán, and given to me in August, 1909, by Dr Riḍá Tawfíq, then Deputy for Adrianople in the Turkish Parliament. Both works are written in the same metre (the mutaqárib) as the Sháh-náma of Firdawsí, of which they are imitations, but the second is only about half the length of the first (something between 9000 and 10,000 couplets). ^104a Neither of these two works appears to be of any exceptional merit either as history or poetry, though useful information about the period of which they treat could no doubt be extracted from them by patient examination.