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

Only two were spared, Zaynu'l-'Ábidín and Shiblí, both of whom had been blinded, the one by his cousin Manṣúr, the other by his father Sháh Shujá'. These were taken by Tímúr to Samarqand, his capital, where they spent the remainder of their days in tranquillity. So ended the Literary tastes of the Muẓaffarís Muẓaffarí dynasty, which for eighty years had held sway over the greater part of southern and central Persia. Several of their princes were distinguished alike by their taste and their talents, and their patronage of learning and letters drew to their court not only numerous poets of distinction, including the incomparable Ḥáfiẓ, but savants such as 'Aḍudu'd-Dín al-Íjí and Mu'ínu'd-Dín Yazdí. Materially they did little to benefit their subjects, save for the building of a few colleges; while even in Eastern history it would be difficult to find a household so divided against itself and so disposed to those fratricidal wars and savage mutilations or destruction of their kinsmen which constitute the greater part of their history.

During the period of the disruption of the Mongol Empire two Shaykh Ḥasans play a prominent part, the one known The Jalá'ir or Ílkání Dynasty as “the Great” (Buzurg), the other as “the Little” (Kúchak). The latter was the grandson of the great Amír Chúbán, whose power and influence were still further increased by his marriage in 719/1319 with Sátí Beg, the daughter of Úljáytú and sister of Abú Sa'íd, who bore him three sons, besides the six sons and one daughter (Baghdád Khátún) born to him by another wife. Of these ten children the most celebrated were Amír Ḥasan, Timúr-Tásh, Dimashq Khwája, and Baghdád Khátún. Amír Ḥasan and his three sons, Tálish, Ḥájji Beg and Ghúch Ḥusayn, all died violent deaths about 727-8/1327-8. Timúr-Tásh rebelled and fled to Egypt, where he was at first well received by al-Malik an-Náṣir, who, however, becoming alarmed at his increasing influence and evident ambition, put him to death in 728/1328. He was the father of the above-mentioned Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Kúchak (“the Little”), also called after his grandfather “Chúbání,” and of Malik-i-Ashraf. Dimashq Khwája, the third of Amír Chúbán's sons, was put to death by Abú Sa'íd in 727/1327 (a year very fatal to this family) on a charge of carrying on an intrigue with one of the widows of the late king Úljáytú. His daughter Dilshád Khátún and her aunt Baghdád Khátún were both ladies of considerable note, and, extraordinary as it appears, both were married at one time in their lives to the Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd and at another to the rival Shaykh Ḥasan, called “the Great” (Buzurg). Baghdád Khátún is said to have been remarkable for her beauty, and was married in 723/1323 to Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg, but unfortunately Abú Sa'íd saw her, was smitten by her charms, and conceived so violent a passion for her that in 727/1325 he compelled her husband to divorce her so that he might marry her himself. On Abú Sa'íd's death in 736/1335-6 and the elevation to the throne of Arpa, she was put to death privily by the new Sulṭán on suspicion of having poisoned her late husband, and Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg compensated himself by appropriating the late monarch's other widow Dilshád Khátún. ^171a She bore him Sulṭán Uways, whose power she subsequently shared, and, like him, was the subject of many panegyrics on the part of the poet Salmán of Sáwa.

Shaykh Ḥasan “the Great” was the son of Ḥusayn, the son of Áq-Búghá, the son of Aydakán, and claimed descent Shaykh Ḥasani-Buzurg from Húlágú, whence, I suppose, the title of Ílkání (, Íl-khání, though probably a mere variant of it) by which, as well as Jalá'ir (the tribal name) the dynasty was known. For about eight years (736-744/1335-1343) after the death of Abú Sa'íd the history of Persia consists largely in the struggles and intrigues of these two houses (of Chúbán and Jalá'ir) for the supreme power, their ambitions being thinly masked by the puppet-princes of the race of Húlágú whom they successively raised to a nominal and generally very brief sovereignty. By 737/1337 Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg was in possession of Baghdád and Tabríz, the two capitals of the Mongol Íl-kháns and afterwards of the Jalá'irs, who would therefore appear to have represented most directly the older dynasty; but his tenure only became relatively secure on Rajab 27, 744 (Dec. 15, 1343), when his rival Murder of Shaykh Ḥasani-Kúchak by his wife Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Kúchak was murdered by his unfaithful wife in a very horrible manner, which nevertheless called forth a savage and untrans-lateable epigram from Salmán of Sáwa, the panegyrist of the Jalá'irs, of which the text has been already given on p. 60, supra.

The Jalá'ir or Íl-khánídynasty founded by Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg endured for some 75 years, and, though much harassed by Tímúr during the last fifteen or twenty years of its existence, was never entirely crushed by him like the Muẓaffarís. Shaykh Ḥasan and his son Shaykh Uways, whose mother was Dilshád Khátún, each reigned about twenty years (A.H. 736 or 737 to 757 and A.H. 757 to 776 respectively); and all three seem to owe much of their fame and good repute to their indefatigable panegyrist Salmán of Sáwa, most of whose poems are consecrated to their praise. The portrait of them presented by most historians and biographers is therefore a very flattering one, and, though their virtues may have been exaggerated, there seems no reason to believe that it is altogether unfounded. After the death of Sulṭán Uways, however, on the 2nd of Jumáda 1, 776 (Oct. 9, 1374), the fortunes of the dynasty began to decline. On that same day the late ruler's eldest son Ḥasan was put to death by the nobles, and the younger son Ḥusayn was placed on the vacant throne at Tabríz, whence he was driven out, after a successful war with the Turkmáns, for a space of four months by Sháh Shujá' the Muẓaffarí. Shortly after this his authority was resisted by his brother 'Alí, and finally in Ṣafar, 784 (April-May, 1382), he was killed by another brother, Aḥmad, who in turn was proclaimed king, and became involved almost immediately in a fratricidal conflict with yet another brother named Báyazíd. A partition of the kingdom was finally effected, Ádharbáyján being assigned to Aḥmad and 'Iráq to Báyazíd, but soon fresh conflicts occurred between the two brothers in which the aid of Sháh Manṣúr the Muẓaffarí was invoked first by one and then by the other. These unedifying squabbles were brought to an end by the approach of Tímúr's army, which, after a protracted resistance on the part of Aḥmad, finally compelled him and Qará-Yúsuf the Turkmán to seek refuge with the Turkish The Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd “the Thunderbolt.” Sulṭán Báyazíd, known as Yildirim, “the Thunder-bolt.” Thence they passed to Egypt, the ruler of which country was preparing to make his peace with Tímúr by surrendering them to him when, fortunately for them, news arrived that that sanguinary conqueror was dead. Shortly afterwards Aḥmad's bad faith led to a rupture between him and Qará-Yúsuf, who defeated him near Tabríz on the 25th of Rabí' II, 812 (Sept. 6, 1409). The same night he was captured and put to death, after a troubled and turbulent reign of twenty-seven years, by his conqueror, and with him practically ended the Íl-khání or Jalá'ir dynasty, though its final extinction at the hands of the Qará-qoyúnlú or “Black Sheep” Turkmáns did not take place until a year or two later.

We pass now to the Kurt dynasty which ruled over extensive territories in the N.E. of Persia and the adjacent countries with their capital at Herát. The most detailed account of them which I have met with is contained in a still unpublished history of Herát entitled Rawḍátu'l-Jannát fí ta'ríkhi madínati Herát (“Gardens of Paradise: on the history of the city of Herát”), composed by Mawláná Mu'ín of Isfizár. This history, which comes down to the year 875/ 1473-4 or thereabouts, is based on the older works of Abú Isḥaq Aḥmad b. Yá-Sín; Shaykh 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán Fámí; Sayfí of Herát; and the Kurt-náma of Rabí'í ^174a of Búshanj; and is divided into 26 Rawḍas (“Gardens”), each containing two or more Chimans (“Parterres”). Of these, Rawḍas vii-x deal with the period and dynasty now under review. I am indebted to Mr A. G. Ellis, Assistant Librarian of the India Office, for the loan of an excellent MS. of this work, transcribed in 1073/1662-3 and superior in accuracy and legibility to either of the British Museum codices. ^174b Another work which supplies some useful information about this dynasty is the very rare Mujmal of Faṣíḥí of Khwáf, ^174c from which the poems of Rabí'í cited in the last chapter are taken. Some account of the dynasty is, of course, also contained in all general histories of Persia of a later date, such as the Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, Ḥabíbu's-Siyar, Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn, etc.

The ancestor of the Kurts was a certain Táju'd-Dín 'Uthmán-i-Marghiní, whose brother, 'Izzu'd-Dín 'Umar-i-Marghiní, was the powerful Wazír of Sulṭán Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad-i-Ghúrí (d. 599/1202-3). Táju'd-Dín was made Warden of the Castle of Khaysár, and on his death his son, Malik Ruknu'd-Dín Abú Bakr, married the daughter of the Shamsu'd-Dín Kurt above-mentioned Sulṭán. Their son Shamsu'd-Dín succeeded his father in 643/1245-6, joined Sálí Noyan in an invasion of India in the following year, and met the great Shaykh Bahá'u'd-Dín Zakariyyá (the spiritual director of the poet 'Iráqí) at Multán in 645/1247-8. Later he visited the Mongol ruler Mangú Qá'án (646-655/1248-1257) who placed under his sway Herát, Jám, Búshanj, Ghúr, Khaysár, Fírúz-Kúh, Gharjistán, Murgháb, Merv, Fáryáb (up to the Oxus), Isfizár, Faráh, Sístán, Kábul, Tíráh, and Afghánistán up to the Indus. In 662/1263-4, after having subdued Sístán, he visited Húlágú, and three years later his successor Abáqá, whom he accompanied in his campaign against Darband and Bákú. He again visited Abáqá, accompanied by Shamsu'd-Dín the Ṣáḥib Díwán, in 675/1276-7, and this time the former good opinion of the Mongol sovereign in respect to him seems to have been changed to suspicion, which led to his death, for he was poisoned in Sha'bán, 676

The allusion is to the verse in the Qur'án (súra lxxxi, 1) “When the sun is rolled up,” for the title of the deceased ruler, Shamsu'd-Dín, signifies the Sun of the Faith.

The title of Malik (which means King in Arabic, but in Persia at this period meant no more than Prince or Amír) seems to have been first taken by Ruknu'd-Dín, but already the Shaykh Thiqatu'd-Dín Fámí had given the higher title of Sháh to his uncle 'Izzu'd-Dín 'Umar in the following verse:

The title of Malik was, however, that borne by all the succeeding members of this house.

Shamsu'd-Dín was succeeded in 677/1278-9 by his son Ruknu'd-Dín, who thereupon assumed his father's title with

Ruknu'd-Dín succeeds his father under the title of Shamsu'd-Díni-Kihín

Fakhru'd-Dín was succeeded by his brother Ghiyáthu'd-Dín, who soon afterwards had a quarrel with his brother Ghiyáthu'd-Dín succeeds 'Alá'u'd-Dín, and went to lay his case before the Mongol sovereign Khudá-banda, who accorded him a gracious reception. On his return to Herát in 708/1308-9 he extended his power over Ghúr, Khaysár and Isfizár. 'Alá'u'd-Dín Hindú's intrigues against him compelled him again to visit Sháh Khudá-banda in 714/1314-15, and it took him some time, aided by the intercession of Shaykh Núru'd-Dín 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán of Isfará'in, to regain that monarch's confidence. On his return he was confronted first, in 718/1318-19, with an invasion of Khurásán by Prince Yasúr ^177a the Nikúdarí and, in the following year, with the hostility of Quṭbu'd-Dín of Isfizár and the people of Sístán, on which latter war Púr-i-Bahá of Isfizár has the following verses:

“O King, do not again, supported [only] by the weak Sístánís,
Venture to give battle to the army of the Persians.
The people of Sístán are nothing more than beards and moustaches;
Beware lest thou place thy reliance on felt and cords!”

In 720/1320 Prince Yasúr was killed and the Nikúdarís dispersed, and in Rajab of that year (August, 1320) Ghiyáthu'd-Dín set out to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, leaving his son Malik Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad to act as Viceroy. In 729/1329 Ghiyáthu'd-Dín died, leaving four sons, the above Shamsu'd-Dín who succeeded him; Ḥáfiẓ and Mu'izzu'd-Dín who successively ascended the throne; and Báqir.

On the date of Shamsu'd-Dín's accession the following Arabic chronogram was composed by Jamálu'd-Dín Mu-ḥammad ibn Ḥusám:

The words Khullida mulkuhu (“May his rule be eternalized!”) give, according to the abjad reckoning, the date 729; but unhappily so slight was their appropriateness that Shamsu'd-Dín died two months after his accession, and was succeeded by his brother Ḥáfiẓ, who in turn, after a brief and troubled reign of about two years, was succeeded by the third brother Abu'l-Ḥusayn Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín.

The accession of Mu'izzu'd-Dín in 732/1331 almost Accession of Mu'izzu'd-Dín synchronized with three important events, the death of Abú Sa'íd (which practically marked the end of the Mongol dominion over Persia); the birth of Tímúr; and the rise of the Sarbadár Dynasty.

The history of this dynasty, so far as it need be discussed here, may well be considered in connection with that of the The Sarbadár Dynasty Kurts. It is well summarized by Stanley Lane-Poole , ^178a who says that they held Sabzawár and the neighbouring district for nearly half a century, “during which period twelve successive chiefs assumed the command, nine of whom suffered violent deaths.” It may be added that no one of them reigned more than six or seven years, and that they were enthusiastic adherents of the Shí'a doctrine, while in Níshápúr and Herát the Sunní doctrine predominated. Nevertheless Khwája 'Alí Mu'ayyad, the last of the line, succeeded in taking Bisṭám and Farhádjird and winning over Níshápúr, which, however, was recaptured by the Kurts in 777/1375-6. The revolt which gave rise to this dynasty—if such it can be called—took place on Sha'bán 12, 737 (March 16, 1337), when Amír 'Abdu'r-Razzáq of Bayhaq, a disciple of Shaykh Ḥusayn Júrí (whose muríds or disciples formed an important element in the forces of this little kingdom) first raised the standard of rebellion, saying, “A gang of evildoers dominates and oppresses the people. By God's grace we will do away with the oppression of these tyrants,

Mu'izzu'd-Dín Kurt reigned for forty years, not ingloriously, though not without occasional acts of barbarity Death of Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín Kurt which were, unhappily, characteristic of that time, as when, after the capture of Bádghís, he erected, in the style later made familiar by Tímúr, two towers or minarets of the heads of his enemies. Finally he sickened and died in 771/1369-70, a date expressed in the following chronogram:

He was buried at Herát by the side of the Ghúrí monarch Sulṭán Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad Sám and of his own father Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad-i-Kurt, and was succeeded by his son Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Pír 'Alí.

It was about this time that the shadow of Tímúr (Tamerlane) began to fall over the land, but as usual his The irruption of Tímúr first advances were of a friendly character, and he gave his niece Sevinj Qutluq Ághá in marriage to Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Pír 'Alí's son Pír Muḥammad in or about the year 778/1376. Five years later, in the spring of A.D. 1381, early in his first Persian campaign, Tímúr occupied Herát, placed it and the adjacent territories under the control of his son Mírán-sháh, and carried off the Kurt ruler Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Pír 'Alí and his eldest son Pír Muḥammad to Samarqand, where he im- Extinction of the Kurt Dynasty by Tímúr prisoned them, while two other members of the family, Amír Ghúrí and Malik Muḥammad, were similarly imprisoned at Andakán. Soon afterwards, however, an abortive rebellion at Herát in A.D. 1389 furnished their captor with an excuse for putting them to death, and so ended the Kurt dynasty, a year after the extinction of their rivals the Sarbadárs.

Amongst the four dynasties whose history has been briefly sketched above was Persia for the most part divided Comparison of Tímúr with Chingíz Khán when, in the last quarter of the eighth century of the hijra and the fourteenth of the Christian era, Tímúr burst upon the land and ravaged it as Chingíz Khán had done some hundred and fifty years before. Between the two Central Asian conquerors there are many points of resemblance; both had to begin by consolidating their power and destroying rivals amongst their own people; both had passed the age of forty when they embarked on their invasions of Persia; and both were responsible for incalculable bloodshed and suffering. Two circumstances chiefly differentiate them, the fact that Chingíz Khán was a heathen while Tímúr was, in name at least, a Muhammadan; and the fact that, while Chingíz Khán was confronted with the great empire of the Khwárazmsháhs, Tímúr found Persia, as we have seen, parcelled out amongst a number of petty rulers whose dominions had no fixed frontiers, and who were constantly at war with one another and even with ambitious members of their own families. That Tímúr was a Muhammadan certainly tended to mitigate in some measure, so far as Persia and other Muslim lands were concerned, a natural savagery not inferior to that of Chingíz, for he at least showed more respect for

TÍMÚR
Add. 18801 (Brit. Mus.), f. 23
To face p. 180

shrines and sacred edifices, and for men reputed holy or learned. Yet we must not be misled by panegyrists like Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí, author of the Ẓafar-náma (“Book of Victory”), ^181a who wrote under the patronage and for the pleasure of the conqueror; though we need not, on the other hand, endorse all the abusive language employed by the Arabic writer Aḥmad ibn 'Arabsháh in his 'Ajá'ibu'l-Maqdúr fí akhbári Tímúr (“Marvels of Destiny in the History of Tímúr”), ^181b where the conqueror is habitually described as “this traitor,” “this criminal,” “this mad dog,” and the like. But Sharafu'd-Dín's fulsome flattery is less tolerable than Ibn 'Arabsháh's abuse, for though he is unable to omit all mention of Tímúr's massacres and pyramids of skulls, he does not scruple to declare ^181c that “his generous personality manifested the boundless grace of God, while the purest virtue and philanthropy were concealed in his light-seeking mind; and such acts of wrath and retribution as were ostensibly committed in the initial stages [of his conquests] by some of his world-endowed followers and partisans, as will be presently set forth, were prompted only by the exigencies of conquest and the necessities of world-empire.” As specimens of those acts mention may be made of his massacre of the people of Sístán in 785/1383-4, when he caused some two thousand prisoners to be built up in a wall; his cold-blooded slaughter of a hundred thousand captive Indians near Dihlí in 801 (December, 1398); his burying alive of four thousand Armenians in 803/1400-1, and the twenty towers of skulls erected by him at Aleppo and Damascus in the same year; and his massacre of 70,000 of the inhabitants of Iṣfahán in 789 (November, 1387), to quote only a few out of many similar instances of his callous indifference to bloodshed and human suffering. Sir John Malcolm's judgements of Tímúr will command the assent of all fair-minded students not blinded by a misplaced hero-worship of great conquerors, such as Alexander, Chingíz, Tímúr or Napoleon, who deemed no price of human suffering too great for the gratification of their ambitions. “Such a leader as Timour,” says Malcolm, in his excellent History of Persia, ^182a “must have been idolized by his soldiers; and, with an army of six or seven hundred thousand men attached to his person, he was careless of the opinion of other classes in the community. The object of this monarch was fame as a conqueror; and a noble city was laid in ashes, or the inhabitants of a province massacred, on a cold calculation that a dreadful impression would be made which would facilitate the purposes of his ambition. He pretended to be very religious, was rigid in performing his sacred duties, and paid attention to pious men; who, in return for his favour, used to assure him that God had given the countries of other monarchs to his victorious sword. The parade which he made of these prophecies proves that he either believed in them, or that he thought they might produce an effect favourable to his designs.”

“From what has been said,” observes this judicious historian a little further on, ^182b “we may pronounce that Timour, though one of the greatest of warriors, was one of the worst of monarchs. He was able, brave and generous; but ambitious, cruel and oppressive. He considered the happiness of every human being as a feather in the scale, when weighed against the advancement of what he deemed his personal glory; and that appears to have been measured by the number of kingdoms which he laid waste, and the people that he destroyed. The vast fabric of his power had no foundation, it was upheld by his individual fame; and the moment that he died, his empire dissolved. Some fragments of it were seized by his children: but it was in India alone that they retained dominion for any length of time. In that country we yet perceive a faint and expiring trace of the former splendour of the Moghul dynasty; a pageant, supported by the British nation, still sits upon a throne at Delhi; ^183a and we view in him the gradual decline of human greatness, and wonder at the state to which a few centuries have reduced the lineal descendants of the great Timour.”

Besides the two histories of Tímúr already mentioned, the Persian Ẓafar-náma of Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí and Niẓám-i-Shámí's history of Tímúr the Arabic 'Ajá'ibu'l-Maqdúr of Ibn 'Arabsháh, there exists a third contemporary history, unpublished, and, so far as is known, represented only by the unique MS. Add. 23,980 of the British Museum. This history, also written in Persian, and also entitled Ẓafar-náma, was undertaken at Tímúr's command in 804/ 1401-2 by Niẓám-i-Shámí, and was concluded and presented to Tímúr in 806/1403-4, just a year before his death. The author was living in Baghdád when it was taken by Tímúr in 795/1393, and was the first person who came out to greet him. “God have mercy on thee,” said Tímúr, “for thou wert the first person to come forth from this city before me!” ^183b This history, conciser and less florid than the homonymous work of Sharafu'd-Dín, appears to deserve publication, and seems to have formed the basis of the later work. In writing this chapter I have had at my disposal not only my own brief notes on its contents, taken during spare hours in the British Museum, but also a complete transcript made for me by my friend Dr Aḥmad Khán.

Reference must also be made to the so-called “Memoirs” and “Institutes” of Tímúr (Malfúẓát and Tuzúkát-i-Tímúrí),

Not only as one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever seen, but as the ancestor of the so-called Moghul dynasty in India, Tímúr has attracted the attention of many European (especially English) as well as Asiatic historians, and has furnished a subject for many writers. For the purposes of this book, in which the historical portion of the subject is necessarily subordinated to the literary, it will be sufficient to give a brief sketch of his career, based chiefly on the Ẓafar-náma and Ibn 'Arabsháh, especially that portion of it which is connected with Persia.

Tímúr (a name which in Turkish signifies “Iron”) was born at Kash in Transoxiana on Sha'bán 28, 736 (April 11,

In the spring of the following year (A.D. 1382) he continued his operations against Persia. At Kalát, where he Persian campaign of 1382 encamped, he was joined by his son Mírán-sháh from Sarakhs and by the now submissive Ghi-yáthu'd-Dín Kurt from Herát; and, having established a blockade of this strong place, he passed on to Turshíz, which also surrendered to him. Here he received an ambassador from Sháh Shujá', the Muẓaffarí ruler of Fárs, whose daughter he demanded in marriage for his grandson Pír Muḥammad. Having received the submission of Amír Walí, the ruler of Mázandarán, Tímúr returned for the winter to Samarqand, his capital, where he was for a while plunged in sorrow by the death of his wife Dilshád Ághá and her elder sister Qutlugh Turkán Ághá.

In the autumn of A.D. 1383, after despatching an expedition against the heathen Mongols to pursue Qamaru'd-Dín,

It would be tedious, and, in a work of this character, out of place to describe in detail the almost annual campaigns which occupied the remaining twenty years of Tímúr's life, but in brief they were as follows:

In 786/1384-5 Tímúr invaded Mázandarán and Ádhar-báyján, wintered at Ray, continued his campaign in the spring of 1385, and, having reduced the Caspian provinces and the North of Persia as far as Sulṭániyya, returned to his capital Samarqand for the winter.

In 788/1386-7 Tímúr, seeing the distracted state of Persia, determined to effect its total subjugation, and set out on a three years' campaign against that country. He first marched against Malik 'Izzu'd-Dín, the ruler of Luristán, sacked Burújird and Khurramábád, and caused many of his opponents to be cast alive over precipices. He next marched on Tabríz, where Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir had collected an army to oppose him, but on his approach the latter, deeming discretion the better part of valour, retreated to Nakhjuwán, and, after a fierce battle, succeeded in making good his escape. Tímúr spent the summer at Tabríz, and despatched thence to Samarqand a selection of the most skilful artificers and craftsmen whom he could find in the conquered city. In the autumn he crossed the Araxes, pushed forward towards Nakhjuwán, and, having subdued the strong fortress of Qárs, proceeded to devastate Gurjistán (Georgia). Having captured Tiflís, and, indulged in a great hunting-expedition, in which the game slain was so abundant that most of it was left to rot on the ground, ^188a he returned to winter quarters in Qará-Bagh.

In the spring of A.D. 1387 (A.H. 789) Tímúr renewed his campaign in Asia Minor, subdued the cities of Báyazíd, Erzeroum, Erzinján, Músh, Akhláṭ and Ván, and received the submission of Salmás and Urmiya, and in the autumn, in consequence of the refusal of the Muẓaffarí prince Zaynu'l-'Ábidín to appear before him, he marched against Fárs. On the way thither he entered Iṣfahán, and levied a heavy contribution on the people of that city. This provoked a riot, in which a good many of Tímúr's tax-collectors and agents were killed, and Tímúr took a terrible revenge, making a general massacre of the people, in which it is computed that 70,000 perished, whose heads were counted Tímúr's first entry into Shíráz and afterwards built up into minarets. This happened on Monday, Nov. 18, 1387. ^188b Tímúr then continued his march to Shíráz, which submitted to him in the following month (Dec. 1387), and it is on this occasion that the legendary interview between the great conqueror and the poet Ḥáfiẓ is supposed to have taken place. Dawlatsháh, who relates the anecdote, ^188c with characteristic inaccuracy assigns this meeting to the year 795/1392-3, when Ḥáfiẓ had been dead for four years. The story, which is probably entirely apocryphal, is that Tímúr summoned Ḥáfiẓ to his presence and upbraided him for the well-known verse in which he says:

“If that unkindly Shíráz Turk would take my heart within her hand,
I'd give Bukhárá for the mole upon her cheek, or Samarqand.”

“With the blows of my lustrous sword,” exclaimed Tímúr, “have I subjugated most of the habitable globe, and laid waste thousands of towns and countries to embellish Samar-qand and Bukhárá, my native towns and the seats of my government; and you, miserable wretch that you are, would sell them both for the black mole of a Turk of Shíráz!” “Sire,” replied Ḥáfiẓ, with a deep obeisance, “it is through such prodigality that I have fallen on such evil days!” Tímúr is said to have been so much delighted by this quick rejoinder that he not only refrained from punishing the poet but gave him a handsome present. There is a variant of the story, which I have heard in Persia but not met with in any book, according to which Ḥáfiẓ replied, “They have misquoted me: what I really wrote was not

Bi-khál-i-hinduwash bakhsham Samarqand u Bukhárá-rá

but—

Bi-khál-i-hinduwash bakhsham du man qand u si khurmá-rá
I would give for the mole on her cheek two maunds of sugar and
three dates.”

No mention of any such meeting occurs in contemporary biographers of Tímúr, such as Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd, nor have I met with any trustworthy evidence in support of it.

To return to Tímúr's invasion of Fárs. Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, the Muẓaffarí prince, had fled to his cousin Sháh Manṣúr, governor of Shúshtar in the S.W. of Persia, who, violating alike the bonds of kinship and claims of hospitality, cast him into prison. Most of the other princes of the House of Muẓaffar, as well as the Atábeks of Luristán and other petty rulers, waited on Tímúr at Shíráz and tendered their submission. But, even in the moment of his triumph, news was brought to the conqueror by a messenger, who had accomplished the long journey from Samarqand to Shíráz in the incredibly short space of seventeen days, that a fresh revolt of the stiff-necked Túqátmish required the presence of Tímúr to defend his own realms. Thereupon, in February, 1388, he at once set out for Samarqand, bearing with him, as part of his spoils, the learned Sayyid-i-Sharíf-i-Jurjání, and appointing the Muẓaffarí princes Sháh Yaḥyá, Sulṭán Muḥammad, Sulṭán Aḥmad and Sulṭán Abú Isḥáq governors of Shíráz, Iṣfahán, Kirmán and Sírján respectively.

For the next four years and a half Tímúr was engaged in warfare against Túqátmish, the Mongols, the realm of Khwárazm or Khiva, and other northern peoples, and Persia enjoyed a brief rest from his attentions, though a rebellion which broke out in the summer of 1389 in Khu-rásán (apparently prompted by reports of his defeat at the hands of Túqátmish) was put down in the usual bloody and barbarous fashion by Míránsháh, especially at Ṭús, where some ten thousand persons were massacred, and their heads built up into pyramids or minarets.

On the last day of July, 1392, Tímúr, after some delay occasioned by a serious illness, once again crossed the Oxus on another of his devastating campaigns in the South. This, known as the “Five Years' Campaign” (Yúrish-i-panj-sála ) ^190a included the Caspian provinces, Fárs (where he exterminated the princes of the Muẓaffarí dynasty, as already described at p. 169 supra), Armenia, Georgia, Mesopotamia, and South Russia. In Gurgán and Mázandarán he came in contact with certain heretical Sayyids, many of whom he slew, “delivering those regions from the mischievous influence of those misguided communists.” ^190b Sharafu'd-Dín's account of their tenets is neither clear nor detailed, but it appears highly probable that they belonged to the heretical Ḥurúfí sect, whose founder, Faḍlu'lláh, appeared, preached his doctrines, and suffered death in Tímúr's reign, and was a native of Astarábád. We shall have more to say about him and his doctrine presently.

In the latter part of December, 1392, Tímúr, having received a visit from his wives and family, set out for South Persia, travelling by way of Dámghán, Samnán, Ray, Qazwín, Sulṭániyya, Kurdistán, and Burújird (which he reached on February 14, 1393), ^190c and putting to death on his way many of the Lurs. He reached Dizful on March 2 and Shúshtar a day or two later, and thence set out for Shíráz. On his way thither he captured the strong fortress of Qal'a-i-Safíd and released the blinded captive prince Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, whom he treated with honour and promised vengeance on Sháh Manṣúr. Nor was this vengeance long delayed, for, as already narrated, Sháh Manṣúr was slain in battle a few days later, while most of the remaining princes of the House of Muẓaffar were put to death by Tímúr's order on May 22, 1393. “All the most skilful of the craftsmen and artisans of the provinces of Fárs and 'Iráq” were, according to Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd, transferred by Tímúr to Samarqand.^191a

On August 10 Tímúr, who was approaching Baghdád was visited by Shaykh Núru'd-Dín 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán of Isfará'in, who came as an ambassador from Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir to make his excuses for not waiting on Tímúr in person. His excuses were ill received by Tímúr, who nevertheless treated the Shaykh with the respect which, according to the Ẓafar-náma (p. 629), he habitually accorded to learned and pious men. Shortly afterwards he entered Baghdád and occupied the palace of Sulṭán Aḥmad, who fled before him. Some of Tímúr's amírs went in pursuit, overtook the fugitives near Karbalá, and captured much spoil and some of the wives and sons of Sulṭán Aḥmad, who, however, succeeded in making his escape. His son 'Alá'u'd-Dawla, together with his wives, a selection of the most skilful artisans of Baghdád, and the celebrated musician Khwája 'Abdu'l-Qádir, were sent to Samarqand by Tímúr, who also despatched an ambassador to Barqúq al-Maliku'ẓ-Ẓáhir, the ruler of Egypt, with a view to concluding a treaty of friendship and commercial intercourse with him.

Tímúr's next exploit was the reduction of the strong fortress of Takrít, which was gallantly defended. Finally, however, the defenders were overcome and put to death, and their heads built up into minarets. Continuing his march northwards he passed by Karkúk, Arbíl, Mawṣil (Mosul) and Rawḥá, where, in March, 1394, he was overtaken by stormy and rainy weather, and compelled by this and the disobedience of Malik 'Izzu'd-Dín to return to Mesopotamia. Having in a brief space of time dealt with this rebellious chieftain, Tímúr again turned northwards and reduced the fortress of Márdín. Luckily for the garrison, news had just reached Tímúr of the birth, at Sulṭániyya, on March 22, 1394, of a grandson, the afterwards celebrated Ulugh Bey, son of Sháh-rukh, and this put Tímúr in such good humour that he spared their lives, which would otherwise have certainly been forfeited. ^192a Ámid (Diyár Bakr) next succumbed to his victorious arms in April, but he had to abandon his attempt to raze the fortifications on account of their extraordinary strength and solidity. ^192b He then passed on to Síwás, Músh, Bitlís, Akhlát and Aydín, halting for a while in the Plain of Ála-dágh to receive his wives and younger children, who came to visit him from Sulṭániyya, and despatching an army in pursuit of his enemy Qará Yúsuf and his Turkmán followers. At the end of July, 1394, he captured the fortress of Avník, on the upper waters of the Araxes, and sent its defender, Miṣr the son of Qará Yúsuf, to Samarqand, together with Sulṭán 'Ísá, the ex-governor of Márdín. He next invaded Georgia and occupied Tiflis.

Fortunately for Persia, a fresh menace on the part of his old enemy Túqátmish compelled Tímúr at this juncture, towards the end of February, 1395, ^192c to march northwards to defend his own territories, and this, with the ensuing campaign in Southern Russia, in the course of which he penetrated as far as Moscow, ^192d kept him occupied for more than a year. During and in consequence of his absence several revolts broke out in Persia, such as that of Qará Yúsuf the Turkmán in Ádharbáyján; ^192e of Gúdarz (probably a Zoroastrian) at Sírján; ^192f of Sulṭán Muḥammad, son of Abú Sa'íd of Ṭabas, and some Khurásáni soldiers who had formerly been in the service of the Muẓaffarí dynasty at Yazd; and of Buhlúl at Niháwand. All these revolts were quickly and sternly repressed, and the ringleader of that last mentioned, Buhlúl, was burned alive. ^193a The ensuing month of Ramaḍán was passed by Tímúr at Hamadán “in obedience and devotion to the Divine Benefactor, and in the observance of the obligations of fasting and vigils and of every kind of religious rite and ceremony.” He then, having ordered his generals to subdue the whole Persian shore of the gulf from Khúzistán to Hurmuz, set out on July 18, 1396, for Samarqand.

On this occasion Tímúr remained quiet at his capital for a longer period than usual, and devoted a good deal of attention to beautifying it and its environs by the labours of “the expert engineers and skilful architects who had been gathered to the Royal Metropolis from every clime and country from East to West.” ^193b He also gave a series of gorgeous banquets, of which one of the chief was to celebrate the conferring of the kingdom of Khurásán, including Sístán and Mázandarán, from Fíruzkúh to Ray, on his son Sháh-rukh, which happened in May, 1397. ^193c Less than a year later, in the spring of 1398, he set out on his Indian campaign, instigated thereto, as asserted in the Ẓafar-náma, ^193d by his desire to promote Islám and crush idolatry, and by the accounts which reached him of the toleration shown by the Muslim rulers towards their Hindú subjects and neighbours. After some preliminary operations against the Afgháns (or Awgháns) of the Sulaymán Kúh and the Siyáh-púsh (“Black-robed”) heathen of Káfir-istán, he crossed the Indus on Muḥarram 12, 801 (Sept. 24, 1398) and proceeded to carry fire and sword into India. It is unnecessary for our purpose to follow these operations in detail. They were characterized by the usual bloodshed and barbarities, amongst the worst of which was the massacre in cold blood of 100,000 Indian prisoners near Dihlí on December 12, 1398. ^194a Compared to this monstrous crime the horrors enacted a few days later at Dihlí, and the massacre of 10,000 persons a month earlier at Batnír sink into insignificance.

Reports of troubles in Persia (especially in Ádharbáyján, where his son, Míránsháh, to whom the government of this important province had been entrusted, was courting disaster by his insane vagaries, generally ascribed to an injury to his head caused by a fall from his horse) impelled Tímúr to cut short his Indian campaign early in the year A.D. 1399, and to hasten homewards. He crossed the Indus on his return journey on March 8 of that year, five months and seventeen days after he had crossed it at the beginning of his campaign, and the Oxus three weeks later. On April 7 he reached his native town of Kash or Shahr-i-Sabz (the “Green City”), and entered Samarqand, his capital, on April 27. A fortnight later (May 9, 1399) he laid the foundation-stone of the magnificent mosque (Masjid-i-Jámi') which he had long intended to erect for the embellishment of his metropolis.

On September 9, 1399, Tímúr again quitted Samarqand for Ádharbáyján, where the erratic conduct of his son Míránsháh, of which fresh accounts continued to reach him, urgently demanded his attention. At Aywának, near Ray, he was joined by his son Sháh-rukh and by another army which he had despatched by way of Mázandarán. Míránsháh was induced to come to his father's camp to render account of his misconduct, which included the waste or embezzlement of a large proportion of the revenues, the putting to death on mere suspicion of certain men of consequence against whom he had conceived a spite, the wanton destruction of certain historic buildings, and the exhumation of the eminent Minister and historian Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh, whose body he caused to be re-interred in the Jews' cemetery. Míránsháh was punished by his father's displeasure and the virtual transference of the authority he had misused to his son Abú Bakr, but Tímúr's fiercest wrath fell upon certain minstrels and poets who had been Míránsháh's boon-companions, and who were alleged to have corrupted his principles and encouraged his extravagances. Several of these, namely Mawláná Muḥammad of Quhistán, “who, together with a complete mastery of the technicalities of the various sciences, was unique in his age and the marvel of his time in verse and prose composition, both serious and frivolous,” ^195a Quṭbu'd-Dín Ná'í, Ḥabíb-i-'Údí and 'Abdu'l-Mú'min the rhapsodist, were condemned to death on this charge and hanged at or near Qazwín. According to Dawlatsháh, ^195b Muḥammad of Quhistán must needs indulge his propensity for jesting even on the scaffold. Turning to Quṭbu'd-Dín, one of his fellow-victims, he said, “You had precedence in the King's company: precede me, therefore, here also.” “O unlucky heretic,” replied the other, “do you bring matters to this pass, and cannot you cease jesting yet?” When it came to Muḥammad's turn to die, he recited the following punning verse:

“'Tis the end of the matter and the last round, O heretic!
Whether thou goest or not, the choice is no longer in thy hand!
If they lead thee, like Manṣúr, ^195c to the foot of the gibbet (pá-yi-dár),
Stand firm (páy-dár) like a man, for the world is not enduring (páy-
dár)!”

The campaign on which Tímúr was now embarked, and which included some of his most remarkable achievements, is called by Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí (ii, 206) the “Seven Years' Campaign.” As it began about Muḥarram 8, 802 (Sept. 10, 1399), and as Tímúr returned to his capital, Samarqand, in Muḥarram, 807 (July, 1404), this appellation must be regarded as a misnomer. Even the abridged account of the many bloody battles and brilliant victories included in this period which is given in Price's Chronological Retrospect ^196a fills 166 quarto pages, and in this place it must suffice to indicate only its chief events.

The winter of A.D. 1399-1400 was spent by Tímúr in Qarábágh near the Araxes, and ere spring had melted the snows he once more invaded Georgia, devastated the country, destroyed the churches and monasteries, and slew great numbers of the inhabitants. In August, 1400, he began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avník, Erzeroum, Erzinján and Sívás. The latter place offered a stubborn resistance, and when it finally capitulated Tímúr caused all the Armenian and Christian soldiers to the number of four thousand to be buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared. ^196b Meanwhile an animated correspondence was taking place between him and the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd, called Yil-dirim (the “Thunder-bolt”), from whom Tímúr demanded the surrender of Sulṭán Aḥmad of Baghdád and Qará Yúsuf the Turkmán. This Báyazíd refused, as, until a very recent occasion, the Turks have ever been wont to refuse such betrayal of guests; and, moreover, as must be admitted, and as will presently be seen, he couched his refusal in language little calculated to appease his great rival. With the Sulṭán of Egypt also (al-Maliku'n-Náṣir Faraj) Tímúr became embroiled by reason of the unlawful detention of his ambassador at Cairo, and thus the campaign became diverted not only against the territories over which the two fugitive kings had reigned respectively, but against the Ottoman and Egyptian, and incidentally the Syrian lands.

After taking 'Ayntáb, Tímúr besieged and reduced Aleppo in October, 1400, and there captured and sent with Aleppo and Damascus captured by Tímúr other spoils of war to Samarqand his future historian Mawláná Niẓámu'd-Dín called Shámí (the “Syrian”). Having next subdued in turn Ḥama, Ḥims (Emessa) and Ba'labakk (Baalbek) he proceeded to invest Damascus. Here an assassin, instigated by al-Maliku'n-Náṣir, Sulṭán of Egypt, attempted his life, but failed and was put to death. Damascus surrendered, but again revolted, and was again subdued in March, 1401, when it finally submitted, and suffered Tímúr's name to be inserted in the khuṭba, after it had suffered the horrors of Tartar incendiarism and looting. Another portion of Tímúr's army ravaged the Syrian coast as far south as 'Akká.

Tímúr next turned his attention to Baghdád, the capital of the recalcitrant Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir, and,

Having left Baghdád a smoking charnel-house, Tímúr again turned his attention to the unfortunate Georgians,

“The son of 'Osmán fell into a hunter's snare, and became confined like a bird in a cage”—

a phrase which it is not necessary to take literally, and which may well have been employed metaphorically and to fulfil the exigencies of the rhymed prose in which Ibn 'Arabsháh's work is composed. Sharafu'd-Dín explicitly says ^198b that when Báyazíd, with hands bound, was brought before Tímúr, the latter, after reproaching him for his previous contumacy, expressing his regret at having been compelled to make war on a fellow-believer who had rendered such signal services to Islám, and reminding him how he would have probably behaved to the conquered had their respective positions been reversed, concluded by saying that “in gratitude for the victory and help vouchsafed to him by the mercy of God” he would do naught but good to his captive and the other Turkish prisoners.

Be this as it may, the campaign against the Ottoman Turks continued; royal Broussa and “infidel” Smyrna were attacked and made desolate, the latter in December, 1402; and a little later, on February 26, 1403, the unfortunate Báyazíd died in captivity.

Seeing what had befallen the Turks, the Egyptian Sulṭán, al-Maliku'n-Náṣir Faraj, abandoned his former Submission of the Egyptian Sulṭán alMaliku'n-Náṣir attitude of defiance, released Tímúr's ambassador, and sent his submission to the victor of Angora by an embassy which was graciously received. In August and September, 1403, Tímúr again raided Georgia, and, having wintered once more at Qarábágh, reached Ray on May 10 and Samarqand about the end of July, 1404. Here a month later arrived Clavijo's embassy to Tímúr the Spanish Mission headed by Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, who has left us an entertaining account of his journey from Spain to Samar-qand and back, and of his impressions of Tímúr, of which account an English translation, edited by Sir Clements R. Markham, was published by the Hakluyt Society in 1859. Clavijo sailed from Seville in company with an envoy, Muḥammad al-Qáḍí, whom Tímúr had sent to Spain, accompanied by Gomez de Salazar and an ecclesiastic named Fray Alonzo Paez de Santa Maria. Travelling by way of Constantinople, Trebizond, Erzeroum, Khúy, Tabríz, Ṭihrán and Mashhad, the Spanish envoys reached Samar-qand on August 31, 1404, in company with the ambassador of “the Sultan of Babylon,” and were received by Tímúr on Monday, September 8. He “was seated in a portal, in front of the entrance of a beautiful palace; and he was sitting on the ground. Before him there was a fountain, which threw up the water very high, and in it there were some red apples. The lord was seated cross-legged, on silken embroidered carpets, amongst round pillows. He was dressed in a robe of silk, with a high white hat on his head, on the top of which there was a special ruby, with pearls and precious stones round it.” The ambassadors were brought close before him that he might see them better; for his eyesight was bad, he being so old that the eyelids had fallen down entirely. He received them graciously, enquiring, “How is my son the king? Is he in good health?” and then turned to the nobles who stood round him, saying, “Behold! here are the ambassadors sent by my son the King of Spain, who is the greatest King of the Franks, and lives at the end of the world. The Franks are truly a great people, and I will give my benediction to the King of Spain, my son. It would have sufficed if he had sent you to me with the letter, and without the presents, so well satisfied am I to hear of his health and prosperous state.”

The Spanish envoys were subsequently entertained at several banquets, of which Clavijo gives detailed descrip- Clavijo's description of Tímúr's Court, his banquets and his “justice” tions, and saw Tímúr several times. They seem to have been much struck by the quantities of meat and wine consumed, and the frequent drunkenness. “The drinking,” says Clavijo (p. 148), “was such that some of the men fell down drunk before her” (Caño, wife of Tímúr); “and this was considered very jovial, for they think there can be no pleasure without drunken men.” On another occasion (Oct. 9, 1404), besides the banquet, they were treated to an exhibition of Tímúr's “justice,” for “in the place where the traders had pitched their tents, he ordered a great number of gallows to be set up; and declared that, in this festival, he knew how to be merciful and kind to some, and how to be severe to others.” On these gallows he forthwith hanged several persons of quality, besides “certain traders who had sold meat for more than it was worth,” and some shoemakers. “The custom is,” adds Clavijo, “that, when a great man is put to death, he is hanged; but the meaner sort are beheaded”—a curious inversion of the mediaeval practice in England.

The ambassadors do not seem to have seen Tímúr after November 1, 1404, on the morrow of which day “he did not come out of his tent, because he felt ill.” They were bidden by the Mírzás, or Secretaries of the Court, to depart, but this they at first declined to do until they should receive their dismissal from Tímúr and his messages and compliments to their own King. Finally, however, they were compelled to leave without another audience (Tímúr being then, as they were led to believe, sick unto death) and quitted the city on November 18 with the “ambassadors from Turkey” and “the ambassador from the Sultan of Babylon.” After remaining for three days in a garden outside the town, they started on their homeward journey on November 21, 1404. They reached Tabríz on February 28, 1405, and were delayed there and at the camp of 'Umar Shaykh Mírzá in Qarábágh for six months, not leaving Tabríz on their homeward march until August 22. After passing through Armenia, of whose inhabitants Clavijo says that “the Christian Armenians are an evil race, who would not let the ambassadors pass until they had given up some of their property,” they reached Trebizond on September 17, Constantinople on October 22, 1405, Genoa on January 3, 1406, and San Lucar in Spain on March 1 of the same year, after an absence of nearly three years.

But few notices of this Embassy occur in the Persian historians, though mention is made of it by Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd, who says: ^201a “At this juncture there arrived an ambassador from the ruler (farmán-dih) of the Frankish realms, who presented many fine gifts and presents, and a variety of offerings and oblations,” amongst which “certain tissues adorned with designs and pictures which would have filled Manes with despair” specially aroused the author's admiration. He also mentions on the next page the presence of the Spaniards at one of the banquets given by Tímúr, adding that “even chaff finds its way into the sea,” and, a few pages lower, ^201b chronicles their departure.

By this time Tímúr was apparently recovered from his indisposition, tired of the settled life, and eager for fresh adventures, and he resolved to undertake a campaign Tímúr prepares for a campaign against China against China in order to destroy the temples of the heathen, spread the true faith, and incidentally enrich himself and his army with the spoils of that spacious, ancient and wealthy land. After making all necessary arrangements for the campaign and for the administration of his vast territories during his absence, he set out from Samarqand on his eastward march on November 27, 1404. The winter was exceptionally severe, and the army, after suffering much from the cold, crossed the Jaxartes (Síḥún) on the ice, and reached Utrár on Illness and death of Tímúr on Feb. 18, 1405 January 14, 1405. A month later Tímúr fell ill, and, though treated by Mawláná Faḍlu'lláh of Tabríz, who was accounted one of the most skilful physicians of his age, his sickness increased and complications set in until he finally succumbed, a week after the first attack, on February 18, 1405, being then seventy-one [lunar] years of age, and having reigned thirty-six years. His mind remained clear to the last, and having nominated his grandson Pír Muḥammad-i-Jahángír to succeed him as ruler of his vast empire, he embodied his last wishes in a discourse which is fully reported by Sharafu'd-Dín, ^202a and died with the profession of the faith of Islám on his lips.

The character of Tímúr has been differently appraised by those who are dazzled by his military achievements on Various views of Tímúr's character the one hand, and those who are disgusted by his cruelty and utter disregard of human life on the other. One factor in such judgement is the acceptance or rejection of the much discussed and quoted Tuzúkát, or “Institutes,” which profess to contain Tímúr's own philosophy of Empire. Thus Gibbon says, in a foot-note in ch. lxv, that though he “did not expect to hear of Tímour's amiable moderation”…he “can excuse a generous enthusiasm in the reader, and still more in the editor, of the Institutions,” though in the corresponding portion of the text, he criticizes him pretty severely, and admits that “perhaps we shall conclude that the Mogul Emperor was rather the scourge than the benefactor of mankind.” Sir John Malcolm's very judicious observations have been already cited. ^203a Sir Clements R. Markham ^203b says that, although Tímúr's conquests were the cause of much suffering to the human race, yet “he certainly was not the remorseless tyrant he is represented by [Ibn] 'Arabsháh and his other enemies,” and that “there is evidence that he had loftier aims than the mere gratification of his lust for conquest.” He adds ^203c that though “the name of Tímúr is frequently coupled with that of Chingíz Khán, yet the latter was a rude uncultivated barbarian, while there is evidence that the former was versed in all the knowledge of his age and country.” As regards the facts of Tímúr's life, there is little difference of opinion: his massacres and pyramids of skulls are equally chronicled by his panegyrists, Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd and Niẓám-i-Shámí, and his detractor Ibn 'Arabsháh, though the former affect to regard them as “manifestations of the Divine Attributes of Wrath” (Sifáti-Jaláliyya or Qahriyya), and the latter as the outcome of diabolic malignity. The latter view appears to me the more reasonable and natural; and as for the “Institutes,” which supply a quasi-philosophic basis for this policy of “frightfulness,” I incline to the reasoned opinion expressed by Rieu ^203d that they are spurious.

Before closing this brief account of Tímúr, some reference should be made to certain despatches which passed Firídún Bey's collection of State Papers between him and the Ottoman Sultan Báyazíd and others, of which the texts are preserved in an important collection of State Papers known as the Munsha'át-i-Firídún Bey, of which a good edition was printed at Constantinople in Jumáda II, A.H. 1274 (February, 1858). The compiler of this work, Aḥmad Firídún, known as Tawqí'í (Tevqí'í), flourished in the middle of the tenth century of the Muhammadan (sixteenth of the Christian) era, and composed, besides the Munsha'át (compiled in 982/1574-5), a history entitled Nuz-hatu'l-Akhbár. The first volume of the Munsha'át comprises State Papers ranging in date from the time of the Prophet (seventh List of despatches connected with Tímúr century of the Christian era) to the middle of the sixteenth century. It contains 626 large pages, of which pp. 118-142 contain letters to, from, or about Tímúr, as follows:

(1) Letter from Qará Yúsuf to Sulṭán Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated, complaining of the aggressions of Tímúr, whom the writer describes as “that quickener of the fire of evil and trouble and agitator of the chain of mischief and insolence, Tímúr the object of Divine Wrath (may God destroy and crush him!),” and demanding help from Báyazíd (pp. 118-119).

(2) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also written in Persian and undated (p. 119).

(3) Letter from Tímúr to Báyazíd, written in Arabic and undated, requiring in peremptory language that no shelter shall be afforded to Qará Yúsuf and Sulṭán Aḥmad, and warning the Ottoman Sultan against disobedience to this command (pp. 120-1).

(4) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also written in Arabic and undated. This begins (after the doxology), “Know, O ravening dog named Tímúr,” and hurls defiance at the invader, daring him to advance (p. 121).

(5) Letter from Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir of Baghdád to Sulṭán Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated. The writer describes how, after the capture of Baghdád and the two 'Iráqs by Tímúr, he withdrew to Malaṭya and Síwás to await the arrival of Qará Yúsuf, according to Báyazíd's instructions, and how in conjunction they attacked, routed and annihilated the Uzbeks who formed the vanguard of Tímúr's army, but were awaiting with certainty an attack from his main army so soon as news of this disaster should reach him (pp. 124-5).

(6) Báyazíd's answer to the above, announcing that, in consequence of the news received from Sulṭán Aḥmad, he has concluded peace with the “Tekfur,” or Byzantine Emperor, and has advanced to Tóqát to aid in checking the invasion of Tímúr (p. 125). Dated Sha'bán, 798 (May, 1396).

(7) Second letter from Tímúr to Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated. It begins with a “salutation tempered with reproach” (salám-i-'itáb-ámíz), describes the writer's forty years' career of conquest, and how he has now advanced to Síwás, and taunts his adversaries with their failure to capture Malaṭya and Sinope. He is still, however, ready to come to terms, since he is unwilling that the dissensions of Muslims should afford fresh opportunity to the “Frankish infidels” to pursue their schemes of aggression. In conclusion he describes himself as of the family of the Íl-khánís, and demands a speedy and conciliatory answer to his overtures (pp. 126-7).

(8) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated. The writer boasts of the martial prowess of the Turks, reminds Tímúr how his ancestor Er-Toghril with 300 horsemen routed 10,000 “Tartar and Mongol heathens,” and rehearses other like glorious deeds of his predecessors. He claims to be the protector of the Muslims, and declares that “hitherto not one of the House of 'Othmán has sought by flattery to turn aside an enemy, or has had recourse to deceit or guile” (pp. 127-8).

(9) Tímúr's third letter to Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated, acknowledging a letter sent by means of the Qáḍí Farídu'd-Dín and a person named Najáshí, and expressing a desire for friendship and alliance. Tímúr alludes to his Syrian campaign, objects to the Sultans of Egypt calling themselves “Kings of the two Holy Shrines” (Sulṭánu'l-Ḥaramayn), and complains of the return of Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir to Baghdád (pp. 128-131).

(10) Báyazíd's answer to the above, written in Persian. It is couched in much politer language than his previous letters, but declines absolutely to surrender Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir and Qará Yúsuf, which, says the writer, would be entirely incompatible with the Ottoman traditions of hospitality. He alludes to the continuance in Egypt of the lawful descendants of the 'Abbásid Caliphs, and calls on Tímúr, if his intentions are really peaceful, to surrender Síwás (pp. 131-2).

(11) Tímúr's fourth letter to Báyazíd. In this letter he boasts his orthodoxy and adherence to the Sunní creed, denounces the actions of Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir and Qará Yúsuf, and demands their banishment from Ottoman territory, and an apology from Báyazíd (pp. 132-4).

(12) Báyazíd's answer to the above (pp. 134-5).

(13) Letters from Sháh Manṣúr, the nephew of Sháh Shujá' the Muẓaffarí ruler of Shíráz, to Báyazíd, written in Persian after Dhu'l Qa'da, 802 (June—July, 1400), describing the mischief wrought by “the accursed ones of Chaghatáy,” and the deceitfulness and cunning of “that sinner and rebel” Tímúr (pp. 135-9).

(14) Báyazíd's answer to the above. He abuses Tímúr, alludes to the depredations wrought by him in Fárs and at Shíráz, and states that, though actually engaged in an attempt to capture Constantinople, he is preparing to abandon this in order to attack Tímúr (pp. 139-140).

(15) Tímúr's fifth letter to Báyazíd, written from Marágha in Persian, but undated. He alludes to his capture of Baghdád, and, after quoting a verse to the effect that to win the whole world it is not worth vexing even an ant, indulges in veiled threats as to what he will do if Báyazíd still refuses to listen to his demands (pp. 140-2).

Here ends the correspondence between Tímúr and Báyazíd preserved by Firídún Bey.

It only remains to be added that Tímúr's corpse was conveyed across the frozen Khujand River on the night of Feb. 19, 1405, and interred four days later at Samarqand, while the Chinese campaign—happily for that people—was finally abandoned.

Attention has already been called to the curious but indisputable fact that in Persia, at any rate, periods of great Stable government not necessarily conducive to good poetry turmoil and disorder have generally produced the finest poetry, while periods of relative prosperity, when the country was under a strong and stable government, have generally been singularly barren in this respect. ^207a In comparatively modern times Persia has never been more strong, united and prosperous than under the Ṣafawí dynasty (A.D. 1502-1736), more particularly during the sixteenth century; yet, though, not only in military strength, national unity and commerce, but also in the arts (especially architecture and painting) and the sciences (especially theology), this period was particularly brilliant, it hardly produced a single poet of commanding genius or wide-spread reputation; a phenomenon of which the causes will be discussed when we come to speak of the epoch in question. The period with the literary aspects of which we are now about to deal is, on the other hand, as will have been sufficiently apparent from the preceding chapter, one of anarchy, misery and bloodshed; yet it would be hard to indicate any period of seventy years (A.D. 1335-1405) which produced so many remarkable poets, a galaxy of talent in which the great Ḥáfiẓ is merely the brightest of many brilliant stars. Probably the existence of numerous little courts, each anxious to rival and excel the others, is favourable to the development of poetical talent, since the poet who fails to win appreciation from one royal patron can easily find another who may prove more susceptible to his song; while, when there is but one capital and one court, he who fails there (not necessarily from lack of talent so much as from lack of opportunity, ill fortune, or the machinations of jealous rivals) is likely to be permanently discouraged, or at least to remain unknown outside his own immediate circle.

From this point of view, Persia, immediately after the collapse of the Mongol power, and before the irruption ^208a of Anarchical condition of Persia from the extinction of the Mongol power to the rise of Tímúr Tímúr the Tartar, was an ideal field for the wandering poet. In the North-East, with their capital at Herát, were the Kurt princes; at Sabzawár and the neighbourhood the little Sarbadár dynasty (if such it can be called) held sway; the Íl-khanís, Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg, his son Sulṭán Uways, and their descendants, ruled over a curious elliptical domain which had its northern capital at Tabríz and its southern capital at Baghdád; while Southern Persia was divided amongst princes of the House of Muẓaffar, often independent of, and even at war with, one another, with Shíráz, Iṣfahán, Yazd and Kirmán as their seats of government. There were no hard and fast frontiers to these little states, and no map could be made showing the divisions of these fluid, ever-shifting kingdoms; rather, if we wish to reconstruct the political geography of Persia at that period, we must conceive of some seven or eight centres whence radiated, in ever-varying strength, the influence of as many petty warrior-princes, whose truculent activities were oftener than not combined with a fine literary taste.

Of the poets of this period some ten at least deserve mention, either on account of their evident originality and Number and excellence of the poets of this period beauty, or because of the reputation which they enjoy in their own country. These two things do not necessarily go together, but either of them seems to me to entitle a poet at any rate to honourable mention; for a foreign critic must always entertain some mistrust of his judgements, and must remember that, strive as he may, he can hardly hope to develop the fine and discriminating taste of the cultivated By what criterions poets may be judged by a foreign critic native critic, and that the mere fact that a poet has maintained his reputation amongst his own countrymen for several centuries entitles him at least to some respectful consideration. This applies to lyrical poets like Khwájú and 'Imád of Kirmán and Kamál of Khujand, of whom one is apt to think as mere dim reflections of the incomparable Ḥáfiẓ, devoid of any salient originality; but it must not be forgotten that the first died 37 and the second 18 years before him, and that they may therefore well have prepared the way for his greater achievements, while the eminence of the third, who was his contemporary, is to a certain extent certified by Ḥáfiẓ himself in the verse—

which is translated by Rosenzweig-Schwannau—^209a

“Wenn er erst Hafisens Lieder höret,
Die als zart und lieblich Jeder kennt,
Wird sich selbst Kemāl nicht unterfangen
Dichtend aufzutreten in Chodschend.”

On the other hand poets like 'Ubayd-i-Zákání and Busḥaq (Abú Isḥáq) are so original that, whether appreciated or not in their own country, they cannot be ignored by any student of Persian literature.

I propose, therefore, to discuss in this chapter the following poets, and, that priority may be duly considered Untrustworthiness of most of the Persian biographers of poets in relation to actual merit, in chronological order. This, however, can only be regarded as approximate, since in most cases the date of death only is recorded (and that often uncertainly), and we often do not know whether the poet died young or at an advanced old age. Indeed, notwithstanding the numerous biographies of poets given by Dawlatsháh, and in the Atash-kada, Haft Iqlím and other similar wellknown works, the lack of authentic particulars as to the lives and characters of these poets is a very discouraging feature in our quest. Most of the anecdotes given in these books are trivial or fictitious, and, save for what can be gleaned from their verses (where again we are often Lack of critical editions hampered by the lack of anything approaching a critical edition), we are finally driven to admit that we know very little indeed about most of them. They were generally poor men, often socially obscure, and as such were completely ignored by contemporary historians, while all that later generations, who appreciated their merit, could do was, as a rule, to string together a few more or less trivial anecdotes, evidently constructed in many cases to explain or illustrate passages in their poems. An exception must be made in favour of one rare manuscript work, the Mujmal (“Compendium”) of Faṣíḥí of Khwáf, ^210a a chronicle of some thousand pages compiled in 845/1441-2 and containing many valuable details not to be found elsewhere, especially in what concerns the province of Khurásán in general, and the city of Herát in particular.

The poets of this period whom I propose to discuss are the following:

(1) Ibn-i-Yamín (d. 745/1345 according to Dawlatsháh, ^210b or 769/1368 according to the more authoritative Mujmal) was associated with the Sarbadár dynasty.

(2) Khwájú of Kirmán (d. 753/1352, or, according to Dawlatsháh, 742/1341-2).

(3) 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, the great satirist and parodist (d. 772/1371).

(4) 'Imád of Kirmán (d. 773/1372).

(5) Salmán of Sáwa (d. 779/1378), the panegyrist of Sulṭán Uways.

(6) Ḥáfiẓ of Shírâz (d. 791/1389).

(7) Kamál of Khujand (d. 793/1391, or 803/1400).

(8) Maghribí, the mystic (d. 809/1407).

(9) Busḥaq (Abú Isḥáq) of Shíráz, the gastronomic poet (d. 814/1416).

(10) Níẓámu'd-Dín Maḥmúd Qárí of Yazd, the poet of clothes.

Of each of these poets I shall now proceed to speak in detail.

Although notices of this poet and his father Yamínu'd-Dín (from whom he derives the name Ibn-i-Yamín—“son of Yamín”—by which he is commonly known) occur in Dawlatsháh, ^211a the Haft Iqlím, Átash-kada, ^211b Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá ^211c and other biographical works, the few particulars about him which are known to us are chiefly derived from the rare Mujmal of Faṣíḥí. In this work Ibn-i-Yamín is thrice mentioned, under the years 743/1342-3, and 769/ 1367-8, the year of his death.

The first of these two notices, so far as it concerns Ibn-i-Yamín, runs as follows:

“War of Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín Abu'l-Ḥusayn Muḥammad-i-Kurt with Khwájá Wajíhu'd-Dín Mas'úd-i-Sarbadár and Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Júrí between Záwa and Khwáf, and death of Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Júrí at the hands of Khwájá Wajíhu'd-Dín Mas'úd's men on the 13th of Ṣafar [A.H. 743 = July 18, 1342], and flight of Khwájá Wajíhu'd-Dín.

“Loss of the Díwán (complete poetical works) of the late Amír Fakhru'l-Ḥaqq wa'd-Dín Maḥmúd ibn-i-Yamín the Mustawfí (government accountant) of Faryúmad, which was looted in the battle mentioned above. Here is the fragment [in which Ibn-i-Yamín refers to this event]:

‘It fell into the hands of the spoilers, and thereafter no trace of it was
found.’

“The above-mentioned Amír Fakhru'd-Dín Maḥmúd [Ibn-i-Yamín] sent the following fragment which he had composed from Sabzawár to Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín Abu'l-Ḥusayn-i-Kurt:

◌

“Seek as they might his Díwán was not to be found, so he made a [fresh] compilation from the anthologies of the Masters [of this art], and from what each [amateur of verse] remembered by heart, and from what he himself subsequently composed:

‘So that my verses, scattered like the Seven Thrones, ^213a
Might be again co-ordinated like the Pleiades.’”

This ends the first notice of Ibn-i-Yamín in the Mujmal, but, before passing on to the second, I should give a translation of the fourteen couplets quoted above, which, if not remarkable as poetry, are of interest on account of the data which they afford.

“If Heaven, by a trick, snatched my Díwán out of my hands,
Thanks be to God! He who made the Díwán ^214a is still with me!
And if Fate plucked from me a string of pearls fit for a king,
Yet I grieve not at its loss, since the remedy is with me.
And if the wind tore a flower from a branch of the rose-bush of my
talent,
A garden full of anemones, eglantine and basil is still with me.
And if one of my shells of brilliant pearls was emptied,
I still have a mind filled with pearls like the sea of 'Ummán.
What matters it if a few drops of the sputterings of my pen are lost?
There still remains with me a talent bountiful as the April cloud!
If the sweet water of my verse has been cast to the winds like dust
It matters little, for with me is the Fountain of the Water of Life.
And though my heart is grieved at the loss of my Díwán,
Why should I grieve at this, since my pearl-producing genius re-
mains?
And if the praise of the King of the World is, like the fame of his
justice,
Spread abroad throughout the earth, the praise-producing talent is
mine!
Although I could compile another Díwán, yet
My life's work is wasted, and regret for this remains with me.
If this vile Age is unkind to me, what matter
If the favours of the King of the Age are mine?
That just Prince Mu'izzu'd-Dín, whose virtue cries,
‘Whatever of glory can enter the Phenomenal World is mine.’
The chief of the favours which in all circumstances
The King of the Age doth show me amongst all my peers
Is this, that by his favour one of noble rank says to me
‘Rejoice, O Ibn-i-Yamín, for the constituent parts of the Díwán
are in my possession!’
Life has passed: may he continue successful until Eternity,
And may the daily portion of me his servant be prayers for the
King so long as life remains to me!”

The second entry in the Mujmal is very brief, and Date of Ibn-i-Yamín's death merely records the death of Ibn-i-Yamín on the 8th of Jumáda ii, 769 (Jan. 30, 1368), this date being further commemorated in the following chronogram:

This is followed by a quatrain ^215a said to have been uttered by the poet a little before his death:

“Regard not Ibn-i-Yamín's heart of woe;
See how from out this transient world I go.
Qur'án in hand and smiling, forth I wend
With Death's dread messenger to seek the Friend.”

Dawlatsháh devotes an article to the poet's father as well as to himself (Nos. 6 and 7 of the fifth Ṭabaqa), but Particulars given by Dawlatsháh concerning Ibn-i-Yamín and his father contributes few material or trustworthy facts, though he cites one fine poem of 14 couplets by the former, whose death he places in the year 724/1324. According to him Amír Yamínu'd-Dín, the father of our poet, was of Turkish origin; settled as a landowner at Faryúmad, where his son was born, in the reign of the Mongol Sulṭán Khudá-banda; and enjoyed the favour and patronage of Khwája 'Alá'u'd-Dín Muḥam-mad, who was in the fiscal service of Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd, and who was killed near Astarábád by the Sarbadárs in 737/1336-7. Concerning the son, Ibn-i-Yamín, he tells us little, save that he was the panegyrist of the Sarbadárs, which is doubtful, and that he died in 745/1344-5, which is almost certainly incorrect; but he endeavours to make up for this dearth of information by a digression of ten pages on the history of the little Sarbadár dynasty, which lasted about fifty years and was finally extinguished by Tímúr about 788/1386. The Haft Iqlím, Átash-kada and Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá practically yield no further information, except that the last-named work states that Ibn-i-Yamín was the panegyrist of Ṭughá-Tímúr. Owing to the loss of his Díwán, as described above, it is impossible to determine with certainty who were his patrons and to whom his panegyrics were chiefly addressed.

Ibn-i-Yamín's extant work consists of his Muqaṭṭa'át, or “Fragments,” most of which are of a philosophical, ethical Extant poems of Ibn-i-Yamín or mystical character. An edition of them was printed at Calcutta in 1865, and I also possess a pretty and carefully-written manuscript dated Rajab 5, 881 (Oct. 24, 1476). A German rendering of many of these poems by Schlechta-Wssehrd has also been published . ^216a The following fine verses on the evolution of the soul are amongst the best and most celebrated of Ibn-i-Yamín's poems:

The following is a rather free translation of the above:

“From the void of Non-Existence to this dwelling-house of clay
I came, and rose from stone to plant; but that hath passed away!
Thereafter, through the working of the Spirit's toil and strife,
I gained, but soon abandoned, some lowly form of life:
That too hath passed away!
In a human breast, no longer a mere unheeding brute,
This tiny drop of Being to a pearl I did transmute:
That too hath passed away!
At the Holy Temple next did I foregather with the throng
Of Angels, compassed it about, and gazed upon it long:
That too hath passed away!
Forsaking Ibn-i-Yamín, and from this too soaring free,
I abandoned all beside Him, so that naught was left but HE:
All else hath passed away!”

The same ideas have been equally well expressed, how- A parallel passage on the evolution of the soul from the Mathnawí ever, by the great mystical poet Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, who lived a century earlier, in a very well-known passage of the Mathnawí which runs as follows:

“I died from mineral and plant became;
Died from the plant, and took a sentient frame;
Died from the beast, and donned a human dress;
When by my dying did I e'er grow less?
Another time from manhood I must die
To soar with angel-pinions through the sky.
'Midst Angels also I must lose my place,
Since ‘Everything shall perish save His Face.’
Let me be Naught! The harp-strings tell me plain
That ‘unto Him do we return again!’”^218a

(Another Fragment)

“Only for one of reasons twain the wise
Possession of this varied world do prize:
Either to benefit their friends thereby,
Or else to trample down some enemy.
But he who seeketh wealth upon this earth,
And knoweth not wherein consists its worth
Is as the gleaner, who with toil doth bind
His sheaf, then casts the harvest to the wind.
Naught but a weary soul and aching back
Accrue to those who understanding lack.”

The following is typical in its Manichæan and Malthusian pessimism:

“Knowest thou wherefore the child no gratitude bears
E'en to the father who makes him the chief of his heirs?
‘'Twas thou,’ he seems to say, ‘who my peace didst mar
By bringing me into a world where such miseries are!’”

The fragment next following also represents a line of thought common with Ibn-i-Yamín and others of his school:

“That God who on Creation's Primal Day ^219a
The first foundations of thy soul did lay,
Who in His Wisdom did for forty morns
Fashion the house of clay thy soul adorns,^219b

Who bade the Pen ^220a inscribe upon thy brow
Whate'er betided thee from then till now,
It ill beseems Him on the Judgement-Day
‘This was well done, and that done ill’ to say!
For he who sows the camel-thorn can ne'er
Expect the aloe-tree to blossom there.
Since, then, the Muslim and the Christian stand
Subject alike to His supreme command,
‘Why should He give,’ in wonder ask the wise,
‘To this one Hell, to that one Paradise?’”

(Another Fragment)

“Whoe'er he be, wherever he may dwell
A man should strive to guard his honour well;
Conceit and folly he should put aside,
And turn his back on arrogance and pride;
Should so behave that none through him should e'er
Endure vexation equal to a hair;
None should despise for lack of power or pelf,
And deem each neighbour better than himself;
Then all his energies and wealth should spend
That so perchance he thus may gain a friend.”

(Another Fragment)

“A corner which no stranger can explore,
Where no one bores you, and you no one bore,
A sweetheart, lute and song, a friend or two—
At most a party not exceeding four;
A harp, a zither, roasted meats and wine,
A cup-bearer who is a friend of thine,
Reason, which doth distinguish good and ill,
Regarding not thy ploy with eyes malign!

Whoever doth disparage such affair
Is in the spirit-world devoid of share;
To Ibn-i-Yamín should such luck accrue
For no one in this world or that he'd care!”

The following fragment is practically a paraphrase of some very well-known Arabic verses ascribed to Qábús ibn Washmgír, Prince of Ṭabaristán (reigned A.D. 976-1012), which are quoted in the Story of the Merchant and the Jinní in the Arabian Nights:^221a

“Not as I would, O friends, the world doth go:
Of men of genius 'tis the constant foe.
Though fickle Fortune trouble me, what then?
Trouble's the portion of all noble men.
The sky holds countless stars, of which not one
Suffers eclipse, except the moon and sun.
'Tis custom now that he who wants for wits
Ever above the man of talent sits,
As on the sea the dust and rubbish swim
While pearls lie sunk in its abysses dim.”

Although nearly all the well-known biographies, such as Dawlatsháh, ^222a the Haft Iqlím, the Átash-kada, ^222b the Khwájú of Kirmán Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá, ^222c etc., contain notices of Khwájú of Kirmán, they are singularly jejune and lacking in precise information, while such precise information as is given is often demonstrably incorrect. Indeed the carelessness with which these works are compiled and copied is deplorable. To take one instance only, Riḍá-qulí Khán, in spite of his undeniable attainments as a poet, a lexicographer and a historian, states in the Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá that Khwájú was the panegyrist of Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd Khán, who reigned from 716-736/1316-1335, and immediately afterwards gives the year of his death as 503/1109-1110, which is evidently a careless mistake for 753. Dawlatsháh, who gives 742/1341-2 as the year of his decease, describes him as belonging to a good family in Kirmán, where, however, he spent but a small part of his life, though in some verses quoted on the same page, ^223a and evidently composed at Baghdád, he speaks of his native town with longing and affection:

Verses showing his love of his native place Kirmán “Pleasant the fragrant and sweet-scented blast
Which o'er the earth of Kirmán late hath passed!
Pleasant the days of that sweet Philomel
Which in its groves and gardens fair doth dwell!
What fault was mine that Heaven did decree
From that pure land I must an exile be?
Wherefore in Baghdád city must I dwell
That tears like Tigris from mine eyes may well?”^223b

During his travels, according to the Haft Iqlím, Khwájú made the acquaintance of many of his contemporaries amongst the poets and men of letters, and became the disciple of the eminent and pious Shaykh Ruknu'd-Dín 'Alá'u'd-Dawla of Simnán, with a sketch of whose life Dawlatsháh seeks to compensate us for the exiguity ^223c of his information about the proper subject of his biography. Rieu ^223d quotes some verses in which a little-known contemporary poet named Ḥaydar of Shíráz fiercely attacks Khwájú, whom he calls “a Kábulí thief from Kirmán town,” as a plagiarist. He says:

“Do not mention the name of Khwájú before a poet,
For he is a thief from the Díwán of Sa'dí.
Since he cannot compete in verse even with me
How dares he talk about Sa'dí?”

I can find no mention of Khwájú in the Mujmal of Faṣíḥí, but Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín accords him References to Khwájú in the chief biographies of poets a brief notice and cites one of his poems in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, which was completed in 730/1330, ^224a so that even during his lifetime he was evidently well-known throughout Persia. He is also mentioned in the Majálisu'l-Mú'minín, that late but extensive biographical work on the ornaments of the Shí'a sect of Islám, which, however, in this case does little more than copy Dawlatsháh.

It may be laid down as a general principle that the only satisfactory method of writing the lives of Persian Von Erdmann's critical study of Khwájú's life and works poets, with the possible exception of some of the older ones, who lived before the Mongol Invasion had destroyed the scientific spirit of historical criticism in Persia, is to collect and collate such particulars as can be derived from their own works as preserved in old and correct manuscript copies, since little confidence can be placed in some of the modern lithographed editions. This method has been followed in the case of many of the older poets, such as Firdawsí, Niẓámí, Anwarí, Kháqání, etc., and in this respect Khwájú is more fortunate than many of his contemporaries, for so long ago as 1848 Dr Franz von Erdmann published ^224b a short account of him, in which, after quoting and translating Dawlatsháh's article, he gives a brief description of a manuscript of his Khamsa, or five longer mathnawí poems, adding some useful particulars derived from them and from his Díwán. These particulars I shall here summarize, together with the additional details contributed by Rieu.^225a

According to his own statement, in his poem Naw-rúz u Gul (“New Year's Day and the Rose”), he was born on Shawwál 15, 679 (Feb. 7, 1281). He began his poetical career by attaching himself to the court of one of the Muẓaffarí princes, probably Mubárizu'd-Dín Muḥammad, the founder of that dynasty, at Yazd. Later he frequented the court of Shaykh Abú Isḥáq (reigned 742-754/1341-1353) at Shíráz, and, as may be gathered from the dedications of some of his qaṣîdas (panegyrics) given by von Erdmann, the courts of Shirwán-sháh and Qizil Arslán, Prince of 'Iráq, while the poem already cited shows that he also spent some time at Baghdád. In short he would seem to have wandered through the greater part of Persia, and cannot be regarded, like some of his contemporaries, as essentially the poet of one particular dynasty.

Khwájú's poems comprise the five romantic mathnawís which constitute the Khamsa, or “Quintet” (of which no Extant poems of Khwájú copy is accessible in Cambridge, though the British Museum possesses a fine copy ^225b made in 798/1396), and a Díwán containing qaṣídas (some religious, but mostly panegyrics), ghazals (odes), muqaṭṭa'át (fragments), rubá'iyyát (quatrains), etc. Of the Díwán I possess two manuscripts, one quite modern, and the other, bought at the sale of the Fiott-Hughes library about twenty years ago, copied by “Darwísh Ḥáfiẓ of Shíráz” (not, of course, the great Ḥáfiẓ, who died more than a century earlier) in 899/1493-4. A former owner of the last-mentioned manuscript has computed the number of verses which it contains at about four thousand.

The five poems which constitute the Khamsa are:

(1) Naw-rúz u Gul (“New Year's Day and the Rose”),

(2) Humáy u Humáyún, dedicated, apparently, either to Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd (716-736/1316-1335) or to his minister Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad, and containing 3203 verses. This poem, as Rieu has shown, was composed at Baghdád in 732/1331-2.

(3) Kamál-náma (the “Book of Perfection”), composed in 744/1343-4, and dedicated to Shaykh Abú Isḥáq, Prince of Fárs, who had ascended the throne only two years previously.

(4) The Rawḍatu'l-Anwár (“Garden of Lights”), a mystical poem composed at the shrine of Shaykh Abú Isḥáq Ibráhím, the patron saint of Kázarún in Fárs, in 743/1342-3, a year before the poem last mentioned.

(5) Another mystical poem of the title of which I am uncertain. The whole Khamsa, or “Quintet,” is apparently an imitation of the celebrated Khamsa of Niẓámí of Ganja, and was concluded in 744/1343-4.

In spite of the comparative celebrity which Khwájú enjoys, I have not been able to discover any striking beauty or conspicuous merit in his odes (ghazals), of which I have read some seventy-five. The following may serve as a fairly favourable specimen:

“Pass us not by, for our thought is set on thy constancy,
Our heart on the hope of thy promise, and our soul on thy faith!
If it be thy pleasure to thwart our pleasure, that matters little;
Our object in this world and the next is thy pleasure.
Hereafter, since we have staked our head in following thee,
Drive us not from thy presence, for our heart follows after thee.
I put my neck under the yoke and bow my head in service:
Forgive me, if thou wilt, or slay me: it is for thee to judge.
He who is thy slave becomes freed from all:
He who is thy friend becomes a stranger to his own kin.
O thou who art dearer to my heart than the soul which is in the body,
That soul which is in my body exists but for thee!
This sad-hearted victim who aspires to thy love,
His rightest oath is by thy heart-entrancing stature.
Khwájú, who is passing away through thy cruelty and harshness,
His heart is still set on thy love and loyalty!”

Besides odes (ghazals) and the above-mentioned math-nawís , Khwájú has several tarkíb-bands, one or two “fragments” (muqaṭṭa'át), and a few quatrains, including one about the dove crying “Kú, kú?” (“Where, where” are the great ones of yore departed?), generally ascribed to 'Umar Khayyám.

The following mustazád is not without grace:

“Is there none to say from me to that Turk of Cathay (Khaṭá)
‘If any fault (khaṭá) ^228a has been committed
Come back, for we hope from thee for ourselves
Fidelity to promises.

Do not cast pepper in the name of me, the heart-consumed,
On the fire of thy cheek, ^229a
For because of that musky grain of thine I have fallen, O friend,
Into the snare of misfortune.
Today I am, like the curve of thine eyebrow, in the city
Like unto the crescent moon, ^229b
Since I have seen that face of signal beauty
The cynosure of every eye.
Come back, that I may lay down my head at thy feet, and my life
At the feet of thy horse,
Since the hand of poor indigent me cannot provide
Anything more than ‘hoof-money.’ ^229c
Is it a rule in your city not to enquire
Into the condition of poor strangers?
After all, what hurt could befall the realm of thy beauty
From one so helpless [as me]?
How long, O sweet-voiced minstrel, wilt thou play out of tune
The ‘Lover's Air’?
Soothe me, the poor and portionless, for once
By a song of substance!
After all, how much longer can I keep hidden
In my heart the grief of separation?
O Beloved, I am sure that this grief will spread
One day somewhither.
Through regret for thy ruby lip I am in the Darkness of Alexander ^229d
Like Khwájú,
But what can I do, since the Kingdom of Darius.
Is not meet for a beggar?”

These few specimens of Khwájú's poems will perhaps suffice to show that his verse, while graceful and pleasing, lacks any conspicuous distinction or excellence.

'Ubayd-i-Zákání is, perhaps, the most remarkable parodist and satirical writer produced by Persia, and 'Ubayd-i-Zákání though, like most Persian, Arabian and Turkish satirists, his language is frequently so coarse as to render a large part of his writings unfit for translation, his Akhláqu'l-Ashráf, or “Ethics of the Aristocracy,” is, where not so marred, a fine piece of irony, while some of his serious poems (which have been too much ignored by most of his biographers) are of singular beauty. Of his life, as usual, little is known, save that he was originally from Qazwín (for which city he seems to have had little affection, since he is constantly gibing at the stupidity of its inhabitants), lived at Shíráz (to which, on the other hand, as several of his poems show, he was much attached) during the reign of Shaykh Abú Isḥáq Injú (who was killed in 747/1346-7), abandoned serious writing for a ribaldry more in accord with the taste of the great men of that time, but none the less (as several of his poems and a wellknown anecdote about his death indicate) suffered much from penury and debt, and finally died about 772/1371. Another well-known anecdote describes his quarrel and reconciliation with his contemporary Salmán of Sáwa, ^230a and he appears to have enjoyed the patronage of Sulṭán Uways at Baghdád or Tabríz, or both. Dawlatsháh ^230b consecrates a long but not very informative article to him, most of which (with fuller quotations from his poems) is reproduced in the Haft Iqlím. The notice in the Átash-kada is very meagre, and no mention of him is made in the Mujmal of Faṣíḥí or in the modern Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá. His satirical mathnawí of “the Mouse and the Cat” (Músh u Gurba) has been lithographed, with quaint woodcuts, at Bombay, without date; ^231a and a selection of his Facetiœ, to which is prefixed a Persian preface, probably by the late Mírzá Ḥabíb of Iṣfahán, followed by another of M. Ferté, was printed at Constantinople, at the Press of Ebu'ẓ-Ẓiyá Tevfíq Bey, in 1303/1885-6. ^231b As these two prefaces contain most that is to be said about 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, I here append a translation, omitting only a few unsuitable passages.

“That most witty poet 'Ubayd-i-Zákání was of the village of Zákán ^231c near Qazwín, and was one of the notabilities of the eighth century of the Flight. ^231d He was a man of talent and learning, one of the masters of style and sound taste. Although some reckon him as one of the ribald writers, it is only fair to state that, though jests, ribaldry and satire occur in his poems, he deserves to rank as something more than a mere satirist, being, indeed, conspicuous amongst the older poets for his grace and wit, and in these respects approached by few. He was particularly skilful in incorporating in his poems and investing with a ludicrous sense the serious verses of other poets, an achievement in which he left no ground unturned. His own serious poems, on the other hand, are incomparable in fluency of diction, sweetness and distinction, and are unrivalled in grace and subtlety.

“'Ubayd-i-Zákání pursued his studies at Shíráz in the reign of Sháh Abú Isḥáq, and became one of the most accomplished men of letters and learning of his time, acquiring complete proficiency in every art, and compiling books and treatises thereon. He subsequently returned to Qazwín, where he had the honour of being appointed to a Judgeship, and was chosen as the tutor and teacher of sundry young noblemen. At that time the Turks in Persia had left no prohibited or vicious act undone, and the character of the Persian people, by reason of association and intercourse with them, had become so changed and corrupted that 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, disgusted at the contemplation thereof, sought by every means to make known and bring home to them the true condition of affairs. Therefore, as an example of the corrupt morals of the age and its people, he composed the treatise known as the ‘Ethics of the Aristocracy’ (Akhláqu'l-Ashráf), which was not intended as mere ribaldry, but as a satire containing serious reflections and wise warnings. So likewise, in order to depict the level of intelligence and degree of knowledge of the leading men of Qazwín, each one of whom was a mass of stupidity and ignorance, he included in his ‘Joyous Treatise’ (Risála-i-Dilgushá) many anecdotes of which each contains a lesson for persons of discernment. As a measure of his accomplishments, experience, learning and worldly wisdom, his ‘Tract of a Hundred Counsels’ (Risála-i-Sad Pand) and his ‘Definitions’ (Ta'rífát) are a sufficient proof. Moreover, even those who speak of him as a mere ribald satirist admit that he composed a treatise on Rhetoric ('Ilm-i-Ma'ání u Bayán) which he desired to present to the King. The courtiers and favourites, however, told him that the King had no need of such rubbish. Then he composed a fine panegyric, which he desired to recite, but they informed him that His Majesty did not like to be mocked with the lies, exaggerations and fulsome flattery of poets. Thereupon 'Ubayd-i-Zákání said, ‘In that case I too will pursue the path of impudence, so that by this means I may obtain access to the King's most intimate society, and may become one of his courtiers and favourites,’ which he accordingly did. Then he began recklessly to utter the most shameless sayings and the most unseemly and extravagant jests, whereby he obtained innumerable gifts and presents, while none dared to oppose or contend with him.

“It is said that after 'Ubayd-i-Zákání had despaired of entering the King's assembly, he extemporized the following quatrain:

^232a

‘In arts and learning be not skilled like me,
Or by the great like me despised thou'llt be.
Wouldst earn applause from this base age of thine?
Beg shamelessly, play lute and libertine!’

“One of his acquaintances, hearing this, expressed astonishment that one so talented and accomplished could abandon learning and culture in favour of ribaldry and lewd utterances. To him 'Ubayd-i-Zákání sent the following verse:

‘Keep clear of learning, Sir, if so you may,
Lest you should lose your pittance for the day.
Play the buffoon and learn the fiddler's skill:
On great and small you then may work your will!’.^233a

“It is said that Salmán-i-Sáwají, a contemporary poet, wrote these verses satirizing 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, whom he had never seen:

‘'Ubayd-i-Zákání, the rhymester, whose damnable satirist pen
Hath made him accursed before God, and obnoxious to men;
He's an ignorant oaf from the country, and not a Qazwíní at all,
Though him, and that not without reason, “Qazwíní” they call.’^233b

“The point of this verse is that Persian wits affect to regard the people of Qazwín as fools, just as they dub the Khurásánís ‘asses,’ the people of Ṭús ‘cows,’ those of Bukhárá ‘bears,’ and those of Trans-oxiana ‘Mashhadís,’ that is, heretics (Ráfiḍís), all of which attributions are of the nature of disparagement.

“As soon as 'Ubayd-i-Zákání heard this verse, he at once set out for Baghdád. On his arrival there, he found Salmán, surrounded with great pomp and circumstance, on the banks of the Tigris, occupied with pleasure and diversion and the society of learned and accomplished men. When by some means he succeeded in entering the circle, Salmán had just composed this hemistich descriptive of the Tigris:

‘With drunken frenzy and fury fierce this year the Tigris flows’—

which he asked the bystanders to complete. Thereupon 'Ubayd-i-Zákání extemporized the following complementary hemistich:

‘With its foaming lips and its feet in chains, 'twere
mad, you might suppose.’

“Salmán was delighted, and enquired whence he came. He replied, ‘From Qazwín.’ In the course of the ensuing conversation Salmán asked him whether his name was known or any of his verse familiar in Qazwín, or not. 'Ubayd-i-Zákání replied, ‘The following fragment of his poetry is very well known:

“A frequenter of taverns am I, and a lover of wine,
Besotted with drink and desire at the Magians' shrine.
Like a wine-jar from shoulder to shoulder amongst them I pass,
And go from one hand to another like goblet or glass.”’

“‘Now although Salmán is an accomplished man,’ added 'Ubayd, ‘and these verses may perhaps be truly ascribed to him, yet in my opinion they were most probably composed by his wife.’^234a

“Salmán perceived from this witty speech that this was none other than 'Ubayd himself, whereupon he made much of him, apologized for his satire, and so long as 'Ubayd remained in Baghdád, fell short in no service which he could render him. And 'Ubayd used often to say to him, ‘O Salmán, fortune favoured you in that you so speedily made your peace with me, and so escaped from the malice of my tongue!’”

Then follows as a postscript the short Introduction ascribed to M. Ferté, who describes therein his devotion to Oriental and especially Persian literature, his desire to contribute something to a fuller knowledge of it, and his appreciation of the works of 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, a manuscript of which happened to come under his notice. From this manuscript he made the selections (amounting to about three-quarters of the whole contents) contained in this volume. These include:

(1) The Akhláqu'l-Ashráf, or “Ethics of the Aristocracy” (prose), composed in 740/1340.

(2) The “Book of the Beard” (Rísh-náma), in mixed prose and verse, undated.

(3) The “Book of a hundred Counsels” (Risála-i-Ṣad pand), composed in 750/1350 (prose).

(4) The “Definitions” (Ta'rífát), or “Ten Sections” (Dah Faṣl), undated (prose).

(5) Poems of different kinds, mostly obscene, including parodies.

(6) The “Joyous Treatise” (Risála-i-Dilgushá), divided into two parts, the one containing Arabic, the other Persian anecdotes and facetiœ.

On the other hand, there are omitted from these selections all 'Ubayd's serious poems and panegyrics, as well as the “Book of Lovers” ('Ushsháq-náma), “Book of Omens” (Fálnáma ), etc. Of the three MSS. of this poet's works which I have examined in the British Museum (Or. 2947, Or. 5738, and Or. 6303) the last contains the largest selection of poetry, including panegyrics on Shaykh Abú Isḥáq, Sulṭán Uways, Ruknu'd-Dín 'Amídu'l-Mulk, etc. Among these one of the prettiest is the following:

“Once again a passion has entered my head; again my heart inclines
in a certain direction.
He is of Royal birth, I am of the dust; he is a King, and I am
portionless.
One tall of stature, with locks like lassoes, an autocrat descended
from Sulṭán Ḥusayn:
One with eyebrows like bows and slender waist, one unkind, fair and
deceitful.
Such a charmer of hearts, such a graceful cypress-tree, such a shower
of oats and seller of barley! ^236a
Without him the sun gives no light; without him the world has no
lustre.
Wherever his ruby-lip smiles, there sugar is of no account.
Everywhere the heart holds with his vision pleasant speech and
sweet discourse
Thou wouldst say that I come to the house of a physician, that perhaps
I may procure a remedy for my heart.
Everyone else complains of a foe, but our complaint is of a friend.
Should the eyes of 'Ubayd not look their fill upon him, then his eyes
do not regard any other misfortune!”

Another fine manuscript of the works of 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, bearing the class-mark Suppl. persan 824, is in the possession of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. It was transcribed in Muḥarram, 834 (Sept.—Oct., 1430), comprises 111 leaves, and contains besides the poems, serious and flippant, the “Book of Lovers” ('Ushsháq-náma), in verse and partly in dialect; the “Ethics of the Aristocracy” (Akhláqu'l-Ashráf), the “Book of the Beard” (Rish-náma), and the “Ten Chapters” (Dah Faṣl). The most striking feature of the serious poems is the constant references to Fárs and its capital Shíráz, which evidently held the affection of the poet far more than his native city Qazwín. Thus, to quote a few examples, he says (f. 13^b):

“By the auspicious justice of that King who is so gracious to his servants the region of Shíráz has become an earthly Paradise.”

So again he says (f. 23^a):

“By the favour of the Creator the Kingdom of Párs hath become pleasanter than the Courts of Paradise and gayer than the Spring.”

And again (f. 28^a) he says:

“The victorious standard of the King who is so gracious to his servants hath reached with glee and happiness the region of Shíráz:

Shaykh Abú Isḥáq, that world-conqueror of youthful fortune, our liege-lord who slayeth opponents and maketh the fortune of his loyal supporters.”

The following verse, again (f. 35^b), is strongly reminiscent of, and was probably inspired by, a very well-known verse of Sa'dí's occurring in a poem quoted in vol. ii of my Literary History of Persia, p. 535, lines 13-15:

“The gentle breeze of Muṣallá and the stream of Ruknábád cause the stranger to forget his own native land.”

The following verse occurring in a poem in which 'Ubayd bids farewell to Shíráz affords further testimony of his attachment to that place:

“I leave the region of Shíráz, being in peril of my life:
Alas, how full of anguish is my heart at this inevitable departure!”

As in the case of Ḥáfiẓ so also in 'Ubayd's Díwán we find one disparaging allusion to Hurmuz (Ormuz) in the Persian Gulf which would seem to show that our poet had once visited that place:

“I am thus cast away in Hurmuz in grief and sorrow, isolated from the companionship of friends and patrons.”

Amongst the serious poems is one (f. 30^b) in praise of the Ṣáḥib-Díwán 'Amídu'l-Mulk, while amongst the satires are two (ff. 54^b and 55^a) directed against Kamálu'd-Dín Ḥusayn and Shihábu'd-Dín Ḥaydar. ^238a One of the religious poems at the beginning of the volume (f. 1^b), containing the praise of God, the Prophet, and the Four Orthodox Caliphs, indicates that 'Ubayd was a Sunní, but, apart from his disreputable facetiœ, the following verse shows clearly enough that he neither claimed nor desired to lead a virtuous life:

“God, of Thy grace one special hope I nourish,
That Thou wilt cause my pleasure-realm to flourish,
And turn from me the Doom of Abstinence,
And save me from the Plague of Penitence!”

As regards 'Ubayd's facetiœ (hazaliyyát), which are practically the only poems contained in the Constantinople edition of his works, they are, as already stated, almost without exception unfit for translation, and are regarded with disapproval or disgust by all respectable Persians at the present day. Their only point, moreover, lies in the skilful turning to base uses of the serious verses of earlier or contemporary poets, who are thus held up to ridicule and made to afford material for ribaldry by the unscrupulous 'Ubayd-i-Zákání. Amongst the lighter poems which are unobjectionable, however, the following may be cited:

“Something at least from my small property
Was wont to reach me in the days gone by,
And when friends came to cheer my loneliness
A crust of bread they found, a dish of cress,
And sometimes wine withal, when some new flame
Or some old crony me to visit came.
But now, alas! all that I reckoned on,
Solid or liquid, from my table's gone,
And only I am left, nor would remain
If my removal were another's gain!”

That poverty and debt were our poet's usual lot appears from other verses, such as the following:^239a

“Others rejoice in merriment, while I am afflicted with debt;
Everyone has his affairs and business, while I am in the misfortune
of debt.
My duty towards God and my debts to His creatures bow my neck;
Shall I discharge my duty towards God, or my debts?
My expenses are more than usual, and my debts beyond bounds:
Shall I take thought for my expenses or for my debts?
I complain of no documents save summonses for debt,
And I fear no one save the witnesses to my indebtedness.
I have debts in the town and debts in the suburb,
Debts in the street and debts in the store.
From morning until evening I continue in anxiety
As to where I may incontinently beg a loan.
Other people flee from the hands of debt, while I,

After prayer and supplication, pray for a loan from God. ^241a
My honour, like that of beggars, is cast to the winds,
So often have I sought a loan from the door of every beggar.
If the Master does not bespeak for me the King's favour
How can poor 'Ubayd finally discharge his debts?—
Master 'Alá'u'd-Dunyá wa'd-Dín, except whose hand
None other in the world hath given Debt its deserts!”

Other poems to the same purport will be found on pp. 58 (ll. 18-23) and 61 (ll. 16-20) of the Constantinople edition, and whether or no the well-known story ^241b about 'Ubayd-i-Zákání's death-bed practical joke on his children be true, it certainly accords alike with his character and his circumstances.

The following epigram on a physician is worth quoting:

“To this fool-doctor no man need apply
For treatment if he does not wish to die.
At last to him the Death-Angel appears
Saying, ‘Buy now the goods you've sold for years’!”

“The Mouse and the Cat” (Músh u Gurba) is a short mathnawí poem of 174 verses, and in the Bombay lithographed edition, with the numerous quaint woodcuts which illustrate it, comprises only 18 pages. It opens with a description of the voracious, keen-eyed, “lion-hunting” cat, with eyes like amber and sharp claws, feet like a scorpion, a forehead like an eagle, a belly like a drum, a breast of ermine, eyebrows like bows, and sharp teeth:

This cat, being in need of a meal, goes to a wine-tavern and conceals itself behind a wine-jar. Presently a mouse appears, leaps on to the edge of one of the jars, and begins to drink the wine, until, filled with the arrogance engendered by alcohol, and ignorant of the proximity of its formidable foe, it begins to boast its prowess, saying: “Where is the cat, that I may wring its neck and bear its head to the market-place? In the day of my munificence at the time of conferring benefits I would distribute the heads of a hundred cats! Cats are but as dogs in my sight, were I to meet them in the open field!”

Suddenly the cat leaps out upon it, seizes it, and cries, “O miserable mouse, how wilt thou save thy life?”

The mouse, effectively sobered now, adopts a tone of piteous entreaty, saying, “I am thy slave: pardon me these sins! If I ate dirt (i.e. talked nonsense) I was drunk, and drunkards eat much dirt! I am your slave, your devoted slave…”:

The cat, however, pays no heed to the mouse's supplications, kills and eats it, and then goes to the mosque to pray and repent of its mouse-eating:

Another mouse which was hiding in the pulpit of the mosque hears these edifying utterances and hastens to bear the good news of the cat's repentance to the other mice, saying, in a verse which has become proverbial and is alluded to by Ḥáfiẓ: ^243a

“Good tidings, for the cat has become devout, an ascetic, a true believer, a Musulmán!”

The mice thereupon decide to express their satisfaction by sending to the cat a deputation of seven mice bearing suitable presents of wine, roasted meats, sweets, nuts, fruits and sherbets. The cat invites them to approach, and then seizes five of them, one in its mouth and one in each of its four paws, while the two survivors escape and carry the sad news of the cat's unchanged nature to the other mice. After a week's mourning for their lost comrades, the mice, 330,000 in number, under the command of their king, march out to do battle with the cats. After a fierce struggle, the cats are defeated, and the chief offender, taken captive, is brought before the king of the mice, who condemns it to die on the gibbet, but at the end the cat breaks away from its captors, kills the king of the mice, and scatters or slays his followers. The poem ends:

“This strange and wonderful story is a memento of 'Ubayd-i-Zákání.”

Passing now to 'Ubayd-i-Zákání's prose works, we shall 'Ubayd-iZákání's “Ethics of the Aristocracy” first consider his “Ethics of the Aristocracy” (Akhláqu'l-Ashráf), which is a very bitter satire on the morals of his time, composed in 740/1340, and comprising a Preface and seven chapters, each of which deals with one of the virtues in the following order: (1) Wisdom; (2) Courage; (3) Chastity; (4) Justice; (5) Generosity; (6) Clemency and Fidelity; (7) Modesty, Mercy, etc. In each chapter the author treats first of the old or “abrogated” conception of the virtue in question (madh-hab-i-mansúkh), and then of the new or “adopted” view (madh-hab-i-mukhtár) of the moderns, whom he ironically extols for their discovery, that, for instance, Courage is not really a virtue, as the ancients taught, but a very dangerous and harmful quality. Concerning the purpose of his book he thus speaks in the Preface:

“Just as the physicians have expended their energies on removing the ailments of the body and maintaining its health, so likewise the prophets have concentrated their attention on removing the maladies and misfortunes of the spirit, so that they may bring it out of the perilous gulfs and whirlpools of ignorance and imperfection to the shores of salvation and perfection. When the wise man regards with attentive gaze, it will become plain to him that the object of the mission of those on whom has devolved the Prophet's trust is the refining of the qualities and purification of the attributes of God's servants, a truth thus enunciated in the words of the poet:

‘Whether or no a Prophet comes, be thou virtuous in conduct,
For he whose conduct is virtuous will not go to Hell.’

“His Holiness the Prophet himself has removed the veil from the virgin face of this idea, and has revealed the beauty implicit therein on the bridal throne of this assurance—‘I have been sent to complete virtuous qualities,’ while learned men of former times have committed to writing, in lengthy treatises, most of which the defective intelligence of this humble writer fails to comprehend, the laws of this science, known as ‘Ethics’ or ‘Practical Philosophy,’ whereby, in the best and safest way, human nature may be perfected. From the auspicious time of the pure Adam until these days the noblest of mankind, with much trouble and extreme endeavour, have made the most strenuous efforts to acquire the four cardinal virtues of Wisdom, Courage, Chastity and Justice, which they account the chief means to happiness in this world and salvation in the world to come, and concerning which they say:

‘Of whatever creed thou art, be a well-doer and a giver,
For Infidelity combined with good character is better than Islám
combined with immorality.’

“But now in this age, which is the cream of all the ages and the crown of all times, the nature of the leaders of mankind has been sublimated, and great and powerful thinkers have appeared who have concentrated their luminous thoughts and salutary meditations on all matters appertaining to this life and the next, and in their clear vision the ancient laws and practices appeared contemptible and unsubstantial. Moreover, by the lapse of ages and passage of time, most of these rules had become obsolete, and the observance of these ethical principles and practices proved burdensome to the powerful minds and luminous intellects of these people. Therefore they manfully trampled under foot these principles and practices; adopted instead, for their guidance in this life and the next, the method now current amongst the great and noble (to the elucidation of some portion of which this epitome is devoted); and based on it their conduct of the affairs of this world and the next. The portals of thought being thus opened and the chain of speech extended, let us enter upon the matter in hand.

“It is now some time since this humble writer 'Ubayd-i-Zákání conceived the ambition of writing a compendious treatise dealing with certain ethical conceptions of the ancients, which the people of our time regard as ‘obsolete,’ and some portion of the principles and practices of the leaders of thought in this age, which they regard as ‘adopted,’ in order that this treatise might benefit students of this science and neophytes in this path. Now at last, in this year 740 of the Flight (A.D. 1339-1340) he hath hastily penned this epitome, entitled ‘Ethics of the Aristocracy,’ dividing it into seven chapters, each of which contains two views, first the ‘obsolete’ view, in accordance with which our forefathers regulated their lives; and second the ‘adopted’ view, now discovered by our great thinkers, whereby they regulate their affairs here and hereafter. And although this treatise borders on ribaldry, yet—

‘He who is familiar with the city will know whence our goods are obtained.’

“The humble author's hope in striving to complete this brief treatise is that—

‘Perchance somewhere and somewhen some man of heart
May utter a prayer on behalf of this poor fellow.’”

After these preliminary remarks, the author proceeds to discuss in turn each of the seven virtues already enumerated, beginning in each case with the “obsolete view” (which is exactly modelled on what is set forth at greater length in such well-known treatises on Ethics as the earlier Akhláq-i-Náṣirí or the later Akhláq-i-Jalálí or Akhláq-i-Muḥsiní ), and then passing on to the “adopted” view of his contemporaries. As a specimen we may take the first chapter, which is less ribald than most.

“Philosophers in defining Wisdom say that this consists in ‘seeking to perfect the human soul in its intellectual and practical aptitudes;

‘Wherever Certainty entered, Doubt departed.’

“Now as for the Practical Faculty, it is that which coordinates and arranges the powers and actions of the soul, so that they cooperate and agree with one another, by virtue of which equipoise and accord its qualities become pleasing in God's sight. And when such knowledge and practice are combined in this degree in any person, he may fitly be entitled the ‘Perfect Man’ and ‘Vicar ^247b of God,’ and his rank becomes the highest attainable by the human race, even as God Most High hath said: ‘He giveth Wisdom to whom He will, and whosoever is given Wisdom hath been given abundant good.’ ^247c Moreover his spirit, after its separation from the body, becomes fitted to dwell in Paradise, to enjoy everlasting happiness, and to become receptive of God's grace…

“Thus far is the view of the ancient philosophers.”

The writer now passes immediately to the

“When the great and wise men of subtle understanding, with whose honoured persons the face of the earth is now adorned, reflected on the perfecting of the human soul and its future destiny, and examined the practices and opinions of the famous men of former times, they soon formulated a complete and categorical denial of all these beliefs. They say: ‘It has been revealed to us that the “Rational Soul” is a thing of no consideration; that its continuance absolutely depends on the continuance of the body, and that its destruction is involved in the destruction of the body.’ They further say: ‘What is asserted by the Prophets as to its having perfections and defects, and as to its subsisting and continuing in itself after its separation from the body is impossible, as is also the Resurrection. Life consists in the just equipoise of the elements comprising the body, and when this is decomposed its owner becomes for ever extinct and null. What is intended by the joys of Paradise and the torments of Hell must be in this world, as the poet says:

‘He to whom they give receives his gift even here,
And he who has nothing [here] is put off with promises for “to-
morrow.”’^248a

“Consequently our leaders of thought are entirely unconcerned with such matters as the Resurrection, Future Punishment, Nearness to or Remoteness from God, the Divine Approval or Wrath, Perfection and Imperfection, and the like; and the result of this conviction is that they spend every day of their life in satisfying their lusts and pursuing their pleasures, saying:

‘O Final Outcome of the Seven and Four, ^248b
Who by the Four and Seven art vexéd sore,
Drink wine! A thousand times I've told thee this—
When once thou'rt gone, thou shalt return no more!’

“While they commonly inscribe this quatrain on their fathers' tombstones:

‘No mansions lie beyond this earth and sea;
No reason dwells outside of me and thee:
That Nothing which is deemed by some men All,
O pass it by; 'tis but vain phantasy!’

“And it is for this reason that in their eyes attacks on men's lives, property and honour seem insignificant and of small account.

‘To such one draught of wine in hue like fire
Outweighs the blood of brethren or of sire.’

“In truth our applause is the just meed of these our great and favoured guides to whom matters which, notwithstanding the cultivation of the reasoning powers, remained hidden for several thousand years have been made plain without trouble.”

So in like manner 'Ubayd-i-Zákání deals with the other virtues. Thus in speaking of the “adopted” or current view about Courage, which is the subject of the second chapter, he says:

“Our teachers say that when one confronts a dangerous enterprise, or engages in combat and conflict with another, one of two things will 'Ubayd-iZákání on Courage happen: either his adversary will prevail and slay him, or the contrary. If he slays his adversary, he will have on his neck the burden of innocent blood, and as a consequence thereof will undoubtedly sooner or later be overtaken by punishment. If, on the other hand, his adversary prevails, that person will assuredly go the road to Hell. How, then, can a wise man undertake an action presenting such alternatives? What proof, indeed, is clearer than this, that whenever there is a wedding, or a dance, or any social function where delicate meats, sweets, robes of honour and money are in evidence, rakes, effeminate persons, minstrels and jesters are invited there, while when arrows and spears are the entertainment provided, some stupid fool is persuaded that he is a man, a hero, a defeater of armies, a captain courageous, and is thus induced to confront the swords, so that when the poor wretch is slain in battle the rakes and effeminates of the town wag their tails, saying:

‘Scant attraction have arrow and axe and spear for me;
Minstrels, wine and delicate meats far better agree!’”

The third chapter, dealing with Chastity, hardly lends itself to translation, but the “adopted view” concerning Justice in the fourth chapter is worth quoting.

“The view of our teachers is that this quality is the worst of all attributes, and that Justice involves much loss; a thesis which they have proved by the clearest arguments. For they say: ‘The foundation of sovereignty, lordship and mastery is punishment, since men Ubayd-iZákání on Justice will not obey any one until they fear him; all will feel themselves equal; the foundations of administration will be undermined, and the order of public business disorganized. He who practices Justice (which God forbid!) refrains from beating, killing and fining any one, and does not intoxicate himself and quarrel or be angry with his subordinates, him none will fear. Then the people will not obey their kings, nor sons their sires, nor servants their masters, while the affairs of the lands and the people will lapse into chaos. Hence it is that they say:

‘Kings to gain a single object oft will slay a hundred souls.’

“And they further say: ‘Justice bequeaths disaster.’

What proof, indeed, can be more convincing than this, that so long as the Kings of Persia played the tyrant, like Ḍaḥḥák the Arabian and Yazdigird ‘the Sinner’ (who now confer distinction on the chief seats of Hell, together with other later potentates who followed them), their Empire increased and their realm flourished; but when the reign of Khusraw Anúsharwán came, who, by reason of his weak judgement and the policy of his feeble-minded ministers chose the attribute of Justice, in a little while the pinnacles of his Palace fell to the ground, the Fire Temples, which were their places of worship, were extinguished, and all trace of them disappeared from the face of the earth. ^250a The Commander of the Faithful and Confirmer of the Laws of Religion 'Umar ibnu'l-Khaṭṭáb (may God be well pleased with him), who was noted for his justice, made bricks and ate barley-bread, while his cloak, as they relate, weighed seventeen maunds. Mu'áwiya, by the blessing of Injustice, wrested the kingdom from the hands of the Imám 'Alí (may God ennoble his countenance). Nebuchadnezzar did not establish his authority, nor become eminent in both worlds, nor did his empire increase, until he slew twelve thousand innocent prophets in the Holy City and cast into bondage many thousand more. Chingíz Khán, who to-day, in despite of his enemies, stands supreme in the lower depths of Hell as the exemplar and guide of all the Mongols, ancient and modern, did not attain to the sovereignty of the whole world until with ruthless sword he had destroyed millions of innocent persons.

“It is recorded in the histories of the Mongols that when Baghdád was conquered by Húlágú Khán he ordered the remnant of the inhabitants who had escaped the sword to be brought before him. He then enquired into the circumstances of each class, and, when he was acquainted with them, he said: ‘Artisans are indispensable,’ and gave them permission to go about their business. To the merchants he commanded that some capital should be given, so that they might trade for him. From the Jews he was content to take a poll-tax, declaring them to be an oppressed people; while the effeminates he consigned to his gynœcia. He then set apart the judges, shaykhs, Ṣúfís, Ḥájjís, preachers, persons of note, beggars, religious mendicants, wrestlers, poets and story-tellers, saying, ‘These are superfluous creatures who waste God's blessings,’ and ordered all of them to be drowned in the Tigris, thus purifying the face of earth from their vile existence. As a natural consequence sovereignty continued in his family for nearly ninety years, during which time their Empire daily increased; until, when poor Abú Sa'íd conceived in his mind a sentimental passion for Justice, and branded himself with the stigma of this quality, his Empire shortly came to an end, and the House of Húlágú Khán and all his en-deavours were brought to naught through the aspirations of Abú Sa'íd…

“Blessings rest on those great and well-directed persons who guided mankind out of the dark delusion of Justice into the light of right guidance!”

The “Book of the Beard” (Rísh-náma) is a fantastic The “Book of the Beard” dialogue between 'Ubayd-i-Zákání and the beard considered as the destroyer of youthful beauty.

The “Hundred Counsels” (Sad Pand) was composed in 750/1350, and, as its name implies, comprises a hundred The “Hundred Counsels” aphorisms, some serious, such as: “O dear friends, make the most of life”; “Do not defer until to-morrow the pleasure of to-day”; “Profit by the present, for life will not return a second time”; and some ironical and ribald, such as: “So far as you are able, refrain from speaking the truth, so that you may not be a bore to other people, and that they may not be vexed with you without due cause”; “Do not believe the words of pious and learned men, lest you go astray and fall into Hell”; “Do not take lodgings in a street where there is a minaret, so that you may be safe from the annoyance of cacophonous mu'adhdhins”; “Despise not ribaldry, nor regard satirists with the eye of scorn.”

The “Definitions” (Ta'rífát), or “Ten Sections” (Dah

“The World. That place wherein no creature can enjoy peace.
The Wise Man. He who does not concern himself with the world
and its inhabitants.
The Perfect Man. He who is not affected by grief or gladness.
Thought. That which wearies men to no purpose.
The Man of Learning. He who has not sense enough to earn his
own livelihood.
The Ignorant Man. Fortune's favourite.

“Gog and Magog. The Turkish tribes when they set out for a
country.
The Infernal Guards. Their leaders.
Famine. The result of their advent.
The Constable. He who robs by night and demands payment from
the shop-keepers by day.

“The Judge. He whom all men curse.
The Advocate. He who renders the truth of no effect.
Bribery. That which does the business of the helpless.
The Lucky Man. He who never sees the Judge's countenance.
The Preacher. An ass.
The Prelector. An ass's tail.
The Poet. A greedy coxcomb.

“The Shaykh. Iblís (the Devil).
The Devils. His followers.
The Ṣúfí. He who eats what he has not earned.
The Ḥájji. He who swears falsely by the Ka'ba.

“Boasting and impudence. The Gentry's stock-in-trade.
Nothing. Their existence.
Hollow. Their politeness.
Vanity and folly. Their talk.
Fault-finding, greed, avarice and envy. Their characteristics.
The Fool. He who hopes any good of them.

“The Shopman. He who fears not God.
The Druggist. He who wants to make everyone ill.
The Doctor. An executioner.
The Liar. The astrologer.
The Athlete. An idle rogue.
The Broker. The chartered thief of the market-place.
One per cent. What does not reach the landlord from his crops.
Complaint. What is carried to the landlord.

“Wine. The source of disturbance.
Backgammon, beauties, candles and desert. Its instruments.
The Harp, Lute and Dulcimer. Its music.
Soup and roasted meat. Its food.
The Garden and Parterre. Its appropriate place.
The ‘Destroyer of Joys.’ Ramaḍán.
The ‘Night of Worth.’ The eve of the festival.

“Bang. That which fills the Ṣúfí with ecstasy.
The Bejewelled, or the Noble on both sides. He who indulges simul-
taneously in bang and wine.
The Disappointed. He who enjoys neither.

“The Bachelor. He who laughs at the world's beard.
The Unfortunate. The householder.
The Two-horned (Dhu'l-Qarnayn). He who has two wives.
The most unfortunate of the unfortunate. He who has more.
The Futile. The householder's life.

The Wasted. His time.
The Dissipated. His wealth.
The Distracted. His mind.
The Bitter. His life.
The Abode of Mourning. His house.
The Enemy in the House. His son.
The Ill-starred. He who is afflicted with a daughter.
The Adversary. His brother.
The Kinsman. His deadly foe.
Joy after sorrow. The triple divorce.

“The Lady. She who has many lovers.
The House-wife. She who has few.
The Virtuous. She who is satisfied with one lover.
The Maiden. A name denoting what does not exist.”

The “Joyous Treatise” (Risála-i-Dilgushá) is a col- 'Ubayd-iZákání's “Joyous Treatise” lection of short Arabic and Persian stories and facetiœ, mostly of a somewhat ribald character, preceded by a short Preface. A few specimens of both parts are here appended.

“Juḥá once went to al-Kinása (‘the Dust-heap’) to buy a donkey. A man met him and asked him where he was going. He replied, ‘To al-Kinása to buy a donkey.’ ‘Say, “Please God,”’ answered the other. ‘There is no “Please God” about it,’ responded Juḥá: ‘the donkey is in the market and the money is in my sleeve.’

“Now when he entered the market, some pickpockets fell upon him and stole his money. And as he returned, the man met him again, and enquired whence he came. He replied, ‘From the market, Please God. My money has been stolen, Please God. So I did not buy the donkey, Please God. And I am returning to my house disappointed and despoiled, Please God.’”

“A certain man met another riding on a sorry ass, and enquired of him, ‘Whither away?’ He replied, ‘To try to reach the Friday prayer.’ ‘Out on thee!’ exclaimed the other; ‘To-day is Tuesday!’ ‘I shall be lucky,’ answered the rider, ‘if my ass gets me to the mosque by Saturday!’”

“A man came to Iyás ibn Mu'áwiya and asked him: ‘If I should eat dates, would it harm me?’ He replied, ‘No.’ ‘What would happen,’ he continued, ‘if I were to eat fennel with bread?’ ‘Nothing would happen,’ he answered. ‘And if I then drank a little water?’ he asked. ‘What forbids?’ replied the other. Said the questioner, ‘Date-wine is compounded of these things: how then can it be unlawful?’ ‘If I threw some earth at you,’ said Iyás, ‘would it hurt?’ ‘No,’ said the man. ‘And if a little water was poured upon you, would any of your bones be broken?’ continued Iyás. ‘No,’ said the man. ‘But if,’ said Iyás, ‘out of the earth and the water I made a brick, and dried it in the sun, and then struck you on the head with it, how would it be?’ ‘It would kill me,’ answered the other. Said Iyás, ‘This case is like that.’”

“A certain Shí'ite entered a mosque and saw the names of the [four] Companions ^255a written up on the wall. He wished to spit on the names of Abú Bakr and 'Umar, but his spittle fell on the name of 'Alí. He was greatly annoyed at this, and exclaimed, ‘This is only what you deserve for keeping such company!’”

“A certain man claimed to be God. He was brought before the Caliph, who said to him, ‘Last year someone here claimed to be a prophet, and he was put to death.’ ‘It was well done,’ replied the man, ‘for I did not send him.’”

“Juḥá in his childhood was apprenticed for some days to a tailor. One day his master brought a jar of honey to the shop. Desiring to go out on some business, he said to Juḥá, ‘There is poison in this jar: beware lest you partake of it, or you will perish!’ Said Juḥá, ‘What have I to do with it?’ When his master had gone, Juḥá gave a piece of cloth to a money-changer and bought a piece of baker's bread, which he ate with all the honey. When his master returned, he demanded the piece of cloth. ‘Don't beat me,’ said Juḥá, ‘so that I may tell you the truth. A thief stole the piece of cloth while I was not paying attention. I was afraid that when you came back you would beat me, so I said to myself that I would take poison, so that when you returned I should be dead. So I ate all the poison which was in the jar, but I am still alive. The rest you know.’”

“A Qazwíní armed with an enormous shield went out to fight the Heretics. ^255b A stone fired from their stronghold struck him and broke his head. He was much annoyed and exclaimed, ‘O fellow, are you blind that you cannot see so large a shield and must needs hit me on the head?’”

“The son of a certain Qazwíní fell into a well. ‘O my dear boy,’ he exclaimed, ‘don't move from where you are until I go and fetch a rope and pull you out!’”

“A certain mu'adhdhin was running along shouting the call to prayer. They asked him why he was running. He replied, ‘They tell me that my voice sounds best from a distance, so I am running away from it to see if this is true.’”

“Sulṭán Maḥmúd saw a feeble old man carrying on his back a load of firewood. Being moved to pity, he said, ‘Old man, would you prefer that I should give you two or three gold dínárs, or a donkey, or two or three sheep, or a garden, so that you may be delivered from this misery?’ ‘Give me money,’ said the old man, ‘so that I may put it in my girdle, and ride on the donkey, and drive the sheep before me, and go to the garden, and rest there, through your favour, for the rest of my life.’ The Sulṭán was pleased at his reply, and gave orders that this should be done.”

“A man said to his friend, ‘My eye hurts me. What should I do?’ ‘Last year,’ replied his friend, ‘one of my teeth hurt me and I pulled it out.’”

“A bald man coming out from the bath found that his hat had been stolen, and had a violent altercation with the bathman, who declared that he had no hat on when he came. ‘O Musulmáns!’ exclaimed the man, ‘is mine the kind of head which goes about hatless?’”

“A certain Qazwíní was asked if he knew about 'Alí, the Commander of the Faithful. ‘Of course I know about him,’ he replied. ‘Which of the Caliphs was he in order?’ they asked. ‘I know nothing about Caliphs,’ he answered, ‘but it was he whom Ḥusayn caused to die a martyr's death on the Plain of Karbalá!’”^256a

“A certain gipsy reproached his son, saying, ‘You do nothing, and spend your life in idleness. How often must I tell you that you should learn to turn somersaults, make dogs jump through hoops, or walk on the tight-rope, so that you may derive some profit from life. If you won't listen to me, by Heaven, I will send you to college to learn their moth-eaten science and to become a learned man, so that all your life you may continue in abasement, poverty and evil fortune, and be unable to earn a single barleycorn anywhere.’”

“A certain Qazwíní was returning from Baghdád in the summer. They asked him what he was doing there. He replied, ‘Sweating.’”

With the “Joyous Treatise,” from which the few anecdotes given above are taken, the printed edition of 'Ubayd-i-Zákání's works ends, except for two letters— models of unintelligible vulgarity and full of solecisms— ascribed to Shaykh Shihábu'd-Dín Qalandar and Mawláná Jalálu'd-Dín b. Ḥusám of Herát, but no doubt written by 'Ubayd himself in order to hold them up to ridicule.

I have devoted to 'Ubayd-i-Zákání more space than he may be deemed by many students of Persian literature Reasons for devoting so much space to 'Ubayd-iZákání to deserve, but, in spite of his coarseness and cynicism, his strong originality and boldness of speech appear to me to entitle him to more consideration than he has hitherto received. His “Ethics of the Aristocracy” is valuable for the light it throws on the corrupt morals of his age, and it is at least conceivable that, as 'Ubayd's biographer suggests, it was really written with serious purpose to awaken his countrymen to the lamentable deterioration in public and private life which had taken place in Persia during the Mongol ascendancy. In style and subject-matter 'Ubayd-i-Zákání stands almost alone amongst the older poets, though he bears some resemblance to his predecessor Súzaní, and to his successors Abú Isḥáq (Busḥaq) of Shíráz, the parodist and poet of the kitchen, and Maḥ-múd Qárí of Yazd, the poet of clothes. Amongst the moderns, the learned Mírzá Ḥabíb of Isfahán, the editor of his books, who died in Constantinople towards the end of the nineteenth century, rivals and even surpasses him in hazaliyyát or ribald poems.

Such fame as this poet enjoys arises chiefly from the 'Imád of Kirmán fact that he was a rival of the great Ḥáfiẓ, and is supposed to be aimed at in a rather spiteful poem ^258a by the latter, especially in the verse:

“O gracefully-walking partridge, whither goest thou? Stop!
Be not deceived because the zealot's cat says its prayers!”

The story is ^258b that 'Imád stood high in the favour of Sháh Shujá' the Muẓaffarí, with whom, on the other hand, Ḥáfiẓ was by no means a persona grata. 'Imád, who, as his title Faqíh indicates, was a theologian, had a tame cat which he had taught to go through the appropriate postures and genuflections when he prayed, and this art of mimicry was regarded by the Prince as miraculous, but by Ḥáfiẓ as a piece of hypocritical cunning.

Notices of 'Imád are given by Dawlatsháh ^258c and Jámí (in the Baháristán, chapter vii), and in the Átash-kada, ^258d the Haft Iqlím and the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar (as mentioned above), and most other biographies of poets, but these contain very little indeed about his life. He is said to have been highly respected at Kirmán, and to have had a college or retreat there. “He was wont,” says Jámí, “to recite his verses to all who visited the rest-house (khánqáh), requesting them to criticize and amend them, whence it is that they say that his poetry is really the poetry of all the people of Kirmán.” Dawlatsháh quotes the opinion of Ádharí, author of the “Gems of Mysteries” (Jawáhiru'l-Asrár), who says:

“Critical scholars hold that some redundancy (‘stuffing’—ḥashw) is to be observed at times in the poetry of all the ancients and moderns except in that of Khwája 'Imád-i-Faqíh, in which, as they agree, there is absolutely no such lapse, either in words or ideas.”

'Imád's extant work comprises a Díwán of lyric poetry, of which copies are not common, ^259a and at least five mathnawí poems, of which the earliest, entitled Maḥabbat-náma-i-Ṣáḥib-dilán , was composed in 722/1322, and the latest, the Múnisu'l-Abrár, in 766/1364. According to Dawlat-sháh, he died in 773/1371-2, evidently at a fairly advanced age. The following is a translation of the first of the two odes of 'Imád quoted by this biographer:^259b

“The poor patient in the hospital of Religion who details his
symptoms to the physicians who sit by the road,
What cares he for the road, the pain, the trouble and the sickness
Who has Khiḍr for his friend and Christ for his companion?
On the first day of Eternity Past I inscribed on the Tablet of my Soul
Of the words of my father (may his tomb be fragrant!) these:
‘O child, if thou meetest with one who is fallen,
Do not mock him, nor look on him with the eyes of scorn!’
For this reason did the great religious leaders ride on lions,
Because they trod the earth more gently than ants.
If no heart in the world is cheered by thee,
At least do not so act that any spirit may be saddened by thee.
O 'Imád, one cannot seek for any friend but God:
Help, O Helper! ‘From Thee do we seek assistance’!”^259c

Salmán of Sáwa, who has been already mentioned in Salmán of Sáwa connection with 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, is another poet whose eminence has been certified by the great Ḥáfiẓ in the following verse:

“Dost thou know who is the chief of the scholars of this age
In the way of truth and certainty, not in the way of doubt and
falsehood?
That monarch of the accomplished and king of the realm of verse
That ornament of Church and State (Jamálu'd-Dín), the Master
of the World Salmán.”

He was essentially a court-poet and panegyrist, and was attached during the greater part of his long life to the Íl-khání or Jalá'ir dynasty, his special patrons being Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg, the founder of that dynasty, his consort Dilshád Khátún, and their son Shaykh Uways. Apart from the notices of him given by the biographers cited throughout this chapter, ^260a attention should be called to two excellent biographies by Indian scholars, one in English and the other in Urdú. The first, in the Catalogue of…the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore, Firdawsí to Ḥáfiẓ (pp. 219-225), is by Mawlawí 'Abdu'l-Muqtadir, and gives a very good critical summary of the data furnished by the Persian biographers. The second is contained in an admirable collection of studies of some twenty eminent Persian poets by Shiblí Nu'mání entitled Shi'ru'l-'Ajam (“Poetry of the Persians”), ^261a compiled in 1324-5/1906-7, and lithographed at 'Aligaṛh.

That Salmán was born in or about the year 700/1300 is proved, as pointed out by Mawlawí 'Abdu'l-Muqtadir,

Salmán's earliest poems, as 'Abdu'l-Muqtadir observes, are apparently his elegies on the death of Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd (Nov.—Dec., 1335), and of his great minister Khwája Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Muḥammad, who was put to death on Ramaḍán 21, 736 (May 3, 1336). In this same year Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg established the dynasty known as Íl-khání, with its capital at Baghdád, and thither Salmán, attracted by the fame of that ruler's generosity to men of letters, made his way, probably soon after the cruel and violent death of his earlier patron Ghiyáthu'd-Dín. It is related by Dawlatsháh and other writers that he first won Shaykh Ḥasan's favour by the following verses which he extemporized on some occasion when that Prince was exhibiting his skill with the bow:^262a

“When the King lifted his Cháchí ^262b bow
Thou would'st have said that the Moon was in the Sign of
Sagittarius.
I saw the two ‘crows’ of the bow and the three-winged eagle ^262c
Bring their heads together in one corner. ^262d
They laid their heads on the King's shoulder:
I know not what they whispered in the King's ear.
When the King loosed the bow-string from the finger-stall
From every side arose the twang of the string.
O King, the arrow is subject to thy schemes,
And fortune follows the flight of thy arrow.
In thy time complaints arise from none
Save from the bow, which it is but right should lament.
For, in the reign of this auspicious Sultan
None does violence save to the bow.”

It was, however, according to the biographers, chiefly to the beautiful and accomplished Queen Dilshád Khátún, and to the amiable Prince Uways, that Salmán owed the favours which he enjoyed at the Íl-khání court, of which he says:

“Through the auspicious fortune of this House I have captured the
world with the sword of my tongue.
To-day from the East to the West I am more famous than the Sun.”

Shaykh Uways succeeded to the throne in 757/1356 and reigned nearly twenty years, and to him a great number of Salmán's qaṣídas are addressed, while anecdotes given by Dawlatsháh and reproduced by Ouseley in his Biographical Notices of the Persian Poets ^263a show the intimacy which prevailed between the two. This prince is said by Dawlatsháh to have been of such striking beauty that when he rode out the people of Baghdád used to flock into the streets to gaze upon a countenance which seemed to reincarnate the legendary comeliness of Joseph. When overtaken by untimely death, he is said to have composed the following fine verses:

“From the spirit-world one day to the realms of Body and Sense did
I roam;
I sojourned here for a few brief days, and now I am going home.
The servant was I of a mighty Lord, and I fled from my Liege and
Lord,
Whom now in shame I am going to meet with a winding-sheet and
a sword. ^263b
Comrades of mine, I leave you now to joys which I may not share,
And that you may enjoy this banquet long is my parting hope and
prayer!”

As is usually the case with panegyrists, many of Salmán's qaṣídas refer to definite historical events, and can therefore be dated. Mawlawí 'Abdu'l-Muqtadir gives a list of ten such poems, with their dates and the occasions which called them forth, from the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar. ^264a The earliest of them, composed in 739/1338 on the occasion of the flight of Shaykh Ḥasan-i-Buzurg to Baghdád, begins:^264b

“It is the time of morning, and the brink of the Tigris, and the breath
of Spring;
O, boy, bring the wine-boat to the estuary of Baghdád!”

The two latest, composed in 777/1375, celebrate a victory of Sháh Shujá' in Ádharbáyján. ^264c The second of them, which won that Prince's high approval, begins: ^264d and it was after hearing it that Sháh Shujá' observed: “We had heard the fame of three notable persons of this country, and found them differing in their circumstances. Salmán exceeded all that was said in his praise; Yúsuf Sháh the minstrel agreed with his reputation; and Shaykh Kajaḥání fell short of his.”

One of the most celebrated of Salmán's qaṣídas, however, was written to commemorate the death of Shaykh Uways, which took place in Jumáda ii, 776 (November, 1374). It begins:^264e

“O Heaven, go gently! It is no slight thing that thou hast done:
Thou hast made desolate the land of Persia by the death of the King.
Thou hast brought down a heaven from its zenith,
And hast cast it on the earth and made it level with the dust.
If thou walkest with truth, this is no insignificant matter:
Thou hast attacked the life and property and honour of every
Musulmán!”

As already stated, Salmán probably died in 778/1376, a year after the composition of two of the qaṣídas mentioned above, so that he evidently continued to write poetry until the end of his long life, and did not, as stated by Dawlat-sháh , ^265a actually retire into seclusion, though he implies his desire and intention of so doing in an interesting poem cited by Shiblí Nu'mání in his Shi'ru'l-'Ajam (vol. ii, pp. 198-200). In this poem he says that for nearly forty years he has celebrated his Royal patron's praises in the East and in the West; that he is now old and feeble, lame, and weak of sight, and wishes to retire from Court and spend the remainder of his days in praying for the King; that having been the master of the realm of poets, he desires to become the servant of the poor; that he has no doubt that the King will continue his allowance, but that he would like its source and amount to be definitely fixed; and finally that he owes considerable sums of money which he cannot pay, and prays the King to discharge these debts for him. In reply the King is said to have written two couplets on the poet's versified petition, in the first of which he orders his allowance to be continued as heretofore, while in the second he assigns him the revenues of the village of Írín near Ray.

Shiblí Nu'mání concludes his notice of Salmán with a fairly detailed and wholly favourable appreciation of his skill in the different forms of verse. His skill is chiefly apparent in his qaṣídas, which are remarkable for grace and fluency of language, and for a felicity of diction possessed by none of the earlier poets, and peculiar to those of this middle period, between which two groups Salmán marks the transition. Shiblí gives the following examples to illustrate his assertion:

“Thy mouth smiled, and produced a jar of sugar:
Thy lip spoke, and revealed glistening pearls.
Thy waist was undiscoverable, ^266a but thy girdle
Deftly clasped it round, and revealed it in gold.
Cast aside the veil from thy face, for those black tresses
Have affected the fairness of thy cheeks.”

“The breeze of the Naw-rúz ^267a brings the aroma of the beautiful rose,
[And] brings the dust of the musk of Tartary from the borders of
the desert.
The garden has decked the branch with the patterns of a peacock's
tail;
The wind hath fashioned the bud into the likeness of a parrot's head.
The [red] anemone hath displayed from the mountain-slopes the
fire of Moses;
The branch hath brought forth ‘the White Hand’ from its bosom. ^267b
The sweet-voiced nightingale, for the [delectation of the] Rose-Prince,
Hath contributed the strains of Bárbad and the songs of Nikísá. ^267c
The zephyr-breeze hath conferred high rank on the cypress;
The sweetness of the air hath endowed the anemone with a noble
robe.”

Shiblí next gives examples of Salmán's skill in inventing those graceful and subtle conceits in which the poets of the middle and later periods take pride. The following specimens may suffice:

“The cornelian of thy lip placed the coin of life in a casket of pearls;
It was a precious stuff, so it put it in a hidden place. ^268a
Thy lips put a ruby lock on the lid of that casket;
Thy mole, which was of ambergris, set a seal upon it.
A subtle thought, finer than a hair, suddenly came
Into the heart of thy girdle, and named it ‘waist’.” ^268b

“Henceforth make your rosary from the knots of the Magian's tresses;
Henceforth take as your miḥráb the arch of the idols' (fair ones')
eyebrows.
Arise joyous like the bubbles from the rose-red wine, and base no
hopes
On this bubble-like revolving dome [of sky].”

“For some while the revolution of this circle parted us from one another like the [points of a] compass, but at last brought us together [once more].”

“The Zephyr found the rose-bud laughing before thy mouth,
And smote it so sharply in the mouth that its mouth was filled with
blood.”

“I will not set my foot one hair's breadth outside this circle, ^269a
Even though they should split me like a compass into two halves
from head to foot.”

Other points in Salmán's poetry noted by Shiblí Nu'mání are his skill in the successful manipulation of difficult rhymes and awkward refrains. Thus he has long qaṣídas in which each verse ends with such words as dast (“hand”), páy (“foot”), rú (“face”), bar sar (“on the head”) preceded by the rhyming word, yet which maintain an easy and natural flow of words and ideas.

Shiblí Nu'mání next deals with the poet's “fragments” (muqaṭṭa'át), or occasional verses, which, as usual with this class of verse, are connected with various incidents in his life, and therefore have a more personal note than the odes (ghazaliyyát) and elegies (qaṣá'id), but which are unfortunately omitted from the Bombay lithographed edition.

On one occasion the King gave Salmán a black horse, which he did not like and wished to exchange for one of another colour, but the Master of the Horse apparently would not permit this. Thereupon he wrote as follows to his patron:

“O King, thou didst promise me a horse: no further discussion is
possible about the word of Kings.
They gave me an old, black horse, and I am of opinion that no more
aged black is to be found in the world.
I gave back that horse so that I might get another in such wise that
none should have knowledge of this secret.
I gave back a black horse, but they would not give me one of another
colour; yes, indeed, ‘There is no colour beyond black!’”^270a

Salmán further satirized this unfortunate horse as follows:

“O King, I had hopes that, through thy good fortune, I might mount
a tall, young and ambling horse.
They give me an old, lazy, undersized horse, not such a horse as I
can ride.
It is a horse black, feeble and lean as a pen: it would be the height
of folly to mount such a beast.
In truth it must be thirty years older than myself, and it is dis-
respectful to sit upon one's elders.”

In another fragment Salmán excuses his absence from the Court on the plea that his eyes are bad, and that though the dust of the King's threshold is a collyrium, yet the evil eye must be kept far from him:

On another similar occasion he pleads the pain in his feet (probably gout), to which he elsewhere alludes in his poems, as the cause of his absence, wittily observing that foot-ache prevents him from giving the King headache, which in the Persian idiom means trouble:

Finally Shiblí Nu'mání speaks of the innovations intro- Shiblí's summing up of Salmán's talents duced by Salmán, and especially of his skilful use of the figure called íhám or “ambiguity.” The general conclusion seems to be that Salmán deserves to be ranked amongst the great panegyrists and qaṣída-writers; that he was an ingenious, skilful and to a certain extent original poet, but that he lacks the fire, passion and conviction which make a poet great and famous beyond the limits of his own time and country.

What has been already said generally at the beginning Ḥáfiẓ of Shíráz of this chapter as to the extraordinary dearth of trustworthy information concerning the poets of this period applies especially to the most eminent and famous of them, and indeed of all the poets of Persia, the immortal and incomparable Ḥáfiẓ of Shíráz, entitled by his admirers Lisánu'l-Ghayb (“the Tongue of the Unseen”) and Tarjumánu'l-Asrár (“the Interpreter of Mysteries”). Notices of him naturally occur in all the numerous biographies of poets composed subsequently to his death, beginning with Dawlatsháh, who wrote just a century after this event, down to quite modern compilations, like Riḍá-qulí Khán's Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá and Riyáḍu'l-'Árifín; but these contain few trustworthy biographical details, and consist for the most part of anecdotes connected with certain verses of his poems, and probably in most cases, if not all, invented to explain or illustrate them. The only contemporary mention of Ḥáfiẓ with which I am acquainted is contained in the Preface of his friend and the collector and editor of his poems, Muḥammad Gulandám, who, after expatiating on the poet's incomparable genius, his catholic sympathy, and the celebrity attained by his verse even in his lifetime, not only in Persia, from Fárs to Khurásán and Ádharbáyján, but in India, Turkistán and Mesopotamia, proceeds as follows:

“However, diligent study of the Qur'án, constant attendance to the King's business, the annotation of the Kashsháf ^272a and the Miṣbáḥ, ^272b the Muḥammad Gulandám's account of Ḥáfiẓ perusal of the Maṭáli' ^272c and the Miftáḥ, ^272d the acquisition of canons of literary criticism and the appreciation of Arabic poems prevented him from collecting his verses and odes, or editing and arranging his poems. The writer of these lines, this least of men, Muḥammad Gulandám, when he was attending the lectures of our Master, that most eminent teacher Qiwámu'd-Dín 'Abdu'lláh, used constantly and repeatedly to urge, in the course of conversation, that he (Ḥáfiẓ) should gather together all these rare gems in one concatenation and assemble all these lustrous pearls on one string, so that they might become a necklace of great price for his contemporaries or a girdle for the brides of his time. With this request, however, he was unable to comply, alleging lack of appreciation on the part of his contemporaries as an excuse, until he bade farewell to this life…in A.H. 791” (A.D. 1389).

The notice of Ḥáfiẓ contained in that agreeable work of Notices of the life of Ḥáfiẓ Sir Gore Ouseley, the Biographical Notices of Persian Poets, ^273a gives most of the anecdotes connected with verses in his Díwán to which I have already alluded; while an admirable account of the times in which he lived and the general character of his poetry is to be found in the Introduction to Miss Gertrude Lowthian Bell's Poems from the Divan of Hafiz (London, 1897), which must be reckoned as the most skilful attempt to render accessible to English readers the works of this Shiblí's critical study of Ḥáfiẓ poet. On the whole, however, the best and most complete critical study of Ḥáfiẓ with which I am acquainted is contained in Shiblí Nu'mání's Urdú work on Persian Poetry entitled Shi'ru'l-'Ajam , ^273b already repeatedly quoted in this chapter. I feel that I cannot do better than summarize at any rate that portion of this notice which deals with the poet's life, and the few facts concerning his personal circumstances and relations with his contemporaries which can be deduced from his poems, indicating at the same time the Persian biographical sources to which the learned author refers. Amongst these he specially mentions the well-known Ḥabíbu's-Siyar of Khwándamír ^273c and the May-khána (“Wine-tavern”) of 'Abdu'n-Nabí Fakhru'z-Zamán (compiled in 1036/1626-7, in the reign of Jahángír), of which Persian biographies of Ḥáfiẓ latter I have no copy at hand. The Persian biographical works which I have consulted, and which yield but scanty results (since, as Shiblí points out, they generally copy from one another and often make statements not merely unsupported by any respectable evidence but mutually destructive) are Dawlatsháh's “Memoirs of the Poets”; Jámí's Baháristán ^273d and Nafaḥátu'l-Uns; ^273e Luṭf 'Alí Beg's Átash-kada (“Fire-temple”), which mainly follows Dawlatsháh; the Haft Iqlím; and the quite modern Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá (“Assembly of the Eloquent”), which gives several fresh particulars of doubtful authenticity, such as that Ḥáfiẓ came originally from Túysirkán and that he composed a commentary on the Qur'án.

Shiblí Nu'mání arranges his matter systematically, be- Parentage and childhood of Ḥáfiẓ ginning with an account of the poet's parentage and education derived from the above-mentioned May-khána, to which, however, he apparently attaches little credence. According to this account, the father of Ḥáfiẓ, who was named Bahá'u'd-Dín, migrated from Iṣfahán to Shíráz in the time of the Atábeks of Fárs, and there enriched himself by commerce, but died leaving his affairs in confusion, and his wife and little son in penury, so that the latter was obliged to earn a livelihood by the sweat of his brow. Nevertheless he found time and means to attend a neighbouring school, where he obtained at least a respectable education and learned the Qur'án by heart, in consequence of which he afterwards adopted in his poems the nom de guerre of “Ḥáfiẓ” (“Rememberer”), a term commonly applied to those who have committed to memory and can recite without error the sacred book of Islám. He soon began to compose and recite poems, but with small success until in a vigil at the shrine of Bábá Kúhí on a hill to the north of Shíráz he was visited by the Imám 'Alí, who gave him to eat some mysterious heavenly food and told him that henceforth the gift of poetry and the keys of all knowledge should be his.

Shiblí Nu'mání next passes to the enumeration of the Patrons of Ḥáfiẓ several kings and princes whose favour and patronage Ḥáfiẓ enjoyed. Of these the first was Sháh (or Shaykh) Abú Isḥáq Injú, the son of Maḥmúd Injú ^273f who was appointed governor of Fárs in the reign of

ḤÁFIẒ (left) and ABÚ ISḤÁQ (right)
Add. 7468 (Brit. Mus.), f. 34^b
To face p. 274

Gházán Khán. This Abú Isḥáq ^275a was a poet and friend of Shaykh Abú Isḥáq Injú poets, heedless, pleasure-loving, and so negligent of the affairs of state that when he was at last induced by his favourite Shaykh Amínu'd-Dín to fix his attention on the Muẓaffarí hosts who were investing his capital, he merely remarked that his enemy must be a fool to waste the delicious season of Spring in such fashion, and concluded by reciting the verse:

“Come, let us make merry just for this one night,
And let us deal tomorrow with tomorrow's business.”

Concerning Abú Isḥáq's brief but genial reign at Shíráz, Ḥáfiẓ says:

“In truth the turquoise ring of Abú Isḥáq
Flashed finely, but it was a transitory prosperity.”

The following verses, commemorating five of the chief ornaments of Shaykh Abú Isḥáq's court, also belong to this period:

“During the period of Sháh Shaykh Abú Isḥáq's rule
The kingdom of Fárs throve wondrously through five persons.
First, a king like him, a giver of governments,
Who, thou would'st say, snatched preeminence by justice, bounty and
equity.
Secondly, that Remnant of the Abdál, ^276a Shaykh Amínu'd-Dín,
Who was numbered amongst the ‘Poles’ and was the meeting-place
of the Awtád. ^276b
Thirdly, one like that just judge Aṣílu'l-Millat wa'd-Dín,
Than whom Heaven remembers no better judge.
Again one like that accomplished judge 'Aḍud [u'd-Dín al-Íjí], ^276c
Who dedicated his explanation of the Mawáqif to the King.
Again one so generous as Ḥájji Qiwám, ^276d whose heart is as the Ocean,
Who, like Ḥátim, invited all men to partake of his bounty.
These departed, leaving none like unto themselves:
May God most Great and Glorious forgive them all!”

Mubárizu'd-Dín Muḥammad b. Muẓaffar, who ruled Mubárizu'd-Dín b. Muẓaffar over Fárs from 754/1353 to 759/1357, was of a very different type to his pleasure-loving predecessor and victim. Harsh, stern and ascetic in character, he had no sooner taken possession Closing of the taverns in his reign of Shíráz than he caused all the taverns to be closed, and put a stop, as far as possible, to the drinking of wine, to the great annoyance of Ḥáfiẓ, who refers to these lean days in the following amongst other passages of his poems:

“Though wine gives delight and the wind distils the perfume of the
rose,
Drink not wine to the strains of the harp, for the constable ^277a is alert.
Hide the goblet in the sleeve of the patch-work cloak,
For the time, like the eye of the decanter, pours forth blood.
Wash your dervish-cloak from the wine-stain with tears,
For it is the season of piety and the time of abstinence.”

“O will it be that they will reopen the doors of the taverns,
And will loosen the knots from our tangled affairs?
Cut the tresses ^278a of the harp [in mourning] for the death of pure wine,
So that all the sons of the Magians ^278b may loosen their curled locks!
Write the letter of condolence for the [death of the] Daughter of the
Grape, ^278c
So that all the comrades may let loose blood [-stained tears] from
their eyelashes.
They have closed the doors of the wine-taverns; O God, suffer not
That they should open the doors of the house of deceit and hypocrisy!
If they have closed them for the sake of the heart of the self-righteous
zealot
Be of good heart, for they will reopen them for God's sake!”

Sháh Shujá', who succeeded his father Mubárizu'd-Dín Sháh Shujá' allows the taverns to be reopened and relaxed his oppressive restrictions, composed the following quatrain on the same subject:

“In the assembly of the time the concomitants of wine-bibbing are
laid low;
Neither is the hand on the harp, nor the tambourine in the hand.
All the revellers have abandoned the worship of wine
Save the city constable, who is drunk without wine.”

The reopening of the taverns is celebrated by Ḥáfiẓ in the following verses:

“At early dawn good tidings reached my ear from the Unseen Voice:
‘It is the era of Sháh Shujá': drink wine boldly!’
That time is gone when men of insight went apart
With a thousand words in the mouth but their lips silent.
To the sound of the harp we will tell those stories
At the hearing of which the cauldron of our bosoms boiled.
Princes [alone] know the secrets of their kingdom;
O Ḥáfiẓ, thou art a beggarly recluse; hold thy peace!”

In another poem Ḥáfiẓ says:

“I swear by the pomp and rank and glory of Sháh Shujá'
That I have no quarrel with anyone on account of wealth and
position.
See how he who [formerly] would not permit the hearing of music
Now goes dancing to the strains of the harp.”

In another poem he says:

“The harp began to clamour ‘Where is the objector?’
The cup began to laugh ‘Where is the forbidder?’
Pray for the King's long life if thou seekest the world's welfare,
For he is a beneficent being and a generous benefactor,
The manifestation of Eternal Grace, the Light of the Eye of Hope,
The combiner of theory and practice, the Life of the World, Sháh
Shujá'.”

In spite of this and other verses in praise of Sháh Shujá', the relations between the Prince and the Poet are Sháh Shujá' is jealous of Ḥáfiẓ said to have been somewhat strained. Sháh Shujá' had a great opinion of a poet named 'Imád-i-Faqíh (“the Jurisconsult”) of Kirmán, who is said to have taught his cat to follow him in its genuflections when he performed his prayers. This achievement was accounted by the Prince almost a miracle, but by Ḥáfiẓ a charlatan's trick, concerning which he said:

“The Ṣúfí hath made display of his virtues and begun his blandish-
ments;
He hath inaugurated his schemings with the juggling heavens.
O gracefully-moving partridge who walkest with so pretty an air,
Be not deceived because the cat of the ascetic hath said its prayers!”^280a

The scorn expressed by Ḥáfiẓ for 'Imád is said to have been the original cause of Sháh Shujá''s dislike for him,

Sháh Shujá' was greatly incensed at this answer, and soon afterwards came across the following verse of Ḥáfiẓ which seemed to deliver the poet into his hands:

“If Muḥammadanism be that which Ḥáfiẓ holds,
Alas if there should be a to-morrow after to-day!”

Ḥáfiẓ, being warned that this verse was to be made the ground of a charge of heresy or agnosticism against him,

“How pleasant to me seemed this saying which at early morn
A Christian was reciting at the door of the tavern with tambourine
and flute:”

On being charged with atheism he produced this verse along with the other, and said that he was not responsible for the opinions expressed by a Christian.^282a

Sháh Shujá' died in 785/1383-4 or 786, ^282b and was succeeded by his son Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, who, however, was Sháh Manṣúr deposed and imprisoned by his cousin Sháh Manṣúr in 789/1387. Ḥáfiẓ celebrated his triumph in a poem beginning:

“Come, for the standard of King Manṣúr has arrived;
The good tidings of conquest and victory have reached the Sun and
the Moon.”

The deposed ruler Zaynu'l-'Ábidín (who was subsequently blinded) had accepted the suzerainty of Tímúr, received his ambassador, Quṭbu'd-Dín, and inserted his name in the khuṭba and on the coins, and Tímúr himself entered Shíráz in 789/1387, some time before Zaynu'l- The alleged meeting between Tímúr and Ḥáfiẓ 'Ábidín's deposition. It must have been at this time, if at all, that the meeting between Tímúr and Ḥáfiẓ, described by Dawlatsháh ^282c and those who follow him in connection with Tímúr's second entry into Shíráz in 795/1393, three or four years after the poet's death, actually took place. The story, which is more celebrated than authentic, has been already given on pp. 188-189 supra. Dawlatsháh, with characteristic inaccuracy, first gives the date of this supposed meeting as Date of the death of Ḥáfiẓ 795/1393, and then states (incorrectly) that Ḥáfiẓ died in the previous year, 794/1392. As a matter of fact he died in 791/1389, or possibly in the following year. The former date is that given by the chronogram on his tombstone, so ingeniously paraphrased by Herman Bicknell ^283a as follows:

Chronogram.

“On spiritual man the lamp of Ḥáfiẓ gleamed;
'Mid rays from Glory's Light his brilliant taper beamed;
Muṣallá was his home: a mournful date to gain.
Thrice take thou from MOSALLA'S EARTH ITS RICHEST
GRAIN.”

The sum of the letters composing the words is 791, and the same date is obtained by subtracting three times CIII (= 309) from MLL (= 1100). ^283b The same date is given by Muḥammad Gulandám, the editor of Ḥáfiẓ's Díwán; while the following year (792) is given by Jámí in the Nafaḥátu'l-Uns, by Khwándamír in the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar, and by Faṣíḥí of Khwáf in his Mujmal or Compendium of History and Biography.

Mention has already been made of the celebrity achieved by Ḥáfiẓ even during his lifetime. As he himself says:

“The black-eyed beauties of Cashmere and the Turks of Samarqand
Sing and dance to the strains of Ḥáfiẓ of Shíráz's verse.”

In another passage ^283c he says, speaking of a poem he had just composed:

“All the parrots of India become sugar-breakers
Through this Persian candy which is going to Bengal.
Behold the annihilation of space and time in the pilgrimage of Poetry,
For this infant, though but one night old, is going on a year's
journey!”

Not only with the Muẓaffarí rulers of Shíráz, but with many other contemporary princes, Ḥáfiẓ entered into relations. Sulṭán Aḥmad ibn Uways-i-Jalá'ir, the accomplished Íl-khání ruler of Baghdád, himself a poet, musician, painter and artist, repeatedly strove to induce Ḥáfiẓ to visit his court, but, as the poet himself sang:

“The zephyr-breeze of Muṣallá and the stream of Ruknábád
Do not permit me to travel or wander afield.”

However he composed verses in this Prince's praise, amongst others the following:

“I praise God for the justice of the King
Aḥmad the son of Shaykh Uways the son of Ḥasan Íl-khání;
A Khán and the son of a Khán, a King of kingly descent,
Whom it were meet that I should call the Soul of the World.

No rose-bud of delight bloomed for me from the earth of Fárs:
O for the Tigris of Baghdád and the spiritual wine!
Curl your locks in Turkish fashion, for in thy fortune lie
The Empire of Khusraw and the status of Chingíz Khán.”

But, though Ḥáfiẓ never achieved the journey to Baghdád, he seems often to have thought of it:

“In Shíráz we did not find our way to our goal;
Happy that day when Ḥáfiẓ shall take the road to Baghdád!”

Two kings of India also sought to persuade Ḥáfiẓ to visit their courts. One of these was Maḥmúd Sháh Invitations to Ḥáfiẓ to visit India Bahmaní of the Deccan, a liberal patron of poets, who, through his favourite Mír Faḍlu'lláh, invited Ḥáfiẓ to his capital, and sent him money for his journey. Ḥáfiẓ spent a considerable portion of this sum before leaving Shíráz, and on arriving at Lár on his way to the Persian Gulf met with a destitute friend to whom he gave the remainder. Two Persian merchants, Khwája Zaynu'd-Dín of Hamadán, and Khwája Muḥam-mad of Kázarún, who were on their way to India, offered to defray the poet's expenses in return for the pleasure of his company. He went with them as far as the port of Hurmuz, where a ship was waiting to convey him to India, but a tempest which arose just as he was embarking caused him such lively consternation that, abandoning his intention, he returned to Shíráz and sent to Maḥmúd Sháh the poem beginning:

A verse-translation of the whole of this poem (though the verses stand in an order different from that given above) will be found amongst Miss Gertrude Lowthian Bell's graceful renderings of Poems from the Divan of Hafiz ^286a (No. xxi, pp. 91-93), in which the stanzas corresponding to the four couplets cited above are as follows:

“Not all the sum of earthly happiness
Is worth the bowed head of a moment's pain,
And if I sell for wine my dervish dress
Worth more than what I sell is what I gain!

* * * *

The Sultan's crown, with priceless jewels set,
Encircles fear of death and constant dread;
It is a head-dress much desired—and yet
Art sure 'tis worth the danger to the head?

* * * *

Down in the quarter where they sell red wine
My holy carpet scarce would fetch a cup—
How brave a pledge of piety is mine,
Which is not worth a goblet foaming up!

* * * *

Full easy seemed the sorrow of the sea
Lightened by hope of gain—hope flew too fast!
A hundred pearls ^286b were poor indemnity,
Not worth the blast.”^286c

Another Indian king, Sulṭán Ghiyáthu'd-Dín ibn Sulṭán Sikandar of Bengal, stated by Shiblí Nu'mání (who is responsible for the story) ^287a to have ascended the throne in 768/1366-7, is said to have corresponded with Ḥáfiẓ, who wrote for him the ode beginning:

“O cup-bearer there is talk of the cypress, the rose and the anemone,
And this discussion goes on with ‘the three cleansing draughts.’ ^287b
All the parrots of India will crack sugar
Through this Persian candy which is going to Bengal.
O Ḥáfiẓ, be not heedless of the enthusiasm of the Court of Sulṭán
Ghiyáthu'd-Dín,
For thy affair will be furthered by thy lamentation.”

Having spoken of Ḥáfiẓ's relations with contemporary princes, we pass now to the little that is known or con- Domestic circumstances of Ḥáfiẓ jectured as to his personal circumstances. For the statement that he fell in love with and ultimately married a girl called Shákh-i-Nabát (“Branch of Sugar-cane”) there is no weighty authority, nor are such domestic particulars to be expected from Persian biographers, in view of their reticence on all matrimonial matters. That he married and had several children is probable. To the death of his wife he is supposed to allude in a poem beginning:^288a

“That sweet-heart through whom our home was Fairyland,
And who, from head to foot, was like a fairy, free from blemish,”

but there is nothing in the poem to show that his wife is the person referred to. There is, however, a clearer reference to the premature death of a son in the following verses:

“O heart, thou hast seen what that clever son
Has experienced within the dome of this many-coloured vault:
In place of a silver tablet ^288b in his bosom
Fate hath placed a stone tablet ^288c on his head.”

The following fragment, ^288d also believed to refer to the death of this or another son, gives the date of this loss as Friday, 6th of Rabí' 1, 764 (Dec. 24, 1362):

“It was the morning of Friday and the sixth of the first Rabí'
When the visage of that moon-faced one declined from my heart.
In the year seven hundred and sixty four of the Flight
This difficult story became clear to me like [limpid] water.
How can regret, grief or sorrow profit
Now that life has passed in vanity without result?”

According to a biography of poets entitled Khizána-i-'Ámira , composed in India by Mír Ghulám 'Alí Khán Ázád in 1176/1762-3, a son of Ḥáfiẓ named Sháh Nu'mán came to India, died at Burhánpúr, and is buried in the Asír-Gaṛh.

As regards Ḥáfiẓ's intellectual attainments, his bilingual Intellectual attainments of Ḥáfiẓ poems alone show that he had a good knowledge of Arabic, apart from the statements of his editor, Muḥammad Gulandám, ^289a as to his more scientific work in the language. He himself says:

“No one of the Ḥáfiẓes ^289b in the world hath combined as I have
The aphorisms of the Philosophers with the Scripture of the Qur'án.”

That he knew the Qur'án by heart is proved by the verse:

“I have never seen any poetry sweeter than thine, O Ḥáfiẓ,
[I swear] by that Qur'án which thou keepest in thy bosom.”

Mawlawí Shiblí Nu'mání points out that the oft-made assertion that Ḥáfiẓ was indifferent to the favour of kings Ḥáfiẓ not indifferent to royal favour and princes is not borne out by his poems, in which there occur incidentally praises of the majority of contemporary rulers, including Sháh Shujá', Shaykh Abú Isḥáq, Sulṭán Maḥmúd, Sháh Manṣúr, and the rulers of Yazd and Hurmuz:

“The King of Hurmúz did not see me, yet showed me a hundred
favours without a word [of praise on my part];
The King of Yazd saw me, and I praised him, but he gave me
nothing.
Such is the conduct of Kings: be not thou vexed, O Ḥáfiẓ;
May God, the Giver of daily bread, vouchsafe them His Grace and
Aid!”

To the King of Yazd's failure to reward him, he again alludes in a very famous and beautiful ode: ^290a

These lines are thus rendered by Herman Bicknell:^290b

“Many a year live on and prosper, Sáqís ^290c of the Court of Jam, ^290d
E'en though I, to fill my wine-cup, never to your circle come:
East-wind, when to Yazd thou wingest, say thou to its sons from me:
‘May the head of every ingrate ball-like 'neath your mall-bat be!
‘What though from your daïs distant, near it by my wish I seem;
‘Homage to your King I render, and I make your praise my theme.’”

The difference between Ḥáfiẓ and most Persian pane- Wherein Ḥáfiẓ differs from other panegyrists gyrists is, however, as Mawlawí Shiblí Nu'mání well points out, that, unlike even such great poets as Anwarí, Ẓahír of Fáryáb and Salmán of Sáwa, he never employs mean and despicable methods to extort money, or has recourse to satire when panegyric fails.

We have already seen how devoted Ḥáfiẓ was to Shíráz, and he never wearies of singing the stream of Ruknábád and the rose-gardens of Muṣallá:

“Bring, Cup-bearer, all that is left of thy wine!
In the Garden of Paradise vainly thou'lt seek
The lip of the fountain of Ruknábád
And the bowers of Muṣallá where roses twine.”^291a

And again:

“There is a difference between the Water of Khiḍr, which dwells in
the Darkness, ^291b
And our water, of which Alláhu Akbar ^291c is the source.”

Although it is chiefly of the Spring, the Rose, the Nightingale, Wine, Youth and Beauty that Ḥáfiẓ sings, and at times of the Eternal Beauty of which all fair and desirable things are but the pale reflection, he sometimes makes incidental mention of various statesmen and scholars whose favour and patronage he has enjoyed. ^292a Amongst these are Ḥájji Qiwám, Qiwámu'd-Dín Ḥasan, ^292b Khwája Jalálu'd-Dín, Sháh Yaḥyá Nuṣratu'd-Dín and others, besides the kings and princes already mentioned. And though he wrote mathnawís, “fragments” (muqaṭṭa'át), qaṣídas and quatrains (rubá'iyyát), it is in the ode or ghazal that he especially excels. To his incomparable skill in this branch of verse many of his successors have borne testimony, amongst them Ṣá'ib, Salím and 'Urfí; ^292c but no one has better expressed it than Sir Gore Ouseley, who says:^292d

“His style is clear, unaffected and harmonious, displaying at the same time great learning, matured science, and intimate knowledge of Sir Gore Ouseley on the genius of Ḥáfiẓ the hidden as well as the apparent nature of things; but above all a certain fascination of expression unequalled by any other poet.”

It is, however, to Miss Gertrude Lowthian Bell that we are indebted for the best estimate of Ḥáfiẓ, at once critical, sympathetic, and full of insight. In particular she compares and contrasts him in the most illuminating manner with his elder contemporary Dante, after characterizing whose poetry she says:^292e

“To Ḥáfiẓ, on the contrary, modern instances have no value; contemporary history is too small an episode to occupy his thoughts.

“But some of us will feel that the apparent indifference of Ḥáfiẓ lends to his philosophy a quality which that of Dante does not possess. The Italian is bound down within the limits of his philosophy, his theory of the universe is essentially of his own age, and what to him was so acutely real is to many of us merely a beautiful or a terrible image. The picture that Ḥáfiẓ draws represents a wider landscape, though the immediate foreground may not be so distinct. It is as if his mental eye, endowed with wonderful acuteness of vision, had penetrated into those provinces of thought which we of a later age were destined to inhabit. We can forgive him for leaving to us so indistinct a representation of his own time, and of the life of the individual in it, when we find him formulating ideas as profound as the warning that there is no musician to whose music both the drunk and the sober can dance.”

Shiblí Nu'mání ascribes the perfecting of the ghazal and What the ghazal, or ode, owes to Ḥáfiẓ the extension of its scope to Ḥáfiẓ, and in a lesser degree to his contemporaries Salmán and Khwájú. With the earlier masters, such as Sa'dí, Amír Khusraw and Ḥasan of Dihli, its almost invariable theme was love. Khwájú sang of other matters as well, such as the transitoriness of the world, while Salmán excelled in rhetorical artifices and novel comparisons and similes. Ḥáfiẓ combined the merits of all, adding to them a charm all his own, and often it pleased him to take from their Díwáns a couplet or hemistich and modify it so as to add to its beauty. In the case of Sa'dí I have given some Parallel passages of Ḥáfiẓ and Khwájú. instances of this in the second volume of my Literary History of Persia, ^293a and Shiblí Nu'mání gives others as between Ḥáfiẓ and Khwájú and Salmán respectively. Amongst these latter are the following:

Shiblí Nu'mání says that he could give many other parallels between Ḥáfiẓ and Khwájú,

Shiblí Nu'mání gives a great number of other instances of parallels between Ḥáfiẓ and Salmán and Ḥáfiẓ and Khwájú, but the specimens cited above suffice to establish the fact of this parallelism, which, so far as I know, has not been hitherto noticed by any European Orientalist. It is interesting to note another fact to which reference has been previously made in vol. ii of my Literary History of Persia (pp. 83-9), viz. the tendency of most Oriental literary critics to show less interest in the diversity of ideas of two poets than in the diversity of form in which they have expressed an idea common to both. And it is because this same tendency exists in the poets themselves that we find so great a poet as Ḥáfiẓ, for instance, taking a couplet or a whole ode from one of his elder contemporaries, such as Salmán or Khwájú, and endeavouring to give a new and more attractive turn to the phraseology, while keeping the form, the rhyme and the general sense. Such appropriation of the work of others is regarded as entirely legitimate, and is not reckoned as plagiarism, when the object of the appropriating poet is to show that he can better the work of his predecessor or contemporary. This, of course, is quite different from parody, such as that indulged in by 'Ubayd-i-Zákání and Busḥáq, where the object is not to surpass but to deride.

The number of commentaries on the poems of Ḥáfiẓ,

One little Persian treatise on Ḥáfiẓ, to which my atten- The Laṭífa-iGhaybiyya of Muḥammad of Dáráb tion was first called by Mr Sidney Churchill, formerly Oriental Secretary of the British Legation at Ṭihrán, deserves a brief mention, chiefly because it formulates and subsequently endeavours to refute certain adverse criticisms on his poetry made by some of his compatriots. This little book is entitled Laṭífa-i-Ghaybiyya and was written by Muḥammad b. Muḥammad of Dáráb, concerning whose life and date I have been unable to learn anything. It comprises 127 pages of small size, was lithographed at Ṭihrán in 1304/ 1886-7, and chiefly consists of explanations of different verses. The three hostile criticisms which it seeks to refute are stated as follows on p. 5:

(1) That some of his verses are meaningless, or that, if Defence of Ḥáfiẓ against his critics they have any meaning, it is very far-fetched and enigmatical. The following instance is given:

“Cease your recriminations and return, for the pupil of my eye
Hath pulled off the cloak over its head and burned it as a thank-
offering.”^301a

(2) That some of his verses are evidently secular and profane, and refer to the pleasures of the senses in a manner which cannot be explained as allegorical, as for instance:

“My heart, in love with Farrukh's face, is agitated like Farrukh's hair.”

And again:

“A thousand blessings be on the red wine which hath removed the sallow complexion from my face!”

(3) That many of his verses smack of the Ash'arí (Sunní) doctrines, which are repudiated and execrated by the Imámí (Shí'a) doctors, e.g.:

“They did not suffer me to pass through the street of good repute:
If thou dost not approve, then change Destiny.” ^301b

“This borrowed life which the Friend hath entrusted to Ḥáfiẓ—
One day I shall see His Face and shall yield it up to Him.”^301c

Although manuscripts of Ḥáfiẓ offer as many variants as is usually the case with Persian texts, there exists of Why the Turks are better editors of Persian poetry than the Indians this poet's works an established and generally accepted text which we owe, I think, to the Turkish commentator Súdí, and which has been popularized in Europe by the editions of Brockhaus and Rosenzweig-Schwannau, so that it is usual to refer to the odes of Ḥáfiẓ by the numbers they bear in the latter edition. Turkish editions of Persian poetry, such as the Mathnawí of Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, the Díwán of Háfiẓ, etc., are generally more accurate and trustworthy than those produced in India, which commonly contain many spurious and interpolated lines composed by the editors, lines which a Persian would be ashamed and a Turk unable to produce; for the Persian editor has in most cases enough taste (dhawq) to know that he cannot produce verses likely to be accepted as those of the master whom he is editing; while the Turkish editor is generally conscientious and laborious, but incapable of producing any Persian verses at all. The Indian editor, on the other hand, often has a certain facility of versifying without much critical taste.

This “authorized version” of the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ (which could probably be much improved by a fresh and careful Translations of Ḥáfiẓ collation of all the best and oldest manuscripts) contains in all 693 separate poems; to wit, 573 odes (ghazaliyyát); 42 fragments (muqaṭṭa'át); 69 quatrains (rubá'iyyát); 6 mathnawís; 2 qaṣídas, and one “five-some” or mukhammas. Of all of these poems German verse-translations are given by Rosenzweig-Schwannau, and English prose translations by Wilberforce Clarke. There exist also many translations of individual odes or groups of odes in English, German, Latin, French, etc., either in verse or prose. ^302a Of English verse translations the largest and most sumptuous collection is that of Herman Bicknell, who was born in 1830, studied Medicine at St Bartholomew's Hospital and took the degree of M.R.C.S. in 1854, entered the Army Medical Service, went through the Indian Mutiny, travelled widely in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, made the pilgrimage to Mecca under the name of 'Abdu'l-Waḥíd in 1862, and spent some time at Shíráz “with the object of clearing up doubtful points [in the Díwán], and of becoming personally acquainted with the localities mentioned by the Poet.” He died in 1875, and his posthumous work was brought out with loving care by his brother, A. S. Bicknell, in the same year. It contains, besides the Preface, Introduction, Appendix and Indices, and nine illustrations, translations, complete or partial, of 189 ghazaliyyát, all the 42 muqaṭṭa'át and 69 rubá'iyyát, 2 out of the 6 mathnawís, and the one muk-hammas .

Of most of these translations of Ḥáfiẓ, from the Latin renderings of Meninski (1680), Thomas Hyde (1767) and Revisky (1771); the French (1799) and English (1792) versions of Sir William Jones; the numerous German versions from Wahl (1791) to Bodenstedt (1877); and the later English efforts of Payne, Justin McCarthy and Wilber-force Clarke, I do not propose to speak here; but I shall say something of three of the English verse-translations which seem to me the most worthy of attention. Of the oldest of these three, that of Herman Bicknell, published in 1875, I have already spoken above. The next in point of time is that of Miss Gertrude Lowthian Bell (London, 1897), which contains, besides an admirable Introduction on the life, times and character of the poet, verse-translations of 43 of the odes. These, though rather free, are, in my opinion, by far the most artistic, and, so far as the spirit of Ḥáfiẓ is concerned, the most faithful renderings of his poetry. Lastly, in 1898 Mr Walter Leaf published 28 “Versions from Ḥáfiẓ,” in which he endeavoured to reproduce the form as well as the sense of the original poems, with as much success, probably, as is attainable under these conditions. The existence of these three versions exonerates me from attempting, as I have done in the case of other less known Persian poets, to produce versions of my own. In their different ways they are all good: Herman Bicknell's are accurate as regards the sense, and often very ingenious, especially the chrono-grams; Walter Leaf's give an excellent idea of the form; while Miss Bell's are true poetry of a very high order, and, with perhaps the single exception of FitzGerald's paraphrase of the Quatrains of 'Umar Khayyám, are probably the finest and most truly poetical renderings of any Persian poet ever produced in the English language; for, though some of Sir William Jones's verse-translations are pretty enough, they can hardly be dignified by the name of poetry, and are, moreover, so free that they can scarcely be called translations.

For the sake of comparison I gave elsewhere ^304a five different English verse-translations of one of the best-known of the odes of Ḥáfiẓ, that beginning: ^304b

which has been rendered into English verse by Sir William Jones, Herman Bicknell, Miss Bell, Walter Leaf, and myself. I cannot find so many English verse-renderings of any other of the odes of Ḥáfiẓ, for, though many of those translated by Miss Bell are also to be found in Herman Bicknell's translation, only three or four of the former are included amongst the 28 published by Walter Leaf. The one fault to be found with Miss Bell's versions is that they are not arranged in any order, nor is any indication given of the opening words of the original, nor reference to its position in the text of Rosenzweig-Schwannau which she has followed; and only after I had succeeded, with considerable labour, in identifying the originals of all but nine or ten of her translations did I ascertain that my friend Mr Guy le Strange possessed an annotated copy of her book containing all the references I required save one (No. xv), which was wrongly given, and which I am still unable to identify. For the convenience, therefore, of other readers of her admirable book, I give below the reference to each Comparative table of odes translated by Miss Bell and other translators. original in Rosenzweig-Schwannau's edition, specifying the volume, page, and number under each rhyming letter, and adding a reference to Bicknell and Leaf in cases where an ode has also been rendered by them.

As already noted, only three or four of the odes have been rendered in English verse by Miss Bell, Herman Bicknell and Walter Leaf, and of one of them (Agar án Turk-i-Shírází…) the parallel renderings were published in my paper on Persian Literature, to which reference has been already made, together with others. Another ode rendered by the three writers above mentioned is that beginning: ^306b

Of this also, for the sake of comparison, I here reprint the three versions, beginning with Herman Bicknell's, which is as follows:

(1) “In blossom is the crimson rose, and the rapt bulbul trills his song;
A summons that to revel calls you, O Ṣúfís, wine-adoring throng!

(2) The fabric of my contrite fervour appeared upon a rock to bide;
Yet see how by a crystal goblet it hath been shattered in its pride.

(3) Bring wine; for to a lofty spirit, should they at its tribunal be,
What were the sentry, what the Sultan, the toper or the foe of glee?

(4) Forth from this hostel of two portals as finally thou needst must go,
What if the porch and arch of Being be of high span or meanly low?

(5) To bliss's goal we gain not access, if sorrow has been tasted not;
Yea, with Alastu's ^307a pact was coupled the sentence of our baleful lot.

(6) At Being and Not-being fret not, but either with calm temper see:
Not-being is the term appointed for the most lovely things that be.

(7) Áṣaf's display, the airy courser, the language which the birds em-
ployed,
The wind has swept; and their possessor no profit from his wealth
enjoyed. ^307b (8) Oh! fly not from thy pathway upward, for the winged shaft that
quits the bow
A moment to the air has taken, to settle in the dust below.

(9)	What words of gratitude, O Ḥáfiẓ,
	Shall thy reed's tongue express anon,
	As its choice gems of composition
	From hands to other hands pass on?”

(1) “Aflame with bloom is the red rose, the bulbul drunk with Spring;
What ho, adorers of Wine! Hear the call to mirth that they fling.

(2) The corner-stone of repentance that seemed a rock firm-set
Is rent and riven asunder by touch of glasses a-ring.

(3) Fill high the bowl with the red wine, for here is Liberty Hall,
The sage is one with the toper, the ploughman e'en as the king.

(4) From out this Hostel of Two Doors the signal calls us away,
Alike if low be the roof-tree or lofty dome upspring.

(5) We conquer only through anguish the resting-place of delight;
To life, by bond of Alast-vow, the long ‘Alas’ must cling. ^308a (6) With IS and IS NOT annoy not thy heart; be merry of soul,
For IS NOT is but the last end of every perfect thing.

(7) The fame of Asaph, the wind-steed, the speech with birds of the air
As wind have passed; to their master no more avail shall they
bring.

(8) No pinion heavenward soaring desire; the arrow aloft
Shall sink to dust in the end, howsoe'er it leap on the wing.

(9) What thanks and praises, O ḤÁFIẒ, shall yield the tongue of thy
pen,
That all the songs of thy singing from mouth to mouth men sing?”

(1) “The rose has flushed red, the bud has burst,
And drunk with joy is the nightingale—
Hail, Ṣúfís, lovers of wine, all hail!
For wine is proclaimed to a world athirst.

(2) Like a rock your repentance seemed to you;
Behold the marvel! Of what avail
Was your rock, for a goblet has cleft it in two!

(3) Bring wine for the King and the slave at the gate!
Alike for all is the banquet spread,
And drunk and sober are warmed and fed.

(4) When the feast is done and the night grows late,
And the second door of the tavern gapes wide,
The low and the mighty must bow the head
'Neath the archway of Life, to meet what…outside?

(5) Except thy road through affliction pass,
None may reach the halting-station of mirth;
God's treaty: Am I not Lord of the earth?
Man sealed with a sigh: Ah yes, alas!

(6) Nor with IS nor IS NOT let thy mind contend;
Rest assured all perfection of mortal birth
In the great IS NOT at the last shall end.

(7) For Assaf's pomp, and the steeds of the wind,
And the speech of birds down the wind have fled,
And he that was lord of them all is dead;
Of his mastery nothing remains behind.

(8) Shoot not thy feathered arrow astray!
A bow-shot's length through the air it has sped,
And then…dropped down in the dusty way.

(9) But to thee, oh Ḥáfiẓ, to thee, oh tongue
That speaks through the mouth of the slender reed,
What thanks to thee when thy verses speed
From lip to lip, and the song thou hast sung?”

This one example of three parallel translations will suffice to show generally the style of work of the three translators. Miss Bell's is the least literal, but by far the most poetical, and is a wonderful interpretation of the spirit of the original. Walter Leaf aims especially at exactly reproducing the form (both as regards rhyme and metre), as well as the sense, of the original. Herman Bicknell steers a middle course, making each verse of his translation correspond with its original, but not attempting to preserve the same rhyme throughout the poem.

In view of these and other excellent translations of Ḥáfiẓ into verse and prose in English and other European languages, I will content myself with quoting here the renderings by Miss Bell and Herman Bicknell of one more ode of Ḥáfiẓ, which has a certain special interest because it is engraved on his tombstone, ^309a and which begins:

“Where doth Thy love's glad message echo for my rapt soul
To rise?
This sacred bird from the world's meshes yearns to its goal
To rise.
I swear, wilt Thou Thy servant name me, by all my love sublime
Higher than my desire of lordship o'er space and time
To rise.
Vouchsafe, Lord, from Thy cloud of guidance to pour on me Thy
rain,
Ere Thou command me as an atom from man's domain
To rise.
Bring minstrels and the wine-cup with thee, or at my tomb ne'er sit:
Permit me in thy perfume dancing from the grave's pit
To rise.
Though I am old, embrace me closely, be it a single night:
May I, made young by thy caresses, at morn have might
To rise!

Arouse thee! show thy lofty stature,
Idol of winning mien:
Enable me, as soul-reft Ḥáfiẓ,
From Nature's scene
To rise!”

“Where are the tidings of union? that I may arise—
Forth from the dust I will rise up to welcome thee!
My soul, like a homing bird, yearning for Paradise,
Shall arise and soar, from the snares of the world set free.
When the voice of love shall call me to be thy slave,
I shall rise to a greater far than the mastery
Of life and the living, time and the mortal span:
Pour down, oh Lord! from the clouds of Thy guiding grace
The rain of a mercy that quickeneth on my grave,
Before, like dust that the wind bears from place to place,
I arise and flee beyond the knowledge of man.
When to my grave thou turnest thy blessed feet,
Wine and the lute shalt thou bring in thy hand to me,
Thy voice shall ring through the folds of my winding-sheet,
And I will arise and dance to thy minstrelsy.
Though I be old, clasp me one night to thy breast,
And I, when the dawn shall come to awaken me,
With the flash of youth on my cheek from thy bosom will rise.

THE TOMB OF ḤÁFIẒ AT SHÍRÁZ
By kind permission of Professor A. V. Williams Jackson and Messrs Macmillan
To face p. 310

Rise up! let mine eyes delight in thy stately grace!
Thou art the goal to which all men's endeavour has pressed,
And thou the idol of Ḥáfiẓ's worship; thy face
From the world and life shall bid him come forth and arise!”

The tomb of Ḥáfiẓ is in a beautiful garden, called after him the “Ḥáfiẓiyya,” situated near Shíráz. It was much The tomb of Ḥáfiẓ beautified by Abu'l-Qásim Bábur, ^311a the great-grandson of Tímúr, when he conquered Shíráz in 856/1452, the work being entrusted by him to Mawláná Muḥammad Mu'ammá'í. ^311b At a later date (1226/1811) it was further embellished by Karím Kháni-Zand, one of the best rulers that Persia has ever had, ^311c by whom the present tombstone, a slab of fine alabaster, was contributed. The Ḥáfiẓiyya is much honoured and much frequented by the people of Shíráz and by visitors to that city, and the poet's grave is surrounded by the graves of many others who have sought proximity to those illustrious ashes, so that his own words have been fulfilled when he said:

“When thou passest by our tomb, seek a blessing, for it shall become a place of pilgrimage for the libertines of all the world.”

Before passing on to the mention of other poets, something must be said as to the practice of taking an augury Taking auguries from the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ (tafá'ul) from the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ which is so prevalent in Persia, where the only other book used for this purpose (and that much more rarely) is the Qur'án itself, just as the ancient Romans used to use Vergil (Sortes Vergilianœ). It has been already mentioned that Ḥáfiẓ is often entitled Lisánu'l-Ghayb (“The Tongue of the Unseen”) and Tarjumánu'l-Asrár (“The Interpreter of Mysteries”), and it is generally believed by his fellow-countrymen that, in case of doubt as to the course of action to be pursued, valuable indications may be obtained by opening the Díwán at random, after the utterance of suitable invocations, and taking either the first verse on which the eye falls, or the last ode on the open page, with the first line of the succeeding ode. Tables, called Fál-náma, comprising a number of squares (always a multiple of some number such as 7 or 9) each containing one letter are also employed for the same purpose; and one of these, with instructions for its use, is often prefixed to Oriental editions of the Díwán. ^312a These tables, however, in spite of their mysterious and impressive appearance, only give a very limited number of answers—seven when the squares are a multiple of seven, nine when they are a multiple of nine, and so on; and as Lane has well observed, in speaking of similar squares used by the Egyptians, in consequence of the view prevailing in the East generally that, if in doubt, it is better, as a rule, to refrain from action, a majority of the answers provided for are generally distinctly discouraging or of a negative character, and only a few encouraging.

The table referred to in the last foot-note comprises 15 × 15 = 225 squares, each containing one letter. Nine Analysis of a fál-náma hemistichs each containing 25 letters are chosen (9 × 25 also = 225). In the first square is placed the first letter of the first hemistich; in the second square the first letter of the second hemistich, and so on to the ninth square, in which is placed the first letter of the ninth hemistich. Next follow the second letters of each hemistich in the same order, the second letter of the first hemistich in the tenth square, the second letter of the second hemistich in the eleventh square, and so on, until the table concludes at the 225th square with the last (25th) letter of the last (ninth) hemistich. In using the table, the finger is placed at random on one of the 225 squares, and the letter it contains is written down, and after it, in a circle, the 24 letters obtained by taking each 9th square from the point of departure until the cycle is completed. By beginning at the proper point, these 25 letters give the first hemistich of one of the odes, which can then be readily found in the Díwán. The table in question gives the following nine hemistichs, to each of which I have added the second hemistich (not included in the table, but needed to complete the verse), the reference to Rosenzweig's edition, and the English translation.

“We have tried our fortune in this city; we must withdraw our gear from this gulf.”

This would supply an answer to one who was hesitating as to whether he should emigrate from the place where he was, or not.

“Welcome, O bird of auspicious advent and fortunate message!
Good is thy arrival! What news? Where is the Friend? Which is
the road?”

“If I go home from this abode of exile, then, when I go thither, I shall go wisely and sensibly.”

This would supply an answer to a traveller or exile who was wondering whether he would not do well to return home.

“Should my lucky star aid me, I will lay hold on his skirt;
Should I pluck it, O the delight! And should he slay me, O the
honour!”

“Show thy face and take away from my memory all thought of my
own existence;
Bid the wind bear away all the harvest of those who are burned out!”

“I said, ‘I have longing for thee!’ She replied, ‘Thy longing will come
to an end.’
I said, ‘Be thou my Moon!’ She replied, ‘If it comes off!’”

“O Lord, that fresh and smiling rose which Thou didst entrust to me
I now entrust to Thee from the envious eye of the flower-bed.”

“My desire hath not yet been fulfilled in respect to my craving for
thy lip;
In the hope of the ruby goblet [of thy mouth] I am still a drainer
of dregs.”

“Arise, that we may seek an opening through the door of the tavern,
That we may sit in the Friend's path and seek [the fulfilment of] a
wish!”

As will be seen, the answers supplied by these vague Instances of appropriate auguries drawn from Ḥáfiẓ oracles are often of a somewhat uncertain nature, besides being limited in number to nine. The other method of opening the Díwán at random gives, of course, much richer results, and there stands on record many a remarkable response, which si non é vero é ben trovato. Six of these are recorded at the end (pp. 122-7) of the little treatise entitled Laṭífa-i-Ghay-biyya which has been already mentioned.^315a

The first refers to Sháh Isma'íl the Great, the founder of the Ṣafawí dynasty, who made the Shí'a doctrine the official creed of Persia, and carried his energy so far in this endeavour that he ordered the tombs of persons of suspected orthodoxy or of known Sunní proclivities to be destroyed. One day, accompanied by a certain ignorant and fanatical priest known as Mullá Magas, ^315b he visited the tomb of Ḥáfiẓ, and Mullá Magas urged him to have it destroyed, alleging (as had been alleged by the poet's contemporaries) that he was unorthodox in belief and dissolute in life. The King thereupon announced his intention of taking an augury from the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ, which opened at the following verse:

“At dawn Orion displayed his belt before me,
As though to say, ‘I am the King's slave, and this I swear.’”

This, it is to be supposed, Sháh Isma'íl took as an expression of the deceased poet's loyalty to himself, and thereupon, well pleased, he again opened the book at random and was confronted by the following verse, which was even more evidently intended for his ecclesiastical companion:

“O fly (magas)! the presence of the Símurgh ^316a is no fit place for thy
evolutions:
Thou dost but dishonour thyself and vex us!”

After this it may be assumed that Mullá Magas effaced himself!

The story referred to above, but not given in the Laṭífa-i-Ghaybiyya , is that, when Ḥáfiẓ died, some of his detractors objected to his being buried in the Muslim equivalent of consecrated ground, but that, on an augury being taken from his poems to decide the question, the following very appropriate verse resulted:

“Withhold not thy footsteps from the bier of Ḥáfiẓ,
For, though he is immersed in sin, he will go to Paradise!”

The second instance given by the Laṭífa-i-Ghaybiyya refers to another king of the same dynasty, Sháh Ṭahmásp, ^316b who one day, while playing with a ring which he valued very highly, dropped it, and, though he caused an exhaustive search for it to be made under the carpets and cushions, could not find it. An augury taken from Ḥáfiẓ gave the following result:

“What cares a heart which mirrors the Unseen and possesses the Goblet of Jamshíd for a ring which is mislaid for a moment?” ^317a The king clapped his hands on his knees in admiration for the appositeness of this verse, and immediately felt the ring in a fold of his robe into which it had accidentally slipped.

The third anecdote refers to yet another Ṣafawí King, Sháh 'Abbás the Second (A.D. 1642-1667), who obtained the following augury as to a campaign which he was meditating against the province of Ádharbáyján, of which Tabríz is the capital:^317b

“Thou hast captured 'Iráq and Fárs by thy verse, O Ḥáfiẓ:
Come, for it is now the turn of Baghdád and the time for Tabríz.”

This decided the king in favour of the campaign, which turned out completely successful.

The fourth anecdote refers to the same king as the last. He had a servant named Siyáwush, whom his fellow-servants, through jealousy and malice, desired to destroy, so that they were constantly striving to convince the King that he was worthy of death. The result of an augury from the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ was this verse:

“The King of the Turks hearkens to the speech of the accusers:
May he be ashamed of the wrong of [shedding] the blood of Siyá-
wush!”^318a

The fifth instance is from the author's own experience. In 1052/1642-3 he reached Aḥmad-ábád, then the capital of Gujerát in India, and there made the acquaintance of a certain Kan'án Beg, one of the notables of the place, who had a brother named Yúsuf Beg. The latter, who was in the army of Gujerát, had a little time previously been reported missing in a battle fought near Aḥmad-ábád against a hostile force. His brother, Kan'án Beg, was greatly disquieted until the following augury from Ḥáfiẓ assuaged his anxiety, which was soon afterwards dispelled by his brother's safe return:

“Lost Joseph (Yúsuf) will return to Canaan (Kan'án): grieve not!
The house of sorrows will one day become a rose-garden: grieve not!”

The sixth and last instance refers to a certain Fatḥ-'Alí Sulṭán, the son of Imám-qulí Khán, a youth remarkable for his beauty, who was the author's contemporary. One day, flushed with wine, and clad in a green coat (qabá) embroidered with gold, he visited the tomb of Ḥáfiẓ on the day specially set apart for this, which falls in the latter part of the month of Rajab, and while there took an augury from the Díwán, which gave the following verse:

“When thou passest by, drunk with wine and clad in a gold-embroidered
coat,
Vow one kiss to Ḥáfiẓ who is clad in wool!”^319a

“What is one kiss?” exclaimed Fatḥ-'Alí; “I promise two kisses!” A week passed ere he revisited the tomb, and took another augury, which was as follows:

“Thou didst say, ‘I will get drunk and give thee two kisses’:
The promise has passed its limit [of time], and we have seen neither
two nor even one.”

“What are two kisses?” cried the lad; “I promise three kisses!” And again he went away without discharging his vow, and did not return until another week had elapsed, when he again took an augury, and received the following answer:

“Those three kisses which thou didst assign to me from thy two lips,
If thou dost not pay them, then thou art my debtor!”

Thereupon Fatḥ-'Alí Sulṭán leapt from his seat and imprinted kiss after kiss upon the poet's tombstone.

Other instances of omens taken from the Díwán of Ḥáfiẓ by the Moghul Emperor Jahángír, and recorded in his own handwriting in the margins of a manuscript formerly in his possession, are given in the Bankipore Catalogue (Persian Poetry: Firdawsí to Ḥáfiẓ), pp. 231-52.

Not much is known concerning this poet, who, however,

“These efforts of mine in my poetry are my ‘Speak to me O Ḥumayrá’!”^320b

Kamál's spiritual guide was a certain Khwája 'Ubaydu- Particulars of Kamál's life 'lláh who resided for some time at Shásh, ^320c a place situated like Khujand in Transoxiana. At an unknown but probably fairly early period of his life Kamál migrated to Tabríz, where he made his home, and for which he conceived a great affection. The Jalá'irí Sulṭán Ḥusayn, son of Uways (776-784/1374-1382) showed him much favour and built for him a monastery or rest-house. Jámí says that when after Kamál's death they entered his private room in this rest-house, they found in it no furniture save a mat of coarse reeds on which he used to sit and sleep, and a stone which served him for a pillow. In Tabríz, where he obtained a great reputation for sanctity, he came under the influence of Shaykh Zaynu'd-Dín Khwáfí.^321a

In 787/1385 Túqtámish, Khán of Qipcháq, raided Tabríz, and, after the fashion of Tímúr and other conquerors of those days, carried off Kamál amongst other learned and pious persons to his own capital, Saráy. There he remained for four years, ^321b at the end of which period he returned to Tabríz where he died, ^321c according to most authorities, in 803/1400-1. Dawlatsháh places his death in 792/1390, a date which Rieu shows reason for regarding as much too early. A still later date (808/1405-6) is given by the Majálisu'l-'Ushsháq. On the poet's tomb was inscribed the verse:

“O Kamál! Thou hast gone from the Ka'ba to the door of the Friend:
A thousand blessings on thee! Thou hast gone right manfully!”

During his second sojourn at Tabríz Kamál was patronized by Tímúr's son Míránsháh, who was then governor of Ádharbáyján, and who is said to have given the poet, in return for some fruit which he or his soldiers had eaten from his garden, a sum of a thousand dínárs wherewith to discharge his debts.

The Díwán of Kamál of Khujand has never, so far as I know, been published, and is not common in manuscript, though copies are to be found in most of the larger collections of Persian books. I possess an undated but well-written and fairly ancient manuscript, from which the following selections are taken.

“O Kamál, have thy tears from every eye-lash assumed the hue of
Salmán
Because he hath stolen from other people's poetry his brilliant
ideas?”

“The breeze combed the tresses of my Friend; may God keep him in
health for ever!
So long as thou art upright in figure like an alif, we are like a lám
in the midst of woe! ^322a
The moist eye is best [laid] on thy lips, for sweet-meats are best
[eaten] with what is moist.
The wounded heart is so filled with the pain of thy love that the
very idea of healing cannot enter it.
Vex not thy heart with grief for the Friend, O Kamál: his mouth is
the Water of Life wherein is healing.”

“Hardly can the artist draw the picture of thy two eyebrows;
They cannot easily draw a double bow!”

“What company, what paradise, what resting-place are here!
Lasting life, the lip of the cup-bearer, the brim of the goblet are here!
That Fortune which fled from all [others] did not pass by this door;
That joy which escaped all is here a servant!
When thou enterest our joyous abode with sorrow in thy heart
All say, ‘Indulge not in sorrow, for it is forbidden here!’
We are on the roof of heaven: if thou passest by us
Go gently, for here is the glass and the edge of the roof! ^323a
In our audience-chamber there is neither seat of honour nor thres-
hold; ^323b
Here King and dervish know not which is which!
Like wood of aloes we are all hot-footed and burning,
Save the ice-cold ascetic, who is here [accounted] raw.
How often, O Kamál, wilt thou ask, ‘What station is this which thou
possessest?
Whose station is this?’ For here is neither abode nor lodging!”

“O Moon of mine, the Festival ^324a is come: may it bring thee happiness!
What wilt thou give as a festal-gift to thy lovers?
Thy cheek is at once our festal-gift and our Festival:
Without thy cheek may our Festival be no Festival!
Thou hast said: ‘I will ask after thee next Festival’:
Alas! for this promise is of long standing!
Deliver my soul from grief since the Festival hath come,
For at the Festival they set free captives.
The Festival is come: cease to threaten Kamál;
At the festal season they make glad the hearts of all!”

“Blessings on thy power of expression, O Kamál!
Thou hast, indeed, no choice as to approval.
The fruit which they bring from Khujand
Is not so sweet and so luscious!”

“Thy pain is better than balm, O Friend!
Thy sorrow enlargeth the soul, O Friend!
He who begs of thee at thy door
Seeks naught but pain and calamity, O Friend!
Notwithstanding that through poverty I have not
Aught which is worthy of thine acceptance, O Friend.
I will lay before thee my two bright eyes,
I will say, ‘It is the gaze of sincerity, O Friend!’
Thou didst say, ‘I will slay thee,’ but this is not right:
Is it right that a friend should slay, O Friend?
Whatever the heart said in praise of thy stature
God brought true (or straight), O Friend!
Straight have I made this ode to thy stature:
Write, ‘It is by Kamál,’ O Friend!”

Kamál is, so far as I know, the only poet who endeavours as far as possible to make all his odes of a uniform length, namely seven verses, as he expressly declares in the two following fragments:

“My odes are for the most part seven verses,
Not forgotten like the utterance of Salmán.
When Ḥáfiẓ recites them in 'Iráq
Fluently and aloud, [they are] like ‘the seven hard ones’; ^325a
All seven [are] like heaven in their foundation,
And of such sort 'Imád [of Kirmán] has not a single verse.”

“The odes of Kamál are seven verses;
Of the grace thereof the ‘Five Treasures’ ^326a are but a tenth part.
There exist also poems of seven verses by some of my friends,
Each one of which is limpid and fluent and charming,
But of every seven of them there should be erased
Four verses from the beginning and three from the end!”

“When the Díwán of Kamál falls into thine hand
Copy of his poetry as much as thou wilt.
If thou wishest to understand aright
His rare ideas and expressions and words
Do not pass swiftly over each word like the pen,
But dive down into every letter like the ink.”

“There are two Kamáls famous in the world,
One from Iṣfahán ^327a and one from Khujand.
This one is incomparable in the ode,
And that one unrivalled in the elegy.
Between these two Kamáls, in a manner of speaking,
There is no more than a few hairs' breadths' difference!”

“Salmán requested from me a poem, saying, ‘In my album there is
no specimen of that verse.’
I gave him those answering words like unto which [in value] is no
pearl in [the Sea of] Aden.
I wrote them for thee, but his words are naught in my sight.”

“That Ṣúfí with his nose cut off hath nothing for us but helplessness
and humility;
One cannot accuse him of the fault of self-conceit (khud-bíní),
For the poor wretch hath not even a nose (khud bíní na-dárad)!”^327b

Two or three “fragments” are addressed to a certain Ḥáfiẓ, who, however, appears to be a minstrel or harper of that name, not the celebrated poet of Shíráz. The following, however, almost certainly alludes to the contemporary poet 'Aṣṣár of Tabríz:^328a

“At length poor 'Aṣṣár died and departed: he took upon his neck the blood of the courts ^328b and departed.”

The following fragment, to which Rieu refers, ^328c contains an allusion to an historical event, viz. the invasion of Túqtámish:

“Our Farhád said to Mír Walí, ‘Let us restore the Rashídiyya ^328d quarter;
Let us give gold to the Tabrízís for bricks and stone for this building.’
The poor fellow was busy with his hill-piercing when, more numerous
than the ants of the mountain and the plain,

The army of King Túqtámish arrived, and the Unseen Voice thus
cried:
‘Shírín's ruby [lip] became the portion of Khusraw [Parwíz],
While Farhád vainly pierces the rock!’”^329a

The following fragment refers to the poet Humám of Tabríz (a contemporary of Sa'dí) and contains an “insertion” (Taḍmín) or citation from his poems:

“I said, ‘From the region [or Egypt] of ideas I will send thee
A few sweet trifles which will be like sugar in thy mouth’:
Again I feared this criticism, that thou mightest say like Humám
‘Do not again bring sugar from Egypt to Tabríz!’”

Other fragments contain allusions to Niẓámí and Sa'dí, while one is addressed to a poet named Ma'jarí of Samarqand, and the following to another (presumably a contemporary rival) called Ma'ádhí:

“This is my petition in my every private prayer, 'O my Succour and
my Refuge,
Save all people of taste and lovers of music from the harp of Maláṭí
and the poetry of Ma'ádhí!”

The following is a rather original and pretty conceit:

“Knowest thou what is the cause of chuckling of the wine-bottles?
They are laughing at the beard of the town-constable!”

The following fragment seems to show that Kamál's odes were not collected into a Díwán until after his death:

“A certain man of discernment said to me, ‘Why is it
That thou hast [composed] poetry, yet hast no Díwán?’
I replied, ‘Because, like some others,
My verse is not copious and abundant.’
He said, ‘Although thy verse is scanty [in amount]
It is not less [in value] than their utterances.’”

As is so often the case with Persian poets, Kamál's fragments are much more intimate and personal, and contain more allusions to contemporary events and persons (though for lack of fuller knowledge these allusions must often remain obscure) than his odes; and for this reason I have here quoted them to a disproportionate extent.

Of the life and circumstances of Maghribí, one of the Maghribí most thorough-going pantheistic poets of Persia, little is known, though notices of him are given by most of the biographers. ^331a He is generally stated to have died in 809/1406-7 at Tabríz at the age of sixty years, so that he must have been born about 750/1349-1350; but by a minority of the biographers his death is placed two years earlier. The learned modern historian Riḍá-qulí Khán states that he was born at Ná'in, near Iṣfahán, and buried at Iṣṭahbánát in Fárs, but he is generally reckoned a native of Tabríz. His poetical name Maghribí is said to be due to the fact that he travelled in the Maghrib (N.W. Africa), where he was invested with the dervish cloak (khirqa) by a Shaykh who traced his spiritual pedigree to the great Maghribí mystic Shaykh Muḥiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l-'Arabí, whose thought even at the present day has a great influence in Persia, and whose Persian disciples, poets like 'Iráqí, Awḥadu'd-Dín, Maghribí and even the later Jámí, are conspicuous for their thorough-going pantheism. Of Maghribí Riḍá-qulí Khán truly says in his Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá:

“His doctrine is the Unity of Being (Pantheism), and his inspiration the rapture of Vision, ^331b nor can one find throughout all his verse aught save this one idea. His tarjí'-bands and ghazals are all filled with the verities of the true Unitarianism.”^331c

Maghribí is said by Jámí and other biographers to have been personally acquainted with the poet last discussed, Kamál of Khujand, which is probable enough, since the two were contemporaries and spent at any rate a considerable part of their lives at Tabríz. On one occasion he is said to have found fault with the following verse of Kamál's on the ground that it evidently referred to material charms, and was not susceptible of a mystical interpretation: ^332a

“If eyes be such, and eyebrows such, and charm and coquetry such,
Farewell, abstinence and piety! Good-bye, reason and religion!”

Kamál, hearing this, sought an interview with Maghribí, and said: “[The Persian] chashm is [equivalent to the Arabic] 'ayn; ^332b so it may be that in the language of allusion it is to be interpreted as the Eternal Essence ('Ayn-i-Qadím), which is the Divine Personality. So also [the Persian] abrú is [equivalent to the Arabic] ḥájib, ^332c so it may be that it may be taken as alluding to the Divine Attributes, which are the veil of the Essence.” Maghribí, on hearing this explanation, apologized and withdrew his criticism. If it be true, however, as stated by Rieu, ^332d that Kamál superseded Maghribí in the favour of Tímúr's son Míránsháh, the Governor of Ádharbáyján, it is possible that the relations of the two poets were not of the most cordial character.

As the above particulars practically exhaust the little we know of Maghribí's life, we may now pass on to his poetry, which is represented by a comparatively small Díwán, comprising for the most part odes (ghazaliyyát) with a few tarjí'-bands and quatrains. It has been several times lithographed in Persia, ^332e and I also possess a good and well-written, but undated, manuscript. The lithographed edition comprises 153 smallish pages each containing 17 lines, and the total number of verses may be estimated at about 2300. The poems, so far as I have examined them, are entirely mystical, and contain no allusions to the poet's life and times. The following specimens are typical:

“When the Sun of Thy Face appeared, the atoms of the Two Worlds
became manifest.
When the Sun of Thy Face cast a shadow, from that shadow Things
became apparent.
Every atom, through the Light of the Sun of Thy Countenance, be-
came manifest like the Sun.
The atom owes its existence to the Sun, while the Sun becomes mani-
fest through the atom.

The Ocean of Being was tossed into waves; it hurled a wave to-
wards the shore.
That wave sunk and rose in some heart-delighting raiment and form.
Like violets the Ideas sprung up like the pleasant down on some fair
beauty's face.
The anemones of the [Eternal] Realities blossomed; a thousand tall
cypresses appeared.
What were all these? The counterpart of that Wave; and what was
that Wave? Identical [in substance] with the Ocean.
Every particle which exists is identical with the whole; then is the
whole altogether the parts.
What are the parts? The manifestations of the All; what are
things? The shadows of the Names.
What are the Names? The revelation of the Sun, the Sun of the
Beauty of the Supreme Essence.
What is the Shore? The land of Contingent Being, which is the
Book of God Most High.
O Maghribí, cease this discourse: do not make plain the Mystery of
the Two Worlds!”

“O Thou in whose life-giving Face all the Universe is manifest,
And O Thou whose Countenance is apparent in the Mirror of the
Universe!
Since the Darling of Thy Beauty looked in the Mirror
And saw the reflection of his face, he became wild and mad [with
love].
Every instant Thy Countenance displays the beauty of its features
To its own eyes, in a hundred fair vestments.
It looked forth from lovers' eyes
So that it beheld Its Beauty in the faces of Idols. ^335a
Thy Face wrought a Mirror for Its self-display,
And called that Mirror ‘Adam and Eve.’
He beheld the Beauty of His Face in every face through him, ^335b
Therefore hath he ^335c become the Mirror of all the Names.
O Thou whose Beauty hath shone forth to Thine own eyes,
And who hast plainly seen Thy Face in Thine own eyes,
Since Thou art at once the Seer and the Seen, there is none other
than Thee:
Wherefore, then, hath all this strife become apparent?
O Maghribí, the horizons are filled with clamour
When my King of Beauty pitches His tent in the Plain!”

“O Centre and Pivot of Being, and Circumference of Bounty,
O Fixed as the Pole, and Fickle as the Sphere!
If I send greetings to Thee, Thou art the greeting,
And if I invoke blessings on Thee, Thou art the blessing!
How can any one give Thee to Thyself? Tell me now,
O Thou who art Thine own alms-giver and Thine own alms!
O Most Comprehensive of Manifestations, and Most Perfect in
Manifestation,
O Gulf of gulfs, and O Combiner of diversities!
O most Beauteous of the beautiful, and O most Fair of the fair,
O most Gracious of the graceful, O most Subtle of subtleties!
Thou art at once both the Bane and the Balm, both Sorrow and Joy,
Both Lock and Key, both Prison and Deliverance!

Thou art both the Treasure and the Talisman, both Body and Soul,
Both Name and Named, both Essence and Attribute!
Thou art both Western (Maghribí) and West, both Eastern and East,
Alike Throne, and Carpet, and Element, and Heavens, and Space!”

“O [Thou who art] hidden from both worlds, who is He who is
apparent?
And O [Thou who art] the Essence of the Apparent, who then is the
Hidden One?
Who is that One who in a hundred thousand forms
Is apparent every moment?
And who is that One who in a hundred thousand effulgences
Showeth forth His Beauty every moment?
Thou sayest, ‘I am hidden from the Two Worlds’:
Who then is He who appeareth in each and all?
Thou didst say, ‘I am always silent’:
Who then is He who speaketh in every tongue?
Thou didst say, ‘I stand outside body and soul’:
Who then is He who clothes himself in the garment of body and
soul?
Thou didst say, ‘I am neither this one nor that one’:
Who then is He who is both this one and that one?
O Thou who hast withdrawn apart,
I conjure Thee by God tell me who is in the midst?
Who is He whose effulgence shines forth
From the beauty and comeliness of the charmers of hearts?
And who is He who hath shown His beauty
And who hath cast turmoil into the world?
O thou who remainest in doubt,
Not knowing certainly who lurks in thy doubt,
Be hidden from the eyes of Maghribí,
And see who is apparent through his eyes!”

The opening lines of the following poem strike an almost Christian note:

“That One who was hidden from us came and became us,
And He who was of us and you became us and you.
The King of the topmost throne of Sovereignty condescended,
And, notwithstanding that there is no King save Him, became a
beggar.
He who is exempted from poverty and wealth
Came in the garb of poverty in order to show forth [true] riches.
Who hath ever heard aught stranger than this, that one and the same
person
Became both his own house and his own householder?
That pure substance and that peerless pearl
When it germinated became earth and heaven.
Into the raiment of ‘how-ness’ and ‘why-ness’ one cannot say
How and why that ‘how-less’ and ‘why-less’ Charmer of hearts
entered.
His eyebrow revealed itself from the eyebrows of the beautiful,
Until it was pointed at by every finger, like the new moon.
In the garden of the Universe, like the straight cypress and the
anemone,
He became both red-capped and green-robed.
That Sun of the Eternal Sphere shone forth
So that it became Western (Maghribí) and Eastern, Sun and Light.”

“Ask not the road to the College or the customs of the Monastery;
Pass by road and custom; ask not about way and road.
Adopt the path of [religious] Poverty and Annihilation, and be happy;
Look not behind thee, and ask not save of what lies before.
When thou steppest forth from the narrow cell of the body
Ask not save of the Holy Precincts and of the King.
Ask about the delights of Poverty and Annihilation from those who
have tasted them;
Ask not of him who is the slave of wealth and rank.

When the Royal Umbrella appears, acclamation arises:
Ask no longer then about the King from the army and the host!
When thou hast stepped forth in sincerity and staked thy head,
Ask not of thy cap, if they steal it of thee.
Since my state, O Friend, is not hidden from thee
Do not again enquire of my state from witnesses.
Wipe out the sin of his existence, since thou thyself art obliterated;
Do not again ask of sin concerning the sin of his existence!
O Friend, since Maghribí hath come to Thee to make his excuses
Overlook in Thy Grace, and ask not concerning the sin of him who
apologizes!”

“We have escaped from the Monastery, the Chapel and the College,
And have settled in the quarter of the Magians with Wine and the
Beloved.
We have cast aside the prayer-mat and the rosary,
We have girt ourselves with the pagan girdle ^342a in the service of the
Christian child.
On the benches [of the Wine-house] we have torn up the dervish-
cloak of hypocrisy;
In the taverns we have broken our hypocritical repentance.
We have escaped from counting the beads of the rosary;
We have sprung forth from the snares of virtue, piety and asceticism.
In the quarter of the Magians we became annihilated from all exist-
ence:
Having become annihilated from all existence, we have become all
existence.
Hereafter seek not from us any knowledge or culture,
O wise and sensible friend, for we are lovers and intoxicated!
Thanks be to God that from this worship of self
We are wholly delivered, and are now worshippers of wine.
We are drunkards, wastrels, seekers of wine,
And we are most at ease with him who is, like ourselves, drunk and
ruined.
Since Maghribí has removed his baggage from our assembly
And has departed (for he was the barrier in our path), we are free!”

“Thou art but a drop: talk not of the depths of the Ocean;
Thou art but a mote: talk not of the high Sun!
Thou art a man of to-day: talk then of to-day;
Do not talk of the day before yesterday and yesterday and to-morrow!
Since thou knowest not earth and heaven
Talk no more of below and above!
Since thou hast not the elements of musical talent
Talk not of taná, ná and táná! ^343a
Cease, O my son, from denial and affirmation;
Talk not of ‘except’ and ‘no’! ^343b
If they bid thee lay down thy life,
Go, lay down thy life, and talk not!
Until thou knowest who ‘I’ and ‘We’ are
Be silent! talk not of ‘I’ and ‘We’!
Until, like Adam, thou receivest from God the Science of the Names
Do not talk about the Names!
He who hath become the Counterpart of all Things
Hath said to Maghribí, ‘Speak not of Things!’”

The above specimens should suffice to give a fair idea of Maghribí's thought and style. He belongs essentially to the same class of mystical poets as Saná'í, Shams-i-Tabríz (i.e. Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí), and 'Iráqí, and, as he asserts, Farí-du'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár:

“From His waves ^344a arose 'Iráqí and Maghribí,
And from His ferment came Saná'í and 'Aṭṭár.”

Yet though of the same category as these, he seldom reaches their level.

Although there are several other poets of this period who are not undeserving of notice, such as 'Aṣṣár of Tabríz,

Of Abú Isḥáq's life, as usual, very little is known, except that he appears to have spent the greater part of it at Shíráz, where he enjoyed the favour of the great, and especially of Tímúr's grandson Iskandar ibn 'Umar Shaykh Mírzá, who governed Fárs and Iṣfahán from A.H. 812 to 817 (A.D. 1409-1415). Dawlatsháh consecrates a long article to him, ^344b which, however, chiefly consists of quotations from his poems and an account of the ambitious designs and tragic fate of his patron Iskandar, who was deprived of his sight by his uncle Sháh-rukh on the 2nd of Jumáda i, 817 (July 20, 1414), and died the following year. By trade Abú Isḥáq was, as his title Ḥalláj indicates, a carder of cotton. On one occasion, when he had been absent for several days from Prince Iskandar's receptions, the latter asked him, when he reappeared, where he had been; to which he replied, “I card cotton for a day, and then spend three days in picking the cotton out of my beard.” Short notices of Abú Isḥáq are given in the Átash-kada, the Haft Iqlím and the Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá (vol. ii, p. 10), but they add nothing to the little recorded by Dawlatsháh, save a brief anecdote in the last named, according to which Abú Isḥáq considered himself the Busḥáq and Sháh Ni'matu'lláh of Kirmán disciple and admirer of Sháh Ni'matu'lláh, the mystical poet of Máhán, a little village near Kirmán, where he is still commemorated in a handsome shrine served by dervishes of the order which he founded. Abú Isḥáq's admiration took the dubious form of parodying Ni'matu'lláh's mystical rhapsodies in profane poems addressed to various culinary delicacies. Thus Ni'matu'lláh has a poem quite in the style of Maghribí, beginning:

“We are the pearl of the shoreless Ocean; sometimes we are the Wave
and sometimes the Sea;
We came into the world for this purpose, that we might show God
to His creatures.”

Busḥáq parodied this as follows:

“We are the dough-strings of the bowl of Wisdom; sometimes we are
the dough and sometimes the pie-crust;
We came into the kitchen for this purpose, that we might show the
fried meat to the pastry.”

When subsequently Sayyid Ni'matu'lláh met Abú Isḥáq, he said, “Are you the ‘dough-strings of the bowl of Wisdom’?” To which the latter replied, “Since I am not in a position to talk about God (Alláh), I talk about God's bounty (Ni'matu'lláh).”

Manuscripts of Abú Isḥáq's works are not common. The British Museum possesses a copy of one of them, the Kanzu'l-Ishtihá (“Treasure of Appetite”), ^346a and I once had the opportunity of examining an excellent and very com- Dr Wolf's MS. of the Díwán-i-Aṭ'ima plete manuscript from the collection of the late Dr Wolf of Bukhárá fame, to whom it was given by a certain Ḥájji 'Uthmán Núru'd-Dín, and by whom it was left to the Society for the Propagation of Christianity amongst the Jews. This manuscript was copied in 970/1562-3, contains 162 ff. of 22.4 × 12.7 c. and 17 lines to the page, and is written in a small, neat ta'líq hand between blue and gold lines. It is remarkable for containing (on ff. 137-8 and 160-61) some half dozen poems in dialect, comprising in all 44 couplets. The book,

The poems, filled as they are with the strange and obsolete culinary terminology of mediaeval Persia, and deriving such humour as they possess from being parodies of more serious poems familiar to the author's contemporaries, do not lend themselves to translation. In the Preface to the “Treasure of Appetite” (Kanzu'l-Ishtihá) he claims to have written it to stimulate the failing appetite of a friend, just as Azraqí in earlier times wrote his Alfiyya Shalfiyya to quicken the sexual desires of his royal patron, Ṭughánsháh the Seljúq. ^347a Here is a translation of this Preface, omitting the doxology:

“But to proceed. Thus saith the weakest of the servants of God the All-Provider, Abú Isḥáq, known as the Cotton-carder (Ḥalláj),

‘Whatever verse I may utter, others have uttered it all,
And have penetrated all its domain and territory.’

“For some days my thoughts ran in this channel: ‘having regard to the epic narrative of Firdawsí, the salt of whose speech is the flavouring of the saucepan of every food; and the mathnawís of Niẓámí, the sugar of whose verses is the dainty morsel of sweet-tongued parrots; and the ṭayyibát of Sa'dí, which, by general accord, are like luscious honey to the palate of the congenial; and the odes of Khwája Jamálu'd-Dín Salmán, which take the place of milk and honey in the mouths of philologists; and the products of the genius of Khwájú of Kirmán, the carroway-syrup of whose utterances is a cure for the melancholics of the fetters of verse; and the subtle sayings of 'Imád-i-Faqíh, whose sweet utterances are as fragrant spices and delicious potions; and the fluent phraseology and well-weighed thoughts of Ḥáfiẓ, which are a wine fraught with no headache and a beverage delicious to the taste; and other poets, each of whom was the celebrity of some city and the marvel of some age, what fancies can I concoct whereby men can be made glad?’

“While I was thus meditating, on a favourable morning, when according to my wont and habit, the smoke of an unfeigned appetite rose up from the kitchen of the belly, there suddenly entered through the door my silver-bosomed sweetheart, my moon-faced darling, whose eyes are like almonds, whose lips are like sugar, whose chin is like an orange, whose breasts are like pomegranates, whose mouth is like a pistachio-nut, smooth-tongued, melodious of utterance, lithe as a fish, sweet-voiced, with a mole like musk; even as the poet says:

‘By reason of the sweet smiles of the salt-cellar of her mouth ^348a
Blood flows from the heart, as from a salted kabáb.’

“Said she, ‘I have quite lost my appetite, and suffer from a feeling of satiety; what is the remedy?’ I replied, ‘Just as in the case of that person who went to a physician, complaining that he was impotent, and the physician thereupon composed for him the [book entitled] Alfiyya Shalfiyya, ^349a which when he had perused he at once took to his embraces a virgin girl, so will I compose for thee a treatise on the table, such that when thou hast once read it, thy appetite will return.’ So for her sake I girded up the loins of my soul, and cooked a meal garnished with verbal artifices and rhetorical devices, and baked in the oven of reflection with the dough of deliberation a loaf which rivalled the orb of the sun in its conquest of the world; so that I can proudly exclaim:

‘I have spread a table of verse from Qáf to Qáf: ^349b
Where is a fellow-trencherman who can rival me?’

“I have entitled this table ‘the Treasure of Appetite’ (Kanzu'l-Ishtihá ), because the day was the 'Idu'l-Fiṭr; ^349c and the cause of the revelation of this book is commemorated in the following fragment.” ^349d

The whole poem is divided into ten sections (faṣl), comprises 108 verses with the same rhyme throughout, and is a parody on Sa'dí's qaṣída beginning: ^350a

The first verse of the parody is:

The “Treasure of Appetite” is followed by a qaṣída entitled Áfáq u Anfus (“Horizons and Souls”) in praise of Remaining contents of the Díwán-i-Aṭ'ima Sháh Sayfu'd-Dín, and this in turn by parodies of qaṣídas by Ẓahíru'd-Dín Fáryábí, Khwájú of Kirmán, Najmí, 'Imád-i-Faqíh of Kirmán, Ḥáfiẓ, Salmán of Sáwa, Ḥasan of Dihlí, Mawláná 'Alí Dur-duzd, Sa'dí, Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí, Jalál-i-'Aḍud, Ṣadru'd-Dín Qay-ruwání, Kamál of Khujand, Sa'du'd-Dín Naṣír, Anwarí, Shaykh Farídu'd-Dín 'Aṭṭár, Kamálu'd-Dín of Káshán, Sháh Ni'matu'lláh of Kirmán, Amínu'd-Dín, Muḥammad Jawharí, 'Iráqí, Abú Naṣr-i-Faráhí, Ádharí, 'Ubayd-i-Zákání, Jalál-i-Ṭabíb, Firdawsí, Niẓámí of Ganja, etc. These are followed by the two prose treatises already mentioned, the “Conclusion” (Khátima), the “Glossary” (Farhang), a qaṣída in praise of Kajrí (“Kedgeree”), and the Editor's Vocabulary of Culinary Terms which fills twelve pages.

For the reasons already given it is practically impossible to translate these poems so as to preserve any of their point, and it is sufficient for our purpose to note that Abú Isḥáq, with his predecessor 'Ubayd-i-Zákání (already discussed earlier in this chapter) and his successor Niẓámu'd-Dín Maḥmúd Qárí of Yazd, represents a definite school of satire and parody.

Of the last-named poet, who took for his subject clothes, as Abú Isḥáq had taken foods, we have an excellent edition Niẓámu'd-Dín Maḥmúd Qárí of Yazd by the same Mírzá Ḥabíb who edited the works of the two other poets of the group, all three volumes being uniform in size and style. In the short preface prefixed to the Díwán-i-Albisa, which contains the sartorial poems of Maḥmúd Qárí of Yazd, the learned editor says that he believes the manuscript on which his text is based to be unique, and that he had never met with another copy in any of the numerous libraries in Persia and at Constantinople which he had examined, nor had he found any mention of the author or his date in any biographical or historical work except in one Indian tadhkira (neither named nor cited by him), and a single verse of his cited in evidence in the well-known Persian dictionary entitled Burhán-i-Jámi'.^351a

The Díwán-i-Albisa was avowedly inspired by the Díwán-i-Aṭ'ima, which, in style and arrangement, it closely follows. There is a prose preface, which, unfortunately, throws no light on the author's date; a qaṣída-i-Áfáq u Anfus; a mock-heroic account of the war between cloth and cotton (Jang-náma-i-Mú'ína u Kattán); a poem on the “Mysteries of Silk”; parodies of Awḥadí, Khwájú, Sa'dí,

Although it is not necessary to speak at nearly the same Prose-writers of this period length about the prose-writers of this period as about the poets, some at least of them deserve at any rate a passing mention, including one or two who wrote chiefly or exclusively in Arabic.

Tímúr resembled another great Eastern conqueror of Turkish origin who lived four centuries before him, namely Sulṭán Maḥmúd of Ghazna, in his passion for collecting and carrying off to his capital eminent scholars from the towns which he conquered, and thus endeavouring to increase the splendour of his Court and his own reputation as a patron of letters. ^353a Amongst those whom Tímúr thus abducted the most celebrated were Sa'du'd-Dín Taftázání and as-Sayyid ash-Sharíf al-Jurjání.^353b

This eminent scholar, who was described by the con- Sa'du'd-Dín at-Taftázání temporary 'ulamá of Transoxiana as “at the present time the chief man of learning in the world, and the exemplar of scholars amongst the sons of men,” and of whose works sixteen are enumerated by Brockelmann, ^354a was born at Taftázán near Nasá in Khu-rásán in 722/1322, and is said to have written his first book (a commentary on az-Zanjání's Arabic Grammar) at the early age of sixteen. Another of his works, the Muṭawwal, he is said to have dedicated to Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín Ḥusayn-i-Kurt (who reigned at Herát from A.D. 1331 to 1370). He then settled at Khwárazm, at that time a great centre of learning, where he composed his Mukhtaṣar, which he dedicated to Jání Beg Khán of the Golden Horde, a descendant of Bátú the Mongol, who reigned in Western Qipcháq from A.D. 1340 to 1357. When Tímúr captured Khwárazm he allowed Malik Muḥammad of Sarakhs, the youngest son of the above mentioned Malik Mu'izzu'd-Dín, to take Taftázání with him to Sarakhs, where he was given a professorship; but later, learning how great was his reputation as a scholar, he summoned him to his own capital Samarqand, where he remained for some years, greatly honoured by all. He died in 791/1389 (in the same year as the poet Ḥáfiẓ), or, according to others, in 797/1394-5, ^354b and was buried at Sarakhs. He left a son named Mawláná Muḥammad who died of the plague at Herát in 838/1434-5, and concerning whom an anecdote is related in the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar which reflects but little credit either on his filial piety or his sincerity.

Of Taftázání's works it is unnecessary to speak in detail, for not only are they written in Arabic, but they do not even fall into the category of belles lettres, being for the most part on logic, Arabic grammar, philosophy, theology, exegesis and jurisprudence. I am not aware that he wrote anything in Persian, but, by virtue of a Turkish metrical translation of Sa'dí's Bústán which he composed, he is included by the late Mr E. J. W. Gibb in his History of Ottoman Poetry.^354c

As-Sayyid ash-Sharíf, chiefly known to European As-Sayyid ash-Sharíf al-Jurjání scholars by his book of “Definitions” (ta'rífát) of technical and especially Ṣúfí terms, was born, as his title al-Jurjání indicates, in the Caspian province of Gurgán or Jurján, near Astarábád, in 740/1339. In 779/1377 he was presented by Sa'du'd-Dín Taftázání to the Muẓaffarí prince Sháh Shujá' who was then residing at Qaṣr-i-Zard, and who took him with himself to Shíráz, where he became a professor at the Dáru'sh-Shifá. In 789/1387 Tímúr conquered Shíráz and transported him to Samarqand, where he again foregathered with Taftázání, with whom he had many scientific controversies. On the death of Tímúr in 807/1405 he returned to Shíráz, where he died in 816/1413 at the age of 76. Brockelmann enumerates 31 of his works, all of which are in Arabic. ^355a Three Persian works, a wellknown Arabic grammar commonly known as Ṣarf-i-Mír, a treatise on Logic (al-Kubrá fi'l-Manṭiq), and another on the Degrees of Existence, written by or ascribed to him, are mentioned in Rieu's Persian Catalogue, ^355b but he seems to have composed but little in his mother-tongue.

A third but much younger writer of note who was carried Ibn 'Arabsháh off by Tímúr from his native place, Damascus, in 803/1400, when he was only twelve years of age, together with his mother and brothers, was Abu'l-'Abbás Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn 'Abdu'lláh ibn 'Arabsháh, chiefly famous for the bitterly hostile biography of Tímúr which he composed under the title of 'Ajá'ibu'l-Maqdúr fí nawá'ibi Tímúr, and to which reference has been made in the last chapter. ^355c He studied at Samarqand with the abovementioned al-Jurjání, mastered the Turkish and Persian languages, translated from the latter into Arabic the Mar-zubán-náma of Sa'du'd-Dín Waráwíní, ^356a travelled widely, visiting Khaṭá (Chinese Tartary), Khwárazm, Dasht, Astrachan and Adrianople (where he became for a time private secretary to the Ottoman Sulṭán Muḥammad I). He returned to his native town, Damascus, in 825/1422, made the pilgrimage to Mecca seven years later, settled in Cairo in 840/1436, and died in 854/1450. The undisguised hatred of Tímúr revealed in every page of his history forms a piquant contrast to the fulsome flattery of Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí and other Persian biographers. Of Ibn 'Arab-sháh's other works the best known is the Fákihatu'l-Khulafá.

Of Arabic writers of this period who had no connection with Persia, such as al-Yáfi'í and aṣ-Ṣafadí, to both of whom we are indebted for valuable biographical and historical material, I do not propose to speak here, but two other Arabic-writing Persians deserve at least a brief mention.

Another Persian man of learning who met and received Al-Fírúzábádí favours from Tímúr was the great Arabic scholar and lexicographer, best known by his monumental dictionary the Qámús, or “Ocean,” Abu'ṭ-Ṭáhir Muḥammad ibn Ya'qúb ash-Shírází al-Fírúzábádí. ^357b He was born in 729/1326 at Fírúzábád in Fárs, and studied His extensive travels first at Shíráz, then at Wásiṭ in Mesopotamia, then at Baghdád (745/1344), and afterwards (750/1349-1350) at Damascus, where he attended the lectures of as-Subkí, whom he accompanied to Jerusalem. There he lectured for some ten years, after which he set out again on his travels, in the course of which he visited Asia Minor, Cairo, Mecca (770/1368), where he remained fifteen years, and India, where he spent five years in Dihlí. He then returned to Mecca, where he spent another ten years. In 794/1392 he visited the court of the Jalá'ir Sulṭán Aḥmad ibn Uways at Baghdád; and he also visited Tímúr at Shíráz, probably in 795/1393, and was received with much honour. Thence he went by way of Hurmuz on His high position in Yaman the Persian Gulf to Yaman, where he arrived in the following year (796/1394), and remained at Ta'izz for fourteen months. He was then made Chief Judge (Qáḍi'l-quḍát) of Yaman, and received in marriage the daughter of the Sulṭán al-Malik al-Ashraf. In 802/1400 he again visited Mecca, where he established a small college of Máliki jurisprudence: and, after visiting al-Madína, returned to Zabíd in Yaman, and died there in 817/1414.

Of the five Arabic writers mentioned above all save Ibn 'Arabsháh (who is included on account of his connection with Tímúr) were Persians; and, for reasons which I have elsewhere given, ^358a I consider that no literary history of the Persians which, confining itself to what is written in Persian, ignores the immense amount of valuable work produced by Persians in Arabic, can be regarded as adequate in its scope, or just to this talented people.

The period which we are now considering is far less rich in notable prose-writers than in poets, and not more than four or five need detain us here.

The first writer who deserves mention is Shams-i-Fakhrí,

Part i, in 9 chapters, on Poetry and Prosody.

Part ii, in 5 chapters, on Rhyme, the different varieties of Poetry, etc.

Part iii, on Rhetorical Devices, Tropes and Figures of Speech, etc.

Part iv, on the Persian language and its rare and archaic words.

The fourth part, which is of most interest to philologists, was printed at Kazan in 1885 by Carl Salemann. I possess a good MS. of the whole work (except for one leaf missing at the beginning) which was given to me by my friend Dr Riẓá Tevfíq in August, 1909. The date of composition is given in a poem of 11 bayts in praise of “the son of Maḥmúd Sháh” (i.e. Shaykh Abú Isḥaq Ínjú) in the following lines:

The rare Persian words explained in this fourth part are arranged under the final letter, and each group is worked up into a qaṣída, of which they constitute the rhymes, in praise of the author's royal patron. The first three (unpublished) parts of the book, though good, are relatively of less value than the fourth, since the matters of which they treat are more fully discussed in such older books as the Mu'jam fí Ma'áyíri Ash'ári'l-'Ajam ^359a of Shams-i-Qays, and the Ḥadá'iqu's-Siḥr of Rashídu'd-Dín Waṭwáṭ.

Nearly all that is known of this writer is recorded by Mu'ínu'd-Dín Yazdí's history of the House of Muẓaffar Rieu ^359b in his notice of one of the British Museum MSS. of the Mawáhib-i-Iláhí, a historical monograph on the House of Muẓaffar from its origin until the battle fought at Shíráz in 767/1365-6 between Sháh Shujá' and his brother and rival Sháh Maḥ-múd. Mu'ínu'd-Dín is described by his fellow-townsman Mufíd in the Jámi'-i-Mufídí (composed in 1082-1090/1671-79) ^360a as the greatest of the 'ulamá of his day. His lectures were crowded with students, and occasionally honoured by the presence of his patron Sháh Shujá' the Muẓaffarí, at whose instigation and encouragement, seconded by that of his father Mubárizu'd-Dín Muḥammad, Mu'ín began the composition of his history at Iṣfahán in 757/1356, though, as indicated above, he did not complete it until ten years later. Two years earlier, in 755/1354, according to the abstract of his history included in some manuscripts of the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída, ^360b he was made professor at a college at Kirmán. He died in 789/1387.

The Mawáhib-i-Iláhí, of which I possess two MSS. from the late Sir A. Houtum-Schindler's library, ^360c besides having access to a manuscript belonging to the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, is a disappointing book, written, as Rieu justly remarks, like the History of Waṣṣáf, mainly “with a view to rhetorical display.” It is in fact intolerably florid and bombastic, a fault which we might more readily excuse but for the undoubted value of the information which it contains. Happily the simplified abstract of its contents mentioned at the end of the last paragraph dispenses us in large measure from the necessity of reading it in its unabridged form.

This author, a grandson of the famous Shaykh Zarkúb of Shíráz, deserves mention on account of a monograph on The Shíráznáma his native town, entitled Shíráz-náma, which he composed in 744/1343-4, and which is described by Rieu. ^360d Manuscripts of this work, which has never been published, are rare; and it is a matter of regret that the author has devoted his attention in the biographical portion of the work so much more to Shaykhs and holy men than to poets.

This writer, called Shamb-i-Gházání after a mausoleum erected for his own sepulture by the Mongol Gházán Khán Niẓám-i-Shámí, the earliest Persian historian of Tímúr two miles to the S.W. of Tabríz, is notable as the author of the only known history of Tímúr compiled during his life-time. This history, entitled, like the later and much more celebrated book of Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd, Ẓafar-náma (“The Book of Victory”), is extremely scarce, the only manuscript which I know of being the British Museum codex (Add. 23,980), of which I possess a copy made for me by my friend Dr Aḥmad Khán. Our knowledge of Niẓám-i-Shámí is chiefly derived from incidental remarks occurring in his history, some of which are copied by his successor Shara-fu'd-Dín 'Alí, 'Abdu'r-Razzáq (in the Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn), Mírkhwánd and Khwándamír. Rieu has admirably summarized all that is known about this author. ^361a He was living at Baghdád when it was conquered by Tímúr in 795/1392-3, and was amongst the first who came out to do homage to the conqueror, by whom he was graciously received; and he describes the impression made on him by the Tartar attack. In 803/1400-1 he was detained as a prisoner at Aleppo, and describes an attack on the citadel of which he was a witness. In 804/1401-2 Tímúr summoned him to his presence and ordered him to write the history of his reign and his conquests, placing at his disposal the necessary records, memoranda and official papers, ^361b and bidding him especially avoid bombast and rhetoric, and write in a simple and straightforward style which ordinary people could understand. In 806/1403-4 he preached a homily before Tímúr in his camp near Ardabíl on the occasion of the 'Íd or Festival at the end of the Ramaḍán fast (April 12, 1404). Soon afterwards Tímúr set out for his capital Samarqand, and allowed Niẓám-i-Shámí to return “home” (apparently to Tabríz), furnishing him with letters of recommendation to his grandson Prince 'Umar Bahádur, son of Mírán-sháh, who had just been appointed Governor of Persia; a post which he held until 808/1405-6, when he was dispossessed by his brother Prince Abú Bakr.

It does not appear that the history was continued beyond the year 806/1404, when Tímúr, having enjoyed a brief period of repose after his last Georgian campaign, set out on his last return journey to his capital Samarqand, which he quitted on December 28, 1404, on his projected campaign against China. This campaign was rendered abortive by Tímúr's death on March 19, 1405. Particulars of the last The later Ẓafar-náma of Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí year of his life, therefore, are not included in Niẓám-i-Shámí's work, but must be sought for in the homonymous Ẓafar-náma of Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí, who wrote in 828/1424-5 and died thirty years later. Although he strictly belongs, therefore, to the period which will be discussed in the next chapter, it will be more convenient to consider him here in connection with the author of the original Ẓafar-náma, of which his later Ẓafar-náma is essentially a more florid and verbose enlargement, garnished with many more verses, and increased in bulk by about fifty per cent.

All that is known about this historian, either from his own statements or from such books as the Jámi'-i-Mufídí, Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn, Haft Iqlím, Ta'ríkh-i-Rashídí, Ḥabíbu's-Siyar , ^362a Laṭá'if-náma, and Dawlatsháh's “Memoirs of the Poets,” ^363a is, as usual, admirably summarized by Rieu. ^363b It is as a poet writing under the nom de guerre of Sharaf, and with a special skill in versifying riddles and acrostics (mu'ammá) that he is mentioned by Dawlatsháh, who also speaks in terms of exaggerated praise of his history of Tímúr, the Ẓafar-náma, on which his fame chiefly rests, though its style is intolerably inflated and bombastic, and its facts—in spite of the author's implication that he collected them from original documents and orally from old men who had taken part in the events described—appear to have been mostly borrowed with little or no acknowledgement from his predecessor Niẓám-i-Shámí, to whom he is even indebted for many of his citations from the Qur'án and from the poets. His work, however, has entirely eclipsed that of his predecessor. It has been published at Calcutta in the Bibliotheca Indica Series in two volumes (1887-8), and translated into French by Petis de la Croix (1722) and from the French into English by J. Darby (1723). The author of the Haft Iqlím calls Sharafu'd-Dín “the noblest of the scholars of Persia in his time, and the subtlest of the doctors of that period; luminous in exposition, sharp-tongued, conspicuous in merit, the illuminator of every assembly, the adorner of every company”; and, in speaking of his Ẓafar-náma, says that “no book so elegant has ever been written in Persian on the science of history.” He adds that it was composed in 828/1424-5, a date expressed by the chronogram (“It was composed Other works by Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd in Shíráz”), and that the author also wrote a treatise on riddles and acrostics; a commentary on the celebrated Arabic poem in praise of the Prophet entitled al-Burda (“The Mantle”) by al-Búṣírí; a book on magical squares and lucky numbers, entitled Kunhu'l-Murád dar 'Ilm-i-Wafq-i-A'dád; and a number of odes, quatrains and mathnawí poems, of which he gives only one short specimen.

“Sharafu'd-Dín,” says Rieu, “attained a position of great eminence, no less by his learning and piety than by the rare elegance of his style, and was for a long time the favourite companion of Sháh-rukh and of his son Mírzá Ibráhím Sulṭán. It is related in the Ta'ríkh-i-Rashídí ^364a that the former entrusted to his keeping and able tuition Yúnus Khán, the young Khán of the Moghuls, who had been captured in 832/1428-9 by Mírzá Ulugh Bey, and who stayed with Sharafu'd-Dín till the latter's death. In 846/1442-3 Mírzá Sulṭán Muḥammad, who had been appointed Governor of 'Iráq and established his residence in Qum, invited Sharafu'd-Dín, who was then teaching crowds of pupils in his native city, to his court, and kept him there as an honoured guest and trusted adviser. When some years later, in 850/1446-7, the Prince having raised the standard of rebellion, Sháh-rukh came with an army to Iṣfahán to enforce his submission, and ordered several of his ill-advised councillors for execution, Sharafu'd-Dín, who was also accused of having incited the Prince to revolt, was rescued from danger by the timely interference of Mírzá 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, who, on the plea that his father, Mírzá Ulugh Bey, required the Mawláná's assistance for his astronomical observations, despatched him to Samarqand. After the death of Sháh-rukh, Sulṭán Muḥammad, then master of Khurásán, gave him leave to go back to Yazd. Sharafu'd-Dín returned to his birthplace in 853/1449-1450, and settled in the neighbouring village of Taft. He died there in 858/1454, and was buried in the precincts of a college built by himself and called after him Sharafiyya.”

Some manuscripts of the Ẓafar-náma contain “an Introduction treating of the genealogy of the Turkish Kháns and of the history of Chingíz Khán and his descendants down to the time of Tímúr.” ^364b This was compiled in 822/1419, six years earlier than the Ẓafar-náma. It is instructive to compare parallel sections of the histories of Niẓámu'd-Dín Shámí and Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí Yazdí, so as to see how the latter has amplified and embroidered the work of his predecessor; and, did space allow, it would not be without interest to offer side by side translations of such parallel passages, e.g. the account of the Battle of Angora (June 16, 1402), which resulted in the overthrow and capture of the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd, called “the Thunder-bolt” (Yil-dirim ). Since Sharafu'd-Dín's later work, for all its faults of taste and style, probably contains all or nearly all the matter chronicled by Niẓám-i-Shámí, it is doubtful whether the work of the latter, though more desirable in itself on account of its priority, as well as of its greater simplicity and concision, will ever be published.

Before concluding this chapter, it is necessary to say The Ḥurúfí Sect something about the strange heretical sect of the Ḥurúfís (“Literalists”) invented and propagated by a certain Faḍlu'lláh of Astarábád in the reign of Tímúr; a sect worthy of attention not only on account of its extraordinary doctrines and considerable literature (including not a little poetry, especially in Turkish), but on account of events of some historical importance, persecutions on the one hand and assassinations on the other, to which it gave rise. The sect does not seem to have maintained its position long in Persia, but it passed over into Turkey and there found a suitable medium for its development in the order of the Bektáshí dervishes, who are at the present day its chief if not its only representatives.

Concerning this sect and its founder the Persian historians of the period are unaccountably silent, and the only reference to it which I have met with occurs in the Mujmal of Faṣíḥí of Khwáf under the year 829/1426, and in a fuller form in the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar, ^366a which places the event described a year later. On the 23rd Rabí' ii, 829 (March 4, 1426), or on the same day of the month of the following year (Feb. 21, 1427), a certain Aḥmad-i-Lur, described as “a disciple (muríd) of Mawláná Faḍlu'lláh of Astarábád,” on the usual pretence of presenting a petition to Sháh-rukh, Tímúr's son and successor, stabbed him in the stomach as he was leaving the mosque at Herát, without, however, inflicting a mortal wound. The would-be assassin was killed on the spot by one of the King's servants named 'Alí Sulṭán Qúchín; a fortunate thing for him, as he was undoubtedly saved thereby from torture, but subsequently a matter of regret to Mírzá Baysunqur and the nobles charged with the investigation of the matter, who were thus deprived of a valuable clue. However, they found in the dead man's pocket the key of a certain house, the tenants of which being examined cast suspicion on a certain Mawláná Ma'rúf, a notable calligraphist, scholar and wit, who had formerly been in the service of Sulṭán Aḥmad-i-Jalá'ir at Baghdád, and afterwards in that of Mírzá Iskandar of Shíráz, whence Sháh-rukh had brought him to Herát. Here he had associated with many men of letters, dervishes and others, and apparently amongst them with Aḥmad-i-Lur. Báysunqur Mírzá, who had a private grudge against him, wished to put him to death, but, after he had been brought beneath the gallows several times, he was finally imprisoned in a dungeon of the Castle of Ikhtiyáru'd-Dín. Others, more unfortunate, were put to death and their bodies burned. Amongst these was Khwája 'Aḍudu'd-Dín, the grandson of Faḍlu'lláh of Astar-ábád the Ḥurúfí. The poet Sayyid Qásimu'l-Anwár, of whom we shall speak in another chapter, also incurred some suspicion, and was expelled from Herát by Mírzá Báy-sunqur.

One of the few notices of Faḍlu'lláh “al-Ḥurúfí” which Account of Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí in Ibn Ḥajar's Inbá I have met with occurs in the Inbá of Ibn Ḥajar al-'Asqalání (died 852/1448-9) ^367a and runs as follows:

“Faḍlu'lláh, the son of Abú Muḥammad of Tabríz, was one of those innovators who subject themselves to ascetic discipline. Imbued with heretical doctrine, he finally evolved the sect known as the Ḥurúfís, pretending that the Letters [Ḥurúf] of the alphabet were metamorphoses of men, together with many other idle and baseless fancies. He invited the Amír Tímúr the Lame [Tamerlane] to adopt his heresies, but he sought to slay him. This came to the knowledge of his [Tímúr's] son [Míránsháh] with whom he [Faḍlu'lláh] had sought refuge, and he struck off his head with his own hand. When this was made known to Tímúr, he demanded his head and body and burned them both in this year 804/1401-2.”

The doctrines of Faḍlu'lláh were originally set forth in a most extraordinary book, written partly in Arabic, partly The Jáwidán -i-Kabír in Persian, and partly in a dialect of Persian, entitled Jáwidán-i-Kabír (“the Great Eternal”), of which manuscripts exist in the library of St Sofia at Constantinople, at Leyden, in the British Museum (Or. 5957), in the Cambridge University Library (EE. 1. 27), and in my own collection. The first European description of this curious book was, I believe, the brief notice of the Leyden MS. contained in vol. iv (p. 298) of the old Leyden Catalogue of 1866, the author of which observes “alternum exemplar non vidi obvium.” A much fuller account of the work was published by M. Clément Huart in the Journal Asiatique for 1889 ^367b under the title Notice d'un manuscrit pehlevi-musulman, and was based on the Constantinople MS., which was apparently labelled not by its proper title but as “Questions connected with the Qur'án.” M. Huart did not concern himself with the contents so much as with the language of this manuscript, which he did not at that time recognize as the Jáwidán-i-Kabír, or as the chief text-book of the Ḥurúfís, or as the work of Faḍlu'lláh of Astarábád. In my Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, published in 1896, I devoted a long notice (pp. 69-86) to our excellent copy of the Jáwidán-i-Kabír, which was “bought at Constantinople, Oct. 1681, price ten Lion dollars.” A feature of special interest in this manuscript is an appendix containing accounts, written in a dialect of Persian explained to some extent by interlinear glosses in red, of a series of dreams seen presumably by Faḍlu'lláh himself. Many of these are dated, the earliest in 765/1363-4, “at a time before the explanation of visions and interpretation of dreams was vouchsafed”; the latest in 796/1393-4. They thus cover a period of thirty years, and contain references to a number Persons and places mentioned in connection with Faḍlu'lláh's visions of places and persons. Amongst the former are Astarábád, Baghdád, Bákú, Burújird, Dámghán, Egypt, Fírúz-kúh, 'Iráq, Iṣfahán (especially a building there called 'Imárat-i-Ṭúkhjí or Ṭúqchí), Khwárazm, Mesopotamia (Jazíra), Qazwín, Samarqand, Tabríz, and the two celebrated strongholds of the Assassins, Rúdbár (near Astarábád) and the Fortress of Gird-i-Kúh. Amongst the latter are Amír Tímúr (Tamerlane), “King” Uways, ^368a Túqtámish Khán, ^368b Pír Páshá, Sayyid 'Imádu'd-Dín (i.e. the Turkish Ḥurúfí poet Nesímí), ^368c Sayyid Shamsu 'd-Dín, Sayyid Táju'd-Dín, Khwája Fakhru'd-Dín, Khwája Ḥasan, Khwája Báyazíd, Mawláná Kamálu'd-Dín, Mawlána Maḥmúd, Mawláná Majdu'd-Dín, Mawláná Qiwámu'd-Dín, Mawláná Ṣadru'd-Dín, Shaykh Ḥasan, Shaykh Manṣúr, Malik 'Izzu'd-Dín, Amír Shams, Darwísh Tawakkul, Dar-Wísh Musáfir, Darwísh Kamálu'd-Dín, 'Abdu'r-Raḥím, 'Ab-du'l-Qádir, Ḥusayn Kiyá, 'Umar-i-Sulṭániyya, and Yúsuf of Dámghán.

The accounts of these dreams, even with the aid of the interlinear glosses which explain most of the words in dialect, are very elliptical and difficult to understand, being apparently mere memoranda sufficient to recall the vision to the memory of the writer. They seem to form no part of the Jáwidán-i-Kabír, and do not, I think, occur in most copies of it.

On Oct. 23, 1896, soon after the publication of my Catalogue, my friend the late Mr E. J. W. Gibb called my attention in a letter to the fact that in several Turkish biographies of poets (such as those of Laṭífí and 'Áshiq Chelebi) the Turkish poet Nesímí mentioned in the last paragraph but one is described as “the Ḥurúfí,” and his connection with Faḍlu'lláh is established by some of his own verses, e.g.:

“If thou would'st gain knowledge of wisdom's lore, come hither, O sage;
Hearken to the speech of Nesímí and behold the Grace of God”
[Faḍlu'lláh]!

Mr Gibb, following up this clue, devoted a chapter (the Gibb's researches into the history of the Turkish Ḥurúfís seventh, pp. 336-388) in the first volume of his History of Ottoman Poetry to the Ḥurúfís, and especially to two of the Turkish Ḥurúfí poets, Nesímí ^369a and Refí'í, of whom the latter was a disciple of the former. Mr Gibb was unable to trace the Ḥurúfís beyond the middle of the seventeenth century, but gives (pp. 381 et seqq.) two interesting extracts from Turkish chronicles showing the fierce persecution of which the sect was on several occasions the object. The first extract (from the Memoirs of Turkish Divines entitled Shaqá'iqu'n-Nu'-mániyya , which Gibb renders as “the Crimson Peony”) relates how the Persian Muftí of Constantinople, Fakhru'd-Dín-i-'Ajamí, a pupil of as-Sayyid ash-Sharíf al-Jurjání, ^370a seized and caused to be burned to death as heretics certain Ḥurúfís who had succeeded in gaining the confidence and favour of the reigning Sulṭán Muḥammad II, the “Conqueror” of Constantinople, who, apparently, for all his power, was unable to protect them from the fury of the 'ulamá and the fanaticism of the orthodox. It is even related that the Muftí was so carried away by his religious zeal that, in blowing the fire kindled for his victims, he singed the long beard for which he was conspicuous. The second extract (from Laṭífí's Biographies of Turkish poets) denounces the heresies and “blasphemous nonsense” of a Ḥurúfí poet named Ta-manná'í, who with others of the sect was put to death by sword and fire in the reign of Sulṭán Báyazíd, who, as we have seen above, ^370b was defeated by Tímúr at the Battle of Angora in 804/1402 and died soon after. As it was in this same year that Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí was put to death, ^370c it is evident that his doctrines had become widely diffused (from Astarábád to Adrianople) even during his life-time, and that they aroused the fiercest execration of the orthodox. Mr Gibb says that as he had failed to discover any record of later movements on the part of the Ḥurúfís, he was inclined to think that the activity of the sect did not extend much beyond the close of the fifteenth century; and that such organization as it may have possessed was probably de- The Bektáshí Order of dervishes is the present repository of Ḥurúfí doctrines stroyed in the persecutions to which it was subjected in the reign of Báyazíd. But as a matter of fact their activity continues down to the present day, the Bektáshí dervishes being still the representatives and repositories of the Ḥurúfí doctrines. As lately as 1291/1874-5 there was published a Turkish denunciation of the sect entitled “the Revealer of Mysteries and Repeller of Miscreants: a Refutation of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ḥurúfís and Bektáshís,” by Isḥáq Efendi, who is very well informed concerning the matters about which he writes and gives a clear and accurate account of the doctrines which he denounces. He divides his treatise into three chapters, of which the first treats of the origin of Faḍl[u'lláh] the Ḥurúfí, and the principles and laws of certain of the Bektáshís; the second of the blasphemies of Firishta-záda's Jáwidán; and the third of the blasphemies contained in the other Jáwidáns. He mentions a persecution of the Bektáshís by Sulṭán Maḥmúd in 1241/1825-6, in which the Turkish poet 'Árif Ḥikmat Bey acted as chief inquisitor; and says that he was moved to the compilation and publication of his work by the impudence of the Bektáshís in daring to print and publish the 'Ishq-náma, or “Book of Love,” of Firishta-záda ('Abdu'l-Majíd ibn Firishta 'Izzu'd-Dín) in 1288/1871-2. He says that “the books which these persons (i.e. the Bektáshís or Ḥurúfís) call Jáwidán are six in number, of which one was composed by their original misleader Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí, while the other five are the works of his Khalífas” (Vice-gerents or Successors). “In these five books,” he adds, “their heresies and blasphemies are very evident, and they are wont to teach and study them secretly amongst themselves”; but “Firishta-záda in his Jáwidán, entitled 'Ishq-náma, did in some measure conceal his blasphemies.”

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

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

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

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

During the Easter Vacation of 1897 I had the opportunity of examining with some care two Ḥurúfí manuscripts belonging to the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, ^372a which I described in the J.R.A.S. for 1898 (pp. 61-94) in an article entitled “Some Notes on the Literature and Doctrines of the Ḥurúfí Sect.” One of these MSS., dated 970/1562-3,

Nine years later, in the J.R.A.S. for 1907, I published another article on this subject entitled “Further Notes on the Literature of the Ḥurúfís and their connection with the Bektáshí Order of Dervishes,” in which I described 43 Ḥurúfí MSS. recently acquired by the British Museum, the Cambridge University Library, and myself. Concerning the manner in which these MSS. were obtained I then wrote as follows:

“The connection of the Ḥurúfís with the Bektáshís first became known to me in the following manner. About three years after the publication of the article to which I have referred above, a certain dealer in Oriental manuscripts in London, a native of Baghdád, from whom I had already purchased a number of MSS., invited me to furnish him with a list of my desiderata, in order that he might submit the same to his correspondents in the East. I did so, and mentioned in my list the Jáwidán-náma or any other Ḥurúfí books. Shortly afterwards (in Feb.-March, 1901) he forwarded to me a parcel of manuscripts in which was included a copy of this work (now in the British Museum, marked Or. 5957) besides some other books of the sort in question. The prices set on these MSS. were high, but some half-dozen were secured by the Cambridge University Library, while five or six more were purchased by the British Museum, and now bear the class-marks Or. 5957-Or. 5961.

“The comparatively high prices realized by these MSS. seem to have stimulated the search for other similar ones, and gradually, as the supply not only continued but increased, it became clear that these Ḥurúfí books existed in considerable quantities, and were still widely read and copied in the East, especially in Turkey. Prices consequently fell rapidly, and latterly few of these MSS. have fetched more than £2 or £3 in the limited market where the demand for them existed. Nor was it long before we discovered that it was from the Bektáshí dervishes that they were, in almost all cases, directly or indirectly derived, and that it is amongst the members of this Order that the Ḥurúfí doctrines flourish at the present day.”

Amongst the MSS. described in this article are two or three treatises dealing with the biography and teachings of Ḥájji Bektásh, from whom the Order in question derives its name, and who died in 738/1337-8, ^374a two years before the birth of Faḍlu'lláh the Ḥurúfí. This latter date, with five others connected with the early history of the sect, is recorded on the fly-leaf of one of the British Museum MSS. (Or. 6381) as follows:

(1) Birth of Faḍlu'lláh, 740/1339-1340.

(2) Manifestation or annunciation of his doctrine, 788/ 1386-7.

(3) Martyrdom of Faḍlu'lláh, 796/1393-4, aged 56 lunar years.

(4) Death of his Khalífa “Ḥaḍrat-i-'Aliyyu'l-A'lá,” 822/1419.

(5) Death of Tímúr's son Míránsháh (whom the Ḥurúfís called “Antichrist,” Dajjál, and “the King of Snakes,” Má-rán-sháh ), who slew Faḍlu'lláh, 803/1400-1.

From a verse on the same page it would appear that Faḍlu'lláh performed the pilgrimage to Mecca in 775/1373-4. On a page of another of these MSS. in the British Museum (Or. 6380, f. 24) is inscribed a curious document which appears to be Faḍlu'lláh's last Will and Testament. From this, of which the text and translation are printed in full in the article in question, ^374b it would appear that he was put to death at Shírwán. The article concludes with a complete index of all the books and persons mentioned in it. The titles of most of the books, whether Persian or Turkish, end in náma; e.g. Ádam-náma (“the Book of Adam”), Ákhirat- náma (“the Book of the Hereafter”), 'Arsh-náma (“the Book of the Throne”), Bashárat-náma (“the Book of Good Tidings”), etc.

In 1909 there was published in the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial” Series a volume (vol. ix) containing translations into French of several Ḥurúfí treatises, with explanatory notes, etc., by M. Clément Huart, followed by a study of the Ḥurúfí doctrines (also in French) by Dr Riẓá Tevfíq, commonly known in Turkey as “Feylesúf Riẓá” or “Riẓá the Philosopher,” a man remarkable for his attainments in the learning of both East and West, and an adept in all that appertains to the various Dervish Orders of Turkey, especially the Bektáshís. This volume, by far the most important independent work on the subject, is a rich mine of information on the strange and fantastic doctrines of a sect which, though its very name seems to have been unknown in Europe twenty years ago, played a not unimportant part in the history of Western Asia. Its characteristic doctrines, equally ingenious and grotesque, are pretty fully discussed in the books and articles mentioned above, to which such as desire fuller knowledge of them may be referred.

The century which we are now about to consider is in its latter part one of those chaotic and anarchical periods which,

When examined more closely, this period of a century is seen to fall naturally into two unequal halves, divided by The death of Sháh-rukh in 1446 divides this period into two dissimilar parts the death of Tímúr's third son Sháh-rukh in 850/1446-7. As long as he lived and reigned, he succeeded, in spite of numerous revolts on the part of his kinsmen, in maintaining almost in its integrity the empire conquered by his father, which, however, after his death underwent rapid disintegration at the hands first of the “Black” and then of the “White Sheep” Turkmáns, and lastly of the Uzbeks, until these in their turn, together with the remnants of the House of Tímúr, were swept aside by the victorious Sháh Isma'íl the Ṣafawí. But though the House of Tímúr was driven out of Persia,

From the political point of view the most important representatives of the dynasties mentioned above were Sháh-rukh of the House of Tímúr; Qára Yúsuf of the “Black Sheep” Turkmáns; Úzún Ḥasan of the “White Sheep” Turkmáns; Shaybání Khán of the Uzbeks; and, chief of all, Sháh Isma'íl the founder of the great Ṣafawí

Before considering in greater detail these Turkmán dynasties of the “Black” and “White Sheep,” the history Tímúr's sons of the House of Tímúr, so far as its connection with Persia is concerned, must be briefly traced. Tímúr had four sons and a daughter. Of his sons the eldest, Jahángír, predeceased his father by thirty years; and the second, 'Umar Shaykh Mírzá, by ten years. The third, Mírán-sháh, survived him by three years, but fell into disgrace and appears to have become affected in his reason. The fourth was Sháh-rukh, who practically succeeded his father, and had a long and prosperous reign of forty-three years (807-850/1404-1447). Tímúr's intention was that Jahángír's son Pír Muḥammad should succeed him, but he was defeated by his cousin Khalíl Sulṭán, son of Míránsháh, who succeeded Brief reign of Khalíl Sulṭán in taking possession of Samarqand and gaining the support of several powerful nobles, and was finally murdered two years after his grandfather's death by his trusted minister 'Alí Táz or Pír 'Alí. Khalíl Sulṭán, though not without parts, was undone by his infatuation for the courtesan Shád Malak, whose extravagant whims he was ever ready to gratify, to the disgust of his nobles and officers, who, headed by the two Khudá-dáds and Bardí Beg, presently rose against him, deposed him, and banished him to Káshghar. Thereupon his uncle Sháh-rukh marched in and took possession, but had sufficient kindliness to reunite the unhappy Khalíl to his beloved Shád Malak, who showed her appreciation of his devotion by stabbing herself with a poniard when he died. The two were buried together in the same tomb at Ray. ^382a Khalíl Sulṭán was not only a generous patron of poets but himself wrote verse, of which several specimens are recorded by Dawlatsháh.^382b

Sháh-rukh, who now succeeded to the throne, was born in 779/1377, and was therefore 28 years of age at the time Sháh-rukh (reigned A. D. 1404-1447) of his accession. He had been made governor of Khurásán in his twentieth year (799/1396-7), and was already practically absolute in that province and struck coins in his own name. His dominions were successively enlarged by the addition of Mázandarán (809/1406-7), Transoxiana (811/1408-9), Fárs (817/1414-5), Kirmán (819/1416-7) and Ádharbáyján (823/1420). The attempt on his life by Aḥmad-i-Lur, alluded to in the last chapter, ^382c was made in 830/1427, and he finally died at Ray in 850/1447, after a reign of 43 years at the age of 72. He waged successful wars against the rulers of the “Black Sheep” dynasty, Qára Yúsuf and his son Iskandar, but on the whole, as Sir John Malcolm says, ^382d “he desired not to extend, but to repair, the ravages committed by his father. He rebuilt the walls of the cities of Herát and Merv, and restored almost every town and province in his dominions to prosperity. This Prince also encouraged men of science and learning, and his Court was very splendid. He cultivated the friendship of contemporary monarchs, and we read in the pages of his historian a very curious account of some

SHÁH-RUKH
Add. 7468 (Brit. Mus.), f. 44
To face p. 382

embassies which passed between him and the Emperor of China.”^383a

With this estimate of Sháh-rukh's character the most recent native historian of Persia, Mírzá Muḥammad Ḥusayn Sháh-rukh's character as depicted by Furúghí Khán Zuká'u'l-Mulk, poetically surnamed Furúghí , is in complete agreement. ^383b “After Tímúr,” he says, “his son Mírzá Sháh-rukh sat in the place of his father. He was a successor who was the exact opposite of his predecessor, a peaceful and placable man, never prone to war and contention, save with seditious rebels and such as sought means to create disturbances in the empire, whom he deemed it necessary to suppress. In brief, the Empire founded by Tímúr was refined by the efforts of Mírzá Sháh-rukh, who during a long period busied himself in repairing the devastation wrought by his father, and in informing himself as to the condition of his subjects and compassing their happiness. It is an extraordinary fact that the son of one so hardhearted should be so kindly, amiable, gracious and friendly to learning, showing favour and courtesy to all, especially to scholars and men of parts. Ogotáy Khán, the son of Chingíz Khán, had a somewhat similar disposition and practice, and in particular he has left on the page of history a great reputation for generosity, so that he has been entitled ‘the Ḥátim ^383c of later days’; and we have met with many anecdotes concerning his liberality and tenderness of heart in the pages of former writers.”

Dawlatsháh ^383d is equally flattering, and, with his usual exaggeration, goes so far as to say that “from the time of Adam until this our day no age, period, cycle or moment can be indicated in which the people enjoyed such peace The same according to Dawlatsháh and tranquillity as they did in his [Sháh-rukh's] days.” He adds that such were the virtues of this Prince that he was credited with miraculous gifts and knowledge of the Unseen. Of the two instances of this which Dawlatsháh gives, one rests on the authority of his father, who was one of his familiar attendants. Ultimately, however, according to this writer, Sháh-rukh incurred the Divine displeasure by putting to death three learned and pious men of Iṣfahán whom he suspected of having encouraged his grandson Sulṭán Muḥammad Báysunqur in his revolt against him. These cursed him ere they died, and “the doors of Heaven being open, the prayers of those innocent and illustrious victims were answered; the seed of that highly-placed king was cut off, and the sovereignty returned to its original source.” Amongst the many artists, poets and men of learning contemporary with Sháh-rukh Dawlatsháh ^384a mentions four in particular as conferring special lustre on his court, namely 'Abdu'l-Qádir of Marágha the musician (who is mentioned by Munajjim-báshí ^384b as one of the eminent victims of the plague which afflicted Herát in 838/1434-5), Yúsuf of Andakán the minstrel, Qiwámu'd-Dín the engineer and architect, and Mawláná Khalíl the painter, who in skill was “second only to Mání” (Manes).

The Turkish historian Munajjim-báshí ^384c speaks not less favourably than the writers already cited of Sháh-rukh's The same according to Munajjim-báshí character. “He was,” says he, “a wise, just, prudent and benevolent king, prone to forgive and to do good, devout, temperate and pious, so that alike at home and on the march, nay, even in time of war and battle, he never neglected the morning, noon and evening prayers, while on ‘white days’ and on the first day of each month he used to fast, and on the eve of Fridays, Mondays and Thursdays he used to assemble those who knew the Qur'án by heart and cause them to recite the entire scripture in his presence. During the whole period of his life he never knowingly committed a major sin. He continually sought the society of learned and pious men, on whom he conferred the greatest benefits and favours. He never suffered defeat, but was always favoured by fortune and victorious. To whatever land he went, he first of all used to visit any shrine which might exist there.” His empire, in the words of the same writer, extended “from the confines of China to the frontiers of Rúm (Turkey in Asia), and from the remotest parts of Turkistán to the limits of India.”

Of Sháh-rukh's five sons ^385a only one, Ulugh Beg, survived to succeed him. Of the other four Báysunqur, who died of Báysunqur Mírzá drink (the curse of this family) in 837/1433 at the age of 37, was, perhaps, the most talented, ^385b and the greatest patron of art and learning, to whose court flocked poets, artists, scholars, calligraphists, miniature-painters, book-binders and illuminators from 'Iráq, Fárs, Ádharbáyján, and all parts of Persia. In connection with Persian literature he is chiefly associated with the preface prefixed to the Sháh-náma of Firdawsí in his name and composed for him in 829/1426. The following chronogram of his death is given in the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar:

“In the morning that august prince Báysunqur said to me,
‘Tell tidings of me to the people of the world:
I am gone, and this is the date of my death—
May my father's life be long in the world!’”^386a

Sháh-rukh died near Ray on March 13, 1447, and, as stated above, was succeeded, though not peaceably, by his Ulugh Beg son Ulugh Beg, who had during his father's life-time been governor of Túrán or Turkistán. It was during this period, in 824/1421, that he built at Samarqand his celebrated observatory, where, with the collaboration of four eminent men of learning, Ṣaláḥu'd-Dín Músá, called Qáḍí-Záda-i-Rúmí (“the Turkish Judge's son”); Mullá 'Alá'u'd-Dín 'Alí Qúshjí, the commentator of the Tajríd; Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Jamshíd; and Mu'ínu'd-Dín of Káshán, he compiled the notable astronomical tables known as the Zíj-i-Ulugh Beg, or Zij-i-jadíd-i-Sulṭání, which were probably completed in 841/1437-8, and concerning which full particulars are given by Rieu.^386b

Ulugh Beg, as already indicated, did not at once succeed in establishing his supremacy, which was contested by Ulugh Beg is murdered by his son 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf 'Alá'u'd-Dawla, who seized Herát and cast 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, the son of Ulugh Beg, into prison. Nor did his authority, when established, endure long, for he was killed at the instigation of his son, the above-mentioned 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, on Ramaḍán 10,853 (October 27, 1449) by a certain 'Abbás, the year of this tragic event being given by the chronogram 'Abbás killed [him] ().

'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, not content with the murder of his father, also murdered his brother 'Abdu'l-'Azíz, but did not long 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf profit by his crime, for he in turn was murdered in the ensuing year, 854/1450, by a certain Bábá Ḥusayn, this date, curiously enough, being given by the chronogram Bábá Ḥusayn killed [him] (). Mírkhwánd, in recording this event, cites the well-known dictum of the poet Niẓámí as to the short-lived prosperity of royal parricides:

“The parricide is unworthy of sovereignty:
[Even] if he attains it, he will not survive more than six months.”

“This 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf,” says the Turkish historian Munajjim Báshí, ^387a “was a talented and accomplished man, but very impetuous, blood-thirsty and pitiless, so that men's hearts were turned aside from him. With his death the succession of Ulugh Beg came to an end in Transoxiana.”

From this period onwards until its extinction in Persia the House of Tímúr rapidly declined in power, cohesion 'Abdu'lláh b. Ibráhím Sulṭán b. Sháh-rukh and territorial possessions, and even the succession of rulers is somewhat uncertain, or, to be more precise, it is uncertain which should be accounted supreme and which subordinate. Thus Stanley Lane-Poole ^387b regards 'Abdu'lláh, the son of Ibráhím Sulṭán, the son of Sháh-rukh, as the successor of 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf; while Mírkhwánd substitutes Mírzá Abu'l-Qásim Bábur (not the great Bábur), the son of Báysunqur, the son of Abu'l-Qásim Bábur b. Báysunqur Sháh-rukh. He died in 861/1456-7, having lost 'Iráq, Fárs and Kirmán four years previously to Jahánsháh, son of Qará Yúsuf of the “Black Sheep” Turkmáns, and killed his brother Sulṭán Muḥam-mad, the expelled ruler of Fárs, in battle.

Mírzá 'Alá'u'd-Dawla, another son of Báysunqur, was acting as governor of Herát at the time of his grandfather 'Alá'u'd-Dawla b. Báysunqur Sháh-rukh's death, but, after a certain show of opposition, he made peace with Ulugh Beg and Bábur, and contented himself with the government of a district extending from Khabúshán in Khurásán to Astarábád and Dámghán. In 852/1448-9 he was defeated by Ulugh Beg near Herát and driven into Badakhshán and the Plain of Qipcháq. After various vicissitudes, including sundry wars with his brothers and a period of allegiance to Jahán-sháh, the “Black Sheep” Turkmán and enemy of his House, he finally died in 875/1470-1. His son Ibráhím, having escaped from the custody of his uncle Abu'l-Qásim Bábur, fled to Murgháb and there collected a considerable Ibráhím b. 'Alá'u'd-Dawla army. He occupied Herát and defeated his cousin Mírzá Sháh Maḥmúd, whom he was preparing to crush at Astarábád when be was suddenly attacked by the redoubtable “Black Sheep” Turk-mán Jahánsháh. Abandoning Herát he fled before the invader, but returned on the withdrawal of the latter, only to suffer defeat at the hands of Sultán Abú Sa'íd. He died in 863/1458-9 on the march from Dámghán to Mashhad, and his cousin and rival, the above-mentioned Mírzá Sháh Maḥmúd, was killed in the same year.

Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd, the grandson of Míránsháh, is described by Mírkhwánd in the Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá as “supreme amongst Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd b. Sulṭán Muḥammad b. Míránsháh b. Tímúr the princes of the House of Tímúr in high emprise, lofty rank and perfect discernment. He was a friend and patron of scholars, theologians and men of letters, and during the period of his rule the lands of Turkistán, Túrán, Khurásán, Zábulistán, Sístán and Mázandarán attained the zenith of prosperity.” He had in early life been attached to the court of his accomplished kinsman Ulugh Beg, whose son 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, after murdering his father as already related, cast Abú Sa'íd into prison, whence, owing to the negligence of the sentries, he escaped to Bukhárá. When 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf in turn was killed, he marched out from Bukhárá, and, after giving battle to his kinsman Abú Bakr, made himself supreme in Turkistán and Túrán. In 861/1456-7 he captured Herát and put to death Gawhar Shád Khátún. In 862/1457-8 Jahánsháh invaded Khurásán and occupied Herát, but afterwards relinquished it to Abú Sa'íd. Ten years later, in 872/1467-8, when Jahánsháh was defeated and slain by Úzún Ḥasan, of the rival clan of the “White Sheep” Turk-máns, Abú Sa'íd, hoping to profit by this circumstance, and encouraged by representations from 'Iráq, Fárs, Kirmán, Ádharbáyján and other lost provinces, marched westwards against his new rival Úzún Ḥasan, by whom he was finally defeated and taken prisoner near Mayána. After three days his captor, having decided on his destruction, handed him over to Yádigár Muḥammad, who put him to death to avenge the blood of his grandmother Gawhar Shád Khátún. The philosopher Jalálu'd-Dín Dawání, author of the wellknown ethical manual entitled Akhláq-i-Jalálí, commemorated his death in the following chronogram: ^389a

By the Venetian travellers of this period, to whom we are indebted for much interesting information and indepen- Abú Sa'íd called “Busech” by the Venetians dent chronological details, Abú Sa'íd is called “Busech”; while Úzún Ḥasan is called “Ussun Cassano,” “Assimbeo,” or “Assambei” (i.e. Ḥasan Beg), and Jahánsháh “Giansa.” The towns of 'Urfa, Isfahán, Káshán, Qum, Yazd and Kharpút appear as “Orphi,” “Spaham” or “Spaan,” “Cassan,” “Como,” “Jex” and “Carparth.” It should be noted also that, apart from such well-known general histories as the Rawḍatu'ṣ-Ṣafá and Ḥabíbu's-Siyar, the hitherto unpublished Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn

Abú Sa'íd was succeeded by two of his sons, Aḥmad and Maḥmúd, who are accounted by Stanley Lane-Poole Aḥmad and Maḥmúd, the sons of Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd the last (eighth and ninth) rulers of the House of Tímúr in Persia and Central Asia. Of these the first ruled in Transoxiana with Samarqand for his capital, and the second in Badakhshán, Khatlán, Tirmidh, etc. Both died, the latter by violence at the hands of the Uzbek Shaybáni Khán, in the last years of the fifteenth century (899/1493-4 and 905/1499-1500 respectively).

Much more important than the two princes last mentioned, from the literary if not from the political point of Sulṭán Ḥusayn b. Mansúr b. Bayqará view, was Sulṭán Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr b. Bayqará, whose court at Herát was one of the most brilliant centres of letters, art and learning which ever existed in Persia. This prince, originally attached to and protected by Ulugh Beg, was, on the death of this ruler and his son 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, cast into prison by Abú Sa'íd, but escaped, joined Abu'l-Qásím Bábur, and fled to Khwárazm or Khiva. In 862/1457-8 he captured Astar-ábád, the capital of the province of Gurgán or Jurján (the ancient Hyrcania) and was there crowned, but recognized Abú Sa'íd as his suzerain and placed himself under his protection. A year later Abú Sa'íd again compelled him to take refuge in Khwárazm and occupied Astarábád, which, however, he shortly afterwards recovered, together with the rest of the provinces of Gurgán and Mázandarán. On the death of Abú Sa'íd, Sulṭán Ḥusayn captured Herát, and was crowned there on Ramaḍán 10, 872 (April 3, 1468), which date is regarded by Munajjim-báshí as the beginning of his 38 years' reign, terminated by his death at the age of seventy years on Monday, 11 Dhu'l-Ḥijja, 911 (May 5, 1506). During the last 20 years of this period he was partly paralysed. His talented minister Mír 'Alí Shír Nawá'í, who, like his master, was not only a great patron of men of learning and letters but himself a writer of distinction, both in prose and verse, especially in the Turkí language, died on the 12th of Jumáda ii, 906 (January 3, 1501) at the age of 62. An excellent monograph on his life and literary activities was published by M. Belin in the Journal Asiatique for 1861, and reprinted in the form of a separate pamphlet. ^391a Sulṭán Ḥusayn, besides his literary tastes, had a great passion for pigeons, fighting-cocks and other birds, and, like so many of his House, was much addicted to wine.

It still remains to mention one of the most notable of all the descendants of Tímúr, namely Ẓahíru'd-Dín Muḥam- Ẓahíru'd-Dín Bábur mad Bábur, who, though he never ruled in Persia, was the founder of a new and splendid Tímúrid empire in India, the representatives of which, commonly known in Europe as the “Great Moguls,” included such noble princes as Humáyún, Akbar, Jahángír, Sháh-Jahán and Awrang-Zíb 'Álamgír, and which, though gradually shorn alike of its glories and its virtues, continued to exist until the great Indian Mutiny in 1857. Until the early part of the eighteenth century their magnificent court at Delhi continued to attract a great number of eminent Persian poets and men of letters during a period when fuller appreciation and more liberal patronage of talent was to be found at Dihlí than at Iṣfahán.

Of the life of Bábur we possess singularly full and authentic details in the autobiographical memoir generally Bábur's autobiography known as the Bábur-náma, or “Book of Bábur” which he composed in the Turkí or Chaghatáy language. Of the original Turkí text of this remarkable work a printed edition was published by Ilminsky at Kazan in 1857; ^391b while a fac-simile of the then newly-discovered Ḥaydarábád codex was edited by Mrs Beveridge for the trustees of the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Fund” in 1905. ^392a This Turkí text has been translated into French by M. Pavet de Courteille, and was published at Paris in 1871. There also exists a Persian translation of the original, known as the Wáqi'át (or Túzuk)-i-Bábarí, made at the request of the great Emperor Akbar, Bábur's grandson, by his accomplished general Mírzá 'Abdu'r-Raḥím Khán-Khánán in 998/1589-90, ^392b on which Dr John Leyden and Mr William Erskine's well-known English version, published in London in 1826, is based. Besides this notable and most authoritative work, we have the very valuable and Mírzá Ḥaydar Dughlát's Memoirs illuminating Memoir of Bábur's cousin Mírzá Ḥaydar Dughlát, now accessible to the English reader in Sir E. Denison Ross's translation, edited, with Preface, Introduction, Commentary, Notes and a Map, by the late Mr Ney Elias, formerly H.B.M. Consul-General for Khurásán and Sístán, and published in London in 1898 with the title A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia, being the Ta'ríkh-i-Rashídí of Mírzá Muḥammad Ḥaydar Dughlát. This book, which, as its title implies, has a much larger scope than the Bábur-náma, of which the author made use ^392c in its compilation, greatly supplements and illuminates the earlier work. ^392d Apart from these two works, which are worthy of special notice on account of the high position of their authors and their active participation in the making of the history which they narrate, the historical sources for this period are unusually full and trustworthy.

Of Bábur's life, which can be studied in detail in the above-mentioned and numerous other works, ^392e it is sufficient to say here that it falls broadly into three periods, of which the first was passed in the little principality of Farghána,

We have, however, overshot the limits of the period dealt with in this chapter; for, so far as Persia is concerned, the House of Tímúr disappears from it before the year 1500. The great empire founded by Tímúr, that ruthless man of blood, was maintained in Persia by his gentler and more enlightened son Sháh-rukh until his death in 850/1447. What follows is mainly a dismal record of fratricidal strife and invasions of Uzbeks and other barbarians, redeemed by brilliant galaxies of poets, artists and men of letters and science whom the lavish bounty and undeniable taste of these truculent and quarrelsome princes continued to attract to their various courts, in particular to Herát. The details of these wars, set out at great length by Mírkh-wánd, Khwándamír and 'Abdu'r-Razzáq, and in English by Erskine, ^393a are somewhat wearisome, being not so much between different peoples or principles, as between ambitious members of one family. Happily for our present purpose we need not go much beyond Sir John Malcolm's excellent summary of this period of Persian history. “After the death of Ulugh Beg,” says he, ^394a “we discover a crowd of the descendants of Tímúr contending for the provinces of his empire; and so great was the respect which men entertained for the blood of the hero that everyone who could boast of it in his veins found adherents who enabled him either to obtain a throne or an honourable grave.”

To the literary and artistic gifts and tastes of these princes, on the other hand, that great authority on Persian painting and miniatures, Dr F. R. Martin, bears the following eloquent testimony in his monumental work on The Miniature Painting and Painters of Persia, India and Turkey.^394b

“The Tímúrids soon began to lead a life compatible with the wealth their fathers and forefathers had amassed Dr Martin on Persian painting at this period during their wars, and tried to squander it as quickly as possible. History constantly repeats itself. The life of these rulers forms a true epic. They recall to mind the old Paladins in the Chansons de Gestes, passing in the space of a short time from the splendours of a throne to a position of the utmost decay. They were, however, the most artistic princes that ever reigned in Persia. If the conquering armies of Tímúr destroyed many a work of art, his successors brought into being works of art that would otherwise never have been created. Does not Samarqand redeem the loss of many a town destroyed by Tímúr? What he destroyed was already of itself destined to fall, and Tímúr simply gave the mortal thrust. He was not the destroyer we are accustomed to consider him, but the master who arranged matters with an iron hand. He formed a link in the chain of natural development, and from his realm arose the Persia of later times, his successors bringing Persian art to its most flourishing stage. These Tímúrids were no barbarians; indeed everything goes to show that they were highly civilized and refined men, real scholars, loving art for the sake of art alone, and without ostentation. In the intervals between their battles they enjoyed thinking of their libraries and writing poetry, many of them having composed poetry that far excels that of their court poets. Sulṭán Ḥusayn Mírzá was no bad poet, and his odes, written in Turkí, are far better than those of many celebrated poets. He also wrote in Arabic and competed with the celebrated Jámí. The most refined style of life prevailed, in certain respects calling to mind that of the European princes of the same time, or that of France during the 18th century, although it was far more literary than either.

“Báysunghur, Sháh-rukh, Ulugh Beg and Sulṭán Ḥusayn Mírzá were bibliophiles not surpassed by the Dukes of Burgundy, or by King René of Anjou, their contemporaries, and were far more illustrious than the celebrated French and Italian book-lovers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Not only did they collect books, but they created them. Báysunqur and Ḥusayn Mírzá were to Persia what William Morris was to England four hundred years later. They created a new style of book, but theirs was infinitely more aristocratic, solid and artistic. The very finest European books and manuscripts cannot, except in a very few isolated instances, bear comparison with those of the Orientals as regards the fineness of their work.

“Báysunqur was the son of Sháh-rukh and grandson to Tamerlane; he died in 837/1433, when 37 years of age,

“It was during the reigns of the Tímúrids and not during that of Sháh 'Abbás that the finest carpets were produced in Culmination of other arts at this period Persia. The finest arms and armour, and ivory-work of a minuteness surpassing all examples produced by other countries, were made at their court. All specimens of Persian art that exhibit the most refined taste and workmanship emanate from their time or from the very beginning of the Ṣafawí dynasty.

“All art produced in the East is the direct result of an impulse given by the monarch. But for Báysunqur and “All real art in the East is Court art” Sulṭán Ḥusayn Mírzá we should not have had that lovely miniature art their artists created, for it was to adorn and illustrate their own writings that they welcomed artists from all parts of their kingdom. But for Sháh 'Abbás we should not have had the splendid figured velvet, and but for Sulaymán the Magnificent there would be no magnificent Turkish faience from Izníq, and but for Sulṭán Aḥmad we should not have had the wonderful manuscripts of the Qur'án, by which their aesthetic tastes are still perpetuated. All real art in the Orient is court art, or is dependent on a Maecenas. It was so in the 'Abbásid court at Baghdád in the ninth century; it was so in Egypt and Spain; it was so everywhere. This fact must be remembered, as it explains much that would otherwise be incomprehensible.

“That an art so brilliant should entirely disappear with the ruler was not to be expected. The princes died, but Survival of this art into the sixteenth century the artists survived and entered the service of another. The impulse derived from the Tímúrids was so powerful that it lasted through a great part of the sixteenth century. It was not only the new rulers of Persia, the Ṣafawís, but also princes whose names are almost unknown to history, who continued the fashion and had manuscripts executed that were more costly than anything of the kind produced in Europe.”

It is necessary to remind the reader, who may be apt to think of far-reaching international relations as in large Communications between Persia, China and India measure a product of modern times and an outcome of modern facilities of communication, how considerable was the intercourse in the time which we are considering between Asiatic (not merely Muslim) states far removed from one another. The interesting extracts from that valuable but hitherto unpublished history, the Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn of 'Abdu'r-Razzáq of Samar-qand, published in French by Quatremere in 1843, ^397a include the accounts of two embassies from the court of Herát, the one to China, the other to India, narrated in each case by one who had headed or accompanied the mission. The mission to China, described by Ghiyáthu'd-Dín Naqqásh (“the Painter”), left Herát on December 4, 1419, reached Pekin (Khán-báligh or “Cambaluc”) a year and ten days later, and returned to Herát on September 2, 1422. ^397b The mission to India, confided to and narrated by the abovementioned 'Abdu'r-Razzáq himself, started on January 13, 1442, and landed once more on Persian soil at Hurmuz in the Persian gulf on April 20, 1444. ^397c The activity and cosmopolitan character of that port are well indicated by the ambassador in the following descriptive paragraph:

“This Hurmuz, which they also call Jarún, is a port on the open sea ‘which has no equal on the face of the earth.’

Allusion has already been made to the correspondence between Sháh-rukh and his successors and the Ottoman Relations between the Tímúrids and the Ottoman Sultans Sultans Muhammad I (1402-1421), Murád II (1421-1451), Muḥammad II (1451-1481) and Báyazíd II (1481-1512); but that this correspondence was not confined to princes and politics is shown by letters preserved by Firídún Bey ^398a exchanged between Báyazíd II on the one hand and the poet Jámí, the philosopher Jalálu'd-Dín Dawání and the theologian Aḥmed Taftázání on the other. To the first of these the Ottoman Sultan sent a gift of a thousand and to the second five hundred florins, accompanied by all manner of gracious and courtly compliments. ^399a It was at Constantinople, moreover, that Sulṭán Ḥusayn's son, Badí'u'z-Zamán, fleeing from the murderous Uzbeks, found a final refuge and a last resting-place.

Having described the waning of the House of Tímúr, we must, before tracing the growth of the Ṣafawí power,

Mention has been already made in a previous chapter of the important collection of State Papers connected with Contemporary State Papers the diplomacy of the Ottoman Empire which are contained in the Munshá'ât of Firídún Bey. ^400a A good many of these refer to the period we are now considering. Thus we have a letter to Sulṭán Báyazíd “the Thunderbolt” from Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'irí, written in 798/1396, describing his flight before Tímúr's advancing hordes, and the answer to it; numerous letters which passed between Sulṭán Muḥammad I (805-824/1402-1421) and Sháh-rukh, Qára Yúsuf, Iskandar and Sulṭán Khalíl of Shírwán; letters between Sulṭán Murád II (824-855/1421-1451) and Sháh-rukh; letters between Sulṭán Muḥammad II “Fátiḥ” (855-886/1451-1481) and Jahán-sháh, Ulugh Beg, Báysunqur, Bahman Sháh of India, Úzún Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr b. Bayqará; and later a voluminous correspondence with the Ṣafawí kings Sháh Isma'íl and Sháh Ṭahmásp. These letters are interesting not only for the light they throw on the historical events to which they refer, but as indicating the relations which prevailed between these rulers respectively. Thus, for example, in a letter from Sháh-rukh to the Ottoman Sulṭán Muḥammad I in 818/1416 the arrogance of tone is very noticeable, both in respect to the comparative poverty of titles accorded and the reproaches addressed to the Sulṭán for having put to death his rebellious brothers Sulaymán, Músá and 'Ísá, which, though “conformable to Ottoman practice,” is branded as “improper according to the Íl-khání custom”; and in the peremptory demand that Qára Yúsuf shall not be allowed to take refuge in Ottoman territory, should he seek to do so. Sulṭán Muḥammad's reply, on the other hand, in not only conciliatory in tone, but even humble. He accords to Sháh-rukh a whole string of high-sounding titles; apologizes for killing his brothers by quoting Sa'dí's well-known dictum that “ten dervishes can sleep in one blanket, but two kings cannot be contained in a continent”; ^401a and expresses his fear that if he exasperates Qára Yúsuf by refusing him entry into his dominions, he may endeavour to stir up trouble amongst the neighbouring rulers of the Qaramání, Ḥamídí, Isfandiyárí, Ṭúrghúdí and Dhu'l-Qadarí dynasties, and even with the Sulṭán of Egypt. In the case of the Ottoman Sulṭán and the “Black Sheep” Turkmán rulers, Qára Yúsuf and Qára Iskandar, on the other hand, the contrary holds good, the Sulṭán writing as to inferiors and the Turkmán princes as to a superior. The numerous letters and dispatches contained in this interesting volume would well repay a fuller examination than can here be accorded to them, but reference will be made to them from time to time, as occasion arises.^401b

Amír Iskandar Qára-qoyúnlú inaugurated his reign by an attack on Sháh-rukh, in which he was defeated, but soon Iskandar afterwards he re-occupied Ádharbáyján. In 828/1425 Shamsu'd-Dín, the ruler of Akhláṭ, and in 830/1427 Sultán Aḥmad the ruler of Kurdistán and 'Izzu'd-Dín Shír fell victims to his warlike prowess, and the towns of Shírwán and Sulṭániyya passed into his hands. In 832/1429 he and his brother Jahánsháh, in spite of the valour which they showed, were again defeated by Sháh-rukh. Six years later, in 838/1434-5, Sháh-rukh again advanced against Iskandar as far as Ray, where he was joined by Iskandar's brother Jahánsháh and his nephew Sháh 'Alí. Iskandar fled, and Sháh-rukh bestowed his territories on his brother Jahánsháh as a reward for his submission. Iskandar took refuge in a fortress, but while preparing to resist a siege he was murdered by his son Qubád, at the instigation of his concubine Laylá.

Jahánsháh, with the support and approval of Sháh-rukh, now succeeded to the throne vacated by his brother's death Jahánsháh in 839/1435-6, and considerably enlarged the realm which he had inherited. In 856/1452 he overran 'Iráq-i-'Ajam, made a massacre of the people of Iṣfahán, and invaded Fárs and Kirmán. In 862/1457-8 he conquered Khurásán, and in the month of Sha'bán in that year (June-July, 1458), was enthroned at Herát, and remained there for six months, when Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd, the great-grandson of Tímúr, prepared to attack him. At the same time news reached him that his son Ḥasan, who was imprisoned in Ádharbáyján, had escaped and was in rebellion against him, so he was compelled to make peace with Abú Sa'íd and hasten westwards at the average rate of twelve parasangs (some forty-five miles) a day, losing in this forced march 20,000 camels and 10,000 horses. Having subdued and expelled his son Ḥasan, he dismissed his other son Pír Budáq from the government of Fárs and transferred him to Baghdád, where he also shortly revolted. Jahánsháh thereupon besieged Baghdád for a whole year, and finally succeeded in killing Pír Budáq and replacing him by another son, Muḥammad Mírzá, after which he returned to Ádhar-báyján. His realms now extended from the Turkish frontier on the west to the two 'Iráqs, Kirmán and the shores of the Persian Gulf, thus including nearly the whole of Persia Jahánsháh killed by Úzún Ḥasan in A.D. 1467 except Khurásán and the Caspian provinces. In 871/1466-7 he attacked Ḥasan Báyandarí, better known as Úzún Ḥasan, intending to conquer his realm of Diyár Bakr, but was surprised and slain by the latter while tarrying behind his army on a hunting expedition. His two sons were taken prisoners and most of his principal nobles slain. This disaster is commemorated in the following verses:

“The army of Jahánsháh Bahádur Núyán, notwithstanding all the
materials of mastery and strength,
On the twelfth of the month of the second Rabí' perished, and the
date [of the year was] ‘Ḥasan Beg slew [him]’.”^403a

Of the character of Jahánsháh the Turkish historian Munajjim-báshí, from whom the above sketch of the Qára- Character of Jahánsháh qoyúnlú dynasty is taken, ^403b gives a most unfavourable account. According to this writer, he was “a dissolute, immoral, blood-thirsty tyrant, a malignant inclined to heresy and atheism, who paid no heed to the Sacred Law, passed his nights until dawn in revelry and vice, and slept like a dog during the day; for which reason he was called ‘the Bat.’” He died at the age of 70 after a reign of 32 years, was buried at Tabríz, and Ḥasan 'Alí was succeeded by Ḥasan 'Alí, the son whom he had cast off, and who had at one time been protected by Úzún Ḥasan. This son, whose mind is said to have been disordered by his captivity, reigned but a short while in Tabríz ere he was driven thence by Úzún Ḥasan to Hamadán, whither he was pursued and put to death by Úzún Ḥasan's son Oghúrlú Muḥammad in Extinction of the “Black Sheep” Dynasty 873/1468-9 873/1468-9. With him the Dynasty of the “Black Sheep,” or Qára-qoyúnlú, came to an end, and was replaced by that of the “White Sheep,” or Áq-qoyúnlú.

Diyár Bakr was the original centre of activity of the “White Sheep” or Báyandarí Turkmáns, of whose amírs

'Alí Beg was succeeded by his son Jahángír, who was soon displaced (857/1453) by his more resolute and capable Jahángír. Úzún Ḥasan (“Ussun Cassano” or “Assambei” of the Venetian ambassadors) brother Úzún Ḥasan (the “Ussun Cassano” or “Assambei” of Josafa Barbaro), who was by far the most powerful and celebrated of the “White Sheep” Dynasty. He was the grandson of “the Black Leech,” and succeeded to the throne at Ámid (Diyár Bakr) in the year mentioned above, which was the year in which the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople. To the fear inspired in Europe, and especially in Italy, by this fresh evidence of Ottoman power and prowess were due the efforts made by successive Venetian ambassadors to Persia to win the support of Úzún Ḥasan against the Turks, whom it was hoped he might harass on their Eastern frontier and so distract their attention from further conquests in the West. Thus once again since the Mongol Court at Qára-qorum had attracted emissaries from Rome with a similar object, the “Eastern Question” assumed a new importance, and the good will of Persia began to be assiduously sought after by European Powers. These Venetian ambassadors have left descriptions of their voyages and adventures which shed a welcome side-light on the condition of Persia and the character of Úzún Ḥasan, of whom Ramusio, in his Preface to Caterino Zeno's Travels, speaks in the highest terms, even declaring that “amongst all the kings of the East, who existed since the government was taken away from the Persians and transferred to the Greeks, there have been none who equalled the glory of Darius Hystaspes and Ussun Cassano.” “It is to be regretted,” he adds, “that some Eastern kings, great in power and intellect, have not had historians to celebrate their deeds, since among the Sultans of Egypt and among the Kings of Persia there have been men most excellent in war, and worthy not only of being compared with ancient barbarian kings famous in arms but even with the great Greek and Roman commanders in all those things which constitute able generals of armies.” ^405a He further speaks with admiration of “the manner in which this Ussun Cassano, a poor nobleman and the weakest in condition of many brothers,…not possessing more than thirty soldiers, besides a small castle, afterwards raised himself to such grandeur that he had the courage to dispute the empire of all Asia with the Ottoman House, which under Muḥammad II (A.D. 1451-1481) was a terror to the East.” Contarini, who was with Úzún Ḥasan in 1474-5,

No such vivid portrait of this remarkable man is to be found in the pages of any Oriental historian with whom I am acquainted, but the following estimate of his character by Munajjim-báshí is worth quoting:^406c

“He was a wise, just, brave, pious, religious and devout King, a friend of learned and godly men, charitable and a Munajjimbáshí's description of the same public benefactor. He built many buildings for pious uses. As has been mentioned, with but a small army he overcame two such mighty kings as Jahánsháh and Abú Sa'íd; took tribute from Georgia; and ruled over Ádharbáyján, the two 'Iráqs, Kirmán, Fárs, Diyár Bakr, Kurdistán and Armenia.”

Concerning his patronage of learned men the same historian remarks on the preceding page: “He adopted Úzún Ḥasan's patronage of men of letters Tabríz as his capital, and there assembled from the surrounding lands and provinces many learned men and doctors, who received favours and honours beyond anything which could be expected.” One of the most celebrated of those men of learning who received honour and rewards at his hands was 'Alí Qúshjí, who passed through his territories on his way home from the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Úzún Ḥasan, while still a young man and only Prince of Diyár Bakr, married a Christian wife, to wit the beautiful The Lady Despina Despina Khátún (“Lady Despina”), daughter of Kalo Joannes, ^407a the last Christian Emperor of Trebizond, of the noble family of the Comneni. She bore him a son and three daughters, one of whom, named Marta, was given in marriage to Shaykh Ḥaydar, the father of Sháh Isma'íl the founder of the Ṣafawí dynasty.

The fullest account of Úzún Ḥasan's reign to which I have had access is that contained in the Ṣaḥá'ifu'l-Akhbár of Munajjim-báshí, ^407b while another Turkish source from which much information is to be gleaned is the collection of State Papers (Munshá'át) of Firídún Bey, ^407c though the paucity of dates in the dozen despatches interchanged between Úzún Ḥasan and Sulṭán Muḥammad Fátiḥ (“the Conqueror”) is a matter for regret. The narratives of the Italian ambassadors and travellers already referred to are also of great value. The accounts of the Qára-qoyúnlú and Áq-qoyúnlú dynasties given by Mírkhwánd and other Persian historians are for the most part very meagre and inadequate.

The first three or four years of Úzún Ḥasan's reign (A.D. 1453-1456-7) were chiefly filled by repeated revolts of his brothers, especially Jahángír, against his authority. The scene of these struggles, which were repeatedly composed by Saráy Khátún, the mother of the contending brothers, lay for the most part outside Persia, round about Diyár Bakr, Mosul and especially Mardín, which suffered terrible devastation. Jahángír did not hesitate to invoke the help of the rival House of the “Black Sheep” Turkmáns, represented by Jahánsháh. ^408a Once during this period Úzún Ḥasan set out on an expedition against Khurásán, but was obliged to turn back to deal with a revolt organized by his brother Jahángír aided by Jahánsháh, who sent one of his generals, Rustam Beg, to his support. The rebels suffered a severe defeat at the hands of Úzún Ḥasan near the Euphrates, in which many of the fugitives were drowned, while five hundred prisoners, including Rustam Beg, were beheaded by Úzún Ḥasan, who, however, at the intercession of his mother, again pardoned his brothers Jahángír and Uways, but took 'Alí Khán, the son of the former, as a hostage to Erzinján.

After this victory (851/1456-7) Úzún Ḥasan's power and prestige were greatly increased, and many amírs of Asia Minor and Syria submitted to him. About 864/1459-60 he wrested from the Ayyúbí dynasty the fortress of Ḥiṣn Kayf, where he installed his son Khalílu'llah Mírzá as governor. In the same year Jahánsháh's son Ḥasan 'Alí rebelled against his father and took refuge with Úzún Ḥasan, who, however, after a while drove him away on account of certain heretical opinions ascribed to him. In or before A.D. 1461 Úzún Ḥasan sent his nephew Murád Bey ^408b on an Úzún Ḥasan sends an Embassy to the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad Fátiḥ embassy to the Ottoman Sulṭán Muḥammad II “the Conqueror” to request him not to molest his father-in-law Kalo Joannes, Emperor of Trebizond. To this request the Turkish Sulṭán paid no attention, but attacked and subdued Trebizond (where David Comnenas had recently succeeded his elder brother Kalo Joannes) and carried off this last representative of Byzantine power to Constantinople, where, according to Giovan Maria Angioletto, “he was treated honourably enough, but died before a year was over, in 1462.”^409a

The chronology of the wars waged by Úzún Ḥasan against the Ottoman Turks is somewhat confused. Munajjim-báshí speaks of a short contest immediately preceding Úzún Ḥasan's first invasion of Georgia in 871/1466-7, and of an embassy headed by Khurshíd Beg which he sent to Sulṭán Muḥammad II “the Conqueror” requesting him not to attack Trebizond, which, as we have seen, had already fallen to the Ottomans in A.D. 1461. On the first of Rabí' ii, 872 (Oct. 30, 1467), however, he defeated the “Black Sheep”

The second despatch from Úzún Ḥasan to “the Conqueror” (which, unfortunately, is undated) refers to the next important event in his career, namely the defeat of Jahán-sháh's son Ḥasan 'Alí at Marand. This prince, who, as already mentioned, had taken refuge with him some seven years previously, now attacked him to avenge the death of his father Jahánsháh. Úzún Ḥasan invoked the help of the Tímúrid Abú Sa'íd, urging the constant loyalty of his own House of the “White Sheep” to the House of Tímúr, and the disloyalty of the rival “Black Sheep.” He also offered, in return for help, to cede 'Iráq to Abú Sa'íd, provided he might keep Ádharbáyján. Abú Sa'íd, so far from accepting this proposal, immediately marched against Úzún Sulṭán Abú Sa'íd (“Busech” of the Venetians) taken prisoner and put to death by Úzún Ḥasan Ḥasan to avenge Jahánsháh's death, but was defeated and captured, together with his sons Muḥammad and Sháh-rukh, and handed over to Yádigár Muḥammad, who killed him to avenge the death of his grandmother Gawhar Shád Khátún. When the Venetian Contarini was received by Úzún Ḥasan in his palace at “Spaan” (Iṣfahán) on Nov. 6, 1474, he noticed “a painting, representing the decapitation of Soltan Busech (i.e. Abú Sa'íd), and showing how he was brought by a rope to execution by Curlumameth (i.e. Úzún Ḥasan's son Oghúrlu Muḥammad), who had caused the chamber to be made.” ^410a Abú Sa'íd's body was sent in the charge of his mother (who had also been captured) to Khur-ásán with all honour and respect. In the same despatch in which Úzún Ḥasan announces to Sulṭán Muḥammad “the Conqueror” the defeat and death of Ḥasan 'Alí and “some 3000 of his men,” he announces his capture of Ádhar-báyján, 'Iráq, Fárs and Kirmán, and his intention henceforth to fix his capital at Tabríz. This despatch appears to have been sent by the hands of an ambassador, Sayyid Aḥmad Ṭoghán-oghlu.

The third despatch from Úzún Ḥasan is still less respectful in its form of address than the preceding one, and is also undated. It mentions the arrival of an Ottoman envoy named Amír Bey, and then proceeds to narrate his negotiations and conflict with, and victory over the Tímúrid Sulṭán Ḥusayn [b. Manṣúr b.] Bayqará, and the manner in which he had divided up and assigned his domains. He also announces his conquest of Khurram-ábád in Luristán.

In a fourth despatch, also undated, in which the great Ottoman conqueror is insultingly addressed as the “most puissant Amír…Shamsu'd-Dín Muḥammad Bey,” while Shíráz, which he had recently conquered, is described as having become “the Seat of the Throne of Sovereignty and the Station of the Caliphate,” he further announces the subjugation of Khúzistán. This at last calls forth a reply which reveals a high degree of exasperation: the Ottoman “Sulṭán Muḥammad, son of Murád, son of Muḥammad, son of Báyazíd” addresses his arrogant correspondent as “thou,” warns him not to be puffed up by temporary good fortune, and threatens to march against him in the ensuing month of Shawwál. About the same time he despatched a letter to his son, Prince Muṣṭafá, governor of Qaramán, ordering him to attack Úzún Ḥasan, whom he describes as “deserving of the gibbet and the rope” (“mustaḥiqq-i-dár u rasan olán Úzún Ḥasan”); and to this letter we have Prince Muṣṭafá's reply, describing how, aided by his tutor Gedik Aḥmad Pasha, he defeated Úzún Ḥasan's army near Qonya on Saturday, 14th of Rabí' i, 877 (August 19, 1472), and killed his sons Yúsuf, Zaynal and 'Umar. The two last of this series of documents given by Firídún Bey ^411a contain Shaykh Áq Shamsu'd-Dín's interpretation of two dreams about Úzún Ḥasan, and are written in Arabic.

The accounts of Úzún Ḥasan's conflict with the Ottomans given by Caterino Zeno, ^411b Giovan Maria Angioletto, ^411c and Causes of hostility between the Ottoman government and Úzún Ḥasan the author of the Travels of a Merchant in Persia, ^411d in conjunction with those of Munajjim-báshí and 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán Sheref Bey, though not rich in chronological details, make the causes and course of the struggle pretty clear. Apart from the growing arrogance of Úzún Ḥasan, as revealed in the despatches to which reference is made above, the Ottoman Sultan had against his neighbour four principal causes of complaint, to wit: (1) his negotiations with Venice for a conjoined attack on Turkey from both East and West; (2) his attacks on Jahánsháh the “Black Sheep” Turkmán, whom he not only conquered but put to death, and on Sulṭán Ḥusayn Bayqará the Tímúrid, both of whom were in friendly relations with Sulṭán Muḥammad Fátiḥ; (3) his promise to support the Christian Emperor of Trebizond against Ottoman aggression; and (4) his protection of Pír Aḥmad (the “Pirameto” of Zeno) and other princes of the Qaramán dynasty, who were the ancient and bitter foes of the House of 'Osmán.

The ensuing war, which began in 877/1472-3 and ended in 878/1473-4, presented two phases, in the first of which War between Turks and Persians (A.D. 1472-4) the victory was to the Persians and in the second to the Turks. The first battle, which took place on the Euphrates near Malaṭya, was lost chiefly through the rashness of Murád Pasha Palaeologus, the young Beyler-bey of Rumelia (the “Asmu-rat” of Angioletto). Many Turks were drowned in the “whirlpools” of the river, besides those who were killed, and twelve thousand men, “among whom were several persons of note,” were missing when the muster was called in the evening. ^412a “Having suffered this defeat,” says Angioletto (who was with the Turkish army), “the Turk became very apprehensive, and determined to lead his army back to his country by the shortest route.” They therefore retired towards Trebizond, in a valley near which place a second great battle was fought towards the end of August, 1474, in which Defeat of Úzún Ḥasan by the Turks Úzún Ḥasan was decisively defeated and his son Zaynal killed, while much spoil fell into the hands of the victors. Prince Muṣṭafá distinguished himself greatly in this battle. “If Ussun Cassano had remained content with his first victory,” says Angioletto, “the Turk would have gone away ignominiously, and he would not have lost the territories he did.” ^412b “This battle,” says 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán Sheref Bey, ^412c “upset the cup of Úzún Ḥasan's fortune, and for twenty or thirty years assured the safety of the Sulṭán's eastern frontier.”

Úzún Ḥasan now retired to Tabríz, “where he caused games and rejoicings to be held, not caring much for his reverse, as he had lost none of his dominions.” His ease was, however, soon troubled by the rebellion of his son Oghúrlú Muḥammad, ^413a who seized Shíráz, and, on hearing that his father was advancing against him with a great army, fled to Constantinople, where he was received with much honour by the Ottoman Sulṭán, who promised “to make him king of Persia in the room of his father, who was his enemy.” Úzún Ḥasan, meeting filial ingratitude with cunning, first feigned illness and then caused a rumour of his death to be circulated.

“While thus dissembling,” says Angioletto, ^413b “a report was spread abroad to Constantinople that Ussun Cassano The stratagem whereby Úzún Ḥasan lures his son back to Persia and puts him to death had fallen dangerously ill from melancholy, on account of the rebellion of his son, and, a rumour of his having got worse having been whispered about, some of his most faithful adherents, as had been arranged, announced his death, while messengers were sent to Ugurlimehemet with letters and tokens, as is customary, giving information of the death of his father, and begging him to return and take possession of the throne before either of his brothers Halul or Jacob ^413c could do so. And in order to give greater semblance to the affair, funeral rites were paid, and his death was really believed in throughout the country. Ugurlimehemet having received three different messengers with secret messages, such as are used in affairs of state, thought it safe to go to Tauris. He arrived there in a few days with a small escort, and, on going to the palace to make himself sovereign, was taken to where his father was in perfect health, who ordered him to be confined, and afterwards put to death, without showing any consideration for his being his son.”

For his defeat by the Ottomans Úzún Ḥasan was in some degree compensated by a victory over the Egyptians, who had taken and ravaged 'Urfa, and a successful campaign in Georgia, from which he obtained a tribute of 16,000 ducats and the surrender of the city of Tiflis. He Sulṭán Khalíl finally died in 882/1477-8, and was succeeded by his son Khalíl, who, however, had only reigned six months when he was attacked and killed by his brother Ya'qúb ^414a near Khúy. This prince reigned for about thirteen years, in the course of which period he killed Ya'qúb's persecution of the Ṣafawís Shaykh Ḥaydar son of Shaykh Junayd the Ṣafawí (whose growing power and influence caused him alarm) and interned his children (including Isma'íl, the future founder of the Ṣafawí dynasty) at the old Sásánian capital of Iṣtakhr. Munajjim-báshí says that he built the beautiful summer palace of the Hasht Bihisht, or “Eight Paradises” (the “Astibisti” of the Venetians) outside Tabríz, but the Italian merchant-traveller ^414b ascribes its construction to Úzún Ḥasan. Finally, according to the same authority ^414c (for the fact is not mentioned by Mírkhwánd or Munajjim-báshí), he was poisoned by his wife under the following circumstances.

“He took as his wife a high-born lady, daughter of a Persian noble, but a most licentious woman: having fallen How Ya qúb was poisoned by his wife in love with a great lord of the Court, this wicked woman sought means to kill Jacob Sultan her husband, designing to marry her paramour and make him king, as, being closely related to Jacob, he would become so by right in default of children. Having arranged matters with him, she prepared an insidious poison for her husband, who, having gone into a perfumed bath, as was his custom, with his young son, aged eight or nine years, remained there from the twenty-second hour until sunset. On coming out he went into the harem, which was close to the bath, where he was met by his wicked wife with a cup and a gold vase containing the poison, which she had got ready while he was in the bath, knowing that it was his custom to have something to drink on coming out of the bath. She caressed him more than usual to effect her wicked purpose; but not having sufficient command over her countenance, became very pale, which excited the suspicion of Jacob, who had already began to distrust her from some of her proceedings. He then commanded her to taste it first, which, although she knew it was certain death, she could not escape and drank some; she then handed the gold cup to her husband Jacob, who, with his son, drank the rest. The poison was so powerful that by midnight they were all dead. The next morning the news was circulated of the sudden death of Jacob Sultan, his son and wife. The great lords, hearing of their king's decease, had quarrels among themselves, so that for five or six years all Persia was in a state of civil war, first one and then another of the nobles becoming Sultan. At last a youth named Alumut, aged fourteen years, was raised to the throne, which he held till the succession of Sheikh Ismail Sultan.”^415a

Munajjim-báshí describes Ya'qúb as “disposed to drink and a merry life, and very fond of poetry.” “Many poets,” he adds, “gathered at his court from all quarters, and com- Báysunqur b. Ya'qúb Rustam b. Maqṣúd posed resonant qaṣídas in his praise.” He was succeeded by his son Báysunqur, who reigned a year and eight months, when he was replaced by his cousin Rustam, the son of Maqṣúd. He marched against Badí'u'z-Zamán the Tímúrid, but ere a battle had taken place in Khurásán was compelled to turn his attention to Iṣfahán, the governor of which city had revolted against his authority. On his approach the governor fled to Qum, but was pursued and killed, and his severed head brought to Rustam. In the same year, 898/1492-3, he sent an expedition against Shírwán, which celebrated its success in the Tímúrian fashion by building pyramids of skulls. From these same Shírwánis, however, Báysunqur raised an army for the invasion of Ádharbáyján, whereupon Release of the Ṣafawí captives Rustam released Sulṭán 'Alí and the other Ṣafawí prisoners at Iṣtakhr and sent them to avenge the death of their father, Shaykh Ḥaydar, who had been slain by Báysunqur's father Ya'qúb. Sulṭán 'Alí and his followers were hospitably received at Tabríz by Rustam, and proceeded thence to Ahar, where they defeated and killed Báysunqur. Rustam, relieved of this anxiety, now grew jealous of Sulṭán 'Alí's increasing power and influence, and determined to destroy him. He sent one of his generals with 4000 horsemen after him, and a fierce battle ensued, wherein the Ṣafawís, though only 700 in number, fought valiantly—“like lions,” says Angioletto ^416a — but were eventually defeated and Sulṭán 'Alí slain, after nominating his young brother Isma'íl as his successor. He and his brother Ibráhím fled to Gílán and Mázandarán, and remained in hiding for some time at Láhíján and Lishta-Nishá, whence Ibráhím presently made his way in disguise to his mother at Ardabíl. Isma'íl remained in Gílán, pro- Activity of Isma'íl the Ṣafawi tected by its governor Kár Kiyá Mírzá 'Alí, and an active and successful Shí'ite propaganda was carried on amongst the inhabitants, amongst whom the number of “Ṣúfís of Láhiján” or “Red-heads” (Qizil-básh), as they were called, ^417a continued steadily to increase.

In 905/1499-1500 Isma'íl, then only thirteen years of age, ^417b marched forth on his career of conquest with the nine Beginning of Isma'íl's career of conquest tribes which owed him allegiance, to wit the Ustájlú, Shámlú, Takalú, Rúmlú, Wársáq, Dhu'l-Qadar, Afshár, Qájár, and the Ṣúfís of Qárabágh; and, after formally visiting the tombs of his illustrious ancestors at Ardabíl, and seeking the blessing of his aged mother, advanced by way of Qára-bágh, Gúkcha Deñiz and Erzinján on Shírwán. By this time news had spread abroad that the “Shaykh's son” was about to claim his rights, and his disciples flocked to his standard from Syria, Diyár Bakr and Síwás, so that he now found himself at the head of 7000 men. Crossing the river Kur he attacked Farrukh Yasár, the king of Shírwán and slayer of his father, near Gulistán in the neighbourhood of Shamákhá, killed him, completely routed his army, and occupied Shírwán, where he possessed himself of the royal treasure. He passed the winter at Maḥmúd-ábád near that place, and appointed the Amír Shamsu'd-Dín Zakariyyá his first Wazír, the theologian Shamsu'd-Dín Gílání his Chancellor (Ṣadr), and Ḥusayn Beg Shámlú and Abdál Beg his counsellors.

At this juncture, in 907/1501-2, when he had taken Bákú and was besieging the fortress of Gulistán, news reached The Battle of Shurúr him that Alwand Beg, son of Yúsuf Beg of the “White Sheep” Turkmán dynasty, had advanced against him to Nakhjuwán, whither he at once turned his victorious banners. A great battle took place at Shurúr, near Nakhjuwán, between the “White Sheep” Turk-máns, commanded by Amír 'Osmán ('Uthmán) of Mawṣil (Mosul), and the Ṣafawí army, commanded by Pírí Beg Qájár. The Turkmáns were utterly defeated and their general captured and put to death. Alwand Beg fled to Diyár Bakr, and Isma'íl occupied Tabríz, where he was crowned King. In the following year, 908/1502-3, he invaded 'Iráq and routed Murád Beg, the last ruler of the “White Sheep” dynasty, who fled to Shíráz, which, together with Kázarún, Kirmán and Yazd, submitted to the victorious Sháh Isma'íl Ṣafawí in the course of the next year or two. He spent the winter of A.D. 1504-5 at Iṣfahán, destined to become the glorious capital of the dynasty of which he had by now so truly and firmly laid the foundations, and here he received an ambassador from the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd II. The fuller history of the origin, development and decline of this great and truly national dynasty will form the subject of the next volume.

The relations between the Tímúrids and the Ṣafawís, first between Bábur and Sháh Isma'íl and later between Relations between Tímúrids and Ṣafawís Humáyún and Sháh Ṭahmásp, will also be more fully considered in the next volume. On the whole these relations were singularly friendly, in spite of the difference of doctrine which contributed so much to isolate Persia from her Sunní neighbours after the rise of the Ṣafawí power and the definite adoption of the Shí'a creed as the national faith. Bábur and Sháh Isma'íl were united by a common fear and hatred of Shay-bání Khán and his terrible Uzbeks, at whose hands the House of Tímúr suffered so much during its last days in Khurásán and Transoxiana. The years 1501-7 were marked by a series of triumphs on the part of Shaybání Khán, who successively seized Samarqand, Farghána, Táshkand, Khwárazm, and finally Khurásán. Sulṭán Ḥusayn, of whose brilliant court at Herát we have already spoken, died in 1506, and the weakness and lack of unity of his sons and younger kinsmen made them an easy prey to Shaybání Khán, who, in the course of 1507, succeeded in defeating and killing all of them with the exception of Sulṭán Ḥusayn's son Badí'u'z-Zamán, who fled for protection first to Sháh Isma'íl and later to the Ottoman court at Constantinople, where he died. In 1510, however, Sháh Isma'íl marched Sháh Isma'íl's victory over the Uzbeks at Merv into Khurásán against the Uzbeks and utterly defeated them at the battle of Merv. Shaybání Khán was amongst the slain. His body was dismembered and his limbs distributed amongst different cities; his skull, set in gold, was made into a drinking-cup for Sháh Isma'íl; the skin of his head, stuffed with straw, was sent to the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd at Constantinople; and one of his hands constituted the gruesome credentials of an envoy sent to one of his vassals, the ruler of Mázan-darán . ^419a Bábur's sister, Khán-záda Begum, who had fallen into the hands of the Uzbeks ten years before, was delivered from her long captivity by Sháh Isma'íl, and was sent with all honour to her brother, who in his Memoirs ^419b gives an interesting account of their meeting. Friendly embassies were interchanged between the two monarchs (for Bábur had already in 1508 formally assumed the title of Pádisháh or Emperor), and as Bábur's final abandonment of Trans-oxiana a year or two later, followed in 1526-9 by his successful invasion of India, which thenceforth became the seat of his government, removed all likelihood of friction between him and the Persians, the friendship thus formed was fairly stable, and was renewed in the next generation by Sháh Ṭahmásp's hospitality to Humáyún when he was temporarily expelled from his kingdom and driven into exile. Indeed the complaisance shown by Bábur towards the strong religious views of Sháh Isma'íl at one time considerably impaired his popularity amongst his subjects Literary intercourse between Persia and India during the Ṣafawí period beyond the Oxus, who then, as now, were remarkable for their extreme devotion to the Sunní doctrine, which Sháh Isma'íl relentlessly persecuted. ^419c Nor were the relations between Persia and India confined to their rulers, for during the whole Ṣafawí period, and even beyond it, we shall, in a subsequent volume, meet with a whole series of Persian poets, including some of the most eminent of later days, who emigrated from their own country to India to seek their fortune at the splendid court of the so-called Mogul Emperors, where, until the final extinction of the dynasty in the Indian Mutiny, Persian continued to hold the position not only of the language of diplomacy but of polite intercourse.

The literary and artistic wealth of the period now under review has been already summarily indicated in the pre- Enormous literary activity of this period ceding chapter, and it will be our business in this chapter to discuss in greater detail the work of some of its most eminent representatives in the world of letters. To attempt to treat, even in the briefest manner, of all its notable poets and men of learning would be impossible in any moderate compass. Thus the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar, a history specially valuable on account of the biographies of notable writers and poets added as an appendix to each reign or historical period, enumerates no less than 211 persons of this class who flourished during the Tímúrid period, of whom all save 23, who belong to the reign of Tímúr himself, represent the period now engaging our attention. ^421a The city of Herát during the reign of Sulṭán Abu'l-Ghází Ḥusayn (A.H. 878-912 = A.D. 1473-1506) may be regarded as the culminating point of this brilliant period, and it derives an additional importance from the great influence which it exercised on the development of Ottoman Turkish literature, a fact duly emphasized and fully illustrated by the late Mr E. J. W. Gibb in the second volume of his monumental History of Ottoman Poetry.

“This school,” he says (pp. 7-8), speaking of what he denotes as “the Second Period,” “which cultivated chiefly Influence of Jámí, Mír 'Alí Shír Nawá'í etc. on Ottoman Turkish literature lyric and romantic poetry, and which was distinguished by its love of artifice, reached its meridian in the latter half of the fifteenth century at the brilliant court of the scholarly and accomplished Sulṭán Ḥusayn [ibn] Bay-qará of Herát. Here its spirit and substance were gathered up and summarized in their manifold works by the two greatest men of letters of the day, the poet Jámí and the statesman Mír 'Alí Shír Nawá'í. As these two illustrious writers were the guiding stars of the Ottoman poets during the whole of the Second Period (A.D. 1450-1600), it will be well to look for a moment at their work.”

After a brief account of these two eminent men, and an admirable characterization of the school which they represent, Mr Gibb (pp. 12-13) summarizes its chief features as “subjectivity, artificialness, and conventionality, combined with an ever-increasing deftness of craftsmanship and brilliance of artistry.” “This all-absorbing passion for rhetoric,” he adds, “was the most fatal pitfall on the path of these old poets; and many an otherwise sublime passage is degraded by the obtrusion of some infantile conceit, and many a verse, beautiful in all else, disfigured by the presence of some extravagant simile or grotesque metaphor.”

The high esteem in which the poet Jámí was held in Turkey and at the Ottoman Court is proved by two Persian Jámí honoured by the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd II letters addressed to him by Sulṭán Báyazíd II (A.D. 1481-1512) and printed in the Munshá'át of Firídún Bey. ^422a The first, which is in a highly complimentary strain, was, as we learn from Jámí's answer, written “for no special reason and without the intervention of any demand, out of pure grace and favour, and sincere virtue and gratitude.” In his second letter Sulṭán Báyazíd expresses his gratification at receiving the poet's letter and informs him that he is sending a gift of one thousand florins, ^423a which gift is gratefully acknowledged by the poet in a second letter sent by the hand of a certain darwísh named Muḥammad Badakhshí, who, with some others, was setting out on the pilgrimage to Mecca. Unfortunately none of these four letters are dated. Two Other Persian men of letters honoured by Báyazíd II other Persian scholars, the philosopher Jalálu'd-Dín Dawání and the theologian Farídu'd-Dín Aḥmad-i-Taftázání, were similarly honoured by the same Sulṭán, but in the last case Taftázání took the initiative (October 25, 1505), while the Sulṭán's answer was not written until July 13, 1507. The great Nawá'í's influence in Turkey influence exerted on Ottoman poetry by Jámí's illustrious patron, the Minister Mír 'Alí Shír Nawá'í, who was equally distinguished in prose and poetry, both in Eastern Turkish and Persian, is emphasized by Mr E. J. W. Gibb; ^423b who also describes ^423c how A Turkish jurisconsult spends seven years in study at Shíráz the eminent Ottoman jurisconsult Mu'ayyad-záda 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán Chelebí (afterwards in the reign of Sulṭán Báyazíd II famous as a generous patron of letters and collector of books) being compelled in A.D. 1476-7 to flee from his country, spent seven years at Shíráz studying with the above-mentioned philosopher Jalálu'd-Dín Dawání. It was, in short, during this period which we are now considering that Persia began to exercise over Ottoman Turkish literature the profound influence which in the next period she extended to India.

From these general considerations we must now pass to a more particular examination of the most eminent prose writers of this period, deferring the consideration of the poets to another chapter.

In this, as in the preceding period, history and biography are well represented, and at least nine or ten writers on Historians and Biographers these subjects deserve at any rate a brief mention. Speaking generally they are distinctly inferior in quality to their predecessors in the Mongol period, for, while their style is often almost as florid as, though less ingenious than, that of Waṣṣáf-i-Ḥaḍrat, they fall far short of him in wealth of detail, breadth of treatment, and citation of documents of historic value, while they compare even more unfavourably with the great historical writers 'Alá'u'd-Dín 'Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní and Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍlu'lláh. We shall now consider them briefly in chronological order.

Almost all that is known about this historian, whose name is more familiar than his works, which remain un- Ḥáfiẓ Abrú published and are very rare even in manuscript, is contained in Rieu's Persian Catalogues. ^424a His proper name (though otherwise given elsewhere, as we shall presently see) is generally assumed to have been Khwája Núru'd-Dín Luṭfu'lláh. He was born in Herát, ^424b but in what year is not recorded, and educated in Hamadán. After the death of Tímúr, who showed him marked favour, he attached himself to the court of his son and successor Sháh-rukh, and of his grandson Prince Báysunqur, for whom he wrote his great history. This history, generally known as Zubdatu't-Tawárikh (“the Cream of Histories”) but called by Faṣíḥí of Khwáf Majma'u't-Tawáríkh as-Sulṭání (“the Royal Compendium of Histories”), was concluded in A.H. 829 or 830 (A.D. 1426 or 1427), ^425a only three or four years before the author's death. It comprised four volumes, of which, unfortunately, the third and fourth, dealing with the post-Muhammadan Persian dynasties down to the date of composition, appear to be lost. ^425b Manuscripts of the first and second volumes exist at St Petersburg and are fully described by Baron V. Rosen; ^425c a copy of vol. i, formerly in the collection of the Comte de Gobineau, is now in the British Museum and is numbered Or. 2774; and I myself possess a very fine copy of vol. ii (containing the history of Muḥammad and the Caliphate down to its extinction) dated Friday, 15 Sha'bán, 829 (June 22, 1426), and copied in Herát in the very year of the work's completion.

Besides this history, Ḥáfiẓ Abrú also compiled a great geographical work, of which the first volume is represented by a manuscript (Or. 1577) in the British Museum (fully described by Rieu), ^425d and another in St Petersburg. ^425e From this work, composed in 820-823/1417-1420 for Sháh-rukh Rieu has succeeded in gleaning many particulars of the author's life, and especially of his very extensive travels. He accompanied Tímúr in several of his campaigns, and was with him at the taking of Aleppo and Damascus in 803/1400-1401. When Sháh-rukh succeeded to the throne he settled down in Herát to a life of letters not later than 818/1415-1416, but died at Zanján while returning with the royal cavalcade from Ádharbáyján, and is buried there.

“Death of Mawláná Shihábu'd-Dín 'Abdu'lláh of Khwáf, ^426a known as Ḥáfiẓ Abrú, the compiler of the Royal Compendium of Histories, on Sunday the 3rd of Shawwál, at Sarjam, at the time of the return of His Supreme and Imperial Majesty from Ádharbáyjan. He is buried at Zanján near the tomb of the Divine Doctor Akhú Abi'l-Faraj-i-Zanjání .”^426b

Free use was made of the Zubdatu't-Tawáríkh by the author's younger contemporary 'Abdu'r-Razzáq of Samar-qand, of whom we shall shortly have to speak, and half of the geographical work mentioned above consists of a historical summary of post-Muhammadan Persian history, which becomes very detailed in the latter part, down to Ramaḍán 822 (October, 1419). The author's style, so far as can be judged from vol. ii of the Zubdatu't-Tawáríkh (the only portion of his work to which I have access) is very simple and direct, and it is greatly to be desired that his works, so far as they are available, should be published.

This notable historian and biographer is known to us only by one book, the Mujmal, or “Compendium” of Faṣíḥí of Khwáf History and Biography, of which, so far as I know, only three manuscripts exist. Of these three MSS. one, belonging to the Institut des Langues Orien-tales du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de St Pétersbourg is described by Baron V. Rosen, ^426c whose description is supplementary to the fuller and earlier one of Dorn. One of the two others belonged to the late Colonel Raverty, the Pushtú scholar, from whose widow it was purchased in 1907 by the trustees of the “E. J. W. Gibb Memorial.” The third was given to me by my excellent friend Mr Guy le Strange, who bought it from the late Sir Albert Houtum-Schindler. It is much more modern than the Raverty MS., but is accurate and well-written, and has a lacuna of only ten years (A.H. 834-844 = A.D. 1430-1440) instead of the hundred and twenty-two (A.H. 718-840 = A.D. 1318-1437) which are wanting in the other.

In 1915 the expatriated Belgian professors of oriental languages temporarily resident in Cambridge brought out Description of Faṣíḥí's Mujmal at the University Press there a number of the Muséon, to which, at their kind invitation, I contributed an article of thirty pages on this interesting work, with numerous extracts, based on the two English manuscripts, both of which were then in my keeping. The Mujmal, as I there pointed out, consists of an Introduction, two Discourses, and a Conclusion. The Introduction epitomizes the history of the world from its creation to the birth of the Prophet Muḥammad. The first Discourse continues the history down to the hijra, or flight of the Prophet from Mecca to al-Madína. The second Discourse, which is by far the largest and most important part of the book, contains the history of the years A.H. 1-845 (A.D. 622-1442). The Conclusion, which is unfortunately missing in all known manuscripts, contains an account of the city of Herát, the author's birth-place and home, and its history in pre-Muhammadan times.

All that we know of the author, Faṣíḥí of Khwáf, is derived from this book, and I have found no mention of Biography of Faṣíḥí him elsewhere. Rosen says that he was born in 777/1375-6, but I have not been able to verify this statement from the Mujmal. In 807/1404-5 he was employed with three other persons whom he names on business connected with the Treasury. In 818/1415-6 he accompanied Sháh-rukh to Shíráz to subdue the rebellious activities of the latter's nephew Prince Bayqará. In 825/1422 he was sent to Kirmán on business connected with the Treasury. In 827/1424 he returned thence to Bádghís. In 828/1424-5 he obtained favourable notice and State employment from Prince Báysunqur. Under the year 841/1437-8 he cites some verses by Shihábu'd-Dín 'Azízu'lláh of Khwáf commemorating the birth of a son on the 24th of Dhu'l-Ḥijja (June 18, 1438). In 842/1438-9 he mentions the birth of his grandson Mughíthu'd-Dín Abú Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Maḥmúd on the 10th of Dhu'l-Qa'da (April 24, 1439). In 843/1439-40 he had the misfortune to offend and to be imprisoned by Gawhar Shád Áqá, and he was again imprisoned in 845/ 1441-2, with which year the chronicle ends (though the date 849/1445 is mentioned in a verse with which one of the MSS. concludes), and it was apparently in that year, on the 15th of Dhu'l-Ḥijja (April 26, 1442), that he presented his book to Sháh-rukh.

The detailed account of Faṣíḥí's Mujmal which I published in the Cambridge number of the Muséon to which Characteristics of Faṣíḥí's Mujmal reference has been already made absolves me from the necessity of enlarging on its contents in this place. Its two chief features are a great simplicity of style and a special attention to matters of literary interest. ^428a It is arranged in the form of a chronicle the events of each year, including the deaths of eminent persons of all sorts, being grouped together under that year, and in the necrological part it is remarkable how large is the proportion of poets and men of letters, more especially, of course, of such as belonged to Khurásán and Transoxiana. Moreover it is evident that Faṣíḥí drew his information to a large extent from sources other than those employed by later and better known biographers and historians, which fact gives a special value to his work.

Though born at Herát in 816/1413, ^428b 'Abdu'r-Razzáq is called “of Samarqand,” which was the native place of his father Mawláná Jalálu'd-Dín Isḥáq, a judge and chaplain in Sháh-rukh's army. At the age of 25, in 841/1437-8, after his father's death, 'Abdu'r-Razzáq attracted the notice of 'Abdu'r-Razzáq of Samarqand that monarch by a grammatical treatise which he had composed and dedicated to him. Four years later, in 845/1441-2, he was sent to India on a special mission to the king of Bíjánagar, which lasted three years, and of which he gives a detailed narrative in his history. In 850/1446-7 he was sent on a mission to Gílán; and, on the death of Sháh-rukh in this same year, he was successively attached to the service of Mírzá 'Abdu'l-Laṭíf, 'Abdu'lláh, Abu'l-Qásim Bábur, and lastly of Abú Sa'íd. He afterwards retired into private life, became Shaykh of the monastery or Khánqáh of Sháh-rukh in Herát in 867/1463, and died there in 887/1482. All these particulars are taken from Rieu's Persian Catalogue, ^429a and are for the most part derived either from the historian's own statements or from the notice of him contained in the Ḥabíbu's-Siyar. ^429b The fullest account of his life and work is that given by Quatremère in the Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, ^429c and other references will be found in Rieu's Catalogue.

So far as is known, 'Abdu'r-Razzáq produced only one great work, to wit the history entitled Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn

Manuscripts of the Maṭla'u's-Sa'dayn, though not very common, are to be found in most large collections, and, so Value of the Maṭla'u'sSa'dayn, and need of an edition far as I have seen, are generally above the average in point of excellence and accuracy. ^430b The work, though based to a considerable extent on the Zubdatu't-Tawáríkh of Ḥáfiẓ Abrú, is of great importance, and a critical edition of it is much needed, for it deals in a very detailed manner with a very important period of Persian history, and is the work of one who wrote at first hand and took an active part in many of the events which he describes.

Mu'ínu'd-Dín-i-Isfizárí is chiefly notable on account of his monograph on the history of Herát entitled Rawḍatu'l-