A literary history of Persia - The Literary History of Persia, Volume 4

Only after much hesitation and several tentative experiments have I decided to endeavour to compress into one chapter two centuries of Persian history. Were this book primarily intended as a political history of Persia, such an attempt would be out of the question; for this long period witnessed the Afghán invasion and its devastations; the rise, meteoric career, and sudden eclipse of that amazing conqueror Nádir Sháh; the emergence in a world of chaos and misery of Karím Khán-i-Zand, generally accounted the best ruler whom Persia ever possessed, and of his gallant but unfortunate successor Luṭf-'Alí Khán; the establishment of the still reigning Qájár dynasty, and within that period the occurrence, amidst many other important events, of two remarkable phenomena (the rise and growth of the Bábí religious movement since 1844, and the political Revolution of 1906) which profoundly affected the intellectual life and literary development of Persia, each one of which might well form the subject of a lengthy monograph rather than a chapter. This book, however, is written not from the political but from the literary point of view, and the historical part of it is only ancillary, and might have been omitted entirely if a knowledge of even the general outlines of Oriental history formed part of the mental equipment of most educated Europeans. From this point of view much fuller treatment is required for periods of transition, or of great intellectual activity, than for periods of unproductive strife not so much of rival ideas and beliefs as of conflicting ambitions. To the latter category belongs the greater part of the two centuries which must now engage our attention. During this period the literary language (which, indeed, had become fixed at any rate in the fourteenth century, so that the odes of Ḥáfiẓ, save for their incomparable beauty, might have been written but yesterday) underwent no noticeable change; few fresh forms of literary expression were developed until the middle of the nineteenth century; and few fresh ideas arose to modify the Shí'a frenzy of Ṣafawí times until the rise of the Bábí doctrine in A.D. 1844, of which, however, the literary effects were less considerable than those of the Revolution of 1906. Moreover excellent and detailed accounts of the Afghán invasion, of Nádir Sháh, and of the earlier Qájár period already exist in English, several of which have been mentioned at the end of the preceding chapter; ^122a these could hardly be bettered, and would only be marred by such abridgment as would be necessary to fit them into the framework of this book. Hence I have deemed it best to limit myself in this chapter to a brief outline of the more salient events of these last two centuries.

Unlike the Arabs, Mongols, Tartars and Turks, who were instrumental in effecting previous subjections of Persia by Character of the Afgháns. foreign arms, the Afgháns are, apparently, an Íránian and therefore a kindred race, though differing materially in character from the Persians. The Persian language is widely spoken in their wild and mountainous country, while in their own peculiar idiom, the Pushtô, James Darmesteter saw the principal survivor of the language of the Avesta, the scripture of the Zoroastrians. They are a much fiercer, hardier, and more warlike people than the Persians, less refined and ingenious, and fanatical Sunnís, a fact sufficient in itself to explain the intense antagonism which existed between the two nations, and enabled the Afgháns to give to their invasion of Persia the colour of a religious war.

In A.D. 1707 Qandahár, a constant bone of contention between the Ṣafawí kings of Persia and the “Great Moghuls”

Having sown this seed of suspicion and completely ingratiated himself with the Persian Court, Mír Ways Mír Ways at Mecca. sought and obtained permission to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca. While there he took another important step for the furtherance of his designs. He sought from the leading ecclesiastical authorities a fatwá, or legal opinion, as to whether the orthodox Sunní subjects of a heretical (i.e. Shí'a) Muslim ruler were bound to obey him, or were justified, if occasion arose, in resisting him, if necessary by force of arms. The decision, which supported the latter alternative and so accorded with his designs, he carried back with him to Iṣfahán and subsequently to Qandahár, whither he was permitted to return, with strong recommendations to Gurgín Khán, in 1709. There he soon organized a conspiracy against the latter, and, taking advantage of the temporary absence of a large part of the Persian garrison on some expedition in the neighbourhood, he and his followers fell on the remainder when they were off their guard, killed the greater number of them, including Gurgín Khán, and took possession of the city. It was at this juncture that the fatwá obtained at Mecca proved so useful to Mír Ways, for by it he was able to overcome the scruples of the more faint-hearted of his followers, who were at first inclined to shrink from a definite repudiation of Persian suzerainty, but who now united with the more hot-headed of their countrymen in electing Mír Ways “Prince of Qandahár and General of the national troops.”^124a

Several half-hearted attempts to subdue the rebellious city having failed, the Persian Government despatched Success of the rebels. Khusraw Khán, nephew of the late Gurgín Khán, with an army of 30,000 men to effect its subjugation, but in spite of an initial success, which led the Afgháns to offer to surrender on terms, his uncompromising attitude impelled them to make a fresh desperate effort, resulting in the complete defeat of the Persian army (of whom only some 700 escaped) and the death of their general. Two years later, in A.D. 1713, another Persian army commanded by Rustam Khán was also defeated by the rebels, who thus secured possession of the whole province of Qandahár.

Mír Ways, having thus in five or six years laid the foundations of the Afghán power, died in A.D. 1715, and was succeeded by his brother Mír 'Abdu'lláh, whose disposition Mír Ways succeeded by his son Mír Maḥmúd. to accept, under certain conditions, Persian suzerainty led to his murder by his nephew Mír Maḥmúd, son of Mír Ways, who was forthwith proclaimed king. The weakness of the Persian government thus becoming apparent, others were Other revolts against Persia. led to follow the example of the Afgháns of Qandahár. Amongst these were the Abdálí Afgháns of Herát, the Uzbeks of Transoxiana, the Kurds, the Lazgís and the Arabs of Baḥrayn, and though the Persian General Ṣafí-qulí Khán with 30,000 troops succeeded in defeating an Uzbek army of 12,000 he was immediately afterwards defeated by the Abdáli Afgháns.

In A.D. 1720 Mír Maḥmúd assumed the aggressive, crossed the deserts of Sístán, and attacked and occupied Kirmán,

The fatal year 1722 began with the second siege and capture of Kirmán by Mír Maḥmúd. The most remarkable Zoroastrians join Afgháns. incident connected with this was that he was joined by a number of “guebres” (gabr), ^126a the small remnant of the Persians who still profess the ancient religion of Zoroaster, and who exist in any number only in the cities of Kirmán and Yazd and the intervening region of Rafsinján with its chief town Bahrám-ábád. Why these people should have attached themselves to foreign Muslims to make war on their Muslim compatriots it is hard to understand, unless the fanaticism of the Shí'a divines was responsible for driving them into this extraordinary course. Still more remarkable, if true, is Hanway's statement that they provided Mír Maḥmúd with one of his best generals, who, though he bore the Muhammadan name of Naṣru'lláh, was, according to the same authority, ^126b “a worshipper of fire, since there were two priests hired by the Sultan who kept the sacred flame near his tomb.”

From Kirmán Mír Maḥmúd marched by way of Yazd, which he attempted but failed to take by storm, to Iṣfahán,

The battle of Gulnábád, fought between the Persians and the Afgháns on Sunday, March 8, 1722, decided the fate of Battle of Gulnábád, March 8, 1722. the Ṣafawí dynasty as surely as did the battle of Qádisiyya in A.D. 635 that of the Sásánians, or the conflict between the Caliph's troops and the Mongols outside Baghdád in A.D. 1258 that of the 'Abbásids. Between these three battles, moreover, there A curious parallel. was a remarkable point of similarity in the splendour and apparent strength of the defenders and the squalor and seeming weakness of their assailants. The similarity in this respect between the battles of Qádisiyya and Baghdád has been noticed in a well-known passage of the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí, ^127a to which the following account of the battle of Gulnábád by Hanway ^127b forms a remarkable parallel:

“The sun had just appeared on the horizon when the armies began to observe each other with that curiosity so natural on these dreadful occasions. The Persian army just come out of the capital, being composed of whatever was most brilliant at court, seemed as if it had been formed rather to make a show than to fight. The riches and variety of their arms and vestments, the beauty of their horses, the gold and precious stones with which some of their harnesses were covered, and the richness of their tents contributed to render the Persian camp very pompous and magnificent.

“On the other side there was a much smaller body of soldiers, disfigured with fatigue and the scorching heat of the sun. Their clothes were so ragged and torn in so long a march that they were scarce sufficient to cover them from the weather, and, their horses being adorned with only leather and brass, there was nothing glittering about them but their spears and sabres.”

These three great and decisive battles resembled one another in several respects. In each case a great historic The Arab, Mongol and Afghán invasion of Persia compared and contrasted. dynasty, the extent of whose inward decay was masked by its external splendour, and apparent, because hitherto unchallenged, strength and supremacy, collapsed before the fierce onslaught of a hardy and warlike folk, hitherto hardly known, or accounted as little better than barbarians; and in each case the more or less prolonged process of degeneration which rendered the final catastrophe not only possible but inevitable is fairly obvious to subsequent historians, even if its extent and significance were not realized until the fatal touchstone was applied. The results, however, differed widely according to the character and abilities of the assailants. The Arab invaders of the seventh century established an Empire which endured for six centuries and effected a profound and permanent change in the lands and peoples whom they brought under their sway. The Mongol conquests were even more extensive, reaching as they did from China and Thibet to Germany and Russia, but the cohesion and duration of the vast Empire which they created were far inferior. The Afghán conquest, with which we are now concerned, was little more than an extensive and destructive raid, resulting in some seventy-five years of anarchy (A.D. 1722-1795), illuminated by the meteoric career of that Napoleon of Persia, Nádir Sháh, and ending in the establishment of the actually reigning dynasty of the Qájárs. The actual domination of the Afgháns over Persia only endured for eight or nine years.^128a

Seven months elapsed after the battle of Gulnábád before the final pitiful surrender, with every circumstance Prince Ṭahmásp escapes from Iṣfahán to Qazwín. of humiliation, of the unhappy Sháh Ḥusayn. In that battle the Persians are said to have lost all their artillery, baggage and treasure, as well as some 15,000 out of a total of 50,000 men. On March 19 Mír Maḥmúd occupied the Sháh's beloved palace and pleasure-grounds of Faraḥábád, situated only three miles from Iṣfahán, which henceforth served as his headquarters. Two days later the Afgháns, having occupied the Armenian suburb of Julfá, where they levied a tribute of money and young girls, attempted to take Iṣfahán by storm, but, having twice failed (on March 19 and 21), sat down to blockade the city. Three months later Prince Ṭahmásp Mírzá, who had been nominated to succeed his father, effected his escape from the beleaguered city to Qazwín, where he attempted, with but small success, to raise an army for the relief of the capital.

Soon after this, famine began to press heavily on the people, who clamoured to be led against the besiegers,

At the end of September, 1722, Sháh Ḥusayn offered to surrender himself and his capital to the Afghán invader,

Ṭahmásp was now reduced to the miserable expedient of invoking the help of Russia and Turkey, who had already Ṭahmásp seeks help from Russia and Turkey. fixed covetous eyes on the apparently moribund Persian kingdom and had occupied Gílán and Tiflís respectively. On September 23, 1723, a treaty was signed whereby, in return for the expulsion of the Afgháns and the restoration of his authority, Ṭahmásp undertook to cede to Russia the Caspian provinces of Gílán, Mázandarán and Gurgán, and the towns of Bákú, Darband and their dependencies. Soon afterwards the Turks took Erivan, Nakhjuwán, Khúy and Hamadán, but were repulsed from Tabríz. On July 8, 1724, an agreement for the partition of Persia was signed between Russia and Turkey at Constantinople .^130a

Meanwhile Mír Maḥmúd was continuing his cruelties at Iṣfahán. In A.D. 1723 he put to death in cold blood some Cruelties committed by Afgháns. three hundred of the nobles and chief citizens, and followed up this bloody deed with the murder of about two hundred children of their families. He also killed some three thousand of the deposed Sháh's body-guard, together with many other persons whose sentiments he mistrusted or whose influence he feared. In the following year (A.D. 1724) the Afghán general Zabardast Khán succeeded, where his predecessor Naṣru'lláh ^130b had failed and fallen, in taking Shíráz; and towards the end of the year Mír Maḥmúd prepared to attack Yazd, which had hitherto remained unsubdued. The Muslim inhabitants of that town, fearing that the numerous Zoroastrians dwelling in it might follow the example of their co-religionists of Kirmán and join the Afgháns, killed a great number of them.

About this time Mír Maḥmúd, alarmed at the increasing insubordination of his cousin Ashraf, and, we may hope,

The death of Peter the Great about this period made Russia slightly less dangerous as a neighbour, but the Turks Death of Peter the Great, and Turkish invasion of Persia. continued to press forwards and on August 3, 1725, succeeded at last in capturing Tabríz. They even advanced to within three days' march of Iṣfahán, but turned back before reaching it. They subsequently (A.D. 1726) took Qazwín and Marágha, but were defeated by Ashraf near Kirmán-sháh. Negotiations for peace were meanwhile in progress at Constantinople, whither Ashraf had sent an ambassador named 'Abdu'l-'Azíz Khán, whose arrogant proposal that his master should be Caliph of the East and the Ottoman Sulṭán Caliph of the West caused great umbrage to the Negotiations between Turks and Afgháns. Porte. The war, however, was very unpopular with the Turkish soldiers and people, who failed to see why they should fight fellow-Sunnís in order to restore a heretical Shí'a dynasty, though the 'ulamá were induced to give a fatwá in favour of this course, on the ground that a divided Caliphate was incompatible with the dignity or safety of Islám. Finally, however, a treaty of peace was concluded and signed at Hamadán in September, 1727.^132a

This danger had hardly been averted when a far greater one, destined in a short time to prove fatal to the Afgháns,

Meanwhile Ashraf, having taken Yazd and Kirmán, marched into Khurásán with an army of thirty thousand Defeat of Ashrat at Dámghán. men to give battle to Ṭahmásp, but he was completely defeated by Nádir on October 2 at Dámghán. Another decisive battle was fought in the following year at Múrchakhúr near Iṣfahán. The Iṣfahán evacuated and Sháh Ḥusayn murdered by Afgháns. Afgháns were again defeated and evacuated Iṣfahán to the number of twelve thousand men, but, before quitting the city he had ruined, Ashraf murdered the unfortunate ex-Sháh Ḥusayn, and carried off most of the ladies of the royal family and the King's treasure. When Ṭahmásp II entered Iṣfahán on December 9 he found only his old mother, who had escaped deportation by disguising herself as a servant, and was moved to tears at the desolation and desecration which met his eyes at every turn. Nádir, having finally induced Ṭahmásp to empower him to levy taxes on his own Defeat of Afgháns near Persepolis and death of Ashraf (A.D. 1730). authority, marched southwards in pursuit of the retiring Afgháns, whom he overtook and again defeated near Persepolis. Ashraf fled from Shíráz towards his own country, but cold, hunger and the unrelenting hostility of the inhabitants of the regions which he had to traverse dissipated his forces and compelled him to abandon his captives and his treasure, and he was finally killed by a party of Balúch tribesmen. Thus ended the disastrous period of Afghán dominion in Persia in A.D. 1730, having lasted eight years.

Although it was not until A.D. 1736 that Nádir deemed it expedient to take the title of King, he became from A.D. 1730 onwards the de facto ruler of Persia. Of his humble origin and early struggles it is unnecessary to speak here; they will be found narrated as fully as the circumstances permit in the pages of Hanway, Malcolm and other historians of Persia. Sháh Ṭahmásp was from Incapacity of Ṭahmásp. the first but a roi fainéant, and his only serious attempt to achieve anything by himself, when he took the field against the Turks in A.D. 1731, resulted in a disastrous failure, for he lost both Tabríz and Hamadán, and in January, 1732, concluded a most unfavourable peace, whereby he ceded Georgia and Armenia to Turkey on condition that she should aid him to expel the Russians from Gílán, Shírwán and Darband. Nádir, greatly incensed, came to Iṣfahán in August, 1732, and, having by a stratagem seized and imprisoned Ṭahmásp, proclaimed his infant son (then only six months old) as 'Abbas III proclaimed King. king under the title of Sháh 'Abbás III, and at once sent a threatening letter to Aḥmad Páshá of Baghdád, which he followed up by a declaration of war in October.

In April of the following year (1733) Nádir appeared before Baghdád, having already retaken Kirmánsháh, with Further successes of Nádir. an army of 80,000 men, but suffered a defeat on July 18, and retired to Hamadán to recruit and recuperate his troops. Returning to the attack in the autumn he defeated the Turks on October 26 in a great battle wherein the gallant and noble-minded Ṭopál 'Osmán ('Uthmán) was slain. Having crushed a revolt in favour of the deposed Sháh Ṭahmásp in Fárs, he invaded Georgia in 1734, took Tiflís, Ganja and Shamákhí, and obtained from Russia the retrocession of Gílán, Shír-wán, Darband, Bákú and Rasht. In the following year (1735) he again defeated the Turks near Erivan, and captured that city and Erzeroum.

On the following Nawrúz, or Persian New Year's day (March 21, 1736), Nádir announced to the assembled army Nádir proclaimed King. and deputies of the nation the death of the infant Sháh 'Abbás III and invited them to decide within three days whether they would restore his father, the deposed Sháh Ṭahmásp, or elect a new king. His own desire, which coincided with that of most of his officers and soldiers, was evident, and, the unwilling minority being overawed, the crown of Persia was unanimously offered to him. He agreed to accept it on three conditions, namely: (1) that it should be made hereditary in his family; (2) that there should be no talk of a restoration of the Ṣafawís, and that no one should aid, comfort, or harbour any member of that family who might aspire to the throne; and (3) that the cursing of the first three Caliphs, the mourning for the death of the Imám Ḥusayn, and other distinctive practices of the Shí'a should be abandoned. This last condition was the most distasteful to the Persians, and the chief ecclesiastical authority, being asked his opinion, had the courage to denounce it as “derogatory to the welfare of the true believers”—a courage which cost him his life, for he was immediately strangled by Nádir's orders. Not content with this, Nádir, on his arrival at Qazwín, confiscated the religious endowments (awqáf) for the expenses of his army, to whom, he said, Persia owed more than to her hierarchy. Towards the end of the year he concluded a favourable treaty with Turkey, by which Persia recovered all her lost provinces; and in December he set out at the head of 100,000 men against Afghánistán and India, leaving his son Riḍá-qulí as regent.

The next two years (A.D. 1737-9) witnessed Nádir Sháh's greatest military achievement, the invasion of India, capture Nádir's Indian campaign (A.D. 1737-1739). of Lahore and Delhi, and return home with the enormous spoils in money and kind which he exacted from the unfortunate Indians, and which Hanway ^136a estimates at £87,500,000. Having taken Qandahár, Kábul and Peshawur in 1738, he crossed the Indus early in the following year, captured Lahore, and in February, 1739, utterly defeated the Indian army of Muḥammad Sháh, two hundred thousand strong, on the plains of Karnál. Delhi was peaceably occupied, but a few days later a riot occurred in which some of Nádir's soldiers were killed, and he avenged their blood by a general massacre of the inhabitants which lasted from 8 a.m. until 3 p.m., and in which 110,000 persons perished. He never dreamed of holding India, and, having extorted the enormous indemnity mentioned above and left the unhappy Muḥam-mad Sháh in possession of his throne, with a threat that he would return again if necessary, he began his homeward march in May, turning aside to chastise the predatory Uzbeks of Khiva and Bukhárá, which latter town he captured on November 28, 1739.

During the absence of Nádir Sháh his son Riḍá-qulí had put to death the unfortunate Ṭahmásp and most of his Nádir's son Riḍá-qulí rebels and is blinded. family at Sabzawár, and began to show signs of desiring to retain the powers with which he had been temporarily invested by his father. Being suspected of instigating an unsuccessful attempt on Nádir's life, he was deprived of his eyesight, but with this cruel act the wonderful good fortune which had hitherto accompanied Nádir's views on religion. Nádir began to desert him. His increasing cruelty, tyranny, avarice and extortion, but most of all, perhaps, his attempt to impose on his Persian subjects the Sunní doctrine, made him daily more detested. His innovations included the production of Persian translations of the Qur'án and the Gospels. The latter, on which several Christians were employed, he caused to be read aloud to him at Ṭihrán, while he commented on it with derision, and hinted that when he found leisure he might (perhaps after the model of Akbar) produce a new religion of his own which should supplant alike Judaism, Christianity and Islám. ^137a His military projects, moreover, began to miscarry; his campaign against the Lazgís in A.D. 1741-2 did not prosper, and in the war with Turkey in which he became involved in 1743 he was unsuccessful in his attempt to take Mosul (Mawṣil). Revolts which broke out in Fárs and Shírwán were only suppressed with difficulty after much bloodshed. However he put down a rebellion of the Qájárs at Astarábád in A.D. 1744, defeated the Turks in a great battle near Erivan in August, 1745, and concluded a satisfactory peace with them in 1746. In the following year Nádir Sháh visited Kirmán, which suffered much from his cruelties and exactions, and thence proceeded to Mashhad, where he arrived at the end of May, 1747. Here he conceived the abominable plan of killing all his Persian officers and soldiers (the bulk of his army being Turkmáns and Uzbeks and consequently Sunnís), but this project was made known by a Georgian slave to some of the Persian officers, who thereupon decided, in the picturesque Persian phrase, “to breakfast off him ere he should sup off them.” A certain Ṣáliḥ Beg, aided by four trusty men, undertook the task, ^137b and, entering his tent by night, rid their country of one who, though he first Assassination of Nádir (June 20, 1747). appeared as its deliverer from the Afghán yoke, now bade fair to crush it beneath a yoke yet more intolerable. At the time of his death Nádir Sháh was sixty-one years of age and had reigned eleven years and three months (A.D. 1736-47). He was Chaos succeeding Nádir's death. succeeded by his nephew 'Alí-qulí Khán, who assumed the crown under the title of 'Ádil Sháh, but was defeated and slain by his brother Ibráhím in the following year. He in turn was killed a year later (A.D. 1749) by the partisans of Nádir's grandson Sháhrukh, the son of the unfortunate Riḍá-qulí and a Ṣafawí princess, the daughter of Sháh Husayn, who now succeeded to the throne. Youth, beauty and a character at once amiable and humane ^138a did not, however, secure him against misfortune, and he was shortly after his accession deposed and blinded by a certain Sayyid Muḥammad, a grandson on the mother's side of the Ṣafawí Sháh Sulay-mán II. He in turn soon fell a victim to the universal violence and lawlessness which now prevailed in Persia, and Sháhrukh was restored to the throne, but again deposed and again restored to exercise a nominal rule at Mashhad over the province of Khurásán, which Aḥmad Khán Abdálí (afterwards famous as Aḥmad Sháh Durrání, the founder of the modern kingdom of Afghánistán) desired, before leaving Persia, to erect into a buffer state between that country and his own. The remainder of the blind Sháhrukh's long reign was uneventful, and he survived until A.D. 1796, having reigned nearly fifty years.

“The history of Persia,” says Sir John Malcolm, ^139a “from the death of Nádir Sháh till the elevation of Áqá Muḥammad Virtues of Karím Khán-i-Zand. Khán, the founder of the reigning family, presents to our attention no one striking feature except the life of Karím Khán-i-Zand. The happy reign of this excellent prince, as contrasted with those who preceded and followed him, affords to the historian of Persia that description of mixed pleasure and repose which a traveller enjoys who arrives at a beautiful and fertile valley in the midst of an arduous journey over barren and rugged wastes. It is pleasing to recount the actions of a chief who, though born in an inferior rank, obtained power without crime, and who exercised it with a moderation that was, in the times in which he lived, as singular as his humanity and justice.”

Karím Khán, however, who fixed his capital at Shíráz, which he did so much to beautify and where he is still Karím Khán's two rivals. gratefully remembered, never ruled over the whole of Persia and never assumed the title of Sháh, but remained content with that of Wakíl, or Regent. Originally he and a Bakhtiyárí chief named 'Alí Mardán Khán were the joint regents of “a real or pretended grandson of Sháh Ḥusayn” ^139b in whose name they seized Iṣfahán, where they placed him on the throne. Before long they fell out; 'Alí Mardán Khán was killed; and Karím Khán became the de facto ruler of Southern Persia. His rivals were the Afghán chief Ázád in Ádharbáyján and the North-west, and in the Caspian provinces Muḥammad Ḥasan the Qájár, son of that Fatḥ-'Alí Khán who was murdered by Nádir at the outset of his career, and father of Aqá Muḥammad Khán, the actual founder of the Qájár dynasty.

Ázád was the first to be eliminated from this triangular contest. He defeated Karím Khán and compelled him to Elimination of Ázád the Afghán. evacuate not only Iṣfahán but Shíráz, but, rashly pursuing him through the narrow defile of Kamárij, fell into an ambush, lost most of his followers, and finally, having sought refuge first with the Páshá of Baghdád and then with Heraclius, Prince of Georgia, “threw himself upon the generosity of Karím Khán, who received him with kindness, promoted him to the first rank among his nobles, and treated him with so generous a confidence that he soon converted this dangerous rival into an attached friend.”^140a

In A.D. 1757, about four years after the battle of Kamárij, Karím Khán had to face a fierce onslaught by his other Karím Khán defeats his Qájár rival. rival, Muḥammad Ḥasan Khán the Qájár, who, after a striking initial success, was finally driven back into Mázandarán, where he was eventually defeated and killed in A.D. 1760 by Karím Khán's general Shaykh 'Alí Khán. From this time until his death in the spring of 1779 Karím Khán practically ruled over the whole of Persia except Khurásán, where the blind and harmless Sháhrukh exercised a nominal sovereignty. The chief Baṣra taken by Persians. military exploit of his reign was the capture of Baṣra from the Turks in 1776, effected by his brother Ṣádiq, who continued to administer it until Karím's death, when he relinquished it to the Turks in order to take part in the fratricidal struggle for the Persian crown. ^140b

Mírza 'Aqíl Karím Khán-i-Zand
Ibráhím Khán Isma'íl Khán
Mírzá Mahdí Mírzá Ja'far Wazír Ázád Khán Afghán
Add. 24904 (Brit. Mus.), inside cover
To face p. 140

“The most important, if we consider its ultimate consequences, of all the events which occurred at the death of Death of Karím Khán and flight of Áqá Muḥammad Khán (March 2, 1779). Karím Khán, was the flight of Áqá Muḥam-mad Khán Qájár, who had been for many years a prisoner at large in the city of Shíráz.” ^141a As a child he had suffered castration by the cruel command of Nádir's nephew 'Ádil Sháh, ^141b on account of which the title of Ághá or Áqá, generally given to eunuchs, was added to his name. After the defeat and death of his father Muḥammad Ḥasan Khán the Qájár in A.D. 1757, he fell into the hands of Karím Khán, who interned him in Shíráz, but otherwise treated him kindly and even generously, so far as was compatible with his safe custody. He was even allowed to gratify his passion for the chase in the country round Shíráz on condition of re-entering the city before the gates were closed at night-fall. Returning to the city on the evening of Ṣafar 12, 1193 (March 1, 1779), and learning through his sister, who was an inmate of the Palace, that Karím Khán lay at the point of death, he suffered a favourite hawk to escape, and made its pursuit an excuse for spending the night in the plain. Next morning, two hours after dawn, ^141c having learned that Karím Khán had breathed his last, he took advantage of the prevailing confusion to make his escape northwards, and travelled so swiftly that he reached Iṣfahán on the third day, ^141d and thence made his way into Mázandarán, which thenceforth became the base of those operations by which, fifteen years later, he accomplished the final overthrow of the Zand dynasty and won for his own house that supremacy over Persia which they hold to this day.

It is unnecessary to describe here the fratricidal wars which during the next ten years (A.D. 1779-89) sapped the Successors of Karím Khán. power of the Zand dynasty while Áqá Muḥam-mad Khán, with incredible self-control and political sagacity, was uniting and consolidating the Qájár power. Within the year which witnessed Karím Khán's death four of his house had successively mounted his throne, to wit, his son Abu'l-Fatḥ, his nephew 'Alí Murád, his son Muḥammad 'Alí, and his brother Ṣádiq. The last-named, together with all his sons except Ja'far, was put to death in March, 1782, by 'Alí Murád, who thus regained the throne, but died at Múrchakhúr near Iṣfahán in January, 1785, and was succeeded by Ja'far, the date of whose accession is commemorated in the following ingenious chronogram by Ḥájji Sulaymán of Káshán called Ṣabáḥí:^142a

“To record the year of the blessed and auspicious accession
Which is the initial date of the mirth of the age,
The pen of Ṣabáḥí wrote: ‘From the Royal Palace
'Alí Murád went forth, and Ja'far Khán sat’ [in his place].”

The letters composing the words Qaṣr-i-Sulṭání yield the number 550; from this we subtract (355) equivalent to 'Alí Murád, which gives us 195; to this we add the number equivalent to Ja'far Khán (1004), which finally gives us the correct date A.H. 1199 (A.D. 1785).

Ja'far Khán was murdered on 25 Rabí ii, 1203 (January 23, 1789), and was succeeded by his son, the gallant and Luṭf-'Alí Khán, the last of the Zand dynasty. unfortunate Luṭf-'Alí Khán, of whose personality Sir Harford Jones Brydges has given so attractive an account. “The reader, I hope,” he

KARÍM KHÁN-I-ZAND
Or. 4938 (Brit. Mus.), No. 1
To face p. 142

says, ^143a “will pardon me if I treat the reign and misfortunes of the noble Luṭf-'Alí more in detail than usual. I received great kindness and attention from him when he filled the throne; and under a miserable tent I had the honour of sitting on the same horse-cloth with him when a fugitive! His virtues endeared him to his subjects; and the bravery, constancy, courage and ability which he manifested under his misfortunes are the theme of poems and ballads which it is not improbable will last as long as the Persian language itself. He was manly, amiable, affable under prosperity and, under calamities as great and as severe as human nature can suffer, he was dignified and cool and determined. That so noble a being, that a prince the hope and pride of his country, should have been betrayed by a wretch ^143b in whom he placed, or rather misplaced, his confidence—that his end should have been marked by indignities exercised on his person at which human nature shudders—that his little son should have suffered loss of virility—that his daughters should have been forced into marriage with the scum of the earth— that the princess his wife should have been dishonoured— are dispensations of Providence, which, though we must not arraign, we may permit ourselves to wonder at.”

It is fortunate that we possess such disinterested appreciations of poor Luṭf-'Alí Khán, the last chivalrous figure Courage, chivalry and misfortunes of Luṭf-'Alí Khán. amongst the kings of Persia, for such of his compatriots as described his career necessarily wrote after the triumph of his implacable rival and deadly foe Áqá Muḥammad Khán, and therefore, whatever their true sentiments may have been, dared not venture to praise the fallen prince, lest they should incur the displeasure of the cruel Qájár. Short-lived as the Zand dynasty was, it began and ended nobly, for its first representative was one of the best and its last one of the bravest of all the long line of Persian monarchs.

The full and detailed accounts of the reigning Qájár dynasty already available to the English reader render any Áqá Muḥammad Khán (assassinated June 17, 1797). attempt to summarize their history in this place quite unnecessary. ^144a Áqá Muḥammad Khán was not actually crowned until A.D. 1796, and was assassinated in the following year, so that he wore the crown of Persia for not more than fifteen months, ^144b but his reign practically began on the death of Karím Khán in A.D. 1779, though “he used to observe that he had no title even to the name of king till he was obeyed through the whole of the ancient limits of the Empire of Persia,” ^144c so that it was only after he had finally subdued Georgia that he consented to assume the title of Sháh. His appearance and character are admirably summarized by Sir John Malcolm in the following words: ^144d

ÁQÁ MUḤAMMAD KHÁN QÁJÁR seated, with his minister
ḤÁJJI IBRÁHÍM standing before him
Add. 24903 (Brit. Mus.)
To face p. 144

“Áqá Muḥammad Khán was murdered in the sixty-third year of his age. He had been ruler of a great part of Persia for upwards of twenty years, but had only for a short period enjoyed the undisputed sovereignty of that country. The person of that monarch was so slender that at a distance he appeared like a youth of fourteen or fifteen. His beardless and shrivelled face resembled that of an aged and wrinkled woman; and the expression of his countenance, at no times pleasant, was horrible when clouded, as it very often was, with indignation. He was sensible of this, and could not bear that anyone should look at him. This prince had suffered, in the early part of his life, the most cruel adversity; and his future conduct seems to have taken its strongest bias from the keen recollection of his misery and his wrongs. The first passion of his mind was the love of power; the second, avarice; and the third, revenge. In all these he indulged to excess, and they administered to each other: but the two latter, strong as they were, gave way to the first whenever they came in collision. His knowledge of the character and feelings of others was wonderful; and it is to this knowledge, and his talent of concealing from all the secret purposes of his soul, that we must refer his extraordinary success in subduing his enemies. Against these he never employed force till art had failed; and, even in war, his policy effected more than his sword. His ablest and most confidential minister, ^145a when asked if Áqá Muḥammad Khán was personally brave, replied, ‘No doubt; but still I can hardly recollect an occasion when he had an opportunity of displaying courage. The monarch's head,’ he emphatically added, ‘never left work for his hand.’”

Áqá Muḥammad Khán was succeeded by his nephew the uxorious and philoprogenitive ^145b Fatḥ-'Alí Sháh. He was avaricious and vain, being inordinately proud of his hand- Reign of Fatḥ'Alí Sháh (A.D. 1797-1834). some face and long beard, but not by nature cruel (at any rate compared to his late uncle), and it is related that, though obliged by custom to witness the execution of malefactors, he would always avert his face so as not to behold the unhappy wretch's death-agony. He was something of a poet, and composed numerous odes under the pen-name of Kháqán. Politically the chief features of his reign were the Anglo-French rivalry typified by the missions of Malcolm and Harford Jones Brydges on the one hand, and Jaubert and General Gardanne on the other (A.D. 1800-1808); the growing menace of Russia, resulting in the successive disastrous treaties of Gulistán (A.D. 1813) and Turkmán-cháy (A.D. 1826); and the war with Turkey in A.D. 1821, concluded in 1823 by the Treaty of Erzeroum. Other notable events of this reign were the disgrace and death of the traitor Ḥájji Ibráhím and the almost complete extirpation of his family about A.D. 1800; ^146a the massacre of Grebaiodoff and the Russian Mission at Ṭihrán on February 11, 1829; ^146b and the premature death, at the age of forty-six, of the Sháh's favourite son 'Abbás Mírzá, the Crown Prince, “the noblest of the Kajar race,” as Watson calls him, ^146c in A.D. 1833. His heart-broken father only survived him about a year, and died at the age of sixty-eight on October 23, 1834, leaving fifty-seven sons and forty-six daughters to mourn his loss.

Fatḥ-'Alí Sháh was succeeded by his grandson Muḥam-mad, the son of 'Abbás Mírzá, who, ere he was crowned on Muḥammad Sháh (A.D. 1835-1848). January 31, 1835, was confronted with two rival claimants to the throne, his uncle the Ẓillu's-Sulṭán and his brother the Farmán-farmá. These, however, were overcome without much difficulty by Persian troops commanded by Sir Henry Lindsay Bethune, and though the new Sháh had every reason to be grateful to England and Russia for assuring his succession, the fact that these two powerful neighbours had for the first time intervened in this fashion was an ominous portent and a dangerous precedent in the history of Persia. The same year witnessed the fall and execution (on June 26, 1835) of the celebrated Qá'im-maqám Mírzá Abu'l-Qásim, ^147a hitherto the all-powerful minister of the King, still regarded by his countrymen as one of the finest prose stylists of modern times. He was succeeded as Prime Minister by the notorious Ḥájji Mírzá Ághásí, concerning whom many ridiculous anecdotes are still current in Persia. ^147b Of the protracted but fruitless siege of Herát by the Persians in 1838 and the manifestations of Anglo-Russian rivalry for which it afforded occasion it is unnecessary to speak; nor of the withdrawal of Sir J. McNeill, the British Minister (A.D. 1838-1841), from the Persian Court; nor of the Turco-Persian boundary disputes of 1842 and the Turkish massacre of Persians at Karbalá in the early part of 1843. From our point of view none of these events, fully discussed by R. G. Watson and other historians of Persia, are equal in interest to the Isma'ílí revolt of 1840 or thereabouts, and the rise of the Bábí religion in 1844.

Of the origin and doctrines of the Isma'ílí heresy or “Sect of the Seven” (Sab'iyya), some account will be found in the first volume ^148a of this work, while their destruction by Húlágú

We next hear of this Áqá Khán in 1255/1839 or 1256/ 1840, ^148c when, apparently in consequence of the arrogant behaviour of Ḥájji 'Abdu'l-Muḥammad-i-Maḥallátí, insti- Revolt of the Áqá Khán in A.D. 1839 or 1840. gated by the minister Ḥájji Mírzá Áqásí, he rebelled against Muḥammad Sháh and occupied the citadel of Bam, but was obliged to surrender to Fírúz Mírzá, then governor of Kirmán, who pardoned him and sent him to Ṭihrán. Here he was well received by Ḥájji Mírzá Áqásí and was presently allowed to return to his former government in the district of Qum. Having sent his family and possessions to Karbalá by way of Baghdád, so as to leave himself free and unencumbered, he began to buy swift and strong horses and to recruit brave and devoted soldiers, and when his preparations were completed he set out across the deserts and open country towards Kirmán, pretending that he was proceeding to Mecca by way of Bandar-i-'Abbás, and that the government of Kirmán had He is defeated by Bahman Mírzá, and flees by way of Lár to India. been conferred upon him. Prince Bahman Mírzá Baha'u'd-Dawla, being apprised of his intentions, pursued and overtook him as he was making for Shahr-i-Bábak and Sírján, and a skirmish took place between the two parties in which eight of the Prince's soldiers and sixteen of the Áqá Khán's men were killed. After a second and fiercer battle the Áqá Khán was defeated and fled to Lár, whence he ultimately escaped to India, where his descendant, the present Áqá Khán, ^149a lives a wealthy and spacious life at Bombay when not engaged in his frequent and extensive travels.

The rise of the Bábí sect or religion, which began in the later years of Muḥammad Sháh's reign, was an event of the most far-reaching significance and importance, and forms the subject of an extensive literature, ^150a not only in Persian The Bábí movement. and Arabic, but in English, French, German, Russian and other European languages. Since it would be impossible to give an adequate account of its eventful history and extensive developments in this volume, and since ample materials for its study are already available even in English (indeed, thanks to the success attained by its missionaries in America, especially in English), no attempt at recapitulation will be made here. Sayyid 'Alí Muḥammad the Báb has himself (in the Persian Bayán) fixed the date of his “Manifestation” (Ẓuhúr) as May 23, 1844 (5 Jumáda i, 1260), just a thousand years after the disappearance or “Occultation” (Ghaybat) of the Twelfth Imám, or Imám Mahdí, to whom he claimed to be the “Gate” (Báb). Neither the idea nor the expression was new: the Imám Mahdí had four successive “Gates” (Ab-wáb ) by means of whom, during the “Lesser Occultation” (Ghaybat-i-Ṣughra), he maintained communication with his followers; and the “Perfect Shí'a” (Shí'a-i-Kámil) of the Shaykhí School, in which the Báb pursued his theological studies, connoted much the same idea of an Intermediary (Wásiṭa), or Channel of Grace, between the Concealed Imám and his faithful people. Later the Báb “went higher” (bálá-tar raft), to use the expression of his followers, and claimed to be first the “Supreme Point” (Nuqṭa-i-A'lá), or “Point of Explanation” (Nuqṭa-i-Bayán), then the Qá'im (“He who is to arise” of the House of the Prophet), then the Inaugurator of a new Dispensation, and lastly an actual Divine Manifestation or Incarnation. Some of his followers went even further, calling themselves Gods and him a “Creator of Gods” (Khudá-áfarín) while one of them went so far as to write of Bahá'u'lláh:^151a

“Men say Thou art God, and I am moved to anger:
Raise the veil, and submit no longer to the shame of Godhead!”

Although the Bábí movement led to much bloodshed, this took place almost entirely after the death of Muḥammad Sháh, which happened on September 5, 1848, though already the Báb was a prisoner in the fortress of Mákú in the extreme N.W. of Persia, while in Khurásán, Mázandarán and elsewhere armed bands of his followers roamed the country proclaiming the Advent of the expected Mahdí and the inauguration of the Reign of the Saints, and threatening those sanguinary encounters between themselves and their opponents which were at once precipitated by the King's death and the ensuing dislocation and confusion.

Dark indeed were the horizons at the beginning of the new reign. The Walí-'ahd, or Crown Prince, Náṣiru'd-Dín,

The Bábís, however, had no cause to love Mírzá Taqí Khán, whose death they had already striven to compass,

It is unnecessary here to discuss the causes and course of the short Anglo-Persian War of 1856-7, brought about The AngloPersian War of 1856-7. by the seizure of Herát by the Persians. It began with the occupation by the British of the island of Khárak in the Persian Gulf on December 4, 1856, and was officially terminated by the Treaty of Peace signed at Paris on March 4, 1857, by Lord Cowley and Farrukh Khán, though, owing to the slowness of communications at that time, hostilities actually continued for another month. They did not end a moment too soon for Great Britain, for almost before the ratifications were exchanged the Indian Mutiny broke out. The need then Introduction of the telegraph. experienced for better communications between England and India led in 1864 to the introduction into Persia of the telegraph, to which further extension was given in 1870 and 1872, and this, as pointed out by Sir Percy Molesworth Sykes (whose History of Persia ^154b is almost the only book which gives a continuous and coherent narrative of events from 1857 to 1921), had Other modern??zing influences. far-reaching reactions, ^155a and was one of the factors in the modernization of Persia. Others were the extension of the Press (first introduced into Tabríz by 'Abbás Mírzá about A.D. 1816) and consequent wider diffusion of literature; the slow growth of journalism since 1851 ^155b down to its enormous expansion during the Revolution of 1906-1911 and again after the Russian collapse; the foundation of the Dáru'l-Funún, or Polytechnic College, at Ṭihrán in 1851, and the introduction of European science and instruction; and, in a lesser degree, the Sháh's three journeys to Europe in 1873, 1878 and 1889, though it is doubtful whether he or his attendants derived more advantage from what they saw in the course of their peregrinations than Persian literature did from his accounts of his experiences.

Náṣiru'd-Dín Sháh was only a little over seventeen years of age when he was crowned on the 24th of Dhu'l-Qa'da,

Since Náṣiru'd-Dín fell a victim to the assassin's pistol the throne of Persia has been occupied by his son Muẓaffaru'd-Dín (1896-1907), who granted the Constitution; his grandson Násiru'd-Dín Sháh's successors. Muḥammad 'Alí, who endeavoured to destroy it, who was deposed by the victorious Nationalists on July 16, 1909, and who is still living in retirement in the neighbourhood of Constantinople; and his great-grandson Sulṭán Aḥmad Sháh the reigning monarch. It would be premature to discuss the reign and character of the last, while the very dissimilar characters of his father and grandfather I have endeavoured to depict in my History of the Persian Revolution. But since the death of Náṣiru'd-Dín Sháh twenty-seven years ago it may truly be said that the centre of interest has shifted from the king to the people of Persia, nor, so far as we can foresee the future, is it likely that we shall see another Isma'íl, another Nádir, or (which God forbid!) another Áqá Muḥammad Khán.

Four hundred years ago the Persian language (or at any rate the written language, for no doubt fresh colloquialisms Remarkable stability of the Persian literary language. and slang may have arisen during this period) was to all intents and purposes the same as it is to-day, while such new literary forms as exist go no further back, as a rule, than the middle of the nineteenth century, that is to say than the accession of Náṣiru'd-Dín Sháh, whose reign (A.D. 1848-1896) might not inappropriately be called the Persian Victorian ^161a Era. In the three previous volumes of this book each historical chapter has been immediately followed by a chapter dealing with the literature of that period; but in this volume, for the reason just given, it appeared unnecessary to break the sequence of events in this way, and to be preferable to devote the first part of the volume to a brief historical sketch of the whole period, and the second and third parts to a consideration of the literature in verse and prose, arranged according to categories.

How to arrange these categories is a problem which has cost me a good deal of thought. Nearly all those who Excessive attention devoted to Persian poetry. have written on Persian literature have paid an amount of attention which I regard as excessive and disproportionate to poetry and belles-lettres, and have almost entirely ignored the plainer but more positive fields of history, biography, theology, philosophy and the ancient sciences. If we understand literature in the narrower sense as denoting those writings only, whether poetry or prose, which have artistic form, there is, no doubt, some justification for this view; but not if we take it in the wider sense of the manifestation in writing of a nation's mind and intellectual activities. Still, in deference to the prevalent view, we may begin this general survey of the recent literature of Persia with some consideration of its poetry.

Here we have to distinguish some half-dozen categories of verse, namely (1) the classical poetry; (2) occasional Categories of Persian verse. or topical verse; (3) religious and devotional verse, from the formal marthiyas, or threnodies, of great poets like Muḥtasham of Káshán to the simple popular poems on the sufferings of the Imáms recited at the Ta'ziyas, or mournings, of the month of Muḥarram; (4) the scanty but sometimes very spirited verses composed by the Bábís since about 1850, which should be regarded as a special subdivision of the class last mentioned; (5) the ballads or taṣnífs sung by professional minstrels, of which it is hard to trace the origin or antiquity; (6) the quite modern political verse which has arisen since the Revolution of 1906, and which I have already discussed in some detail in another work. ^162a In this chapter I shall deal chiefly with the religious verse, leaving the consideration of the secular poetry to the two succeeding chapters.

Alike in form and matter the classical poetry of Persia has been stereotyped for at least five or six centuries, so Later poetry of the classical type. that, except for such references to events or persons as may indicate the date of composition, it is hardly possible, after reading a qaṣída (elegy), ghazal (ode), or rubá'í (quatrain), to guess whether it was composed by a contemporary of Jámí (d. A.H. 1492) or by some quite recent poet, such as Qá'ání. Of the extremely conventional character of this poetry I have spoken in a previous volume, ^163a and of Ibn Khaldún's doctrine “that the Art of composing in verse or prose is concerned only with words, not with ideas.” Hence, even in the most recent poetry of this type, we very seldom find any allusion to such modern inventions as tea-drinking, tobacco-smoking, railways, telegraphs or newspapers; ^163b indeed several of the greatest modern poets, such as Qá'ání, Dáwarí and the like, have chiefly shown their originality by reviving certain forms of verse like the musammaṭ ^163c which had fallen into disuse since the eleventh or twelfth century.

Perhaps the statement with which the above paragraph opens is too sweeping and requires some qualification, for Literary criticism neglected by the Persians. in some of the later Persian poets Indian and Turkish critics do profess to discover a certain originality (táza-gú'í) marking an epoch in the development of the art, and the rise of a new school. The Persians themselves are not addicted to literary criticism; perhaps because, just as people only discuss their health when they are beginning to lose it, so those only indulge in meticulous literary criticism who are no longer able, or have never been able, to produce good literature. According to Gibb, ^163d Jámí and Mír 'Alí Shír Nawá'í, 'Urfí of Shíráz (d. 999/1590-1) and the Indian Fayḍí (Feyẓí, d. 1004/1595-6), and lastly Ṣá'ib of Iṣfahán (d. 1080/1669-70) were successively the chief foreign influences on the development of Ottoman Turkish poetry, and a great deal has been written about them by the Turkish critics. The best and fullest critical estimate of the leading Persian poets from the earliest times down to the latter part of the seventeenth century is, however, so far as I can judge, a work written (most unfortunately) in the Urdú or Hindustání language, the Shi'ru'l-'Ajam (“Poetry of the Persians”) of that eminent scholar Shiblí Nu'mání. The third volume of this work, composed in 1324-5/1906-7, deals with seven Persian poets of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of our era, namely Fighání (d. 925/1519), Fayḍí (d. 1004/1595-6), 'Urfí (d. 999/ 1590-1), Naẓírí (d. 1021/1612-3), Ṭálib-i-Ámulí (d. 1036/ 1626-7), Ṣá'ib (d. 1080/1669-1670), and Abú Ṭálib Kalím (d. 1061/1651). All these were Persians, attracted to India by the liberal patronage of the Moghul Court, except Fayḍí, whom Shiblí regards as the only Indian poet except Amír Khusraw who could produce Persian verse which might pass for that of a born Persian. 'Urfí and Ṣá'ib were the most notable of these seven, but even they enjoy a greater repute in India and Turkey than in their own country. ^164a The explanation of this fact offered by some Persians of my acquaintance is that they are easily understood and therefore popular with foreigners, who often find the more subtle poetry admired in Persia beyond their powers of comprehension. I must confess with shame that in this case my taste agrees with the foreigners, and that I find Ṣá'ib especially attractive, both on account of his simplicity of style and his skill in the figures entitled ḥusn-i-ta'líl or “poetical aetiology,” and irsálu'l-mathal or “proverbial commission .” ^164b Nearly forty years ago (in 1885) I read through the Persian portion of that volume of the great trilingual anthology entitled Kharábát ^164c which deals with the lyrical verse of the Arabs, Turks and Persians, both odes and isolated verses, and copied into a note-book which now lies before me those which pleased me most, irrespective of authorship; and, though many of the 443 fragments and isolated verses which I selected are anonymous, more than one-tenth of the total (45) are by Ṣá'ib.

India, at all events, thanks to the generous patronage of Humáyún, Akbar, and their successors down to that gloomy Attraction of India to Persian poets under the earlier Moghul Emperors. zealot Awrangzíb, and of their great nobles, such as Bayram Khán-Khánán and his son 'Abdu'r-Raḥím, who succeeded to the title after his father's assassination about A.D. 1561, continued during the greater part of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to attract a great number of the most talented Persian poets, who found there an appreciation which was withheld from them in their own country. Badá'úní ^165a enumerates about one hundred and seventy, most of whom were of Persian descent though some of them were born in India. Shiblí ^165b gives a list of fifty-one who came to India from Persia in Akbar's time and were received at court, and a long list is also given by Sprenger. ^165c Shiblí quotes numerous verses showing how widely diffused amongst Persian poets was the desire to try their fortune in India.^165d

Thus Ṣá'ib says:

“There is no head wherein desire for thee danceth not,
Even as the determination to visit India is in every heart.”

And Abú Ṭálib Kalím says:

“I am the captive of India, and I regret this misplaced journey:
Whither can the feather-flutterings of the dying bird ^166a convey it?
Kalím goes lamenting to Persia [dragged thither] by the eagerness
of his fellow-travellers,
Like the camel-bell which traverses the stage on the feet of others.
Through longing for India I turn my regretful eyes backwards in
such fashion
That, even if I set my face to the road, I do not see what confronts
me.”

So also 'Alí-qulí Salím says:

“There exist not in Persia the means of acquiring perfection:
Henna does not develop its colour until it comes to India.”

The Persian dervish-poet Rasmí, commemorating the Khán-Khánán's liberal patronage of poets, says: ^166b

“Through auspicious praise of thee the fame of the perfection of that
subtle singer of Shíráz ^167a reached from the East to Rúm. ^167b
In praising thee he became conversant with a new style, like the fair
face which gains adornment from the tire-woman.
By the grace (fayḍ) of thy name Fayḍí, like [his predecessor]
Khusraw, ^167c annexed the Seven Climes from end to end with the
Indian sword.
By gathering crumbs from thy table Naẓírí the poet hath attained a
rank such that other poets
Compose such elegies in his praise that blood drips in envy from the
heart of the singer.
Men of discernment carry as a gift to Khurásán, like the collyrium
of Iṣfahán, copies of Shakíbí's verses.
By praising thee Ḥayátí found fresh life (ḥayát): yea, the substance
must needs strengthen the nature of the accident.

How can I tell the tale of Naw'í and Kufwí, since by their praise of
thee they will live until the Resurrection Dawn?
Such measure of thy favour accrued to Naw'í as Amír Mu'izzí re-
ceived from the favour of Sanjar.”

These poets of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries produced what the late Professor Ethé has happily termed the “Indian summer” of Persian poetry, and they had of course a host of Indian imitators and successors so long as Persian continued to be the polite language of India. These last, who were at best skilful manipulators of a foreign idiom, I do not propose to notice; and even of the genuine Persian poets, whether sojourners in India or residents in their own country, only a limited number of the most eminent can The eighteenth century a barren period. be discussed in these pages. The eighteenth century of our era, especially the troubled period intervening between the fall of the Ṣafawí and the rise of the Qájár dynasties (A.D. 1722-1795), was the poorest in literary achievement; after that there is a notable revival, and several poets of the nineteenth century, Qá'ání, Yaghmá, Furúghí and Wiṣál and his family, can challenge comparison with any save the very greatest of their predecessors.

Some of the most interesting pieces of poetry are those composed, not necessarily by professional poets, for some Examples of occasional or topical verse. special purpose or some particular occasion. These are not so often to be found in the regular díwáns of verse as in the pages of contemporary histories. The following from the unpublished Aḥsanu't-Tawáríkh may serve as specimens.

In the year 961/1553-4 died three Indian kings, Maḥ-múd III of Gujerát, Islám Sháh son of Shír Sháh the Afghán of Dihlí, and Niẓámu'l-Mulk of the Deccan. This coincidence, with the date, is commemorated in the following verses:

“In one year the [fatal] conjunction came to three princes by whose
justice India was the Abode of Security.
One was Maḥmúd, ^169a the monarch of Gujerát, who was youthful as
his own fortune.
The second was Islám Sháh, ^169b King of Dihlí, who was in India the
lord of a fortunate conjunction.
The third was the Niẓámu'l-Mulk ^169c -i-Baḥrí, who ruled in royal state
in the kingdom of the Deccan.
Why dost thou ask of me the date of the death of these three Kings?
It was ‘the decline of the kings’ (=961).”

The following verses by Mawláná Qásim commemorate the death of Humáyún in the succeeding year (962/1554-5):

“Humáyún, king of the realm of the Ideal, none can recall a monarch
like him:

Suddenly he fell from the roof of his palace; precious life departed
from him on the winds.
Qásim ^170a thus ciphered the date of his death: ‘King Humáyún fell
from the roof’.”

The next piece, denouncing the people of Qazwín, is by the poet Ḥayratí, who died from a fall at Káshán in 961/ 1553-4:

“The time has come when the pivotless sphere, like the earth, should
rest under thy shadow, O Shadow of God!
O King! It is a period of nine months that this helpless one hath
remained in Qazwín ruined, weary, wounded and wretched.
I found the practices of the Sunnís in humble and noble alike: I saw
the signs of schism in small and great:
Poor and rich with washed feet at the Tombs: hands clasped in the
mosques to right and to left.
In the time of a King like thee to clasp the hands in prayer is an
underhand action, O King of lofty lineage!
The Judge of this Kingdom is of the race of Khálid ibnu'l-Walíd;
the Muftí of this city is the son of the worthless Sa'íd.
By the sword of the victorious King the brother, father, friend,
kinsman and family of both have been slain together.
Say thyself, O wise King, whether now this group are the propa-
gandists of the enemy, or the clients of the victorious King.
If there cannot be a public massacre one might [at least contrive]
a private massacre for the special satisfaction of the Divine
Majesty.
These are not subjects whose slaughter would cause a reduction of
the revenue or would check the spending power of the country;
Nay, rather each one of them consumes a quantity of the wealth of
the exchequer, for they are all fief-holders and pensioners.”

The worst of these “occasional verses” is that we seldom know enough of the circumstances under which they were composed to enable us fully to understand all the allusions contained in them. What, for example, had the people of Qazwín done to the author of the above verses to arouse in him such bitter anger? Who were the Qáḍí and the Muftí whom he particularly denounces? How did their relatives come to be slain by the King, and of what enemy were they the propagandists? The fact that we do not know at what date the verses were composed, and whether in the reign of Sháh Ṭahmásp or of his father and predecessor Sháh Isma'íl, makes it harder to discover the answers to these questions, but it is interesting to learn how prevalent were the Sunní doctrines in Qazwín at the time when they were written. Of course in the case of the modern topical verses which abounded in the newspapers of the Revolutionary Period (A.D. 1906-1911 especially) the allusions can be much more easily understood.

Of the numerous poets of the Ṣafawí period who devoted their talents to the celebration of the virtues and sufferings Religious poetry of Muḥtasham and his imitators. of the Imáms, Muḥtasham of Káshán (died 996/ 1588) is the most eminent. In his youth he wrote erotic verse, but in later life he seems to have consecrated his genius almost entirely to the service of religion. Riḍá-qulí Khán in his Majma'u'l-Fuṣaḥá (vol. ii, pp. 36-8) gives specimens of both styles, of which we are here concerned only with the second. The author of the Ta'ríkh-i-'Álam-árá-yi-'Abbásí ^172a in his account of the chief poets of Sháh Ṭahmásp's reign states that though in earlier Indifference of the Ṣafawí kings to panegyric. life that king enjoyed and cultivated the society of poets, in his later years his increasing austerity and deference to the views of the theologians led him to regard them with disfavour as latitudinarians (wasí'u'l-mashrab), so that when Muḥtasham, hoping for a suitable reward, sent him two eloquent panegyrics, one in his praise and the other in praise of the Princess Parí-Khán Khánum, he received nothing, the Sháh remarking that poetry written in praise of kings and princes was sure to consist largely of lies and exaggerations, according to the well-known Arabic saying, “The best poetry is that which contains most falsehoods,” but that, since it was impossible to exaggerate the virtues of the Prophet and the Imáms, the poet could safely exert his talents to the full, and in addition would have the satisfaction of looking for a heavenly instead of an earthly reward. Thereupon Muḥtasham composed his celebrated haft-band, or poem of seven-verse strophes, in praise of the Imáms, and this time was duly and amply rewarded, whereupon many other poets followed his example, so that in a comparatively short time some fifty or sixty such haft-bands were produced. This poem is cited in most of the anthologies which include Muḥtasham, but most fully in the Kharábát ^173a of Ḍiyá (Ẓiyá) Pasha (vol. ii, pp. 197-200). In this fullest form it comprises twelve strophes each consisting of seven verses, and each concluding with an additional verse in a different rhyme, thus comprising in all ninety-six verses. The language is extraordinarily simple and direct, devoid of those rhetorical artifices and verbal conceits which many Europeans find so irritating, and shows true pathos and religious feeling. I wish that space were available to quote the whole poem, the prototype of so many others of a similar character, but I must content myself with citing three of the twelve strophes (the fourth, fifth and sixth).