Encyclopaedia Iranica Online

Search Results: | 66 of 323 |

(3,963 words)

administrative and then military office in the pre-modern Iranian world.

A version of this article is available in print

Volume XI, Fascicle 5, pp. 544-548

ḤĀJEB, an administrative and then military office in the pre-modern Iranian world.


The office of ḥājeb, implying military command, appears in the Iranian world with the Samanids, where it probably grew out of the amir’s domestic household, in which the ḥājeb had had duties similar to those of the Umayyad and Abbasid ḥājebs or doorkeepers/chamberlains. The office of chief ḥājeb of the Samanids (al-ḥājeb al-kabir, ḥājeb al-ḥojjāb, ḥājeb-e bozorg) was in the 10th century held by the leader of the amir’s Turkish ḡolāms (q.v.) or slave guards, combining the duty of head of the palace organization with that of commander-in-chief of the army. Such were the functions of Alptigin (q.v.), while his subordinate Sebüktigin, founder of the Ghaznavid line, considered himself a provincial ḥājeb, or governor, in Ghazna on behalf of the Samanids; on his tomb there he is described as al-ḥājeb al-ajall ’Most Exalted Commander’ (Flury, pp. 63-64).

Amongst the Buyids, Meskawayh’s use of the term ḥājeb shows that it also became an essentially military office in western Persia during the course of the 10th century, although we do not hear of a chief ḥājeb or commander-in-chief in the Buyid chain of military command. Below the Esfahsālār, or commander-in-chief, there seems to have been a descending hierarchy of ḥājeb ’general’, qāʾed ‘field officer’, and naqib ‘junior officer’ (Meskawayh, Tajāreb al-omam, cited in Bosworth, 1965-66, p. 163).

The Ghaznavids inherited many of the administrative and military structures of the Samanids, especially as the founders, Sebüktigin and Maḥmud, had themselves served in the Samanid army in Khorasan. Abuʾl Fażl Bayhaqi’s Tāriḵ-e Masʿudi shows the wide usage of the title ḥājeb at the Ghaznavid court and in the army. The commander-in-chief of the army, almost invariably a Turk, held the title of ḥājeb-e bozorg and was directly responsible to the sultan, while below him were general officers, ḥājebs, all with the special distinguishing dress and insignia of the slave guards, i.e., a black hat, a two-pointed cap (kolāh-e do-šāḵ), and a special type of belt (cf. Bayhaqi, p. 288). In times of crisis, the ḥājeb-e bozorg might become the focus of authority in the state and act as virtual king-maker, as didʿAli Qarib in the succession dispute at Maḥmud’s death in 421/1030 (Bayhaqi, pp. 12-14, 552-57; Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 110, 231-32).

Under the Saljuqs, however, the office of ḥājeb or amir-e ḥājeb tended to decline in status compared with the functions and prestige which it still held under the later Ghaznavids (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 43, 48, 61, 139, 153). The Saljuq historical sources usually refer to the commander-in-chief of the Saljuq forces as esfahsālār; and the amir-e ḥājeb was at times more a court official. Thus Neẓām-al-Molk in his Siāsat-nāma (sec. 30, p. 145; tr., p. 120), describes the ḥājeb-e dargāh as a court official. Soon afterwards, Moḥammad I b. Malekšāh made one of his military commanders, ʿAli b. ʿOmar, amir-e bār, or official in charge of admission to the court, superseding the previous civilian vakil-dār, although civilian officials managed to regain control of the office after Moḥammad’s death. In any case, since the sultan’s court was essentially the central organ of state for war, ḥājebs were also soldiers and took part in campaigns. Rāvandi lists in his history the viziers as well as the (amir-e) ḥājebsfor each sultan. Some of these ḥājebs are comparatively obscure, such as Moḥammad I’s ʿAli Bār (see above; thus named in this source), others played leading roles in the politics and military events of the time, such as Ḵāṣṣ Beg Arslān, ḥājeb to Masʿud b. Moḥammad I and Malekšāh III b. Maḥmud II; the Atā-bak Noṣrat-al-Din Pahlavān, ḥājeb to Arslan b. Ṭoḡrïl II and later ruler of the Ildegozid line of Atābaks in Azerbaijan and Arrān (see ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN) and the Atābak Jamāl-al-Din Ay Aba, ḥājeb to the last sultan Ṭoḡrïl III b. Arslān (Rāvandi, pp. 153, 225, 249, 282, 331).

The office apparently passed to the Ḵᵛārazmšāhs, though we know very little of how it worked in practice, except that, as with the Saljuqs, it seems to have comprised both direction of the ruler’s court and military command; thus in one investiture document, a ḥājeb-e ḵāṣṣ-e ḥażrat is appointed vazir, or governor, of Naḵče-vān in Transcaucasia. (Horst, pp. 19, 49, 125). A similar situation prevailed under the Il-Khanids, when the ḥā-jeb, though a military man, functioned as court chamberlain, and probably also under the succeeding Turkmen dynasties. Under the early Safavids, the commander-in-chief of the Qezelbāš tribal forces was termed the amir al-omarā, with the qurčibāši (whose exact functions remain obscure) in an apparent second place in the military hierarchy (Savory, pp. 99-101), whilst the two officials who shared the court functions of the ḥājeb, i.e. as chamberlain, were known as the chief ushers (ešik-āqāsi-bāši; q.v.).


Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e Masʿudi, ed. Fayyāż and Ḡani, Tehran, 1324 Š./1945.

C. Edmund Bosworth, “Military Organization under the Būyids of Persia and Iraq,” Oriens 18-19, 1965-66, pp. 143-67.

Idem and Anne K. S. Lambton, “Ḥādjib iii.” EI2, III, pp. 46-47.

Samuel Flury, “Le décor épigraphique des monuments de Ghazna,” Syria 6, Paris, 1925, pp. 61-90.

Heribert Horst, Die Staatsverwal-tung der Grosselğūqen und Ḫōrazmšāhs (1038-1231), Wiesbaden, 1964.

Carla L. Klausner, The Seljuk Vezi-rate: A Study of Civil Administration 1055-1194, Cambridge, Mass., 1973.

Anne K. S. Lambton, “ The Internal Structure of the Saljuq Empire,” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 203-82.

Neẓām-al-Molk, Siāsat-nāma, ed. Hubert Darke, Tehran, 1340/1962; tr. idem, as The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, 2nd ed., London, 1978.

Moḥammad b. ʿAli Rāvandi, Rāḥat al-ṣodur wa āyat al-sorur, ed. M. Iqbál, London, 1921.

Roger M. Savory, “The Principal Offices of the Ṣafavid State During the Reign of Ismāʿil I (907-30/1501-24),” BSOAS 23, 1960, pp. 91-105.


In the Safavid period the ḥājeb, the major domo or master of ceremony, was called the išik-āqāsi-bāši, literally ‘head of the masters of the threshold.’ The name change is explicitly mentioned by Mirzā Beg Jonābādi (p. 730), who for the year 1001/1592-93 claims that Mahdiqoli Khan Šāmlu was elevated to the position of “ḥejābat and ṣāḥeb-divāni, which, according to Turkish usage, they call išik-āqāsi.” It is unclear exactly when and under what circumstances this change in terminology came about, however, nor to what extent the tasks of the ḥājeb devolved on the išik-āqāsi-bāši in Safavid times.

The function of išik-āqāsi-bāši was divided into the išik-āqāsi-bāši-eḥaram and the išik-āqāsi-bāši-edivān-e aʿlā, the former belonging to the ḵāṣṣa realm, and the latter to the divān department. Most of the information we have, especially that provided by foreign travelers, concerns the išik-āqāsi-bāši-e divān.

The headquarters of this official were located in the hall of the main entrance to the ʿĀli Qāpu Palace (q.v.; Chardin, VII, p. 369). He was in charge of all those who served in the royal palace (išik-āqāsis), door-keepers (qāpučiān), the royal guards, those with ceremonial functions, such as the public announcers of the divān (jārčiān), and, most notably, the yasāvolān-e ṣoḥbat, the aides-de-camp who were responsible for keeping order. At the time of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn (1105-35/1694-1722) the total of all these functionaries is said to have numbered 2,670. The išik-āqāsi-bāši was also in charge of the qoroqčis, the officials, 2000 men strong (reduced to 700 under Shah Solaymān), who organized the royal outings, during which all males had to remain out of sight (Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/1-2, p. 82; Tadhkirat al-mulūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 47; ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, p. 17; Chardin, V, pp. 356-57, 361-62; Richard, ed., II, p. 13; Kaempfer, p. 106).

The importance of the išik-āqāsi-bāši derived above all from the fact that he served as the buffer between the shah and those wishing to see him or be heard by him, for he screened all visitors and petitioners. Not only the petitions of visitors during royal receptions but also all requests from provincial rulers, with the exception of the governors (wāli) of ʿArabestān (Ḵuzestān) and Georgia, who applied to the Grand Vizier (eʿtemād-al-dawla), had to go through him. He would pass these on to the išik-āqāsi-bāši-e ḥaram, who transmitted them to the shah via the senior officer (riš-safid)of the haram. The išik-āqāsi-bāši was also responsible for the orderly proceedings of royal ceremonies and receptions. During audiences he accompanied foreign ambassadors to the shah’s throne and during official meals he oversaw the seating arrangements for guests. He remained standing even when others were seated, but his official seat was always left empty out of respect. His place was right next to the shah, from where he would have his gaze invariably fixed on the ruler in order to be able to move at the latter’s slightest gesture or eye movement, and give orders to the many yasāvolān-e ṣoḥbat who were in attendance as well. He pronounced the takbir (saying the formula Allāho akbar) after official meals (Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/1-2, p. 82; ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, p. 18; Olearius, pp. 671-72; Richard, II, p. 13; Kaempfer, p. 106).

In the foreign sources the išik-āqāsi-bāši is often called the carrier of the golden stick, referring to his symbol of dignity, the five-foot mace, daganak, gold-plated and encrusted with precious stones, that he carried or had carried in front of him (Speelman, p. 158; Chardin, V, p. 357; Sanson, pp. 33-34; Valentyn, pp. 281-83; Kaempfer, p. 106). The appointment of yasāvolān-e ṣoḥbat and išik-āqāsis involved an initiation ritual, whereby he symbolically beat the appointee with his stick in the presence of the king, in a tradition that seems to go back to ancient Qezelbāš ritual (Morton; Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/4, pp. 436-37; Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, p. 55; ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, p. 18).

The išik-āqāsi-bāši ranked among the senior courtiers (arkān-e arbaʿa-ye dawlat-e qāhera wa moqarrabān-e dargāh; Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/1-2, p. 82). In late Safavid times, his stature seems to have increased, for under Shah Solṭān-Ḥosayn his signature and seal had to be fixed to the statements concerning the salaries of his subordinates (Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/1-2, p. 82). That he occupied an elevated position at the court is further suggested by the fact that he was a member of the royal privycoun-cil, the jānqi (ʿAli-Naqi Nasiri, p. 16). Statements about his fixed annual income vary from 400 tomans (Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/3, p. 307) to between 500 and 600 tomans (Richard, II, p. 13). The fief (toyul ) he enjoyed netted at least another 600 tomans (Mirzā Rafiʿā, 16/3, p. 307). In addition he received ten percent of all gifts offered to the shah as well as those given by the ruler, which was divided between him and the registrar of gifts (piškašnevis). Other emoluments came from the branding of camels and the slaughter of sheep for the royal kitchen. The total amount of this income (madāḵel) was about 6,000 tomans (Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 87; ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, p. 17; Chardin, III, pp. 197-98, V, pp. 359, 430; Kaempfer, p. 106; Speelman, p. 269; Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1430, fol. 1548b).

Throughout the Safavid period the divān part of the position rested with prominent members of the Qezelbāš, and more specifically qurčis from the Šāmlu tribe, with the sole exception of Manučehr Beg, a ḡolām, who served in the reign of Shah ʿAbbās I (Fażli Eṣfahāni, fol. 81b; Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, p. 129; ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, p. 19). Like so many other government positions, the function was hereditary (Eskandar Beg, p. 440, tr. Savory, p. 614). The government of Ray (present-day Tehran) was typically annexed to the function, at least after the death of Farhād Khan Qarāmānlu in 1596, when the territory was transferred to the Šāmlu tribe (Fażli Eṣfa-hāni, fol. 113; Eskandar Beg, p. 1040, tr. Savory, p. 1261; Eskandar Beg and Moḥammad-Yusof Moʾarreḵ, p. 147; Sanson, pp. 33-34). At some point in later Safavid times this connection was severed (Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 87).

An overview of the incumbents shows the hold over the position by members of the Šāmlu. Durmiš Beg Khan Šāmlu received the post in 928/1521-22 (Haneda, p. 91). Ḥosaynqoli Khan Šāmlu became išik-āqāsi-bāši at the time of Shah Esmāʿil II’s accession in 984/1576 (Eskandar Beg, p. 206, tr. Savory, p. 306). He was quickly succeeded, in 988/1580, by Qur Ḵoms Khan Šāmlu (Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1993, pp. 613, 614). Reżāqoli Beg is on record as the incumbent in 993/1585 (Afuštaʾi Naṭanzi, p. 272). Mahdiqoli Khan served several times between about 1000/1591-92 and 1011/1602 (Jonābādi, pp. 729-30; Eskandar Beg, pp. 440, 620, tr. Savory, pp. 614, 810). Manučehr Beg, the only ḡolām to hold the position, also served in this period, taking over from Mahdiqoli Khan in 1002/1594 (Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, p. 129). Esfandiār Beg Evči-bāši ʿArabgirlu briefly served in 1033/1623-24, the year of his death (Eskandar Beg, p. 1022, tr. Savory, p. 1244). His successor, ʿAliqoli Khan, also died soon after taking office, in 1034/1624-25, and after a brief vacancy, Zaynal Beg Begdilu became the incumbent in 1036/1627 (Eskandar Beg, pp. 1040, 1059-60, tr. Savory, pp. 1261, 1283; Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, p. 390). He was succeeded by Oḡurlu Khan, a son of Mahdiqoli Khan, who only served until 1634, when he was executed, to be succeeded by Emāmqoli Beg Ināllu. When the latter was killed in the same year, Jāni Khan, who had first served as yasāvol-e ṣoḥbat, took his place (Eskandar Beg and Moḥammad-Yusof Moʾarreḵ, pp. 147, 199; Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1380, pp. 201-4; Dunlop, p. 525). When Jāni Beg was appointed qurči-bāši a year and a half later in 1637, Mortażāqoli Beg Bijārlu succeeded him as išik-āqāsi-bāši (Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1380, p. 250; Olearius, p. 672). Upon Mortażāqoli Beg’s appointment as qurči-bāši in 1645, Mahdiqoli Khan, a son of Oḡurlu Beg, became išik-āqāsi-bāši, serving until his death in 1663, when his son, another Oḡurlu Khan, succeeded him (Waliqoli Šāmlu, p. 288; Waḥid Qazvini, pp. 68, 328; Mollā Kamāl, p. 101; Naṣrābādi, p. 549). Shah Solaymān, intent on saving money, kept the function vacant during an undetermined period of time, so that in 1684 the divānbegi, Mohammad-ʿAli Beg, was in charge of his responsibilities (Kaempfer, pp. 106-7; Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1373, fol. 883v). The vacancy may have lasted until 1103/1691-92, when Biji Beg Bijārlu, a son of Mortażāqoli Beg, was called to serve (Taḏkera-ye Ṣafawiya-ye Kermān, p. 627). In 1694, at the time of Shah Solṭān-Ḥosayn’s accession, the position went to Moḥammad Moʾmen Khan Šāmlu (Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, p. 19; Aubin, ed., p. 56). In the remaining years of Solṭān-Ḥosayn’s reign the following officials held the post, mostly in rapid succession: ʿAli Mardān Khan, 1110/1698-1701 (Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, p. 273; Valentyn, p. 283); Ṣafiqoli Beg, 1702-6 (Ḵātunābādi, p. 549; Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1679, fols. 103-4; idem, VOC 1732, fol. 539); Moḥammad-Zamān Khan Šāmlu, 1706-7; Maḥmud Āqā, 1707-8; Mortażāqoli Khan, 1708-9 (Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1763, fols. 252; idem, VOC 1779, fol. 255); Moḥammad-Salim Khan, 1121-125/1709-13 (Ḵātunābādi, p. 558; Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1779, fol. 299; idem, VOC 1843, fol. 19); Moḥammadqoli Khan 1713; Najafqoli Beg, the latter’s nephew, 1713-14 (Algemeen Rijks Archief, VOC 1856, fols. 587, 613, 627, 1011); Reżāqoli Khan, 1133/1721 (Moḥsen Mostawfi, p. 128).

We know much less about the haram counterpart, which is mostly due to the fact that he presided over the inner part of the palace, that he did not take part in the more visible and spectacular court ceremonial, and that his position may have been subordinated to that of his divān counterpart (Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, tr. Minorsky, pp. 118, 133). According to Jean Chardin (V, p. 356), he was the second most important official in the ḵāṣṣa department, yielding only to the nāẓer, under whose authority he served. He and his subordinates, the qāpu-čis and išik-āqāsis, stood guard at the gate of the ha-ram, and he was supposed to be present at the kešik-ḵāna day and night, with the exception of Friday nights. Whenever the shah traveled the išik-āqāsi-bāši-e ḥaram also took part in the enforcement of qoroq. In 1055/1645 his salary was fixed at 300 tomans (Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1380, p. 420; Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 87). A Persian chronicle asserts that the post of išik-āqāsi-bāši-e ḵāṣṣa-ye ḥaram rested with the family of Mahdiqoli Khan Afšār, who held the position in about 999 (Fażli Eṣfahāni, fol. 81b). Mirzā Rafiʿā (16/3, p. 307), on the other hand, claims that the position was always with the Čula clan. This is mostly true but not fully borne out by the record. Thus in 978/1570-71 the position was given to Solṭān-Ebrāhim Mirzā, a nephew of Shah Ṭah-māsb (Haneda, pp. 140-41). Later on, the position often went to one of the ḡolāms. Thus in 999 Allāh-verdi Solṭān was appointed (Fażli Eṣfahāni, fol. 47). Abu’l-Qāsem Beg Evoḡli (Ivāḡli) served in the last years of Shah ʿAbbās I’s reign and into that of Shah Ṣafi (Eskandar Beg, p. 929, 1078, tr. Savory, pp. 1147, 1302; Eskandar Beg and Moḥammad-Yusof Moʾarriḵ, p. 7). He was succeeded by Čalabi Beg, his brother. Ḥaydar Beg Evoḡli, son of Abu’l-Qāsem Beg, served following his uncle’s death in 1637, and held the position until 1642, when he was succeeded by ʿAliqoli Beg (Waḥid Qazvini, pp. 55-56; Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1380, p. 329; Mollā Kamāl, p. 99). In 1643 ʿAli Qobād Beg Čula was appointed (Wāleh Eṣfahāni, 1380, pp. 402-3). His direct successor may have been Moḥammadqoli Khan Čaḡatāy, who served until his death in 1662, and was succeeded by Abdāl Beg Čula (Waliqoli Šāmlu, ms, fol. 143v; Waḥid Qazvini, p. 311). In 1103/1691-92, Ṭahmāsb Beg Darjazini was appointed, succeeding Āqā Morād. In 1692 the shah called Kamāli Ṭahmāsb Beg to serve (Taḏkera-ye Ṣafawiya-ye Kermān, p. 626). In 1694, the incumbent was ʿAliqoli Beg Čula (Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, pp. 28, 272).

Nāder Shah Afšār is said to have abolished the position of išik-āqāsi-bāši-e divān in 1736 (Marvi, p. 457). This was only a temporary measure, however, for under the Zands the position appears again, though it no longer seems to have been held by the Šāmlu. Henceforth officials from varying background occupied the position. During the reign of Karim Khan Zand we thus hear of Moḥammad-Zamān Khan Zand as the incumbent (Ḡaf-fāri Kāšāni, pp. 485, 586). The French envoy Amédée Jaubert in 1806 was introduced to Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah by Jaʿfarqoli Khan in 1806 (Jaubert, pp. 229-30). In 1236/1820-21, Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Khan Zangana became išik-āqāsi-bāši. In 1249-50/1834, Sāhqoli Mirzā, a son of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah, was appointed (Lesān-al-Molk Sepehr, pp. 328, 602).

In the early Qajar period the išik-āqāsi-bāši-e divān is still described as the functionary who almost never left the shah’s side and who, equipped with his stick, announced the names of foreign envoys and escorted them to the shah during audiences. He was also said to be in charge of relaying the shah’s orders to the divān offi-cials and to be the head of the farrāš-bāšis (Malcolm, II, p. 556; Morier, p. 212; Drouville, II, p. 28).

Under Nāṣer-al-Din Shah, the function lost much of its importance: the incumbent’s tasks became limited and he only served on ceremonial occasions, such as wel-coming receptions and audiences with foreign envoys (Mostawfi, Šarḥ-e zendagāni I, pp. 409-10; Brugsch, pp. 262-63). Meanwhile, a change in terminology also occurred; as early as 1806, Jaubert (pp. 229-30) used the term tašrifātči-bāši for the royal master of ceremonies. In the later Qajar period the išik-āqāsi-bāši was commonly called raʾis-e tašrifāt or wazir-e tašrifāt (Bām-dād, Rejāl II, pp. 367-68; Mostawfi, Šarḥ-e zendagāni I, pp. 409-10; Dust-ʿAli Khan Moʿayyer-al-Mamālek, 1361, pp. 109-10; idem, 1372, p. 55). Between 1283/1866-67 and 1294/1877, the position was filled by Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan Qājār Davalu (Ẓahir-al-Dawla; Bāmdād, Rejāl IV, pp. 14-15). His son, ʿAli Khan Davalu Qājār Ẓahir-al-Dawla, who was married to a daughter of the shah, took up the post in 1304/1886-87, and held it for thirty years (Dust-ʿAli Khan, 1361, p. 109; Bāmdād, Rejāl II, pp. 367-68; Ẓahir-al-Dawla, introd. by Afšar). See also COURT.


Maḥmud b. Hedāyat-Allāh Afuštaʾi Naṭanzi, Noqāwat al-āṯār fi ḏekr al-aḵyār, ed. Eḥsān Ešrāqi, Tehran, 2nd ed., 1373 Š./1994.

Algemeen Rijks Archief (Dutch National Archives), Vereenigde Oostindische Companie (VOC; Dutch East India Company), The Hague. Jean Aubin, ed., L’ambassade de Pereira Grégorio Fidalgo à la Cour de Châh Hosseyn 1696-1697, Lisbon, 1971.

Heinrich Karl Brugsch, Im Lande der Sonne: Wanderungen in Persien, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1886.

Gaspard Drouville, Voyage en Perse pendant les années 1812 et 1813, 2 vols in one, St. Petersburg, 1819-20; tr. Manučehr Eʿtemād Moqaddam as Safar dar Irān, Tehran, 1364 Š./1985.

Hendrik Dunlop, ed., Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Oostindische Compagnie in Perzië, 1611-1638, The Hague, 1930.

Dust-ʿAli Khan Moʿayyer-al-Mamālek, Rejāl-e ʿaṣr-e Nāṣeri, Tehran, 1361 Š./1982.

Idem, Yāddāštha-i az zendagāni-e ḵoṣuṣi-e Nāṣer-al-Din Šāh, Tehran, 3rd ed., 1372 Š./1993.

Eskandar Beg Torkamān Monši and Moḥammad-Yusof Moʾarreḵ, Ḏayl-e tāriḵ-e ʿĀlamārā-ye ʿAbbāsi, ed. Aḥmad Sohayli Ḵᵛānsāri, Tehran, 1317 Š./1938.

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, Ruz-nāma-ye ḵāṭerāt-e Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 4th ed., 1377 Š./1998.

Mirzā Fażli Kuzani Eṣfahāni, Afżal al-tawāriḵ III, Christ’s College, Cambridge, Ms. Or. Dd. 5.6. Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḡaffāri Kāšāni, Golšan-e morād, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Ṭabāṭabāʾi Majd, Tehran, 1369 Š./1990.

Masashi Haneda, Le châh et les Qizilbāš: Le système militaire safavide, Berlin, 1987.

Mollā Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, Tāriḵ-e ʿAbbāsi yā Ruz-nāma-ye Mollā Jalāl, ed. Sayf-Allāh Waḥid-niā, Tehran, 1366 Š./1987.

Pierre Amédée Jaubert, Voyage en Arménie et en Perse fait dans les années 1805 et 1806, Paris, 1821.

Mirzā Beg Jonābādi, Row-żat al-Ṣafawiya, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Ṭabāṭabāʾi Majd, Tehran, 1378 Š./1999.

Engelbert Kaempfer, Amoenitates exoticae, tr. Walther Hinz as Engelbert Kämpfer: Am Hofe des persischen Grosskönigs, 1684-1685, 2nd ed., Tübingen and Basel, 1977.

Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Ḥosayni Ḵātunābādi, Waqāʾeʿ al-sanin wa’l-aʿwām, ed. Moḥammad-Bāqer Behbudi, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973.

John Malcolm, The History of Persia, 2 vols., London, 1815.

Moḥammad-Kāẓem Marvi, ʿĀlamārā-ye Nāderi, ed. Moḥammad Amin Riāḥi, 3 vols., 2nd ed., Tehran, 1369 Š./1990.

Moḥammad Maʿṣum b. Ḵᵛājagi Eṣfahāni, Ḵolāṣat al-siar: tāriḵ-e ruzgār-e Šāh Ṣafi Ṣafawi, ed. and tr. Gerhard Rettelbach as Ḫolāṣat al-Siyar: der Iran unter Schah Safi (1629-1642), Munich, 1978; ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1368 Š./1989.

Mollā Kamāl, Tāriḵ-e Mollā Kamāl, in Ebrāhim Dehgān, ed., Tāriḵ-e Ṣafawiān, Arāk, 1334 Š./1955.

James Morier, A Journey through Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, in the Years 1808 and 1809, Philadel-phia, 1816.

Moḥammad-Moḥsen Mostawfi, Zobdat al-tawāriḵ, ed. Behruz Gudarzi, Tehran, 1357 Š./1978.

Alexander H. Morton, “The Chūb-i ṭariq and Qizilbāsh Ritual in Safavid Persia,” in Jean Calmard, ed., Etudes Safavides, Paris and Tehran, 1993, pp. 225-46.

Mirzā Moḥammad-Ṭāher Naṣrābādi, Taḏkera-ye Naṣrābādi, ed. M. Nāji Naṣrābādi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1378 Š./1999.

Mirzā ʿAli-Naqi Naṣiri, Alqāb wa mawājeb-e dawra-ye salāṭin-e Ṣafawiya, ed. Y. Raḥimlu, Mašhad, 1371 Š./1992.

Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, Dastur-e šahriārān, ed. Moḥammad-Nāder Naṣiri Moqaddam, Tehran, 1383 Š./1994.

Adam Olearius, Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen Reyse, Schleswig, 1656, facsim. repr., Tübingen, 1971.

Mirzā Rafiʿā, (Moḥammad-Rafiʿ Anṣāri), Dastur al-moluk, ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh as Dastur al-moluk-e Mirzā Rafiʿā wa Taḏkerat al-molūk-e Mirzā Samiʿā, MDAT 15/5-6, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 475-504; 16/1-2, pp. 62-93; 16/3, pp. 298-322; 16/4, 1348 Š./1969, pp. 416-40; 16/5-6, pp. 540-64.

Francis Richard, ed., Raphaël du Mans missionnaire en Perse au XVIIe s., 2 vols, Paris, 1995.

Père Sanson, Estat présent du royaume de Perse, Paris, 1694.

Moḥammad-Taqi Lesān-al-Molk Sepehr, Nāseḵ al-tawāriḵ, ed. Jamšid Kiānfar, 3 vols. in two (paginated as one), Tehran, 1377 Š./1998.

François Valentyn, Oud en nieuw Oost-Indiën V, Dordrecht, 1726.

Moḥammad-Ṭāher Waḥid Qazvini, ʿAbbās-nāma, ed. Ebrāhim Dehgān, Arāk, 1329/1950.

Mohammad-Yusof Wāleh Qazvini Eṣfahāni, Ḵold-e barin: Irān dar ruzgār-e Ṣafawiān, ed. Mir Hāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1372/1993.

Idem, Irān dar zamān-e Šāh Ṣafi wa Šāh ʿAbbās-e dovvom, 1030-1071 h.q. (Ḵold-e barin), ed. Moḥammad-Reżā Naṣiri, Tehran, 1380 Š./2001.

Waliqoli b. Dāwudqoli Šāmlu, Qeṣaṣ al-ḵāqāni, British Library ms. Add. 7656; ed. Ḥasan Sādāt-e Nāṣeri, Tehran, 1371 Š./1992.

Mirzā ʿAli Khan Ẓahir-al-Dawla, Ḵāṭerāt wa asnād-e Ẓahir-al-Dawla, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1351 Š./1972.

Cite this page
C. Edmund Bosworth and Rudi Matthee, “ḤĀJEB”, in: Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, © Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Consulted online on 19 July 2024 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2330-4804_EIRO_COM_2654>
First published online: 2020
First print edition: 20021215

▲   Back to top   ▲