Storey Online

13.1.1 Biography: Poets (1)
(28,852 words)

In Volume 1-2: Biography, Additions, and Corrections | Section 2, History, Biography, etc.

A list of 51 sources of information concerning Persian poets (all tad̲h̲kirahs except one or two histories containing biographical sections) was prefixed by H. Ethé to his account of Persian poetical literature in the Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. An Urdu translation of this list was published in the Oriental College Magazine, vol. iii/2 (Lahore, Feb. 1927), pp. 21–37, by Dr. ʿAbd al-Sattār Ṣiddīqī. In a takmilah to Dr. ʿAbd al-Sattār’s article (pp. 40–56) Prof. M. S̲h̲afiʿ enumerated 41 additional tad̲h̲kirahs (and other works) known to be extant as well as eleven which seem to be lost. In the next two issues of the ocm. (vol. iii/3 (May 1927) pp. 48–52 and vol. iii/4 (Aug. 1927) p. 31) he added four more and raised the total to 107. This total was successively increased to 135 and 1421 by Ḥakīm S. S̲h̲ams Allāh Qādirī (ocm. v/1 (Nov. 1928) pp. 1–7, v/4 (Aug. 1929) pp. 112–13) and to 143 by M. S̲h̲ajāʿat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, who described the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-Bāqirīyah in ocm vi/2 (Feb. 1930) pp. 111–13. Subsequently Prof. M. Iqbāl described two more (nos. 144 and 145), both belonging to Prof. Maḥmūd S̲h̲ērānī, namely the Zubdat al-muʿāṣirīn written in 1240/1824–5 by Mīr Ḥusain al-Ḥusainī, a resident of S̲h̲īrāz (ocm. x/1 (Nov. 1933) pp. 32–42 and x/2 (Feb. 1934) pp. 129–37, where extracts relating to Persian poetesses are published) and the Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl written in 1076/1665 by a Persian who had visited India (ocm. xi/1 (Nov. 1934) pp. 58–73, where some extracts are given).

§ 1088. Sadīd al-Dīn2 M. b. M. b. Imām S̲h̲araf al-Dīn Abī Ṭāhir Yaḥyā b. Ṭāhir b. ʿUt̲h̲mān al-ʿAufī al-Buk̲h̲ārī, who claimed descent from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAuf,3 was probably born at Buk̲h̲ārā and was certainly educated there. In 597/1200–1 he went to Samarqand, where his maternal uncle, the physician Majd al-Dīn M. b. ʿAdnān Surk̲h̲akatī (see no. 610 supra), was in the service of the Īlak K̲h̲ān, Qilic̲h̲ Ṭamg̲h̲āc̲h̲ K̲h̲ān Ibrāhīm. The Walī-ʿahd, ʿUt̲h̲man b. Ibrāhīm, appointed ʿAufī his secretary, but before long he had started on travels which took him to̲̲ K̲h̲wārazm, S̲h̲ahr i Nau, Nasā (in 600/1203–4), K̲h̲ūjān = K̲h̲abūs̲h̲ān (in 603/1206–7), Isfarāyin, Nīs̲h̲āpūr, Harāt, Isfizār (after 607) and other places. By 617/1220,4 if not before, he was in Sind, ruled at that time by Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah, for whom, as mentioned below, two of his works were written. In a note discovered by A. H. M. Niẓām al-Dīn at the end of an India Office ms.5 a contemporary who prefixes to ʿAufī’s name, among other titles, those of Qāḍī and Wāʿiẓ al-mulūk wa-’l-salāṭīn, speaks of meeting him at Cambay, where he had been living for some time (rūzī c̲h̲and ān-jā sukūnat sāk̲h̲tah būd). It may be surmised that he was Qāḍī of that place, which was included in Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah’s dominions. In 625/1228 he was in Bhakkar when Qabājah was besieged there by the troops of Īltutmis̲h̲, the Sulṭān of Delhi. After Qabājah’s capitulation and suicide ʿAufī became a subject of Īltutmis̲h̲ and the Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt is dedicated to that monarch’s Wazīr, Qiwām al-Dīn al-Junaidī. He was still alive in 628/1230–1, the date of an event which is referred to in the Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt (see A. H. M. Niẓām al-Dīn Introduction p. 20).

In addition to the Lubāb al-albāb he wrote (1) Tarjamah i kitāb al-Faraj baʿd al-s̲h̲iddah, a translation of al-Tanūk̲h̲ī’s work (for which see Brockelmann i 155, 519 (ad 155), Supptbd. i p. 253) written about 620/1223 for Malik Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah (see Niẓām al-Dīn Introduction to the Jawámiʿu ’l-ḥikáyát pp. 14–19, where it is shown that the i.o. mss. Ethé 737 and 738 contain the second half of this translation), (2) Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt wa-lawāmiʿ al-riwāyāt, a collection of more than two thousand anecdotes planned at the request of Malik Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah, not yet finished at his death in 625, resuscitated at the suggestion of Sulṭān Īltutmis̲h̲’s Wazīr Niẓām al-Mulk Qiwām al-Dīn M. b. Abī Saʿīd al-Junaidī, to whom it was eventually dedicated not earlier than 628/1230–1 (see Niẓām al-Dīn Introduction to the Jawámiʿu ’l-ḥikáyát, g.m.s., n.s. viii, London 1929), (3) Madā’iḥ al-Sulṭān, mentioned in the Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt but now apparently lost (see Niẓām al-Dīn op. cit. p. 14 n. 1).

Lubāb al-albāb,6 notices of nearly 300 poets written probably in 618/1221–2 and dedicated to Malik Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah’s Wazīr, ʿAin al-Mulk Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn al-Ḥusain b. Abī Bakr al-As̲h̲ʿarī: Sprenger no. 1 = Berlin 637 (defective. 15th cent.?), Lindesiana p. 124 no. 308 (16th or 17th cent.).

The Bazm-ārāy (Rieu Suppt. 106. Early 17th cent.), completed in 1000/1591–2 by S. ʿAlī b. Maḥmūd al-Ḥusainī and dedicated to the K̲h̲ān i K̲h̲ānān ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Bairam K̲h̲ān (for whom see no. 698, Persian translations (3) supra) is largely plagiarized from the Lubāb al-albāb and may be regarded as virtually an additional manuscript (see M. K̲h̲ān Qazwīnī’s muqaddimah pp. h–w).

Edition: Part II of the Lubábu ’l-albáb of Muḥammad ʿAwfí edited … by E. G. Browne, London and Leyden 1903°* (Persian historical texts, vol. ii), Part I of the Lubábu ’l-albāb … edited … by E. G. Browne and Mírzá Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu ’l-Wahháb-i-Qazwíní, London and Leyden 1906°* (Persian historical texts, vol. iv).

Corrections: Taṣḥīḥ i Lubāb al-albāb, by “Waḥīd” Dastgirdī (in Armag̲h̲ān xi, pp. 335–6, 652–4, 747–52, xii, pp. 843–4).

List of the poets (not quite complete): Sprenger, pp. 3–6.

Descriptions:

(1) On the earliest Persian Biography of Poets, by Muhammad Aúfi, and on some other works of the class called Tazkirat ul Shuârá. By N. Bland (in the jras. 1848, pp. 111–76),

(2) An early Persian anthology (in R. A. Nicholson’s Studies in Islamic poetry, Cambridge 1921, pp. 1–42. With many verse translations).

[Autobiographical statements in the Lubāb al-albāb and the Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt (for these see the muqaddimah of M. K̲h̲ān Qazwīnī and the preface of E. G. Browne to Part i of the Lubāb al-albāb and Niẓām al-Dīn’s Introduction to the Jawámiʿu ’l-ḥikáyát); Rieu ii 749–50; Browne, Lit. Hist, ii pp. 477–9; Ency. Isl. under ʿAwfī (short and unsigned).]

§ 1089. For the Tārīk̲h̲ i Guzīdah, which was written in 730/1329–30 by Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazwīnī and of which the fifth and penultimate bāb (pp. 755–829 in the g.m.s. facsimile) is devoted to very brief notices of imāms and mujtahids (Faṣl 1 = pp. 755–9), ten qurrāʾ (Faṣl 2 = pp. 759–60), seven traditionists (Faṣl 3 = p. 760), mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ (Faṣl 4 = pp. 760–97), ʿulamāʾ (Faṣl 5 = pp. 797–812), and poets (Faṣl 6 = pp. 812–29), see no. 111 (2) supra. A translation of Faṣl 6 by E. G. Browne is mentioned there under Translations (5).

§ 1090. For the Firdaus al-tawārīk̲h̲, which was written in 808/1405–6 by K̲h̲usrau Abarqūhī and which contains at the end a biographical dictionary of Arabic and Persian poets, see no. 114 supra.

§ 1091. For the Mujmal of Faṣīḥ al-Dīn Aḥmad b. M. K̲h̲wāfī, a compendium of Islāmic history and biography to 845/1441–2, see no. 120 supra.

§ 1092. The Bahāristān, a collection of anecdotes written in 892/1487 by the poet ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad “Jāmī”, does not belong to this section, but it deserves a passing mention, since the seventh of its eight rauḍahs is devoted to short biographies of twenty-eight poets.

§ 1093. Daulat-S̲h̲āh b. ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah Bak̲h̲tī-S̲h̲āh al-G̲h̲āzī al-Samarqandī, as he calls himself (T. al-s̲h̲. pp. 116, 5411), or Amīr7 Daulat-S̲h̲āh, as he is called in the Laṭāʾif-nāmah, was the son of Amīr ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah Isfarāyinī (Laṭāʾif-nāmah p. 1807), an intimate friend of Sulṭān S̲h̲āh-Ruk̲h̲ (T. al-s̲h̲. p. 33719–20). He was present8 at the battle of C̲h̲akman9 Sarāy,10 near Andk̲h̲ūd, in which his sovereign, Abū ’l-G̲h̲āzī Sulṭān Ḥusain defeated Sulṭān Maḥmūd Mīrzā, the third son of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd,11 but he did not rise to the dignities and influence of his ancestors, being apparently content to live a simple life as a landed proprietor (az imārat u ʿaẓamat kih āyīn i ajdād i ū būd gud̲h̲as̲h̲t12 u sar ris̲h̲tah i faqr u qanāʿat u dahqanat ba-dast āward, Laṭāʾif-nāmah p. 18010). Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr says in the Majālis al nafāʾis, which was begun in 896/1490–1, that news of his death had recently been received. According to the Mirʾāt al-ṣafāʾ, cited by Rieu, he died in 900/1494–5. He was about fifty years old when he began to write the Tad̲h̲kirat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ.13

Tad̲h̲kirat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, notices of ancient and modern poets completed in 892/1487, dedicated to Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr (for whom see no. 1094 infra) and divided into a muqaddimah (on the art of poetry) seven ṭabaqāt (“each containing accounts of some twenty more or less contemporary poets and the princes under whose patronage they flourished”) and a k̲h̲ātimah on seven poets contemporary with the author and the merits of Sulṭān Ḥusain: Ḥ. K̲h̲. ii p. 262 no. 2819, Sprenger no. 3, Cairo p. 502 (ah 892, autograph14), p. 501 (ah 980/1572), p. 502 (n.d.), British Museum (ah 895/148–90),15 Rieu iii 977b (ah 973/1565), ii 809b (16th cent.), i 364a–365b (8 copies, one of the 16th cent. and three of the 17th), Bodleian 348 (ah 942/1536), 349 (ah 975/1567–8), 350 (ah 978/1571), 351–8, Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. A. ii. 21 (ah 994/1586), Edinburgh New Coll. p. 6 (ah 952/1545), Ethé 656 (ah 960/1553), 657–63, i.O. 3777 (18th cent.), i.o. d.p. 620, Blochet ii 1129 (ah 967/1560), 1130 (ah 974), 1131–41, iii 2452 (late 16th cent.), Rosen Inst. 31 (ah 971/1563–4), Berlin 638 (ah 974/1567), 639–42. Dorn 320 (ah 975/1567–8), Flügel ii 1199 (ah 979/1571), 1200 (ah 985/1577), Browne Pers. Cat. 113 (ah 979/1572), 112 (ah 984/1576–7), 114, Suppt. 292–5 (the last = King’s 106), Browne Coll. J. 8 = Houtum-Schindler 36 (ah 908/1502–3 or 980/1572–3), Būhār 90 (ah 980/1572), Krafft p. 125 no. 312 (ah 982/1574), Ivanow 218 (ah 984/1576–7), Curzon 49, 50, Kapurthala (ah 999/1590–1. See Oriental College Magazine vol. iii/4 (Lahore, Aug. 1927) p. 11), Tashkent Univ. 69 (16th cent.), Sipahsālār ii pp. 475–7 (4 copies, one of 16th cent.), Lindesiana p. 132 no. 838 (not later than ad 1600), no. 54, no. 310, no. 309, Rehatsek p. 130 no. 15 (ah 1033/1623–4. List of Poets), p. 95 no. 45, p. 103, no. 59 (apparently, though the title is given as Maḥbūb al-qulūb), Bānkīpūr viii 680 (ah 1051/1641), 681, ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 61 no. 32, Āṣafīyah i p. 318 no. 36, iii p. 162 no. 119, Aumer 1 (“ziemlich alt”), Bombay Univ. p. 274 (old), Buk̲h̲ārā Semenov 48, Chanykov 105, Lahore Panjab Univ. Lib. (2 copies. See Oriental College Magazine vol. iii, no 1 (Nov. 1926) p. 74), Leningrad Pub. Lib. (see Mélanges asiatiques iii (St. Petersburg 1859) p. 728), Mus. Asiat, (at least 3 copies. See Mélanges asiatiques vi (1873) p. 126, vii (1876) p. 402), Madras 440, Majlis 327, Peshawar 1451, r.a.s. P. 163, Salemann-Rosen p. 13 nos. 61*, 147*. A copy described as written by Sulṭān-ʿAlī Mas̲h̲hadī (a celebrated calligraphist16 contemporary with Daulat-S̲h̲āh) and adorned with six full-page miniatures occurred in Sotheby’s sale catalogue for 22–23 May 1930.

Editions: (1) Bombay 1887°, (2) The Tadhkiratu ’sh-Shuʿará … of Dawlatsháh … edited … by E. G. Browne …, London and Leyden 1901°* (Persian historical texts, vol. i), (3) Allāhabad 1921* (Ṭabaqahs i–v only. Ed. S. M. Ḍāmin ʿAlī).

Extracts:

(1) [Life of “Anwarī”] Vitae poetarum persicorum ex Dauletschahi Historia Poetarum … excerptae … persice edidit latine vertit … J. A. Vullers. Fasc. ii. Anvarii vitam tenens, Giessen 1868°.

(2) [Life of “anwarī”] Ali Aukhadeddin Enveri. Materialy dlya ego biographii i kharakteristiki [by V. A. Zhukovsky], St. Petersburg 1883°.

(3) [Life of “ʿAṭṭār”] Pend-namèh, ou Le Livre des Conseils de Férid-eddin Attar, traduit et publié par M. le Bon Silvestre de Sacy, Paris 1819°*, Pand-nāmah i … Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār [reprinted from the Paris edition of 1819] [Ṭihrān] 1873°.

(4) [Life of “Ḥāfiẓ”] Vitae poetarum persicorum ex Dauletschahi Historia Poetarum … excerptae … persice edidit latine vertit … J. A. Vullers. Fasc i. Hâfizi Schirâzensis vitam tenens, Giessen 1839°* (cf. no. 1 supra).

(5) [Life of “Jāmī”] Tuhfat ul Ahrār, the Gift of the Noble: being one of the Seven Poems, or Haft Aurang, of Mullā Jāmī … edited … by F. Falconer [with biographies of “Jāmī” from Daulat-S̲h̲āh’s tad̲h̲kirah, the Ātas̲h̲-kadah and the Haft iqlīm], London 1848°* (Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts).

(6) [Life of “Niẓāmī”] De expeditione Russorum Berdaam versus auctore inprimis Nisamio disseruit F. Erdmann [with Daulat-S̲h̲āh’s notice of “Niẓāmī”], Kazan 1826–32°.

(7) [Life of “Niẓāmī”] Behram-Gur und die russische Fuerstentochter. Muhammed Niszamiu-d-din, dem Gendscher, nachgebildet und durch … Anmerkungen erlaeutert von F. von Erdmann [with Daulat-S̲h̲āh’s notice of “Niẓāmī”] 2te Auflage, Kazan 1844°*.

(8) [Life of “Saʿdī”] The Persian and Arabick works of Sâdee [edited by J. H. Harington and M. Rās̲h̲id. With Daulat-S̲h̲āh’s notice of “Saʿdī” in Persian text and English translation], vol. i, Calcutta 1791°*.

Turkish translation (abridged): Safīnat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, written in 1233 by Fahīm Sulaimān Efendī (for whom see Ency. Isl. under Fehīm): Flügel ii 1258. Edition: Istānbūl 1259/1843 (cf. Babinger Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen p. 351, n. 1).

English translation of Ṭabaqahs i–iii: Translation with notes-critical and explanatory of Tadhkiratush-shu’ara … (the portion prescribed for the b.a. Examination) of Dawlatshah-e-Samarqandi. By P. B. Vachha. Bombay [1909*].

J. von Hammer-Purgstall’s Geschichte der schönen Redekünste Persiens, mit einer Blüthenlese aus zweyhundert persischen Dichtern (Vienna 1818) is for the most part an abridged paraphrase of the Tad̲h̲kirat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, supplemented with selected notices from the Tuḥfah i Sāmī and a few from other sources.

Translations of extracts: (1) [Life of “Anwarī” (Latin)] see Extracts (1) above, (2) [Life of “Anwarī” (Russian)] see Extracts (2) above, (3) [Life of “ʿAṭṭār” (French)] see Extracts (3) above, (4) [Life of Firdausī (French)] Tezkirat alschoara, Histoire des poëtes. Par Douletschah … Par M. Silvestre de Sacy, pp. 230–8 (in Notices et extraits, Tome iv (Paris, An 7 [= 1798°*])). (5) [Life of Firdausī (German)] Fragmente ueber die Religion des Zoroaster. Aus dem Persischen uebersetzt und mit einem ausfuhrlichen Commentar versehen nebst dem Leben des Ferdusi aus Dauletscha’h’s Biographieen der Dichter. Von Dr. J. A. Vullers …, Bonn 1831°. (6) [Life of Ḥāfiẓ (French)] Tezkirat alschoara. Histoire des poëtes. Par Douletschah … Par M. Silvestre de Sacy, pp. 238–45 (in Notices et extraits, Tome iv (Paris, An 7 [= 1798°*])). (7) [Life of “Ḥāfiẓ” (Latin)] see Extracts (4) above. (8) [Life of “Saʿdī” (English)] see Extracts (8) above. (9) [Account of the Sarbadār dynasty = Browne’s ed. pp. 277–8817 (French)] Tezkirat alschoara. Histoire des poëtes. Par Douletschah … Par M. Silvestre de Sacy, pp. 251–62 (in Notices et extraits, tome iv (Paris, An 7 [= 1798°*])). (10) [Account of Sulṭān Ḥusain’s conquests (abridged) = Browne’s ed. pp. 522–3918 (French)] Tezkirat alschoara. Histoire des poëtes. Par Douletschah … Par M. Silvestre de Sacy, pp. 262–9 (in Notices et extraits, tome iv (Paris, An 7 [= 1798°*])).

Descriptions: (1) Tezkirat alschoara.19 Histoire des poëtes. Par Douletschah ben-Alaëddoulet algazi alsamarcandi … Par M. Silvestre de Sacy (in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, tome iv (Paris, An 7 [= 1798°*])), pp. 220–72 (with List of Poets), (2) Sprenger 3.

Lists of the poets: (1) See under Descriptions (1) above, (2) Rehatsek pp. 130–1.

Sources: The sources of Dawlatshāh … By E. G. Browne (in jras. 1899, pp. 37–45).

Metrical abridgment (about 250 verses): Āsmān i suk̲h̲un, a remodelling by Luṭf Allāh M. Muhandis b. Aḥmad, who lived in Aurangzēb’s time, of a versification made in Akbar’s time by “Fāʾidī” Kirmānī: Sprenger no. 15 (Top-k̲h̲ānah).

[Autobiographical statements (for which see Browne’s English preface p. 15); Majālis al-nafāʾis; Laṭāʾif-nāmah p. 180; Rieu i p. 364; Ency. Isl. under Dawlat-S̲h̲āh (Huart); Browne Lit. Hist, iii pp. 436–7.]

§ 1094. Amīr, or Mīr,20 Niẓām al-Dīn ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr “Nawāʾī” and “Fānī”21 b. Amīr G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ al-Dīn Kic̲h̲kīnah22 was born at Harāt on 17 Ramaḍān 84423/9 Feb. 1441. He is said to have been a schoolfellow of Sulṭān Ḥusain b. Manṣūr, who, on becoming ruler of Harāt in 873/1469, appointed him Keeper of the Great Seal (Muhr-dār).24 Before long, however, he resigned that appointment, being by nature averse from holding office. He continued nevertheless to occupy a position of great influence and intimacy at court, and in 876/1472 he was formally given the rank of amīr (manṣab i ʿālī-marātib i imārat i dīwān i aʿlā).25 On occasions when Sulṭān Ḥusain was absent from Harāt Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr acted as Governor (ḥākim) of the town. In 892/1487 he reluctantly accepted the Governorship of Astarābād, but after little more than a year he returned to Harāt. On 12 Jumādā ii ah 906/3 Jan. 1501 he died.

Barthold states (in the Ency. Isl. under Turks. iii. Čag̲h̲atāi literature (English edition, Vol. iv p. 916)) that, although in European works Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr is frequently described as a minister or vizier, he never in fact held any such official position.26 “His influence on affairs of state and his activity as a patron of arts and sciences were the result of his friendship (not always unclouded) with his prince Sulṭān Ḥusain (1469–1506).”

Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr was the author of a Persian dīwān,27 but his reputation as a Persian poet was not high.28 In the history of Eastern-Turkish literature, on the other hand, he is an important figure. “Mīr ʿAlī S̲h̲īr,” says Rieu, “has done more than any other to raise Turki to the rank of a literary language, and is universally considered as the most elegant, as he certainly is the most prolific, of Chaghatāi writers.” His Turkī works (at least 29 in number29) include (1) four dīwāns,30 (2) a k̲h̲amsah,31 (3) Lisān al-ṭair (ah 904/1498–9), modelled on ʿAṭṭār’s Manṭiq al-ṭair, (4) K̲h̲amsat al-mutaḥaiyirīn, a memoir of his friend Jāmī,32 (5) Nasāʾim al-maḥabbah (ah 901/1495–6), a translation of Jāmī’s Nafaḥāt al-uns, (6) Muḥākamat al-lug̲h̲atain (ah 905/1499–1500), on the superiority of Turkish to Persian,33 (7) Maḥbūb al-qulūb (ash 906/1500–1) on morals and manners.34 According to the Islâm Ansiklopedisi the oldest and finest manuscripts of his Kullīyāt are (1) Istānbūl, Rawān Kös̲h̲kü no. 808 (ah 901/1496), (2) Istānbūl, Fātiḥ no. 4059, (3) Paris, Suppl. turc. 316–17 (ah 933/1526) and (4) Leningrad Pub. Lib. [Dorn 558. Cf. zdmg. ii pp. 248–56.]

Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr is famous also as a patron of writers and artists. Mīr K̲h̲wānd, K̲h̲wānd-Amīr, Ḥusain Kās̲h̲ifī and Bihzād are among those who were indebted to his encouragement.

Majālis al-nafāʾis, short notices of contemporary Persian and Turkī poets, begun in 896/1490–1,35 written in Eastern Turkish and divided into eight majālis ((1) deceased poets personally unknown to the author, (2) poets deceased before 896 whom the author had met, (3) living poets known to the author, (4) men of letters who occasionally wrote poetry, (5) noblemen of K̲h̲urāsān who occasionally wrote poetry (6) non-K̲h̲urāsānī poets, (7) kings and princes of Tīmūr’s house, (8) Sulṭān Ḥusain): Ḥ. K̲h̲. v p. 381 no. 11388 (cf. ii p. 263 no. 2822), Flügel ii 1209 (ah 903/1497–8 ?), Blochet iii 1765 (early 16th cent.), Browne Coll. J. 7 (ah 937/1530–1), Rieu Turkish Cat. p. 273a (ah 987/1579), p. 274b (ah 1232/1817), Lindesiana p. 244 no. 149 (ah 1031/1621–2), Buk̲h̲ārā Semenov 28, 98, Ethé 664, Leningrad Asiat. Mus. (see Dorn p. 504), Institut (ah 1224/1809. See Smirnow p. 189 no. 96), Pub. Lib. nos. 558 (9) (in the Kullīyāt i Nawāʾī) and 553 (the latter only a fragment. See Smirnow p. 1901, Dorn pp. 510, 503), Univ. no. 618 (see Salemann-Rosen p. 24), Mas̲h̲had iii p. 103, Munich Turkish Cat. p. 41 no. 148 (modern), Velyaminov-Zernov p. 861 no. 12, and probably also in the Istānbūl and Paris mss. of the Kullīyāt mentioned above (no. 1094, Majālis al-nafāʾis, mss.).36

Editions: Tashkent 1326/1908 (together with the tad̲h̲kirah entitled Bāg̲h̲ i Iram and Afḍal Mak̲h̲dūm i Pīrmastī’s Afḍal al-tad̲h̲kār fī d̲h̲ikr al-s̲h̲uʿarīʾ wa-’l-as̲h̲ʿār, composed in 1322. See Semenov’s Tashkent Cat., vvedenie, p. [3]), 1330/1912 (see Semenov’s Kurzer Abriss p. 3, n. 1).

Extracts: (1) [The preface] Belin Notice biographique et littéraire sur Mir Ali-Chir-Névâii (tirage à part) pp. 65–8, (2) [parts of Majlis iii] Berezin Chrestomathie turque pp. 146–61, (3) [Majlis vii] Belin op. cit. pp. 73–82.

Translations of extracts: (1) [The preface (French)] Belin op. cit. pp. 68–72, (2) [Majlis vii (French)] Belin op. cit. pp. 83–100.

Description: Browne Lit. Hist, iii pp. 437–9.

Persian translations: (1) Laṭāʾif-nāmah, a translation made by Sulṭān-Muḥammad “Fak̲h̲rī” b. “Amīrī” Harawī (see no. 1099 infra), who added a ninth majlis (on living poets not mentioned in the original) and dedicated his work to the Wazīr Ḥabīb Allāh [Sāwajī] at the time of Sām Mīrzā’s appointment to the [titular] Governorship of K̲h̲urāsān with Durmis̲h̲ K̲h̲ān as his vice-gerent [i.e. in 927/1521 according to Ḥabīb al-siyar iii, juzʾ 4, p. 100]: Lindesiana p. 122 no. 5537 (ah 939/1532–3), Rieu i 365b (ah 965/1558).

Editions:

(1) Laṭāʾif-nīmah i Fak̲h̲rī [with preface, notes and indexes by S. M. ʿAbd Allāh] (in the Oriental College Magazine, vol. vii no. 4 (Lahore Aug. 1931), vol. viii no. 1 (Nov. 1931), no. 2 (Feb. 1932), no. 3 (May 1932), no. 4 (Aug. 1932), vol. ix no. 1 (Nov. 1932) and no. 2 (Feb. 1933), (2) The Majalis-un-Nafaʿis [sic] “Galaxy of poets” of Mir ʿAli Shir Navaʿi [sic].

Two 16 th. century Persian translations edited with an introduction and annotations, etc., by Ali Asghar Hekmat, Tihrān ahs. 1323/1945 pp. 1–178.

(2) (Tarjamah i Majālis al-nafāʾis), begun at Istānbūl in 927/1521, completed in 929/1522–3 and dedicated to Sulṭān Salīm by Ḥakīm [S̲h̲āh] M. b. Mubārak al-Qazwīnī (cf. al-S̲h̲aqāʾiq al-Nuʿmānīyah i pp. 371–2, Rescher’s trans. p. 216), who compressed the matter of the original (with some additions) into seven bihis̲h̲ts and appended an eighth in two rauḍahs ((1) ancient and modern poets, mostly extracts from Jāmī’s Bahāristān, (2) Salīm and the poets of his court): Asʿad 3877, Tihrān Saʿīd Nafīsī’s private library.

Edition: The Majalis-un-Nafaʿis [sic] … Two 16th century Persian translations edited … by Ali Asghar Hekmat, Tihrān ahs. 1323/1945 pp. 179–409.

(3) Majālis al-nafāʾis, a translation made by S̲h̲āh ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿAlī in the time of Sulṭān Dīn Muḥammad [b. Jānī Bēg, who ruled over part of K̲h̲urāsān during the reigns of ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān Uzbak (ah 991/1583–1006/1598) and ʿAbd al-Muʾmin K̲h̲ān and after the latter’s death in 1006/1598 was proclaimed K̲h̲ān in Harāt, but was defeated soon afterwards by S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās and died during his flight]: Rieu Suppt. 104 (breaks off in the middle of the account of Ulug̲h̲ Bēg, the sixth in Majlis vii. 17th cent.).

(4) Majālis al-nafāʾis, a translation made by ʿAbd al-Bāqī S̲h̲arīf Riḍawī at the instance of Gh̲ulām Ghaut̲h̲ Khān, Nawwāb of the Carnatic: Madras 445 (ah 1242/1827, probably autograph).

[Daulat-Shāh 494–509; Jāmī Bahāristān (the last notice in Rauḍah vii); Makārim al-ak̲h̲āq, a panegyric by K̲h̲wānd-Amīr (for whom see no. 125 supra) written in the rough before ʿAlī S̲h̲īr’s death but finished afterwards and dedicated to Sulṭān Ḥusain (ms.: Rieu i p. 367a); Majīlis al-ʿus̲h̲s̲h̲āq (the fourth biography from the end); The Babur-nama in English (see no. 698, 6th par. supra) i p. 271 (summarised in Browne’s Lit. Hist, iii pp. 456–7); Bābur-nāmah tr. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm pp. 10818–1099; Laṭāʾif-nāmah pp. 218–23 (the first qism in Majlis ix); Ḥabīb al-siyar iii, juzʾ 3, pp. 217 etc.; Tārīk̲h̲ i Ras̲h̲īdī (the passage, omitted in Ross’s translation, is quoted in Mélanges asiatiques ix (St. Petersburg, 1888) pp. 358–60 and in Oriental College Magazine,vol. x no. 3 (Lahore, May 1934) pp. 155–7; Tuḥfah i Sāmī, Ṭihrān ahs 1314, pp. 179–81 (the first biography in Ṣaḥīfah vi. French translation by Silvestre de Sacy in Notices et extraits, tome iv (Paris, An 7 = 1798°*) pp. 290–3); Mirʾāt al-adwār (Ethé 109, fol. 411b seq.); Taqī Kās̲h̲ī K̲h̲ulāṣat al-as̲h̲ʿār (cf. Sprenger p. 20): Ḥasan Rūmlū Aḥsan al-tawārīk̲h̲ xii pp. 559–5710, Seddon’s trans, pp. 24–5; Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl (Bodl. 374) no. 57; Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bodl. 376 no. 8); Ātas̲h̲-kadah no. 60 (Bombay 1277 p. 191); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 197; Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 114–16; M. Nikitski Emir-Nizam-ed-Din-Ali-Shir, v gosudarstvennom i literaturnom ego znachenii, St. Petersburg 1856 (diss. For a criticism see Barthold in Mir-Ali-Shir, Leningrad 1928, p. 101, Hinz’s trans. p. 3); Notice biographique et littéraire sur Mir Ali-Chir Névâïi, suivie d’extraits tirés des œuvres du même auteur par M. [F. A.] Belin (in the Journal asiatique, 5e série, tome xvii (1861) pp. 175–256, 281–357, published also as an offprint. For a criticism see Barthold, op. cit. pp. 101–2, Hinz’s trans, pp. 3–4); Elliot and Dowson History of India iv pp. 527–8; Browne Lit. Hist. iii pp. 505–6 and elsewhere; Mir-Ali-Shir: sbornik k pyatisotletiyu so dnya rozhdeniya, Leningrad (Akademiya Nauk sssr) 1928 (containing articles in Russian ((1) Contribution to the history of the literary language of Central Asia by A. Samoylovich pp. 1–23, (2) Nevāyi and ʿAttār by E. Berthels, pp. 24–82, (3) A new C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāy-Persian dictionary by A. Romaskevich, pp. 83–99, (4) Mīr ʿAlī-Shīr and political life by W. Barthold pp. 100–64) as well as reviews of some books, mostly in Turkish, on Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr. See a summary by H. Ritter in Der Islam xix (1930–1) pp. 42–9 and W. Barthold Herat unter Ḥusein Baiqara, dem Timuriden. Deutsche Bearbeitung [of B.’s article in Mir-Ali-Shir pp. 100–64] von W. Hinz (D. M. G. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, xxii, 8 (Leipzig 1937)); Oriental College Magazine vol. x no. 2 (Lahore, Feb. 1934) pp. 3–34, vol. xi no. 2 (Feb. 1935) pp. 3–25 (articles in Urdu by S. M. ʿAbd Allāh); Ency. Isl. in the section Čag̲h̲atāi Literature (Barthold), which forms part of the article Turks (there is no separate article on Mir ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr); Islâm Ansiklopedisi under Ali Şîr (an article of 18 columns by A. Zeki Velidi Togan), where some further works are mentioned, including Ali Şîr Beg, hayati ve eserleri by A. Zeki Velidi Togan (a forthcoming publication of the University of Istanbul) and a Russian bibliography of ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr and his works by A. A. Semenov (Tashkent 1940); ʿAlī Aṣg̲h̲ar Ḥikmat’s introduction to his edition of two Persian translations of the Majālis al-nafāʾis pp. z-kh; Portraits in the Burlington Magazine, Jan. 1931, plate iv B, and in Binyon, Wilkinson, and Gray’s Persian miniature painting, London, 1933, pl. lxxvi.]

§ 1095. For the (Tārīk̲h i Ṣadr i Jahān), which was written, partly at least, in 907/1501–2 by Ṣadr i Jahān Faiḍ Allāh Banbānī and which concludes with a biographical chapter, see no. 127 supra.

§ 1096. For the Ḥabīb al-siyar of K̲h̲wānd-Amīr which extends to 930/1524 and which contains biographies of celebrities at the end of reigns, see no. 125 (3) supra. In addition to this and other works he wrote

Makārim al-ak̲h̲lāq, a pompous panegyric on Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr, who died in 906/1501 (see no. 1094 supra) before its completion: Rieu i 367a (ah 965/1558).

§ 1097. At the end of his narrative of the year 911/1505–6 Bābur has inserted in the Bābur-nāmah (see no. 698 supra) short accounts of some poets, scholars, musicians and other celebrities contemporary with Sulṭān Ḥusain at Harāt. In the Bombay edition of ʿAbd al-Raḥīm’s translation these will be found on pp. 112 antepenult.-11610. A corrected text of the passage was published by M. S̲h̲afīʿ in ocm. x/3 (May 1934) pp. 140–9.

§ 1098. For the Tārīk̲h̲ i Ras̲h̲īdī, which was completed by Mīrzā Ḥaidar Dūg̲h̲lāt in 952/1546 and which contains biographies of poets and other celebrities, see no. 349 supra.

§ 1099. Sulṭān-Muḥammad “Fak̲h̲rī” b. M. “Amīrī” al-Harawī was, according to “Ilāhī”, a panegyrist of S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp (reigned 930/1524–984/1576). His Laṭāʾif-nāmah (for which see no. 1094, Persian translations (1) supra) was written at the time when S̲h̲āh Ismāʿīl’s son, Sām Mīrzā (b. 923/1517) was appointed titular Governor of K̲h̲urāsān,38 Durmish̲̲̲ Kh̲̲ān, his tutor, being the real Governor and Ḥabīb Allāh Sāwajī the Wazīr. It was to the latter that “Fak̲h̲rī” dedicated both the Laṭāʾif-nāmah and the Tuḥfat al-ḥabīb, an anthology of g̲h̲azals.39

In the Jawāhir al-ʿajāʾib, according to Sprenger, “The author informs us that with the intention to perform the pilgrimage to Makkah, he came during the reign of Sháh Tahmásb Ḥosayny (reigned from 930 to 984) to Sind, the ruler of that country was then40 Moḥammad ’ysá Tarkhán (died in 974), and it would appear that he wrote this book at his Court.” M. ʿĪsā Tark̲h̲ān reigned from 961/1554 or 962/1555 to 974/1564 or 975/1565, but apparently “Fak̲h̲rī’s” connexion with Sind began at an earlier date. In the Tārīk̲h̲ i Maʿṣūmī (for which see no. 824 supra) “Maulānā Fak̲h̲rī Harawī”41 is mentioned in a list of celebrities contemporary with Mīrzā S̲h̲āh Ḥasan [Arg̲h̲ūn], M. ʿĪsā Tark̲h̲ān’s predecessor, who reigned from 930/1524 to 961/1554 and who is presumably identical with Abū ’l-Fatḥ S̲h̲āh Ḥasan G̲h̲āzī,42 the dedicatee of the Rauḍat al-salāṭīn.43 To S̲h̲āh Ḥasan Arg̲h̲ūn he dedicated44 also his Ṣanāʾiʿ al-ḥusn [perhaps Ṣanāʾiʿ al-Ḥasan, as ʿAbd al-Muqtadir transliterates], a work on poetical figures (mss.: Bodleian 1371–2, Bānkīpūr ix 848 i).

(1)
Rauḍat al-salāṭīn, notices of royal poets in seven bābs, written at the request of Abū ’l-Fatḥ S̲h̲āh Ḥasan45 G̲h̲āzī: Blochet ii 1142 (early 17th cent.), 1143 (late 17th cent.), Berlin 644.
(2)
Jawāhir al-ʿajāʾib, notices of 20 poetesses, written probably at the court of M. ʿĪsā Tark̲h̲ān:46 Sprenger 5 (Tōp-k̲h̲ānah. 143 pp.), Bodleian 362 (apparently an abridgment (9 foll, only), ah 1185/1771), Bānkīpūr xi 1098 xxxii (abridgment (4 foll. only). 18th cent.), Būhār 482 (1) (abridgment (16 foll, only). 19th cent.)

Edition: Lucknow 1873°* (23 pp.).

List of the poetesses: Sprenger p. 11.

[Tārīk̲h̲ i Maʿṣūmī p. 206; K̲h̲azīnah i ganj i Ilāhī (see Sprenger p. 83); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib, no. 1901 (?); Sprenger p. 9; Rieu i p. 366.]

§ 1100. Abū ’l-Naṣr Sām Mīrzā, son of S̲h̲āh Ismāʿīl i, was born at Marāg̲h̲ah on 21 S̲h̲aʿbān 923/19 Sept. 1517 (Ḥabīb al-siyar iii, pt. 4, p. 8317). Durmis̲h̲ K̲h̲ān b. ʿAbdī Bēg [S̲h̲āmlū], a close friend of the S̲h̲āh, was appointed his tutor (lalah, ibid. p. 8322). In 927/1521 the four-year-old prince was made titular Governor of K̲h̲urāsān with Durmis̲h̲ K̲h̲ān as the real Governor (Ḥ. al-s. p. 100 ult.—1016). Durmis̲h̲ K̲h̲ān47 reached Harāt in D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah (Ḥ. al-s. p. 10112–13), but it was not until the following year that Sām Mīrzā was actually sent to K̲h̲urāsān. He reached Harāt in Ramaḍān 928 (Ḥ. al-s. p. 10421). In 939/1532–3 his brother S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp, who had acceded to the throne in 930/1524, appointed him for the second time Governor at Harāt48 with Āg̲h̲ziwār49 K̲h̲ān as his guardian. They rebelled in 941/1534–550 and laid siege to Qandahār, at that time governed by K̲h̲wājah Kalān Bēg51 on behalf of Mīrzā Kāmrān.52 After a siege of eight months Āg̲h̲ziwār K̲h̲ān was killed in battle outside Qandahār, and Sām Mīrzā sought and received his brother’s forgiveness. In 951/1544 he and his brother Bahrām Mīrzā were sent by S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp to welcome Humāyūn,53 the Mogul Emperor, who had gone to Persia as a refugee to seek the S̲h̲āh’s help. Having rebelled again in 969/1561–2,54 he was punished by confinement in the fortress of Qahqahah,55 and there he died in 974/1566–7,56 when an earthquake destroyed the building in which he was seated.

Tuḥfah i Sāmī, notices of poets57 who flourished from the later years of the 9th/15th century to the middle of the 10th/16th, composed, at least partly, in or about 957/1550,58 and divided into seven ṣaḥīfahs ((1) S̲h̲āh Ismāʿīl and contemporary princes, p. 6 in the Ṭihrān edition, (2) Saiyids and ʿulamāʾ, p. 21, (3) wazīrs and other officials, p. 55, (4) persons of distinction who occasionally wrote poetry, p. 63, (5) poets best known by their pen-names (sh̲āʿirānī kih bi-tak̲h̲alluṣ mas̲h̲hūr-and), p. 85, (6) poets of Turkish race, p. 179, (7) jesters and poets of the lower classes, p. 188): Ḥ. K̲h̲. ii p. 263 no. 2823 (Tad̲h̲kirat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ fārisī li-Sām Mīrzā), Sprenger p. 12 no. 7, Bānkīpūr viii 682 (ah 968/1561), 683 (ah 971/1564), Rieu i 368a (very defective, ah 969/1561–2), 367b (late 16th cent.), Suppt. 103 (ah 976/1569), Flügel ii 1201 (ah 972/1564–5), Krafft p. 126 no. 313 (ah 972/1565), Lindesiana p. 215 no. 317 (ah 977/1569–70), Sipahsālār ii p. 462 (probably circ. ah 983/1575), Cairo p. 501 (ah 997/1588–9), Blochet ii 1144 (ah 1001/1593), 1145 (late 16th cent.), 1146 (17th cent.), 1147 (early 18th cent.), Bombay Univ. p. 41 no. 25 (bears seal dated 1007/1598–9), Aumer 2, Berlin 643, 643a, Browne Suppt. 272, Buk̲h̲ārā Semenov 41, Ethé 665 (about 579 biographies), 666 (only 474 biographies), Leningrad Asiat. Mus. (defective. See Mélanges asiatiques vii (St. Petersburg 1876) p. 402), Leyden iii p. 19 no. 933, Madras 305. Some other mss. are mentioned in the Bombay University catalogue p. 42, including one dated 972 at Kābul (library unspecified). There are several at Istānbūl (e.g. Fātiḥ 4241–2, Ḥakīm-oghlū ʿAlī Pās̲h̲ā 718).

Edition: Ṭihrān ahs. 1314/1936 (ed. Waḥīd Dastgirdī. Supplement to the periodical Armag̲h̲ān, Year 16).

Edition of Ṣaḥīfah v: The Tuhfa i Sami (Section V) of Sam Mirza Safawi edited … by Mawlawi Iqbal Husain, Patna (Allahabad printed) 1934* (Patna University).

Extracts: Iqtibāsāt i Tuḥfah i Sāmī rājiʿ bah hunarwarān [edited with notes by M. S̲h̲afīʿ in Oriental College Magazine, vol. x no. 2 (Lahore, Feb. 1934) pp. 73–128]. Abridgment: Intik̲h̲āb i Tuḥfah i Sāmī, by Ānand Rām “Muk̲h̲liṣ” (for whom see no. 780 supra): i.o. d.p. 718.

Descriptions:

(1)
Le présent sublime, ou Histoire des poëtes de Sam-mirza … Par A. I. Silvestre de Sacy (in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, Tome iv (Paris, An 7 = 1798°*) pp. 273–308. With List of 39959 poets).
(2)
Ueber die morgenländischen Handschriften der königlichen Hof- und Central-Bibliothek in München. Bemerkungen von Othmar Frank, Munich 1814°*, pp. 31–69 and Anhang pp. xv–xlix (List of 51860 poets).

[Ḥabīb al-siyar iii pt. 4, pp. 83, 100, 104; Ḥasan Rūmlū Aḥsan al-tawārīk̲h̲, Seddon’s trans., pp. 9016, 118–19; K̲h̲azīnah i ganj i Ilāhi (Sprenger p. 77); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bodl. 376 no. 58); Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ār (Bodl. 379) no. 285; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarā; Ātas̲h̲-kadah, Bodl. 384 no. 35, Bombay 1277 p. 14; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 1000; Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥāʾ i 31 (where Sām is inadvertently described as a son of S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp); S̲h̲amʿ i anjuman p. 199; Ency. Isl. under Sām (Huart); M. ʿAlī Tarbiyat Dānis̲h̲mandān i Ādh̲arbāyjān, Ṭihrān ahs. 1314, pp. 173–4.]

§ 1101. Mīr ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah “Kāmī” b. Yaḥyā Saifī Ḥusainī61 Qazwīnī was the second son of the author of the Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ (see no. 129 supra), the younger brother and foster-son62 of Mīr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Qazwīnī, Akbar’s teacher63 and friend,64 and the uncle of Naqīb K̲h̲ān (for whom see no. 135 supra). When S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp sent orders from Ād̲h̲arbāyjān in 960/1552–3 for the arrest of Mīr Yaḥyā and his family (cf. no. 129 supra) on the charge of excessive Sunnism, Mīr ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah, who was then in Ād̲h̲arbāyjān (Badāʾūnī p. 9810), warned his father. The latter was arrested and died later in prison, but Mīr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf fled to the mountains of Gīlān. Invited to India by Humāyūn, Mīr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf arrived there shortly after Humāyūn’s death and was received by Akbar in 963/1556, the first year of his reign (Akbar-nāmah, tr. Beveridge, ii, p. 35; Badāʾūnī i p. 3015). Naqīb K̲h̲ān had accompanied him (A.-n., ibid.), but whether “Kāmī” reached India at this time or another is not recorded. A son of his, Mīr Yaḥyā Ḥusainī Saifī, is one of the poets included in the Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir (Sprenger p. 55).

Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir (a chronogram = 973/1565–6, the date of inception65), a tad̲h̲kirah dedicated to Akbar and containing (in the Munich ms.) a maṭlaʿ (subdivided into two miṣraʿs, (1) dar kaifīyat i ṣudūr i s̲h̲iʿr, (2) dar taʿrīf u taqsīm i s̲h̲iʿr), notices of about 350 poets, mainly of the 10th/16th century, arranged alphabetically in 28 baits (one for each letter), a fragment relating to the history of Gujrāt in the years 980–5,66 and a maqṭaʿ dealing in three maṭlabs with the history of Bābur, Humāyūn and Akbar: Sprenger 10 (Mōtī Maḥall. List of poets), Aumer 3 (old), Rieu iii 1022a (only extracts, viz. the preface, table of contents, history of Bābur, Humāyūn and Akbar to Jumādā ii 982/1574, and a few detached lives of poets. Circ. ad 1850), Ross-Browne 247 (2) (circ. ad 1864. Cf. Rehatsek p. 169 no. 147, of which R.-B. 247 is probably a transcript).

Extracts (poets of Akbar’s time in India only): Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, by ʿAbd al-Qādir Badāʾūnī (cf. no. 614 supra), iii pp. 170–39067 (166 poets).

List of the poets: Sprenger pp. 47–55.

[Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ iii pp. 97–8 (in the notice of Mīr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf); Āʾīn Akbarī tr. Blochmann p. 447 37 and n.2; Mirʾāt i jahān-numā (fol. 389 in a b.m. ms. cited by Rieu, iii p. 1022b); Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 813 (in the life of Naqīb K̲h̲ān).]

§ 1102. S. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Ḥasan “Nit̲h̲ārī” Buk̲h̲ārī,68 or, as on the title-page69 of Berlin 645, S. Ḥasan K̲h̲wājah70 Naqīb al-Ash̲rāf71 Buk̲h̲ārī.

Mud̲h̲akkir i aḥbāb (a chronogram = 974/1566–7), notices of 275 poets who lived in Buk̲h̲ārā or its dependencies after the time of Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr (for whom see no. 1094 supra), divided into a maqālah ((a) C̲h̲ingīz-K̲h̲ānī Sulṭāns, i.e. S̲haibānī K̲hān etc., (b) C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāy Sulṭāns, i.e. Bābur etc.), four bābs ((1) deceased poets not personally known to the author, (2) deceased poets known to the author, (3) living poets known to the author, (4) living poets unknown to the author) and a k̲h̲ātimah (the author’s family): Ḥ. K̲h̲. v p. 478, British Museum (ah 987/1579. See British Museum Quarterly iv/4 (1930) p. 112), Berlin 645, Ivanow 219 (bad and defective. 17th cent.), Leningrad Institut Oriental de l’Académie (see an article by A. Boldyrev in Musée de l’Ermitage, Travaux du Département oriental, iii (1940) pp. 291–300).

Extracts relating to seven calligraphists: ocm. xi/2 (Feb. 1935) pp. 39–45 (ed. Nawwāb Ṣadr Yār Jang, from a ms. in his private library).

List of the poets: Berlin pp. 605–9.

[Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir (Sprenger p. 54).]

§ 1103. For the Mīrʾāt al-adwār, a general history to 974/1566–7 by Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Lārī, which contains in the latter part biographies of writers and other celebrities inserted after the most important reigns, see no. 133 supra.

§ 1104. For the Aḥsan al-tawārīk̲h̲ of Ḥasan Rūmlū (ah 985/1577), which concludes the record of each year with obituary notices, mostly very short, see no. 381 supra.

§ 1105. Taqī al-Dīn M. “D̲h̲ikrī” b. S̲h̲araf al-Dīn ʿAlī Ḥusainī Kās̲h̲ānī, usually called Taqī Kās̲h̲ī, was born circ. 943/1536–772 and was still alive in 1016/1607–8. He was a pupil of Muḥtas̲h̲am Kās̲h̲ī, who during the illness from which he died in 996/1588 sent for him and asked him to collect and arrange his poetical works. This he did and wrote a preface, which is prefixed to the British Museum ms. of Muḥtas̲h̲am’s dīwān (Rieu ii, p. 665).

K̲h̲ulāṣat al-as̲h̲ʿār wa-zubdat al-afkār, a remarkable tad̲h̲kirah containing “the fullest biographical details, the most copious and best chosen extracts (seldom less than a thousand verses73 and in all 350,000 couplets), the soundest critical and most exact and complete bibliographical remarks on the Persian poets”74 (Sprenger), divided into a muqaddimah (reasons for writing the work, four faṣls on ʿis̲h̲q, selections from ʿAlī’s dīwān with Persian paraphrase, and a lāḥiqah on poetry and the beginnings of Persian poetry), four rukns completed in 985/1577–875 ((1) (= Mujallads i and ii) 54 ancient poets, mainly qaṣīdah-writers from Subuktigīn’s time to the 8th century, (2) (= Mujallad iii) 42 g̲h̲azal-writers and later qaṣīdah-writers of the 8th and early 9th centuries, (3) (= Mujallad iv) 49 modern poets of the 9th and a few of the 10th century, (4) (= Mujallad v) 101 poets from Sulṭān Ḥusain Mīrzā’s time to that of the author), a k̲h̲ātimah added in 993/158576 (contemporary poets in 12 aṣls devoted to particular places,77 (1) Kās̲h̲ān, (2) Iṣfahān, (3) Qumm, etc.), and a short d̲h̲ail,78 the whole existing also in a revised and enlarged edition completed in 1016/1607–8, which ends with a [second] k̲h̲ātimah (poems, without biographies, of 60 poets, most of whom sent their dīwāns to the author after the completion of his work79) and an expanded d̲h̲ail (the author’s reflections on his work: see Bland pp. 131–2),80 and of which there is an abridgment containing the biographies without the poetical quotations: Sprenger 8 (Mōtī Maḥall), 9 (Mōtī Maḥall. The abridged 2nd ed. List of poets81), Blochet iii 1242 (Notices of ʿAmʿaq, Sūzanī, Ras̲h̲īd i Waṭwāṭ, Falakī, ʿImādī [from Rukn i]. “Ce volume est l’un des tomes du manuscrit original du grand tezkéré de Taki ed-Din … el Kashani.” Late 16th cent.), Bānkīpūr viii 684 (Mujallad iv = Rukn iii only.82 Revised and annotated by the author. Late 16th or early 17th cent.), Ethé 667 (abridged 2nd ed. (without the poems), lacking Rukn iv), 668 (K̲h̲ātimah only. 1st ed. (with the poems), ah 993/1585), Dorn 321 (Rukn iii only. ah 933/1526!! List of 41 poets), Rieu Suppt. 105 (introductory chapters and Mujallad i only, defective at end. 16th cent. List of 22 poets.), Majlis 334 (only K̲h̲ātimah, aṣls 1–7. ah 1013/1604–5), Lindesiana p. 223 no. 312 (unabridged 2nd ed., lacking Rukn iv. ah 1038–9/1628–30. Bland’s ms.), Berlin 647 (abridged 2nd ed. 19th cent.), 647a (only K̲h̲ātimah, second K̲h̲ātimah and D̲h̲ail. 19th cent. List of poets in 2nd k̲h̲ātimah), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 932 (fragment of vol. iv = Rukn iii, viz. poets numbered 109–16 in Sprenger’s list. Circ. ad 1873).

Description: On the earliest Persian Biography of Poets, by Muhammad Aúfi, and on some other Works of the class called Tazkirat ul Shuârá. By N. Bland (in jras. ix (1848), pp. 126–34).

[Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (Berlin Cat. p. 640); Bland in jras. ix (1848)pp. 131–2.]

§ 1106. S. ʿAlī b. Maḥmūd al-Ḥusainī completed in 1000/1591–2 and dedicated to his patron, the K̲h̲ān i K̲h̲ānān ʿAbd al-Raḥīm83 b. Bairam K̲h̲ān, his

Bazm-ārāy, an anthology of ancient and modern poets with rhetorical and uninformative biographies largely plagiarized from the Lubāb al-albāb (see no. 1088 supra): Rieu Suppt. 106 (early 17th cent.).

§ 1107. For the Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī, written in 1001–2/1592–4 by Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad Harawī, which contains brief notices of 81 poets of Akbar’s time (Calcutta ed. vol. ii pp. 484–520) see no. 613 supra.

§ 1108. The Haft iqlīm, completed in 1002/1594 by Amīn b. Aḥmad Rāzī, which contains geographically arranged notices of celebrities including many poets, will be described in the subsection of this work devoted to general biography.

§ 1109. For the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ of ʿAbd al-Qādir Badāʾūnī, which was written in 1004/1595–6 and which contains notices of 166 poets of Akbar’s time, see nos. 614 and 1101 (Extracts), supra.

§ 1110. For the Āʾīn i Akbarī, which contains brief notices of poets of Akbar’s time (Calcutta ed. pp. 235–62, Blochmann’s trans. pp. 548–611) see no. 709 (2) supra.

§ 1111. The Majālis al-muʾminīn, which was completed in 1010/1602 by Nūr Allāh S̲h̲ūs̲h̲tarī, and of which the 12th and last majlis deals with Persian poets, will be described in the subsection of this work devoted to general biography.

§ 1112. Mullā Muḥammad “Muḥammad”84 Ṣūfī85 Māzandarani,86 poet, mystic, traveller and in his time a celebrated personage,87 was born at Āmul (Mai-k̲h̲ānah p. 3455), but early in life he migrated to S̲h̲īrāz and lived there for a prolonged period (ibid.). According to Taqī Kas̲h̲ī (Sprenger p. 33) he travelled much in Persia. In Akbar’s reign (963/1556–1014/1605) he went to India88 and settled at Aḥmadābād. It was there that he became the teacher and friend (Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 45017) of Mīr S. Jalāl Buk̲h̲ārī,89 member of a saintly Gujrātī family, who was later (1052/1642) to become Ṣadr of Hindūstān. There too, until an estrangement supervened, he enjoyed the companionship of the poet “Naẓīrī” Nīs̲h̲āpūrī (Bānkīpūr iii p. 61), and there he was visited repeatedly by Taqī Auḥadī (ibid., doubtless on the authority of the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-as̲h̲ʿār). From time to time he travelled to other parts of India, and it was during a visit to Ajmēr that the author of the Mai-k̲h̲ānah had the felicity of meeting the devout, unworldly and evidently impressive ṣūfī, who informed him that he had lived for 15 years in Mecca (Mai-k̲h̲ānah p. 3461) and that there were few parts of the world he had not seen(!). It is said that he was summoned to Court by Jahāngīr and died on the way thither90 at Sirhind91 in 1032/162392 or 1035/1625–6.93

According to Taqī Kās̲h̲ī “he was accused of being a freethinker by men learned in law” (Sprenger p. 33). He is one of the ten poets enumerated in the list of names at the end of the Iqbāl-nāmah i Jahāngīrī and in the Haft iqlīm his poetry is highly praised (s̲h̲iʿr dar g̲h̲āyat i jaudat u hamwārī dārad). His dīwān is preserved at Bānkīpūr (iii no. 301), Hamburg (191 iv) and Munich (Aumer 18 (6)). A ms. in a private library was described by Sprenger (no. 382). His sāqī-nāmah, written in 1000/1591–2, is preserved at Bānkīpūr (two copies—iii p. 62 and xi p. 139), Berlin (18 ii 10 (a)), Hamburg (191 (4)) and Munich (Aumer 18 (3)). A Lucknow ms. was described by Sprenger (no. 187). His But-k̲h̲ānah was compiled in collaboration with Ḥasan Bēg K̲h̲ākī, who was sent as Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī to Gujrāt in 1007/1598–9 (see no. 138 supra).

But-k̲h̲ānah, a large selection from the dīwāns of 126 poets, mostly early, compiled in 1010/1601–2, but amplified in 1021/1612–13 by ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbbāsī Gujrātī,94 who prefixed a preface and brief biographies of the poets entitled K̲h̲ulāṣah i aḥwāl al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ: Bodleian 366 (slightly defective. List of Poets).

Edition of the selections from “Muṭahhar’s” dīwān: ocm. xi/3 (May 1935) pp. 152–60, xi/4 (Aug. 1935) ḍamīmah, pp. 161–216 (ed. M. S̲h̲afīʿ).

[Haft iqlīm no. 1191 (a quotation from this in Mai-k̲h̲ānah, ḥawās̲h̲ī p. 67); Āʾīn i Akbarī p. 254, Blochmann’s trans. p. 590; Taqī Kās̲h̲ī (Sprenger p. 33); Taqī Auḥadī; ʿAbd al-Nabī Mai-k̲h̲ānah pp. 345–60 and ḥawās̲h̲ī pp. 67–9; Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū no. 583; Yad i baiḍāʾ; Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 629 (Bodl. col. 252. Passage quoted in Mai-k̲h̲ānah, ḥawās̲h̲ī p. 67); Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Atas̲h̲-kadah no. 402 (under Iṣfahān. M. Zamān in the Bodl. Cat. is a corruption); Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 450–1; Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (summarised in jras. 1848 pp. 165–6); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 2434; Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q; Majmaʿ al-fuṣahāʾ ii p. 38; Bānkīpūr iii pp. 60–1.]

§ 1113. Taqī Auḥadī,95 or, as he calls himself, Taqī b. Muʿīn al-Dīn M.96 b. Saʿd al-Dīn M. al-Ḥusainī al-Auḥadī97 al-Daqqāqī98 al-Balyānī99 al-Iṣfahānī, was born at Iṣfahān in Muḥarram 973/1565. He was presented to S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās i (ah 985/1587–1038/1629) soon after his accession and enjoyed his favour for some years. In 1003/1594–5 he went on a pilgrimage to Najaf and other holy places, returning home in 1009/1600–1. In Rajab 1015/Nov. 1606 he left for India via S̲h̲īrāz, Kirmān and Qandahār. After staying for 18 months in Lahore and more than a year in Āgrah he went to Gujrāt (Gujarat) and lived there for three years, returning to Āgrah in 1020/1611–12. It was in that year, apparently while still in Gujrāt, that he compiled an anthology entitled Firdaus i k̲h̲ayāl i Auḥadī (a chronogram = 1020100), containing “all the specimens of poetry he had collected in the six years between Shiraz and Guzarat” (Bland p. 135). Later on at Āgrah one of the nobles of Jahāngīr’s court “induced him to remodel the work, and to accompany the extracts with memoirs of the several authors quoted”. Thus it became the ʿArafāt al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn completed at Āgrah in 1024. That he returned to Gujrāt is shown by the fact that his abridgment, the Kaʿbah i ʿirfān was written at Aḥmadabād101 in 1036. The date of his death does not seem to be recorded, but the a.s.b. ms. of his Tad̲h̲kirat al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn (Ivanow 733) contains poems dated 1038 and 1039.102

His own list of his works, quoted from the Kaʿbah i ʿirfān in the Guldastah and thence in the Bānkīpūr catalogue, viii pp. 77–8, includes several mat̲h̲nawīs103 and several dīwāns.104 Little of this large output seems to have survived. Of the Tad̲h̲kirat al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn, a dīwān of g̲h̲azals, the first half (alif to dāl) is preserved at Calcutta (Ivanow 733), and there is another dīwān (beginning Īn c̲h̲ark̲h̲ i gard-gard i kawākib-nigār c̲h̲īst) at Madras (no. 7). The Surmah i Sulaimānī, a dictionary of non-Arabic words utilised later (1062/1652) in the compilation of the Burhān i qāt̠iʿ, is preserved at Leningrad (Salemann-Rosen p. 16 no. 174). The Lucknow (Tōp-k̲h̲ānah) ms. of the Kullīyāt (sic) described by Sprenger (p. 576) seems to have been only a comparatively small collection of his shorter poems.

(1)
ʿArafāt [?] al-ʿārifīn [or al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn] wa-ʿarasāt al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn [or al-ʿārifīn],105 begun at Āgrah in 1022/1613 and completed there in 1024/1615, an alphabetically arranged dictionary of about 3000 poets divided into 28 ʿarṣahs (one for every letter of the alphabet) each subdivided into three ʿarafahs devoted respectively to ancient, mediaeval and modern poets:106 Bānkīpūr viii 685–6 (apparently complete except for the omission of the 2nd and 3rd ʿarafahs, i.e. 138 poets, under ḥāʾ. ah 1050/1640–1), I.O. 3654 (= Lindesiana p. 223 no. 313. Circ. ad 1760), Lindesiana p. 223 no. 635 (verses only without biographies. Circ. ad 1780), Āṣafīyah iii p. 164 no. 209.

Description: On the earliest Persian Biography of Poets … By N. Bland (in jras. 1848) pp. 134–6.

(2)
Kāʿbah i ʿirfān, an abridgment of the preceding made at Aḥmadābād107 in 1036/1626: Lindesiana p. 223 no. 314 (ah 1036/1626).
(3)
Intik̲h̲āb i Kaʿbah i ʿirfān, an abridgment of the preceding made at Jahāngīr’s request and divided into three rukns devoted respectively to ancient, mediaeval and modern poets: no mss. recorded.

Selections from the Intik̲h̲āb: Guldastah compiled in 1155/1742 by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿĀlamgīrī b. S. Manṣūr K̲h̲ān, a grandson of S. Dilāwar K̲h̲ān on his father’s side and of Ghiyāt̲h̲ al-Dīn K̲h̲ān b. Jumlat al-Mulk Islām K̲h̲ān Riḍawī Mas̲h̲hadī on his mother’s side: Bānkipūr viii 692 (18th cent.).

[ʿArafāt al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn, preface (summarised in jras. ix (1848) pp. 134–5 and Bānkīpūr catalogue viii pp. 76–7); Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī p. 303; Safīnah i K̲h̲wushgū ii no. 364 (Bodleian col. 223); Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis (i.o. d.p. 739 fol. 194b); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 56; Ātas̲h̲-kadah no. 685; Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (summarised in Bland’s article pp. 135–6); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 424; jras. ix (1848) pp. 134–6; Sprenger p. 95 note.]

§ 1114. For ʿAbd al-Bāqī Nihāwandī’s Maʾāt̲h̲ir i Raḥīmī, which was completed in 1025/1616 and of which the k̲h̲ātimah (vol. iii, 1699 pp., in the Calcutta ed.) is devoted to contemporary celebrities, especially poets (pp. 66–1576), see no. 711 supra.

§ 1115. ʿAbd al-Nabī “Nabī” b. K̲h̲alaf Fak̲h̲r al-Zamānī108 Qazwīnī was born at Qazwīn about 998/1590.109 In his youth he had some poetical talent as well as a remarkable memory which enabled him to learn by heart without difficulty such tales as the Qiṣṣah i Amīr Ḥamzah. At the age of 19 he visited Mas̲h̲had and there met merchants and travellers who spoke to him of India and inspired him with a desire to see that country. Travelling via Qandahār and Lahore he reached Āgrah in 1018/1609–10. His relative Mīrzā Niẓāmī Qazwīnī, who was Wāqiʿah-nawīs, gave him employment, apparently as his qiṣṣah-k̲h̲wān. In 1022/1613 at Ajmēr Mīrzā Amān Allāh b. Mahābat K̲h̲ān110 appointed him his librarian (kitāb-dār). Subsequently he was in Kas̲h̲mīr for nearly two years and then in Bihār for a time, when his patron Mīrzā Niẓāmī was successively Dīwān of those two provinces. In the former period he completed his Dastūr al-fuṣaḥāʾ a work now apparently lost, on the art of reciting the Qiṣṣah i Ḥamzah. In 1028/1619 at Patnah he came into contact with Nawwāb Sardār K̲h̲ān111 and experienced so much kindness at his hands that he dedicated to him the Mai-k̲h̲ānah, which was completed in that year. In 1041/1631–2 he wrote the preface to his collection of anecdotes, Nawādir al-ḥikāyāt wa-g̲h̲arāʾib al-riwāyāt, which is preserved in mss. at the British Museum (Rieu iii 1004b. Only the 1st of the 5 Ṣaḥīfahs) and in Manchester (Lindesiana p. 118 no. 194. What part or parts ?). In the Mai-k̲h̲ānah (p. 510) he tells us that in addition to his sāqī-nāmah he had written 1500 lines of poetry.

Mai-k̲h̲ānah, a collection of sāqī-nāmahs with biographies of their authors,112 mostly contemporaries of the compiler, who began the work at Ajmēr in 1022/1613 or 1023/1614 and completed it at Patnah in 1028/1619:113 Rāmpūr (ah 1039/1629–30. Cf. Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 96), Lahore Prof. M. S̲h̲afīʿ’s private library, Nūr i ʿUt̲h̲mānīyah 4328.

Edition: Lahore 1926* (ed. M. S̲h̲afīʿ).

Description: Tad̲h̲kirah i Mai-k̲h̲ānah aur us-kā muʾallif, by M. S̲h̲afīʿ (in ocm. iii/1 (Nov. 1926) pp. 3–22, iii/2 (Feb. 1927) pp. 3–10). This differs little from the first 16 pages of the introduction to the Lahore edition.

Textual emendations: Taṣḥīḥ i Mai-k̲h̲ānah, by M. S̲h̲afīʿ (in ocm. iii/4 (Aug. 1927) pp. 79–90, iv/1 (Nov. 1927) pp. 55–62, iv/2 (Feb. 1928) pp. 43–55).

[Mai-k̲h̲ānah pp. 498–523 and the editor’s Urdu introduction pp. bā’-qāf; ocm., loc. cit.; Nawādir al-ḥikāyāt, preface and fol. 35a (see Rieu iii 1004b); Tarīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī (Berlin Cat. p. 479 no. 179).]

§ 1116. A certain “Qāṭiʿī”114 dedicated to Jahāngīr (reigned 1014/1605–1037/1628) his

Majmaʿ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ i Jahāngīr-S̲h̲āhī, notices of 151 poets who wrote in praise of Jahāngīr, being the third daftar of a larger work: Bodleian 371 (autograph).

§ 1117. S̲h̲āh Ḥusain b. Malik G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ al-Dīn Maḥmūd has already been mentioned (no. 485 supra) as the author of a history of Sīstān, the Iḥyāʾ al-mulūk, completed in 1028/1619.

K̲h̲air al-bayān, begun in 1017/1608–9, completed in 1019/1610, revised and enlarged in 1035/1625–6, further enlarged in 1036/1626–7, and dedicated to S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās, notices of ancient and modern poets in a muqaddimah (history of Muḥammad, the Twelve Imāms, and the Ṣafawī dynasty to 1033/1623–4), two faṣls ((1) ancient poets (2) modern poets), a k̲h̲ātimah (royal and noble poets), and a k̲h̲atm i k̲h̲ātimah (scholars): Rieu Suppt. 108 (ah 1041/1631), 109 (defective. 18th cent.).

§ 1118. “Muṭribī” al-Aṣamm al-Samarqandī was born in 966/1559 and was still alive in 1037/1628, when he went to Balk̲h̲.

Tārīk̲h̲ i Jahāngīrī (beg. Ai nām i Tu iftitāḥ i har dīwānī … Baʿd az tad̲h̲kirah i ḥamd i Ilāhī taʿālā wa-taʿaẓẓam), a tad̲h̲kirah begun in Rajab 1034/April–May 1625, dedicated to Jahāngīr [who died in 1037/1628] and divided into two silsilahs ((1) poets [of Transoxiana according to Ethé], who flourished at the courts of the C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāy sulṭāns [Akbar and Jahāngīr], (2) poets of Transoxiana under the Uzbaks) and a k̲h̲ātimah (begun in Jumādā ii ah 1036/Feb. 1627 and containing “a memoir of the author’s own attachment to and personal attendance on the emperor Jahângîr … together with an additional number of Transoxanian poets …”): Ethé ii 3023 (ah 1075/1665).

§ 1119. For Iskandar Muns̲h̲ī’s Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿālam-ārāy i ʿAbbāsī (Ṣaḥīfah ii, Maqṣad 1 completed in 1025/1616 and Maqṣad 2 in 1038/1628–9) which concludes the record of S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp’s reign with biographies of princes, high officials and other celebrities (pp. 95–136; poets on pp. 129–35) and which in the subsequent part contains obituary notices at the end of particular years, see no. 387 supra.

§ 1120. Ḥasan b. Luṭf Allāh Ṭihrānī Rāzī was only a boy in 968/1560–1 when his father, K̲h̲wājah Luṭf Allāh, was appointed Wazīr of K̲h̲urāsān by S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp and went to Harāt. After his father’s death in 981/1573–4 he succeeded him as Wazīr.

Mai-k̲h̲ānah, or K̲h̲arābāt (see Rieu Suppt. p. 76b14), notices of poets written for Ḥasan Bēg [S̲h̲āmlū, Bēglarbēgī of K̲h̲urāsān 1027/1618–1050/1640–1] and completed in 1040/1630–1: Rieu Suppt. 107 (very defective, ah 1227/1812).

List of the poets: Rieu Suppt. 107.

§ 1121. Mīr “Ilāhī” Hamadānī, or, as he calls himself,115 ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd Ilāhī Ḥusainī, was the son of Ḥujjat al-Dīn116 and was one of the Saiyids of Asadābād,117 near Hamadān. In 1010/1601–2, he tells us,118 he went to prosecute his studies at S̲h̲īrāz119 and stayed there for 3½ years. After leaving Persia he spent some time at Kābul, where Ẓafar K̲h̲ān “Aḥsan”, a poet120 and a patron of poets, was Governor121 from 1033/1624, Jahāngīr’s 19th regnal year, until 1037/1628,122 the first year of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign. A poem addressed to him by Mīr “Ilāhī” in 1033 is mentioned by Rieu (ii 687b). It was at Kābul that he went to see the arrogant and irascible Ḥakīm Ḥād̲h̲iq123 on the latter’s return [in 1040/1630–1: see Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah i, pt. 1, p. 318 12] from his mission to Imām-Qulī K̲h̲ān, of Buk̲h̲ārā.

“After some years spent at Court, under Jahāngīr and S̲h̲āh-jahān,” says Rieu,124 “he accompanied Ẓafar K̲h̲an to Kashmīr, a/h. 1041–2,125 and resided there till his death, the date of which, ah 1063,126 is expressed in some verses engraved on his tomb, and quoted in the Vāḳiʿāt i Kashmīr, fol. 122a, by the chronogram Būd suk̲h̲un-āfrīn.”

For a ms. of his dīwān transcribed in 1042/1632 see Rieu ii 687b, and for another, which contained (but seems no longer to contain) a chronogram for 1052/1642–3, see Sprenger 277 = Berlin 939.

K̲h̲azīnah i ganj i ilāhī, alphabetically arranged notices of about 400 poets, chiefly of the 9th/15th and 10th/16th centuries: Sprenger 11 = Berlin 646 (unfinished autograph).

List of the poets (with some biographical details): Sprenger pp. 67–87.

[Mubtalā Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 46; ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ iii pp. 415–16 (not very informative); Ṭāhir Naṣrābādī pp. 255–6; Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 109); Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl no. 74 (p. 119 in the 1324 edition); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 117); Wāqiʿāt i Kas̲h̲mīr p. 153; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab (Sprenger p. 1503); Ātas̲h̲-kadah no. 598; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 36; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 113; Riyāḍ, al-afkār (Bānkīpūr Suppt. i p. 50); Haft āsmān pp. 146–7; Rieu ii 687b, iii 1091b.]

§ 1122. For the Ṭabaqāt i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī of M. Ṣādiq, in which 1046/1636–7 is spoken of as the current year and which contains 871 biographies of (1) Saiyids and saints, (2) scholars, physicians and men of letters (ʿulamāʾ, ḥukamāʾ and fuḍalāʾ), (3) poets, who lived under the House of Tīmūr, see the subsection of this work relating to General Biography.

§ 1123. For the Ṣubḥ i ṣādiq, which was begun in 1041/1631–2 and finished in 1048/1638–9 by M. Ṣādiq Iṣfahānī and of which the 3rd mujallad is devoted to celebrated men of the first eleven centuries, see no. 142 supra.

§ 1124. For the Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah of M. Amīn Qazwīnī, which contains a k̲h̲ātimah devoted to the s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, scholars, physicians and poets of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s time, see no. 724 supra.

§ 1125. For the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, which was completed in 1056/1646–7 by M. Yūsuf Aṭakī Kanʿānī and of which the fifth qism is devoted to biographies of Imāms, saints, scholars and poets, see no. 144 supra.

§ 1126. For the Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah of ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Lāhaurī, which contains at the end of vol. i notices of 13 mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ (pp. 328–39), 13 fuḍalāʾ (pp. 339–46), 8 physicians (pp. 346–51) and four poets (pp. 351–9), and at the end of vol. ii notices of 4 mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ (pp. 753–4), six ‘ulamāʾ (pp. 754–6), one physician (pp. 756–7), and two poets (pp. 757–9), see no. 734 supra.

§ 1127. For the ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ of M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō Lāhaurī, which was completed in 1070/1659–60 and which contains at the end of vol. iii notices of 16 Saiyids and s̲h̲aik̲h̲s (pp. 357–82), 13 scholars (pp. 382–93), 8 physicians (pp. 393–7), 18 poets (pp. 397–435), 14 prose-writers (pp. 435–43), and 7 calligraphists (pp. 443–6), see no. 738 (1) supra.

§ 1128. The tad̲h̲kirah entitled Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl127 was written by a Persian, probably a native of Fārs, who was at Daulatābād in 1062/1652 and who also visited Aḥmadābād and Sūrat. In 1067/1656–7 he returned to Persia and met Ruknā “Masīḥ” Kās̲h̲ī at S̲h̲īrāz and “Ṣāʾib”, who showed him much kindness, at Iṣfahān. He went again to India at some date unspecified, and it was there that he wrote (part of ?) the Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl in 1076/1665–6. Prof. M. Iqbāl in an article on the work (see below) demonstrated that the author was almost certainly M. b. M. al-Dārābī, who wrote the Laṭīfah i g̲h̲aibī,128 a defence of Ḥāfiẓ against certain criticisms. From the Laṭīfah i g̲h̲aibī Rieu ascertained that M. b. M. al-Dārābī left his birthplace, Dārābjird, for S̲h̲īrāz, where he spent most of his life, and that in 1062/1652 he was at Aḥmadābād. From a passage absent from the b.m. ms. but occurring on p. 122 of the lithographed edition it appears that the Laṭīfah i g̲h̲aibī was written at S̲h̲īrāz in 1087/1676. Rieu adds that the author left also a Ṣūfī work, Maqāmāt al-ʿārifīn, and a treatise on the lawfulness of singing entitled S̲h̲auq al-ʿārifīn wa-d̲h̲auq al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn. Rieu says nothing about a tad̲h̲kirah, but Ṭāhir Naṣrābādī in a brief notice of him says that he had recently (dar īn sāl129) returned from India and was writing a tad̲h̲kirah of poets.130

Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl, notices of 454 poets, mainly contemporary, arranged in 28 ṭabaqahs each devoted to a particular town, district or country ((1) Fārs and S̲h̲abānkārah, (2) tawābiʿ i Fārs, (3) Iṣfahān, and so on) and written (at least partly) in 1076/1665–6:131 ms. (less than half of the work) in Prof. Maḥmūd S̲h̲ērānī’s private library at Lahore.

Description and extracts: ocm. xi/1 (Nov. 1934) pp. 58–73 (article by M. Iqbāl).

[Autobiographical statements in Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl (see ocm. xi/1 pp. 61–5) and Laṭīfah i g̲h̲aibī (see Rieu Suppt. 417 (1)); Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī p. 186.]

§ 1129. For the Mirʾāt al-ʿālam, which was written in 1078/1667 by S̲h̲. M. Baqā Sahāranpūrī (nominally by Bak̲h̲tāwar K̲h̲ān), and of which the k̲h̲ātimah contains alphabetically arranged notices of poets, see no. 151 (2) supra.

§ 1130. M. Ṭāhir Naṣrābādī was born at Naṣrābād,132 near Iṣfahān, probably in 1027/1618, since he tells us (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 45812) that in 1044/1634–5, when his father133 died, he was seventeen years old. His great-grandfather, K̲h̲wājah Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAlī, was a wealthy landowner (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 4576) and the founder of three madrasahs,134 but the family had become impoverished, and more than one of its members had gone to seek his fortune in India.135 After a frivolous youth he went to live in a coffee-house frequented by scholars and poets and there he seems to have spent most of his life, since it was to it that he returned after his pilgrimage to Mas̲h̲had, Najaf, and Mecca some years before he wrote his tad̲h̲kirah. Enjoying the society and esteem of the learned, talented, and pious (such as Mīr ʿAbd al-ʿĀl “Najāt”), winning by his compositions in prose and verse the approbation of men like Āqā Ḥusain K̲h̲wānsārī (for whom see no. 33, 2nd footnote supra, and Tad̲h̲kirah p. 152), and receiving from S̲h̲āh Sulaimān (1077/1666–1105/1694) on his visits to Naṣrābād marks of gracious favour, though not the material benefits he would have preferred, he lived no doubt happily enough, until the death of several friends, especially that of Āk̲h̲und Darwīs̲h̲ Naṣīrā Qazwīnī in 1079136 (Tad̲h̲kirah pp. 4639 and 5311), robbed the coffee-house of its charm. He retired to a life of pious devotion in the mosque of Lunbān,137 and had been there for seven years when he wrote his account of his own life. He had an only138 son, Badīʿ al-Zamān (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 455), or Mīrzā Badīʿ Iṣfahānī, who became Malik al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ under S̲h̲āh Sulṭān-Ḥusain (according to “Ḥazīn”: see Sprenger p. 138, Kullīyāt i Ḥazīn p. 993). His specimens of his own poetry, which in style resembles that of “Ṣāʾīb” and “Kalīm” no longer admired in Persia (see the editor’s introduction, p. jīm), include a qaṣīdah in praise of S̲h̲āh Sulaimān, lines from a mat̲h̲nawī modelled on one by “Ahlī” S̲h̲īrāzī, and chronograms for the building of the Has̲h̲t Bihis̲h̲t palace in 1080 (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 487). For his Guls̲h̲an i k̲h̲ayālāt (or k̲h̲ayāl), a short tract in ornate prose, see Rieu Suppt. 376, Bodleian 1636(6) and 1906: for his Intik̲h̲āb i dīwān i Ṣāʾib see Ethé 1623, Būhār 432 (1).

Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī, short notices of more than 1,000139 contemporary poets, begun in 1083/1672–3,140 dedicated to S̲h̲āh Sulaimān and divided into a muqaddimah (kings and princes), five ṣaffs subdivided into firqahs ((1) (a) amīrs and k̲h̲āns of Persia, p. 15, (b) amīrs of India, p. 53, (c) wazīrs, mustaufīs, and kuttāb, p. 69, (2) Saiyids and nujabāʾ, p. 95, (3) (a) scholars, p. 149, (b) calligraphists, p. 206, (c) faqīrs, p. 209, (4) professional poets of (a) ʿIrāq and K̲h̲urāsān, p. 212, (b) Transoxiana, p. 432, (c) India, p. 444, (5) the author and his relations, p. 451) and a k̲h̲ātimah (a collection of old and new chronograms, riddles, etc., p. 468): Sprenger p. 88, Blochet ii 1148 (ostensibly an autograph dated 1083/1672–3, although the date 1089141 occurs in the biography of Mīr Luṭf Allāh), Rieu Suppt. 110 (ah 1097/1686. Lacunæ), i 368 b (18th cent.), Bānkīpūr viii 687 (ah 1105142/1694), Lindesiana p. 196 no. 315 (circ. ad 1700), Berlin 648 (ah 1114/1702), 649, Edinburgh 88 (ah 1118/1706. Lacunae), Bodleian 373 (ah 1132/1720), i.o. d.p. 587 (ah 1244/1829), Ethé 669, Ivanow 220 (ad 1870).

Edition: Tad̲h̲kirah i Naṣrābādī, Ṭihrān ahs. 1316–17/1937–8 (supplements to the periodical Armag̲h̲ān).

Edition of Ṣaff iii, firqah 2 (calligraphists): ocm. xii/4 (Aug. 1935) pp. 154–9 (ed. M. S̲h̲afīʿ).

Description: On the earliest Persian Biography of Poets … By N. Bland (in jras. ix (1848)) pp. 137–140.

List and epitome of the biographies in Ṣaff iii, firqahs 2–3, and Ṣaff iv: Sprenger pp. 88–108.

[Tad̲h̲kirah i Naṣrābādī, Ṣaff v, at end (pp. 457–68 in the printed edition. Summarised by Bland, Sprenger, Rieu, ʿAbd al-Muqtadir, etc.); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (summarised in Bānkīpūr viii p. 85); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (passage translated by Bland, pp. 139–40); Bland’s article in jras. 1848 pp. 139–40 (see above); Rieu i 368b; Blochet ii 1148; Bānkīpūr viii 687; editor’s introduction to the Ṭihrān edition.]

§ 1131. For the Jāmiʿ i Mufīdī, a history of Yazd, which was completed in 1090/1679 and of which the 9th faṣl of the 2nd maqālah of the 3rd volume is devoted to the poets of Yazd, see no. 461 supra.

§ 1132. Mīrzā M. Afḍal “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲143 was, according to his pupil “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū”, the second son of M. Zāhid144 and was born in Kas̲h̲mīr in 1050/1640–1 (Bānkīpūr viii pp. 92–3). M. Zāhid, says “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū”, was in the service of ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān Zak̲h̲mī,145 after whose death all Zāhid’s five sons entered the Emperor’s service. Naṣrābādī’s statement that “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲” was a Lāhaurī and was living in Lahore [in, or about, 1083] is described by “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” as incorrect (Bkp. viii p. 931–3). “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲” himself tells us (cf. Sprenger p. 108, Rieu i p. 369) that he was a hereditary servant of ʿĀlamgīr, that in his youth he had been anxious to acquire rank and wealth, but that when he wrote he was living in retirement at Delhi. According to “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū”, his pupil, he died in Muḥarram 1126/1714146 at the age of seventy-six.

“K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” says that his Kullīyāt consisted of about 45,000 verses (Bkp. viii p. 936. Cf. jras. 1848 p. 169, where the number is given as nearly 40,000). They included six mat̲h̲nawīs, (1) Nūr ʿalā nūr, modelled on Rūmī’s Mat̲h̲nawī, (2) Ḥusn u ʿis̲h̲q, (3) Sāqī-nāmah, (4) Qaḍā u qadar, (5) dar bayān i baʿḍī k̲h̲uṣūṣīyāt i Hindūstān, (6) Jang-nāmah i M. Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh, and, according to the Gul i raʿnā (cited Bkp. viii p. 82), two dīwāns, which (like his other poetical works ?) were lost through his son’s carelessness. No mss. of these works are recorded.

Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (a chronogram = 1093/1682, but dates as late as 1108/1696–7 occur), very short notices of about 200 poets who flourished (nearly all in India) during the reigns of Jahāngīr, S̲h̲āh-Jahān, and Aurangzēb: Sprenger 13, Ivanow Curzon 51 (ah 1111/1700), 52 (defective at end. 18th cent.), 53 (19th cent.), 54 (defective at end. 19th cent.), Ivanow 221 (small portion only), 222 (portion only), Rāmpūr (ah 1129/1716. Pictures. See Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 88), Madras 441 (ah 1154/1741), 442–3, Ethé 670 (ah 1154/1742), 671 (n.d.), 672 (fragment), ii 3024 (ah 1270/1853–4), i.o. d.p. 709(e) (ah 1164/1750), I.O. 4046 (defective, ah 1237/1822), Rieu i 369a (ah 1156/1743), Oxford Ind. Inst. (ah 1157/1745) Lindesiana p. 216 no. 322 (circ. ad 1760), Blochet ii 1149 (18th cent.), 1150 (ah 1179/1765–6), Berlin 650 (1) (ah 1242/1826), 651 (ad 1784), Āṣafīyah i p. 318 no. 14 (ah 1222/1807–8), p. 322 no. 51 (circ. ad 1912), no. 54 (circ. 1912), no. 97 (circ. 1912), Bānkīpūr viii 688 (19th cent.), Suppt. ii 2175 (19th cent.), Būhār 91 (19th cent.), Browne Suppt. 296 (King’s 92), Peshawar 1413.

List of the poets (with some biographical details): Sprenger pp. 109–115.

[Tad̲h̲kirah i Naṣrābādī p. 450; Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (see Sprenger p. 108, Rieu i p. 369); Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl no. 106 (Bombay 1324 p. 290, but Rieu quotes from the work some information absent from this edition); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 123); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (summarised in Bānkīpūr viii pp. 92–3); Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 317; Sirāj Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab (Sprenger p. 150); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah no. 60, pp. 263–4; Gul i raʿnā (cited Bānkīpūr viii p. 82); Farḥat al-nāẓirīn (ocm. iv/4 (Aug., 1928) p. 95); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (passage translated by Bland, jras. 1848 p. 169); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 135; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 1034; Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q; Sprenger p. 108; Rieu i p. 369, iii p. 1086a; Bānkīpūr viii p. 82.]

§ 1133. For the Lubb al-lubāb, which was composed in 1097/1685–6 by Ḥājjī Muḥammad-Qulī Qājār and of which the twenty-third faṣl contains short notices of 220 Persian poets, see no. 153 supra.

§ 1134. For the Mirʾāt i jahān-numā, an enlarged edition of the Mirʾāt al-ʿālam existing in two posthumous recensions completed in 1095/1684 and 1111/1699 respectively, which, like the original edition, contain towards the end alphabetically arranged notices of Persian poets, see no. 151 (3) supra.

§ 1135. S̲h̲ēr K̲h̲ān b. ʿAlī Amjad K̲h̲ān Lōdī147 spent at least part of his boyhood in Bengal, whither his father had gone in the service of Sulṭān M. S̲h̲āh-S̲h̲ujāʿ, S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s second son.148 He received some instruction there from Mullā Farruk̲h̲ Ḥusain “Nāẓim”,149 who after completing his studies had left his home, Harāt,150 and had settled in Jahāngīrnagar (D’hākah, i.e. Dacca in Eastern Bengal). He was, however, too young to profit fully from the Mullā’s teaching, as his brothers had done, and he had read only some elementary Persian and Arabic text-books (muk̲h̲taṣarāt i fārisī u ʿarabī), when “Nāẓim” died on the day of ʿĀs̲h̲ūrāʾ 1068/1657. His regular education then ceased, but he learned much from the conversation of his father and his father’s erudite friends. In 1084/1673–4 his father died, in 1087/1676 his brother, ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān, was killed (s̲h̲arbat i s̲h̲ahādat c̲h̲as̲h̲īd) in the mountains of Kābul, and in 1090/1679 he sought employment under S. S̲h̲ukr Allāh K̲h̲ān [K̲h̲wāfī], who had been a friend of his father’s in his Bengal days and who is described in the 1324 edition of the Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl as Faujdār of the c̲h̲aklah of Sirhind151 and in Rosen’s transcription of the same passage from a Leningrad ms. as Faujdār of the town of [S̲h̲āh-]Jahānābād152

Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl, completed in 1102/1690–1, chronologically arranged notices of about 136153 poets, viz. (1) 60154 ancient poets from “Rūdakī” to “Āṣafī”, p. 21, (2) 8 modern poets from Jalāl i “Asīr” to “Saḥābī”, p. 75, (3) 28 poets of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign from “Qudsī” to “Fiṭrat”, p. 85, (4) 11 living poets from ʿĀqil K̲h̲ān “Rāzī” to Aḥmad “ʿIbrat”, p. 238, (5) 9 living Indian poets whose fame had spread to Īrān and Tūrān from Nāṣir ʿAlī Sirhindī to S̲h̲. ʿAbd al-Qādir (or to “Waḥs̲h̲at”, as in the Bombay edition, where there are some differences of arrangement) p. 291, (6) 15 poetesses from “Mihrī” to “Hamdamī”, p. 334, the whole interspersed with short treatises on prosody, music, ethics, the interpretation of dreams and other subjects: Sprenger 14, Bodleian 374 (ah 1133/1721), 375 (ah 1213/1798–9), Blochet ii 1152 (early 18th cent.), 1151 (mid 18th cent.), Bānkīpūr Suppt. i 1785 (ah 1141/1728), Ivanow 223 (ah 1141/1729), 224 (late 18th cent.), Ethé 673 (ah 1147/1734), 674 (lacks the tad̲h̲kirah of poetesses at the end. N.d.), Rieu i 369b (18th cent.), 371a (ah 1183/1769), 371a (defective at end. 18th cent.), Āṣafīyah i p. 324 no. 25 (ah 1211/1796–7), no. 62 (n.d.), p. 170 no. 243, Lindesiana p. 222 no. 316 (circ. ad 1800), Aumer 4 (ah 1220/1805), Berlin 650 (2) (little more than the 1st quarter of the work. ah 1242/1826), Lahore Panjab Univ. Lib. (defective at both ends. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. iii, no. 1 (Lahore, Nov. 1926), p. 74), Rosen Institut 32, Buk̲h̲ārā Semenov 104, Peshawar 1471.

Editions: [Calcutta] 1246/1831*, Barēli 1264/1848* (cf. Sprenger 14), Bombay 1324/1906°.155

Descriptions: (1) On the earliest Persian Biography of Poets … By N. Bland (in jras. 1848) pp. 140–2, (2) Rosen Institut pp. 161–8.

List of the poets (with some biographical details): Bodleian coll. 207–11.

Lists of the “modern” and contemporary poets: (1) Rieu i p. 370, (2) Rosen Institut pp. 161–8 (with epitomes of some biographies).

[Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl, under Farruk̲h̲ Ḥusain “Nāẓim” = Bombay 1324 pp. 120–1 (Persian text quoted by Rosen, Inst. pp. 162–3), and in k̲h̲ātimah = Bombay 1324 pp. 339–42 (summarised by Bland, pp. 141–2, and Sprenger p. 115); Rieu i 370 (where both passages are summarised).]

§ 1136. Qāḍī M. Badīʿ b. M. S̲h̲arīf Samarqandī wrote in the reign of Subḥān-Qulī K̲h̲ān, the As̲h̲tark̲h̲ānī Sulṭān of Buk̲h̲ārā (ah 1091/1680–1114/1702).

Tad̲h̲kirat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ i Subḥān-Qulī-K̲h̲ānī, notices of poets and scholars of Subḥān-Qulī K̲h̲ān’s time: Buk̲h̲ārā Semenov 50 (cf. Semenov Kurzer Abriss p. 6).

§ 1137. Kis̲h̲an C̲h̲and “Ik̲h̲lāṣ,” son of Ac̲h̲al Dās and a pupil of ʿAbd al-G̲h̲anī Bēg “Qabūl”, was a K’hatrī (i.e. a Kshatriya) of S̲h̲āhjahānābād, who died in the reign of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh (1161/1748–1167/1754).

Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār, alphabetically arranged notices of about 200 poets who flourished (mainly in India) from the time of Jahāngīr (1014/1605–1037/1628) to the accession of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh (1131/1719) with a few of Akbar’s time (963/1556–1014/1605), written in 1136/1723–4: Sprenger 16 (Tōpk̲h̲ānah), i.o. 4401 (ah 1138/1726), Ethé 675 (ah 1139/1727), Lindesiana p. 156 no. 323 (circ. ad 1830), Bānkīpūr viii 689 (19th cent.), Āṣafīyah i p. 318 no. 13.

List and epitome of the biographies: Sprenger pp. 117–30.

[Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 119); Gul i raʿnā (Bānkīpūr viii p. 129); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (passage translated by Bland, jras. 1848 pp. 169–70); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 260; Sprenger p. 117; Beale Oriental biographical dictionary.]

§ 1138. For the Mirʾāt i wāridāt, of which the fourth ṭabaqah completed in 1142/1730 contains inter alia biographies of Indian poets and authors, see no. 779 (1) supra.

§ 1139. Bindrāban Dās “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” a Hindu “of the Bais tribe” (i.e. presumably of the Vaishya caste), was a native of Mat’hurā156 (i.e. “Muttra”, 30 miles N.N.W. of Āgrah). At the age of 14 he became a pupil of M. Afḍal “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲”, who suggested his tak̲h̲alluṣ “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū”157 and who died in 1126/1714 (see no. 1132 supra). Having spent the ten years 1137–47/1724–35 in compiling his Safīnah, he was prevented from making a fair copy and publishing the work by Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion [1151/1739], in consequence of which he had to go with the army to Kōt Kāngrah (Sprenger p. 130). He remained seven or eight years158 in the Panjāb, but in 1155/1742 he returned to Delhi and gave his Safīnah to “his master” Sirāj al-Dīn ʿAlī K̲h̲ān “Ārzū”, who wrote some notes and added a preface (ibid.). “Ārzū” himself says in his Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis (for which see no. 1149, 7th par. infra) that “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” was his constant companion for 25 years (Bānkīpūr viii p. 841). Among other distinguished friends of his were ʿAbd al-Qādir Bē-dil (for whom see Rieu ii 706b, Bānkīpūr iii pp. 194–5, viii p. 96, etc.), Saʿd Allāh “Guls̲h̲an” (for whom see Bānkīpūr viii p. 98) and ʿUmdat al-Mulk Amīr K̲h̲ān “Anjām” (for whom cf. Sprenger pp. 153, 203). The last of these was, according to “Ārzū”, the dedicatee of the Safīnah (Bkp. viii p. 842). Towards the end of his life he renounced the world and lived piously at Allahabad. According to the Gul i raʿnā (quoted in Bānkīpūr viii p. 84) he died at ʿAẓīmābād (i.e. Patna) between 1161/1748 and 1170/1756–7.159 For his uncle Sadānand “Bē-takalluf” see Bānkīpūr vii p. 94.

Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (a chronogram = 1137/1724–5, the date of inception), or Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gūʾī (a chronogram = 1147/1734–5, the date of completion), more or less chronologically arranged notices of poets in three daftars ((1) 362 ancient poets from “Rūdakī” to “Kāfī”, (2) 811160 “mediæval” poets from “Jāmī” to “S̲h̲ugūnī” (d. some years after 1060), (3) modern and contemporary poets: Sprenger pp. 130–2 = Berlin 652–3 (Daftars iii, defective), Bānkīpūr viii pp. 83–115 (Daftar iii, apparently defective, ah 1182/1768–9), Suppt. i 1786 (Daftar ii, defective, extending from “Jāmī” to “Surūrī” (no. 636 in Bodleian ms.). 19th cent.), Majlis 403 (Daftar ii (?) ah 1268/1851–2), Bodleian 376 (Daftar ii), I.O. 4023 (Daftar i), Lahore Panjāb Univ. (Daftar ii, defective, 775 poets from Jāmī to Mīrzā Raḍī (no. 775 in Bodleian ms.). See ocm.iii/1 (Nov. 1926) p. 75).

List and epitome of the biographies: [Daftar ii] Bodleian coll. 212–39 [Daftar iii] Bānkīpūr viii pp. 84–115 (excellent epitome).

Alphabetical rearrangement (“991 notices”)161 made at S̲h̲ūs̲h̲tar by “Durrī” S̲h̲ūs̲h̲tarī and completed in 1241/1825: Sipahsālār ii p. 474 (770 poets. Some marginal notes in “Durrī’s” hand), Rieu Suppt. Ill (ah 1252/1836).

[Autobiographical information in Safīnah, preface (?) (see Sprenger p. 130) and elsewhere (cf. Bānkīpūr viii pp. 8714, 9214, 933, 9426, 95 ult., 9818, 10317, 1089, 1103, 11218, 11337, 11417, 25 and many passages where “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” says that particular poets were friends of his, etc.); “Ḥairat” Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 155); Gul i raʿnā (passage summarised in Bānkīpūr viii pp. 130–1); Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 736; Sprenger pp. 130–1.]

§ 1140. For the Burhān al-futūḥ, which was composed in 1148/1735–6 by M. ʿAlī b. M. Ṣādiq Nīs̲h̲āpūrī and of which the 16th bāb is devoted to poets, see no. 164 supra.

§ 1141. ʿAṭāʾ Allāh “Nudrat”, entitled Dānis̲h̲war K̲h̲ān, is the author of a Persian dictionary, ʿAin i ʿAṭā (ms.: Ethé 2515), which he completed after twenty years’ work in 1162/1749. The India Office ms. Ethé 1699 (Kullīyāt i Nudrat) is probably his dīwān.

Tad̲h̲kirah i Nudrat, notices of ancient and modern poets in two c̲h̲amans ((1) the 3rd century, (2) the 4th century), seven guls̲h̲ans (the 5th to the 11th century) and one ḥadīqah or k̲h̲ātimah (contemporary poets of the 12th century), completed in Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s 19th regnal year, 1149–50/1737: Ethé 676 (breaks off in Guls̲h̲an iii).

§ 1142. For the Tārīk̲h̲ i Hindī, which was completed in 1154/1741–2 by Rustam ʿAlī S̲h̲āhābādī and of which the k̲h̲ātimah is devoted to contemporary or nearly contemporary s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, ʿulamāʾ and poets, see no. 630 supra.

§ 1143. For the Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī, or Nādir-al-zamānī, a history, mainly of India, to 1159/1746, by K̲h̲wus̲h̲-ḥāl C̲h̲and, which contains at the end of Maqālah ii short notices of 258 poets (list in Berlin cat. pp. 477–80), see no. 163 supra.

§ 1144. For the Wāqiʿāt i Kas̲h̲mīr, which was completed in 1160/1747 by K̲h̲wājah M. Aʿẓam and which is devoted largely to the saints, poets, and scholars of Kas̲h̲mīr, see no. 880 (1) supra.

§ 1145. Mardān ʿAlī K̲h̲ān162 “Mubtalā” b. M. ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Mas̲h̲hadī composed in 1161/1748 his

Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār, a poetical anthology with short biographical notices: Lahore Prof. Maḥmūd S̲h̲ē̲rānī’s private library (ah 1166/1753. See ʿAbd al-Nabī Mai-k̲h̲ānah, editor’s preface p. bk), Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 94 (ah 1166/1753. ʿAbd al-Ḥusain, Lucknow. Perhaps the same ms. as the preceding), Bodleian 379.

List of the 755 poets (with some biographical details): Bodleian coll. 239–55.

[Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 662.]

§ 1146. ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm “Ḥākim” Lāhaurī b. S̲h̲ādmān K̲h̲ān Uzbak received a manṣab and the title of Ḥakīm Bēg K̲h̲ān from Muḥammad S̲h̲āh at the beginning of his reign (1131/1719–1161/1748), but he subsequently left the royal service and became a wandering faqīr. “Āzād” Bilgrāmī made his acquaintance at Aurangābād. He was the author of a dīwān and of a tad̲h̲kirah, the title of which he changed at “Āzād’s” suggestion from Tuḥfat al-majālis to Mardum i dīdah (see K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 20018). When “Muṣḥafī” wrote his ʿIqd i T̲h̲uraiyā (in 1199/1784–5) he was still alive. According to the Nag̲h̲mah i ʿandalīb he died in Kas̲h̲mīr.

Muntak̲h̲ab i Ḥākim (a chronogram = 1161/1748), or [?] Nusk̲h̲ah i pasandīdah dar d̲h̲ikr i baʿḍī s̲h̲uʿarā [?], a small tad̲h̲kirah of poets including “Āfrīn”, “Āzād”, “Ummēd”, and “Ārzū”,163 with a takmilah relating to Mīr ʿAbd al-Ḥaiy164 and S̲h̲. Nūr-Muḥammad: Rehatsek p. 133 no. 21 (ah 1175/1761–2 (?),165 partly autograph), Rieu iii 1037b iv (extracts only (1 fol.), from a ms. in Munīr al-Mulk’s library).

It is not clear whether this work is identical with

Mardum i dīdah,166 a small tad̲h̲kirah of poets whom the author had seen, composed, according to “Āzād” (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 20018), during a visit paid by “Ḥākim” to Aurangābād (evidently, to judge from the context, the second of the three visits mentioned by “Āzād”, i.e. 15 Jumādā ’l-ūlā-19 S̲h̲awwāl 175/1761–2): no mss. recorded.

[Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii p. 107); “Ḥairat” Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 155); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah pp. 200–4 (no. 37); ʿIqd i T̲h̲uraiyā (Rieu i 377b) fol. 42; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 642; Nag̲h̲mah i ʿandalīb (Rieu iii 978b) fol. 70; Rieu iii 1086b.]

§ 1147. Nawwāb K̲h̲ān-i-Zamān Bahādur167 Ẓafar-Jang168 ʿAlī-Qulī K̲h̲ān “Wālih” b. M. ʿAlī K̲h̲ān S̲h̲amk̲h̲ālī Lakzī Dāg̲h̲istānī,169 a descendant of the S̲h̲amk̲h̲āls, or rulers, of the Lesgians170 of Dāg̲h̲istān, was born at Iṣfahān in Ṣafar 1124/1712. His father, appointed in 1126/1714 Bēglarbēgī of Erivan, died in 1128/1716 or 1129/1717.171 When still a schoolboy “Wālih” fell in love with his cousin, K̲h̲adījah Sulṭān, and was betrothed to her, but her forced marriage to Karīm-dād, the slave of Maḥmūd K̲h̲ān,172 and after his death to a succession of other persons saddened the rest of his life.173 His father’s uncle, Fatḥ-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, was Prime Minister to S̲h̲āh Sulṭān-Ḥusain (reigned 1105/1694–1135/1722) and other relatives of his held high office, but in 1133/1720 they were all dismissed.174 This calamity was followed by the Afg̲h̲ān invasion (1721–2), the seven years of Afg̲h̲ān rule and in 1144/1731 by the death of S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp ii, to whom he had attached himself. “Wālih” left for India,175 reached Delhi in 1147/1734–5,176 and received in course of time from Muḥammad S̲h̲āh (reigned 1131/1719–1161/1748) a manṣab of 4000, the title of Ẓafar-Jang and the appointment of Second Mīr-Tūzuk. In Aḥmad S̲h̲āh’s reign (1161/1748–1167/1754) he was promoted to a manṣab of 6000 and the title of K̲h̲ān-i-Zamān Bahādur. In the reign of ʿĀlamgīr ii (1167/1754–1173/1759) his manṣab was increased to 7000 and on 1 Rajab 1169/1 April 1756177 he died at Delhi. For his dīwān, completed in 1157/1744–5, see Bodleian 1182, Ethé 1708, Edinburgh New Coll. p. 9, Āṣafīyah i p. 736 no. 345. A theological or Ṣūfī mat̲h̲nawī composed in 1149/1736–7 and entitled Najm al-hudā (mss.: Bānkīpūr Suppt. i 1921, Ivanow 855) is ascribed to “Wālih” Dāg̲h̲istāni by Sprenger and Ivanow, but a verse quoted by ʿAbd al-Muqtadir shows that the author is a different “Wālih”, namely S. M. Mūsawī, who was born in K̲h̲urāsān, migrated to Ḥaidarābād and then to Arcot and died in 1184/1770 (see Madras no. 61, Gulzar i Aʿẓam pp. 365–8, Guldastah i Karnāṭak (Ivanow 1st Suppt. 776 no. 68)). Another mat̲h̲nawī, Mīrzā-nāmah, on the love adventures of Mīrzā S̲h̲īr-afgan (ms. Ivanow 856), is likewise ascribed to “Wālih” Dāg̲h̲istānī by Sprenger and Ivanow, but probably this too is by S. M. Mūsawī.

Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, “alphabetically” arranged notices of “2500”178 poets (very few of the author’s contemporaries, especially of the contemporary poets of India, whom he held in small estimation) written mainly in 1160/1747 (a year often referred to, according to Ivanow) and completed in 1161/1748 (according to a chronogram quoted and explained by Bland, quoted without explanation by ʿAbd al-Muqtadir) or 1162/1749 (a year explicitly mentioned, according to Ivanow, as that in which the last portion was written):179 Sprenger no. 18, Berlin 657 (an abstract containing only the biographies and one line by each poet. Autograph ?), 656 (2497 articles ? ah 1224/1809), Ivanow 230 (ah 1171/1757–8), Ivanow Curzon 57 (defective. a.d., 1794 ?), Lindesiana180 p. 121 no. 311 (circ. ad 1770), no. 57 (ah 1210/1795–6), no. 58 (defective at end. Modern), Būhār 92 (ah 1191/1777–8), Rieu i 371a (ah 1203/1788) Suppt. 112 (ah 1216/1801), 113 (breaks off in kāf. 19th cent.), Āṣafīyah iii p. 164 no. 120 (ah 1258/1842), Bānkīpūr viii 693 (19th cent.), Bodleian 377 (n.d.), 378 (short fragment only), I.O. 3653, Lahore Panjab Univ. Lib. (extracts, 94 poets. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. iii, no. 1 (Lahore, Nov. 1926), p. 75).

Epitome (with some additions): LUBB I LUBĀB, written by Qamar al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Sanā Allāh Ḥusainī Nāṣirī for Richard Johnson: Ethé 695 (ah 1194/1780, autograph).

Description: On the oldest Persian Biography of Poets … By N. Bland (in jras. 1848) pp. 143–7.

List of the 2594 biographies in Ivanow 230 and Ivanow Curzon 57: Ivanow Curzon pp. 28–63.

[Autobiography in Riyaḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, k̲h̲ātimah (summarised by Rieu and ʿAbd al-Muqtadir); “Mubtalā” Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 725; Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (summarised in Bānkīpūr viii p. 110); “Guls̲h̲an” Jaunpūrī Ṣūrat i ḥāl (Rieu ii p. 715b); “Ḥairat” Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 160); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah pp. 446–50 (Bodleian 381 no. 129); Ātas̲h̲-kadah no. 841; Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm (passage translated or summarised by Bland, pp. 145–6); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 301 (cf. Bland p. 147); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 3018; Riyāḍ al-ʿārifīn pp. 263–4; Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥāʾ ii p. 558; S̲h̲amʿ i anjuman p. 491.]

§ 1148. Mīr Ḥusain-Dōst “Ḥusainī” b. S. Abī Ṭālib Sanbhalī left Sanbhal (i.e. “Sambhal”, 22 miles S.W. of Murādābād) at the age of 19 for Delhi, where he spent his time in the company of poets. In 1173/1759–60, having left Delhi for Bareilly (Barēlī), he wrote a Persian grammar, Tas̲h̲rīḥ i nādir (mss.: Calcutta Madrasah p. 104, Rāmpūr (see Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 302)). In 1203/1789 he made a prose abstract of “Hātifī’s” Tīmūr-nāmah (see no. 359 (2) supra).

Tad̲h̲kirah i Ḥusainī, completed in 1163/1749–50, short alphabetically arranged notices of about 200 ancient and modern poets (as well as some saints and princes) Sprenger no. 20 (Mōtī Maḥall), Rieu i 372a (18th cent.), 372b (18th cent.), Bānkīpūr viii 694 (different beginning. 19th cent.), Berlin 654 (breaks off in sīn), Lahore Panjāb Univ. (defective. See ocm. iii/1 (Nov. 1926) p. 75).

Edition: Lucknow 1875°*.

Abridgment: I.O. 3847 (ah 1187/1773), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 933 (ah 1250/1834).

§ 1149. Sirāj al-Dīn ʿAlī K̲h̲ān “Ārzū” Akbarābādī, entitled Istiʿdād K̲h̲ān,181 b. S̲h̲. Ḥusām al-Dīn “Ḥusām”182 was born at Gwalior183 or Akbarābād in 1099/1687–8 or 1101/1689–90.184 According to “Āzād”185 he was descended on his father’s side from S̲h̲. Kamāl al-Dīn, the son of a sister of the great saint Naṣīr al-Dīn Maḥmūd called C̲h̲irāg̲h̲ i Dihlī,186 and on his mother’s side from another celebrated saint M. G̲h̲aut̲h̲ Guwāliyārī187 In 1132/1719–20 he went from Gwalior to Delhi and found a patron in Anand Rām “Muk̲h̲liṣ” (d. 1164/1751: see no. 780 supra), who obtained for him a manṣab and a jāgīr. Influential support came to him also from Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s K̲h̲ān-sāmān. Muʾtaman al-Daulah Isḥāq K̲h̲ān “Isḥāq” S̲h̲ūstarī188 and after his death in 1152/1739–40 from his eldest son Najm al-Daulah,189 who paid “Ārzū” a monthly stipend of 150 rupees. In 1163/1750 Najm al-Daulah was killed, but his younger brother Sālār-Jang maintained the friendly relations of the family towards “Ārzū”, and in 1168/1754–5, when Sālār-Jang went to Oudh, “Ārzū” accompanied him. Thus he reached the town of Awad’h (Ajōd’hyā, now part of Fyzabad), the home of his remote ancestor, the aforementioned S̲h̲. Kamāl al-Dīn. Soon afterwards he was presented by Sālār-Jang to S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah, the Nawwāb-Wazīr of Oudh. He did not, however, enjoy for long the monthly stipend of 300 rupees granted to him by the Nawwāb-Wazīr, since he died at Lucknow on 23 Rabīʿ ii 1169/26 Jan. 1756. He was buried at Delhi.

An incomplete list of “Ārzū’s” works given in the preface to his ʿAṭīyah i kubrā was reproduced by Blochmann in jasb. 37, pt. 1 (1868) pp. 70–1. They are (1) K̲h̲iyābān, a commentary on the Gulistān (mss.: Sprenger 481, Bodleian 725, Berlin 49(2). Edition: Cawnpore 1293/1876–7°*), (2) S̲h̲igūfah-zār,190 a commentary on the first part of the Sikandar-nāmah (mss.: Sprenger 426, Rieu Suppt. 232, i.o. d.p. 1243a, 1243b, Lahore (Panjāb Univ.), ʿAlīgaṛh p. 49, Āṣafīyah ii p. 1482, Berlin 736). This commentary “given in extenso, with a few additions, in the margins of the Iskandar Nāmah lithographed at Bombay A. H. 1277 [°*] … forms the basis of the glosses in the Calcutta and Lucknow editions, as stated by Sprenger, Oude Catalogue, no. 426” (Rieu), (3) S̲h̲arḥ i qaṣāʾid i ʿUrfī (mss.: i.o. d.p. 1286a, 1286c, 1286d, (4) Sirāj i wahhāj, muḥākamah i s̲h̲uʿarāʾ,191 (5) Sirāj i munīr, ajwibah i iʿtirāḍāt i Mullā Munīr bar as̲h̲ʿār i baʿḍ i mutaʾakhkhirīn [namely “Qudsī” (for whom see no. 727, supra) according to Bkp. iii p. 218], (6) Risālah i adab i ʿis̲h̲q, dar taḥqīq i adab i ʿis̲h̲q, (7) Miʿyār al-afkār, dar qawāʿid i ṣarfiyah u naḥwīyah i fārisī, (8) Mat̲h̲nawī i Jūs̲h̲ u k̲h̲urūs̲h̲, ba-muqābalah i Sūz u gudāz i Mullā Nauʿī, (9) Mat̲h̲nawī i Sūz u sāz [sic, apparently = S̲h̲ūr i ʿis̲h̲q, Sprenger p. 337] dar barābar i Maḥmūd u Ayāz i Mullā Zulālī, (10) ʿĀlam i āb, dar jawāb i Sāqī-nāmah i Mullā Ẓuhūrī, (11) Mat̲h̲nawī i ʿIbrat-fasānah, dar tatabbuʿ i Qaḍā u qadar i Mullā M.-Qulī Salīm, (12) Dīwān i g̲h̲azal, mus̲h̲tamil bar panj hazār bait,192 (13) Nat̲h̲r i Payām i s̲h̲auq dar jawāb i murāsalāt i aʿizzah, (14) Gulzār i k̲h̲ayāl, dar taʿrīf i faṣl i Hōlī i Hindūstān, (15) Ābrūy i suk̲h̲un, dar waṣf i ḥauḍ u fawākih u tāk, (16) qaṣāʾid u rubāʿīyāt u k̲h̲uṭab.

The ʿAṭīyah i kubrā, like most of “Ārzū’s” works, seems to be undated, but the foregoing list is doubtless earlier than 1147/1734–5, since it does not include the Sirāj al-lug̲h̲ah, which was written in that year. To that list can be added (17) ʿAṭīyah i kubrā, on simile, metaphor and metonymy193 (mss.: Ivanow 394, Ivanow Curzon 177, Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 969 (4), Bānkīpūr ix 854 (2), Madras 482. Editions: [Calcutta] 1832* (followed by the Mauhibati ʿuẓmā), Cawnpore 1897°), (18) Mauhibat i ʿuẓmā, on rhetoric194 (mss.: Bānkīpūr ix 854 (1), Ivanow 2nd Suppt.969 (5), 970. Edition: [Calcutta] 1832* (preceded by the ʿAṭīyah i kubrā), (19) Dād i suk̲h̲un, dar muḥākamah i as̲h̲ʿār i qaṣīdah i Qudsī u S̲h̲aidā-yi [sic lege] Hindī195 (Berlin cat. p. 765). (mss.: Ivanow 393, Lahore (Panjāb Univ. See ocm.v/4 (Aug. 1929) p. 17).) (20) Zāʾid al-fawāʾid, a dictionary of Persian verbs and the abstract nouns derived from them (ms.: Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 969 (11)), presumably related in some way to theZawāʾid al-fawāʾid, a work on the same subject by ʿAbd al-Wāsiʿ Hānsawī (ms: Lahore, Panjāb Univ. See ocm.viii/2 (Feb. 1932) p. 73). (21) Sirāj al-lug̲h̲ah, completed in 1147/1734–5, a dictionary of non-Arabic words used by the old poets (mutaqaddimīn) with many criticisms of the Burhān i qāṭiʿ, whose mistakes and to a much smaller extent those of the Farhang i Ras̲h̲īdī it was the author’s primary purpose to correct196 (mss.: Ethé 2513, Lindesiana p. 216 no. 766, Ivanow 1434). For a description of this work and the C̲h̲irāg̲h̲ i hidāyat see Blochmann in jasb.37, pt. 1 (1868) pp. 25–7. (22) C̲h̲irāg̲h̲ i hidāyat, a dictionary of words used by modern poets (mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn), forming the second daftar of the Sirāj al-lug̲h̲ah (mss.: Rieu ii 501b, iii 997a, 1070b, Ivanow 1435–6, Ivanow Curzon 526, Bānkīpūr ix 807–9, Berlin 120 (1), Browne Pers. Cat. 147 i, Browne Suppt. 375 (King’s 125), Ethé 2514, Lahore (Panjāb Univ. 2 copies). Editions (on the margin of G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ al-Dīn M. Rāmpūrī’s G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ al-lug̲h̲āt): Cawnpore 1868*, 1870*, 1874°, 1878°, 1307/1890*, Lucknow 1296/1879°, Bombay 1880–1°.)(23) [Taṣḥīḥ i197] G̲h̲arāʾib al-lug̲h̲āt,198 a corrected edition of ʿAbd al-Wāsiʿ Hānsawī’s G̲h̲arāʾib al-lug̲h̲āt, which is a glossary of Urdū words with their equivalents in Persian, Arabic, and Turkish (mss.: Rieu iii 1030a, Bānkīpūr ix 838, Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 969 (7), ʿAlīgaṛh p. 56 nos. 16, 21, Lahore (Panjāb Univ. 2 copies).) (24) Tanbīh al-g̲h̲āfilīn, a criticism of the poems of “Ḥazīn”199 (mss.: i.o. d.p. 423 (c), Lahore (Panjāb Univ. See ocm.v/4 (Aug. 1929) p. 16)). Blochmann described this work briefly in jasb. 37, pt. 1 (1868) p. 27. A rejoinder, Qual i faiṣal, written in 1267/1850–1200 by Maulawī Imām-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ “Ṣahbāʾī”, was published at Cawnpore in 1862 (Blochmann loc. cit.) and in vol. iii of “Ṣahbāʾī’s” Kullīyāt, Cawnpore and Lucknow [1878–80°*]. According to Blochmann another rejoinder was written by a nephew of “Ārzū’s”, Mīr Muḥsin ʿĀlī, “and Ték Chand, Mirzá Qatíl and Wárastah take frequently occasion to justify Ḥazín.” (25) Iḥqāq al-ḥaqq, another tract relating to “Ḥazīn”. No mss. seem to be recorded, but a rejoinder, Iʿlāʾ al-ḥaqq, was published in vol. i of “Ṣahbāʾī’s” Kullīyāt, Cawnpore and Lucknow [1878–80°]. (26) Mihr u Māh, a mat̲h̲nawī (mss.: Lindesiana p. 216 no. 620, Lahore (Panjāb Univ. See ocm. vii/1 (Nov. 1930) p. 144)), (27) Mut̲h̲mir, on the principles of the Persian language (dar ʿilm i uṣūl i lug̲h̲at), a counterpart to al-Suyūṭī’s Muzhir, (ms.: Ivanow Curzon 550).

Some others, of which no mss. have yet been recorded, are mentioned by Sprenger and ʿAbd al-Muqtadir.

“Ārzū’s” reputation as a scholar was, and still is, high in India, if not in Persia.201 According to Blochmann (Contributions to Persian lexicography p. 25) “He is the best commentator whom India has produced. His commentaries to Nizámí’s Sikandarnámah, the Qaçídahs of Kháqání and ’Urfí, and his sh̲arh to the Gulistán, entitled Khiyábáni Gulistán, are of great value.” Blochmann’s opinion that the Burhān i qāṭiʿ should never have been printed without the notes of the Sirāj al-lug̲h̲ah has already been quoted. Another work commended by Blochmann is the Tanbīh al-g̲h̲āfilīn (Contributions p. 2710: “Of his other works which compilers ought to read, I may mention the Tanbíh al g̲h̲áfilīn…. As most remarks refer to Persian style and idiom, compilers [of dictionaries] and grammarians will do well to procure copies”).

Several distinguished Urdū poets received instruction from “Ārzū” in the ars poetica, and thus he has a place in the history of Urdū poetry, though he himself rarely composed poetry in Urdū. His Persian poetry—if we may judge from the paucity of manuscripts—seems not to have retained such popularity as it may have enjoyed in his own day.

Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis, completed in 1164/1750–1, meagre alphabetically arranged notices202 of 1419203 or 1735204 ancient and modern poets with extracts from their works: Sprenger 19, Ethé 680 (vol. ii only, beginning with ḍād (Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Fārisī) and ending with yāʾ. ah 1166/1753, transcribed from an autograph), i.o. d.p. 739 (omits preface, breaks off in ṣād (Amīr Rūzbihan “Ṣabrī”) and lacks the latter half of t̲h̲āʾ, the whole of jīm, ḥāʾ, k̲h̲āʾ and dāl and the first part of d̲h̲āl), Bānkīpūr viii 695–6 (ah 1179/1765–6), Bodleian 380 (n.d.), Ivanow 231 (alif to jīm only. 19th cent.).

Abridgments: (1) Muntak̲h̲ab i Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis: Ethé 681 (ah 1243/1827), (2) i.o. 4015 (possibly identical with the preceding).

Selection of notices containing critical or other comments by “Ārzū” on the verses quoted: Jāmiʿ al-fawāʾid, compiled by K’harakpat Rāy Kāyat [i.e. Kāyat’h = Kāyast’ha] in 1195/1781 or 1196/1782, or both: i.o. 4081 (ah 1196/1782).

[Autobiography in Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 1186); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (passage summarised in Bānkīpūr viii p. 112); “Mubtalā” Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 84; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Sarw i Āzād; Sirāj Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab (Sprenger p. 1502); “Ḥairat” Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 153); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah pp. 116–21 (Bodleian 381 no. 11); D̲h̲ikr i Mīr pp. 63–4; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām no. 8 (passage summarised in Bānkīpūr viii p. 140); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm no. 393; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 40; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 229; Majmūʿah i nag̲h̲z i pp. 24–6; Sprenger pp. 132–3; Blochmann Contributions to Persian lexicography (in jasb. 37, Pt. 1 (1868)) pp. 25–8, 70–1; Garcin de Tassy i pp. 226–8; Beale Oriental biographical dictionary under Siraj-uddin ʿAli Khan; M. Ḥusain “Āzād” Āb i ḥayāt (in Urdu) pp. 123–5; Rieu ii 501–2; Raḥmān ʿAlī p. 71; Bānkīpūr iii pp. 217–18, viii p. 112; Rām Bābū Saksēna History of Urdu literature pp. 47–8; S. S̲h̲ams Allāh Qādirī Qāmūs al-aʿlām (in Urdu), pt. 1 (Ḥaidarābād 1935), coll. 26–9, where several further references will be found.]

§ 1150. S̲h̲. Jamāl al-Dīn Abū ’l-Maʿālī205 M. ʿAlī206 “Ḥazīn” b. Abī Ṭālib Zāhidī207 Lāhijī Jīlānī was born on 27 Rabīʿ ii 1103/17 Jan. 1692 at Iṣfahān, to which his father had migrated from Lāhijān208 Educated at his birthplace by his father and others209 and subsequently at S̲h̲īrāz, he developed into a scholar, who both taught210 and wrote on the subjects of his study. Even as a child he had composed poetry in spite of some early discouragement from his father (Autobiography pp. 19–20, 22, trans. pp. 18, 21). More remarkable than all this, however, is that in his desire for knowledge he associated at Iṣfahān with Christian priests like “the Caliph Avanus”211 (Autobiog. p. 57, trans. pp. 62–3) and, secretly, with a Jew named S̲h̲uʿaib(op. cit. p. 58, trans. p. 63), read many Christian books and had a translation of the Taurāt written down for his use. Similarly at a later date212 he obtained information concerning Zoroastrianism from a dastūr at Baiḍā (op. cit. p. 83, trans. p. 93).

Even before his father’s death [in 1127/1715] “Ḥazīn” had visited many towns in Fārs213 and some elsewhere, but until then and for a few years afterwards his main place of residence was Iṣfahān, and he was there when the Afg̲h̲ān invasion and the siege of 1134–5/1721–2 [cf. no. 1147, 6th footnote supra] brought misery to the inhabitants and compelled him to sell most of his possessions including two thousand volumes from his library, the rest of which was subsequently looted by the Afg̲h̲āns. Before the end of the siege, however, “Ḥazīn” escaped in disguise, and the next eleven years were spent in wandering from place to place,214 meeting scholars, composing poetry, writing philosophical and other treatises and occasionally teaching. More than once he came in contact with S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp (reigned 1135/1722–1144/1731): at Mas̲h̲had the king visited him (Autobiog. p. 161, trans. p. 174) and subsequently [early in 1142/1729] invited him to accompany the royal army on the march against As̲h̲raf the Afg̲h̲ān (Autobiog. p. 175, trans. p. 192), later at Iṣfahān “Ḥazīn” gave the king advice and outlined measures calculated to preserve his dynasty (Autobiog. p. 190, trans. p. 206). These were years of revolution and disorder in Persia, and much space in “Ḥazīn’s” autobiography is devoted to accounts of Afg̲h̲ān and Turkish invasions, local insurrections, the rise of Nādir S̲h̲āh and other historical events. Eventually the prevailing misery became so painful to him that he decided to leave the country.215 Sailing from Bandar i ʿAbbāsī on 10 Ramaḍān 1146/14 Feb. 1734, “Ḥazīn” reached Tattah, in Sind, early in S̲h̲awwāl.216 After a stay of more than two months217 he continued his journey and halted successively at K̲h̲udā-ābād (7 months ill), Bhakkar218 (nearly 1 month), a village near Multān (nearly 2 years), Lahore (3 months), Delhi (more than 12 months), Lahore again (where he heard that Nādir S̲h̲āh was besieging Qandahār219 and where he remained through the period of the protracted siege and afterwards until Nādir S̲h̲āh entered the district of Kābul), Sulṭānpūr, Sirhind, and again Delhi, where he was during the period of Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion220 and where he had been living for more than three years at the time when he wrote his Tad̲h̲kirat al-aḥwāl late in 1154/1742 at the age of 53 [sic]. He had then spent eight unhappy years in India, constantly regretting his advent to a country which he found extremely uncongenial. His first return to Lahore was in fact intended to be only a stage on his way from India via Kābul and Qandahār to K̲h̲urāsān, where he hoped to settle, but this design was frustrated by Nādir S̲h̲āh’s approach. After Nādir S̲h̲āh’s departure “Ḥazīn” went back for the second time to Lahore, but here he incurred the enmity of the Governor, Zakarīyā K̲h̲ān, and was in a position of some danger until “Wālih” (see no. 1147 supra) arranged for his return to Delhi (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 19410–13, Bānkīpūr iii p. 2253–9). ʿUmdat al-Mulk Amīr K̲h̲ān “Anjām”221 obtained for him a suyūrg̲h̲āl from Muḥammad S̲h̲āh222(K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 19414, Bānkīpūr iii p. 225), and his financial position was thus rendered secure, but his tactlessness and his disparagement of India and Indians aroused animosity against him at Delhi,223 and it was not long before he moved first to Āgrah (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 19418) and then to Benares, which became his permanent place of residence. Apparently he continued for some time to cherish hopes of returning to Persia, since we are told by Gh̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān that several times he went to Patnah and had made up his mind to leave India, when obstacles intervened (Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, Cawnpore, 1866, p. 61517: c̲h̲and bār ān ʿālī-miqdār tā ba-ʿAẓīmābād rasīdah ʿāzim i ba-dar raftan az k̲h̲āk i siyāh i Hind būd: taqdīr musāʿadat nah numūd). At Benares he was repeatedly visited by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān (for whom see no. 802 supra) and more than once in 1177/1764 by the Emperor [S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam], the Wazīr [S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah of Oudh] and Mīr Qāsim [the Nāẓim of Bengal], who were advised by him not to make war against the British (Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, ii 74622–24). When he finally became resigned to the prospect of spending the rest of his days in India, he built a tomb for himself at Benares, and in it he was buried when he died on the 10th, 11th, 13th, or 18th of Jumādā 11180/November 1766. According to ʿAbd al-Muqtadir the tomb and the two lines of poetry224 inscribed thereon by his own hand can still be seen in the part of Benares known as Fāṭimān.

G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān, who knew Ḥazīn well in his later years, was impressed by the depth of his learning and his omniscience (Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn ii 6156: mak̲h̲fī na-mānad kih faqīr u kasānī-kih ba-hamah wujūh bihtar az-īn ḥaqīr būdah and itʿtirāf dārand kih dar-īn juzw i zamān c̲h̲ūn ū kasī dīdah na-s̲h̲udah bal-kih mutaraddidīn i ʿArab u ʿAjam nīz ba-jāmiʿīyāt i ān janāb dar jamīʿ i ʿulūm i ẓāhir u bāṭin aḥadī rā dar aṭrāf u aknāf i ʿālam nis̲h̲ān na-dādah and āyatī būd az āyāt i Ilāhī …). Raymond (Ḥājjī Muṣṭafā), the translator of the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, who visited him in 1764 and 1765, found him “a man of sense and also of knowledge”. He was also a pious and devout man, but it is not clear whether his reputation as a saint was so great in his lifetime as it seems to have become after his death. According to the Ārāyis̲h̲i maḥfil written in 1219–20/1804–5 (see no. 622, Free Urdu translation supra) he received revelations, performed miracles and was credited with some power over the sun. For the ill-nature which he seems to have shown in India a sufficient explanation can perhaps be found in the ill-health to which he so often refers in his autobiography.

In the course of the Tad̲h̲kirat al-aḥwāl (pp. 64, 97, 101, 163, trans. pp. 71, 106, 111, 176) “Ḥazīn” records the completion of four dīwāns, the third of which was collected at S̲h̲īrāz [evidently in, or soon after, 1127] and the fourth at Mas̲h̲had [evidently between 1139 and 1142]. The first three of these dīwāns do not seem to be extant, but the fourth may be more or less identical with an extant dīwān of 1155, which the author describes as his fourth, and which may be a re-issue or a later recension of that collected at Mas̲h̲had. The dīwān of 1155 (preserved in a b.m. ms., Rieu ii p. 715a, of about that date, as well as in other mss.) opens with a prose preface (beginning Iftitāḥ i nāmah), which contains the statement that, having previously published three dīwāns, the author, then resident in India and over fifty years old, had collected in a fourth, ah1155, the remainder of his detached pieces, and that the four dīwāns together amounted to about 30,000 lines. This 1155 dīwān contains qaṣīdahs, g̲h̲azals, fragments of g̲h̲azals (mutafarriqāt i g̲h̲azalīyāt, mostly pieces of two or three lines), rubāʿīs, muqaṭṭaʿāt and parts of the four mat̲h̲nawīs,225 C̲h̲aman u anjuman, K̲h̲arābāt226 (muk̲h̲taṣar), Maṭmaḥ al-anẓār (prologue), and Tad̲h̲kirat al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn227 (prologue and epilogue).

The 1155 dīwān seems to be the basis of the poetical portion of the Lucknow and Cawnpore Kullīyāt228 (see 2nd next par.), in which, however, are included two other short mat̲h̲nawīs, namely, the Ṣafīr i dil, composed in 1173, and the Farhangnāmah. A seventh mat̲h̲nawī, the Wadīʿat al-badīʿah, written on the model of “Sanāʾī’s” Ḥadīqah, when the author was about 70 years old (and therefore circ. 1173), is preserved in several mss.229 Apparently “Ḥazīn” did not collect any fifth dīwān, but he seems to have made additions to the fourth, since a dīwān preserved in the British Museum and containing qaṣīdahs and g̲h̲azals (the latter defective at the end) is described by Rieu (ii p. 717a) as being “richer than the corresponding sections in the preceding copies”.

Twenty prose works, several of them ḥawās̲h̲ī on standard text-books, are mentioned by title in “Ḥazīn’s” autobiography (pp. 59, 82, 84, 96–7, 150, 162, 201, 237; trans. pp. 64, 92, 93, 105, 163, 175, 219, 256). Of these the Risālah i tajarrud i nafs written at Kirmāns̲h̲āh (Autobiog. p. 150, trans. p. 163) must be similar to, if not identical with, the Risālah dar tajarrud i nafs or Risālah dar ḥaqīqat i nafs u tajarrud, preserved in several mss. (Ethé 1903, Bānkīpūr iii p. 231, Ivanow-Curzon 502 (2), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 1043 (5)). The extant Faras-nāmah (Bānkīpūr iii pp. 232, 234, Lindesiana p. 152, Rieu ii p. 483) was written in India as a substitute for an unprocurable work on farriery composed by the author at Iṣfahān in his youth [about 1127: see Autobiog. p. 97, trans. p. 106], and is “a mere sample” of that earlier work. None of the other prose works mentioned in the autobiography seem to be recorded in library catalogues, but several prose works by him, mostly short tracts, are extant. These include (1) al-Lamʿah [min ?] Mirʾāt Allāh fī s̲h̲arḥ Āyat S̲h̲ahida ’llāh, an Arabic commentary on Sūrah iii 16 composed at Ardabīl in 1139 (mss.: Ethé 1904, Ivanow-Curzon 752 (4), i.o. Cat. of Arabic mss. ii 1165 (2)), (2) S̲h̲ajarat al-Ṭūr fī s̲h̲arḥ Āyat al-Nūr, an Arabic commentary on Sūrah xxiv 35 composed in 1140 at Mas̲h̲had (mss.: Ethé 1904, Ivanow-Curzon 752 (3), i.o. Cat. of Arabic mss. ii 1165 (1)), (3) Taḥqīq i maʿād i rūḥānī (Bānkīpūr iii p. 233, Ivanow-Curzon 752 (1), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 1043 (3)), (4) Risālah i auzān i s̲h̲arʿī, or Risālah dar auzān i mit̲h̲qāl u dirham u dīnār wa-g̲h̲airah (Bānkīpūr iii p. 232, Rieu ii p. 483, Ivanow-Curzon 502 (7)), (5) Masʾalah i ḥudūt̲h̲ u qidam (Bānkīpūr iii p. 232, Ivanow-Curzon 502 (3), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 1043 (4)), (6) Jawāb i ruqaʿāt i S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Ḥasan i marḥūm (Bānkīpūr iii p. 232), (7) S̲h̲arḥ i Qaṣīdah i Lāmīyah, a commentary on a qasīdah of his own in praise of ʿAlī (Bānkīpūr iii pp. 232, 235), (8) Risālah i ṣaidīyah, or Risālah dar k̲h̲awāṣṣ i ḥayawān (ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 8, Bānkīpūr iii p. 232, Rieu ii p. 483), (9) a short note on the Persian invasions of India completed at Ḥusainābād in 1180 (see no. 784 (3) supra), (10) Dastūr al-ʿuqalāʾ, on administrative ethics, etc., composed at Delhi in 1153/1740 (mss.: i.o. d.p. 1207, Ivanow-Curzon 502 (1)), (11) Mawāʾid al-asḥār, on S̲h̲īʿite theology (Browne Suppt. 1280), (12) Mud̲h̲ākarāt fī ’l-muḥāḍarāt (i.o. d.p. 1207), (13) Maṣābīḥ al-ẓalām fī ārāʾ al-kalām (Āṣafīyah i p. 170, under Balāg̲h̲at). A long, but confessedly incomplete, list of his own works evidently compiled late in “Ḥazīn’s” life is quoted in the Nujūm al-samāʾ (pp. 287–93).

The Kullīyāt i Ḥazīn published by Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr at [Lucknow] in 1293/1876°* and at Cawnpore in 1893 (cf. Browne Lit. Hist. iv p. 281 n. 5) contains (1) Tārīk̲h̲ i aḥwāl bi-tad̲h̲kirah i ḥāl i Maulānā-yi S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḥazīn kih k̲h̲wud nawis̲h̲tah ast, pp. 2–144, (2) [Preface to the 1155 dīwān, beginning] Iftitāḥ i nāmah, etc., pp. 145–50, (3) Qaṣāʾid, pp. 150–255, (4) Dīwān [i.e. gh̲azals], pp. 257–689, (5) Mutafarriqāt, pp. 691–748, (6) Rubāʿīyāt, pp. 749–89, (7) Mathnawīyāt [viz. Ṣafīr i dil, pp. 791–822, Ch̲aman u anjuman,230 pp. 823–38, Muk̲h̲taṣarī az kitāb i mathnawī i musammā bi-K̲h̲arābāt, pp. 839–61, Dībāchah i Maṭmaḥ al-anẓār, pp. 863–9, Farhang-nāmah, pp. 871–87, Fātiḥah u k̲h̲ātimah i mathnawī i mausūm bi-Tad̲h̲kirat al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn, pp. 889–902], (8) Muqaṭṭaʿāt, pp. 903–29, (9) Tad̲h̲kirah [al-muʿāṣirīn], pp. 931–1031.

(1)
(Tad̲h̲kirat al-aḥwāl),231 an autobiography containing a considerable amount of historical information written at the end of 1154/1742 in Delhi: Sprenger 22, Bānkīpūr vii 624 (ah 1162/1749), 625 (ah 1281/1865), Ivanow 225 (circ. ah 1180/1766–7), 226 (18th cent.), 227 (19th cent.), Ivanow-Curzon 55 (18th cent.), 56 (18th cent.), Lindesiana p. 151 no. 446 (circ. ad 1780–90), no. 447 (circ. ad 1800), no. 559 (ah 1218/1803–4), Bodleian 383 (ah 1197/1783), Browne Suppt. 300 (before ad 1788. King’s 74), Rieu ii 823a (late 18th cent.), i 381a (ah 1216/1801), ii 843b (ah 1244/1829), Rehatsek p. 218 no. 11 (apparently, ah 1214/1799), i.o. D.P. 674a (ah 1223/1808), Ethé 677 (ah 1227/1812), i.o. 3952 (ah 1259/1843), 3967(c), Ross and Browne 240 (2) (ah 1280/1864), Vollers 987 (2).

Editions: London 1831°* (The Life of Sheikh Mohammed Ali Ḥazin … edited … by F. C. Belfour. Persian title: Tārīk̲h̲ i aḥwāl bi-tad̲h̲kirah i ḥāl i Maulānā-yi S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḥazīn kih k̲h̲wud nawis̲h̲tah ast. Oriental Translation Fund), Benares 1851* (title ?), [Lucknow] 1293/1876°* (Kullīyāt i Ḥazīn pp. 2–144), Cawnpore 1893 (Kullīyāt i Ḥazīn pp. 2–144. Cf. Browne Lit. Hist. iv p. 281 n. 5), Delhi 1319/1902°* (Sawāniḥ i ʿumrī i … ʿAlī Ḥazīn).

Translations:

(1)
The Life of Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hazin … translated … by F. C. Belfour, London 1830°* (Oriental Translation Fund), Bombay [1901*. “Part 2” only ?], Bombay [1910*. 2 pts.],
(2)
The translation of the Tarik̲h̲-i-ahwal of Mowlana Muhammad Shaykh Ali Hazin. With an introduction and appendix. By M. C. Master. Bombay 1911°*.

(2)
(Tad̲h̲kirat al-muʿāṣirīn), notices of about 100 contemporary poets of Persia written in nine days towards the end of 1165/1752 and divided into two firqahs ((1) ʿulamāʾ who wrote poetry, (2) professional poets): Sprenger 21, Bānkīpūr iii 407 (ah 1178/1764), 408 (19th cent.), Suppt. ii 2350, Rieu ii 873b (before ah 1182/1768), i 372b (ah 1193/1779), ii 843b (ah 1244/1829), Ivanow 228 (18th cent.), 229 (19th cent.), Ethé 678 (ad 1806), 679 (probably ah 1227/1812), i.o. d.p. 493 (p) (early 19th cent.), i.o. 586 (a) (ah 1249/1833), i.o. 3967 (a) (early 19th cent.). ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 60 no. 11 (ah 1245/1829–30), Berlin 655 (breaks off in the notice of “S̲h̲ag̲h̲af” Qummī).

Editions: Kullīyāt i Ḥazīn [Lucknow] 1293/1876°*, pp. 931–1025, Cawnpore 1893 (cf. Browne Lit. Hist. iv p. 281 n. 5), pp. 931–1025.

List and epitome of the biographies: Sprenger pp. 135–41.

Description: jras. ix (1848) pp. 147–9 (by N. Bland).

[Tad̲h̲kirat al-aḥwāl; Tad̲h̲kirat al-muʿāṣirīn (contains no autobiography, but autobiographical statements occur here and there: see Sprenger pp. 135–41); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (summarised in Bānkīpūr viii p. 110); “Mubtalā” Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār (Bodleian 379 no. 187); “Wālih” Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (the main source of ʿAbd al-Muqtadir’s account of “Ḥazīn” in Bānkīpūr iii pp. 223–7); Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah pp. 193–200 (no. 36); Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī; Ātas̲h̲-kadah no. 783; Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, Lucknow 1866, vol. ii pp. 615 2–26, 632 17, 672 4, 743 23, 744 3 22, 746 22–3, 776 18, trans. Calcutta 1926, vol. ii pp. 176–8, 433–4, 525 and footnote; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām no. 19; ʿIqd i T̲h̲uraiyā; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār no. 86; Short anonymous account of “Ḥazīn” (ms.: i.o. 4036); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 652; Mirʾāt i āftāb-numā; Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil (see no. 622, Free Urdu translation supra. The passage relating to “Ḥazīn” is translated in Garcin de Tassy’s Mémoire sur les particularités de la religion musulmane dans l’Inde, Paris 1869, pp. 104–6); Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q; Nag̲h̲mah i ʿandalīb; Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥāʾ ii p. 94 (3 lines !); Haft āsmān pp. 161–4; S̲h̲amʿ i anjuman p. 130; Nujūm al-samāʾ pp. 283–93 (on pp. 287–93 a long list by “Ḥazīn” of his own works); Rieu i p. 372, ii pp. 715–16; Bānkīpūr iii pp. 223–7 (an account of some length based mainly on the Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ); Browne Lit. Hist. iv pp. 115–18, 277–81; Ency. Isl. under Ḥazīn (Hidayet Hosain); Shaikh Muhammad ʿAli Hazin, his life, times and works. By Sarfaraz Khan Khatak, Lahore 1944 (see Luzac’s Oriental list, Jan.–March 1946, p. 6. Not utilised above); etc.]

§ 1151. Afḍal Bēg K̲h̲ān Qāqs̲h̲āl232 Aurangābādī.

Tuḥfat al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, written in 1165/1751–2 and dealing with poets of the Deccan who flourished under Niẓām al-Mulk i: Āṣafīyah i p. 316 no. 10 (ah 1185/1771–2. Cf. Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 77), iii p. 162 no. 122, Madrās 439 (defective at end).

§ 1152. Mīr M. Taqī “Mīr” b. Mīr M. ʿAlī233 was born at Āgrah about 1137/1724–5.234 His grandfather had been Faujdār of the environs of Āgrah (Dh̲ikr i Mīr p. 43: bah faujdārī i gird i Akbarābād sar-afrāz gas̲h̲t): his father was a pious darwīs̲h̲. At the age of ten or eleven he lost his father, sought employment without success at Āgrah, went to Delhi, was presented to the Amīr al-Umarāʾ Ṣamṣām al-Daulah [K̲h̲ān i Daurān],235 a friend of his father’s, and was granted by him a pension of one rupee a day (op. cit. p. 62). This pension (rūzīnah) came to an end when the Amīr al-Umarāʾ died [in 1151/1739] of a wound received in Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion (p. 636). “Mīr” went again to Delhi, lived for a time with his elder brother’s maternal uncle236 Sirāj al-Dīn ʿAlī K̲h̲ān “Ārzū” (for whom see no. 1149 supra), and studied under some of his Delhi friends (p. 6313: u kitābī chand az yārān i s̲h̲ahr k̲h̲wāndam). He complains bitterly of the unfriendly treatment that he received from “Ārzū” (pp. 63 18–64 7). After leaving “Ārzū’s” house he was for some time the protégé, or perhaps the employee, of Riʿāyat K̲h̲ān (p. 67 ult.: bā k̲h̲wud rafīq-am kard tamattuʿī az-ū bastam u az qaid i tang-dastī rastam); subsequently he was in the service of the Nawwāb Bahādur237 (p. 716: talās̲h̲ i rūzgār ba-k̲h̲ānah i Nawwāb Bahādur kardam u naukar s̲h̲udam), until his murder [in 1165/1752] deprived him of employment (p. 72 7). In the long period of his residence at Delhi he found either employers or patrons in a number of prominent Muslims and Hindus, but his autobiography contains several references to straitened circumstances. In 1197/1783238 he migrated to Lucknow at the invitation of Āṣaf al-Daulah (p. 138 ult.), and there he lived in receipt of a stipend239 from Āṣaf al-Daulah (d. 1212/1797) and his successor, Saʿādat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān (1798–1814), until his death in 1225/1810.

“Mīr” is regarded as one of the greatest Urdu poets. According to ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq (Ency. Isl. under Urdu) “his g̲h̲azals and mat̲h̲nawīs are by far the best to be found in Urdū literature”. His Kullīyāt were published at Calcutta in 1811 and at Lucknow in 1867 and 1874. Several of his works have been published separately. His Urdu writings do not concern us here, but the two following are in Persian.

(1)
Nikāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, about 100 short notices of Rēk̲h̲tah (i.e. Urdu) poets written nearly one year after the death of “Muk̲h̲liṣ”,240 which occurred in 1164/1751 (see no. 780 1st par. supra): Sprenger no. 42, Bodleian 392 (ah 1211/1796), Berlin 668 (ad 1852), Rāmpūr (see ocm. vi/2 (Feb. 1930) p. 114).

Edition: Aurangābād (Badāyūn printed) [1920*] (Anjuman i Taraqqī i Urdu. With Urdu introduction by Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān K̲h̲ān S̲h̲irwānī).

(2)
D̲h̲ikr i Mīr, an autobiography containing a good deal of historical information written (mainly ?) at the age of sixty:241 Sprenger p. 627, Etawah K. B. Maulawī Bas̲h̲īr al-Dīn Aḥmad’s private library (ah 1222/1807), Lahore K. B. Maulawī M. S̲h̲afīʿ’s private library.

Edition: Aurangābād 1928* (Anjuman i Taraqqī i Urdū. With Urdu introduction by ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq).

[D̲h̲ikr i Mīr and the editor’s Urdu introduction; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 2684; Majmūʿah i nag̲h̲z ii pp. 229–54; Guls̲h̲an i bī-k̲h̲ār; various Urdu tad̲h̲kirahs and other works; Sprenger pp. 175, 627; Garcin de Tassy ii pp. 305–21; Blumhardt’s Catalogue of Hindustani mss. in the i.o. Library, p. 85 and elsewhere; Saksena History of Urdu literature pp. 70–80; Ency. Isl. under Mīr (Hidāyat Ḥusain) and under Urdū (ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq); T. Grahame Bailey History of Urdu literature pp. 47–50.]

next chapter: 13.1.2 Poets (2)

Notes

^ Back to text1. One of these, however, the Muʾnis al-aḥrār, is an anthology without biographical information. A considerable proportion are histories containing biographical sections.

^ Back to text2. See Niẓām al-Dīn Introduction pp. 3–5. The authorities who give his laqab as Nūr al-Dīn are apparently in error.

^ Back to text3. A prominent Ṣaḥābī, for whom see Ency. Isl. and Caetani Chronographia Islamica pp. 341–2. He was one of al-ʿAs̲h̲arat al-Mubas̲h̲s̲h̲arah and a member of the committee of six which elected ʿUt̲h̲mān to the Caliphate. He died in 32/652–3.

^ Back to text4. In a k̲h̲uṭbah composed in this year and quoted in the Lubāb al-albāb (i pp. 115–16) ʿAufī referred to the conquests made on behalf of Nāṣir al-Dīn Qabājah by Malik Bahāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Jāmajī.

^ Back to text5. Ethé 737. See Niẓām al-Dīn Introduction pp. 16–17, where the Persian text is given.

^ Back to text6. A still earlier tad̲h̲kirah, the Manāqib al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ by Abū Ṭāhir al-K̲h̲ātūnī, who flourished at the end of the 11th century, was known to Daulat-S̲h̲āh and is mentioned by Ḥājjī K̲h̲alīfah. who, however, seems to have known it only by name, since he does not give the opening words.

^ Back to text7. This title was hereditary in families belonging to the aristocracy of high officialdom (see Barthold in Mir-Ali-Shir p. 113).

^ Back to text8. dar ān muṣāff dar rikāb i ẓafar-maʾāb būdam (T. al-s̲h̲. p. 5332).

^ Back to text9. Vocalization not verified.

^ Back to text10. According to the Ḥabīb al-siyar, iii, pt. 3, p. 20219, this battle took place at the end of 875/1471.

^ Back to text11. For whom see Ency. Isl. under Abū Saʿīd.

^ Back to text12. Cf. his own words Az jāh u marātib i ābāʾ u ajdād bī bahrah māndah (T. al-s̲h̲. p. 1119).

^ Back to text13. C̲h̲ūn az rūy i muḥāsabat u murāqabat ba-rūz-nāmah i ḥayāt naẓar numūdam dīdam kih kārawān i ʿumr i girān-māyah dar tīh i gum-rāhī panjāh marḥalah qaṭʿ numūdah būd (T. al-s̲h̲. p. 1110. Cf. p. 125, 8).

^ Back to text14. The cataloguer may perhaps have been misled by the author’s colophon, which is reproduced in some of the manuscripts (as in the g.m.s. edition).

^ Back to text15. For information concerning this recently acquired ms. I am indebted to the kindness of Prof. A. J. Arberry.

^ Back to text16. Cf. Laṭāʾif-nāmah p. 170, Tuḥfah i Sāmī p. 69, Ḥabīb al-siyar iii pt 3, p. 344 antepenult., etc.

^ Back to text17. In the notice of Ibn i Yamīn, the seventh biography in Ṭabaqah v.

^ Back to text18. In the final section of the K̲h̲ātimah.

^ Back to text19. In the Arabic character, but transliterated in a footnote.

^ Back to text20. ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr was an amīr (in Turkish bēg) by birth, this title being hereditary in families belonging to the aristocracy of high officialdom (Barthold in Mir-Ali-Shir p. 113. Cf. Laṭāʾif-nāmah p. 21812: Mīr masnad i imārat rā maurūt̲h̲ī dās̲h̲t). In Turkish works he is called ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr Bēg.

^ Back to text21. It is usually said that “Nawāʾī” was his tak̲h̲alluṣ in Turkish poetry and “Fānī” in Persian (Dar fārisī Fānī tak̲h̲alluṣ kardah (Tārīk̲h̲ i Ras̲h̲īdī): Dar s̲h̲iʿr i turkī muṭlaqan tak̲h̲alluṣ i īs̲h̲ān Nawāʾī ast u dar dīwān i fārisī tak̲h̲alluṣ-as̲h̲ Fanāʾī (sic. Tuḥfah i Sāmī p. 18021)). This doubtless corresponds roughly to the facts, but it is shown by Berthels (Mir-Ali-S̲h̲ir pp. 34–6: cf. Der Islam xix pp. 43–4, where, however, the sense is not quite correctly rendered) that “Fānī” is the tak̲h̲alluṣ used in the Lisān al-ṭair, which is a Turkish work, and that according to Mīr ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr’s own statement at the end he used that tak̲h̲alluṣ to emphasise the Ṣūfī character of the work.

^ Back to text22. Ḥabīb al-siyar iii, pt. 3, p. 1796. Kijīkīnah (Kījīkīnah, kjknh) Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī according to the Tārik̲h̲ i Rās̲h̲īdī.

^ Back to text23. The authority for this date is K̲h̲wānd-Amīr’s Makārim al-ak̲h̲lāq (see Rieu i p. 366).

^ Back to text24. Ḥabīb al-siyar iii pt. 3, p. 23021 (muḥāfaẓat i muhr i buzurg i humāyūn rā dar ʿuhdah i ān-janāb kard).

^ Back to text25. Ḥabīb al-siyar iii pt. 3, p. 231 24seqq.. The same rank was conferred immediately afterwards on Amīr S. Ḥasan [b.] Ardas̲h̲īr (Ḥabīb al-siyar iii pt. 3. p. 2325: u ham-dar-ān rūz kih Amīr Niẓām al-Dīn ʿAlī-S̲h̲īr bar masnad i imārat i dīwān nis̲h̲ast Amīr Saiyid Ḥasan i Ardas̲h̲īr nīz ba-d-ān manṣab sarfarāz gas̲h̲t.). Cf. Belin p. 15.

^ Back to text26. His contemporary K̲h̲wānd-Amīr mentions him several times incidentally in the Dastūr al-wuzarāʾ, but does not include him in the series of wazīrs.

^ Back to text27. Dīwān i Fānī. mss.: Blochet iii 1765, 1766, Āyā Ṣōfyah 3882, C̲h̲orlulu ʿAlī Pās̲h̲ā 295, Fātiḥ 3886–7 (“Dīwān i Nawāʾī”, but both described as Persian), Nūr i ʿUt̲h̲mānīyah 3850, Yildiz 2781/30 (cf. Edhem and Stchoukine p. 43) etc.

^ Back to text28. Cf. the opinion expressed by Bābur (Bābur-nāmah tr. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm p. 1091: baʿḍī abyāt i ū bad nīst wa-lī akt̲h̲ar sust u firūd and),

^ Back to text29. For lists see Belin pp. 59–62, zdmg. ii pp. 249–51 (Berezin), Rieu Turkish Cat. p. 265b, Islâm Ansiklopedisi, 5. cüz, pp. 353–6.

^ Back to text30. G̲h̲arāʾib al-ṣig̲h̲ar (Edition: K̲h̲īwah 1881 (Isl. Ansikl.). Muntak̲h̲abāt printed several times at Tashkent, Buk̲h̲ārā, Tabrīz and Istānbūl acc. to Isl. Ansikl.), Nawādir al-s̲h̲abāb, Badāʾiʿ al-wasaṭ, Fawāʾid al-kibar. For mss. (some of them containing collections antedating the division into four dīwāns or selected from them) see Rieu Turkish Cat. pp. 294–7, Dorn 561–4, Jackson-Yohannan 21 (beg. Zihī ẓuhūr. No title, ah 905/1499–1500), 22 (Nawādir al-s̲h̲abāb. ah 988/1580), Philadelphia Lewis 95 (beg. Ai ṣafḥah), Princeton 150–1, Tashkent 130, etc.

^ Back to text31. Ḥairat al-abrār, Farhād wa S̲h̲īrīn, Majnūn wa Lailā, Sabʿah i saiyārah, Sadd i Iskandarī. Editions: K̲h̲īwah 1880 and Tashkent 1904 (according to Isl. Ansikl.), Tashkent 1893 and 1901 (acc. to Tashkent Cat. no. 128). Cf. Rieu Turkish Cat. pp. 292–4, Dorn 560 (ah 898/1492–3), Tashkent 128 etc.

^ Back to text32. French translations of selected portions in Belin, Notice, pp. 101–58.

^ Back to text33. Editions: Paris 1841 (in Quatremère’s Chrestomathie turke-orientale pp. 1–39), Istānbūl 1899, K̲h̲ōqand 1918 (see Isl. Ansikl.).

^ Back to text34. Editions: Istānbūl 1889 (so Isl. Ansikl., but perhaps 1289/1872–3 should be read, since an edition of that date is mentioned by Browne, L.H. iii p. 453), Bukhārā 1907 and Tashkent (so Isl. Ansikl.). Described at length by Belin in Journal asiatique, 6e série, tom. vii pp. 523–52, tom. viii pp. 126–54. For mss., extracts and translations of extracts see Rieu Turkish Cat. pp. 275–6. The Persian translation made in 1204/1789–90 by “Aẓfarī” (see no. 808 supra) was described by S. M. ʿAbd Allāh from a MS. at Lahore (Panjāb Univ. Lib.) in ocm xi/4 (Aug. 1935) pp. 41–8.

^ Back to text35. On this date see Barthold’s remarks in Mīr-Ali-Shir, p. 124, Hinz’s trans. p. 35: Leider lässt sich die Schrift keiner bestimmten Zeit im Leben des Verfassers zuweisen, obschon sie ein Datum (896/1490–1491) enthält; denn dieses entspricht anderen Stellen der Maǧālis nicht. So wird beispielsweise als Zeitgenosse des Verfassers von diesem als Beherrscher Samarqands der Sohn Sulṭān Maḥmūds genannt, Sulṭān ʿAlī Mīrzā; dieser herrschte in Samarqand zuerst kurze Zeit während des Jahres 1496, etwas länger sodann von 1498–1500 …

^ Back to text36. This list of Eastern-Turkish mss. makes no claim to completeness.

^ Back to text37. Probably the Laṭāʾif-nāmah, though this is not expressly stated in the catalogue. An inquiry addressed to the John Rylands Library failed to elicit the desired information, since the manuscript, owing to war-time precautions, was not available.

^ Back to text38. I.e. in 927/1521, from which date he held the appointment, residing at Herāt, until his father’s death in 930/1524.

^ Back to text39. For which see Sprenger no. 6, Rieu Suppt. 375, Bānkīpūr xi 1101, Bānkīpūr Suppt. i 1993, Lindesiana p. 137 no. 864, Āṣafīyah i p. 716 no. 303, Peshawar 1892, and probably also Blochet iii 1978.

^ Back to text40. This word probably misrepresents the sense of the original.

^ Back to text41. Maulānā Fak̲h̲rī Harawī mardī k̲h̲wus̲h̲-ṭabʿ u akābir būdah u s̲h̲iʿr nīz mī-guftah. Baʿḍī taṣnīfāt dārad dar ṣanāʾiʿ u badāʾiʿ u ʿarūḍ u qāfiyah (p. 206).

^ Back to text42. Blochet on the other hand says (tome iii p. 450) probably quite arbitrarily that the Rauḍat al-salāṭīn is dedicated “au sultan du Bengale, Aboul-Fath S̲h̲ah Hoseïn G̲h̲azi (♱925 de l’hégire = 1519).” The Sulṭān of Bengal was called Ḥusain S̲h̲āh, not S̲h̲āh Ḥusain.

^ Back to text43. Curiously enough on the same page on which the Tārīk̲h̲ i Maʿṣūmī speaks of Fak̲h̲rī Harawī it ascribes (according to the printed text) a work entitled Rauḍat al-salāṭīn to another author, who is described as follows: S̲h̲āh Ḥusain tkdry [corrected in the index to nkdry]: dar silk i umarā-yi Mīrzā S̲h̲āh Ḥasan intiẓām dās̲h̲t. bah ḥiddat i ṭabʿ u jaudat i d̲h̲ihn u makārim i ak̲h̲lāq u maḥāsin i ādāb sar-āmad i fuḍalā-yi zamān i k̲h̲wud būdah. u dar fann i s̲h̲iʿr u tārīk̲h̲ mahāratī kāmil dās̲h̲t. u Rauḍat al-salaṭīn az jumlah i muṣannafāt i ūst.

^ Back to text44. According to ʿAbd al-Muqtadir the dedicatee’s name is introduced into the following line of a qiṭʿah at the beginning of the work: Ras̲h̲k i Jam u Farīdūn naqd i S̲h̲ujāʿ i D̲h̲ū ’l-Nūn* Ch̲as̲h̲m u c̲h̲irāg̲h̲ i Arg̲h̲ūn S̲h̲āh i Ḥasan-k̲h̲aṣāʾil. Amīr D̲h̲ū ’l-Nūn was the father of S̲h̲āh-Bēg Arg̲h̲ūn, the founder of the Arg̲h̲ūn dynasty in Sind. S̲h̲ujāʿ Bēg Arg̲h̲ūn, another son of D̲h̲u ’l-Nūn, was the father of S̲h̲āh Ḥasan.

^ Back to text45. The Berlin ms. has Ḥusain according to Pertsch, and Blochet also writes Ḥusain.

^ Back to text46. In the verse which Sprenger supposed to be a chronogram the word tārīk̲h̲ is a corruption of fārig̲h̲.

^ Back to text47. After his death in 931 his brother Ḥusain K̲h̲ān was appointed Governor of Harāt by Shāh Ṭahmāsp (Aḥsan al-tawārīkh. tr. Seddon, p. 94).

^ Back to text48. Aḥsan al-tawārīk̲h̲ i p. 246 penult.

^ Back to text49. Vocalization unconfirmed.

^ Back to text50. A. al-t. i p. 260.

^ Back to text51. Formerly one of Bābur’s chief amīrs. For an account of him see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 179–81 (in the biography of his son Muṣāḥib Bēg).

^ Back to text52. Brother of the Mogul Emperor Humāyūn and Governor of Kābul, Qandahār and the Panjāb. For a summary of his career see Bānkīpūr Cat. ii pp. 217–22. Cf. Ency. Isl. under Kāmrān (H. Beveridge).

^ Back to text53. A. al-t. i p. 3098. This seems to be the last mention of Sām in the A. al-t.

^ Back to text54. This is stated by Rieu and M. ʿAlī Tarbiyat apparently on the authority of the Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ and the Takmilat al-ak̲h̲bār (what is this work ?) respectively.

^ Back to text55. Iskandar Muns̲h̲ī in speaking of Qahqahah at a later date (p. 57911) mentions Sām Mīrzā, Ismāʿīl Mīrzā and Alqās Mīrzā as persons who had been confined there. He describes it as a fortress or castle (qalʿah) on a mountain peak in the region (ulkā) of Yāft [doubtless = “Yāft (Māft, or Bāft),” Nuzhat al-qulūb tr. le Strange p. 86] in the administrative division (az aʿmāl) of Qarājah-Dāg̲h̲ [a mountainous tract rich in iron and other minerals stretching east of Marand in Northern Ād̲h̲arbāyjān and including Ahar, the chief town. For a map of the region (on which, however, neither Yāft nor Qahqahah is marked) see S. M. ʿAlī Jamāl-Zādah’s Ganj i s̲h̲āygān, Berlin 1335, p. 102]. Cf. Seddon’s note in Aḥsan al-t. ii (trans.) p. 293, and also Minorsky in bsos. vii (1933–5) pp. 991–2, where it is stated that Yāft is “on the Qara-su”. That Qahqahah was not in the immediate neighbourhood of Yāft is shown by the fact that Ismāʿīl ii, having left Qahqahah on Tuesday, 22 Safar 984, did not camp at Yāft until the following Thursday (A. al-t. trans. p. 20511).

^ Back to text56. According to M. ʿAlī Tarbiyat, who quotes (again apparently from the Takmilat al-ak̲h̲bar: see n. 54 on this page) a chronogram (Daulat i Ṭahmāsb s̲h̲ud bāqī) by ʿAbdī S̲h̲īrāzī. Rieu on the other hand says (presumably on the authority of the Riyāḍ al- s̲h̲uʿarāʾ) that “having rebelled in ah 969 against his brother Sh̲āh Ṭahmāsp, he was thrown into prison, and afterwards put to death with other princes of the royal house, on the accession of Shāh Ismāʿīl ii, a. 984.” Iskandar Muns̲h̲ī mentions the names of some princes put to death by Ismāʿīl ii, but Sām Mīrzā is not among them.

^ Back to text57. 664 according to Sprenger, 663 in Berlin 643, but there are only 399 names in Silvestre de Sacy’s list.

^ Back to text58. This date occurs in the notice of Humāyūn towards the end of Ṣaḥīfah i, where it is mentioned as the current year (Notices et extraits iv p. 281). In the Ṭihrān edition the passage (p. 174) is corrupt (tā aknūn kih sanah i k̲h̲ams wa-tisʿmiʾah i Hijrīst). In the Bombay University ms. the date is given as 956 (tā ḥāl kih 956 ast).

^ Back to text59. The fifth ṣāḥīfah in the ms. described (Ancien fonds 247 = Blochet ii 1144) contains only 104 biographies, whereas there are 296 in the corresponding part of the Munich ms.

^ Back to text60. The Munich ms. is defective.

^ Back to text61. Ḥasanī according to the printed text of Badāʾūnī.

^ Back to text62. Ham birādar i k̲h̲urd i ʿAbd al-Laṭīf u ham tarbiyat-kardah i ū būd u ū-rā ḥaḍrat i āqā mī-guft (Badāʾūnī iii 9716).

^ Back to text63. Pads̲h̲āh pīs̲h̲ i īs̲h̲ān sabaqī c̲h̲and az dīwān i K̲h̲wājah Ḥāfiẓ u g̲h̲air i ān k̲h̲wāndah and (Badāʾūnī iii 9818); Dar sāl i duwwum ba-muʿallimī i ʿArsh-ās̲h̲yānī iftik̲h̲ār andūk̲h̲t (Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii 8143).

^ Back to text64. For ʿAbd al-Laṭīf see Badāʾūnī iii pp. 97–8; Āʾīn i Akbarī tr. Blochmann pp. 447–8; Memoirs of Jahāngīr tr. Rogers and Beveridge i pp. 28 n. 2, 264; Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 813–15; Raḥmān ʿAlī p. 132, etc.

^ Back to text65. Sprenger points out that considerably later dates occur in the ms. seen by him. The latest of those mentioned in his catalogue seems to be 996, the year of “Hādī’s” death. He says further that “according to a Postscript” the work was completed in 979, and Aumer quotes, doubtless from the same “postscript”, the chronogram Tammat ʿalā yadaihi (= 979).

^ Back to text66. Is this by any chance a portion of the history of Akbar misplaced ?

^ Back to text67. This section is headed D̲h̲ikr i s̲h̲uʿarā-yi ʿaṣr i Akbar-S̲h̲āhī kih dar Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir mad̲h̲kūr-and kih maʾk̲h̲ad̲h̲ i īn ʿujālah ast u mas̲h̲hūr bah Tad̲h̲kirah i Mīr ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah ast. Similarly in his notice of “Kāmī” (p. 316) Badāʾūnī says that Mīr ʿAlāʾ al-Daulah’s tad̲h̲kirah is maʾk̲h̲ad̲h̲ i in ʿujālah. Among the poets noticed by Badāʾūnī are an appreciable number who do not appear in Sprenger’s account of the Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir. Badā’uni may of course have used a later edition of the N. al-m. than that represented by the Lucknow ms. which Sprenger examined.

^ Back to text68. “Nitháry Bokháry, Bahâ aldyn Ḥasan” according to the Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir.

^ Back to text69. That the author does not mention his name in the preface seems probable from the fact that in the British Museum Quarterly the Mud̲h̲akkir i aḥbāb is described as anonymous. On the title-page (fol. 1a) of Berlin 645 his name is given in an ornate gold-lettered inscription quoted by Pertsch (Tad̲h̲kirat al-sh̲uʿarā afḍal al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn Maulānā Saiyid Ḥasan K̲h̲wājah Naqīb al-As̲h̲rāf Buk̲h̲ārī sallama-hu ’llāh taʿālā …). The dedicatee was Abū ’l-G̲h̲āzī Iskandar Bahādur K̲h̲ān [the S̲h̲aibānid, 968/1561–991/1583: see Ency. Isl. under Iskandar K̲h̲ān] according to Pertsch, Amir M. Badīʿ al-Ḥusainī according to the bmq. Nawwāb Ṣadr Yār Jang and the bmq. (but not Pertsch) describe the work as written in the time of ʿAbd Allāh Bahādur K̲h̲ān, which suggests that he is mentioned in the preface.

^ Back to text70. This title is appended to the names of several of the author’s relations in the k̲h̲ātimah (e.g. Bābā K̲h̲ān K̲h̲wājah, ʿAbd al-Salīm K̲h̲wājah b. Pāds̲h̲āh K̲h̲wājah, Walī Allāh K̲h̲wājah b. Mīram K̲h̲wājah).

^ Back to text71. For this office see Ency. Isl. s.v. S̲h̲arīf.

^ Back to text72. “He was born at Káshán about ah 946” according to Sprenger, who does not say how he obtained this information. If it is correct that when he wrote the d̲h̲ail to the k̲h̲ātimah of the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-as̲h̲ʿār he had “now arrived at the fiftieth year of his age” (Bland p. 131) and if the date was then 993, as indicated by the chronogram quoted by Bland (who misinterpreted it) and Sprenger, he must have been born about 943.

^ Back to text73. Thus according to ʿAbd al-Muqtadir the selections from Ḥāfiẓ amount to almost the whole dīwān.

^ Back to text74. “The only fault is that he dwells at too great a length on the love adventures of the subjects of his biography which are generally most disgusting.”

^ Back to text75. Rieu Suppt. 105, Berlin 647, Ethé 667 and Lindesiana 312 (Bland’s ms.) contain at the beginning a eulogy on S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp, which must have been written before 984. Rieu Suppt. 105 contains also a later dedication to S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās, at the end of which the author says that the work was completed early in 996. In the Bland ms. Rukn ii opens with a dedication to S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās, but at the beginning of the work this ms. seems to contain no mention of S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās but (in its place ?) a dedication (dated 1006) to Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh [ii, of Bījāpūr, ah 987/1579–1035/1626]. In his d̲h̲ail the author, writing in 1016, says that the work had occupied him during thirty years and that so much had been inserted in it, since its completion in its original form, that a sixth mujallad had become necessary.

^ Back to text76. After 14 years had been spent on the work (Sprenger p. 13).

^ Back to text77. The places of the poets’ origins, their birthplaces.

^ Back to text78. Ethé 668, a ms. of 993, ends with a short d̲h̲ail.

^ Back to text79. For the author’s statements concerning this second k̲h̲ātimah see jras. ix (1848) p. 131.

^ Back to text80. It seems from Bland’s description that the d̲h̲ail in his ms. consists of the d̲h̲ail of 993 (with its chronogram) supplemented by the author’s final remarks and the chronogram for 1016.

^ Back to text81. For emendations of this list see Ethé 667.

^ Back to text82. On foll. 270–395 of this ms. there is a tad̲h̲nīb added after the completion of the work and containing quotations from about 250 poets concerning whom the author had been unable to obtain any biographical information.

^ Back to text83. For whom see no. 698, Persian translations (3), footnote supra.

^ Back to text84. According to Sprenger and ʿAbd al-Muqtadir “Muḥammad” is the tak̲h̲alluṣ used in the copies of the dīwān seen by them, though some of the tad̲h̲kirahs put him under “Ṣūfī”. Bland says on the authority of the Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm, but perhaps erroneously, that he used both pen-names.

^ Back to text85. C̲h̲ūn ṣūfī-ṭabīʿat u ṣāfī-ṭawīyat wāqiʿ s̲h̲udah binā-bar-ān bi-Maulānā M. i Ṣūfī is̲h̲tihār yāftah (Mai-k̲h̲ānah, p. 345).

^ Back to text86. ʿAbd al-Muqtadir says that the tad̲h̲kirahs mention several poets called Ṣūfī or M. Ṣūfī with various nisbahs (Māzandarānī, S̲h̲īrāzī, Kirmānī, Ardistānī, Hamadānī, Amulī, Iṣfahānī, Kas̲h̲mīrī), but that some of these are merely repetitions of M. Ṣūfī Māzandarānī, since verses ascribed to them are to be found in the Bānkīpūr dīwān,

^ Back to text87. Taqī Kās̲h̲ī describes him as “a mystical poet who enjoyed great celebrity during his life time” (Sprenger p. 33). In the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ (iii p. 450) he is called Mullā M. i Ṣūfī i Māzandarānī i mas̲h̲hūr.

^ Back to text88. With Abū Ḥaiyān i Ṭabīb and Mullā Ḥasan ʿAlī Yazdī according to the Majmaʿ al-al-fuṣaḥāʾ. Ṭāhir Naṣrābādī mentions in his account of Ḥusain [so in the printed text] ʿAlī Yazdī (Tad̲h̲kirah pp. 157–8) that he became a close friend of M. Ṣūfī (Baʿd az ān ba-Hindūstān raftah bā Mullā M. i Ṣūfī marbūṭ s̲h̲udah muddatī c̲h̲ūn s̲h̲īr u s̲h̲akar u āb u guhar ba-ham āmīzis̲h̲ dās̲h̲tand ba-ḥasb i taqdīrāt az yak-dīgar judā s̲h̲udah and). Cf. Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū no. 626.

^ Back to text89. b. 1003/1595, d. 1057/1647.

^ Back to text90. From Gujrāt (Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 451), from Aḥmadābād (to Lahore, Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū), from Kas̲h̲mīr (Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm). According to the Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār (no. 629) he died in Kas̲h̲mīr.

^ Back to text91. So Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm.

^ Back to text92. So K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū.

^ Back to text93. So Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (according to Bānkīpūr i p. 61 antepenult.) and other works. According to the passage translated from the Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm by Bland (jras. 1848 pp. 165–6) he was a resident of Aḥmadābād in Gujrāt in 1038 and afterwards, for some time, of Kas̲h̲mīr, but the date is evidently corrupt, since the passage goes on to say that “by desire of the Emperor Jehangir [who died in 1037 !] he came from Kashmir, but arriving at Serhind, died there”.

^ Back to text94. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ʿAbbāsī after a period in the service of Las̲h̲kar K̲h̲ān Mas̲h̲hadī (Dīwān and afterwards Ṣūbah-dār of Kābul) became Dīwān i Tan with the title of ʿAqīdat K̲h̲ān in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s fifth year. For some time he was Court Chronicler. He died in the twelfth year of the reign, 1048–9/1638–9. He was the author of (1) Nusk̲h̲ah i nāsik̲h̲ah i Mat̲h̲nawīyāt i saqīmah, a revised and annotated edition of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī’s Mat̲h̲nawī completed in 1032/1622–3 (mss.: Blochet iii 1340, Ethé 1088–90, 2993, Bodleian 663–5, Rieu ii 589a, 590a, Browne Pers. Cat. 227, etc.), (2) Laṭāʾif al-maʿnawī min ḥaqāʾiq al-Mat̲h̲nawī, a commentary on the same work (Editions: Lucknow 1282/1866 (see Berlin p. 7957), Cawnpore 1876°. mss.: Bombay Univ. p. 240, Ethé 1101, Rieu ii 590a, Bānkīpūr i 74, Ivanow 507, etc.), (3) Mirʾāt al-Mat̲h̲nawī, another commentary on the same work (ms.: Ethé 1102), (4) Laṭāʾif al-lug̲h̲āt, a glossary to the same work (Editions: Lucknow 1294/1877°*, Cawnpore 1905°*. mss.: Bodleian 1748–51, Ethé 1091–7, Rieu ii 590b, 591a, 810a, iii 1000a, Bānkīpūr i 75, Eton 106, Glasgow, etc.), (5) Laṭāʾif al-ḥadāʾiq min nafāʾis al-daqāʾiq, a revised text of Sanāʾīs Ḥadīqah with a commentary begun in 1040/1630–1 and completed in 1042/1632–3 with help from Mīr ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd “Ilāhī” (for whom see no. 1121 infra). (Edition: Lucknow 1887 (see Bānkīpūr i p. 29 1 and 15). mss.: Edinburgh 273, Lahore Panjāb Univ., Bānkīpūr i 21, Būhār 283–4, ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 49 no. 12), (6) S̲h̲arḥ i Ḥadīqah, the same revised text with an abridgment of the same commentary completed by the commentator himself in 1044/1634 (mss.: Ethé 923–4, Ivanow 445, Ivanow Curzon 192).[ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ iii pp. 437–8; Rieu ii p. 589; Bānkīpūr i pp. 25–8.]

^ Back to text95. According to ʿAbd al-Muqtadir he “adopted the tak̲h̲alluṣ Auḥadî”, but this seems to be incorrect. Ivanow in describing a ms. of his dīwān calls it the Dīwān i Taqī and Sprenger, who had the same ms. before him, treats Taqī as the tak̲h̲alluṣ. Similarly he is placed under the letter T in the Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib and elsewhere.

^ Back to text96. For his father, S̲h̲. Muʿīn al-D. M. Auḥadī, see Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 2297, where it is said that his majlis at Qazwīn was frequented by S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp, that from Qazwīn he went to S̲h̲īrāz and afterwards to India and that he died in the Deccan in 979.

^ Back to text97. Taqī was “descended by seven steps” (Bland p. 134) from S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Auḥad al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh Balyānī [b. Masʿūd b. M. b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. ʿUmar b. Ismāʿīl b. Abī ʿAlī al-Daqqāq, d. 686/1287: see Sprenger p. 95, Nafaḥāt al-uns p. 291, Safīnat al-auliyāʾ p. 180 (no. 338)].

^ Back to text98. For Abū ʿAlī al-Daqqāq, who died in 405/1015 or 406/1016, see Tad̲h̲kirat al-auliyāʾ i pp. 187–201, Nafaḥāt al-uns pp. 328–31, Safīnat al-auliyāʾ p. 159 (no 283).

^ Back to text99. Balyān “bi-fatḥ i awwal bar wazn i ghlyān” is the name of a village in the wilāyat of Kāzarūn (Burhān i qāṭiʿ). Cf. S̲h̲īrāz-nāmah p. 140: blyān qaryaʾī az qurā i Kāzarūn ast.

^ Back to text100. “In later life,” says Bland “he indulged his poetic inclination by compiling an anthology, which he named Firdúsi K̲h̲ayáli Auhadi, of which the value of the letters contains also the date.” Unfortunately Bland explains in a footnote that Firdaus i k̲h̲ayāl = 991, which is true but irrelevant, since at that date Taqī Auḥadī was eighteen years old.

^ Back to text101. This is stated in Taqī Auḥadī’s own list of his works quoted from the Kaʿbah i ʿirfān by the author of the Guldastah and thence by ʿAbd al-Muqtadir in the Bānkīpūr catalogue viii p. 77 ult. (Īn nusk̲h̲ah kih Kaʿbah i ʿirfan-ast az ʿArafāt dar Aḥmadābād i Gujrāt sanah i 1036 muntak̲h̲ab s̲h̲ud.)

^ Back to text102. If these dates are correct, the poems in question must be later additions to the Tad̲h̲kirat al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn, which is already mentioned in Taqī’s list of his own works in the Kaʿbah i ʿirfān written in 1036.

^ Back to text103. Dar mat̲h̲nawīyāt-as̲h̲ as̲h̲ʿār i s̲h̲utur-gurbah ba-naẓar rasīd (Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ, quoted in Bānkīpūr viii p. 78 ult.)

^ Back to text104. S̲h̲iʿr i bisyār guftah ammā hamwār-ast (Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī p. 303).

^ Back to text105. In Taqī’s own list of his works as quoted from the Kaʿbah i ʿirfān in the Guldastah the title of his tad̲h̲kirah is mentioned in two abbreviated forms, viz. ʿ.rafāt and ʿ.rafāt al-ʿārifīn wa-ʿaraṣāt al-ʿas̲h̲iqīn (Bānkīpūr viii p. 77 penult, and p. 7810). Similarly the author of the Guldastah in his preface calls it ʿ.rafāt al-ʿārifīn (Bānkīpūr viii p. 117 antepenult.). In the Āṣafīyah catalogue it is called g̲h̲.rafāt al-ārifīn. The full title as given in the preface to the tad̲h̲kirah itself is, according to Bland, “Urfát u ghurfáti âáshikín wa ârsát u ârzáti âárifīn”, which comes to the same thing as ʿAbd al-Muqtadir’s “ʿUrafât wa Gurafât-i ʿÂs̲h̲iqîn wa ʿAraṣât wa ʿAraḍât-i ʿÂrifîn”. Neither the vocalisation nor the meaning can be regarded as obvious. That Bland did not understand the words is shown by his description of them as “one of those titles, in which, as in those of many Arabic books, the translatable sense is sacrificed to a sort of rhythm, if not rhyme.” Since his time the tad̲h̲kirah has been generally known to European orientalists as the ʿUrafāt al-ʿās̲h̲iqīn, but no European seems to have ventured to translate these words. It seems probable that the first word should be read ʿArafāt (the name of the hill and adjoining plain 12 miles from Mecca, where the pilgrims assemble on the 9th day of the pilgrimage) and that the first element of the title means “The ʿArafāt of gnostics”, the word ʿArafāt having been selected as suggesting a place of assembly. This interpretation receives perhaps a little support from the fact that the abridgment, Kaʿbah i ʿirfān, is named after another place of assembly for pilgrims. The word ʿaraṣāt may have been used in allusion to yet another place of assembly, the court of the last judgment. The transposition of al-ʿas̲h̲iqīn and al-ʿārifīn may have been an afterthought of the author’s.

^ Back to text106. “Wālih” (quoted in Bānkīpūr viii p. 78) says that this tad̲h̲kirah contains many idle tales (muzak̲h̲rafāt i bisyār). In the Bānkīpūr catalogue (iii p. 61) the Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis is credited with the strange statement that Taqī Auḥadī’s tad̲h̲kirah [which contains some 3000 biographies] consists of selections from M. Ṣūfī’s But-k̲h̲ānah [which, at least as represented by the Bodleian ms., deals with 126 poets].

^ Back to text107. See beginning of this entry, 1st par., last part.

^ Back to text108. Fak̲h̲r al-Zamān, the maternal grandfather of ʿAbd al-Nabī, was Qāḍī of Qazwīn (M.-k̲h̲. p. 49911).

^ Back to text109. This is an inference from his statements that he was 19 years old when he went to Mas̲h̲had and that he reached Āgrah in 1018, apparently not many months later.

^ Back to text110. Amān Allāh “Amānī” Ḥusainī, who received the title of K̲h̲ānah-zād K̲h̲ān from Jahāngīr and that of K̲h̲ān i Zamān from S̲h̲āh-Jahān. died in 1046/1637. In Jahāngīr’s 17th year, ah 1031–2/1622–3, he was appointed to govern Kābul as deputy for his father, and he subsequently held other governorships. For his career, etc., see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 740–8, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 212–19, Memoirs of Jahāngīr tr. Rogers and Beveridge i p. 252, ii pp. 44, 94, 99, 231, 239, 257, 275, Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī pp. 59–60, etc. Among his works were (1) a dīwān (see Sprenger 97, Bodleian 1095), (2) Ruqaʿāt i Amān Allāh i Ḥusainī, a collection of 99 short letters on Ṣūfī matters addressed to numerous s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, beg. Hamd i wāfir. mss.: Āṣafīyah i pp. 114, 124, Bānkīpūr xi 1098 xviii, Berlin 62 (14), Brelvi-Dhabbar p. 59, Browne Suppt., 699 (King’s 202), Būhār 270 ii, Ethé 1763 (7), 1893, 2934, Ethé ii 3046, Ross-Browne 191, Gotha Arabic Cat. p. 489, Ivanow 1st Suppt. 787 (3), 2nd Suppt. 951, Lahore (ocm. vii/3 (May 1931) p. 59). Editions: Calcutta, date ? (see Berlin p. 129), Lucknow 1269 (v. ibid.), 1871†, 1873°, Cawnpore 1271*, 1874†, 1881†, 1883†, 1885†, 1888†, 1899†. (3) Ins̲h̲ā i K̲h̲ānah-zād K̲h̲ān. a collection of political, social and other letters and prose compositions in four faṣls, beg. Sar-nawis̲h̲t i k̲h̲āmah. mss.: Ethé 2077, Rieu ii 877a, Brelvi-Dhabbar p. 59. (4) Umm al-ʿilāj a treatise on purgatives written in 1036 and dedicated to Jahāngīr. mss.: Rieu ii 794a, Ivanow 1554, Blochet ii 887 (6). Editions: Cawnpore 1873°*, 1880°. (5) Ch̲ahār ʿunṣur i dānis̲h̲, an Arabic-Persian dictionary (ms. Rieu 509a), (6) Ganj i bād-āward, on agriculture (?). ms.: Āṣafīyah ii p. 968. Cf. Rieu ii 489b.

^ Back to text111. K̲h̲wājah Yādgār, brother of ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān Fīrōz-Jang, received from Jahāngīr the title of Sardār K̲h̲ān in 1022 (Memoirs of Jahāngīr, tr. Rogers and Beveridge, i p. 237) and the jāgīr of Monghyr in 1028 (op. cit. ii p. 89). For his career see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii pp. 411–12.

^ Back to text112. In all 71 poets arranged in three martabahs ((1) 26 deceased authors of sāqī-nāmahs from Niẓāmī Ganjawī to Fag̲h̲fūr Gīlānī (d. 1029), (2) 20 living authors of sāqī-nāmahs, (3) 25 living poets who had not yet written sāqī-nāmahs.

^ Back to text113. So according to the chronogram at the end, but later additions were made.

^ Back to text114. The tad̲h̲kirah of Mullā “Qāṭiʿī” is one of the sources of “Āzād’s” K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah. Sprenger says (p. 144) that he could find no account of the book or of its author.

^ Back to text115. In his notice of “Ād̲h̲arī”, where also the title of his tad̲h̲kirah is mentioned (Sprenger p. 66).

^ Back to text116. Sprenger p. 435. Ḥujjat Allāh according to Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 46.

^ Back to text117. See le Strange l.e.c. p. 196.

^ Back to text118. K̲h̲azīnah fol. 61b.

^ Back to text119. So Pertsch, correcting Sprenger, who said Iṣfahān.

^ Back to text120. For an autograph ms. of his Kullīyāt written in 1053 see Bānkīpūr ii no 329. For his dīwāns and other poems see Ethé 1601, Bānkīpūr iii 330, Ivanow 780, Sprenger 90, Madras 3, 3(a) and 3(b), Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 199 (Rāmpūr), Blochet iii 1900, ocm. vii/1 (Nov. 1930) p. 141. For his life see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii pp. 756–62, Bānkīpūr Cat. iii pp. 117–18. In one of the prefaces contained in his Kullīyāt he mentions Mīr “Ilāhī” and four other poets with whom he associated at Kābul (Bānkīpūr Cat. iii p. 1181).

^ Back to text121. Technically Deputy Governor for his father, K̲h̲wājah Abū ’l-Ḥasan Turbatī, who was the absentee titular Governor.

^ Back to text122. When he was succeeded by Las̲h̲kar K̲h̲ān Mas̲h̲hadī (Pads̲h̲āh-nāmah i, pt. 1, p. 12010).

^ Back to text123. For whom see Maʾāt̲h̲ir i Raḥīmī iii pp. 845–55, Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 587–90, Bānkīpūr iii p. 109, Sprenger no. 238, Rieu Suppt. 325, etc.

^ Back to text124. Rieu’s authority for all the statements, correct or incorrect, made in this sentence is doubtless the Wāqiʿāt i Kas̲h̲mīr.

^ Back to text125. It was early in 1042 that Ẓafar K̲h̲ān was sent to Kas̲h̲mīr as deputy for his father, the absentee Governor. He was made Governor on his father’s death in Ramaḍān 1042/1633 (P.-n. i pt. 1, p. 4747), was removed in 1048 (P.-n. ii p. 125 ult.) and was reappointed in 1051/1642 (P.-n. ii p. 2832).

^ Back to text126. Sprenger says (p. 436) that according to a chronogram by G̲h̲anī he died in 1052, but that [Abū] Ṭālib places his death in 1060 and Sirāj in 1064. According to Rieu (iii p. 1091b) the date 1057 is given in the Mirʾāt i jahān-numā.

^ Back to text127. To be distinguished from the Laṭāʾif al-k̲h̲ayāl of Mīr M. Ṣāliḥ Nawwāb Riḍawī b. Mīrzā Muḥsin Nawwāb, which is an anthology without biographical information (see Bodleian 1143, Ethé 1739, Sipahsālār ii p. 479, jras. 1848 p. 168).

^ Back to text128. mss.: Rieu Suppt. 417 (1), Ivanow 983. Edition: Ṭihrān 1304/1887° Cf. Browne Lit. Hist. iii pp. 300–1.

^ Back to text129. Unfortunately dar īn sāl does not always refer to the same year. Thus on p. 173 it is explained as 1077, but on p. 170 as 1083.

^ Back to text130. Mullā S̲h̲āh Muḥammad—az wilāyat i Dārāb-ast ṭālib-ʿilm i munaqqaḥīst muddatī dar Hind būd dar īn sāl tas̲h̲rīf āwardand tad̲h̲kirah i s̲h̲uʿarā mī-nawīsad umīd kih muwaffaq bās̲h̲ad

^ Back to text131. According to Iqbāl this year is several times mentioned as the current year, but Ṭāhir Naṣrābādī, writing later than 1076 presumably, speaks of M. Dārābī’s tad̲h̲kirah in terms which imply that it was not yet completed.

^ Back to text132. For information concerning Naṣrābād, a village now of five or six thousand inhabitants in the dihistān of Mārbīn half a parasang west of Iṣfahān, see the editor’s introduction to the Ṭihrān edition of Ṭāhir’s tad̲h̲kirah. Descendants of the author are still living in the village.

^ Back to text133. Ṭāhir does not mention his father’s name. Rieu’s statement that he was Mīrzā Ḥasan ʿAlī is due apparently to hasty reading of a sentence (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 451, 1. 5 ab infra), in which the author says that his father was a son of Mīrzā Ḥasan ʿAlī’s sister. It seems highly probable, however, that Ṭāhir’s father was Mīrzā M. Taqī, since Mīrzā Ṣādiq, Ṭāhir’s paternal uncle (see no. 142 supra and Tad̲h̲kirah pp. 64 and 45218), mentions in the Subḥ i ṣādiq (see Bānkīpūr vi p. 47, I. 12 ab infra) that his father, M. Ṣāliḥ, “died on the 18th S̲h̲awwâl, ah 1043 = ad 1638, leaving besides the author [i.e. M. Ṣādiq] three sons, viz. Muḥammad Taqî, who was then in Persia, Muḥammad Saʿîd and Muḥammad Jaʿfar, who were then living in Bengal.”

^ Back to text134. One of these was at Naṣrābād, where the doorway is still standing (photograph in the Ṭihrān edition of the Tad̲h̲kirah p. ).

^ Back to text135. E.g. Mīrzā Ṣāliḥ (Tad̲h̲kirah p. 45217) and Mīrzā Ismāʿīl (p. 45413). In spite of Bland’s statement (jras. 1848 p. 13910) there seems to be no evidence that Ṭāhir himself was ever in India.

^ Back to text136. In 1089 according to the Bānkīpūr ms. If 1079 is correct and if Ṭāhir had subsequently spent seven years in the mosque at Lunbān, his account of his own life must have been written (or at any rate completed) later than 1083.

^ Back to text137. A village near Iṣfahān.

^ Back to text138. munḥaṣir dar fard. These words are the foundation for Bland’s statement that Ṭāhir’s son “was, at the time he wrote, still in Merv”.

^ Back to text139. In the Berlin ms. 649 there are 838 notices according to a marginal numeration.

^ Back to text140. This date is mentioned in the preface (p. 5 ult.) and also, as the current year, at least once elsewhere (p. 170). Expressions like dar-īn sāl occur repeatedly in the work, but only very rarely (three times ?) are they further defined, and then (at any rate in the printed text) not always as the same year. Thus on pp. 170 and 173 dar-īn sāl is explained as meaning 1083 and 1077 respectively, while on p. 450 al-ḥāl is said to be 1081. “Current years” anterior to 1083 are probably corrupt, and so doubtless are some of the later dates that occur (always, it seems, in figures not words). The year 1089 found by Rieu on fol. 331 of a b.m. ms., apparently corresponds to 1081 in the printed edition (p. 450), Similarly the date of Darwīs̲h̲ Naṣīrā’s death is given as 1089 in the Bānkīpūr ms. (Cat. vol. viii p. 8020), but as 1079 in the printed text. According to Sprenger eight or nine biographies were added in 1092. This date does not seem to occur in the printed edition, where the latest dates appear to be 1085 (p. 326), 1086 (p. 342), 1112 (p. 20), and 1115 (p. 174).

^ Back to text141. 1081 in the printed edition (p. 450).

^ Back to text142. The chronogram S̲h̲ud āk̲h̲ir = 1105, not 1150. Presumably therefore panjāh in the colophon is a lapsus calami for panj.

^ Back to text143. He “was generally called Chélá” according to Sprenger. This is a Hindī word meaning “servant, slave, disciple”.

^ Back to text144. According to S̲h̲ēr K̲h̲ān (cited by Rieu) his grandfather was Mīr Laʿl Bēg, of Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ān. This fact is not mentioned in the 1324 edition of the Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl.

^ Back to text145. In the Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl (Bombay 1324 p. 290) “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲” is described as “az Mug̲h̲ūlān i ʿAbd-Allāh-K̲h̲ānī”. For ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 926.

^ Back to text146. So also Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī (cited by Rieu iii 1086a), etc.: in 1125 according to Sirāj, in 1127/1715 according to the Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm.

^ Back to text147. The author’s name and the title of the work occur shortly before the notice of Rūdakī (p. 2010–11 in the 1324 edition). Lōdī is an Afg̲h̲ān clan-name (see Ency. Isl. under Afg̲h̲ānistān).

^ Back to text148. b. 1025/1616, Governor of Bengal 1048/1638, defeated by Aurangzēb at K’hajwah in 1069/1659, d. 1071/1660.

^ Back to text149. In spite of the Ency. Isl. (and the Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib, no. 2854) it is impossible to identify Farruk̲h̲ Ḥusain “Nāẓim”, who left Harāt evidently in early manhood, settled in Bengal and died there in 1068, with Mullā Nāẓim Harawī, who spent his whole life as court poet to the Bēglarbēgīs of Harāt (Rieu ii p. 692), never visited India (according to “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲”: see Sprenger p. 114), was upwards of 60 years old [in 1076], when the Qiṣaṣ al-K̲h̲āqānī was written (Rieu loc. cit.), died in 1081 (according to Sirāj: see Sprenger p. 151) and is best known as the author of a Yūsuf u Zalīk̲h̲ā, begun in 1058 and completed in 1072, which is popular especially in Central Asia (Edition: Lucknow 1286/1870°*. mss.: Ethé 1593–6, Ivanow 779, Bānkīpūr iii 336, Blochet iii 1901–4, iv 2195, Rieu ii 692b, Browne Suppt. 1381, Bodleian 1130, etc.).

^ Back to text150. Aṣl-as̲h̲ az Harāt ast baʿd az takmil i k̲h̲wīs̲h̲ az waṭan bar-āmadah ba-ḥasb i qismat ba-mulk i Bangālah uftād….

^ Back to text151. kih ba-taqrīb i faujdārī dar c̲h̲aklah i Sirhind kāmrawāʾī u kāmyābī dārad (p. 120 ult.).

^ Back to text152. kih ba-taqrīb i faujdārī dar s̲h̲ahr i Jahānābād u nawāḥī i ān kāmrānī u kāmyābī dārad (Rosen Inst. p. 1633). Rieu cites the Maʾāt̲h̲ir i ʿĀlamgīrī, p. 214, for the statement that S̲h̲ukr Allāh K̲h̲ān, a son-in-law of ʿĀqil K̲h̲ān Rāzī [for whom see no. 744 supra], was appointed Faujdār of Delhi in 1092. He wrote a commentary on Rūmī’s Mat̲h̲nawī (mss.: Ivanow Curzon 211 and, probably, ʿAlīgaṛh p. 49), and died in 1108 (Sprenger p. 151, from “Sirāj”) or 1112 (“K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū”). See also Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl pp. 240–50, Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 121), Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii p. 87), ocm. ix/i p. 66.

^ Back to text153. So in the Bodleian ms. Sprenger says that some of the numerous mss. are abridgments. According to Bland the ms. described by him contained notices of seventy poets and fifteen poetesses.

^ Back to text154. So in the Bodleian ms.: Rosen says 61. The numbers for the succeeding classes are in accordance with Rieu’s list.

^ Back to text155. Perhaps an abridgment. The date of printing (1324) will be found on p. 343.

^ Back to text156. So ʿAbd al-Muqtadir (Bkp. viii p. 83). According to the Gul i raʿnā as summarized in Bkp. viii p. 130 he was “a Hindû of the Bais tribe of Mathrâ”, which perhaps does not necessarily imply that he was born there. “Ḥairat” describes him (incorrectly ?) as “a Banya of Benares and a pupil of By-dil” (Sprenger p. 155).

^ Back to text157. This is stated by “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” himself in his notice of “Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲” (see Rieu Suppt. p. 79 and Bānkīpūr viii p. 93).

^ Back to text158. Apparently an overestimate, if it was in 1155 that he returned to Delhi.

^ Back to text159. dar ʿas̲h̲arah i sābiʿ baʿd i miʾah wa-alf dar ʿAẓīmābād Paṭnah paikar i ʿunṣurī wā-gud̲h̲ās̲h̲t. ʿAbd al-Muqtadir understands this as meaning 1170 (Bkp. viii p. 842).

^ Back to text160. So in the Bodleian ms. In the Berlin ms. there are 545, extending from Jāmī to Mīrzā Aḥmad Bēg (no. 554 in the Bodleian ms.).

^ Back to text161. Although described (correctly, it seems) by Rieu as “taken from all three volumes of the original work”, “Durrī’s” recension is said in the Sipahsālāh catalogue to be a rearrangement of the second of the four [sic ?] qisms. The beginning (misplaced ?) of a third qism (= daftar apparently) is noted in Bānkīpūr viii p. 8613.

^ Back to text162. In the Bodleian catalogue the author’s name is given (wrongly, it seems) as Muḥammad ʿAlîkhân bin Muḥammad.

^ Back to text163. The Muntak̲h̲ab i Ḥākim is described by Rieu as compiled from the Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis of “Ārzū”, with additional lives. If this is correct, “Ḥākim” must have used “Ārzū’s” work before its completion in 1164.

^ Back to text164. Doubtless the editor of the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ.

^ Back to text165. According to Rehatsek “this copy bears towards the end the date 1175”. Presumably Rehatsek means that 1175 was the date of transcription, not that the year 1175 is mentioned in the text towards the end. It will be observed that apparently 1175 is the date assigned by “Azād” to the Mardum i dīdah.

^ Back to text166. With the double meaning “pupil of the eye” and “men seen”.

^ Back to text167. K̲h̲.-i-Z. B., a title conferred by Aḥmad S̲h̲āh (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 44814).

^ Back to text168. Title conferred by Muḥammad S̲h̲āh (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 44813).

^ Back to text169. Usually known as ʿA.-Q. K̲h̲. Dāg̲h̲istānī, he is called ʿA.-Q. K̲h̲. Lakzī in the Ātas̲h̲-kadah (no. 15) and ʿA.-Q. K̲h̲. S̲h̲amk̲h̲ālī in the Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib (no. 3018). He appears to be the same person as “Nawāb ʿAlī Qulī K̲h̲ān, commonly called Chhangā or Shash Angushtī (from having six fingers on each hand), a mansabdār of 5000 horse” (Beale), the father of Gannā Begam, Urdu poetess and wit, who became the wife of ʿImād al-Mulk G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān (see no. 797 penult. par. supra and Beale Oriental Biographical Dictionary under Ghazi-uddin Khan iii) and who died in 1189/1775 (see Beale under “Gunna or Ganna Begam”, Sprenger p. 227, Garcin de Tassy i pp. 488–90). P.S. This identification is confirmed by Nujūm al-samāʾ p. 47 penult.: ʿAlī Qulī-K̲h̲ān Wālih i Dāg̲h̲istānī i S̲h̲as̲h̲-angus̲h̲tī dar Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarā āwardah kih

^ Back to text170. For the Lesgians and their S̲h̲āmk̲h̲āls or S̲h̲amk̲h̲āls see Ency. Isl. under Dāg̲h̲istān, Ḥudūd al-ʿālam tr. Minorsky p. 455, etc.

^ Back to text171. See Bānkīpūr viii p. 11911–12.

^ Back to text172. Mīr Maḥmūd b. Mīr Wais, ruler of Qandahār, led an Afg̲h̲ān invasion of Persia in 1134/1721, defeated the Persians and sealed the fate of the Ṣafawī dynasty at the decisive battle of Gulnābād (some 3 leagues E. of Iṣfahān) in March 1722/Jum. ii 1134, took Iṣfahān after a siege in October 1722 and forced S̲h̲āh Sulṭān-Ḥusain to abdicate (see Browne Lit. Hist, iv pp. 125–9, Ency. Isl under Ḥusain b. Sulaiman, etc.).

^ Back to text173. The romantic story of this 18th-century Majnūn and Lailā is the subject of a mat̲h̲nawī, Wālih u Sulṭān, written in 1160/1747 at “Wālih’s” request by Mīr S̲h̲ams al-Dīn “Faqīr” Dihlawī (mss.: Rieu Suppt. 343, Eton 144, Ivanow 866, Ivanow Curzon 297, Ethé 1711, i.o. d.p. 1262, Bānkīpūr iii 413. English translation: The story of Valeh and Hadijeh. Translated … by Mirza Mahomed and C. Spring Rice, London 1903°*).

^ Back to text174. For his dismissal see Malcolm History of Persia i p. 416 n. His successor, Muḥammad-Qulī K̲h̲ān, was the maternal uncle of Luṭf-ʿAlī Bēg “Ād̲h̲ar”.

^ Back to text175. According to “Āzād” (K̲h̲izānah p. 1941) “Wālih” and “Ḥazīn” travelled together from Kirmān to Bandar i ʿAbbāsī, but “Wālih”, leaving by an earlier boat, reached Tattah ten days before “Ḥazīn”. “Āzād” says (K̲h̲izānah p. 19410) that when Nādir S̲h̲āh was at Delhi “Ḥazīn” lay concealed in “Wālih’s” house. “Ḥazīn” himself seems to make no mention of “Wālih”, who according to “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” (Bkp. viii p. 110) was his disciple and pupil.

^ Back to text176. “Āzād,” when returning in this year from Sīwistān, met “Wālih” at Lahore and accompanied him to Delhi (K̲h̲izānah p. 4483).

^ Back to text177. In support of this date Rieu (iii p. 1086a) cites the Ṣūrat i ḥāl, an autobiographic mat̲h̲nawī by “Guls̲h̲an” Jaunpūrī, who was employed by “Wālih” till his death (see Rieu ii 715b). The date 1170/1756–7 is given in the K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah.

^ Back to text178. “The notices,” according to Rieu, “are stated to amount to 2500 in number.”

^ Back to text179. The author, according to Rieu, claims as special excellences of his tad̲h̲kirah that he has confined his quotations to verses of undoubted merit and that he has inserted observations relating to prosody and poetical figures, historical information and critical judgments on poetical quality. “In India,” says Sprenger, “this Tadzkirah is more esteemed than any other.”

^ Back to text180. One of the three mss. described in the Lindesiana catalogue is identical with the i.o. ms. mentioned below.

^ Back to text181. See Bānkīpūr viii p. 112.

^ Back to text182. According to “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” (Bānkīpūr viii p. 87) “S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥusâm-ud-Dîn, father of the writer’s master, Sirâj-ud-Dîn ʿAlî K̲h̲ân Ârzû; was a Manṣabdâr under ʿÂlamgîr, and died ah 1115 (ad 1703)”.

^ Back to text183. “Ḥairat” (Sprenger p. 153) says that he was born at Gwalior, studied first at Āgrah, proceeded thence to Delhi, and subsequently, with the sons of Nawwāb Isḥāq K̲h̲ān, to Lucknow. In the Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm also it is stated that he was born at Gwalior (see Berlin cat. p. 7655). Neither “Āzād”, who had obtained a written autobiography from “Ārzū” (see the next note), nor “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” specifies the place of his birth. On the other hand both Rieu and ʿAbd al-Muqtadir say (on what authority ?) that he was born at Akbarābād (i.e. Āgrah). If this is an inference from the nisbah Akbarābādī appended to his name (e.g. in the K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah), it is not of course necessarily correct. According to Sprenger (p. 1331) “he was born in 1101 either at Agra or Gwályár, but brought up in the former city”.

^ Back to text184. According to “K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū” (Bānkīpūr viii p. 112) the date 1099 has the authority of “Ārzū” himself and the support of a chronogram (Nuzl i g̲h̲aib) composed by “Ārzū’s” father. The date 1101/1689–90 is given by “Āzād”, who had never met “Ārzū” but had written to him from the Deccan, when compiling his Sarw i āzād, and had obtained from him a written autobiography (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 119). Possibly therefore both dates are derived from “Ārzū” himself.

^ Back to text185. Doubtless on “Ārzū’s” own authority (cf. the previous note).

^ Back to text186. d. 757/1356. See Safīnat al-auliyāʾ p. 100 (Ethé 647 no. 116); Beale Oriental biographical dictionary under Nasir-uddin Mahmud; Ency. Isl. under Čirāg̲h̲ Dihlī; etc.

^ Back to text187. d. 970/1562–3, author of the Arabic Ṣūfī work al-Jawāhir al-k̲h̲amsah (see Brockelmann ii p. 418, Supptbd. ii p. 616, and, for the Persian translation, Ethé 1875–6, Bombay Univ. p. 227, etc.). Cf. Ency. Isl. under Muḥammad G̲h̲awt̲h̲ Gawāliyārī. For his tomb at Gwalior see V. A. Smith Akbar p. 435 (and the references given there), Annual Report of the Director General of Archaeology in India 1920–1 p. 14, 1921–2 pp. 37–8.

^ Back to text188. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 774–6, Bānkīpūr viii p. 103, Beale Oriental biographical dictionary under Is-haq Khan. His daughter became the wife of S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah, who succeeded Ṣafdar-Jang as Nawwāb-Wazīr of Oudh in 1754.

^ Back to text189. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 775–6.

^ Back to text190. This title apparently does not occur in the mss. of the work, which is usually called S̲h̲arḥ i abyāt i Iskandar-nāmah.

^ Back to text191. This seems to be a conflation of two different works, since the list of “Ārzu̲’s” works quoted in the Berlin catalogue, p. 765, from the Ṣuhuf i Ibrāhīm describes the Sirāj i wahhāj as dar ḥall i abyāt i K̲h̲wājah i S̲h̲īrāzī and the Dād i suk̲h̲un (no. 19 below) as dar muḥākamah i as̲h̲ʿār i qaṣīdah i Qudsī u S̲h̲aidāb [sic, apparently for S̲h̲aidā-yi] Hindī.

^ Back to text192. “Ārzū” wrote dīwāns in which he imitated those of “Sālim”, “At̲h̲ar” and “Fig̲h̲ānī”, composing a counterpart to each poem in the same metre and rhyme (cf. Sprenger p. 337, Berlin Cat. p. 765). A ms. of the dīwān modelled on that of “At̲h̲ar” is described by Sprenger, who says that “Arzú informs us in his Tadzkirah, voce Athar, that these poems formed first a separate Dywán as they do in this copy, but subsequently he incorporated them in his large Dywán”. Ivanow Curzon 295 and 296 (both beginning C̲h̲ih parwarī) seem to be copies of this same dīwān. Bānkīpūr iii 399 (Dīwān i Ārzū: g̲h̲azals beginning Ai basmalah, followed by rubāʿīs beginning ʿĀlam bāg̲h̲īst) opens with the same poem as Sprenger 107, which is described as Intik̲h̲āb az dīwān i Ārzū.

^ Back to text193. On bayān only (fa-qaṭ dar bayān, Berlin cat. p. 765).

^ Back to text194. dar fann i maʿānī wa-bayān (Berlin cat. p. 765).

^ Back to text195. “A short treatise on various questions of style, versification, etc…. The author states that he undertook an analysis of a qaṣīda by Abū ’l-Barakāt Munīr (d. 1054/1644), and tried to be as impartial as possible. He refers also to Muḥammad Jān Qudsī (d. 1056/1646), and others.” (Ivanow.) Presumably this work is concerned with “S̲h̲aidā’s” qaṣīdah, “in which he enumerates at length the defects and the shortcomings of each and every couplet of a ḳaṣīda by his contemporary Ḳudsī …” (Ency. Isl., supplement, under S̲h̲aidā). For “Ārzū’s” reply to “Munīr’s” criticisms of “Qudsī” see no. 5 supra (Sirāj i munīr).

^ Back to text196. “The Siráj is rather voluminous, as it contains the words of the Burhán with lengthy remarks attached to each” (Blochmann p. 27). “The critical remarks on the Burhán are so numerous, that the Burhán should never have been printed without the notes of the Siráj” (Blochmann p. 25).

^ Back to text197. So in the ʿAlīgaṛh catalogue. The other cataloguers call “Ārzū’s” revised edition by the same title as the original, G̲h̲arāʾib al-lug̲h̲āt.

^ Back to text198. In the list of “Ārzū’s” works quoted from the Ṣuhuf i Ibrāhīm in the Berlin catalogue, p. 765, there is mentioned Nawādir al-alfāẓ dar bayān i lug̲h̲āt i Hindīyah kih Fārisī u ʿArabī i ān s̲h̲uhrat na-dārad. According to Rieu “Ārzū’s” revision of the G̲h̲arāʾib al-lug̲h̲āt “is confined to those Hindī words the Arabic or Persian equivalents of which are not commonly known in India”. Possibly, therefore, the Nawādir al-alfāẓ and the revised edition of the G̲h̲arāʾib al-lug̲h̲āt are the same work.

^ Back to text199. “Being proud of his affluence and ability, Ḥazîn, remark some of his biographers, began to look down on the Amîrs and nobles, and commenced, says his friend Wâlih, as the poet’s nature was, to write satires against the citizens, and did not even spare the king and his nobles. In spite of his friend Wâlih’s advice, Ḥazîn continued his satirical writings, till, says Wâlih, the poet lost all esteem in the eyes of the public. Wâlih … had at last, to his deep regret, to give up his friendship with Ḥazîn, and out off all communication with the poet…. Ḥazîn then began to criticise the eminent poets of the imperial court, and wrote satires against many of them, such as Sirâj-ud-Dîn ʿAlî K̲h̲ân Ârzû, … Mîr Muḥammad Afḍal Sâbit, and others. In revenge Ârzû wrote the … Tanbîh-ul-Ġâfilîn…. in which he collected a large number of frail verses from Ḥazîn’s dîwân, and criticisingly pointed out mistakes therein” (Bānkīpūr cat. iii p. 225).

^ Back to text200. So Āṣafīyah ii p. 908.

^ Back to text201. Cf. Majmūʿah i nag̲h̲z i p. 2411: Agar-c̲h̲ih zabān-dānān i Īrān az mamarr i ḥasad bā nafs al-amr az-ū ḥisābī na-mī-gīrand ammā ḥaqq ān-ast kih wujūd i īn c̲h̲unīn kas dar k̲h̲āk i pāk i Hindūstān ḥukm i iksīr i aʿẓam dārad.

^ Back to text202. The biographies were added as an afterthought, the author’s original intention having been to compile an anthology (safīnah), and he paid much less attention to the biographies than to the extracts.

^ Back to text203. So Sprenger.

^ Back to text204. So ʿAbd al-Muqtadir.

^ Back to text205. So in the subscription to the Ṣafīr i dil, Bodleian 1185. There is no such subscription in the lithographed Kullīyāt.

^ Back to text206. Muḥammad al-madʿū (or al-mus̲h̲tahir) bi-ʿAlī, etc.

^ Back to text207. He was sixteenth (according to Balfour’s text) in descent from a great saint, S̲h̲. Zāhid Gīlānī, the spiritual director of S̲h̲. Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī, the ancestor of the Ṣafawī kings (see Browne Lit. Hist. iv pp. 38–44).

^ Back to text208. At the age of ten (Tad̲h̲kirat al-muʿāṣirīn p. 95115, Sprenger p. 136) “Ḥazīn” was taken by his father on a visit to Lāhijān and stayed there for nearly a year during which time he read the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-hiṣāb with his uncle S̲h̲. Ibrāhīm Zāhidī Jīlānī (d. 1119/1707–8).

^ Back to text209. The names of his teachers and the books which he studied under them are faithfully recorded in the autobiography. That M. Bāqir Majlisī (for whom see no. 247 supra) was not one of them (as alleged by “some of his biographers”: see Bānkīpūr iii p. 223) seems clear from “Ḥazīn’s” statement that he had seen him three or four times (Autobiography p. 32, trans. p. 32). He died when “Ḥazīn” was seven or eight years old.

^ Back to text210. Cf. Autobiography p. 599 (u dar ḍimn i īn mas̲h̲āg̲h̲il kutub i mutadāwalah rā dars mī-guftam), trans. p. 64, and other passages. His abandonment of the practice of teaching (apparently in 1143/1730–1) is recorded on p. 178, trans. p. 195. The last works taught by him were the Uṣūl i Kāfī, the Man lā yaḥḍuruhu l-faqīh, the Ilāhīyāt i S̲h̲ifāʾ and the S̲h̲arḥ i Tajrīd.

^ Back to text211. K̲h̲alīfah Āwānūs, as he is called in Belfour’s text, or AwānūsK̲h̲alīfah, as he calls himself at the beginning of his Persian work on Christian evidences completed in 1690 (mss.: Rieu i p. 5, Browne Suppt. 1388), is judged by Rieu to have been a Roman Catholic, probably of French origin. Lady Sheil in her Glimpses of life and manners in Persia (London 1856, p. 349 14) speaks of being called on by “a Nestorian khaleefa, or bishop”. According to Morier’s Adventures of Hajji Baba (ch. 40) the Armenian patriarch of Echmiadzin was known in Persia as the K̲h̲alīfah.

^ Back to text212. Before his father’s death in 1127/1715 (Autobiog. p. 100, trans. p. 110): it is not clear how long before.

^ Back to text213. In one journey alone “Ḥazīn” says that he saw most of Fārs (Autobiog. p. 91 penult. (u dar ān safar kamtar nāḥiyah az mamlakat i Fārs māndah bās̲h̲ad kih na-dīdah bās̲h̲am), trans. p. 100).

^ Back to text214. An incomplete list of the towns visited in the course of these wanderings, which included pilgrimages to the holy places of al-Ḥijāz and al-ʿIrāq (nearly 3 years at Najaf), is given by Browne iv p. 279.

^ Back to text215. According to the account given by ʿAbd al-Muqtadir (Bānkīpūr iii p. 224), presumably on the authority of “Ḥazīn’s” acquaintance “Wālih” (for whom see no. 1147 supra), the immediate cause of “Ḥazīn’s” departure was that he had incurred suspicion of complicity in the assassination of Walī-M. K̲h̲ān S̲h̲āmlū, who had been sent to Lār as Governor by Nādir S̲h̲āh, and that he was consequently unsafe in Persia.

^ Back to text216. According to “Āzād” (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 1943) “Wālih” had reached Tattah ten days before.

^ Back to text217. The periods of residence up to the second arrival in Lahore make too large a total.

^ Back to text218. Here “Āzād”, who was returning from Sīwistān to Delhi, met “Ḥazīn” and received from him an autograph copy of some verses as a memento (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 1944).

^ Back to text219. Nādir S̲h̲āh reached Qandahār before Naurūz 1149/March 1737 and the town capitulated on 2 D̲h̲ū ʼl-Qaʿdah 1150/23 March 1738.

^ Back to text220. Nādir S̲h̲āh won the battle of Karnāl on 15 D̲h̲ū ’l-Qaʿdah 1151/24 Feb. 1739, entered Delhi on 9 D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah/20 March and left the city on 7 Ṣafar 1152/16 May 1739. “Āzād” says that while Nādir was in Delhi “Ḥazīn” lay concealed in “Wālih’s” house (K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 19410).

^ Back to text221. For whom cf. no. 1139 1st par. supra.

^ Back to text222. According to G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān “Ḥazīn” more than once declined invitations from Muḥammad S̲h̲āh to undertake the office of Wazīr (Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn. Cawnpore 1866, ii p. 61511: Muḥammad S̲h̲āh ba-wasāṭat i ʿUmdat al-Mulk u dīgar muqarrabān i daulat-k̲h̲wāh mukarrar paig̲h̲ām dādah masʾalat numūd kih mutaʿahhid i imḍā-yi umūr i wizārat gas̲h̲tah raunaq-afzā-yi salṭanat i ū s̲h̲awad ammā c̲h̲ūn sar firū āwardan ba-dunyā nang u ʿār i ān nuqāwah i ak̲h̲yār būd rāḍī na-s̲h̲ud).

^ Back to text223. One outcome of this animosity, “Ārzū’s” Tanbīh al-g̲h̲āfilīn, has been mentioned above (no. 1149 (24)).

^ Back to text224. Zabān-dān i maḥabbat būdah am dīgar na-mī-dānam * Hamīn dānam kih gūs̲h̲ az Dūst paig̲h̲āmī s̲h̲unīd īn-jā. Ḥazīn az pāyi rah-paimā basī sar-gas̲h̲tagī dīdam * Sar i s̲h̲ūrīdah bar bālīn i āsāyis̲h̲ rasīd īn-jā.

^ Back to text225. In a prose preface prefixed to these four mat̲h̲nawīs in a b.m. ms. (Rieu ii p. 716b) the author says “that the original drafts had been scattered in various countries, and that he had now written what he describes as a sample of each, in order to comply with the desire of a noble friend in India”.

^ Back to text226. Cf. Autobiography pp. 164–73, trans. pp. 176–90, where it is stated that of the K̲h̲arābāt, a mat̲h̲nawī modelled on Saʿdī’s Būstān, 1200 verses had been written [apparently at Mas̲h̲had between 1139 and 1142], but that it had never been completed. Some extracts are quoted in the autobiography, and the same extracts with others occur in the Lucknow and Cawnpore editions of the Kulliyāt.

^ Back to text227. Cf. Autobiography pp. 97–99, trans. pp. 106–9, from which it appears that this mat̲h̲nawī was begun at Iṣfahān [evidently before 1127] and that it consisted of about 4000 verses.

^ Back to text228. And indeed of all the later mss. of his poems. It is noteworthy that among the muqaṭṭaʿāt in the lithographed Kulliyāt (p. 920) are the lines on his father’s death, which are quoted in the autobiography (pp. 16–17, trans. pp. 15–16) and which were written long before the collection of any fourth dīwān.

^ Back to text229. E.g. Bodleian 1185 (?), 1184 (5),Bānkīpūr iii407, Blochet iii 1940, Browne Suppt. 1139 (1), Ivanow 862 (1).

^ Back to text230. Doubtless only the “sample” referred to above (no. 1150, 4th par., 1st footnote).

^ Back to text231. The author having given his work no formal title, various quasi-titles are found on the title-pages of mss. and editions, e.g. Tārīk̲h̲ i aḥwāl i Ḥazīn, Ḥālāt i S̲h̲aik̲h̲ ʿAlī Ḥazīn, etc.

^ Back to text232. A Turkish clan-name. Two members of this clan were amīrs in Akbar’s reign, Majnūn K̲h̲ān Qāqs̲h̲āl (see Āʾīn i Akbarī tr. Blochmann pp. 369–70, Maʾāthir al-umarāʾ iii 207–11) and Bābā K̲h̲ān Qāqs̲h̲āl (see Āʾīn i Akbarī tr. Blochmann p. 369 n. 3, Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 391–3, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 335–7).

^ Back to text233. D̲h̲ikr i Mīr p. 6211 (chūn marā dīd pursīd kih īn pisar az kīst guft az Mīr Muḥammad ʿAlī ast). Elsewhere in the D̲h̲ikr i Mīr (e.g. pp. 513, 164, 2513) he calls his father ʿAlī Muttaqī (not Mīr ʿAlī Muttaqī) and on p. 54 he describes this appellation as a k̲h̲iṭāb (Jawān i ṣāliḥī ʿās̲h̲iq-pīs̲h̲ah būd dil i garmī (or dil-garmī ?) dās̲h̲t ba-k̲h̲iṭāb i ʿAlī Muttaqī imtiyāz yāft). These passages seem to show that his real name was Mīr M. ʿAlī and that on account of his piety he was nicknamed or surnamed ʿAlī Muttaqī. Apparently those authorities who give his name as Mīr ʿAbd Allāh are wrong.

^ Back to text234. “Mīr” says in the D̲h̲ikr i Mīr (p. 15212) that he had reached the age of sixty (aknūn kih pīrī rasīd yaʿnī ʿumr i ʿazīz ba-s̲h̲aṣt-sālagī kas̲h̲īd). The date of the d̲h̲ikr i Mīr appears to be 1197/1783 (according to a chronogram quoted in ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq’s introduction but absent from the printed text of the work itself, presumably because it occurs in the k̲h̲ātimah, a collection of “facetiæ” omitted by ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq). It is true that on the page immediately preceding that on which “Mīr” gives his age as sixty he refers to the blinding of Shāh- ʿĀlam by Ghulām-Qādir, an event of 1202/1788, but this may well be a later insertion. In any case it cannot be supposed that his birth took place sixty years before 1202, i.e. in 1142, since in that case he would have been only nine years old in 1151/1738–9, whereas we know that he was at least ten when his father died (p. 5416: al-Ḥamdu li-llāh kih dah-sālaʾī, in his father’s words), and that for some time after that event he had been in receipt of a pension from the Amīr al-Umarāʾ Ṣamṣām al-Daulah [Khān i Daurān], which terminated on the latter’s death [in 1151/1739] from a wound received at the Battle of Karnāl.

^ Back to text235. K̲h̲wājah ʿĀsim, for whom see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 819–22.

^ Back to text236. k̲h̲ālū-yi birādar i kalān (p. 6316), that is to say, the mother of “Mīr’s” half-brother was “Ārzū’s” sister. Elsewhere (pp. 738, 751) Mīr calls “Ārzū” k̲h̲ālū or k̲h̲ālū-yi man.

^ Back to text237. Jāwīd K̲h̲ān, a eunuch who became a great favourite of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh and was murdered by Ṣafdar-Jang (see Beale Oriental biographical dictionary under Jawid Khan).

^ Back to text238. This date, not mentioned by “Mīr”, who seems to have had little interest in dates, is given in the Urdu tad̲h̲kirahs Guls̲h̲an i Hind and Gulzār i Ibrāhīm cited by ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq, D̲h̲ikr i Mīr, introduction p. ṣād).

^ Back to text239. Majmūʿah i nag̲h̲z ii p. 229 penult.: ba-ṣīg̲h̲ah i s̲h̲āʿirī ba-mawājib i mablag̲h̲ i dū ṣad rūpiyah mulāzim i sarkār i daulat-madār i Nawwāb i g̲h̲ufrān-maʾāb Wazīr al-Mamālik Āṣaf al-Daulah Yaḥyā K̲h̲ān Bahādur gas̲h̲tah.

^ Back to text240. Qarīb i yak-sāl ast kih dar gud̲h̲as̲h̲t (p. 10 in the Berlin ms.).

^ Back to text241. See no. 1152 2nd footnote supra.

Cite this page
“13.1.1 Biography: Poets (1)”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 04 March 2024 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2772-7696_SPLO_COM_10213011>
First published online: 2021



▲   Back to top   ▲