Storey Online

2 From the Middle of the 9th Century to the Last Quarter of the 11th: Part 3
(19,305 words)

In Volume 5: Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period

previous chapter: Part 2

§ 93. Lāmiʿī Dihistānī,1 or Gurgānī,2 is listed by ʿArūḍī among the panegyrists of the Seljuqs. There are three poems in his dīwān praising a king named Nōshirwān, or, as one verse3 has it, ‘mīr Fakhr al-daulah Nōshirwān, khudāwand i jahān’, evidently the Ziyarid ruler of his native Gurgān, (A)nōshirwān b. Manūchihr, who occupied his throne under the uneasy tutelage of the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs from around 420/1029 to perhaps as late as 441/1049–50.4 He would appear to have been Lāmiʿī’s first patron. Afterwards he entered the service of the Seljuqs, praising their two well-known wazīrs, ʿAmīd al-mulk Abū Naṣr al-Kundurī (who served Ṭoghrıl and was eliminated shortly after the succession of Alp Arslān) and Niẓām al-mulk, as well as the latter’s master, Alp Arslān (455/1063 to 465/1072).

Neither of two oldest tadhkirahs (those of ʿAufī and Daulat-shāh) devotes an entry to this poet. The latter does, however, mention one Lāmiʿī Bukhārī among the pupils of Sōzanī. If this is true, we must surely have two poets with the same name. The authors of the later tadhkirahs evidently confused the two: Ādhar makes Lāmiʿī a pupil of Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and says that he died in Samarqand. Hidāyat repeats this last piece of information and adds that his death occurred during the reign of Sanjar (511/1118 to 552/1157), which is much too late, at least as far as our poet is concerned.

The hitherto recorded dated manuscripts of his dīwān are without exception late. Apart from those listed by Munzawī (iii 25647–58) we could mention: London Or. 2889 fol. 10–24a (Rieu Suppt. no. 212 ii. Completed 28 Jumādā i 1293/1876); r.a.s. Storey bequest no. 3, fol. 156b–175a (Uncatalogued; inspexi. This dīwān is added by a second hand to an older codex and dated 1269/1852–3); Cambridge Browne Coll. V.88 pp. 144–179 (Dated 1266/1849–50); Leningrad Univ. 941* (Salemann-Rosen p. 15); Univ. 1003c (Romaskewicz p. 87).

Selections: Berlin Sprenger 1378 fol. 379b sq. (Pertsch 681. Dated 28 Rabīʿ ii 1270/1854).

Editions: Tehran 1295/1878; 1319sh./1931 (ed. S. Nafīsī); 1353sh./1964–5 (ed. M. Dabīr-Siyāqī); reprinted–7.

lf (one verse in ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī pp. 30–1; there is another verse in the marginal additions to manuscript nūn, ed. Iqbāl p. 420); ʿArūḍī p. 28; Shams pp. 335, 360; Jājarmī i pp. 142–3; Yaghmāʾī pp. 93–5; Daulat-shāh p. 102; Ādhar pp. 160–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 494–501; ln s.v. ‘Lāmiʿī’ pp. 74–6 (S. Nafīsī); Khaiyām-pūr pp. 499–500; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii6 pp. 386–98; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 641–8; ei2 s.v. ‘Lāmiʿī’ (J.W. Clinton).

§ 94. Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (or probably better: Ghazwānī) al-Laukarī5 is credited by ʿAufī with 14 verses in praise of the Samanid Nūḥ (ii) b. Manṣūr and with three addressed to his wazīr ʿUbaid Allāh b. Aḥmad al-ʿUtbī (367/977–8 to 372/982–3).

ʿAufī ii p. 15; Shams pp. 231, 233 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); ln s.v ‘Abū l-Ḥasan’ p. 412; Khaiyām-pūr p. 419; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 421–2; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; Idārah-chī pp. 131–2.

§ 95. A single verse by one Maḥmūdī is quoted in lf s.v. kasak (or kashak) (ed. Horn p. 69; ed. Iqbāl p. 297; also in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 185). Horn identified this poet with Zainabī Maḥmūdī (below, § 155), but this is only a guess.

§ 96. Maisarī6 is the author of a medical poem of some 5000 verses in hazaj metre (inc. ba nām i pāk i dādār i jahān ast * kih bakhshāyā u dānā i nihān ast). Nothing is known of him except what can be deduced from that work, the title of which is given in the text (twice) as Dānish-nāmah, in the colophon, however, as Kitāb i Manṣūrī ba naẓm; the latter title would seem to imply that the poem is based on the well-known medical compendium al-Kitāb al-manṣūrī of Muḥammad b. Zakarīyāʾ al-Rāzī, but there seems to be nothing in the text to support this. The title given in the colophon is thus probably spurious. The author tells us that he began his poem in Shawwāl 367/978 and completed it in 370/980–1 when he was more than 46 years old, thus indicating that he was born about 324/936. The work is dedicated to one ‘Nāṣir i Daulat’, evidently the governor of Khurāsān, Abū l-Ḥasan Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Sīmjūr, who received the title Nāṣir al-daulah after the ascension of the Samanid Nūḥ (ii) b. Manṣūr in 365/975–6.

Ms.: Paris Ancien fonds 310 (Blochet 818/Richard. Dated 3 Rabīʿ ii 852/1448).

Edition: Tehran 1366sh./1987 (non vidi). Partial edition and French translation in Lazard, Poètes i pp. 163–80, ii pp. 178–94.

Cf.: pl ii § 354; Lazard, Poètes i pp. 36–40; J. Matīnī, ‘Dar bārah i dānish-nāmah i Maisarī’, mdam viii, 1351sh./1972, pp. 593–628; Gh. Yūsufī, ‘Dānish-nāmah i Maisarī’, Rah-nirmā i kitāb vii, 1343sh./1964, pp. 283–8.

§ 97. Abū l-Muẓaffar Makkī b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī al-Panjhīrī7 is included by ʿAufī among the poets of the Ghaznavids.

Rādūyānī p. 69 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿAufī ii p. 46; Rāzī (Calcutta edition pp. 38–9); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 66; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar’ pp. 843, 848; Khaiyām-pūr p. 23.

§ 98. Maʿnawī Bukhārī is credited with four gnomic verses in ʿAufī’s chapter on the Samanid poets.

ʿAufī ii p. 27; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 510; Ethé, Vorl. pp. 49–50; Khaiyām-pūr p. 554; Idārah-chī p. 39.

§ 99. Abū Saʿīd8 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Manshūrī al-Samarqandī is included by ʿArūḍī and ʿAufī among the Ghaznavid poets. ʿAufī quotes, among other things, an ode to Sulṭān Maḥmūd; a fuller version of the same poem is quoted by Jājarmī and Hidāyat and five verses from it can be found already in Rādūyānī.9 Another long ode to Maḥmūd is quoted in the old jung published by Yaghmāʾī. Presumably the same Manshūrī is the author of two verses quoted in the Punjab and Tehran (Malik) manuscripts of lf s.v. haft-ōrang (the second verse is also in the marginal additions to manuscript nūn). Waṭwāṭ reports that in his Kanz al-gharāʾib Aḥmad Manshūrī collected artificial poems of the type called mutalawwin, which, if vocalised differently, can be scanned in two different metres.

lf (ed. Iqbāl p. 292; ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī p. 21); Rādūyānī pp. 64 88 (and Ateş’s notes p. 140); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ p. 55; ʿAufī ii pp. 44–6; Jājarmī ii pp. 459–61;10 Yaghmāʾī pp. 118–22; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 506; ln s.v. ‘Abū Saʿīd’ p. 508, and ‘Aḥmad’ p. 1273, 1356; Ṣafā i6 pp. 553–5; Khaiyāmpūr p. 566.

§ 100. Manṣūr b. ʿAlī al-Manṭiqī al-Rāzī, known as Mōrd11 (‘myrtle’, or perhaps rather Muwarrid?) eulogised the Būyid wazīr of Rai al-Ṣāḥib Ismāʿīl b. ʿAbbād (367/977–8 to 385/995).

Collection of fragments and French translation: G. Lazard, ‘Le poète Manteqi de Rey’, Mélange d’iranologie en mémoire de feu Saïd Naficy (=mdat xix/1–2), Tehran 1972, pp. 56–82 of the Latin script section; see also Idārah-chī pp. 162–7.

Bairūnī, Kitāb al-jamāhir fī maʿrifat al-jawāhir, ed. Krenkow, Hyderabad 1355/1936–7, p. 81 (one verse by ‘Manṣūr Mōrd’; not in Lazard); lf (ed. Iqbāl) passim (quoted only in the marginal additions to manuscript nūn); Rādūyānī pp. 53, 55 (and Ateş’s notes, p. 133); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ pp. 4, 47, 83; ʿAufī ii pp. 16–8; Shams pp. 275, 308; Jājarmī ii pp. 464–3; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 508–9; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 431–3; Khaiyām-pūr p. 568.

§ 101. Abū l-Najm Aḥmad b. Qaus b. Aḥmad al-Dāmghānī, known as Manūchihrī (or Minōchihrī),12 flourished under the Ghaznavid Masʿūd i (421/1030 to 432/1040), to whom a large portion of his surviving poems is dedicated. His earliest patron, the one to whom he owed his pen-name, appears to have been the Ziyarid Falak al-Maʿālī Manūchihr b. Qābūs (402/1012 to 420 or 421/1029), who is identified in the superscriptions in at least some of the manuscripts as the dedicatee of poems no. 27 and 31 of Dabīr-Siyāqī’s edition. Admittedly, the name of this prince is not actually mentioned in the odes in question. However, in one of the poems written after his arrival in Ghaznah, Manūchihrī alludes to his previous service ‘in Rai and Gurgān’,13 which would certainly seem to suggest that he had been at the court of one or another of the Ziyarids.14 Two of his poems (no. 13, 48) are dedicated to Khwājah (Abū) Ṭāhir, who was Masʿūd’s kad-khudā in Rai for a short period in 423 to 424 (1032–3), and it was evidently after serving this representative of the Ghaznavids in Rai that our poet betook himself to the court of the king himself. In one place,15 in fact, he claims that Masʿūd had brought him from Rai on an elephant, but this must perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt. There is in any case no evidence that Manūchihrī entered the service of the Ghaznavids before the time of Masʿūd,16 and no indication that he outlived that ruler. The tadhkirahs give the date of his death as 432/1040–1, 439/1047–8, or as late as 483/1090.17

Apart from qaṣīdahs and the usual shorter poems Manūchihrī’s dīwān contains eleven celebrated musammaṭs. He has been admired in particular for his description of nature.

Manuscripts of his dīwān are frequent, but overwhelmingly late (19th or 20th century), and it is on these modern copies that the existing editions are based. There is, however, an as yet unused manuscript in Tehran dated 1010/1601–218 as well as a few fairly old manuscripts with more or less extensive selections from the poems. (Blochet’s 16th century dating of the Paris manuscript needs closer scrutiny). That the vulgate text is, nonetheless, not all that bad can be seen from the fairly close agreement between the text given by Dabīr-Siyāqī for the first strophe of his poem no. 58 with the version quoted by Rādūyānī, p. 105.

Mss.: London Or. 2844 (Rieu Suppt. no. 206. Dated 1274/1857–8); Or. 2889 fol. 75b–119a (Rieu Suppt. no. 212 V. Completed 28 Jumādā i 1293/1876); r.a.s. Storey bequest no. 3, fol. 96b–155b (Uncatalogued; inspexi. Contains the qaṣāʾid and the 7th, 3rd, 1st and the beginning of the 2nd musammaṭāt of Dabīr-Siyāqī’s edition, breaking off in the middle of latter); Cambridge Browne Coll. V.l (Dated 1290/1873); Browne Coll. V.2 (Dated 22 Muḥarram 1295/1878. qaṣāʾid only); Paris Supplément 725 ii (Blochet 1206. 16th century?); Leningrad Univ. 1004 (Romaskewicz p. 8. Dated 1271/1854–5); Univ. 1276 (Tagirdzhanov p. 6); Istanbul Üniversité fy 917 (=Halis Ef. 1647. Ateş 10. Dated 20 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1285/1869); Baku i 338 (Dated 1260/1844); i 339 (Dated 1274/1857–8); Tehran Univ. xiv 4669 (Dated 1010/1601–2, with an introduction); Majlis 4906 (Munz. 26235 inspexit. Dated 1260/1844); Shūrā i Islāmī i 91 pp. 1–63; Sari Shihāb Collection (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 621. Dated 1209/1794–5); Qum Marʿashī v 1930; Mashhad Univ. 157, 158, 159; Lahore Univ. ii p. 134 (Dated 1249/1833–4. See ocm iii/2, 1927, p. 74); Bankipore i 14 (19th century); i 15 (19th century); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 734 no. 309; Calcutta Ivanow Curzon 188 (modern); Lucknow Sprenger 349 (Dated 1010/1601–2). A large number of late manuscripts are listed by Munzawī (iii 26230–91) and in Dabīr-Siyāqī’s introduction.

Selected poems: London Or. 2880 fol. 118b–140a (Rieu Suppt. no. 224 ii. Completed Jumādā i 1245/1829. A selection of qaṣāʾid only); Cambridge Browne Coll. V.65 no. 36 (Anthology dated 27 Ramaḍān 827/1424); Calcutta Ivanow 927 fol. 1s v sq. (Modern); Tehran Malik (Dated Rabīʿ i 1011/1602, according to Dabīr-Siyāqī’s introduction, p. vii); Majlis viii 2326 (17th century?).

Editions: Tehran 1285/1868–9;1290/1873;1295/1878; 1297/1880; 1301/1883–4; 1326sh./1948 (Ed. M. Dabīr-Siyāqī); reprinted19 1338sh./1959, 1347sh./1968. Paris 1886 (Menoutchehri, poète persan du 11ème siècle de notre ère (du 5ième de l’hégire). Texte, traduction, notes et introduction historique par A. de Biberstein Kazimirski). The same scholar had previously published a Spécimen du Divande Menoutchehri,Versailles 1876.

Translations (French prose): See editions, Paris.

lf passim; Rādūyānī pp. 104–5 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿArūḍī p. 28; Waṭwāṭ p. 10, 63; Shams passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 53–5; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, p. 477; Jājarmī ii pp. 542–52 (two poems); Daulat-shāh pp. 40–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 542–70; M. Qazwīnī, ‘Manūchihrī’,Yādgār i/2 pp. 52–75; V.F. Blücher, ‘Minučihri, ein Hofdichter Masʿud’s von Ghazna’, Acta Orientalia i, 1923, pp. 135–47; Hadi Hasan, ‘The poetry of Minuchihri’ in his Studies in Persian literature, first series, Aligarh 1924, pp. 159–204; Ṣafā, Tārīkh I6 pp. 580–97; Khaiyām-pūr p. 570; M. ʿAbd al-Muʿnim, ‘Taʾthīr i zabān wa adabīyāt i ʿarab dar ashʿār i M.’, Āryānā xxiv, 1345sh./1966, pp. 229–54; Fouchécour, Nature pp. 1–180; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 498–525; W. al-Kīk, Taʾthīr i farhang i ʿarab dar ashʿār i Manūchihrī i Dāmghānī, Beyrouth 1971; J.W. Clinton, The Divan of Manūchihrī Dāmghānī A critical study, Minneapolis 1972; M.C. Hillmann, ‘Manūchihrī: poet or versifier?’, Edebiyât i, 1976, pp. 93–112; W.L. Hanaway, ‘Blood and wine: sacrifice in M.’s wine poetry’, Iran xxvi, 1988, pp. 69–80; Ḥ.-ʿA. Mallāḥ, Manūchihrī i Dāmghānī wa mūsīqī, Tehran 1363sh./1984; T.H. Subḥānī, ‘Du qaṣīdah i tāzah az Manūchihrī’, Nāmwārah i Duktur Maḥmūd i Afshār iv, Tehran 1367sh./1989, pp. 2301–8 (two poems from an old anthology, one not in the printed dīwān, the other Dabīr-Siyāqī’s no. 39 with variants); A.D.H. Bivar, ‘Manūchihrī’s Māzandarān ode: an English version’, jras 1990 pp. 55–63; J.S. Meisami, ‘Ghaznavid panegyrics: some political implications’, Iran xxviii, 1990, pp. 31–44 (contains a commentary on poem no. 17); ei2 s.v. ‘Manūčihrī’ (J.W. Clinton).

§ 102. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Maʿrūfī al-Balkhī is credited by ʿAufī with two verses from an ode which he says were dedicated to the Samanid ruler ʿAbd al-Malik b. Nūḥ b. Naṣr (343/954–5 to 350/961). Moreover, Dih-khudā20 refers to an unpublished source which has him recite an ode in the presence of the ruler of Sīstān, Khalaf b. Aḥmad (died 399/1008–9).

Collection of fragments (45 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes Ip. 31, 128–33, ii pp. 132–8.

lf passim; Rādūyānī p. 44; ʿAufī ii p. 16; Shams passim; Jājarmī ii p. 953; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 505; Khaiyām-pūr p. 551.

§ 103. Marwārīdī is credited with a single verse in lf, s.v. lāmah.

§ 104. Abū l-Faḍl Masrūr b. Muḥammad al-Ṭāliqānī is known to us only from the verses quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the Ghaznavid poets. These include a qaṣīdah of fifteen verses in praise of the wazīr Abū l-Qāsim Aḥmad b. Ḥasan.

ʿAufī ii pp. 42–4; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 576–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 537.

§ 105. Masʿūdī al-Marwazī is the author of the earliest known versification of the Shāh-nāmah (inc. nakhustīn Gayyumart āmad ba shāhī * ba gētī dar girift-ash pēsh-gāhī).21 Two fragments of his poem are quoted in the Kitāb al-badʾ wa l-taʾrīkh of Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī,22 a work written in about 355/966, which is thus the terminus ad quem of our poet. It is however likely, as Lazard has argued, that he wrote well before the time of al-Maqdisī, perhaps towards the end of the 3rd/9th century. Judging from these fragments and from the references in Thaʿālibī’s Ghurar mulūk al-furs23 his poem encompassed the whole of the legendary history of the Iranians from Gayōmart to the fall of the Sasanian empire.

Collection of fragments (3 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i p. 22, 73, ii p. 47; see also Idārah-chī pp. 20–2.

§ 106. Masʿūd24 or Masʿūdī25 al-Rāzī26 served at the court of Sulṭān Masʿūd. Baihaqī relates how, during the Mihragān festival in 430/1039,27 he incurred the wrath of his royal patron and was exiled to India on account of two verses in which he warned of the growing power of the king’s enemies, comparing these with ants (mōr) who had turned into serpents (mār). According to the same historian the king pardoned Masʿūd on the following Nau-rōz (6 March 1040).28 He is presumably identical with the ‘Masʿūdī i Ghaznawī’ cited in lf s.v. warrafān(or warraqān) and by Rādūyānī p. 38. ʿAufī gives us further samples of his verse. Hidāyat’s statement that our author was a leading Shiite religious scholar cannot be traced to any early source, and seems in any case most improbable.

Baihaqī p. 594, 611; lf (see the indexes to the three editions; Horn, Einl. p. 28 wrongly identifies our poet with Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān, for whom see infra, no. 240); Rādūyānī pp. 36, 38 (and Ateş’s notes, pp. 125–6); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ p. 27 (and Iqbāl ad loc.); ʿAufī ii p. 63; Rāzī iii pp. 38–9; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 503; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 555–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 538.

§ 107. A single verse is attributed to one Abū l-Qāsim Muʾaddib29 in Asadī’s lf (ed. Iqbāl p. 317, ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī p. 177).

§ 108. Muḥammad b. ʿAbdih30 was a secretary to one of the Qarakhanids and a contemporary of Maḥmūd. ʿArūḍī praises the style of his letters. Rādūyānī quotes four of his verses; two of these (which in turn incorporate an explicit quotation from Khusrawānī) occur also in a fragment of five lines which ʿAufī31 (and later authors) ascribe to Firdausī. Obviously, the attribution to Muḥammad is supported not only by the greater antiquity of Rādūyānī, but also by the fact that, as the less famous poet, he is also less likely to have had stray verses wrongly attached to his name.

Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes pp. 100–1); ʿArūḍī pp. 13, 24 (and Qazwīnī’s notes); Waṭwāṭ p. 78; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 439–41; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14.

§ 109. Muḥammad b. Mukhallad is mentioned by the author of the Tārīkh i Sīstān in the same context as Muḥammad b. Waṣīf32 and Bassām i Kūrd.33

Collection of fragments (3 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 19, 58, ii p. 17.

Tārīkh i Sīstān p. 212; Meier, Mahsatī p. 11.

§ 110. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ flourished under the Samanids, according to ʿAufī, who quotes four of his verses. His nisbah is given in the printed text of ʿAufī’s Lubāb as al-Walwālijī,34 but by Hidāyat, who refers expliticly to ʿAufī as his source, as Nawāʾiḥī. Qazwīnī35 equated him with the poet mentioned by Manūchihrī36 in a list of ancient poets as ān-ki āmad az Nawāʾiḥ.37 It is therefore likely, as Qazwīnī argued, that Nawāʾiḥī is the correct reading.

ʿAufī ii p. 22; id., Jawāmiʿ (facsimile) pp. 352–3 (no. 1124); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 501; Bahār i p. 425; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 p. 421; Khaiyām-pūr p. 523; Idārah-chī pp. 47–8.

§ 111. Muḥammad b. Waṣīf composed, according to the author of the Tārīkh i Sīstān, the first Persian poem in quantitative metre, namely an ode in honour of Yaʿqūb b. Laith, probably at about the time when the latter captured Herat in 253/867. Another poem bemoans the death of ʿAmr b. Laith and alludes to the events of 296–7/909–10.

Collection of fragments (23 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 18, 54–6, ii pp. 13–15.

Tārīkh i Sīstān pp. 209–10, 253, 260, 286; Meier, Mahsatī pp. 10–11; S.M. Stern, Minorsky Volume pp. 546–8; Bosworth, Saffarids pp. 174–7, 222 fn. 670; ei2 s.v. ‘Muḥammad b. Waṣīf’ (C.E. Bosworth)

§ 112. Abū Sharīf38 Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Mukhalladī39 Jurjānī is, according to ʿArūḍī and ʿAufī, the name of the author of two verses stating that all that remains of the glory of the Sasanians and the Samanids is the praise bestowed upon them by Bārbad and Rōdakī respectively; he must therefore have lived after the fall of Samanids.40 Rādūyānī quotes a translation by him of a prophetic ḥadīth and this is followed by further translations (not specifically attributed, but perhaps also by Mukhalladī) of a series of sayings by ʿAlī. One verse by ‘Bū Sharīf’ is quoted in the Vatican manuscript of lf s.v. bīnī, and the same verse is quoted in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 299 as the work of ‘Mujalladī’. ‘Mujalladī’ is also quoted six times in the marginal additions to manuscript nūn of lf and four connected verses are cited in Ṣiḥāḥ (p. 46).

lf passim; Rādūyānī pp. 119–21 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿArūḍī p. 27 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); ʿAufī i pp. 13–4; ln s.v. ‘Aḥmad’ p. 1245 and ‘Abū Sharīf p. 539; S. Nafīsī, ‘Mukhalladī i Gurgānī’, mdat iv/1, 1335sh./1956, pp. 18–22; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 557–9; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 93, 529

§ 113. al-Adīb Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Mukhtār was a contemporary, and evidently also a friend, of Bākharzī (died 467/1075), who quotes, among many other samples of his Arabic poetry, three verses dedicated to Abū Ibrāhīm Ismāʿīl b. Ghuṣn. Two of these are quoted also by ʿAufī in the first entry of his chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs. There is a lacuna at the beginning of this entry in the manuscripts used by Browne, who supplied the missing name of the author as Bahrāmī; this is doubtless wrong. The Arabic verses are—as mentioned—by Mukhtār and he must consequently be the author of the five Persian verses quoted there as well. According to Iqbāl the author of the ‘Tadhkirah i ʿArafāt41 states explicitly that Muḥammad ʿAufī ascribes the last of these verses to Adīb Mukhtār; it is thus clear that the name Mukhtār still stood in the manuscript of ʿAufī’s work available to that author. The same verse occurs already in ʿArūḍī, who says that it was recited by Burhānī at the time when he gave over his position as poet-laureate to his son Muʿizzī,42 whereby ʿArūḍī seems to imply that the verse is in fact by Burhānī. If this is true Mukhtār must have quoted it in his own qiṭʿah, though it is just as likely that Burhānī was in fact quoting Mukhtār. Daulat-shāh43 and other late authors ascribe the same verse to Niẓām al-mulk.

Bākharzī no. 488; ʿAufī ii p. 68; Iqbāl’s introduction to his edition of the dīwān of Muʿizzī, Tehran 1318sh./1939, pp. ii–vi.

§ 114. Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Tirmidhī al-maʿrūf bi-Munjīk44 flourished at the court of the Āl i Muḥtāj, the rulers of Chaghāniyān,45 just to the north of his birthplace, Tirmidh, on the Amū Daryā. ʿAufī quotes an ode to ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar Ṭāhir b. al-Faḍl’, a form which represents a contamination of the names of Abū l-Ḥasan Ṭāhir b. al-Faḍl (died 381/991) and of his successor Abū l-Muẓaffar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. That the poem was in fact dedicated to the latter is clear from the fuller version of it quoted by Hidāyat46 and in an early jung,47 where the poet addresses his patron as ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar Shāh i zamīn’.48 The same patron is addressed as ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar Shāh i Chaghāniyān Aḥmad’ in three verses of Munjīk’s quoted by Rādūyānī.49 On the other hand, in Asadī’s Lughat i furs we find a verse which several of the manuscripts50 state was recited by ‘Shahīd’, mocking Munjīk in the presence of Maḥmūd of Ghaznah, as well as two verses by Munjīk himself51 which are clearly his reply to the attack. Shahīd al-Balkhī died, of course, long before the time of Maḥmūd; it is however not impossible that Munjīk attended the court of that ruler and engaged there in a slanging match with some poet whom the copyists confused with Shahīd. Munjīk is one of the poets most frequently quoted by Asadī and Rādūyānī and thus clearly enjoyed a considerable reputation up to a century after his own time. Many of his surviving verses (like those of Labībī) are of a satirical and decidedly scatological vein.

lf passim; Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes, p. 93); Waṭwāṭ p. 39, 49, 74; ʿAufī ii pp. 13–14; Shams pp. 324, 346, 351; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 506–8; ln s.v. ‘Munjīk’ (Dh. Ṣafā); Ṣafā i6 pp. 424–8; Khaiyām-pūr p. 566 (with further references); Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 434–8; Idārah-chī pp. 184–224.

§ 115. Abū l-Ḥusain (or al-Ḥasan) Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Murādī exercised his poetic talents mainly in Arabic. Thaʿālibī, in his Yatīmat al-dahr,52 quotes some two dozen of his Arabic verses, including a fragment of an ode to Naṣr (ii) b. Aḥmad (301/914 to 331/943) and verses which he is said to have recited just before his death to al-Jaihānī (who served as wazīr during the early part of Naṣr’s reign).53 Rōdakī wrote an elegy on his death.

Collection of Persian fragments (2 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 23, 76, ii p. 50. See also: A. Ḥabīb-allāhī, ‘Murādī, az muʿāṣirān i Rūdakī, Farkhundah Payām 1360sh./1981 pp. 288–301.

§ 116. A single verse by one Muraṣṣaʿī is quoted in lf s.v. parwāzah.

§ 117. Abū Ṭaiyib Muḥammad b. Ḥātim al-Muṣʿabī was a high-ranking official in the service of the Samanid ruler Naṣr (ii) b. Aḥmad (301/914 to 331/943), rising to the rank of wazīr before his eventual execution. It has been suggested that he had sympathies with the Ismāʿīlīs. A verse of his is quoted in the anonymous Ismāʿīlī commentary on the qaṣīdah of Abū l-Haitham Gurgānī.54 His fragments include what seems to be a complete poem on the vanity of the world.55

Collection of fragments (16 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 23, 74–5, ii pp. 48–9.

Baihaqī p. 107; Rādūyānī p. 7; ʿAufī ii p. 7; Gardēzī, Zain al-akhbār (ed. M. Nāẓim, Berlin 1928) p. 32; Thaʿālibī, Yatīmah iv pp. 12–13, 15–16; Yāqūt, Buldān i pp. 619–20.

§ 118. An otherwise unknown Muwaqqarī is the author of a ‘long’ qaṣīdah of which Rādūyānī (p. 106) quotes the first four verses.

§ 119. Muẓaffarī Panjdihī Marwī56 is included by ʿArūḍī and ʿAufī (who quotes a dozen of his verses) among the poets of the Ghaznavids. He is presumably identical with the Muẓaffarī quoted repeatedly by Asadī.

lf passim (and Horn, Einl. p. 28); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); ʿAufī ii pp. 63–5; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 505; Khaiyām-pūr p. 549.

§ 120. Abū Sarrāqah ʿAbd al-Raḥmān57 b. Aḥmad al-Balkhī al-Amīnī al-Najjār is the author of an ode of 16 verses in honour of Maḥmūd of Ghaznah, quoted by ʿAufī. It is presumably with him (and not with Najjār al-Sāgharjī, whom ʿArūḍī58 mentions as one of the poets at the court of Khiḍr Khān b. Ṭafghāj Khān) that we must identify the ‘Najjār’ to whom Asadī attributes one verse. The ‘Nijādi’ (error for ‘Najjārī’?), one of whose verses is quoted by Rādūyānī, is perhaps also the same poet.

lf s.v. shatrang (and Horn ad loc.); Rādūyānī p. 72 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿAufī ii pp. 41–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 89; ln s.v. ‘Abū Sarrāqah’ p. 501; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 599–600; Khaiyām-pūr p. 64.

§ 121. A single verse is attributed to one Na-shinās (or rather Nashnāsh?) in the Vatican manuscript of lf (ed. Horn p. 40; also in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 138).

§ 122. A substantial ode by Nāṣir Jaʿfarī is quoted by Jājarmī and a shorter version of the same poem is given by Hidāyat, who calls its author Nāṣir Nasawī. Hidāyat’s text contains a verse giving the name of the poet’s patron as ‘Bū l-Fatḥ Malik-Shāh’ (465/1072 to 485/1092); the verse is missing in Jājarmī’s version, though the superscription in the latter does identify Malik-Shāh as the object of the poet’s attentions. Hidāyat, however, claims that the author’s patron was ‘Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd Saljūqī’, evidently confusing our poet with ʿAufī’s Nāṣir Lughawī, the boon-companion of Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd Ghaznawī (see below, § 124).

Jājarmī ii pp. 475–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 636–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 588.

§ 123. Abū Muʿīn Nāṣir b. Khusrau al-Qubādiyānī al-Marwazī,59 with the pen-name Ḥujjat, the celebrated Ismāʿīlī propagandist, is discussed in pl i § 1589, to which the following is a supplement. The year of the poet’s birth is indicated in one of his poems60 as 394/1003–4 and this is consistent with his account in the Safar-nāmah61 of how on the eve of Thursday 6 Jumādā ii 437 (19 December 1045) he suddenly awakened ‘from forty years’ sleep’. ‘Forty’ is here a round number; his precise age on that date would have been 42 or 43 lunar years.62 His travels through Persia, Syria, Egypt and Arabia and back to Central Asia in the years 437–444 (1045–1052) are described in detail in his Safar-nāmah. In his last years the poet settled in the district of Yumgān, in Badakhshān, his loneliness in that remote place being the subject of constant complaint in the poems. The latest clearly established date in his biography is the year 462/1069–70, when he dedicated his Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain to an otherwise unknown amīr of Badakhshān, ʿAlī b. Asad b. al-Ḥārith. Ḥājjī Khalīfah, in his Taqwīm al-tawārīkh,63 states that Nāṣir died in 481/1088–9; this date has been widely accepted and, though not improbable, has no authority, all the more so since the same Ḥājjī Khalīfah, in two different places in his Kashf al-ẓunūn64 has him die as early as 431/1039–41, as does already Daulat-shāh. This date is naturally impossible. Later tradition, reflected by a spurious ‘autobiography’ and by the tadhkirahs65 made Nāṣir into a mighty magician who lived for more than a hundred years.

His extant theological works (Gushāyish u rahāyish; Khuwān al-ikhwān; Zād al-musāfirīn; Wajh i dīn; the prose Rōshanāʾī-nāmah, or Shash faṣl; Jāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain—all to be discussed in pl iv) are at least in part translations of Ismāʿīlī tracts in Arabic. Besides these we have his travelogue (Safar-nāmah) and the dīwān. The two didactic mathnawīs traditionally attributed to him, namely the Saʿādat-nāmah and the Rōshanāʾī-nāmah, are discussed below (pp. 11520) under the heading ‘spurious works’. Of Nāṣir’s Arabic dīwān, to which he occasionally refers,66 no trace remains.

Nāṣir’s Dīwān consists almost entirely of religious and didactic poems which, though occasionally dedicated to the Fatimid caliph al-Mustanṣir, or to the dāʿī l-duʿāt, al-Muʾaiyid fī l-dīn al-Shīrāzī, are far removed in character from the usual laudatory qaṣīdahs. Mss.: London i.o. 903 fol. 97–112 (Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 714/1315. 78 poems only);67 i.o. Delhi 1297 (18th century?); Or. 10919 (Meredith-Owens p. 60. Dated 1276/1859–60); Or. 3323 (Rieu Suppt. no. 210. Dated 9 Jumādā i 1296/1879. Contains also the spurious ‘autobiography’); Or. 2845 (Rieu Suppt. no. 209. 19th century? End missing); Berlin Sprenger 1416 (Pertsch 710. ‘Nicht ganz neu’); Ms. or. quart. 2026 (Heinz 359. With ‘autobiography’); Vienna Flügel 506 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1259/1843–4. With a prose preface); Leningrad Acad. C1702 (Cat. viii 5; Index 1480. Dated 1334/1915–6); Istanbul Çelebi Abdullah Ef. 290 (Munz. no. 26421. Dated Jumādā ii 736/1336); Üniversite fy 315 (Ateş 11. Dated Shawwāl 1262/1846); Üniversite fy 799 (=Halis Ef. 8626. Ateş 12. Dated 18 Jumādā i 1269/1853. Contains the ‘autobiography’); Najaf Amīr al-muʾminīn 1434 (Munz. 26429); Tehran Majlis 8421/2 (Munz. no. 26422. In a daftar dated 868/1463–4); Majlis ii 388 (Written for the Ottoman Sulṭān ‘Muḥammad b. Murād’, i.e. either Muḥammad ii, died 886/1481, or Muḥammad iii, died 1012/1603–4); Malik 5567/2 (Munz. no. 26425. 17th century?); Univ. xi 3201 (Dated 29 Jumādā ii 1201/1787); Ḥuqūq p. 115 (18th century?); Millī iv 1672 (Dated 4 Shaʿbān 1229/1814); Millī iii 1204 (Dated 29 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1252/1837); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 485 (Dated 1253/1837–8); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 488 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1261/1845); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 486 (Dated 1266/1849–50); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 487 (Dated Muḥarram 1268/1851); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 489; Millī v 2028; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 965/2 (Ms. completed 1041/1631–2. Selections only); Riḍawī ix 1163 (Dated 28 Rabīʿ ii 1261/1845); Riḍawī ix 1162 (Dated Rajab 1266/1850); Dushanbe Acad. ii 325 (Dated 11 Jumādā ii 1050/1640); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 734 no. 300 (Dated 1104/1692–3); Kapurthala 179 (ocm iii/4, 1927, p. 290); Lucknow Sprenger 265 (two copies, one of which was dated 1037/1627–8); Madras i 70 and 71 (both copies called ‘qaṣā’id i Ḥujjat’); Princeton 38 fol. 364–450 (dated 815/1412–3); and many late Mss. (Nāṣir became popular towards the end of the 19th century); cf. Munz. iii 26420–71.

Selections from his poems: Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 4b, 29a, 67a, 191b, 209b (Ethé 1333 = Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār. On fol. 67a a tasmīṭ of 33 strophes); Cambridge Browne Coll. V.65 no. 31 (Anthology dated 27 Ramaḍān 827/1424); Berlin Sprenger 1378 fol. 442a sq. (Pertsch 681. Dated 28 Rabīʿ ii 1270/1854. Apparently copied from the Calcutta Ms.); Istanbul Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 1620/12 (Cat. ii p. 376); Calcutta Ivanow 927 fol. 28v–47v (late).

Editions: Bombay 1860; Tabriz 1280/1863–4 (Ed. Riḍā-qulī Khān Hidāyat); Tehran 1314/1896–5 (together with Safar-nāmah); 1304–7sh./1925–8 (Ed. Naṣr Allāh Taqawī and Mujtabā Mīnuwī, introduction by Ḥasan Taqī-zādah, notes by ʿAlī Akbar Dih-khudā, contains also Rōshanāʾī-nāmah and Saʿādat-nāmah); reprinted 1335sh./1956–7 and 1348sh./1969; 1353sh./1974–5 (ed. M. Mīnuwī and M. Muḥaqqiq; volume i: text and variant readings. The first critical edition).

Partial editions: H. Ethé, ‘Auswahl aus Nâṣir Chusrau’s Ḳaṣîden’, zdmg 36, 1882, pp. 478–508 (based mainly on the i.o. manuscript, i.e. the oldest, with German verse translation); id., ‘Kürzere Lieder und poetische Fragmente aus Nâçir Khusraus Dîvân’, Nachrichten … Göttingen, 1882, pp. 124–52; E.G. Browne, ‘Nasir-i-Khusraw, poet, traveller, and propagandist (Text and verse translation of a hundred couplets … from the first five poems of N.-i-Kh.’s Díwán)’, jras 1905, pp. 313–52; Also: Calcutta 1926 (ed. M.K. Shīrāzī, contains ‘only the portions prescribed for the m.a. examination of the Calcutta University’); Stalinabad 1957 (Gulchine az devoni ashʾor, ed. K. Aini, in Tajik script); Tehran 1340sh./1961–2 (Pānzdah qaṣīdah az Ḥakīm Nāṣir i Khusrau i Qubādīyānī az rūy i qadīm-tarīn nuskhah i khaṭṭī, ed. M. Muḥaqqiq), reprint 1341sh./1962–3.

Commentaries: A fragment, commenting one poem = Dīwān, ed. Taqawī/Minuwī p. 120 (not in the new edition), of a work by Maulānā Qāḍī Maḥmūd Bahrī (first half of 12th/18th century) is contained in Madras ii 611.

Translations: (German and English verse): see partial editions.

(English verse): Nasir-i Khusraw Forty Poems from the Divan translated with introductions and notes by Peter Lamborn Wilson and Gholam Reza Aavani, Tehran 1977; Make a shield from wisdom. Selected verses from Nāṣir-i Khusraw’s Dīvān, trans. with extensive commentary by A. Schimmel, London/New York 1993.

(Russian verse): Насир Хосров: Лирика, ed. I. Braginskiy, Moscow 1979 (various translators; includes selections from the Dīwān as well as from the Rōshanāʾī-nāmah and the Saʿādat-nāmah.)

Spurious works:

Saʿādat-nāmah is a collection of moral precepts in some 300 verses (inc. dil-ā hamwārah taslīm i riḍā bāsh * ba har ḥālī kih bāshī bā khudā bāsh). It was first published by Fagnan in 1888, from the Paris manuscript supplément 781A, then reprinted (from Fagnan, with some emendations) in the appendix to the edition of Nāṣir’s Safar-nāmah published in Berlin in 1341/1922–3, and then (from the Berlin edition, but collated with a manuscript in the editor’s possession) in Taqawī’s edition of Nāṣir’s dīwān of 1307sh./1928. In Taqawī’s manuscript the text ends with a verse in which the author tells his readers to heed ‘the words of Sharīf’, evidently the author’s signature; there is no mention in this recension of the name Nāṣir. But in some other copies ‘Sharīf’ is replaced by ‘Nāṣir i Khusrau’, while the manuscript published by Fagnan retains the verse mentioning ‘Sharīf’ (three lines from the end) but adds a final verse giving the author’s name as ‘Nāṣir b. Khusrau’. It is quite obvious that (except in the version represented by Taqawī’s manuscript) the text has been tampered with. The poem is clearly not by Nāṣir i Khusrau, whose pen-name was ‘Ḥujjat’, not ‘Sharīf, and whose style is quite unlike that of the author of the Saʿādat-nāmah; moreover, the latter poem contains no trace of Ismāʿīlī doctrines. Nothing else is known of this Sharīf, except that he must have lived before the middle of the 9th/15th century, the date of the earliest manuscripts. A striking feature of the poem is the vehemence with which the author denounces the ‘great ones’ and his insistence that, after the prophets and saints, the best of mankind are the peasants, and then the artisans.

The modern Persian scholar M.T. Bahār identified the author of the Saʿādat-nāma as one Nāṣir al-dīn b. Khusrau Iṣfahānī, who supposedly died in 735/1334–5, referring in a foot-note to the entry on the Saʿādat-nāmah in the Kashf al-ẓunūn of Ḥājjī Khalīfah. This is an error on the part of Bahār. In Flügel’s edition of the Kashf al-ẓunūn the Saʿādat-nāmah is described as the work of ‘Nāṣir Khusrau al-Iṣfahānī who died in the year 431’ and the same date, 431, is given for Nāṣir’s death also in the entry on the Safar-nāmah. It emerges from the critical edition by Yaltkaya and Bilge that the date was left blank in both entries in the author’s rough draft, but that at least in the former entry the date ‘431’ is indicated in the Ismail Paşa manuscript, presumably reflecting the author’s fair copy. In fact this is the (erroneous) date given already by Daulat-shāh for the death of Nāṣir i Khusrau, just as it is Daulat-shāh who (again wrongly) made Nāṣir a native of Isfahan. It is thus clear that Ḥājjī Khalīfah has merely repeated the erroneous data that he found in Daulat-shāh and did possess any independent information about some different ‘Nāṣir b. Khusrau Iṣfahānī’. In the edition of the Kashf al-ẓunūn published in Bulaq in 1277/1861 the date ‘431’ occurs (in figures and words) in the entry on the Safar-nāmah68 but is misprinted as ‘731’ in the entry on the Saʿādat-namah69 (again first in figures, and then spelt out in words). It is not clear whether Bahār’s ‘735’ is again a misprint in the (unidentified) oriental edition of the Kashf al-ẓunūn consulted by him, or whether it is simply a mistake of his own. In any case, this date has no authority and it does not justify assigning the Saʿādat-nāmah to ‘Nāṣir b. Khusrau Iṣfahānī’; this person is fictitious.

Mss.: Dublin Beatty 139 (Dated 23 Shaʿbān 869/1465); London Or. 12969 fol. 26a–40a (Meredith-Owens p. 76. 15th century? Inspexi);70 Paris Supplément 1398 fol. 20v sqq. (Blochet 1970. Dated 861/1456–7); Supplément 781A fol. 255v sqq. (Blochet 1972. Dated Rabīʿ i 892/1487); Leningrad Acad. A 904 fol. 51b–64b (Index 2248); Istanbul Üniversite fy 593/8 fol. 227a–231b (Ateş 19. Dated 890/1485); Üniversite fy 1037 (=Halis Ef. 1962. Ateş 20. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 973/1566); Tehran Majlis 4940 (Munz. 30982. Dated 872/1567–8). Cf. Munz. iv 30982–4.

Editions: E. Fagnan, ‘Le Livre de la Félicité … par Nâçir ed-Dîn ben Khosroû’, zdmg 34, 1880, pp. 643–74 (with a French translation; see also the emendations by F. Teufel in zdmg 36, 1882, pp. 106–114). Also printed in the appendix to the edition of Nāṣir’s Safar-nāmah published in Berlin, Kaviani Press, 1341/1922–3, and in N. Taqawī’s edition of Nāṣir’s dīwān, Tehran 1307 Sh./1928, pp. 545–61, and reprints (see above, p. 114).

Translations: (French prose): See editions.

(English prose): G.M. Wickens, ‘The Saʿādatnāmeh attributed to Nāṣir-i Khusrau’, The Islamic quarterly 2, 1955, pp. 117–32, 206–21.

Ḥājjī Khalīfah iii p. 598 (new edition ii col. 990); Bahār, Sabk iii p. 188; ei2 s.v. ‘Sharīf’.

Rōshanāʾī-nāmah is a didactic poem of about 550 verses in hazaj metre (inc.: ba nām i kirdigār i pāk dāwar * kih hast az wahm u ʿaql u fikr bartar, with variants) and is preceded in the Gotha manuscript (followed by Ethé’s edition) by 34 verses in the same metre, with the heading ‘iftitāḥ i Rōshanāʾī-nāmah’, beginning ba nām i ān-kih dārā i jahān ast * khudāwand i tan u ʿaql u ruwān ast. But it is not clear whether this actually has anything to do with the poem. The Rōshanāʾī-nāmah contains three verses (218, 231, 508 of Ethé’s edition) where the author refers to himself as ‘Ḥujjat’, and in the first of these he is also seen to state that he resides in Yumgān. It is thus, at least in its published form, ostensibly the work of our poet. Moreover, the name ‘Nāṣir i Khusrau’ occurs in the Leiden manuscript in the line following Ethé’s verse 566. Nowhere does the work refer explicitely to Ismāʿīlī, or even general Shiite, doctrines, though the discussion of the exoteric and esoteric meanings of the Qur’ān (v. 430–1) might suggest an Ismāʿīlī connection. Towards the end of the poem (555–8) the author states that he completed the work in the year so-and-so, on the first of Shawwāl, when the sun was in Pisces and the moon in Aries and there was a conjunction of ‘the stars’ in Libra. The year given in the manuscripts varies from as early as 323 to as late as 463,71 with an array of intermediate dates. But in none of the years mentioned in the manuscripts did 1 Shawwāl fall in late February or early March (i.e. when the sun is in Pisces); moreover, at none of the various times in Nāṣir’s lifetime when 1 Shawwāl did fall in February/March was there any conjunction in Libra.

Ethé, ignoring the statement about the conjunction, emended the line mentioning the year to read ‘440’, when 1 Shawwāl corresponded roughly to 9 March 1049. However, since Nāṣir was in Cairo at that time, Ethé was forced to assume that the author revised the poem later in Yumgān, without changing the original date. Taqī-zādah, to whom we owe an extensive investigation of the question,72 suggested that the verse mentioning the position of the sun and moon might be a spurious addition and proposed that the date mentioned in the original text might have been 1 Shawwāl 460, corresponding to 3 August 1068, on which date Jupiter and Saturn were (according to Taqī-zādah’s calculation) both in Libra, although not actually in conjunction. But as these two planets had been in conjunction the previous September in the last segment of Virgo (i.e. just before Libra) contemporary observers might have regarded their close proximity in August 1068 as amounting to a repeated conjunction.

More recently Mīnuwī73 proposed that the Rōshanāʾī-nāmah is not by Nāṣir i Khusrau at all, but by a later poet who used the same takhalluṣ (Ḥujjat) and also happened to live in Yumgān and that the correct date of the poem is 1 Shawwāl 643, i.e. roughly 19 February 1246 (643 instead of the 343 attested in a number of manuscripts, sī-ṣad being a misreading of shash-ṣad). At this time the sun and the moon were indeed in Pisces and Aries respectively; moreover, in that year there was a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in Libra, admittedly not in February, but in September. But already in February the two planets were very close to each other, in Libra, and thus could reasonably be considered to be in conjunction.74 This seems to me to be a very strong argument for putting the composition of the poem in 643/1246; in this case it naturally has nothing to do with Nāṣir.75 On the other hand, Minuwī’s suggestion that there were two ‘Ḥujjats’ in the same obscure Yumgān is a most improbable one. It would certainly seem more likely that the three verses alluding to ‘Ḥujjat’ or to ‘Yumgān’ were interpolated by someone who wanted to pass the poem off as a work of Nāṣir’s. Indeed, v. 218, which says that Ḥujjat resided in Yumgān ‘like a king’ (pādshah-wār) is sufficiently reminiscent of the legends about ‘Shāh Saiyid Nāṣir’ to make it seem most likely that it is an interpolation. The same interpolator might then have altered the original date to something that he thought fell in Nāṣir’s lifetime; uncertainty about when the presumed author actually lived would account for the wild discrepancy between the dates given.76

Mss.: London i.o. 904 (Dated 1061/1651); i.o. 1761/5 (With unusual orthography, the kasrah i iḍāfah being ‘almost always’ indicated by yāʾ); i.o. 4057; Paris Supplément 1777 fol. 158r sqq. in marg. (Blochet 1645. Ms. dated 852/1448); Supplément 1398 fol. lv sqq. (Blochet 1970. Dated 861/1456–7); Supplément 1417 fol. 41v sqq. (Blochet 1662. Dated 15 Ramaḍān 879/1475); Supplément 781A fol. 249v sqq. (Blochet 1972. Dated Rabīʿ i 892/1487); Leyden 968 (2) (Cat. dcxxx. Dated 855/1451); Gotha 6/6 (gives the date of composition as 420); Leningrad Acad. C1102/4 (Cat. viii 1; Index 2054. Dated 710/1310–1; the oldest recorded copy); Univ. 1113 (Romaskewicz p. 9. Dated 1318/1900–1); Acad. A1414/3 (Cat. viii 2; Index 2052. Dated 1338/1919–20); Acad. B1809/4 (Cat. viii 3; Index 2053); Konya Mevlânâ ii 318/vi (Ms. dated 885/1480–1); Istanbul Şehid Ali Paşa 2703/9 fol. 166b–178a (Cf. H. Ritter in Der Islam xxv, 1939, p. 82 and Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 515. Dated 11 Rajab 732/1332); ‘Lala Ismail’ [=Lâlali?] 487/9 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 500. Dated 741/1340–1); Nuruosmaniye 4198/4 fol. 330b–338b (Ateş 15. Dated 27 Rajab 825/1422); Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 1097/3 (Cat. ii p. 300. Ms. dated Shaʿbān 840/1437); ‘Millat Efendi Ali Emiri’ 1017/8 (according to Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 487. Dated 855/1451); Nuruosmaniye 4964/37 fol. 195b–205a in marg. (Ateş 16. 15th century?); Üniversite fy 593/9 fol. 231b–228b [sic Ateş; for 238b?] (Ateş 17. Dated 890/1485); Topkapı, Hazine 299 (Karatay 387); Kayseri Reşid Efendi 607 fol. lb–13b (Karabulut 465); Tehran Malik 4925/3 (Munz. 30158. Dated 842/1438–9); Majlis 8421/1 (Munz. 30161. Dated 868/1463–4); Majlis viii p. 213 no. 2344/277 (Dated 15 Shaʿbān 883/1478. Beginning missing); Majlis 5299 (Munz. 30164. 15th century?); Malik 5124 (Munz. 30165. 15th century? Incomplete); Univ. xi 3142/4 (Dated 10 Jumādā ii 950/1543. Date of poem given as 343); Univ. xiv 4736/9 (17th century?); Malik 5076/5 (Munz. 30168. 17th century?); Majlis 4869 (Munz. 30169. 17th century?); Univ. xii 3533/3 (Dated 1228/1813); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 490 (Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1274/1858); Dushanbe Acad. ii 328 (Dated Ṣafar 1289/1872); Acad. ii 329; Bombay Rehatsek p. 128 (Dated 25 Shaʿbān 926/1520); Bankipore Suppt. i 1981 (18th century? Date of composition given as 323 as in the older i.o. copy). Cf. Munz. iv 30156–77.

Extracts: Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 4904/14 fol. 63b–68a (Ateş 18. Dated 940/1533–4); Köprülü 1597 fol. 166b–178a (see Taeschner in Islamica v, 1932, p. 320); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 488 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1261/1845).

Editions: (See also above, under dīwān). H. Ethé, ‘Nâsir Chusrau’s Rûśanâinâma … oder Buch der Erleuchtung …’ bzdmg 33, 1879, pp. 645–664, 34, 1880, pp. 428–464, 617–42 (critical edition with German verse translation); see also the corrections in F. Teufel, ‘Zu Nâṣir Chusrau’s Ruśanâinâma’, zdmg 36, 1882, pp. 96–106; Ethé’s text was reprinted in the Berlin 1341/1922 edition of Nāṣir’s Safar-Nāmah (separate pagination); Bombay ca. 1915; A.A. Semenov, Шугнанско-исмаилитская редация “Книги Света” … Насир-и-Хосрова », Записки Коллегии Востоковеднов v, 1930, pp. 589–610 (edition of a modern Ismāʿīlī manuscript which contains some interesting variants).

A poem78 entitled Āfāq u Anfus is attributed to Nāṣir in Kayseri Râşid Efendi 607/2 fol. 14b–17b (Karabulut 343).
A collection of ‘mathnawīyāt i Hakīm Nāṣir i Khusrau’, including also ghazals, by a poet who uses the takhalluṣ ‘Khusrau’ (evidently not our poet) is found in Cluj M.O. 21425 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 989).

Nāṣir does not appear to be mentioned as a poet79 before the 8th/14th century.80 Cf. Mustaufī p. 826; Jājarmī ii pp. 884–5; Ṣiḥāḥ (see index); Daulat-shāh pp. 61–4; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 607–33; Hidāyat, Riyāḍ pp. 232–43; A.V. Zhukovskiy, Песнь Насири Хосрова, zvorao 4, 1890, pp. 386–93 (with an edition of a tarjīʿ-band); W. Ivanow, Nāṣir-i Khusraw and Ismailism, Leiden/Bombay, 1948; id., Problems in N.i Kh. ’s biography, Bombay 1956 (a revised version of the preceding); Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā vii pp. 187–9; A.E. Bertel’s, Насир-и Хосров и исмаилизм, Moscow 1959; also in Persian as Nāṣir i Khusrau wa Ismāʿīliyān, Tehran 1346sh./1967–8; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 587–8 (with further references); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii6 pp. 443–69; M. Muḥaqqiq, ‘Justujūy i maḍāmīn wa taʿbīrāt i Nāṣir i Khusrau dar aḥādīth wa amthāl wa ashʿār i ʿarab’, mdat xi/1, 1340sh./1961, pp. 32–93; id., ‘ʿAlawī būdan i Nāṣir i Khusrau’, Yaghmā 14/153, 1340sh. /1961, pp. 35–41; id., Taḥlīl i ashʿār i Nāṣir i Khusrau (āyāt i qurʾānī, aḥādīth, lughāt, amthāl), Tehran 1344sh./1965; id., ‘Nāṣir-i Khusraw and his spiritual nisbah’, Yād-nāmah i Īrānī i Minorsky’, Tehran 1348sh./1969, pp. 143–8; id., ‘Taṣḥīḥ i dīwān i Nāṣir i Khusrau’, Nāmah i Mīnuwī, Tehran 1350sh./1971–2, pp. 405–22 (contains a critical edition of a number of poems); Fouchécour, Nature pp. 228–9; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 550–63; Yād-nāmah i Nāṣir i Khusrau, Mashhad (38 articles, including several contributions to the textual criticism and interpretation of the dīwān); Poonawala pp. 111–25 (with further references); ʿA. Dashtī, Taṣwīr-ī az Nāṣir i Khusrau, Iran 1362sh./1983.

§ 124. Nāṣir Lughawī81 (or Baghawī?) is known to us only from the rubāʿī in which he laments the deposal of the Ghaznavid Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd in 421/1030. It is quoted by Baihaqī, who says that its author was one of the boon-companions (nadīmān) of the dethroned king, as well as by ʿAufī.

Baihaqī pp. 74–5 (see also Nafīsī’s edition i p. 76 and Faiyāḍ’s new edition pp. 84–5 and the notes in the latter two); ʿAufī ii pp. 65–6; ln s.v. ‘Nāṣir i Lughawī’ p. 173, and supra, no. 122.

§ 125. A certain Abū l-Ḥasan82 Ōrmazdī is quoted a number of times in Asadī’s Lughat i furs. The juxtaposition of these improbable names would seem to suggest a Zoroastrian convert to Islam. Perhaps the same as Yazdānī (no. 153)?

lf passim; Shams p. 113; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 66 (one verse); Khaiyām-pūr p. 80.

§ 126. Pērōz (Fairūz) al-Mashriqī flourished, according to ʿAufī, under ʿAmr b. Laith (265/878–9 to 287/900). It is possible that he is identical with the ‘Pērōzī’ from whom Rādūyānī quotes one verse. Hidāyat gives the date of his death as 283/896.

Collection of fragments (9 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 19, 60, ii pp. 19–20.

lf (ed. Iqbāl) p. 87, (ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī) p. 157 (a new verse); Rādūyānī p. 25; ʿAufī ii p. 2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 381.

§ 127. Abū l-Qāsim Ziyād b. Muḥammad al-Qamarī83 al-Jurjānī heads ʿArūḍī’s list of the poets of the ‘kings of Ṭabaristān’ (in this case, presumably the Ziyarids), and ʿAufī quotes an ode by him dedicated to the Ziyarid Shams al-Maʿālī Qābūs b. Wushmgīr (367/978 to 402/1012), whose grandson, ʿUnṣur al-Maʿālī Kai Kāʾōs, mentions him in his Qābūs-nāmah. Qamarī is never quoted by Asadī, but Rādūyānī (followed by Waṭwāṭ) cites a good number of his verses to illustrate various rhetorical figures.

ʿUnşur al-Maʿālī, Qābūs-nāmah (ed. Yūsufī) p. 202; Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes p. 93); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ pp. 25, 38, 75; ʿAufī ii pp. 19–20; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 477–8; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Qāsim’ p. 759; Şafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 435–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 475; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15; M. Ishaque, ‘Qamari of Gurgan’, Indoiranica xxv/3–4, 1972, pp. 57–61; Idārah-chīp. 127.

§ 128. Qarīʿ al-dahr is quoted frequently in Asadī’s Lughat i furs, and once in Rādūyānī’s Tarjumān al-balāghah. There is a verse mocking ‘Qarīʿ’ by ʿAsjadī,84 which suggests that the two were contemporaries.

lf passim (and Horn, Einl. p. 27); Rādūyānī p. 79; Khaiyām-pūr p. 471.

§ 129. Qaṣṣār i Ummī85 is the author of a verse quoted by Asadī addressed to ‘Mīr Abū Aḥmad Muḥammad Khusrau i Ērān-zamīn’, the Ghaznavid, who ruled for a short time in 421/1030 and again in 432/1040–1. Two further verses of his are quoted by Rādūyānī.

lf s.v. kafā; Rādūyānī p. 42 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Khaiyām-pūr p. 472.

§ 130. al-Ḥakīm Sharaf al-zamān Qaṭrān al-ʿAḍudī al-Tabrīzī86 was born, as we learn from one of his own poems,87 in Shādī-ābād, just outside Tabrīz. He appears to have spent his whole life in the service of the minor dynasties of Ādharbāijān and Transcaucasia. His dīwān consists largely of odes to the Rawwādids of Tabrīz, Abū Manṣūr Wahsūdān (416/1025 to 451/1059) and his successor Abū Naṣr Mamlān, as well as the Shaddādids at Ganjah, ʿAlī Lashkarī b. Mūsā (425/1033–4 to 441/1049–50) and Faḍl (or Faḍlūn) b. Abī l-Aswār (459/1067 to 466/1073–4), but also to others, including Asadī’s patron Abū Dulaf. Nāṣir i Khusrau describes in his Safar-nāmah his meeting with Qaṭrān in Tabrīz in 438/1046. The most recent date that can be adduced from his poems is Friday 1 Dhū l-ḥijjah 462 (10 September 1070) on which day Mihragān coincided with a Friday and a new moon (ādīnah u mihragān u māh i nau * bādand khujastah har sih bar khusrau).88 Hidāyat says that he died in 465/1072–3, while Taqī89 makes it as late as 485/1092.

The introduction in manuscript ʿain of the Lughat i furs, ostensibly the work of Asadī himself, mentions an older Persian dictionary by ‘Qaṭrān i shāʿir’. Asadī thus obviously knew him not only as a lexicographer, but also as a poet. The fact that he never actually quotes any of Qaṭrān’s verses in his own dictionary merely underlines the fact that the purpose of the latter was to illustrate the rare words used by the Eastern Persian poets; the poems of a Western writer like Qaṭrān were thus for his purposes of no significance. Qaṭrān’s interest in lexicography is confirmed by Nāṣir i Khusrau when he tells us that he ‘came to me and brought the dīwān of Munjīk and the dīwān of Daqīqī and read them in my presence and asked me about every expression (maʿnā) which he found difficult. I told him its meaning and he wrote it down’. The point of the anecdote is clearly that the dīwāns of these poets contained Eastern Iranian (i.e. Sogdian etc.) words that were incomprehensible to a Western Persian like Qaṭrān, who consequently took advantage of the presence of an educated visitor from the East, Nāṣir, to ascertain their meaning. It was exactly the same gap in comprehension which induced another Easterner, Asadī, to compile, again for the benefit of the literati of North-Western Persia, his Lughat i furs. Nāṣir’s own comment on the incident, namely that Qaṭrān ‘writes good poetry, but does not know Persian well’, is of course fuelled by malice.90

A good-sized collection of Qaṭrān’s poems (ca. 1400 verses) is contained in a manuscript91 from a private collection in Tabrīz supposedly copied on 11 Rabīʿ i 529/1134—about half a century after the poet’s death—by ʿAlī b. Isḥāq al-Abīwardī al-Shāʿir, whom scholars have identified with the celebrated poet Anwarī. The name of the latter was, however, most probably Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Isḥāq.92 Unfortunately, the manuscript seems to have disapppeared from sight shortly after its discovery and there have been rumours in Iranian literary circles93 that it is in fact a modern forgery from the same factory which produced the notorious fake copies of the rubāʿīyāt of ‘Umar i Khaiyām and of the Qābūs-nāmah. As long as the manuscript is not available for study it is thus imprudent to draw any conclusions from the data contained in it.

Manuscripts of Qaṭrān’s dīwān include an exceptionally large number of spurious poems, among them several by Rōdakī.94 Mss.: London Or. 3246 fol. 263–86 (Rieu Suppt. no. 204 iii. Dated Ramaḍān 1248/1833. Attributed to Rōdakī, but contains a note by Bahman b. ʿAbd Allāh Mīrzā b. Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh stating that, with the exception of the two poems beginning mādar i mai and yād i jōy i Mūliyān, these poems are in fact the work of Qaṭrān); Or. 2847 fol. 94–130 (Rieu Suppt. no. 245 Dated 26 Rajab 1279/1863. Selections); Or. 7894 (Meredith-Owens p 54. Dated 1295/1878. ‘Attributed in a note at the end to Rūdakī’); Or. 3317 (Rieu Suppt. no. 207. 19th century? The endorsement ‘Dīwān i Ḥakīm Rōdakī’ is corrected in a note); Or. 2879 (Rieu Suppt. no. 208. 19th century?); r.a.s. Storey bequest no. 3, fol. 1b–94a (Uncatalogued; inspexi); i.o. 3688; i.o. 4599 fol. 118–126a (selections); Cambridge Browne Coll. v.3 (Dated 7 Jumādā i 1261/1845. Formerly in the possession of Riḍā-Qulī Khān Hidāyat and apparently used by him in the compilation of his Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥāʾ); Paris Supplément 1502 (Blochet 1204. Dated Ṣafar 1257/1841); Supplément 1529 (Blochet 1205. Dated 22 Ṣafar 1294/1877. Attributed to Rōdakī); Tehran Univ. xii 3944/2 (17th century? ‘With poems by Rōdakī’); Majlis viii 2477 (Dated 1206/1791–2); Majlis 4099/1 (Munz. 25357. Dated Muḥarram 1207/1792); Millī 203/2 (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 202. Dated 1245/1829–30. With poems by Rōdakī); Sipah-sālār iv p. 522 (Dated 1250/1834–5) [Munz.]; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 377 (Dated 28 Ṣafar 1258/1842); Millī iii 1402 (Dated 1256/1840); Millī v 2297/1 (Attributed to Rōdakī); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 378; Isfahan (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 596); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 519 (Dated 1267/1850–1); Riḍawī vii 521 (Dated 19 Rajab 1277/1861. With poems by Rōdakī); Riḍawī vii 520 (Dated 3 Rabīʿ i 1283/1866. With poems by Rōdakī); Peshawar Islamīyah 1823(5) (Dated 1134/1721–2); Hyderabad Salār Jung iv 1119 (17th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 430 (Dated 1018/1609–10. Contains two collections of poems; the one in the centre of the page corresponds, according to Ivanow, to London Or. 3317, that in the margins to Or. 2879. Attributed at the beginning to Rōdakī but in the colophon to Qaṭrān); Private collections ʿAbd al-Ḥusain Bayāt (Nuskhah-hā vi 68. Dated 1007/1598–9); Nakhjawānī’s edition mentions 8 Mss., all in private collections, including the supposedly 12th-century Ms. described above. Cf. Munz. iii 25352–82.

Poems in anthologies: Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 68a, 194a, 209a, 245b (Ethé 1333 = Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār. Includes a tasmīṭ and a tarjīʿ); Cambridge Browne Coll. V.65 no. 35 (Anthology dated 27 Ramaḍan 827/1424); Berlin Sprenger 1378 fol. 364b sq. (Pertsch 681. Dated 28 Rabīʿ ii 1270/1854. Apparently copied from the Calcutta Ms.); Tehran Majlis viii 2326 pp. 247–9 (17th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 927 fol. 2v sq. (Modern).

Editions: Tabriz 1332sh./1954 (Ed. M. Nakhjawānī, with introductions by S.Ḥ. Taqī-zādah and the editor. Important review by H. Ritter, Oriens ix, 1956, pp. 367–8); reprint 1362sh./1983.

Nāṣir i Khusrau, Safar-nāmah (ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī, Tehran 1354sh./1976) p. 9; lf (ed. Iqbāl) p. 1; Waṭwāṭ pp. 7, 8, 9; ʿAufī ii pp. 214–21; Jājarmī pp. 137–42; Daulat-shāh pp. 67–9; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 466–76; S.A. Kasrawī, Pād-shāhān i gum-nām, Tehran, 1307–9sh./1928–30, vols. iiiii passim (see the indexes. Fundamental); id., ‘Qaṭrān, shāʿir i Ādharbāijān’, Armaghān xii, 1310sh./1931, pp. 45–51, 101–6, 177–84, 297–301, 383–91, 457–61, 534–8 (also in Maqalāt i Kasrawī i, Tehran 1327sh./1948 pp. 123–55); V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian history (=Cambridge Oriental Series No. 6), London 1953, passim; Ṣafā ii6 pp. 421–30; Khaiyām-pūr p. 437; Y. Dhukāʾ, ‘Qaṭrān wa nukhustīn mamdūḥ i ū’, Sukhan xiv, 1343sh./1964, pp. 763–8; Fouchécour, Nature pp. 183–226; Shafiʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 540–9; S.A.H. ʿĀbidī, ‘Sih qaṣīdah i nā-shinākhtah az Qaṭrān i Tabrīzī’, Āyandah vi/7–8, 1359sh./1980, pp. 507–16; ei2 s.v. ‘Ḳaṭrān’ (I. Dehghan).

§ 131. The poetess Rābiʿah bint Kaʿ b al-Quzdārī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the Ghaznavid poets where we find several of her poems, including an early example of a mulammaʿ (a poem with alternating Persian and Arabic verses). Her passion for bilingual contrivances is attested also by the poem attributed to her by Jājarmī,95 a Persian poem incorporating the Arabic words which make up the shahādah and the laḥwalah. Further specimens of her poetry are quoted by Rādūyānī (who calls her ‘Ibnat Kaʿb’) and by Shams. The romantic account of her in ʿAṭṭār’s Ilāhī-nāmah (for which see Ateş and Meier) has evidently no value as a biographical source.

Rādūyānī p. 81 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿAufî ii pp. 61–2; Shams p. 121; Jājarmī i p. lām-kāf; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 222; M. Ishaque, Four eminent poetesses of Iran, Calcutta 1950, pp. 1–8 (with text and translation of most of the fragments); Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 449–51; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 218–9; Lazard, Poètes Ip. 15 n. 2; Meier, Mahsati pp. 27–44; H. Massé, “The poetess Rābiʿa Qozdāri”, Yádnáme-ye Jan Rypka, Prague 1967, pp. 103–6.

§ 132. Rāfiʿī Nishābūrī figures in ʿArūḍī’s list of the poets of the ‘kings of Ṭabaristān’, which, at least in this context, evidently means not the Ziyārids, but the Bāwandids. This is clear from the appendix (dhail) to Ibn Isfandyār’s Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, when it quotes verses of his praising the Bāwandid Shahryār b. Qārīn (ruled from before 498/1108 to ca. 508/1114–5). The old anthology published by Yaghmāʾī has a poem by Rāfiʿī praising Niẓām al-mulk (died 485/1092). Jājarmī attributes to a poet of the same name an ode the dedicatee of which is indicated with the words khilaṭ u tashrīf i mīr al-muʾminīn ibn al-Jahīr, evidently the well-known wazīr of the caliphs al-Qāʾim and al-Muqtadī and ally of Malik-Shāh, Fakhr al-daulah Abū Naṣr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Jahīr (wazīr from 454/1062 to 471/1078; died 483/1090).96 Hidāyat quotes a shorter version of this poem, and a good number of others, claims that their author lived at the time of Maḥmūd and ʿUnṣurī and names the former and his minister Ḥasan Maimandī as the dedicatees of two of the poems cited. But Nafīsī has shown that this is wrong and that Hidāyat simply misunderstood the names occurring in the poems. For his part, Nafīsī committed the blunder of stating that Ibn Jahīr lived in the 6th/12th century and that consequently there must have been two poets by the name of Rāfiʿī Nishābūrī, one (ʿArūḍī’s) in the 4th/10th century (under the Ziyārids), and another in the 6th/12th. In fact Ibn Jahīr lived, as mentioned, in the 5th/11th century. It is thus clear that we have only one Rāfiʿī Naisābūrī and that he flourished in the last quarter of the 11th century and the first quarter of the 12th.

Shams quotes two verses by Rāfiʿī, one of which he states to be an imitation of a verse by Muʿizzī, but it is by no means certain that it was not in fact the other way round.

lf (ed. Iqbāl, pp. 165, 333: two verses from the marginal additions to Ms. nūs); ʿArūḍī P. 28; Shams pp. 278, 437; Jājarmī ii pp. 485–7; Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān (ed. Iqbāl, dhail p. 174; see also Browne’s epitome p. 256); Yaghmāʾī pp. 101–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 220–1; S. Nafīsī, Ahwāl … Rūdakī iii pp. 1302–3; Khaiyām-pūr p. 222; ln s.vv. ‘Rāfiʿī i Nishābūrī’ and ‘… Nīshābūrī’ (two entries) p. 98; Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā iii p. 99.

§ 133. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-maʿrūf bi Rōdah(?)97 al-Balkhī is cited by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of the Ghaznavids, where we find five single verses (fard), a type of poetry in which, according to ʿAufī, he specialised.

ʿAufī IIp. 46–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 242.

§ 134. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. Ḥakīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ādam al-Rūdhakī (Persian: Rōdakī98) al-Shāʿir al-Samarqandī,99 the most celebrated Persian poet prior to Firdausī, was born in the village of Rōdak, outside Samarqand, and made his name as the eulogist of the Samanid ruler of Bukhārā, Abū l-Ḥasan Naṣr (ii) b. Aḥmad (reg. 301/914 to 331/943). Early poets such as Daqīqī, Firdausī, Abū Zurāʿah and Nāṣir i Khusrau allude more or less explicitly to his blindness and ʿAufī indeed says he was born blind, but this has been doubted by some modern scholars, who have referred to the vivid descriptions of nature in a number of his verses. According to Asadī100 Rōdakī’s dīwān consisted of more than 180 000 verses (an even larger number is claimed by later authors). Of this prodigious output little has survived. We have one long ode (the splendid poem beginning mādar i mai) dedicated to Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf, who was governor of Sīstān on behalf of the Samanids from 310/922–3 to 352/963, a handful of shorter poems and a considerable number of fragments, mostly single verses, quoted by Asadī, Rādūyānī and others. Apart from his lyrical pieces Rōdakī evidently wrote several mathnawīs, the most celebrated of which was his versification of Kalīlah wa Dimnah.101 According to the ‘older preface’ to the Shāh-nāmah,102 Naṣr b. Aḥmad ordered his minister Balʿamī to have the book of Kalīlah wa Dimnah translated from Arabic to Persian, and then commanded Rōdakī to turn it into verse. The same story is found in Firdausī’s Shāh-nāmah103 with the characteristic added detail that the amīr appointed ‘interpreters’ (guzārandah) to ‘read’ the book to Rōdakī (who was, of course, blind). A number of fragments in ramal metre, quoted in Asadī’s Lughat i furs, were identified by Horn104 as belonging to that well-known collection of stories. The present author, who is preparing a new edition of the fragments of Rōdakī’s narrative poems, has so far been able to identify the location in the story of about 50 verses.105 Moreover, Nöldeke observed already106 that the fragments in ramal also contain verses that clearly belong to the story of Sindbād and the Seven Ministers, and, after the publication of Ẓahīrī’s prose version of the Sindbād-nāmah, Dabīr-Siyāqī was able to place a few further verses in that story. This presents us with a slight chronological problem. Samʿānī states that Rōdakī died in his native village in 329/940–1. But Ẓahīrī107 states that his source, the Persian prose translation of the Sindbād-nāmah by Khwājah ʿAmīd Abū l-Fawāris Fanārūzī (or Qa-) was written in the year 339/950–1 for ‘Abū Muḥammad Nūḥ b. Manṣūr al-Sāmānī’, evidently an error for Abū Muḥammad Nūḥ (ii) b. Naṣr (regn. 331/943 to 343/954),108 and that before that time ‘no-one had translated it’ (i.e. into Neo-Persian. Arabic versions had, of course, existed earlier, e.g. that by Abān al-Lāḥiqī). It is, however, possible that Rōdakī did not ‘translate’ the whole of the Sindbād-nāmah, but rendered only a few of the stories.

Rōdakī, who enjoyed a tremendous reputation for about two centuries after his death, fell out of favour with the adepts of the highly mannered style of the Mongol period. It is most instructive to compare ʿArūḍī’s exuberant praise of Rōdakī’s verses on the Jōy i Mūliyān with Daulat-shāh’s dismissal of the same verses. Only in the 19th century did the simple and direct style of the ancient Khurāsānī poets come back into favour with Persian literati, by which time the overwhelming mass of Rōdakī’s authentic verses had disappeared. But the memory of his name had not vanished, as can be seen from the fact that in the intervening years that name had been used in connection with one of the notorious literary frauds with which the history of Persian literature is so richly littered, namely the manufacture of a Pseudo-’Dīwān i Rōdakī’. As scholars like Ḥasan b. Luṭf Allāh al-Rāzī, in the 17th century, and Riḍā-Qūlī Khān Hidāyat, in the 19th, quite clearly noted, this Pseudo-Dīwān consists in fact of poems by Qaṭrān supplemented by a handful of the well-known poems of Rōdakī’s quoted in the tadhkirahs.109 Unfortunately, some Western scholars have fallen victim to this mystification.110

For manuscripts of the (Pseudo-)Dīwān see Qaṭrān.

Edition of the Pseudo-Dīwān: Persia (n.p.) 1315/1897.

Collections of fragments: The basic work on this poet remains S. Nafīsī, Aḥwāl wa ashʿār i Rūdakī, 3 volumes, Tehran 1309sh./1930 to 1319sh./1940, with an edition of the fragments in the last volume. A revised edition of this book, with additional fragments (altogether 1047 verses, but many of them manifestly spurious), but unfortunately without any critical apparatus, was published under the title Muḥīt i zindagī wa aḥwāl wa ashʿār i Rūdakī, Tehran 1336sh./1958; reprinted 1341sh./1962. Other collections: Osori Rûdakī, ed. A. Mirzoyev, Stalinabad 1958; Рудаки. Стихи. ed. I.S. Braginskiy with Russian verse translations by V.V. Levik and S.I. Lipkin, Moscow 1964; Абу Абдулло Рудаки: Стихи. Научный текст, перевод и комментарии, by I.M. Braginskaya, Dushanbe 1987 (non vidi. Cf. the review by J. Bečka, Archív Orientální 58, 1990, pp. 86–7).

Translations: (Russian): besides those listed in the previous paragraph see: Рудаки. Tr. V.V. Derzhavin and V.V. Levik, Stalinabad 1949; reprint 1955; Избранное. Tr. V. Levik and S. Lipkin, Moscow 1957; reprint 1958, 1978.

Baihaqī pp. 61, 188, 239, 366, 599; Tārīkh i Sīstān pp. 316–24; lf passim (he is the most frequently quoted poet; there are several hitherto unattested verses in the newly published Punjab manuscript); Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes, pp. 90–2); Samʿānī fol. 262a–b; ʿArūḍī pp. 28, 31–4; Waṭwāṭ pp. 4, 14, 83; ʿAufī ii pp. 6–9; Shams passim; Mustaufī p. 732; Jājarmī ii pp. 453–4; Daulatshāh pp. 31–3; Rāzī iii pp. 335–43; H. Ethé, ‘Rûdagî, der Sâmânidendichter’, Nachrichten … Göttingen, 1873, pp. 663–742 (still valuable as a guide to the late tadhkirahs); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 236–40; E.D. Ross, ‘Rudaki and Pseudo-Rudaki’, jras 1924 pp. 609–44; id., ‘A Qasida by Rudaki’, jras 1926, pp. 213–37 (contains a critical edition of the ode mādar i mai … by M. Qazwīnī and a translation by Ross); id., ‘Rūdakī’s “Kalīla wa-Dimna”’ in his ‘Forward’ to Tawny/Penzer, The Ocean of Story, v, London 1926 pp. xiii–xx (discusses a few of the fragments already identified by Horn); U. Melzer, ‘Über einige Verse Rudakis’, zdmg 91, 1937, pp. 404–6 (emendations to Qazwīnī/Ross); M. Dabīr-Siyāqī, ‘Rūdakī wa Sindbād-nāmah’, Yaghmā viii, 1334sh./1955, pp. 218–23, 320–4, 413–6 (the article locates 10 verses of Rōdakī’s in the story of Sindbād and 32 in Kalīlah and Dimnah); M.I. Zand, Sohibqironi shoirī—ustod Rǔdakī, Stalinabad 1957; A. Mirzoyef, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Rōdakī, Stalinabad 1958 (published simultaneously in Tajik and Arabic character versions); id., Abū ʿAbd Allāh Rōdakī wa inkishāf i ghazal dar ʿaṣr-hā i 10–15’, Stalinabad 1957; id., Рудаки и розвитие газели в X–XV вв., Stalinabad 1958 (translation of the preceding); id., Рудаки: жизнь и творчество , Moscow 1968; id., ‘One more spurious manuscript of Rudaki’s verses’, Iran Society Silver Jubilee souvenir, Calcutta 1970, pp. 247–57; Rǔdakī wa Zamoni ǔ. (Majmuʿai maqolaho), ed. A. Mirzoyev, Stalinabad 1958; M. Muʿin, ‘Yak qaṣīdah i Rūdakī’ (i.e. bōy i jōy i Mūliyān), mdat vi/3–4, 1338sh./1959, pp. 71–92; id., ‘Qaṣīdah i Rūdakī wa istiqbāl i gūyandagān’, Āmūzish wa parwarish xiv, 1323sh./1945, pp. 577–90; S. Nafisī, ‘Chand nuktah i tāzah dar bārah i Rūdakī’, mdat vi/3–4, 1338sh./1959, pp. 21–39; B. Furūzānfur, ‘Shiʿr wa shāʿrī i Rūdakī’, mdat vi/3–4, 1338sh./1959, pp. 93–116; ʿA. Ḥuqūqī, ‘Lughāt wa tarkībāt i Rūdakī’, mdat vi/3–4, 1338sh./1959, pp. 117–170; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 371–89; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 241–2 (with further references); Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar 413–42; A. Tohirjonov (Tagirdzhanov), ‘Baʾze masʾlahoi tarjimai holi Rǔdakī’, Sharqi surkh, 1966/1, pp. 126–30; Z.N. Vorozheykina, Еще несколько бейтов прописываемых Рудаки, Памятрики письменности Востока , 1972 pp. 5–8; M. Ishaque, ‘Rudaki, the father of Neo-Persian poetry’, Iran Society Silver Jubilee souvenir, Calcutta 1970, pp. 143–60 (contains translations of a number of his poems); Ḥ. Zarrīn-kūb, ‘ʿAnāṣir i badīʿī dar shiʿr i Rūdakī’, mdam xii, 1355sh./1976, pp. 105–16; J.M. Khumak, ‘Charkh i kajah-bāz dar shiʿr i Rūdakī’, Nāmwārah i Duktur Maḥmūd i Afshār iv, Tehran 1367sh./1989, pp. 2325–9; M.R. Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, ‘Rūdakī wa rubāʿī’, ibid. pp. 2330–42; M. Dabīr-Siyāqī, ‘Dāstān-hā i Bīdpāy wa abyāt i bāzmāndah az manẓūm-hā i baḥr i ramal i Rūdakī’, Qāfilah-sālār i sukhan (Khānlarī memorial volume), [Tehran] 1370sh./1991–2, pp. 99–114; ʿA.A. Ṣādiqī, ‘Ashʿār i tāzah i Rūdakī’, Nashr i dānish ix/4, 1373sh./1993; Bosworth, Saffarids pp. 289–91; ei2 s.v. ‘Rūdakī’ (with further discussion).

Bibliographies: R.O. Tal’man and A. Yunusov, Рудаки (Указатель литерту ры) (title also in Tajik), Dushanbe 1965; J. Bečka, ‘New papers on Rūdakī by Tadzhik and other Soviet scholars’, Archív Orientální 28, 1960, pp. 494–501.

§ 135. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Rōzbih b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nukatī al-Lahaurī appears, if the nisbah is correct, to be the earliest Persian poet born in India. ʿAufī quotes an ode of his praising ‘Sulṭān Masʿūd i shahīd’, i.e. Masʿūd i (421/1030 to 432/1040) and a qiṭʿah addressed to one Shāhanshāh b. Shāh i Nēshābūr b. Ibrāhīm. One verse by ‘rwznh nkny’ is quoted in the Vatican manuscript of lf s.v. shāshah.

lf (ed. Horn) p. 49 (ed. Iqbāl quotes the verse, from Horn, on p. 79 and 219 and ‘emends’ the name to Rōdakī); ʿAufī ii pp. 57–8; Ibn al-Mujāwir (see below, p. 143 fn.); ln s.v. ‘Nukatī’; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 600–1; Khaiyām-pūr p. 242 (‘Rōzbih’) and 614 (‘Nukatī’); I. Husain, The early Persian poets of India (A.H. 421–679), Patna 1980, pp. 6–10.

§ 136. Ṣaffār Marghazī is known to us only from the few verses quoted by Asadī.

lf (see the indexes to the three editions); ln s.v. ‘Ṣaffār’ p. 222 Khaiyām-pūr p. 337; Idārah-chī p. 38.

§ 137. Ṣāniʿ (reading uncertain) al-Balkhī is the author of a rubāʿī quoted in the Tārīkh i Sīstān (p. 324) which mentions ‘mīr i shahīd’, i.e. the title given posthumously to the Saffarid ruler Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf (died 352/963).

Collection of fragments (1 rubāʿī), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 31, 134, ii p. 139; see also Idārah-chī p. 82; Bosworth, Saffarids p. 288.

§ 138. Abū l-Ḥasan Shahīd (or perhaps better: Shuhaid) b. al-Ḥusain al-Balkhī al-Warrāq al-Mutakallim was a philosopher and a poet in Persian and Arabic who died (according to Yāqūt, followed by al-Ṣafadī) in 315/927. He was a contemporary and close friend of the polymath Abū Zaid al-Balkhī and of the muʿtazilī theologian Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī (the three Balkhīs were the subject of a joint biography, used by Yāqūt) and a bitter rival of the famous philosopher Abū Bakr al-Rāzī. The latter wrote a polemic against Shahīd on the subject of pleasure (al-ladhdhah) and another on eschatology (al-maʿād), both now lost. The epitome of al-Sijistānī’s Ṣiwān al-ḥikmah contains a short extract from a work by Shahīd on the ‘superiority of the pleasures of the soul over those of the body’, perhaps the object of al-Rāzī’s attack.

Shahīd was a professional scribe and had a reputation as a meticulous copyist. His Arabic poetry, which is quoted by as a Marghīnānī, Yāqūt and ʿAufī, includes two qiṭʿahs mocking Aḥmad b. Abī Rabīʿah, who was the wazīr of the Ṣaffārid ʿAmr b. al-Laith between 278/891 and 287/900. Yāqūt tells us that he also satirised Aḥmad b. Sahl, the famous governor of Khurāsān, and had to flee his anger, but returned to Balkh after Aḥmad’s execution (i.e. in 307/920).

But Shahīd is mainly remembered as a Persian poet. His famous contemporary Rōdakī wrote a elegy on his death, and he is mentioned with respect by other Persian poets of the 4th/10th to 6th/12th centuries, but afterwards his poems fell into oblivion, apart from the verses preserved by the anthologists and lexicographers. These include an amatory poem of eight lines quoted by Jājarmī, a extract from a qaṣīdah which ʿAufī says he dedicated to the Samanid Naṣr ii (301/914 to 331/43), a poem with alternating Persian and Arabic verses and some couplets from a narrative poem, apparently of romantic content. Not surprisingly, several of the stray verses cited in the dictionaries have a philosophic or gnomic flavour.

Collection of fragments (106 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 20–1, 62–9, ii pp. 23–39.

al-Nadīm pp. 299, 301 (=ed. Tajaddud pp. 357–8); Abū Sulaimān al-Sijistānī, Muntakhab ṣiwān al-ḥikmah, ed. D.M. Dunlop, The Hague (etc.) 1979, p. 127; Bairūnī, Risālahfī fihrist kutub Muḥammad b. Zakarīyāʾ al-Rāzī, ed. P. Kraus, Paris 1936, p. 11, 18; Thaʿālibī, Yatīmah, iv p. 21 (where ‘Sahl b. al-Ḥasan’ is an error for ‘Shahīd b. al-Husain’); id., Laṭāʾif al-maʿārif, ed. al-Abyārī/al-Ṣairafī, Cairo 1960, p. 203; Marghīnānī, al-Maḥāsin fī l-naẓm wa l-nathr, ed. G.J. van Gelder, Istanbul 1987, p. 77; Yāqūt, Irshād i pp. 143, 149 (and the edition by Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Beirut 1993, pp. 275, 279–80, 1421–2, the last passage containing the entry on Shahīd from a hitherto unpublished mukhtaṣar); id., Buldān ii pp. 167–8 (read, twice, Abū ⟨l-Ḥasan⟩ Shuhaid); ʿAufī ii pp. 3–5; id., Jawāmiʿ iii pp. 341–2; Shams p. 204; al-Risālah al-mulḥaqah, London Or. 9033, fol. 141b;111 Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi l-wafayāt xvi pp. 197–8 (no. 229); Jājarmī ii pp. 952–3; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 303–4; Qazwīnī’s notes to ʿArūḍī pp. 127–8 (and those by Muʿīn in his edition, taʿlīqāt, pp. 80–2); P. Kraus in his edition of al-Rāzī’s Rasāʾil falsafīyah, Cairo 1939, pp. 145–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 313; and (with various new suggestions) my articles ‘Shuhayd al-Balkhī, a poet and philosopher of the time of Rāzī’, bsoas 1996, pp. 333–7, and ‘Shahīd al-Balkhī’ in ei2.

§ 139. Two verses are attributed to one Shāh-Sār (or -Shār?) in Asadī’s lf.

§ 140. Shākir and § 141. Jullāb: A marginal addition in manuscript nūn of Asadī’s Lughat i furs112 s.v. ‘Jullāb’ explains that this is the name of a poet at Bukhārā and attests this with a verse by Khusrawānī bemoaning the death of Abū l-Mathal113 and ‘Shākir i Jullāb’. If the text is correct we must either assume that ‘Shākir’ and ‘Jullāb’ were two names for the same poet, or that Shākir was the son of Jullāb. At the same time, we must consider the possibility of the minor emendation ‘Shākir u Jullāb’, which would also give us two poets. In any event, the poet (or poets) in question must, like Khusrawānī and Abū l-Mathal, have lived during the Samanid period, if not earlier. The fact that lf quotes a good number of verses by ‘Shākir’, ‘Shākir i Bukhārī’, ‘Jullāb’ and ‘Jullāb i Bukhārī’, but never combines the two names, makes it seem most likely that we have to do with two different persons.114 Two verses by ‘Shākir i Bukhārī’ are quoted by Shams i Qais and it is evidently to the same author that we must credit the three verses by ‘Shākir’ quoted by Rādūyānī.

lf passim (and Horn, Einl. p. 22); Rādūyānī pp. 17, 29, 34; Shams p. 223; Dh. Ṣafā, ‘Du shāʿir i gum-nām’, mdat ii/3, 1334sh./1955 pp. 1–5; Khaiyām-pūr—p. 130 (s.v. ‘Jullāb’), 287 (s.v. ‘Shākir’); Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 399–401; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; Idārah-chī pp. 74–81.

§ 142. Shuhrah i Āfāq is similarly credited with two verses in lf. Nafīsī has recovered three more verses from Surūrī’s mf and a ghazal of 13 verses from an ‘old safīnah’. One more verse is supplied by Ṣiḥāḥ p. 260.

Cf. S. Nafīsī, ‘Shuhrah i Āfāq’, Sharq i, 1310sh./1921, pp. 577–80.

§ 143. Sipihrī Mā-warāʾ-al-nahrī115 is included in ʿAufï’s chapter on the Samanid poets, where two verses of his are cited. He is perhaps identical with the ʿAlī Sipihrī whom ʿArūḍī includes in his list of the poets of the Āl i Khāqān.

ʿArūḍī p. 28; ʿAufī ii pp. 27–8; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 244; Khaiyām-pūr p. 261; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; Idārah-chī p. 69.

§ 144. [According to Horn, the Vatican manuscript of lf attributes, S. v. nakhchīz, two verses to an otherwise unknown ‘Surūdī’, but Salimi (p, 34–5) says that the Ms. (which she has recollated) in fact has ‘Rōdakī’ and that ‘Surūdī’ is a misreading by Horn. The India Office manuscript (see Ethé’s catalogue, col. 1335) and Ṣiḥāḥ p. 132 likewise attribute them to Rōdakī.]

§ 145. Ṭaḥāwī is mentioned in ʿArūḍī’s116 list of the Samanid poets. Two verses are attributed to a poet of that name, s.v. nihāzīd, in manuscript sīn and (the first verse only) also in the manuscript P of lf117 as well as in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 94 (var. ‘Ṭukhārī’; this form also in Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 199 s.v. ‘Khabbāzī’). ‘Ṭaḥāwī’ is well known as the nisbah relating to the village of Ṭaḥā in Egypt; it is an unlikely name for a Persian poet, but perhaps he was the maulā of an Egyptian. In the face of the manuscript evidence it is in any event imprudent118 to replace the name by lectio facilior ‘Tukhārī’. See also Idārah-chī p. 34 (who reads ‘Ṭukhārī’).

§ 146. Abū al-Ḥasan Ṭāhir b. al-Faḍl, the amīr of Chaghāniyān, died in 381/991. ʿAufī includes him in his chapter on poeticising princes where he cites a number of his verses, further samples of which are quoted by Asadī and Rādūyānī.

lf passim; Rādūyānī p. 21 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿAufī i pp. 27–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 352; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 428–9; Idārah-chī pp. 171–83.

§ 147. Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Sinjī al-Ṭaiyān was—I paraphrase, here and in what follows, Samʿānī’s notice—a native of the village of Sinj (near Marw).119 The greatest part of his poetry, which was well-known in Marw, consisted of buffoonery and jesting,120 but later he repented and renounced poetry. He also worked as a builder (thus apparently his sobriquet Ṭaiyān, ‘hod carrier’) and is credited with the construction of the minaret of the mosque at Bāb al-Madīnah (evidently in Marw) and the one at the mosque in Sinj. A good number of verses by ‘Ṭaiyān Marghazī’ are quoted by Asadī. He is clearly not identical with the Ṭaiyān Bammī Kirmānī quoted by Rāzī121 and Hidāyat,122 who must—judging from his style—belong to a later period.123

lf passim; Samʿānī fol. 375b (new edition ix p. 118);124 ln s.v. ‘Ṭaiyān’ pp. 380–2; Khaiyām-pūr p. 360; Idārah-chī pp. 58–68.

§ 148. Turkī Kashī Īlāqī (or however this name is to be read)125 is included by ʿAufī, who quotes four of his verses, among the Samanid poets. One further verse is quoted in manuscript P of Asadī’s Lughat i furs. His name is mentioned in a verse by Manūchihrī.126 See also Ḥusain Īlāqī (above, § 68).

lf (ed. Mujtabaʾī/Ṣādiqī p. 132); ʿAufī ii p. 26; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i P. 176; Furūzanfar i p. 28; ln s.v. ‘Abū Dharr’ p. 456; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 455–6; Khaiyāmpūr p. 113.

§ 149. Abū l-Qāsim Ḥasan b. Aḥmad al-ʿUnṣurī has left us with a fairly small dīwān (evidently only a selection of his poems)127 consisting almost entirely of odes to the Ghaznavid Maḥmūd, his brothers Naṣr and Yaʿqūb and his minister Maimandī. He was still alive during ʿīd al-fiṭr in 422/September 1031, on which occasion he and Zainabī, according to Baihaqī’s eye-witness account, received a rich reward from Maḥmūd’s son, Masʿūd.128 We also have a poem by Manūchihrī,129 who did not arrive in Ghaznah until some time in the reign of Masʿūd, eulogising ‘Abū l-Qāsim Ḥasan ōstād i ōstādān i zamānah ʿUnṣurī’. However, the fact that ʿUnṣurī’s dīwān contains only one poem addressed to Masʿūd suggests that he died not long after the latter’s succession. The date given by Daulat-shāh for the poet’s death (431/1039–40) is thus perhaps rather too late. Other tadhkirahs make him live as long as 441/1049–50.

ʿAufī says that, besides his odes, ʿUnṣurī dedicated a number of mathnawīs to Maḥmūd ‘like Shād-bahr u ʿAin al-Ḥayāh and Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā and Khing but u Surkh but’. It is very interesting that ʿUnṣurī’s contemporary Bairūnī, in his catalogue of his own writings (and those of Muḥammad b. Zakarīyāʾ al-Rāzī),130 tells us that he himself ‘translated the story of Wāmiq and ʿAdhrāʾ’, the ‘tradition of Qasīm al-Surūr [i.e. ‘destined to happiness’, corresponding to Persian shād-bahr] and ʿAin al-Ḥayāh’ and ‘the tradition of the two idols of al-Bāmiyān’ [evidently the same as ʿUnṣurī’s ‘white idol and red idol’], as well as other stories. There is evidently some connection between the two authors’ treatment of the same tales; one must imagine either that Bairūnī translated ʿUnṣurī’s epics into Arabic, or (less probably, I think) that ʿUnṣurī based his poems on Bairūnī’s Arabic (or Persian?) prose versions.131 A number of mathnawī fragments in mutaqārib metre have been preserved in Asadī’s Lughat i furs and Rādūyānī quotes two verses explicitely from the story of the two idols.132 Our knowledge of ʿUnṣurī the narrative poet was revolutionised in the 1950’s when M. Shafīʿ discovered, stuffed into the binding of a manuscript dated 526/1132, substantial fragments of a yet older manuscript which the Pakistani scholar identified as ʿUnṣurī’s Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā. That this work derives ultimately from a Greek source had been observed long ago on the basis of the obviously Greek names occurring in the fragments cited by Asadī. Following the publication of Shafīʿ’s material the collaboration of two Scandinavian scholars, the Iranist B. Utas and the classicist T. Hägg, led to the discovery that ʿUnṣurī’s poem derives from the Hellenistic romance of Metiochus and Parthenope, a work known, like its Persian offshoot, only from fragments. Through what intermediaries the story passed from Greek to Persian remains, however, unknown.133 It has also become clear that the 16th-century Turkish Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā of Lāmiʿī,134 which the author claims to be a translation of ʿUnṣurī’s poem, has in fact little in common with the latter.135

Qarīb136 and Ṣafā have taken seriously the story which they found in their copies of the 13th-century Persian translation (by al-Ḥusain b. Asʿad al-Dihistānī al-Muʾaiyadī) of al-Faraj baʿd al-shiddah by Abū ʿAlī al-Muḥassin b. ʿAlī al-Tanūkhī, which quotes the words of ‘ʿUnṣurī the poet’ about how, having lost his father as a young man, he became a travelling merchant, was robbed of all his belongings and only narrowly escaped with his life. However, in the Arabic original of Tanūkhī’s work the name of the narrator is given as Abū l-Qāsim ʿUbaid Allāh b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-ʿAbqasī al-Shāʿir;137 moreover, the name ʿAbqasī occurs also in the Topkapı manuscript (dated 706/1306–7) of the Persian translation.138 The ‘correction’ of ʿAbqasī to ʿUnṣurī can consequently not even be blamed on the Persian translator, but only on later copyists. Quite apart from this, it must be noted that Tanūkhī died in 384/994 and is thus not very likely to have known ʿUnṣurī. It is probable that also Hidāyat’s story139 of how the young ʿUnṣurī was attacked by robbers and subsequently sold into slavery goes back to the same murky source.140

Editions of Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā: Lahore 1967 (Ed. M.M. Shafīʿ); Tblisi 1983 (Эпическое наследие Унсури, ed. I. Kaladze. Contains the manuscript fragments, reproduced photographically from Shafīʿ’s edition, the other quotations, reproduced from Qarīb’s edition of the dīwān, a Russian translation and commentary).

Manuscripts of his Dīwān:141 Oxford Elliot 114 (Ethé 521. Modern); London Or. 3246 fol. 213–262 (Rieu Suppt. no. 204 ii. Dated Ramaḍān 1248/1833); Or. 10936 (Meredith-Owens p. 61. Dated 1276/1859–60); Or. 2843 (Rieu Suppt. no. 205. Dated 28 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1278/1862); Or. 2889 fol. 24b–43b (Rieu Suppt. no. 212 iii. Completed 28 Jumādā i 1293/1876. qaṣāʾid only); Or. 10937 (Meredith-Owens p. 61. 19th century); Cambridge Or. 236 (Browne Suppt. 954. 19th century copy of Calcutta Ivanow 428); Browne Coll. V.88 pp. 2–139 (Dated 1266/1849–50); Leningrad Univ. 941w (Salemann-Rosen p. 15); Univ. 1003a, 1038, 1087c, 1202c (Romaskewicz p. 8); Istanbul Üniversite fy 328 (olim Rıza Paşa 33. Ateş 9. Has a waqf notice dated 1095/1684); Tehran Majlis iii 1032 (Undated but, as the cataloguer has shown, part of a now mutilated Ms. written in 1010/1601–2); Qarīb 189/1 (Nuskhah-hā v p. 648. Dated 6 Shaʿbān 1207/1793); Majlis iii 1031 (Dated 1211/1796–7); Majlis viii 2468 (18th century?); Aṣghar Mahdawī 464/5 (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 119. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah (Dated 1225/1810); Millī iii 1489 (Dated 1255/1839–40); Majlis ii 375 (Dated 1256/1840); Majlis ii 376 (Dated 1262 /1846); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 332 (Dated 5 Muḥarram 1262/1846); Millī iii 1481 (Dated 1296/1879); Sipah-sālār ii 1236 (19th century); Malik 4963/3 (Munz. no. 24885); Malik 5467/1 (Munz. no. 24914); Qum Marʿashī xvi 4813 fol. 88–167 (Dated 1259/1843); Marʿashī xi 4164 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1263/1847); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 499 (Dated Dhū l-Qaʿdah 1261/1845); Riḍawī vii 498 (Dated 1274/1857–8); Riḍawī vii 497 (Dated 1278/1861); Univ. 146; Lahore Univ. ii p. 135 [Munz.]; Peshawar Islamīyah 1823(1) (Dated 1134/1721–2); Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1115 (19th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 427 (18th century?); Ivanow 428 (=Lucknow Sprenger 437. 18th century?); Princeton 5 (Made in the reign of Shāhjahān [1628–58]. qaṣāʾid only); Qarīb refers to three Mss. in his private collection. Cf. Munz. iii 24881–915.

Selected poems: Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 180a, 200b, 208a, 235a, 240a (Ethé 1333 = Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār); London Or. 1858 fol. 65–78 (Rieu p. 1031. 19th century); Tehran Majlis xvii 5976 (18th century?); Majlis viii 2326 pp. 4–13 (17th century?); Univ. ix 2487/4 (17th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 927 fol. 273v–277v (Modern).

Editions: Persia (n.p., n.d. 68 foil.); 1298/1881 (95 foll.); Bombay 1319–20/1902; Tehran (n.d. 100 foll.); 1323sh./1944–5 (Ed. Y. Qarīb. Important review by H. Ritter in Oriens i, 1948, p. 134); reprint 1341sh./1962–3; 1342sh./1963 (Ed. M. Dabīr-Siyāqī); reprint 1363sh./1984.

An anonymous commentary on a qaṣīdah attributed to him, with numerous quotations from poets of the 10th to 14th centuries (e.g. Asadī, Farrukhī, Munjīk, Najīb Jarbādhaqānī, Qaṭrān, Rōdakī and ʿUnṣurī himself), with the title Risālah dar bāb i qaṣīd ⟨ah⟩ i lughatīyah i ḥakīm ʿUnṣurī, is contained in: Paris Ancien fonds 331 i (Blochet 1887/Richard. 17th century?).

Glossary: M.N. Osmanov, Частотный словарь Унсури, Moscow 1970.

Bairūnī, Kitāb al-nisab (see above, p. 136 fn.); Baihaqī pp. 274, 280, 386, 678 (with two verses); lf passim; Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes, pp. 88–90); ʿArūḍī pp. 28, 35; Waṭwāṭ passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 29–32; Shams passim; Mustaufī pp. 738–9; Jājarmī pp. 129, 214–5; Daulat-shāh pp. 44–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 355–67; M.ʿA. Tarbiyat, ‘Wāmiq u ʿAdhrāʾ, Armaghān xii/8, 1310sh./1931, pp. 519–31; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 409–10 (with further references); Ṣafā, Tārīkh I6 pp. 559–67; M.J. Maḥjūb, ‘Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā i ʿUnṣurī’, Sukhan xviii, 1347sh./1968, pp. 43–52, 131–42; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 526–39; Fouchécour, Nature pp. 1–180; B. Utas, ‘Did ʿAdhrā remain a virgin’, Or. Suec. xxxiiixxxv, 1986, pp. 429–41 (important); id., ‘The ardent lover and the virgin—a Greek romance in Muslim lands’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48, 1995, pp. 229–39; I. Kaladze, ‘Un ignoto intreccio romanzesco classico nella letteratura persiana’ (concerns the sources of W.u.ʿA.), Annali di Ca’ Foscari xxiii/3, 1984, pp. 119–32; J.S. Meisami, ‘Ghaznavid panegyrics: some political implications’, Iran xxviii, 1990, pp. 31–44 (contains a translation of and commentary on the ode in Qarīb pp. 10–13); ln s.v. ‘ʿUnṣurī’ p. 395; ei1 s.v. ‘ʿUnṣurī’ (V.F. Büchner); EI2 s.v. ‘ʿUnṣurī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn).

§ 150. Two verses by Aḥmad Ushnānī142 are quoted by Rādūyānī. He is presumably identical with the Ushnānī Jōybārī one of whose verses is quoted in lf.

lf s.v. mōbad; Rādūyānī p. 63 (and Ateş ad loc.); Idārah-chī p. 37.

§ 151. Abū ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-ʿUṭāridī is credited by ʿAufī with two rubāʿīyāt and with two verses from a qaṣīdah. He says that he was one of the mādiḥān i ḥaḍrat i yamīnī, which presumbly means ‘eulogists of the Ghaznavid dynasty’ rather than necessarily ‘of Sulṭān Yamīn al-daulah Maḥmūd’.

ʿAufī ii p. 57; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 342; Khaiyām-pūr p. 396; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 p. 597.

§ 152. Maḥmūd al-Warrāq is the author of two verses cited by Hidāyat, who states that he flourished under the last Ṭāhirid ruler, Muḥammad b. Ṭāhir (248/862 to 259/872–3).

Collection of fragments, French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i p. 19, 59, ii p. 18.

Cf. Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 511.

§ 153. An otherwise unknown Yazdānī is quoted by Rādūyānī no fewer than six times (for a total of seven verses). I wonder whether he is not identical with Asadī’s Ōrmazdī (q.v.)?

§ 154. Yūsuf ʿArūḍī, a number of whose verses are quoted in Asadī’s lf, is evidently identical with the ‘Abū Yūsuf’ whom Rādūyānī mentions as the author of a treatise on prosody. Shams quotes a further two verses of his which Rādūyānī (p. 95), however, ascribes (in a slightly different form) to Munjīk.

lf passim (and Horn, Einl. p. 31); Rādūyānī p. 2; Shams p. 335; S. Nafīsī, ‘Yūsuf i ʿArūḍī’, Sharq i, 1310sh./1922, pp. 758–60; Dh. Ṣafā, ‘Du shāʿir i gum-nām, mdat ii/3, 1334sh./1955, pp. 5–7; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 437–8; Khaiyām-pūr p. 661; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15 n. 2.

§ 155. ʿAbd al-Jabbār143 Zainabī144 al-ʿAlawī145 al-Maḥmūdī146 is included by ʿArūḍī and ʿAufī among the poets of the Ghaznavids. ʿAufī quotes, among other things, two odes dedicated to Maḥmūd; further verses praising the same king (they mention ‘Abū l-Qāsim’), and with the same metre and rhyme as ʿAufī’s second sample (and thus possibly from the same poem, though the verses do not overlap) are quoted by Jājarmī. Baihaqī, on the other hand, mentions him on three occasions as a highly esteemed panegyrist of Maḥmūd’s son, Masʿūd, one of these in connection with the events of the year 422/1031. See also above, § 95 (Maḥmūdī).

Baihaqī p. 131, 274, 280; lf passim; Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes pp. 92–3); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ p. 20; ʿAufī ii pp. 39–40; Shams p. 359; Jājarmī pp. 458–9; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 241; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 550–3.

§ 156. Zarrīn-Kitāb Marghazī147 is credited with two verses in Asadī’s lf (though several of the manuscripts ascribe one of these to ʿAmmārah) and a third is added by Nakhjawānī’s Ṣiḥāḥ al-furs (p. 189).

lf (see the indexes to the three editions); Ṣiḥāḥ (see index); ln s.v. ‘Zarrīn-Kitāb’ p. 371.

next chapter: Part 1


^ Back to text1. Thus ʿArūḍī.

^ Back to text2. Shams; Jājarmī (‘Lāmiʿī al-Jurjānī’).

^ Back to text3. Ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī, no. 80, v. 977.

^ Back to text4. Cf. C.E. Bosworth, ‘On the chronology of the Ziyārids in Gurgān and Ṭabaristān’, Der Islam xl, 1964, pp. 25–34.

^ Back to text5. Thus ʿAufī. Shams calls him Ghazwānī Laukarī (p. 231) or simply Ghazwānī (p. 233). Ghazwān is the name of a quarter in Herat, but it is also a personal name, thus Ghazwānī could simply mean ‘descendant of a certain Ghazwān’. Laukar is a locality near Marw.

^ Back to text6. This reading of the name (or perhaps Maisirī?), rather than the expected Muyassarī, is assured by the metre.

^ Back to text7. In Rādūyānī: Makkī i Panjhīrī. ʿAufi gives the name as above except that Browne (following Ms. E) omits the first yāʾ of the nisbah; Ms. S has al-Panjhīr. Rāzī (followed by Hidāyat) gives the name as Abū l-Muẓaffar Ibrāhīm only.

^ Back to text8. Thus in Ms. S of ʿAufi and in Hidāyat. Ms. E—followed in Browne’s edition—has Abū Saʿd.

^ Back to text9. More precisely: one of the verses cited by Rādūyānī on p. 64 occurs also in Jājarmī’s and Hidāyat’s versions, the two verses on p. 88 occur in ʿAufī and Hidāyat (but not in Jājarmī) and the other two on p. 64 are found only in Rādūyānī.

^ Back to text10. ‘Manthūrī’ is a typographical error for Manshūrī; see the ghalaṭ-nāmah.

^ Back to text11. Thus ʿAufī.

^ Back to text12. Neo-Persian Manūchihr is the etymologically correct continuation of Avestan Manuš.čiθra-, ‘of the seed of Manush’. But at an early date popular etymology re-interpreted the name as Mī/inō-chihr, ‘heavenly-faced’, frequently spelt my-. Cf. Justi pp. 191–3.

^ Back to text13. No. 34, five verses from the end (reference supplied by A.H. Morton).

^ Back to text14. Clinton, pp. 23–5, takes a hypercritical view of the link between Manūchihrī and the Ziyarids, but appears to have overlooked the verse just mentioned.

^ Back to text15. No. 34, twelve verses from end.

^ Back to text16. ʿAufī quotes two verses which he says are from an ode in praise of ‘Sulṭān Yamīn al-daulah’, i.e. Maḥmūd, but in the dīwān they are found in a poem (no. 17) which, according to the superscription, was addressed to Masʿūd, and the historical allusions in the poem prove that this is correct.

^ Back to text17. Thus Taqī, apud Sprenger p. 15.

^ Back to text18. Curiously, Sprenger recorded the same date for the manuscript formerly in the library of the king of Oudh, in Lucknow, adding that it had 188 pages (the Tehran catalogue records 180 pages). Are the two manuscripts perhaps identical? Or was one copied, colophon and all, from the other?

^ Back to text19. Apparently with revision. Only the first version of Dabīr-Siyāqī’s edition is available to me.

^ Back to text20. ln s.v. ‘Abū ʿAbd Allāh’ p. 608.

^ Back to text21. The second miṣrāʿ according to Qazwīnī’s emendation; in the manuscript used by Huart the verse reads nakhustīn Kayōmarth āmad ba shāhī * girift-ash ba gētī darūn pēsh-gāhī,which scans as mutaqārib muthamman sālim. However, since the other two verses quoted by Muṭahhar are clearly hazaj musaddas maḥdhūf the emendation of the first bait is unavoidable. (Differently J. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq, ‘Pīrāmūn i wazn i Shāh-nāmah’, Īrān-shināsī ii, 1369sh./1990, pp. 46–76). It might be noted that there are other manuscripts of Muṭahhar’s work (cf. Sezgin i p. 337).

^ Back to text22. Ed. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, iii p. 138, 173 of the Arabic section.

^ Back to text23. Ed. Zotenberg, Paris 1900, p. 10, 388.

^ Back to text24. Thus Baihaqī, ʿAufī, Waṭwāṭ, Rāzī.

^ Back to text25. lf, Rādūyānī, ʿArūḍī, Hidāyat; it is possible, as Qazwīnī suggested, that both forms are correct, in other words that the poet’s ism was Masʿūd, his takhalluṣ Masʿūdī, i.e. ‘eulogist of Sulṭān Masʿūd’.

^ Back to text26. ʿAufī, and the later tadhkirahs.

^ Back to text27. Baihaqī gives the date of the incident as Tuesday 27 Dhū l-ḥijjah 430. According to Wüstenfeld’s tables this would correspond to 19 September 1039, which, however, was a Wednesday. The correct equivalent is thus Tuesday, 18 September 1039, and the latter corresponds exactly to the date of Mihragān, i.e. to 16 Mihr 408 Yazd.

^ Back to text28. It was evidently on this occasion that Manūchihrī composed his ode (no. 17 of Dabīr-Siyāqī’s edition) commemorating Masʿūd’s skirmish with the Qarakhanid Böritigin in Rabīʿ i 430/1038. In this poem Manūchihrī refers to Böritigin precisely as a ‘serpent’ (mār), evidently an allusion to the verses of his rehabilitated colleague. See Meisami’s discussion of the poem (cited above, p. 105). The two verses quoted by Baihaqī are cited also by Rādūyānī (p. 36) and Ẓahīrī (p. 199, anonymously).

^ Back to text29. Ṣiḥāḥ p. 205 calls him Abū l-Qāsim Muʾadhdhin.

^ Back to text30. In Rādūyānī fol. 269b vocalised ʿAbdah, doubtless the then current pronunciation in Persian.

^ Back to text31. ii p. 33.

^ Back to text32. Below, § 111.

^ Back to text33. Above, § 46.

^ Back to text34. ʿAufī repeats the anecdote in his Jawāmiʿ al-ḥikāyāt, where the poet is called ⟨Abū⟩ ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣāliḥ, without nisbah.

^ Back to text35. In his edition of ʿArūḍī p. 127 n. 4.

^ Back to text36. Dīwān, ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī p. 113.

^ Back to text37. Variant: Lawāʾiḥ; the reading adopted by Dabīr-Siyāqī, ān-ki az Walwālij āmad, is a conjecture!

^ Back to text38. Thus ʿAufī. ʿArūḍī calls him ‘Sharīf Mujalladī Gurgānī’.

^ Back to text39. Thus pointed (one dot over the khāʾ and a dot under the dāl muhmal) in Rādūyānī fol. 281b. The other sources fluctuate between ‘Mukhalladī’ and ‘Mujalladī’.

^ Back to text40. Arabic verses to the same effect are quoted (in all cases anonymously) by ʿAufī (i p. 13: two verses), Ẓahīrī (p. 29: four verses) and Rāwandī (Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, p. 62: three verses). Qazwīnī (ad Juwainī i p. 163) says that one of the verses—but not the one mentioning Rōdakī—occurs also in a qaṣīdah by Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Yaḥyā al-Ghazzī, who died in 524/1129–30; see Qazwīnī ad ʿArūḍī pp. 100–1 and ei2 Suppl. s.v. ‘Ghazzī’ (C.E. Bosworth). As long as the authorship of the Arabic verses is not established the question must remain open as to whether the Persian verses are translated from the Arabic or vice versa.

^ Back to text41. Perhaps meaning the ʿArafāt al-ʿārifīn of Auḥadī??

^ Back to text42. See above, § 49.

^ Back to text43. P. 59.

^ Back to text44. In the Tarjumān al-balāghah regularly vocalised munjyk. His sobriquet appears to be derived by means of the Eastern Iranian nisbah suffix -chīk from the munj, ‘bee’, a derivation suggested by the poet himself in a verse quoted by Asadī to illustrate that word: har chand ḥaqīr-am sukhan-am ʿālī u shīrīn * ārē, ʿasal i shīrīn n-āyad magar az munj, ‘Although I am lowly, my words are elevated and sweet; indeed, sweet honey comes only from bees’.

^ Back to text45. For these see C.E. Bosworth, ‘The rulers of Chaghāniyān in early Islamic times’, Iran xix, 1981, pp. 1–20.

^ Back to text46. Majmaʿ i p. 508, with the erroneous statement that the patron was in fact Ṭāhir b. Ḥusain Sīstānī.

^ Back to text47. Yaghmāʾī pp. 116–8.

^ Back to text48. Thus Yaghmāʾī p. 117. Hidāyat has … shāh i jahān.

^ Back to text49. P. 58. A longer version of the poem can be found, once again, in Hidāyat, who calls its dedicatee ‘Abū Muẓaffar Malik Aḥmad Ṣaffārī’, the last word evidently a misreading of ‘Ṣaghānī’, the Arabicised version of Chaghānī. The verse would seem to decide the question of Abū l-Muẓaffar’s personal name: it was Aḥmad and not Muḥammad (as ʿUtbī has it; cf. Bosworth, op. cit., p. 11).

^ Back to text50. Ms. sīn and in the margin of Ms. ʿain (ed. Iqbāl p. 273) as well as in Ṣiḥāḥ (pp. 174–5) all s.v. bulkanjak. The verse is also quoted, and attributed to Shahīd, but without the connection to Munjīk and Maḥmūd, in the Vatican Ms. Under the same lemma. Lazard includes the verse among the fragments of Shahīd as no. 93.

^ Back to text51. Quoted in Ms. sīn s.v. bulkanjak and the marginal additions to Ms. nūn s.v. manjak (see ed. Iqbāl p. 272).

^ Back to text52. iv pp. 12–13.

^ Back to text53. For the two Arabic verses wrongly attributed to him by Nafīsī on the basis of a passage in the dīwān of Kamāl al-dīn Ismāʿīl, called Khallāq al-maʿānī, see the edition of that dīwān by Ḥ. Baḥr al-ʿUlūmī, Tehran 1348sh./1970, pp. lxxii–lxxiii, 518.

^ Back to text54. See above, § 9.

^ Back to text55. Lazard’s verses 2–15, preserved in the Tārīkh i Baihaqī. Hidāyat attributes six of these verses to Daqīqī, doubtless wrongly.

^ Back to text56. Thus in Hidāyat, who explicitly gives ʿAufī’s Lubāb as the source of his information. In the printed text of the Lubāb the name appears as Muẓaffar Panjdihī. Horn misread Hidāyat’s ‘Marwī’ as ‘Harawī’; in fact Panjdih is near Marw-i-Rōd.

^ Back to text57. Thus ʿAufī; Hidāyat has Aḥmad.

^ Back to text58. P. 28 and 46. For this poet see below, p. 272.

^ Back to text59. The name appears thus (as A.H. Morton informs me) in all the manuscripts of his Safar-nāmah other than those copied from a printed edition. Only in Schefer’s edition (and its various offshoots) do we find ‘Abū Muʿīn al-dīn Nāṣir …’ (evidently either a conjecture or an error on the part of the French scholar). ʿAufī ii p. 202 quotes a verse by the 12th-century poet Shaṭranjī (for whom see below, no. 297) with the statement: Nāṣir i Khusrau kard khwad-rā laqab Ḥamīd al-dīn, and it is evidently on the basis of this that Dabīr-Siyāqī emended Schefer’s (mis)reading in the Safar-nāmah to ‘Abū Muʿīn Ḥamīd al-dīn Nāṣir …’.

^ Back to text60. Dīwān, ed. Mīnuwī/Muḥaqqiq, no. 242, v. 27.

^ Back to text61. Ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī, Tehran 1354sh./1976, p. 2.

^ Back to text62. Storey, following Taqī-zādah, states that the poet was born in the month of Dhū l-qaʿdah. This is based on a line in the poem mulḥaq 1, v. 56, the author of which says that he was born in Dhū l-qaʿdah of the year 358 (with variants in the manuscripts). If the poem is really by Nāṣir, the year must be wrong. It is however more likely, as the editors of the critical edition think, that the poem is spurious, i.e. that it is by an unidentified older contemporary of Nāṣir’s.

^ Back to text63. Cited by Ethé, zdmg 33, p. 649.

^ Back to text64. iii p. 598 and 600 (new edition ii col. 990 and 991). For a discussion of these passages, which are not without textual problems, see the discussion of the Saʿādat-nāmah below, p. 115.

^ Back to text65. For which see pl i § 1589, last paragraph.

^ Back to text66. Dīwān, no. 64 ult.; 177, v. 51–2.

^ Back to text67. For this manuscript see below, p. 264 fn.

^ Back to text68. i p. 472.

^ Back to text69. i p. 471.

^ Back to text70. Meredith-Owen’s description of the manuscript is not correct. The first work in the manuscript (fol. 1a–24b) is a fragment of a poem in mutaqārib metre, evidently by Nāṣir Bukhārāʾī (his name is mentioned several times in the text). Fol. 25a has the pencilled title ‘Saʿādat-nāmah i Nāṣir i Khusrau’. Fol. 26a–40a contain an incomplete copy of the Saʿādat-nāmah, with the usual incipit, and the name ‘Nāṣir i Khusrau’ in the paenultimate verse, but the gilded sarlauḥ apparently gives the title as Hidāyat-nāmah. The first of the two poems is adorned with pictures.

^ Back to text71. The last-mentioned date is in Semenov’s manuscript.

^ Back to text72. See his introduction to the 1925–8 edition of the Dīwān, pp. lv–lviii.

^ Back to text73. M. Mīnuwī, ‘Raushanāʾī-Nāmah i Nāṣir i Khusrau wa Raushanāʾī-nāmah i manẓūm i mansūb ba ū’, Yād-nāmah i Nāṣir i Khusrau, Mashhad, pp. 574–80. The same volume contains also (on pp. 262–72) an article by Ḍ. Sajjādī, ‘Taḥqīq dar Raushanāʾī-nāmah i Nāṣir i Khusrau’, which likewise argues against the authenticity of the poem, purely on the basis of stylistic arguments, for my taste rather too subjectively.

^ Back to text74. I have extracted the following data from the sophisticated astronomical computer programme ‘Kairos’, kindly put at my disposal by its inventor, Raymond Mercier: At 60 degrees East conjunction of sun and moon (true new moon) occurs on 17 February 1246 (Julian) at 23:12 local time. The new crescent of Shawwāl is most likely to have been visible after sunset on 19 February, when (at 18:00) the true longitude of the sun is 338.1 (in Pisces), of the moon 3.191 (in Aries), of Jupiter 190.9 and of Saturn 197.3 (both in Libra).

^ Back to text75. Ivanow, problems …, pp. 55–6, dismisses Ethé’s (and presumably also Taqīzādah’s) ‘complex speculations’ and opts for the date 444/1053, which he found in one manuscript, but which, like all the dates found in the other manuscripts, is irreconcilable with the data given in the following lines. Ivanow’s arbitrary dating was accepted, without further discussion, by Rypka, p. 189.

^ Back to text76. I retract my statements in the first edition to the effect ‘that no convincing arguments have yet been advanced against Nāṣir’s authorship’ and that ‘the doctrines expounded in the poem are in line with the Ismāʿīlī dogmas of the Fatimid period and show no trace of the ghulūw so characteristic of Iranian Nizārī Ismailism from the 12th century onward. Moreover, the language of the work (particularly in the version published by Semenov) has some striking archaic features, e.g. the frequent use of the particles mar.’ Against the first argument, I would now say that I do not consider it at all certain that the Rōshanāʾī-nāmah is an Ismāʿīlī work, but think it possible that its very superficial Ismāʿīlī colouring is the result of interpolation. As for the linguistic argument, the mentioned feature would not in fact be very unusual in a poetic work of the 13th century.

^ Back to text77. The number is given wrongly as 2346 in the catalogue. See p. 56 of the same volume.

^ Back to text78. The catalogue says explicitly ‘manzum’. A prose work with the same title is reported elsewhere.

^ Back to text79. His Safar-nāmah, on the other hand, is referred to in the Jahān-nāmah of Muḥammad b. Najīb Bakrān (before 617/1220). [a.h.m.] ʿAufī does not include him in his poetic anthology, but does apparently mention him as a pseudo-prophet in his Jawāmʿ no. 2004 (see Niẓámu’d-dín’s summary).

^ Back to text80. Two verses by ‘Nāṣir i Khusrau’ are quoted in Waṭwāṭ p. 69. I have not found them in the dīwūn and in the absence of other early citations of Nāṣir’s verses one must suspect a scribal error.

^ Back to text81. Thus ʿAufī. In the two passages in Baihaqī where this person is mentioned we find ‘Nāṣirī u Baghawī’, though for the latter name the variant ‘Lughawī’ occurs in both passages. It is likely (as Nafīsī suggested) that this is a scribal error for ‘Nāṣir (or Nāṣirī) i Baghawī (or Lughawī)’. Baghawī is the nisbah from Bagh (or Baghshūn), a village between Marw and Herat; cf. Samʿānī fol. 86a (new edition ii p. 273) and Yāqūt, Buldān i p. 694.

^ Back to text82. The kunyah is mentioned only by Shams i Qais.

^ Back to text83. The vocalisation Qamarī is explicitly noted in Rādūyānī fol. 269b.

^ Back to text84. lf, ed. Iqbāl, p. 492 (from the marginal additions to Ms. nūn).

^ Back to text85. Ateş’s reading. The name appears in the manuscript of Rādūyānī’s book, fol. 252a, as qṣʾrʾumy. The same spelling, without vocalisation, is found in ʿArūḍī and the Vatican Ms. of lf; Ms. nūn and Ṣiḥāḥ p. 26 have ‘Qaṣṣār’.

^ Back to text86. Thus in ʿAufī. Daulat-shāh calls him Imām al-shuʿarā Qaṭrān b. Manṣūr Tirmidhī (sic), while Hidāyat has Abū Manṣūr al-Jabalī al-ʿAḍudī. The superscription in the manuscript supposedly dated 529/1134 has Abū Manṣūr Qaṭrān al-Jabalī (or al-Jīlī? the photograph is unclear) al-Ādharbaijānī, but see below, p. 124. For ʿAḍudī compare the poem (dīwān pp. 259–60) dedicated to one Amīr ʿAḍud al-dīn.

^ Back to text87. Dīwān, ed. Nakhjawānī, p. 66.

^ Back to text88. See dīwān p. 355 and Taqī-zādah ad loc.

^ Back to text89. Apud Sprenger p. 16.

^ Back to text90. See Lazard, Langue p. 17 n. 32.

^ Back to text91. Cf. M. Bayānī, ‘Dīwān i Qaṭrān i Tabrīzī ba khaṭṭ i Anwarī i Abīwardī’, Yaghmā iii, 1329sh./1951, pp. 465–74, with a reproduction of three pages from the manuscript. The same three pages are reproduced also in Nakhjawānī’s introduction to his edition of the dīwān.

^ Back to text92. See below, § 170.

^ Back to text93. As I have been told by A.H. Morton.

^ Back to text94. See below, pp. 1289.

^ Back to text95. The attribution to ‘dukhtar i Kaʿb’ is, however, apparently only in the table of contents.

^ Back to text96. Cf. ei2 s.v. ‘Djahīr (Banū)’ (Cl. Cahen).

^ Back to text97. The shuhrah is given in the manuscripts of ʿAufī’s book as r.w.r.d.h, which does not seem to have any meaning. Nafīsī (ad ʿAufī p. 673) claims that in ‘other’ (unspecified) ‘safīnahs and tadhkirahs’ the name is given as r.w.d.h., evidently ‘Rōdah’, ‘gut, string of an instrument’.

^ Back to text98. Not Rō/ūdagī, as some authors have it. In a verse by ʿArūḍī (quoted by ʿAufī ii p. 7) Rōdakī-st rhymes with kōdakī-st.

^ Back to text99. Thus according to Samʿānī and ʿAufī (who traces the nasab only as far as the poet’s father). Daulat-shāh gives his kunyah (doubtless wrongly) as Abū l-Ḥasan.

^ Back to text100. In one of his Munāẓarāt, ed. J. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq, mdam xiii, 1346sh./1978, p. 71, V. 33.

^ Back to text101. For the following see de Blois, Burzōy, pp. 51–2.

^ Back to text102. See supra, pp. 589. The passage quoted is in Haz. Fird. pp. 135–6.

^ Back to text103. Moscow edition viii, Nōshīn-ruwān 3452 sqq.

^ Back to text104. Horn, Einl. pp. 18–21.

^ Back to text105. In the collections by Nafīsī and Braginskiy the Kalīlah fragments are not separated from the other verses in ramal. Nafīsī, moreover, arbitrarily ascribes to Rōdakī a number of verses in ramal by Ṭaiyān. (Since the above was written a collection of Kalīlah fragments has been published by Dabīr-Siyāqī; see the bibliography).

^ Back to text106. Apud Horn, Einl. p. 21.

^ Back to text107. P. 25.

^ Back to text108. Cf. the introduction to Ateş’s edition of Ẓahīrī’s Sindbād-nāmah, p. 10 n. 1.

^ Back to text109. Hidāyat, followed by Nafīsī and others, has argued that Qaṭrān’s poems were attributed in good faith to Rōdakī as a result of a confusion between the name of latter’s patron, Naṣr b. Aḥmad, and that of one of the former’s protectors, Abū Naṣr Mamlān. But such a mix-up seems hardly likely.

^ Back to text110. Ethé, whose article on Rōdakī was published in 1873 (before Hidāyat’s Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥā), rallied to the Persian scholar’s opinion in his later contribution in GIrPh ii p. 220.

^ Back to text111. For this work see below, p. 221. In his brief entry (three lines) on Shahīd (Shuhaid) b. al-Ḥusain al-Balkhī, the anonymous author credits him with two satirical verses (not otherwise attested): yā man raʾā jurḥan ʿalaihi riʿāyatī lammā stabāna lahu ʿaẓīmu kināyatī
aiqanta annī fī madīḥika kādhibun fa li dhāka lam yuʿjibka ḥusnu riwāyatī.

^ Back to text112. Ed. Iqbāl p. 30.

^ Back to text113. See above, § 15.

^ Back to text114. An argument for the identity of the two might be seen in the fact that in Asadī’s entry suftah one and the same verse is attributed to ‘Jullāb i Bukhārī’ in the Vatican manuscript (ed. Horn p. 13) and in Qawwās, but to ‘Shākir i Bukhārī’ in manuscript sīn (ed. Iqbāl p. 480) and to ‘Shākir’ in Ṣiḥāḥ (p. 280). However, it is quite common for different manuscripts of lf to attribute the same verse to different poets, especially if their names are similar. Further confusion is caused by the mysterious ʿrtʾmy, to whom the Vatican manuscript of lf, s.v. ghārj (ed. Horn p. 15), attributes a single verse; in manuscripts sīn and nūn (ed. Iqbāl p. 66), the India Office manuscript (Ethé, i.o. Cat. col. 1334) and Ṣiḥāḥ (p. 57) the verse is attributed to ‘Shākir i Bukhārī’. Ethé (loc. cit.) suggested that the rasm in the Vatican codex might be a misreading of ‘Ghaznānī’. In the late lexica (see Horn’s apparatus criticus) the verse is attributed to Abū Salīk Gurgānī.

^ Back to text115. Hidāyat calls him Sipihrī Bukhārāʾī and adds that he was a contemporary of Abū l-Muʾaiyad al-Balkhī and of Abū l-Mathal, but this is presumably only a personal deduction on the part of the 19th-century scholar.

^ Back to text116. P. 28; thus in all three Mss. according to Qazwīnī’s note.

^ Back to text117. The Aya Sofya manuscript has (according to ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī p. 79) the same spelling, except that the ‘ṭ’ is written like ‘kl’. The attribution to Ṭaiyān in Iqbāl’s edition p. 105 is apparently only in the marginal additions to Ms. nūn.

^ Back to text118. Pace Dih-khudā, ln s.v. ‘Ṭaḥāwī’ p. 177.

^ Back to text119. According to Yāqūt, Buldān iii pp. 161–2, Sinj (thus vocalised by Yāqūt) is the name of two villages near Marw; one is called Sinj ʿAbbād, the other is one of the biggest villages of Marw al-Shāhijān, four farsang from the metropolis. In the old facsimile edition of Samʿānī the poet’s native place is given as Shaikh, the name of a village near Isfahan (cf. Yāqūt, Buldān iii pp. 327–8). But the fact that both Samʿānī and Asadī explicitly connect this poet with Marw makes it impossible to doubt that ‘Sinj’ is the correct reading.

^ Back to text120. Read with the new edition: ‘al-sakhf wa l-mutāyabah’.

^ Back to text121. Rāzī i pp. 268–70 (in the edition the name is written ṭbʾn).

^ Back to text122. Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 328–9.

^ Back to text123. See pl vi. The two Ṭaiyāns are clearly distinguished in the ln article. Note that the two verses attributed to Ṭaiyān in lf (ed. Iqbāl) p. 61 and Ṣiḥāḥ (p. 59) are ascribed (doubtless wrongly) to Ṭaiyān Bammī in Qawwās p. 134.

^ Back to text124. Many thanks to C.E. Bosworth for providing me with photocopies of the relevant pages from the new edition.

^ Back to text125. See Nafīsī ad ʿAufī, p. 656.

^ Back to text126. Dīwān, ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī no. 33.

^ Back to text127. See below, Appendix iv.

^ Back to text128. Baihaqī (p. 274) says that on that occasion Masʿūd rewarded the ‘obscure poets’ (shāʿirān kih bē-gānah-tar būdand) with 20 000 dirams (each or in total?), ʿAlawī Zainabī with 50 000 dirams, ʿUnṣurī with 1000 dīnārs and the ‘singers and jesters’ with 30 000 dirams. Clinton, on p. 30 of his book on Manūchihrī (see above, no. 101), has interpreted this passage as implying an intentional slighting of Maḥmūd’s panegyrist by the new king, but this is far from certain: we have, as far as I can see, no information about the exchange rate between the (silver) diram and the (gold) dīnār during the Ghaznavid period, but the fact that ʿUnṣurī alone is rewarded with gold would seem rather to imply a particular honour.

^ Back to text129. Dīwān, ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī, no. 33.

^ Back to text130. Riṣālah li l-Bairūnī fī fihrist kutub Muḥammad b. Zakarīyāʾ al-Rāzī, ed. P. Kraus, Paris 1936, p. 39, no. 80, 81, 83.

^ Back to text131. In connection with the question of the relationship between ʿUnṣurī’s and Bairūnī’s versions of Wāmiq u ʿAdhrā, etc., it is perhaps worth mentioning that Bairūnī, in his (extant, but unpublished) Kitāb al-nisab baina l-filizzāt wa l-jawāhir fī l-ḥajm, as quoted (or summarised) by the 12th-century scientist ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Khāzinī in his Kitāb mīzān al-ḥikmah, Hyderabad 1359/1940, p. 77, cites these two verses by ʿUnṣurī: shāh-ā hazār sāl ba mulk andarūn bi-zī
z-ān pas hazār sāl ba nāz andarūn bi-bāl
sāl-ē hazār māh u mah-ē ṣad hazār rōz
rōz-ē hazār sāʿat u sāʿat hazār sāl
(‘Oh king! May you live and reign for a thousand years, and after that may you prosper in pleasure for another thousand years. And may each year be a thousand months, each month a hundred thousand days, each day a thousand hours and the hour a thousand years.’). Bairūnī works out how long the poet’s patron would have to live in order to fulfil this extravagant wish (sidestepping the question of whether the ‘years’ mentioned in the last half-verse are lunar or solar years, Bairūnī assigns them the round number of 360 days and calculates the total days of the patron’s life as 72 followed by 18 noughts) and claims (if we are to believe al-Khāzinī) that the verses are ʿUnṣurī’s comment on the mathematical puzzle known as the chess problem (which involves calculating the value of 264-1), a problem famously solved by Bairūnī himself. The two verses are cited also in a slightly different form in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 204, and the first verse only in the Vatican Ms. of lf s.v. bāl.

^ Back to text132. Rādūyānī p. 86; also in Waṭwāṭ p. 78.

^ Back to text133. That ʿUnṣurī’s source was an Arabic work translated directly from the Greek (as Hägg argues in his article ‘The oriental reception of Greek novels: A survey with some preliminary considerations’, Symbolae Osloensis lxi, 1986, pp. 99–131) is, I should think, rather unlikely. All of the known Arabic renderings of Greek books derive from Syriac or (rarely) Middle-Persian intermediaries. Even Ḥunain b. Isḥāq, who was fluent in Greek and Arabic, always translated his Greek sources first into Syriac before attempting an Arabic version. The reason for this is that a tradition and technique of direct Greek-Arabic translation did not exist.

^ Back to text134. Verse translation by J. von Hammer-Purgstall as Wamik und Asra, d.i. der Glühende und die Blühende, das älteste persische (sic) romantische Gedicht, Vienna 1833. Other poems with the same title, in Persian and Turkish, are listed by Maḥjūb, Sukhan xviii, 1347sh./1968, pp. 131–2.

^ Back to text135. The anonymous prose Iskandar-nāmah, ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran 1343sh./1964, also refers to ʿUnṣurī’s Khing-but u Surkh-but (pp. 288–9) as well as to his Shād-bahr u ʿAin al-ḥayāt (pp. 430–1).

^ Back to text136. In the introduction to his edition of ʿUnṣurī’s dīwān, pp. vi–ix.

^ Back to text137. With variants. See the edition by ʿAbbūd al-Shāljī, iii, Beyrouth 1398/1978 p. 393 (qiṣṣah 365). The editor (in his foot-note in volume ii, qiṣṣah 246) equates this person with the poet Abū l-Qāsim ʿUbaid Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ṣarwī, whom Tanūkhī quotes more than a dozen times in al-Faraj baʿd al-shiddah as well as in his Nishwār al-muḥāḍarah wa akhbār al-mudhākarah (see the indexes in al-Shāljī’s editions of the two books, under ‘al-Ṣarwī’) and who was apparently a close friend of the author. Although this equation is possible, the fact that the nisbah al-ʿAbqasī (from ʿAbd al-Qais) appears only in this passage must lead one to suspect that they might not be the same person.

^ Back to text138. See the critical edition by Ismāʿīl Ḥākimī, ii, second printing, Tehran 1363sh./1984–5, p. 911. The name occurs also (again only in the Topkapı Ms., against ‘ʿUnṣurī’ in the other copies) at the end of the story, p. 915.

^ Back to text139. Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 355.

^ Back to text140. As was suggested by A.H. Morton, with whom I have discussed this and other aspects of ʿUnṣurī’s biography.

^ Back to text141. For the manuscript tradition, see below, Appendix iv.

^ Back to text142. The consonants are clearly pointed in Rādūyānī. The vocalisation is by Ateş, with reference to Samʿānī, fol. 40a, who says that the nisbah Ushnānī refers to Qanṭarat al-Ushnān in Baghdad. But it seems more likely, in the case of this Persian poet, that we have to do with a professional name from ushnān, ‘potash’.

^ Back to text143. Thus Rādūyānī p. 8.

^ Back to text144. Thus clearly pointed all 10 times in Rādūyānī and several times in the manuscripts of lf (see Horn, Einl. p. 21, and ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī p. 90) and in Qawwās (p. 190). From the pun that ʿAufī makes on the name it is clear that the latter read it as ‘Zainatī’ (or ‘Zīnatī’), a reading defended with much ire by Bahār (Dānish i, 1328sh./1949, pp. 601–3), but the authority of Asadī and Rādūyānī clearly outweighs that of ʿAufī.

^ Back to text145. Thus ʿAufī and Baihaqī.

^ Back to text146. ʿAufī.

^ Back to text147. The nisbah is only in lf, ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī, p. 195.

Cite this page
“2 From the Middle of the 9th Century to the Last Quarter of the 11th: Part 3”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 01 October 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲