Storey Online

3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 2
(25,626 words)

In Volume 5: Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period

previous chapter: Part 1

§ 183. Ḍiyāʾ Pārsī flourished in Khujand during the first part of the 7th/13th century (the poems contain dates ranging between 600/1203–4 and 638/1240–1). His dīwān is extant, notably in a very old manuscript in Tehran, though it has not yet been published,1 and is of considerable interest for the light that it sheds on the history of a remote corner of Central Asia on the eve of, and just after, the Mongol invasion.

The poet’s contemporary Shams al-dīn al-Ḥaddādī, known as Khālah,2 says of him that he was ‘by descent a man of Fārs, though brought up in Khujand’.3 Ḍiyāʾ himself says ‘my birthplace and origin are from Fārs, like Salmān’, but qualifies this by adding: ‘for my words are Persian, (like) pearls of (the sea of) Oman’;4 it would thus seem possible that the poet is using the word ‘birthplace’ somewhat freely. Rāzī includes him in his chapter on Shiraz and says that he came from Fārs to Khurāsān in his youth (dar awān i jawānī). Of the various patrons who are celebrated in his panegyrics I have so far been able to identify only three with personages known from historical sources: One is the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad to whom Ḍiyāʾ dedicated an ode in the aftermath of this king’s victory over the Qara-Khiṭāy in 607/1210; the poem is quoted, and the circumstances of its composition mentioned, also by Juwainī. Another is al-malik al-kabīr ʿIzz al-dīn Tēmür Malik-Shāh, to whom several poems are directed, one with the date 615/1218–9;5 he is doubtless the Tēmür Malik whose brave (if futile) defence of Khujand against the Mongols in 617/1220 is known to us, again from Juwainī.6 The third is al-ṣāḥib al-aʿẓam Fakhr al-dunyā wa l-dīn Maḥmūd Ulugh Yalawāch,7 the Muslim governor of Khujand during the early part of the reign of Chaghatai.8 A good number of poems (among them one with the date 603/1206–7,9 and an elegy on his death10) are dedicated to al-sulṭān Muʿizz al-dunyā wa l-dīn Abū l-Ḥārith Muḥammad Qılıch Ṭafghāj (i.e. Tavğaç) Khān, and another group (again including an elegy11) to al-sulṭān Rukn al-dunyā wa l-dīn Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Masʿūd Ṭafghāj Khān, presumably his son. Their titulature suggests that these two belonged to the Qarakhanids of Farghānah, but they do not seem to be recorded elsewhere. A large number of poems are dedicated to a potentate in Marghīnān, Ḥusām al-dīn Ḥasan b. ʿAlī Yabghū (or Pīghū?)12 Malik-shāh al-Marghīnānī. This patron is perhaps identical with al-malik al-muʿaẓẓam Pīghū-Malik whom ʿAufī includes in his chapter on the royal amateur poets.13 Other poems evoke al-ispahsālār al-muʾaiyid Niẓām al-dīn Yabghū (Pīghū) Malik, who is perhaps the same as the just-mentioned Ḥusām al-dīn, or perhaps rather a relative of his; others evoke al-ispahsālār al-muʾaiyid Niẓām al-dīn Ulugh Tügsīn. A very large number of poems are dedicated to al-malik al-kabīr Ikhtiyār al-dīn Malik-shāh Asʿad b. Masʿūd, of which some explicitly mention Khujand and one contains the date 638/1240–1,14 evidently the most recent year mentioned in the dīwān; he would thus seem to have been one of the governors of Khujand under the Mongols. He is also the dedicatee of an ode by Saif Isfarangī15 which in turn praises ‘Ḍiyāʾ i Pārsī’. A poem with the date 14 Ṣafar 633/1235 invokes al-ispahsālār ʿImād al-dīn Maḥmūd b. Asʿad, evidently the son of Ikhtiyār al-dīn. A good number of poems eulogise Malik al-islām Nāṣir al-dīn ʿAlī b. ʿAlī, to whom the poet applies epithets such as shāh i sharīʿah and nūr i Khujand, evidently a high-ranking cleric.

The dīwān contains also a poetic compliment to a colleague, Shams al-dīn al-Ḥaddādī, as well as Shams al-dīn’s reply (quoted at the beginning of this article). Rāzī quotes a different pair of poems exchanged between these two, and a pair of poems exchanged with one Shihāb al-dīn (presumably Shihābī Khujandī, below no. 299). Badāʾūnī and Hidāyat, misled, no doubt, by the title Malik-Shāh which occurs in so many of his poems, put our poet in the early Seljuq period. Taqī16 (followed by Ādhar) says that he died in 622/1225, which, though at least in the right century, is still too early.

Mss.: Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 299 (Ms. signed by Ḥasan b. Yūsuf and dated 20 Rajab 666/1268, but Ātābāy thinks this scribe is responsible only for the final pages and that the Ms. is possibly an autograph). Another Ms. was at one time in the possession of D.S. Robertson;17 I am not aware of its present location. Cf. Munz. iii 24275.

Juwainī ii p. 79; Rāzī i pp. 189–93 (no. 188); Badāʾūnī, Muntakhab al-tawārīkh i, Calcutta 1868, pp. 23–8 (transl. p. 38); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 325–6; id., Riyāḍ p. 225; D.S. Robertson, ‘A forgotten Persian poet of the thirteenth century’, jras 1951, p. 103 (with an account of the Ms. in the author’s possession); M. Ḥasan/D.S. Robertson, ‘Ḍiyā-i Fārsī’, jras 1952, pp. 105–7; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī pp. 1362–70 and 1511–29; ln s.v. ‘Ḍiyāʾu l-dīn’ pp. 78–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 327 (‘Ḍiyā i Khujandī’); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 827–33.

§ 184. al-Ḥakīm Ḍiyāʾ al-dīn Maḥmūd al-Kābulī is the author of a qiṭʿah and four rubāʿīyāt which he wrote out for ʿAufî when the latter met him in Ghaznah (not long before 607/1210–1).

ʿAufī ii pp. 416–7; Rāzī ii p. 105 (no. 592); ln s.v. ‘Ḍiyāʾ al-dīn’ pp. 80–1; Khaiyām-pūr p. 348.

§ 185. al-Ḥakīm Majd al-dīn Fahīmī al-Bukhārī was a contemporary of ʿAufī, who tells us that he was illiterate (ummī), but none the less an accomplished poet. The samples of his work quoted by ʿAufī contain a qiṭʿah and two rubāʿīs lampooning Saʿd al-dīn Kāfī (below, no. 277).

ʿAufī ii pp. 386–7; Rāzī iii pp. 424–5 (no. 1484, ‘Fahmī’); Khaiyāmpūr p. 457.

§ 186. A certain Fakhr al-dīn composed two poems describing a contest between the pen and the sword of which one (inc. āhan u nai chūn padīd āmad zi ṣanʿ i kirdigār * dar miyān i tēgh u kilk uftād jang u kārzār) has been published by Ethé from the important anthology Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār. It contains a verse18 eulogising Malik-shāh (presumably the first king of that name, 465/1072 to 485/1092).

Ms.: Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 221a (Ethé 1333).

See H. Ethé, ‘Über persische Tenzonen’, Verhandlungen des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, Berlin 1882, ii/1, pp. 48–135 (text of the munāẓarah on pp. 118–20 and a verse translation on pp. 120–2).

§ 187. al-Amīr al-ʿĀlim Falak al-dīn Ibrāhīm al-Sāmānī is the author of three ghazals quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Western Persia after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552 /1157). ʿAufī says that he was a descendant of the Samanid kings and that he was born in Transoxania but lived in ʿIrāq.

ʿAufī ii pp. 401–2; Khaiyām-pūr p. 258 (‘Sāmānī i ʿIrāqī’).

§ 188. Falakī Sharwānī flourished at the court of the Sharwān-shāh Manūchihr ii, who reigned from 516/1122 (or somewhat later) until 555/1160–1 (or not long afterwards),19 the only king mentioned in his published poems. It is therefore likely that he died before this monarch (the date 577/1181–2 given by Taqī and others is probably a good deal too late). Khāqānī composed an elegy on Falakī’s death20 in which indicates that his colleague and compatriot died young. His statement, in the same poem, that Falakī was ‘aware of the mysteries of the nine spheres’ (zi rāz i nuh falak āgāh) has been taken as evidence that our poet was a professional astronomer (which would explain his pen-name, Falakī), but it might just as well be nothing more than a word-play on the part of Khāqānī. From his own poems we know that Falakī’s personal name was Muḥammad, that he was imprisoned for a time in the fortress of Shābarān, but was later pardoned and set free by Manūchihr.

Several of his poems contain significant data concerning the history of the Caucasus, the most interesting being a long elegy21 commiserating with Manūchihr and, in particular, with his consort Thamar, on the death of her brother, the Georgian king Demetre i. According to the Georgian chronicle22 Demetre died in 375 Georgian (ad 1155), having abdicated and retired to a monastery one year earlier. It has not, I think, been noticed that Falakī’s poem confirms this date with a chronogram in the otherwise rather absurd verse (line 64): shak nēst kih tārīkh i wafāt-ash khalal ē ṣaʿb * dar qāʿidah i ʿālam u ʿadl i ʿUmar āwurd; the numerical value of the letters in the words from khalal to ʿadl inclusive is 1467, which is the year of the Seleucid era corresponding to ad 1155–6.

The Indian scholar Hādī Ḥasan published his 1929 collection of Falakī’s poems on the basis of the Munich anthology (Cod. or. 279), collated with the selections quoted in various tadhkirahs. Later the same scholar discovered a number of hitherto unknown poems in the Madras manuscript and he published these, together with the new variants to the poems which he had previously edited, in his monograph of 1958. The Tehran edition of Falakī’s so-called dīwān is essentially a reprint of the older of Hādī Ḥasan’s collections. It has not yet been investigated whether the Tehran (Gulistān) manuscript adds anything new to Falakī’s oeuvre.

Mss.: Bologna Biblioteca Universitaria Ms. 3283/i (Piemontese 3. 13th century? Contains one qaṣīdah, the 1st in H.H.’s edition); Munich Cod. or. 279 fol. 93–133 (Aumer 18. 17th century?); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 355; Lucknow Sprenger 199 (two copies, one of which was dated 1015/1606–7 and evidently represented an extract from Taqī); Aligarh Subḥ. p. 34 no. 48; Madras i 195/iv (15 poems).

Editions: London 1929 (ed. Hādī Ḥasan); Tehran 1345sh./1966 (ed Ṭāhirī Shihāb).

Shams pp. 392–3; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Saif Harawī p. 144 (one verse); Mustaufī p. 743; Jājarmī i pp. 144+vi–144+vii, 191–5; Yaghmāʾī pp. 260–3 (both of these quote poem no. x of H.H.’s edition); Daulat-shāh pp. 103–4; Rāzī iii pp. 287–92 (no. 1386; name misspelt in the edition); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 500a sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105; Paris Supplément 799 fol. 214v sqq. = Blochet 1242); Ādhar i pp. 198–204; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 381–2; Hādī Ḥasan, Falakī-i-Shirwānī: his times, life, and works, London 1929 (see also his list of mostly unpublished tadhkirahs, pp. 70–4; review by V. Minorsky, bsos v, 1928–30, pp. 903–10); id., ‘Muḥammad Falakī-i-Shirwānī and his unique dīwān in Madras’, Islamic Culture xxiv/2, 1950, pp. 77–107, xxiv/3, 1950, pp. 145–86; id., Researches in Persian literature, Hyderabad 1958, pp. 29–94 (contains the text and translation of the new poems in the Madras Ms.); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 774–6; Khaiyām-pūr p. 454; ei2 s.v. ‘Falakī Shirwānī’ (Hadi Hasan); EIr s.v. ‘Falakī’.

§ 189. Faqīhī Marwazī is credited with four verses in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān.

ʿAufī ii pp. 174–5; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 381; Khaiyām-pūr p. 452.

§ 190. Farīd al-dīn ʿAlī al-Munajjim al-Sijzī,23 called Jāsūs al-aflāk, ‘he who spies on the spheres’, astronomer and poet, was a contemporary of ʿAufī,who states that he himself had been ‘in his service’, evidently during his short stay in Sistan in the early part of the 7th/13th century. ʿAufī says further that Farīd was the brother of al-Ṣadr al-ajall Naṣīr ⟨al-dīn⟩ al-Sharʿānī,24 the wazīr to the king of Nīmrōz (i.e. the ruler of Sistan), that he had led a dissolute youth, but by the time our author met him he was a pillar of Islam. ʿAufī represents him with a qiṭʿah satirising the malāḥidah (i.e. the Ismāʿīlīs) and two rubāʿī s.

ʿAufī ii pp. 347–8; Rāzī i p. 295 (no. 306); Khaiyām-pūr p. 446 (‘Farid i Sīstānī’).

§ 191. Farīd al-dīn al-Kātib (or, persice, Farīd i dabīr) was a scribe in the Seljuq chancery. ʿAufī quotes a tarjīʿ-band praising Masʿūd b. Muḥammad (529/1134 to 547/1152). Ẓahīr al-dīn (followed by Rāwandī and others) quotes a rubāʿī which he composed after Sanjar’s defeat at the hands of the Qara-Khiṭāy (in 536/1141) and another commenting on the embassy of the Ghaznavid Bahrām-shāh25 to the Ghorid Saif al-dīn Sūrī in the year 543/1148–9. Jājarmī (and the Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār) adds a question and answer poem. An ode to ‘Farīd i dabīr’ is found in the dīwān of Mujīr al-dīn Bailaqānī.26 Daulat-shāh adds the (questionable) information that Farīd was a pupil of Anwarī.

Ẓahīr al-dīn Naisābūrī, Saljūq-nāmah, Tehran 1332sh./1953, pp. 46–7; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, Leyden/London 1921, pp. 173, 175; ʿAufī i pp. 152–4; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 184b); Jājarmī ii pp. 432–4; Daulat-shāh pp. 106–7 (quotes from Minhāj i Sirāj); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 377; Browne, History ii p. 345; Khaiyāmpūr pp. 446–7.

§ 192. Sharaf al-afāḍil Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Farqadī is represented by a number of poems in ʿAufī’s anthology, two of them odes to the Ghorid Ghiyāth al-dīn Muḥammad b. Sām (558/1163 to 599/1203). He is perhaps not identical27 with the Farqadī included by ʿAbd al-Jalīl Rāzī (ca. 560/1165) in his list of Shiite poets.

lf ed. Iqbāl p. 401 (Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿAbd al-Jalīl Rāzī, Kitāb al-naqḍ, ed. Muḥaddith, p. 252; ʿAufī ii pp. 312–8; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 380; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 718–20; Khaiyām-pūr p. 443.

§ 193. al-Ḥakīm ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Fatḥī al-Ghaznawī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157) where we find a religious qaṣīdah (mutilated in Browne’s manuscript, but a fuller version of it has been published by Nafīsī from an unidentified safīnah) as well as two rubāʿīs

ʿAufī ii pp. 413–4 (and the note in Nafīsī’s edition, p. 760); Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 4a); Rāzī i p. 333 (no. 344); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 372 in marg.; id., Riyāḍ p. 228; Khaiyāmpūr p. 432.

§ 194. Firdaus Samarqandī, the ‘minstrel-girl’ (muṭribah), is quoted by Juwainī (followed by Mustaufī) as the author of a rubāʿī congratulating the Khwārazmshāh ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad on his victory over the Ghorids (in 601/1204).

She is presumably not identical with the ‘Muṭribah’ of Kāshghār whose verses bemoaning the death of a certain Ṭughān-shāh are cited by Ādhar.28

Juwainī ii p. 56; Mustaufī p. 757; Khaiyām-pūr p. 440.

§ 195. Athīr al-dīn al-Futūḥī al-Marwazī was a contemporary and friend of Adīb Ṣābir, as is evident from the versified compliments exchanged between the two and quoted by ʿAufī. The dīwān of Anwarī contains a poem29 attacking Futūḥī (at least according to the super-scription in the edition; the name does not occur in the actual verses) and in the same dīwān we find another poem30 in which Anwarī addresses his complaints to a certain king and his minister and a reply31 with the same rhymes which (again according to the superscription) Futūḥī addressed by royal and ministerial command to Anwarī. The same superscriptions identify the addressees of Anwarī’s poem as ‘Malik-shāh’ (iii?; 547/1152 to 548/1153) and ‘Niẓām al-mulk’, but the reply supposedly by Futūḥī speaks of fifteen years having passed since the death of Abū l-Ḥasan ʿImrānī. The latter was executed by Sanjar in 545/1147–8;32 Futūḥī’s poem must consequently have been composed around 560/1165, at which time there was no king by the name of Malik-shāh. Anwarī’s dīwān also contains a qiṭʿah33 mocking the town of Balkh but which (again according to the superscription in the printed dīwān and to Hidāyat) was in fact written by Futūḥī and maliciously ascribed by him to his rival. Unfortunately the supposedly critical edition by Mudarris i Riḍawī (who did have a number of very old manuscripts at his disposal) fails to make clear whether the rubrics in question are in fact contained in any of the old copies; the whole question of the relationship between Futūḥī and Anwarī remains thus very much in abeyance.

Hidāyat ascribes to Futūḥī a number of short poems not found in other printed sources and Ṣafā adds five ghazals, again without any indication of their provenance.

ʿAufī ii pp. 148–53; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Rāzī ii pp. 16–20 (no. 521); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 372–3; Furūzānfar i pp. 389–90; ʿA. al-Ḥ. Nawāʾī, ‘Anwarī wa Futūḥī i shāʿir’, Yād-gār ii/9 pp. 70–80; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 688–90; Khaiyām-pūr p. 433 (with further references); ln s.v. ‘Athīr’ pp. 1022–3; Mudarris i Riḍawī’s introduction to his Dīwān i Anwarī ii p. 101.

§ 196. Ghazālī Marwazī is known to us only as the author of five verses quoted in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān. ʿAufī ii p. 163; Khaiyām-pūr p. 418.

§ 197. One verse by Mujīr Ghiyāthī is quoted in lf ed. Iqbāl p. 248 (Ms. nūn in marg.). He is perhaps identical with the Ghiyāthī to whom two verses are ascribed in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 42.

§ 198. Hamīd al-dīn Tāj al-shuʿarāʾ al-Dihistānī is credited with one qiṭʿah in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157).

ʿAufī ii pp. 355–6; ln s.vv. ‘Tāju l-shuʿaraʾ’ p. 89 and ‘Ḥamīd al-dīn’ p. 808; Khaiyām-pūr p. 173.

§ 199. Ḥamid al-dīn (i?) Masʿūd b. Saʿd Shālī-kōb,34 (‘ricepounder’),35 apparently the son of the famous Masʿūd i Saʿd, is cited by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore after the time of Sanjar where we find a short poem describing a pen, the last part of which is missing in the Ms. available to Browne. Rāzī, whose copy of ʿAufī was evidently defective in much the same way, ascribes to our poet the verses found in ʿAufī’s next entry, that devoted to Aḥmad b. Muḥammad.36

ʿAufī ii pp. 411–2; Rāzī i pp. 344–5 (no. 360); Khaiyām-pūr p. 173; ln s.vv. ‘Ḥamīd al-dīn’ p. 809 and ‘Shālī-kūb’ p. 123.

§ 200. Ḥamīd Kāzarūnī is quoted by Shams as the author of a poem with alternating Arabic and Persian verses. The same name occurs as the author of a ghazal quoted in Jājarmī’s Muʾnis al-aḥrār.

Shams p. 150; Jājarmī ii pp. 979–80; Khaiyām-pūr p. 173.

§ 201. Ḥaqīqī (thus p. 18, 403) or Ḥaqīqī Ṣūfī (p. 84, 305) is quoted four times in lf ed. Iqbāl (Ms. nūn in marg.).

§ 202. Saiyid Imām Ashraf dhū l-shahādatain al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Ḥusainī,37 usually quoted as ‘Saiyid Ḥasan’ or ‘Saiyid Ashraf’, began his career as a eulogist of the Ghaznavid Bahrām-shāh. There are number of poems in his dīwān celebrating that king’s battles against his rebellious commander in Lahore, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Bāhalīm, in 512–3/1119, events to which the poet was an eye-witness. It appears that he compromised himself in some way with the Ghorid conquerors in Ghaznah and when Bahrām-shāh retook his capital in 544/1149–50 Saiyid Ḥasan felt it safer to depart to Naisābūr, where he penned a poem expressing his apologies and congratulating the king on his victory. In the same year Abū l-Ḥasan al-Baihaqī met him in Naisābūr as our poet was getting ready to depart for a pilgrimage to Mecca. On his return from the holy places he entered the service of the Seljuqs; he praised Sanjar38 (who died in 552/1157), wrote an elegy on the death of Ghiyāth al-dīn Masʿūd ii39 (who died in 547/1152) and poems celebrating the coronation of Malik-shāh iii40 in 547/1152 and that of Sulaimān b. Muḥammad41 in 555/1160; the latter appears to be the latest date that can be established in his dīwān. He also praised the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 551/1156) and the Qarakhanid Maḥmūd ii b. Muḥammad, who ruled in Khurāsān until 558/1162–3. The author of the anonymous preface to Saiyid Ḥasan’s dīwān, who collected the poems shortly after the death of their author, says that Ḥasan bequeathed his books to the afore-mentioned Maḥmūd; this would mean that he died at some time between 555/1160 and 558/1162–3. Strangely, his contemporary Abū l-Ḥasan al-Baihaqī, writing in 555/1160, apparently claims that he had died already in 548/1153–4 in Sarakhs.42 The biographical sources offer also 535, 536 and 565 as dates for his death.

Mss. of his dīwān: Oxford Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/6. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); London Or. 4514/vi (Rieu Suppt. 215. Completed 14 Rabīʿ ii 1023/1614); i.o. 933 (=Robinson 146–51.43 Ms. dated 12 Jumādā ii 1038/1629); i.o. 932 (Dated 24 Shawwāl 1069/1659); Or. 1777/i (Rieu pp. 999–1000. 19th century? Apparently only extracts); i.o. 931; Paris Supplément 797 fol. 1v sqq. (Blochet 1990. 16th century?); Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 3810 (Ateş 53. 16th century?); Tehran Bayānī 56/8 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 16. Dated 995/1587. Selection); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 432/ii; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 402 (Dated Muḥarram 1012/1603); Riḍawī vii 741/2 (Ms. dated 10 Rabīʿ ii 1055/1645); Tashkent Acad. ii 783 (Dated 1269/1852–3); Acad. ii 784 (Dated 1270/1853–4). Cf. Munz. iii 22713–24.

Edition: Tehran 1328sh./1949 (ed. T. Mudarris i Riḍawī).

He also wrote a Tarjamat waṣīyat amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, one hundred Arabic sayings ascribed to ʿAlī, each translated by a Persian verse, dedicated to Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik-Shāh.

Mss.: Vienna Flügel 121/4 (Copied by Ismāʿīl b. ʿAlī al-Kāshī and dated 7 Jumādā i 753/1352. Wrongly ascribed to Waṭwāṭ in the catalogue); Istanbul Üniversite fy 1355 (Ateş 54. 16th century?). It would not be surprising if other copies supposedly of Waṭwāṭs Ṣad kalimah eventually revealed themselves to contain this work.

Abū l-Ḥasan al-Baihaqī (Ibn Funduq), Lubāb al-albāb;44 Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 270–6; Shams passim (quoted once as ‘Saiyid Ashraf’, otherwise as ‘Saiyid Ḥasan i Ghaznawī’); Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Mustaufī pp. 727–8; Jājarmī i pp. 202–4; Daulat-shāh pp. 104–6; Rāzī i pp. 318–24 (no. 335); Taqī (quoted in Mudarris i Riḍawī pp. xxvi–xxix; also in London Or. 3506 fol. 427b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Ādhar ii pp. 535–44; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 192–6; id., Riyāḍ pp. 185–6; ʿA. Iqbāl, ‘Iṭṭilāʿāt-ī chand dar bārah i Saiyid Ḥasan i Ghaznawī’, Armaghān xv, 1313sh. /1934,45 pp. 81–90; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 586–98; Khaiyām-pūr p. 160; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, passim; EIr s.v. ‘Ašraf Ḡaznavī’ (Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh); ei2 s.v. ‘Sayyid Ḥasan Ghaznawī’ (A.L. Beelaert).

§ 203. Ḥasan Mutakallim is the author of a poem cited by Jājarmī and which has also found its way into the old Tehran edition of the dīwān of Manūchihrī, whence it was reprinted and translated by Kazimirski in his edition of the same poet. It is in fact fairly reminiscent of Manūchihrī’s style. The author indicates the name of his patron in a verse46 which reads: kamāl i duwal Bū Riḍā k-āfarīn-ash * bawad dar khuṭab zain i alfāẓ i khāṭib; Dih-khudā identified the latter with Kamāl al-daulah Abū Ridā Faḍl Allāh, who was chief secretary under Malikshāh and Niẓām al-mulk and lost his post in 478/1083–4. However, the verse just cited says that the poet’s patron was praised ‘in the Friday sermons’, indicating that he was a king, not a middle-ranking bureaucrat. As a possible candidate one could perhaps propose the Ghaznavid Kamāl al-daulah Shēr-zād (508/1115 to 509/1116); unfortunately it is not known whether he bore the kunyah Abū Riḍā.

Hidāyat quotes the same poem, but attributes it to Ḥasan Mutakallim Naisābūrī, a poet of the 8th/14th century,47 but it is hardly in his style. For his part Jājarmī was evidently well aware of the difference between our ‘Ḥasan Mutakallim’ and ‘Saiyid Ḥasan al-Naisābūrī’, a ghazal of whose he quotes on p. 1074.

Jājarmī ii pp. 637–41; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ ii p. 14; Kazimirski, Menoutchehri (see above, p. 104), poem no. 5, and notes; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Riḍā’ p. 459.

§ 204. Qāḍī Hishām48 (or: Hujaim49) is known only from Ibn Isfandyār (writing in 613/1216–7), who enumerates him among the holy men of Ṭabaristān and then proceeds to quote a long macaronic poem, that is to say a farcical composition in Persian, but with a large admixture of Arabic and pseudo-Arabic (i.e. Persian words with Arabic case-endings pinned on to them), beginning: ai ba farhang u ʿilm daryāʾu * laisa mā-rā ba juz tu hamtāʾu.

Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i pp. 131–5 (the poem is also in Browne’s epitome, pp. 81–5, with variants); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 465 (quoting Ibn Isfandyār); Khaiyām-pūr p. 629 (‘Hujaim i Āmulī’).

§ 205. A du-baitī by al-Ḥusām al-Kirmānī—of whom I have found no other mention—is quoted in the Taʾrīkh al-mustabṣir of Ibn al-Mujāwir, ed. Löfgren, p. 84. With the help of the accompanying Arabic translation the corrupt text can be emended as follows:

guftam: rukh i tu chī-st? gul i surkh? yāsmīn?
guftā: gul-ē st rēkhtah bar barg i yāsmīn
guftam *kih: shakkar ast labān i *tu *yā ʿaqīq?
guftā *kih: shakkar ast u ʿaqīq-ē na az *yamīn

(I said: ‘What is your cheek? A red rose? Jasmine?’ He/she said: ‘It is a rose spread out on a jasmine leaf.’ I said: ‘Are your lips sugar or carnelian?’ He/she said: ‘They are sugar and a carnelian, but not the sort that comes from the Yemen.’)50

§ 206. al-Saiyid al-ajall Kamāl al-dīn Iftikhār al-Ḥujjāb al-Ḥusain al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥājib is known to us only from ʿAufī, who says that he flourished at the court of ‘sulṭān i shahid’, i.e. the last Ghaznavid Khusrau-Malik (555/1160 to 582/1186), and who quotes a poem in which he addressed ʿAbd al-Rāfiʿ al-Harawī.51

ʿAufī ii p. 413; Khaiyām-pūr p. 145.

§ 207. ʿImādī, or as ʿAufī also calls him, Ustād al-aʿimmah ʿImād al-dīn al-Ghaznawī, was attached to the court of the rulers of Māzandarān, the land to the south of the Caspian Sea. The greatest part of his surviving poems is dedicated to one Saif al-dīn ʿImād al-daulah Farāmarz; this can hardly be anyone other than the Bāwandid prince Farāmarz b. Rustam, who was one of the rivals for the control of Māzandarān after the death of his grandfather (or great-grandfather) Ḥusām al-daulah Shahryār in ca. 508/1114–5 and who is reported to have submitted to the authority of his (great?-)uncle ʿAlāʾ al-daulah ʿAlī in 511/1117 or shortly afterwards.52 It would appear that ʿImādī served ʿAlī as well, for Ibn Isfandyār implies that ʿImādī addressed his poem to the atabeg ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ṭughān-yürek53 at the time when the latter had fled from Ardabīl and taken refuge at the court of ʿAlāʾ al-daulah ʿAlī; the verse which the historian cites in this context comes from a tarkīb-band quoted in its entirety in the old anthology published by Yaghmāʾī.

ʿImādī also addressed a number of poems to the Seljuq Rukn al-din Ṭoghrıl (ii) b. Muḥammad (526 /1132 to 529/1134), two of which are quoted in extenso by Rāwandī, who states unambiguously that they are by the same ʿImādī who otherwise eulogised the shāh i Māzandarān. One of these poems can also be found in ʿAufī.54 There is thus no justification for the claim by Taqī Kāshī, and others since, that there were two ʿImādīs, one at Ghaznah (ʿAufī’s ʿImād al-dīn Ghaznawī, alias ʿImādī) and the other in Māzandarān (supposedly called ʿImādī Shahryārī).

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī quotes from two odes by ʿImād Ghaznawī (as he calls him once), or ʿImādī (as he calls him on two other occasions) in praise of Qiwām al-dīn, who was Ṭoghrıl’s minister until 528/1133–4, one of them in imitation of an ode to the same minister by Sanāʾī. The same source mentions also ʿImādī’s stepson (pisar-khwāndah) by the name of Ṣadīq.

A poem by Abū l-ʿAlāʾ Ganjaʾī dedicated to the Sharwān-shāh Manūchihr ii, who died not long after 555/1160 (and in any case before 566/1170),55 speaks explicitly of the death of ʿImādī (chu shud ruwān i ʿImādī …); thus the dates given for ʿImādī’s death by Taqī (573/1177–8) and Ādhar (582/1186–7) are too late. Rieu (and others since) thought that the words ‘shāh Jahān-pahlawān’ which occur in one of the odes in the London manuscript refer to the Ēldügüzid atabeg of Azerbaijan of that name (who ruled from 571/1175 to 582/1186), but here they are evidently not a name, but the epithet of some other ruler.

Mss. containing some of his poems: London Or. 298 (Rieu pp. 557–8. 16th century? Only about 1400 verses); Bologna Biblioteca Universitaria Ms. 3283/ii (Piemontese 3. 13th century? Five verses only by ‘Abū Muḥammad al-ʿImādī al-Ghaznawī’); Tehran Majlis xvii 5976 (17th century? 298 verses in an anthology); Aligarh Subḥ. p. 36 no. 84. Lucknow Sprenger 282 (two copies). Cf. Munz. iii 24874–5.

lf ed. Iqbāl p. 249 (one verse by ʿImād ʿAzīzī—read Ghaznawī?—in Ms. nūn in marg.); Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, pp. 10, 18, 121–2; Rāwandī Rāḥat al-ṣudūr pp. 57, 209, 210–4, 372; Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i p. 107 (=Browne’s epitome p. 59); ʿAufī ii pp. 257–67 (and the notes in Nafīsī’s edition, pp. 722–8); Shams passim; Jājarmī ii pp. 615–8, 1108–9; Yaghmāʾī pp. 103–12 (five poems by ‘ʿImādī i Ghaznawī’); Ṣiḥāḥ p. 308 (one verse by ‘ʿImād i Ghaznawī’); Rāzī iii pp. 23–31 (no. 1069); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 449b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105; Paris Supplément 799 fol. 252v sqq. = Blochet 1242); Ādhar ii pp. 574–80, iii pp. 1093–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 350–2; Hādī Ḥasan, Falakī-i-Shirwānī, London 1929, p. 96; M. Qazwīnī, ‘Mamdūḥ i ʿImādī’ in his Bīst maqālah ii, 2nd edition, Tehran 1332sh./1953, pp. 343–54; Ṣail, Tarīkh ii pp. 743–50; M.S. Israeli, ‘Imadi: his life, times and works’, Islamic Culture xxxiv, 1960, pp. 176–94 (contains a list of his patrons, but several of them have been wrongly identified); Khaiyām-pūr p. 407; ln s.v. ‘ʿĪmādī i Shahryārī’ p. 300; ei2 s.v. ‘ʿImādī’ (M.S. Israeli); ei2 Suppt. s.v. ‘ʿImādī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn).

§ 208. Two verses by Abū l-ʿAbbās (Bul-ʿAbbās) Imāmī are quoted by Shams, p. 207.

§ 209. Tāj al-dīn Ismāʿīl al-Bākharzī is included by ʿAufī (on whom all the other sources listed below are entirely dependent) among the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān. His entry includes two ghazals and a number of rubāʿīyāt, among the latter a elegy on the death of Abū l-Ḥasan Ṭal-ḥah.56

ʿAufī ii pp. 156–9; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Rāzī ii pp. 168–9 (no. 656); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 692–4; Khaiyām-pūr p. 40; ln s.v. ‘Tāj al-dīn’ pp. 72–3.

§ 210. Ḥakīm Jalāl57 (or Ḥalāl)58 is included in ʿAufī’s section on the poets in Transoxania during the Seljuq period, where we are told that he wrote satirical verses in the vein of Sōzanī but at the end of his life turned his hand to ‘serious’ poetry. As a sample of the latter our informant quotes some verses from a ‘famous’ qaṣīdah and one rubāʿī.

Furūzānfar, followed by Ṣafā, maintained that the ‘khar i khum-khānah’ (‘ass of the wine-shop’) who is the victim of so many of Sōzanī’s satires and who, if we are to believe Sōzanī, was a Christian, is to be identified with ʿAufī’s Ḥakīm Jalāl; the basis for this is a verse in one of these satires which Furūzānfar quoted as: hamah saudā-sh ān-kih naqsh kunad * ba Jalālī jarīdah i alqāb. But the now available printed dīwān of Sōzanī59 has in the verse in question not ‘Jalālī’, but ‘julāb-ē’; compare ‘julāb’ at the end of the previous verse. This reading certainly seems to make better sense, but even with ‘Jalālī’ the verse is hardly unambiguous.

ʿAufī ii pp. 198–9; Furūzānfar i p. 228 n. 1; ln s.v. ‘Jalāl i Mā-warāʾa-nahrī’ p. 72; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii p. 623.

§ 211. al-Imām al-ajall Jalāl al-dīn malik al-kalām Faḍl Allah al-Khuwārī (Khuwār is a village near Rai) is the subject of an entry in ʿAufī’s chapter on the amateur poets of ʿIrāq, where we find, among other things, an ode of eleven verses which, still according to ʿAufī, he addressed to Sultan Tekish (the Khwārazm-shāh) at the time when his troops were outside the gates of Rai (i.e. evidently in 588/1192). Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī quotes a slightly different version of the same poem,60 gives its author the same name (al-Jalāl al-Khuwārī), but says that the verses were addressed to Tekish’s opponent, the Seljuq Ṭoghrıl (iii) b. Arslān, when he had drawn up his troops outside Rai. Jalāl al-dīn, we are told, went to the sultan together with Ṣadr al-dīn al-Wazzān to complain of the damage that the king’s horses were doing to the crops; after listening to the verses Ṭoghrıl ordered his men to leave the fields alone.

Daulat-shāh tells (on the authority of the supposed Tārīkh i āl i Saljūq of Abū Ṭāhir Khātūnī)61 exactly the same story about a poet’s successful intercession with a king on behalf of the peasants and quotes five verses of which the last two are virtually identical with the last two in Zakarīyāʾ’s version, but he gives the name of the poet as Abū l-Mafākhir Rāzī and that of the king as Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik-shāh (529/1134 to 547/1152), and says that the incident took place ‘at the time when he set out from Māzandarān’.62 The reference to Māzandarān seems meaningless in connection with Masʿūd, but fits in with ʿAufī’s version: Tekish did in fact approach Rai from Māzandarān.

Qazwīnī drew attention to the similarity between the verses which ʿAufī ascribes to Jalāl al-dīn and those which Daulat-shāh gives to Abū l-Mafākhir and suspected that Jalāl al-dīn plagiarised the earlier poet; unfortunately he seems to have overlooked the parallel passage in Zakarīyāʾ. In the light of the latter it now seems more likely that Daulat-shāh (or his supposed source) has garbled both the name of the poet and that of the king and, moreover, in quoting the verses off the top of his head, has recomposed the first three of them.

I can find no reference to a poet by the name of Abū l-Mafākhir Razī before Daulat-shāh.63 This authority states also (this time without reference to Khātūnī) that the same Abū l-Mafāhkir composed ‘several’ odes in praise of the Shiite imam ʿAlī al-Riḍā and proceeds to quote the first verse of one of these (beginning bāl i muraṣṣaʿ …). More or less extended versions of this poem are quoted by later sources, but in some of these the poem is attributed to Fakhr al-dīn Rāzī. In at least one version it ends with a verse in which the author gives his name as ‘Mafākhir’ or, perhaps better, ‘Mufākhir’.

See (for Jalāl al-dīn): ʿAufī i pp. 276–8 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, pp. 243–4; Rāzī iii pp. 32–3 (no. 1071); Khaiyām-pūr p. 132; and (for Abū l-Mafākhir): Daulat-shāh pp. 76–7; Rāzī iii pp. 33–4 (no. 1072); Ādhar iii pp. 1101–6 (and Nāṣirī’s notes, with further information on the ode to ʿAlī al-Riḍā); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 376 (‘Fākhirī i Rāzī’); ʿA. Āl i Dāʾūd, ‘Qaṣīdah i Abū l-Mufākhir i Rāzī i mansūb ba imām Fakhr i Rāzī’ [i.e. ‘bāl i muraṣṣaʿ …’, with a quasi-critical edition of the poem], Maʿārif xviii/1, 1380sh./2001, pp. 95–107; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Mafākhir’ p. 857; Khaiyām-pūr p. 24 (‘Abū l-Mafākhir’) and 425 (‘Fākhirī’).

§ 212. Jamāl Ashharī and the already discussed Athīr Akhsīkatī were, according to ʿAufī, two poets whom the atabeg Qızıl Arslān (582/1186 to 587/1191) summoned to his court when he grew tired of the lax services of Mujīr Bailaqānī; in the mocking verses by Mujīr which ʿAufī quotes in this connection he is referred to merely as ‘Ashharī’. A substantial qaṣīdah by presumably the same malik al-shuʿarāʾ Jamāl al-dīn al-Ashharī is quoted by Jājarmī.

ʿAufī ii p. 223; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Jājarmī ii pp. 497–9.

§ 213. Jamāl al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Iṣfahānī,64 the father of Kamāl al-dīn,65 flourished in Isfahan during the second half of the 6th/12th century. ʿAufī seems to imply that he was by profession a goldsmith and in one of his own verses Jamāl speaks of how ‘the clouds and the wind, in two seasons, are always like me: in spring the one is a painter and in autumn the other a goldsmith’,66 though it could be that here zar-gar means not ‘goldsmith’ but ‘illuminator of manuscripts’ (Arabic mudhahhib), or indeed that the verse is merely a metaphorical allusion to its author’s poetic prowess. If our poet was indeed a painter of miniatures it is then possible (though hardly certain) that he is identical with the ‘Jamāl i naqqāsh i Iṣfahānī’ who, according to Rāwandī illustrated a book of poetry for Sultan Ṭoghrıl (iii) b. Arslān in 580/1184–5.67

Jamāl’s dīwān contains a small number of odes to the Seljuqs Arslān (556/1161 to 571/1176) and Ṭoghrıl iii (571/1176 to 590/1194), and a larger number to the Bāwandid ruler of Māzandarān, Ḥusām al-dīn Ardashīr b. Ḥasan (560/1165 to 568/1173), but most of his poems eulogise local dignitaries of Isfahan. In Jamāl’s lifetime (and in that of his son) the political and religious life in that town was dominated by the bitter and often bloody rivalry of the Ḥanafīs (led by the Āl i Ṣāʿid) and the Shāfiʿīs (led by the Banū l-Khujandī). The largest number of Jamāl’s odes are addressed to the Ḥanafī qāḍīs Rukn al-dīn Masʿūd and his son Rukn al-dīn Ṣāʿid. We know from the dīwān of Kamāl al-dīn that Jamāl died before Ṣāʿid and the latter lived perhaps until 600/1203–4.68 But Jamāl also served the rival Shāfiʿī faction: his dīwān contains a good number of poems addressing one ‘Ṣadr al-dīn’, but without personal names, making it difficult to say which one of the Shāfiʿī ṣadrs is intended.69 There is also an elegy on the death of one Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd,70 who, if the text is correct, is presumably Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Khujandī, who died after (but probably not long after) 551/1156.71

The dīwān contains poems which Jamāl sent to his colleagues Khāqānī,72 Mujīr Bailaqānī73 and Waṭwāṭ.74 Taqī Kāshī75 puts our poet’s death in 588/1192, which seems possible, but, like virtually all the dates in Taqī’s book, is quite likely to be without foundation.

Mss.: London Or. 2880/iv (Rieu Suppt. 224. Completed Jumādā i 1245/1829); Paris Supplément 735 (Blochet 1321. 16th century?); Supplément 783 fol. 7r sqq. (Blochet 1981. 16th century? Selections); Istanbul Ayasofya 2051/12 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330); Tehran Aṣghar Mahdawī 113/iii (Nuskhah-hā ii 95. Dated 1006/1597–8); Adabīyāt ii 156/ii (Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1007/1599); Bayānī 11 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 9. 16th century?); Millī (Nuskhah-hā iv p. 196. Copied by Muḥammad b. Mullā-mīr Ḥusainī and dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1010/1602); Lucknow Sprenger 295; Madras i 195/ii (Selections). Cf. Munz. iii 22247–68.

Editions: Tehran [1318sh./1939] (ed. Adīb Nīshābūrī); 1320sh./1941 (ed. W. Dastgirdī); reprinted 1362sh./1983.

Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921 (see the index); ʿAufī ii pp. 402–4; Shams p. 288, 372–8; Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 197; Mustaufī p. 724; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 12b, 27b, 142b); Jājarmī i pp. 46–9, 79–80; Daulat-shāh pp. 141–8; Rāzī ii pp. 366–73 (no. 869); Ādhar iii pp. 929–39; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 177–83; id., Riyāḍ pp. 174–6; Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā ii p. 167; S. Nafīsī, ‘Jamāl al-dīn i ʿAbd al-Razzāq’, Armaghān vi/1–2, 1304sh./1925, pp. 109–18, vi/3–4, 1304sh./1925, pp. 153–63; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 731–40; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 134–5; ei2 Suppt. s.v. ‘Djamāl al-dīn’ (A.H. Zarrinkoob).

213a. Jannatī b.y.ʾ (Bannāʾ?) of Nakhshab, a panegyrist of the minister ʿAlāʾ al-mulk Sharaf al-dīn Amīrak, is quoted by ʿAufī ii pp. 394–6 as the author of a tarjīʿ-band, a qaṣīdah and a rubāʿī. For his patron, see also ʿAufī i pp. 148–9.

§ 214. Mustaufī i mashriq Ḥamīd al-dīn al-Jauharī is the addressee of a comical poem by Sōzanī which has been preserved by Shams.76 ʿAufī quotes the opening words of Sōzanī’s poem (albeit in a somewhat different form) and proceeds to quote three rubāʿīs and two qiṭʿahs by Jauharī himself. Rāzī, who cites a number of verses not found in ʿAufī, includes Jauharī among the poets of Samarqand. It is perhaps he, and not al-Jauharī al-Ṣāʾigh al-Harawī,77 who should be identified with the Jauharī whom ʿArūḍī includes among the poets of the Qarakhanids.

ʿArūḍī p. 28; ʿAufī ii pp. 208–9; Rāzī iii pp. 354–6 (no. 1427); ln s.v. ‘Ḥamīd al-dīn’ p. 808; Khaiyām-pūr p. 141.

§ 215. Kāfī (i) Abū l-Faraj al-Rūnī, evidently the son of the celebrated Abū l-Faraj al-Rūnī78 is given as the author of two fragments quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Western Persia during the Seljuq period, one of them addressed to Laṭīf Zakī Marāghī.79

ʿAufī ii p. 238 (and the notes in Nafīsī’s edition pp. 707–8); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 481; Khaiyām-pūr p. 481.

§ 216. Jamāl al-dīn Nāṣir i Shams, known as Kāfirak i Ghaznīn (‘the little heathen of Ghaznah’) is the author of ten satirical verses quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore at the time of the Seljuqs.

ʿAufī ii p. 297; Rāzī i p. 333 (no. 345); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 485; Kaiyām-pūr p. 480.

§ 217. Kamāl al-dīn Ismāʿil b. Jamāl al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Iṣfahānī,80 also called Khallāq al-maʿānī, succeeded his father first of all as the eulogist of the Ḥanafī qāḍī Rukn al-dīn Ṣāʿid b. Masʿūd. One of his odes to this worthy contains the date Ramaḍān 585/118981 and must consequently be one of his earliest compositions. In another qaṣīdah directed to the same patron he recalls the services of his deceased father and gives his own age ‘not more than twenty’82 and in yet another he bewails the death of Rukn al-dīn Ṣāʿid and congratulates his son Rukn al-dīn Masʿūd on his succession as qāḍī. This poem appears to imply that the events in question occurred in the year 600/1203–4,83 though the convoluted phrasing and the roundness of the number both suggest that we should use this information with caution. The poems to Ṣāʿid and Masʿūd together make up by far the greatest part of the dīwān. However, like his father, Kamāl also directed a small number of poems to the leaders of the rival Shāfiʿī faction, which in Kamāl’s lifetime was led by Ṣadr al-dīn ʿUmar al-Khujandī, who presumably took over the leadership of the Shāfiʿīs after the death of Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf in 592/1196.84,85 He also sent one poem to the leader of the twelver Shiites in Qum, Rai and Āmul, ʿIzz al-dīn Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā.

There is one poem to the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Tekish, who defeated the Seljuqs in 590/1194 and became the effective overlord of Isfahan, and one to his successor Jalāl al-dīn Meng-burnī (617/1220 to 628/1231). The dīwān also includes poems to one of the Bāwandid kings of Māzandarān, to two of the Salghurids of Fārs, Saʿd b. Zangī (601/1203 to 628/1231) and his successor Abū Bakr, and others. He exchanged poems with Athīr al-dīn Aumānī86 and is himself the addressee of an Arabic letter from the well-known mystic al-Suhrawardī.87

Ibn al-Fuwaṭī says that Kamāl al-dīn ‘was martyred by the Tatars in Isfahan in the year 635’; Daulat-shāh specifies that it was on 2 Jumādā i of that year (i.e. December 1237, two years after the fall of Isfahan to the Mongols) and tells an elaborate story of how Kamāl was living as a sufi outside the town, how the Mongols tried to force him to reveal the location of treasures hidden by the townsfolk and thereby tortured him to death. If Kamāl really died some time after the Mongol invasion he must have completed his dīwān before the cataclysm, for there seem to be no allusions to it in the poems.

Apart from the panegyrics, which constitute the largest portion of his dīwān, Kamāl also wrote a good number of poems of religious inspiration. We also have a short treatise in Arabic, Risālat al-qaus.88

Mss. of his dīwān (in some copies styled Kullīyāt):89 Dublin Beatty 103/i (Ms. completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 699/1300. End missing); Beatty 337 (16th century? Defective. Presumably Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s chīm-bāʾ, ‘124 pp.’); Manchester Lindesiana 217 (Dated 1029/1620); Oxford Elliot 66 (Ethé 639. Dated 12 Muḥarram 981/1573); Elliot 68 (Ethé 641. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1000/1592. Lacunae); Elliot 65 (Ethé 638. Dated Jumādā i 1023/1614); Elliot 229 (Ethé 640); Elliot 69 (Ethé 642); Elliot 67 (Ethé 643); London i.o. 1055 (Copied by Sulṭān ʿAlī Mashhadī in 905/1499–1500); Or. 473 (Rieu pp. 580–1. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1007/1598); Add. 18,414 (Rieu p. 581. Dated Ramaḍān 1029/1620); Add. 7092 (Rieu p. 581. Dated Shawwāl 1036/1627); i.o. 1056 (Dated 27 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1036/1627); Add. 7748 (Rieu p. 581. 17th century? First page missing); i.o. 1057; Cambridge Browne Coll. v.9 (‘The spelling as well as the writing is archaic’); Christ’s, Dd.3.4 (Browne Suppt. 601); King’s, No. 171 (Browne Suppt. 602); Paris Supplément 795 fol. 78v Sqq. (Blochet 1969. Dated 29 Dhū l-qaʿdah 848/1445); Supplément 1821 (Blochet 1323. 16th century?); Supplément 1117 (Blochet 1324. Dated 28 Jumādā i 1010/1601); Supplément 1312 (Blochet 1325. 17th century? Pictures); Parma Bibl. Palatina Ms. 2789 (Piemontese 239. Copied by Mïrzā ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. 16th century?); Hamburg Orient. 232 (Brockelmann 162. Dated 15 Muḥarram 1025/1616); Halle d.m.g. 26 (Dated 999/1590–1); Berlin Sprenger 1427 (Pertsch 762. ‘Old and correct’ according to Spr.); Leningrad Dorn ccclix; Dorn ccclx fol. 1–425; Acad. A 1240 (Index 1613); Acad. C 77 (Index 1614); Konya Izzet Koyunoğlu Kütübhanesi (Mīkrūfilm-hā i p. 97. Copied by ʿAlī b. Ḥusain Maghribī and dated 17 Dhū l-qaʿdah 682/1284. Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s ʿain); Istanbul Bağdatlı Vehbi 1758 (Mīkrūfilm-hū i p. 97. 13th century? Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s kāf); Ayasofya 2051/14 (Mīkrūfilm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330); Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi 1950/3,9 (olim Fatih 3753. Ritter-Reinert pp. 244–5. Ms. copied by Manṣūr b. Muḥammad b. Waraqah Bihbihānī and dated Muḥarram 801/1398); Topkapı, Ahmet iii 2488 (Karatay 502. Copied by Maḥmūd Pirbūdākī and dated Rajab 866/1462); Üniversite fy 768 (olim Halis Efendi 4061. Ateş 151. Dated Ramaḍan 992/1584); Universite fy 59 (Ateş 152. 16th century?); Üniversité fy 678 (Ateş 153. 16th century?); Üniversité fy 1464 (Ateş 154. Dated 3 Ramadan 1081/1671); Ankara Ismail Sâib90 3775 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 449. Anthology dated 27 Jumādā ii 681/1282); Tehran Malik 5246 (Munz. 25503. 13th century?); Bayānī 59 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 17. 13th century? The marginalia—in a second hand—are dated 988/1580. These two Mss. are presumably Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s lām and mīm); Majlis 4029 (Munz. 25506. Dated 17 Shaʿbān 721/1321. Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s mīm-jīm); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 314 (Copied by Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Iṣfahānī and dated 1 Shawwāl 722/1322. First 23 pages added later); Majlis iii 1049 (With the possibly forged date 725/1325); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 315 (Copied by Ḥusain b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ṭabīb and dated 14 Shawwāl 732/1332); Sipah-sālār ii 1255 (15th century?); Univ. xv 5121 (Copied by Shaikh ʿAlī Dargāhī and dated 8 Rabīʿ i 975/1567); Sipah-sālār ii 1256 (16th century?); Majlis iii 1050 (Copied by Muḥammad Mīrah Ghāzī and dated 1012/1603–4); Bayānī 17 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 10. 16th century?); Majlis ii 380 (Dated 1015/1606–7); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 316 (Copied by ʿAbd al-Ghanī Jāmī Lankarī and dated Jumādā i 1021/1612); Majlis ii 379 (Dated 1036/1626–7); Sipah-sālār ii 1254 (Dated 1071/1660–1); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 436/ii (not before 16th century); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 317–9; etc. Mashhad Riḍawī vii 523 (Dated 1 Ṣafar 1019/1610); Bombay Rehatsek p. 142 no. 60 (Dated 9⟨8?⟩6/1578); Rehatsek p. 162 no. 125 (Dated 1024/1615); Lucknow Sprenger 306; Bankipore i 54 (15th century?); i 55 (16th century? Has a seal dated 1044/1634–5); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 746 no. 246 (Dated 991/1583); Aligarh Subḥ. Mss. p. 37 no. 5 (Dated 992/1584); Calcutta Ivanow 488 (18th century?); Būhār 304 (18th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 25500–63.

Editions: Bombay 1307/1889–90(‘Kullīyāt’); Tehran 1348sh./1969 (ed. Ḥ. Baḥr al-ʿulūmī).

Translations (English): The hundred love songs of Kamal ad-din of Isfahan (i.e. his quatrains), ‘translated’ by L.H. Gray and ‘done into English verse’ by E.W. Mumford, London 1903.

Shams passim; Juwainī ii pp. 153, 165–7; iii p. 20; Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 197; Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, Majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, in ocm Suppl, to vol. xv/4, 1939, pp. 149–50; Mustaufī p. 746; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī passim; Jāmī, Bahāristān Daulat-shāh pp. 148–54; Rāzī ii pp. 373–83 (no. 870); Ādhar iii p. 980; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 489–94; id., Riyād pp. 229–30; Ḥ. Masrūr, ‘Sharḥ i ḥāl i Kamālu l-dīn Ismāʿīl i Iṣfahānī’, Armaghān vii, 1305sh./1926, pp. 19–23, 104–17, 301–12; ʿA. Iqbāl, ‘Tārīkh i wafāt i Kamālu l-dīn Ismāʿīl’, Armaghān xiv, 1312sh./1933, pp. 8–13; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 871–7; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 487–8; Z.N. Vorozheykina, Исфаханская школа поэтов и литературная жизнь Ирана в премонгольское время, Moscow 1984; M. Glünz, ‘Der zerfall der ordnung aus der sicht des isfahaner dichters Kamâl od-din Esmâʿil’, in Ph. Gignoux (ed.), Transition periods in Iranian history, Paris 1987, pp. 73–81; id., Die panegyrische qaṣīda bei Kamāl ud-dīn Ismāʿīl aus Isfahan, Beirut 1993 (a very detailed work of literary criticism); ln s.v. ‘Ismāʿīl’ p. 2526; ei2 s.v. ‘Kamāl al-dīn’ (A.H. Zarrinkoob).

§ 218. al-Imām al-ʿālim Kamāl al-dīn Ziyād al-Iṣfahānī is quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poeticising clerics, where we find a poem of religious content (quoted also, with some variants, by Jājarmī) and two rubāʾīs. Quatrains of his are cited also by Abū l-Rajāʾ al-Qummī and by Sharwānī.

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, p. 256; ʿAufī i pp. 274–5; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 197; Jājarmī ii p. 1062; Rāzī ii p. 395 (no. 875); Hidāyat, Riyāḍ p. 229; Khaiyām-pūr p. 488.

§ 219. Bahāʾ al-dīn al-Karīmī al-Samarqandī91 is included by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Transoxania after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157) where we are told that, though a native of Samarqand, he entered the service of the ruler of Sīstān, Malik Shams al-dīn, evidently Shams al-dīn Muḥammad—or Aḥmad—b. Tāj al-dīn Naṣr (559/1164 to 564/1169).92 ʿAufī has also poems dedicated to one Qāḍī Isfarāʾinī and to a personage whom the poet addresses as Malik al-sādah Niẓām al-dīn Shāh.

ʿAufī ii pp. 367–71; Rāzī iii pp. 361–2 (no. 1430; follows ʿAufī); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 481–2 (has one poem not in ʿAufī); Khaiyām-pūr p. 485.

§ 220. Abū l-Ḥafṣ ʿUmar b. Ibrāhīm al-Khaiyāmī93 also (and perhaps wrongly) called Khaiyām,94 the celebrated astronomer and mathematician, and reputed author of a large number of Persian rubāʿīyāt. The facts of his life and scientific achievement are well attested through his own writings (in Arabic) and the testimony of his contemporaries (al-Khāzinī, al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn Funduq, ʿArūḍī)95 and of other early historical and biographical sources. Ibn Funduq, who, still a child, was presented by his father to Khaiyāmī in 507/1113–4, tells us, among other things, that ʿUmar, his father and his ancestors were natives of Naisābūr and quotes his horoscope, from which it has been calculated that ʿUmar was born on 18 May 1048 (which would correspond to a date in Dhū l-qaʿdah or Dhū l-ḥijjah 439). ʿArūḍī, who met Khaiyāmī in 506/1112–3 in Balkh, states that he made a pilgrimage to the master’s grave in Naisābūr in 530/1135–6, ‘four years’ (thus in the best manuscript; the others have ‘some years’) after his death; if the former reading is accepted it can be concluded that ʿUmar died in 526/1131–2.

Ibn Funduq tells us further that ʿUmar enjoyed the intimacy of the Qarakhanid Shams al-mulūk (i.e. Naṣr i b. Ibrāhīm, 460/1068 to 472/1080) and the Seljuq Malik-shāh i (465/1072 to 485/1092), but that Sanjar disliked him. The same author says also that Khaiyāmī was of bad character and mean spirit (saiyiʾ al-khuluq wa ḍaiyiq al-ʿaṭan). Ibn al-Athīr says that ʿUmar b. Ibrāhīm al-Khaiyāmī, Abū l-Muẓaffar al-Isfizārī96 (who was with ʿUmar when ʿArūḍī met him) and Maimūn b. al-Najīb al-Wāsiṭī were among the ‘leading astronomers’ whom Malik-shāh employed to set up an astronomical observatory (raṣad) in 467/1074–5.97 ʿArūḍī tells an anecdote about ʿUmar’s services as an astrologer to ‘the king (i.e. evidently Muḥammad i b. Malik-shāh) in 508/1114–5.

Several of ʿUmar’s scientific and philosophical writings survive and have been published and translated into several European languages,98 the most important being his treatise on algebra (Risālah fī l-barāhīn ʿalā masāʾil al-jabr wa l-muqābilah) which the competent specialists regard as a major landmark in the history of mathematics. But his interests ranged also over other fields. The famous grammarian al-Zamakhsharī reports on a discussion that he had with Khaiyāmī on a moot point of Arabic lexicography and Ibn Funduq tells an anecdote about ʿUmar’s intervention in a scholarly debate about variant readings of the Qurʾān.

Two treatises in Persian prose have been published as the work of Khaiyāmī, but both are of very questionable authenticity. One, the Naurōz-nāmah,99 was published by Mīnuwī on the basis of a single manuscript in Berlin. There is, however, a second, shorter, copy of the work in London100 and in this manuscript the introductory section, and with it the attribution to Khaiyāmī, is missing. The book, which is clearly not the work of a professional astronomer, is written from the standpoint of a Persian chauvinism of which there seems to be no trace in Khaiyāmī’s authentic writings. The other is a little and quite elementary compendium on philosophy titled either Risālah fī kullīyat al-wujūd or Silsilat al-tar-tīb,101 and which appears to claim ʿUmar’s authorship in all the recorded copies. Its first section gives the impression of having been copied from some Ismāʿīlī theosophical tract (it expounds the theory of the ‘ten intelligences’), but at the end the compiler tries to cover his traces by quoting (without attribution) the well-known passage from al-Ghazālī’s al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl in which the author declares that the road to truth has been found neither by the speculative theologians (mutakallimān), nor by the philosophers, nor by the Ismāʿīlīs, but only by Sufis.

Like many Persian intellectuals of his time Khaiyāmī dabbled in Arabic poetry and some samples of his verses in that language are quoted by al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī,102 Ibn al-Qifṭī, the unidentified author of the ‘appendix’ (al-Risālah al-mulḥaqah)103 to Ibn Funduq’s ‘continuation’ (Tatimmah) to al-Sijistānī’s Ṣiwān al-ḥikmah, and finally by al-Shahrazūrī.104 Ibn al-Qifṭī (likewise apparently al-Kātib) quotes four verses from a poem with a double rhyme in -āʿidī and the two other sources quote six verses from the same poem (of which three overlap with Ibn al-Qifṭī, giving us a total of seven verses) and add four verses from another poem with a double rhyme in -āṭirī. In using this highly unusual rhyming technique ʿUmar was doubtless consciously copying the famous luzūmīyāt of Abū l-ʿAlāʾ al-Maʿarrī. The imagery at least in the second one these poems is in fact rather like Maʿarrī’s,105 despite the fact that the decidedly religious tone of Khaiyāmī’s piece contrasts strikingly with the scepticism which runs through Maʿarrī’s work (and also the Persian rubāʿīyāt ascribed to Khaiyāmī).106 One has thus the impression that in his Arabic poems Khaiyāmī imitated Maʿarrī’s poetic technique, but did not emulate his unorthodox ideas.

al-Risālah al-mulḥaqah (followed by al-Shahrazūrī) adds a few more qiṭʿahs with ordinary (single) rhymes; one of these, however, is quoted already by al-Thaʿālibī (who died two decades before Khaiyāmī was born) and ascribed by him to Abū Sahl al-Nīlī.107 Even if this attribution is not necessarily correct the verses are in any case older than Khaiyāmī.

None of the 12th-century sources say anything to suggest that ʿUmar wrote poetry in Persian. ʿArūḍī, who has a lot to say about Khaiyāmī the astrologer, makes no reference to him in his chapter on Persian poetry, and even in the 13th century he remains unknown to ʿAufī and Shams. It is particularly striking that ʿAufī, who not only anthologised virtually all of the Persian professional poets down to his own time, but also really scraped the bottom of the barrel to immortalise the largest possible number of amateur rhyme-smiths, has absolutely nothing to say about him. However, a small number of Persian quatrains are ascribed to ʿUmar in works by some of ʿAufī’s contemporaries Thus, one Persian rubāʿī by ‘Ibn al-Khaiyām’ or, as another manuscript has it, ‘ʿUmar al-Khaiyām’ is quoted in an Arabic treatise by Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209–10). Then the mystic Najm al-dīn Dāyah, writing (in ca. 619/1222) of how many a miserable philosopher, atheist (dahrī and materialist (ṭabāʾiʿī) denies the resurrection, singles out ‘one of the most distinguished of them’, ʿUmar i Khaiyām, and quotes two quatrains ridiculing the Muslim belief in the hereafter, among them the one quoted by Fakhr al-dīn. Another rubāʿī is attributed to ʿUmar i Khaiyām by Juwainī in his history of the Mongol conquests (658/1260). And no fewer than 31 quatrains are ascribed to ʿUmar in the Nuz’hat al-majālis of Jamāl al-dīn al-Sharwānī, an anthology assembled around the middle of the 13th century.108 A few more are added by Jājarmī in the 14th century. The earliest substantial manuscripts of the rubāʿīyāt ascribed to Khaiyām belong to the 15th century and in 867/1462–3 Yār-Aḥmad b. Ḥusain Rashīdī Tabrīzī put together a collection of 554 rubāʿīyāt with the title Ṭarab-khānah. In some later manuscripts the number of quatrains is even greater.

It is accepted now, I should think, by everyone that the great majority of the quatrains that have come to be ascribed to ʿUmar could not possibly be his. To begin with, a good number of them have been attributed to other authors as well. Moreover the language, style and content of the poems show them to be the product of different periods and authors. It is clear that by the 15th century at the latest the name of the famous philosopher and scientist had become a collective pseudonym for authors of rubāʿīyāt, especially those of hedonistic, fatalistic and more or less overtly anti-Islamic content, in the same way that that of Abū Saʿīd b. Abī l-Khair had become the point of crystallisation for a whole corpus of mystical quatrains. In the Mongol period ‘Khaiyām’ is no longer a historical person but a genre. It must be said that we have to do with an important genre and one that says much about the intellectual climate in those times.

To be sure, some of the quatrains are doubtless of considerable antiquity. Five of the rubāʿīyāt that are eventually attributed to ʿUmar are already quoted (anonymously) in Ẓahīrī’s Sindbād-nāmah,109 a book written some 30 years after ʿUmar’s death. This does not prove that they are his, but it does show that they were in circulation during ʿUmar’s lifetime, or shortly afterwards. It is also clear that a certain number of quatrains were explicitly attributed to ʿUmar within a century of his death. Of course, it is not impossible that ʿUmar did compose the odd poem in Persian (though they cannot have been many) and that at least some of those quoted by 13th and 14th-century authors really are his, but as long as it is not possible to say when and under what circumstances the mythification of ʿUmar began it remains quite plausible that this process was already under way by the early part of the 13th century and that consequently none of the rubāʿīyāt are authentic.

It is tempting to think that the mythical ʿUmar first emerged in a novel, perhaps involving (among other motives) the famous anachronistic story of how the philosopher ʿUmar i Khaiyām, the minister Niẓām al-mulk and the leader of the ‘Assassins’ Ḥasan b. al-Ṣabbāḥ had been friends as school-boys and then set out, each in his own way, to make his mark in the world. Of the three protagonists the scholar ʿUmar is intrinsically the least colourful and thus the one most in need of amplification. In the light of the general stereotyped view in the Islamic world of the philosopher as the enemy of religion and morals ʿUmar could very conveniently have been built up into an atheistic bogey. This hypothetical romance, like all such works in Persian (compare Sindbād-nāmah, Marzbān-nāmah, Kalīlah u Dimnah, etc.), would have been adorned with a rich collection of interspersed rubāʿīyāt and other poetic snippets, in part composed by the author, in part salvaged from other works, and readers could consequently easily have come to the conclusion that these verses were the actual words of the characters in the novel. A parallel to this would be, once again, Abū Saʿīd, who very soon was declared the author of the quatrains quoted in the romantic accounts of his holy deeds (and this despite the fact that the authors of the earliest such accounts expressly denied that Abū Saʿīd was a poet)110 and much the same thing could well have happened with Mahsatī as well. [See now also appendix iii.]

The existence of such a novel, say towards the end of the 12th century, would explain for one thing the relatively consistent style, content and quality of the oldest stratum of ‘Khaiyamic’ quatrains; these quatrains reflect the taste of the unknown author. Literati knew that they had to do with a work of fiction and did not confuse the fictionalised characters in the novel with their historic prototypes. Less discerning readers failed to make this distinction. With time the historical ʿUmar falls into oblivion and his romanticised double slips into his shoes.

This is not the place to discuss Edward FitzGerald’s famous poem ‘Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám’ of 1859, which belongs to the history of English and not of Persian literature.111 We should not, however, fail to mention that the immense popularity of FitzGerald’s creation played a decisive role in instigating a large amount of scholarly interest in the rubāʿīyāt or that the fascination of the West for these little poems rubbed off with time in Persia as well. ‘Khaiyām’ exerted a tremendous influence on such major figures of 20th-century Persian literature as Ṣādiq Hidāyat and his name continues to be invoked with passion in the ideological debates that have so shaken the country in the last hundred years.112

The serious study of Khaiyāmī and the rubāʿīyāt begins with Zhukovskiy’s article on the ‘wandering quatrains’ from 1897; it was here for the first time that the possibility was discussed that some of these poems might not really be the work of the famous scientist. During the first half of the 20th century research was dominated by attempts at a critical philological analysis of the manuscripts of the rubāʿīyāt (Christensen, Csillik, Rempis), but these attempts remained largely fruitless due to the relative lateness and general unreliability of all the manuscripts. By contrast, some Iranian scholars (notably Furūghī and Dashtī) left the manuscripts largely out of consideration and attempted to assemble a small corpus of ‘authentic’ quatrains from those quoted by 13th and 14th-century authorities. These researches led to interesting results, but suffer from an insufficiently critical approach to the sources. After the Second World War work was diverted for a few decades by the appearance of two quite cleverly forged manuscripts in Dublin and Cambridge which led many scholars to believe that the true Khaiyām had at long last come to light. Major contributions to unmasking these forgeries came from Mīnuwī, Minorsky and Humāʾī. As for the present, it would seem doubtful whether we have really come very much beyond the position expressed in Schaeder’s famous dictum of 1934 that the name of ʿUmar i Khaiyām is one which ‘is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature’.

Mss. of the rubāʿīyāt:113 Dublin Beatty 178 fol. 67–105 in marg. (16th century?); Beatty 303 (modern forgery ‘dated’ 658/1259–60); t.c.d. 1571; t.c.d. 1572; Oxford Ouseley 140 (Ethé 525. Copied by Maḥmūd Pirbūdāqī and dated Ṣafar 865/1460);114 Ind. Inst. Pers. 111 (Beeston 2547. Dated 24 Rabīʿ i 1179/1765. 625 quatrains); Whinfield 33 (Beeston 2548. E. Fitzgerald’s copy of a copy of Ouseley 140); Bodl. 367 (Ethé 524); London Or. 5966 fol. 1b–35b (Meredith-Owens p. 50. 16th century?); Or. 331 (Rieu p. 547. Dated Ramaḍān 1033/1624 and attributed on the fly-leaf to Sarmad. Beginning missing. 540 quatrains); Or. 5011 fol. lb-43 (Meredith-Owens p. 49. Dated 1079/1668–9); Or. 330 (Rieu pp. 546–7. 18th century? 423 quatrains); i.o. 906 (Dated 1811); Or. 9857 fol. 136b–155a (Meredith-Owens p. 83. Dated 1277/1860–1); i.o. 907; Cambridge Add. 1055 fol. 174b–220b (Browne Cat. ccii. Has an owner’s note dated 1195/1781. More than 800 quatrains); Or. 1724 (Modern forgery ‘dated’ Rajab 604/1208. See the facsimile published in Moscow);115 Paris116 Supplément 1777 fol. 314v–320r in marg., 326r–328v (Blochet 1645. Ms. dated 852/1448); Supplément 1417 fol. 59b–80a (Blochet 1662. Dated Ramaḍān 879/1475); Supplément 1817 fol. 17–18 (Blochet 1247. Before 913/1506–7); Supplément 823 fol. 92v sqq. (Blochet 1968. Dated 15 Jumādā ii 934/1528. 175 quatrains); Supplément 1481 (Blochet 1211. 16th century? 34 quatrains. Pictures); Supplément 793 fol. 104r sqq. (Blochet 1984. 16th century?); Supplément 1366 fol. 393 sqq. (Blochet 1993. Ms. contains dates between 1009/1600 and 1010/1602); Supplément 1458 (Blochet 1212. Dated 1268/1851–2. 95 quatrains); Gotha 9/14 (Ms. dated 5 Rabīʿ i 1131/1719); Berlin Ms. or. fol. 246/49 (Pertsch 674. Ms. contains a note dated 1796. 380 quatrains); Bratislava 579; Vienna Flügel 645 fol. 249r–253v (Ms. dated 855/1451–2); Flügel 507 (Dated 15 Jumādā ii 957/1550); Leningrad Acad. B 2290 (Index 1717. Dated 991/1583); Acad. C 112 fol. 292a–314a (Index 1718. Dated 1060/1650); Acad. A 877 (Index 1715. Dated 1097/1685–6); Acad. A 67 fol. 73b–104a (Index 1714. Dated 1204/1789–90); Acad. A 18 (Index 1713. Apparently dated 1221/1806–7); Acad. B 253 (Index 1716); also Acad. (Index) 1721–4; Istanbul Ayasofya 2032 fol. 194b–206b (Rempis p. 180. Anthology dated 861/1456–7); Nuruosmaniye 3892 fol. 1b–66b (Ateş 22. Dated 865/1460–1); Esat 2882/2 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 497. Dated 19 Dhū l-qaʿdah 876 /1472); Topkapı, Mehmet Reşat 541 (Karatay 389. Copied by Ḥamd Allāh Shaikh-zādah, 15th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 811 (Karatay 388. Copied by ʿAlī al-Ḥusainī and dated 924/1518. One picture signed by Bihzād); Nuruosmaniye 4904/33 (Ateş 23. Dated 940/1533–4); Nuruosmaniye 3894/2 (Ateş 24. 16th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 1093 fol. 75b sqq. (Karatay 894); Tehran Aṣghar Mahdawī 589 in marg. (Nuskhah-hā ii pp. 71–2. Dated 1 Rajab 821/1417); Majlis 8421/3 (Munz. 29984. In an anthology dated 868/1463–4); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 194 (15th century? Copied by Sultān ʿAlī al-Mashhadī); etc. Tashkent Acad. ii 766–780; Dushanbe Acad. ii 337 (15th–16th century?); Acad. ii 338–342 (5 late copies); Pakistan (see Munz. Pak. vii pp. 22–24 for various copies in Lahore, Karachi etc., the oldest dated 12 Shaʿbān 975/1568); Bombay Rehatsek p. 149 no. 78; Bankipore i 16 (16th century?); Suppt. i 1971 (Dated 21 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1139/1727); Suppt. i 1804 (19th century); Lucknow Sprenger 324; an anthology in the Guri Praśad Saksena dated 826/1423, with 206 quatrains ascribed to Kh., is mentioned by Rempis; Calcutta Nadvī Collection (Dated 911/1605; see the facsimile edition by M. Mahfuz-ul-Haq, Calcutta 1939); Princeton 6 (Copied by Faraj Allāh al-Ḥāfiẓ and dated 868/1463–4). Cf. Munz. iv 29980–30061.

Mss. of the collection of 554 rubāʿīyāt with the title Ṭarab-khānah, put together by Yār-Aḥmad b. Ḥusain Rashīdī Tabrīzī in 867/1462–3: Paris Supplément 1637 fol. 1b–47a (Blochet 1213. 17th century? Pictures); Istanbul Üniversite fy 593 fol. 55b–114a (Ateş 25. Dated Ramaḍān 890/1485); Üniversite fy 1194 fol. 1b–56a (Ateş 26. Copied by Muḥammad-Jān al-Kātib al-Shīrāzī and dated Jumādā i 949/1542); Nuruosmaniye 3895 (Ateş 27. 16th century?); Üniversite fy 1370 (Ateş 28. 16th century?); Hyderabad Collection of V.M. Dātār (Rempis p. 180. Before 970/1562–3).

Editions: Istanbul 1953 (ed. A. Gölpinarlı); Tehran n.d. (Introduction dated 1342sh./1963. Critical edition by J. al-d. Humāʾī, with a valuable introduction), 2nd edition 1367sh./1988.

Editions of the quatrains: [Calcutta] 1252/1836 (492 quatrains); Tehran 1274/1857 (230 quatrains, followed by others ascribed to Bābā Ṭāhir, ʿAṭṭār and Inṣāf, and two tarjīʿs ascribed to Shams i Tabrīz and to Nāṣir i Khusrau); 1274/1857 (454 quatrains, again followed by Bābā Ṭāhir etc.); 1278/1861 (460 quatrains); 1279/1862 (The Munājāt ascribed to Anṣārī, followed by quatrains supposedly by Abū Saʿīd, Bābā Ṭāhir and Khaiyām); 1313/1895 (128 pages, with Bābā Ṭāhir etc.); 1318/1900; 1321–2/1904 (129 pages. Contains quatrains ascribed to Khaiyām, Bābā Ṭāhir and various other poems); 1341/1922 (396 quatrains); 1342/1923 (selection of 201 quatrains by Ṣ. Hidāyat); 1342/1923 (ed. M. Ramaḍānī), reprinted with pictures 1315sh./1926; 1305sh./1926 (ed. S. Nafīsī, 445 quatrains), reprinted 1306sh./1928; 1306sh./1927 (364 quatrains), reprinted 1307sh./1928, 1308sh./1929; 1310sh./1931 (Les rubaiyat d’Omar Khayyam. Texte persan et traduction en vers français par A.G. E’tessam-Zadeh [Abū l-Qāsim Īʿtiṣām-zādah], with a Persian introduction by S. Nafīsī. Iʿtiṣām-zādah’s translation was reprinted in Paris, 1934); 1313sh./1934 (Tarānah-hā i Khaiyām, ed. Ṣ. Hidāyat. Pictures); 1321sh./1942 (ed. M.ʿA. Furūghī and Q. Ghanī); 1338sh./1959–60 (Kullīyāt i āthār i pārsī i ḥakīm ʿUmar i Khaiyām, ed. M. ʿAbbāsī from the forged Cambridge Ms.; contains also the Persian prose writings ascribed to Kh. and an extensive essay); 1348sh./1969(Quatrains Khayyamiens. Nouvelle traductionaccompagnée du texte persan par Mahdy Foulavand [Fūlādwand]); 1971 (The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. A new translation in verse by Abbas Aryanpur-Kashani and Manoochehr Aryanpur, with the Persian text and pictures); 1378sh./1999 (Ṣad u yak rubāʿī i Khaiyām, selection and French translation by G. Lazard); and many more, some multilingual, and many with pictures generally in the worst possible taste; Paris 1867 (Les quatrains de Khèyam, [édités et] traduits du persan par J.B. Nicolas. 464 quatrains, based on the Tehran edition of 1278); 1983 (Omar Khayyâm Quatrains, Hāfez Ballades, introduction et choix de poèmes traduits du persan par Vincent Monteil; with the Persian text); Tabriz 1285/1868–9 (453 quatrains); Lucknow 1285/1868 (716 quatrains), reprinted 1287/1870; 1295/1878 (with notes. 763 quatrains), reprinted 1298/1880 (763 quatrains); 1300/1882 (764 quatrains); 1301/1883 (762 quatrains); 1312/1894 (770 quatrains); 1322/1904; 1342/1924 (described as 7th edition); Calcutta 1870 (ed. H. Blochmann. 62 quatrains); 1939 (The Rubāʿîyât of ʿUmar-i-Khayyâm. Persian text edited from a manuscript dated 911 A.H. (1605 A.D.) in the collection of Professor S. Najîb Ashraf Nadvî with a facsimile of the manuscript by M. Mahfuz-ul-Haq); Muradabad 1291/1874 (87 quatrains); Bombay 1296/1878 (756 quatrains, with others ascribed to Bābā Ṭāhir etc.), reprinted 1297/1879, 1298/1880; 1308/1890 (The same 756 quatrains ascribed to Khaiyām, plus Bābā Ṭāhir, Abū Saʿīd and Anṣārī, together with the latter’s Munājāt) reprinted 1309/1891; 1311/1893; 1312/1894; 1320/1902 (140 pages, with Bābā Ṭāhir etc.); 1321/1903 (751 quatrains); 1324/1906 (120 pages, with Bābā Ṭāhir etc.); London 1883 (The Quatrains of Omar Khayyám. The Persian text with an English verse translation by E.H. Whinfield. 500 quatrains, mainly after Nicolas), 2nd edition 1901 (508 quatrains); 1898 (The Ruba’iyat of Omar Khayyām, being a facsimile of the manuscript in the Bodleian Library … with a transcript into modern Persian characters, translated with an introduction and notes, and a bibliography, by E. Heron-Allen. 158 quatrains), second enlarged edition the same year; 1899 (Edward Fitzgerald’s Rubâ’iyât of Omar Khayyâm with their original Persian sources collated from his own Mss., and literally translated by Edward Heron-Allen); 1928 (The Quatrains of ‘Omar-i-Khayyām. Persian text taken from the two newly discovered oldest manuscripts with an English prose version by F. Rosen. Printed Berlin); 1931 (… The Persian text with paraphrase, and the first and fourth editions of FitzGerald’s translation by Brigadier-General E.H. Rodwell); 1949 (The Quatrains of Omar Khayyam. Ed. and trans. by A.J. Arberry from the forged Chester Beatty Ms.); St. Petersburg 1888 (based on the edition Tabriz 1285); Hyderabad 1893; Constantinople 1319/1901 (Dīwān i Shāhī bā Naṣāʾiḥ i ḥaḍrat i Luqmān wa Rubāʿīyāt i ʿUmar i Khaiyām, 755 in number, followed also by rubāʿīyāt ascribed to Bābā Ṭāhir), reprinted 1324/1906, 1326/1908; 1332/1914 (with a Turkish translation by ʿAbd Allāh Jaudat [Cevdet]. 531 quatrains), reprinted with pictures 1926; 1340/1922 (With Turkish translation and introduction by Ḥuseini Daniş. Pictures), reprinted 1340/1927; [Worcester, Mass.] 1907 (Edward Fitzgerald’s Rubāiyāt of Omar Khayyām. With a Persian text, a transliteration and a close prose and verse translation by Eben Francis Thompson); Amritsar 1325/1907 (914 quatrains, with an introduction in Urdu by Imām al-dīn); Delhi 1910 (Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Part I. Ghafil-nāmah. Commentary by Hafiz Anwar Ali Siddiqi …); Lahore 1923 (Urdu introduction by Shaikh Allāh-bakhsh); 1924 (Kaʾs al-kirām yaʿnī sharḥ i rubāʿiyāt … Persian text with an Urdu commentary by Mīr Walī Allāh); [1934] (Maikhānah i Khaiyām. With a metrical Urdu translation by Qizilbāsh Dihlawī); 1353/1934 (Mai-khānah i Khaiyām. With an Urdu paraphrase and commentary by M. Maḥmūd Shādānī); Isfahan 1343/1925; Berlin 1304sh./1925 (The Quatrains of the learned ʿOmar-i-Khaiyām, ed. F. Rosen; cf. London 1928); 2nd edition 1928; Damascus 1926 (ed. Aḥmad al-Ṣāfī al-Najafī); Copenhagen 1927 (Critical studies in the Rubáʿiyāt of ʿUmar-i-Khayyām. A revised text with English translation by A. Christensen); Baghdad 1928 (With Arabic translations in prose and verse by Jamīl Ṣidqī al-Zahāwī), reprinted 1928; 1350/1931 (ʿUmar al-Khaiyām, ʿaṣruh, sīratuh …, with introduction and literal Arabic translation by Aḥmad Ḥāmid al-Ṣarrāf); 2nd edition 1949 (reviewed by H. Ritter, Oriens iii, 1950, pp. 157–8); Khairpur 1930 (Rubāʿīyāt i khum-kadah i Khaiyām. With a Sindhi verse translation by Mīr ʿAlī-nawāz Khān, called Ḥakīm Lisān al-Ghaib); Allahabad [ca. 1930] (with Urdu introduction, literal translation and notes by Jalāl al-dīn Aḥmad Jaʿfarī); 1933 (with a preface in Urdu by Mahēsh-prasād); Damascus 1350/1931 (With Arabic verse translation by Aḥmad al-Ṣāfī al-Najafī and introductory notes by M. al-Qazwīnī and Adīb al-Taqī); Szeged 1933 (Les manuscrits mineurs des Rubâʿiyât de ‘Omar Khayyâm dans la Bibliothèque Nationale. Textes originauxpubliés avec une introduction écrite en langue hongroise et un abrégé français par Dr. Barthélemy Csillik); London/Szeged 1934 (The principal manuscripts of the Rubáʿiyyát of ʿUmar-i-Khayyám in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Volume ITranscribed and edited with introductory notes by Dr. B. Cs. No more published); Azamgarh 1933 (Khaiyām aur uskē sawāniḥ u taṣānīf par nāqidānah naẓar, by S. Sulaimān Nadwī); Moscow 1935 (With a Russian translation and introduction by A. Bolotnikov); 1959 (ed. R.M. Aliyev and M.N. Osmanov; the first volume contains a facsimile of the Cambridge Ms. ‘dated’ 604, the second the text and translation); Stalinabad 1955 (ed. M. Zand, based on the Mss. supposedly dated 604 and 658); Delmar (N.Y.) 1977 (The Rubāʿīyāt of ʿUmar Khayyām translated with an introduction by Parichehr Kasra; with the Persian text, indication of the source for each quatrain and references to previous English versions); Berkeley 1991 (Ruba’iyat of Omar Khayyam translated and annotated by Ahmad Saidi; with the Persian text, English verse translation and references to sources and other translations).

Fitzgerald’s translation in English verse: More than three hundred editions of this version are listed in Potter’s Bibliography of 1929, and there have been many more since. In the following we can restrict ourselves to a few of the older printings (mainly from Storey’s notes):

The first edition (75 stanzas): London 1859 (Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, the astronomer poet of Persia. Translated into English verse); reprinted Madras 1862 (Rubáiyát …, reprinted privately from the London edition (1859); with an extract from the Calcutta Review, no. lix; a note by M. Garcin de Tassy, and a few additional quatrains. 3 pts.); London 1898; 1901 (twice); 1909 (The FitzGerald Centenary edition. Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám and Salámán and Absál. Rendered into English verse by Edward FitzGerald and an essay on Persian poetry by Ralph Waldo Emerson); 1909 (Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Translated by E.F. Edited, with introduction and notes, by R.A. Nicholson); 1931 (The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. With an introduction by J.V.S. Wilkinson. Pictures).
The second edition (110 stanzas): London 1868; reprinted Columbus (Ohio) [1870]; London 1905; 1908 (with introduction and notes by E. Heron-Allen); 1928.
The third edition (101 stanzas): London 1872; reprinted Boston (Mass.) 1878; London 1905.
The fourth and ‘fifth’ editions (101 strophes):117 London 1879 (Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám; and the Salámán and Ábsál of Jámí; rendered into English verse); reprinted New York 1885 (without the Jāmī); New York/Boston [1896]; Los Angeles 1899 (‘With a prose translation from the French of J.B. Nicolas and an introduction by James B. Scott’); London 1900 (‘With a commentary by H.M. Batson and a biographical introduction by E.D. Ross’); 1901 (ditto); 1905.
Several of the above: New York/Boston 1887 (Works of Edward FitzGerald … Vol. i, pp. 19–75: text of 1st and 4th editions); London/New York 1889 (Letters and literary remains of Edward FitzGerald, ed. W. Aldis Wright, Vol. iii, pp. 349–95: texts of 1st and 5th editions with variants from the others); Philadelphia 1898 (The RubaiyatThe text of the fourth edition followed by that of the first, with notes shewing the extent of his indebtedness to the Persian original, a biographical preface [by M. Kerney], Fitzgerald’s sketch of the life of Omar, and a foreword by Talcott Williams); London 1899 (‘The four editions with the original prefaces and notes’, edited by W[illiam] A[ldis] W[right]); 1903 (Letters and literary remains of Edward FitzGerald. In seven volumes … Vol. vii, containing the four editions); Leipzig 1910 (based on Wright’s edition, London 1899).

Other translations: In the following we have tried to restrict ourselves to the versions which appear to be based on Persian originals and have omitted obvious meta-translations from Fitzgerald (for the older of which, once again, Potter’s Bibliography can be consulted). However, as it has not been feasible to check all of these books, it is possible that a few of the latter have slipped in as well.

(French verse): See editions Tehran 1310sh./1931; also: Rubaiyât d’Omar Kháyyâm. Mis en rimes françaises d’après le manuscrit d’Oxford par Jules de Marthold, Paris 1901; Les robaïÉtude suivie d’une traduction française en décalque rhythmique avec rimes à la persane, by Arthur Guy, Paris 1935 (with indication of the sources for each rubāʿī).

(French prose): See editions Paris 1867, 1983, Tehran 1348sh./1969, 1378sh./1999; also: Les 144 quatrains d’Omar Khayyam, traduits littéralement par Claude Anet & Mirza Muhammad, Paris 1920.

(French, unspecified): Les quatrains d’Omar Kháyyám [sic] traduits du persan sur le manuscrit conservé à la Bodleian Libraryavec une introduction et des notes par C. Grolleau, Paris 1902, reprinted 1922, 1978 [from FitzG.?]; Robaiyat de Omar Khayyam, tr. F. Toussaint, 11th edition, Paris 1924.

(English verse): See editions London 1883, 1931, Worcester (Mass.) 1907, Tehran 1971, Berkelely 1991; also: A.J. Arberry, Omar Khayyam—a new version based on recent discoveries, London 1952 (from the forged Cambridge Ms.); R. Graves and O. Ali-Shah, The Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyaam, London 1967, reprinted (as The original Rubaiyyat …) New York 1968;118 J.C.E. Bowen, A new selection from the rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam rendered into English verse, Warminster 1976 (from the forged Dublin Ms., with the Persian text, Arberry’s prose version and FitzGerald’s rendering[s] of each quatrain).

(English prose): See editions London 1898, 1899, 1928, 1931, 1949, Worcester (Mass.) 1907, Copenhagen 1927, Delmar (N.Y.) 1977; also: F. Rosen, The quatrains of ʿOmar Khayyām newly translated, London 1930; P. Avery and J. Heath-Stubbs, The ruba’iyat of O. Kh., London 1979, reprinted Harmondsworth 1981 and frequently.

(German verse): F. Rosen, Die Sinnsprüche Omars des Zeltmachers, 2nd ed., Stuttgart/Berlin 1912; 5th ed., Stuttgart 1922; W. von Porten, Die Vierzeiler des ʿOmar Chajjâm, Hamburg 1927; M. Sommer, Omar Chajjám und seine Rubaijat. Nach alten und neuesten persischen Handschriftenfunden, Wiesbaden 1974; B. Alavi, Durchblättert ist des Lebens Buch: Vierzeiler von O. Ch., Berlin 1983.

(German prose and verse): Chr.H. Rempis, ʿOmar Chajjām und seine Vierzeiler, Tübingen 1935 (two translations, with indication of the sources, introduction and list of Mss. and editions).

(Turkish): See editions Constantinople 1332/1914, 1340/1922.

(Arabic verse): See editions Baghdad 1928, Damascus 1350/1931, and compare also ei2 s.v. ‘Rubāʿī (in Arabic)’ (W. Stoetzer).

(Arabic prose): See editions Baghdad 1928, 1350/1931.

(Sindhi verse): See editions Khairpur 1930.

(Polish): Wybrane Czterowiersze Omara Chajjama przeloẓyl z oryginalu perskiego Andrzej Gawroński, Lwów 1933.

(Urdu prose and verse): See editions Lahore 1353/1934 (two translations), Allahabad ca. 1930.

(Italian): Le Rubaiyyat, tr. F. Gabrieli, Florence 1944 (reviewed by H. Ritter, Oriens, 1948, pp. 362–3); Quartine, tr. A. Bausani, Turin 1979.

(Dutch verse): Kwatrijnen, tr. Frits Pijl (pseudonym of J. Slikboer), with an introduction by J.H. Kramers, Baarn 1947 [reference from J.T.P. de Bruijn].

(Hindi): Tr. R.L. Gupta, Allahabad 1947;

(Russian verse): Рубан, tr. V. Derzhavin, Moscow 1972; Рубайят, tr. V. Derzhavin, Dushanbe 1965; Рубайят, tr. G. Plisetskiy (with a long essay by M.-N. Osmanov), Moscow 1972.

Bibliography:119 *ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Khāzinī, Kitāb mīzān al-ḥikmah [515/1121], Hyderabad 1359/1940, p. 8, 87, 151; *al-Zamakhsharī [d. 538/1143–4], al-Zājir li l-ṣighār ʿan muʿāriḍat al-kibār (unpublished; the short passage mentioning Kh. was edited and discussed by Furūzānfar in ndat i/8–9, 1327sh./1948, pp. 1–29); *ʿAlī b. Zaid al-Baihaqī (Ibn Funduq) [d. 565/1169–70], Tatimmat ṣiwān al-ḥikmah, ed. M. Shafīʿ, Lahore 1935, pp. 112–7 of the Arabic text and 82–5 of the Persian translation (English translation by E.D. Ross and H.A.R. Gibb, bsos v, 1928–30, pp. 467–73, and by M. Shafīʿ in Islamic culture vi, 1932, pp. 586–623); *ʿArūḍī [552/1157] pp. 62–4 (with Qazwīnī’s extensive notes, and those by Browne in his translation, pp. 134–40); *al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī, Kharīdat al-qaṣr [572/1176–7] (see Leyden Cat. ii p. 237); Fakhr al-dīn Rāzī [d. 606/1209–10], Risālat al-tanbīh ʿalā baʿḍ al-asrār al-mūdaʿah fī baʿḍ suwar al-qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (unpublished. The section mentioning ‘[ibn] al-Khaiyām’, with one quatrain, is printed in Mīnuwī’s article of 1957, see below); *ʿAṭṭār [d. 617/1220], Ilāhī-nāmah, ed. Ritter, p. 272; Najm al-dīn Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, called Dāyah, Mirṣād al-ʿibād [ca. 619/1222], ed. M.A. Riyāḥī, Tehran 1352sh./1973, p. 31 (two quatrains); *Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh [628/1230–1], ed. Tornberg, x pp. 67–8; ʿAbd al-Qādir Aharī, al-Aqṭāb al-quṭbīyah [629/1232, Ms. dated 666/1268] (the relevant section published by M.T. Dānish-pazhūh and Ī. Afshār, fiz xii, 1344sh./1965–6, pp. 311–22. Only one quatrain specifically ascribed to Kh.); *al-Risālah al-mulḥaqah [before 639/1241] (see our article); *Ibn al-Qifṭī [d. 646/1248–9], Taʾrīkh al-ḥukamāʾ (or rather al-Zauzanī’s epitome published under this title), ed. A. Müller and J. Lippert, Leipzig 1902, pp. 243–4; Jamal al-dīn al-Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis [mid 7th/13th century; Ms. dated 731/1331] (31 quatrains, published by Rempis, Dashtī and others; see the article); Juwainī [658/1260] i p. 128 (one quatrain); *Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād [674/1275–6], ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 318; Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Shahrazūrī [alive in 680/1282],120 Nuz’hat al-arwāḥ wa rauḍat al-afrāḥ, ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm Abū Shuwairab, n.p. [Libya? Tunisia?] 1398 /1988 pp. 324–6 (no. 81);121 *Rashīd al-dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh [completed 710/1310–11], qismat i ismāʿīliyān, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh and M. Mudarris Zanjānī, Tehran 1338sh./1960, pp. 110–1 (see E.G. Browne, ‘Yet more light on ʿUmar-i-Khayyám’, jras 1899, pp. 409–11); Mustaufī [730/1329–30] p. 728 (with one or two quatrains, depending on the Ms.); Jājarmī [autograph 741/1341] ii pp. 1144–6 (13 quatrains); Daulat-shāh pp. 138–9; Rāzī ii pp. 256–9 (no. 750); Ādhar ii pp. 674–85; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 200; id., Riyāḍ pp. 191–2.

A selection of the modern literature: V. Zhukovskiy, « Омар Хайям и странствующие четверостишия », in al-Muẓaffarīyah (Festschrift for V. Rosen), St Petersburg 1897 (English abridged translation by E.D. Ross in jras xxx, 1898, pp. 349–66); A. Christensen, Omar Khajjâms rubâijât en litterœrhistorisk undersøgelse, Copenhagen 1903; id., Recherches sur les Rubāʿiyāt de ʿOmar Ḫayyām, Heidelberg 1905; Browne, History ii pp. 246–59; M. Iqbāl, ‘Rubāʿīyāt i Khaiyām kā ēk aur qadīm nuskhah’, ocm ii/3, 1926, pp. 14–20; P. Salet, Omar Khayyam savant et philosophe, Paris 1927; H. Ritter, ‘Zur Frage der Echtheit der Vierzeiler ʿOmar Chajjāms’, olz 32, 1929, col. 156–63 (review of Christensen’s Critical studies); A.G. Potter, A bibliography of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, London 1929; M. Qazwīnī, ‘Takmilah dar khuṣūṣ i Khaiyām’, in his Bīst maqālah, 2nd ed., Tehran 1332/1953–4, ii pp. 118–27 (article written in 1348/1930); H.H. Schaeder, ‘Der geschichtliche und der mythische Omar Chajjam’, zdmg 88, 1934, pp. *25*–*28*; Chr. Rempis, Beiträge zur Ḫayyām-Forschung (=Abh. f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes xxii/1), Leipzig 1937; Swami Govinda Tirtha, The nectar of grace. ʿOmar Khayyām’s life and works, Allahabad 1941; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 523–35; S.B. Morochnik and B.A. Rozenfel’d, Омар Хайям—поэт мь?слитель, учёный, Stalinabad 1957; M. Mīnuwī, ‘Az khazāʾin i Turkīyah 5: ʿUmar i Khaiyām i shāʿir’, mdat iv/2, 1335sh./1957, pp. 70–5 (also as an offprint); Khaiyām-pūr p. 200 (with much further literature); I. Yakānī, Nādirah i aiyām, ḥakīm ʿUmar i Khaiyām wa rubāʿīyāt i ū, Tehran 1342sh./1963–4 (with the biographical sources, a Persian translation of those in Arabic and his selection of the quatrains); B.A. Rozenfel’d and A.P. Yushkevich, Омар Хайям, Moscow 1965; V. Minorsky, ‘The earliest collections of O. Khayyam’, Yádnáme-ye Jan Rypka, Prague 1967, pp. 107–18; ʿA. Dashtī, Damī bā Khaiyām, Tehran 1345sh./1966; 2nd ed. 1348sh./1969; English translation by L.P. Elwell-Sutton, In search of Omar Khayyam, London 1971 (with an introduction by E.-S.); M.M. Fūlādwand, Khaiyām-shināsī, i, Tehran 1347sh./1968 (reprinted in his edition, Tehran 1348sh./1969); M. Farzānah, Mard-ī az Nīshābūr ʿUmar i Khaiyām, Tehran 1349sh./1970; id., Khaiyām shinākht, Tehran 1353sh./1975–6; J.A. Boyle, ‘Umar K̲h̲ayyām: astronomer, mathematician and poet’, in chi iv, Cambridge 1975, pp. 658–64; M.ʿA. Muwaḥḥid, ‘Khaiyām dar nīmah i awwal i qarn i haftum’, Rāh-nimā i Kitāb xx/3–4, 1356sh./1977, pp. 204–15; M.T. Jaʿfarī, Taḥlīl i shakhṣīyat i Khaiyām, Tehran 1368sh./1989; D. Bertucci, ‘Le quatrine di ʿOmar Khayyām nei manoscritti persiani conservati in Italia’ [with an edition of 18 quatrains], Rendiconti, ser. ix, vol. ii, 1991, pp. 179–90; M.M. Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Khaiyāmī yā Khaiyām, Tehran 1370sh./1991 (a collection of articles, mostly published some time ago); F. Mujāhir Shīrwānī and Ḥ. Shāyagān, Nigāh ba Khaiyām ham-rāh bā rubāʿīyāt, Tehran 1370sh./1991; S.ʿA. Mīr-Afḍalī, ‘Rubāʿīyāt i Khaiyām dar shash jung i kuhan i fārsī’, Maʿārif x, 1372sh./1994, pp. 131–48; id., ‘Rubāʿīyāt i aṣīl i Khaiyām kudām ast?’ Nashr i Dānish xv/5, 1374sh./1995, pp. 4–16; ei1 s.v. ‘ʿOmar Khaiyām’ (V. Minorsky).122

§ 221. Jamāl al-dīn Abū Bakr Khāl al-Tirmidhī is credited with eight verses in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān.

ʿAufī ii p. 164; Khaiyām-pūr p. 135 (‘Jamāl i Tirmidhī’).

§ 222. Shams al-dīn Muḥammad b. al-Muʾaiyad al-Ḥaddādī al-maʿrūf bi Khālah123 merits a very brief entry in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Transoxania after the time of Sanjar; elsewhere ʿAufī quotes two verses addressed by Shams al-dīn to ʿAufī’s own contemporary Shihābī Ghaz(z)āl Khujandī.124 His presence in Khujand in the first part of the 7th/13th century is confirmed by the two poems that he addressed to Ḍiyāʾ Pārsī.125

Jājarmī quotes a ghazal by (presumably the same) malik al-muḥaqqiqīn Ḥaddādī and with the poetic signature ‘Ḥaddādī’ in the last verse. Rāzī, besides repeating two of the rubāʿīyāt quoted already by ʿAufī, adds a few other poems, one of them a qaṣīdah to Sanjar (511/1118 to 552/1157), and claims that this poet was a relative of Niẓām al-mulk Ṭūsī. Nafīsī quotes six odes from unidentified safīnahs, but at least three of these are in fact by the above-mentioned Ḍiyāʾ Pārsī.126 Of those which I have not found in the dīwān of Ḍiyāʾ two address one of Ḍiyāʾ’s patrons, sipah-sālār Ulugh Tügsīn, the other a certain Shams al-mulk Aḥmad b. Arslān, whom Nafīsī identified with the Qarakhanid Aḥmad (ii) b. Arslān-khān Muḥammad (who ruled on and off in Samarqand from about 523/1129 to about 526/1132), but if the poem is really by Khālah its dedicatee must be someone who lived about a century later.

ʿAufī ii pp. 382–3, 393; Jājarmī ii p. 1078; Rāzī i pp. 108–10 (no. 68); Ādhar iii p. 916; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 309; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī iii pp. 1355–62; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 824–7 (follows Nafīsī in the wrong attribution of Ḍiyāʾ’s poems and patrons to Khālah); Khaiyām-pūr p. 184 (‘Khālah i Baghdādī’) and 305 (‘Shams i Baghdādī’).

§ 223. Fakhr al-dīn Khālid b. al-Rabīʿ al-Makkī al-Ṭūlānī was a contemporary and friend of Anwarī. ʿAufī prefixes his significant selection from Khālid’s verse with the story (repeated by Jāmī and others), of how the Ghorid king, ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Ḥusain (544/1149 to 556/1161), on hearing that Anwarī had made him the object of some satirical verses, tried to coax the famous poet to his court and how Anwarī was warned of the king’s true intentions by an elusively formulated letter from Khālid.

ʿAufī ii pp. 138–45; Yaghmāʾī p. 180 (three verses by ‘Fakhr al-dīn Khālah’); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 376–7; Browne, History ii p. 381; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 604–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 183; Mudarris i Riḍawī’s introduction to his Dīwān i Anwarī ii pp. 103–4.

§ 224. Afḍal al-dīn Khāqānī,127 who also called himself Ḥaqāʾiqī and Ḥassān al-ʿajam, was a native of Sharwān.128 The date of his birth is indicated in the qiṭʿah beginning:129

chūn zamān ʿahd i Sanāʾī dar nawasht
*āsmān chūn man sukhan-gustar bi-zād
*chūn ba Ghaznīn sāḥir-ē shud zēr i khāk khāk
*i Sharwān sāḥir-ē dīgar bi-zād

(‘When time rolled up the life-span of Sanāʾī heaven gave birth to a word-smith like me. When in Ghaznah one sorcerer130 departed under the soil, the soil of Sharwān gave birth to another sorcerer’). The poet then proceeds to list a number of parallels from the past, some legendary, (the death of Joseph coincides with the birth of Moses, etc.), but one is historic (the death of Abū Ḥanīfah and the birth of al-Shāfiʿī both occurred, according to the standard sources, in 150/767). In another poem Khāqānī states:131 badal man āmadam andar jahān Sanāʾī rā *bad-īn dalīl pidar nām i man badīl nihād (‘I came into the world as a substitute for Sanāʾī; the proof for this is the fact that my father called me badīl’, i.e. ‘replacement’.)132 It is thus clear that Khāqānī was born in the year that Sanāʾī died. Unfortunately (and typically) the precise date of Sanāʾī’s death is not certain, but it was clearly after 511/1117 (the ascension of Bahrām-shāh) and quite probably 525/1130–1.133

In his versified travelogue, Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain, Khāqānī tells us, among other things, that his grandfather had been a weaver and his father ʿAlī a carpenter; his mother was a cook who had been born a Nestorian Christian (i.e. clearly not an Armenian or Georgian, unless the reference to Nestorius is a mere show of book-learning) but had converted to Islam. Khāqānī lost his father at an early age and was brought up by his uncle, the doctor Kāfī l-dīn ʿUmar b. ʿUthmān, who instructed him in the sciences and of whom Khāqānī speaks in many places with great tenderness. His problematic relationship with the older poet, Abū l-ʿAlāʾ Ganjaʾī has been discussed above.134 Khāqānī’s first patron was the ruler of Sharwān Manūchihr (ii) b. Farēdūn, the patron also of Abū l-ʿAlāʾ and of Falakī. In Dhū l-qaʿdah,135 evidently of the year 550 (November–December 1155),136 Khāqānī set out on a pilgrimage the description of which occupies the greater part of his Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain.137 This took him first to the camp (lashkar-gāh) of Seljuq sultan Muḥammad (ii) b. Maḥmūd.138 He then continued his journey to Hamadān, Baghdad (an encomium on the Abbasid caliph is inserted here) and Kūfah and visited the tomb of ʿAlī. After crossing the desert he arrived at ʿArafāt, Minā and Mecca. After performing the pilgrimage the poet visited Madīnah and proceeded to Mosul. In the final section the poet tells about his childhood and praises extensively Jamāl al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Iṣfahānī (the wazīr of the atabeg of Mosul) but also the Shāfiʿī leader Muḥammad (ii) al-Khujandī and his brother.139

Shortly after his return to Sharwān Khāqānī was thrown into gaol; we have a poem which he sent from prison to the ruler of Darband, Saif al-dīn Muẓaffar, in which he reminds the latter that the two had met ‘last year’ in Mecca. After the death of Manūchihr (probably not long after 555/1160 and certainly before 566/1170), an event which Khāqānī commemorated in an elegy,140 our poet entered the service of his son and successor Akhsatān,141 his principal patron. Khāqānī did not fare better at his hands than he had at those of his father. A few years later we find him in prison again airing his complaints in a poem ostensibly directed to a Byzantine prince who, as Minorsky has shown, seems to have been the future emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who is known to have been in Sharwān as a guest of the Georgian king at some time in the 1170s. (The Muslim kings of Sharwān were de facto vassals of the Georgians, though there is of course nothing in Khāqānī’s panegyrics to suggest that they were anything other than mighty and independent rulers).

Khāqānī made the pilgrimage to Mecca at least one more time and ultimately settled in Tabrīz, as he indicates quite clearly in a number of his poems.142 The dīwān contains a few poems praising the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 551/1156), the Seljuq Arslān b. Ṭoghrıl (556/1161 to 571/1176), and the atabeg of Azerbaijan Qızıl-Arslān b. Ēldügüz (582/1186 to 587/1191). Juwainī quotes a qiṭʿah which he says Khāqānī composed for the Khwārazm-shāh Tekish when the latter entered Isfahan (in 592/1196)143 and this appears to be the most recent date that can be established in the poet’s biography. Mustaufī says he died in 582/1186–7 (which is too early, if we are to believe Juwainī) and was buried in Surkhāb (near Tabrīz), but Soviet archaeologists claim to have found his tomb in the Republic of Azerbaijan, with an inscription giving the date of his death as 595/1198–9.144

Apart from his panegyrics Khāqānī composed a good number of poems of religious content, a large portion of them evidently after his withdrawal from the court in Sharwān. Many of the poems are of a personal nature, several regretting the deaths of his wife, son and daughter. There are also some poems with savage attacks on Rashīd al-dīn Waṭwāṭ.

Khāqānī’s dīwān, which is notorious for its obscurity, is fortunately preserved in a number of old manuscripts, notably in London Or. 7942, which was copied in Khujand in 664/1266 and apparently derives from a codex apparently written in the poet’s lifetime.145 This and three other copies form the basis for the careful critical edition by Sajjādī.146

Mss.147 Manchester Lindesiana 290 (17th century?); Lindesiana 208 (17th century? ‘Qaṣāʾid’); Lindesiana 522 (18th century? Imperfect); Lindesiana 513 (18th century?); Lindesiana 200 (18th century? ‘Ghazalīyāt’); Oxford Elliot 74 (Ethé 561. Dated 999/1590–1); Ouseley 192 (Ethé 562. Dated 12 Jumādā ii 1006/1598); Elliot 73 (Ethé 563. Dated 27 Jumādā i 1011/1602); Ouseley 382 (Ethé 564. Dated 17 Jumādā ii 1011/1602); Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/3. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); Fraser 61 (Ethé 560. Dated 7 Shaʿbān 1015/1606); Elliot 75 (Ethé 565. Dated Shaʿbān 1040/1631); Pers. d. 92 (Beeston 2554. A number of leaves were restored by a second hand which added the date 29 Rajab 34 [sc. of ʿĀlamgīr] = ⟨1⟩100/1689); Ouseley Add. 133 (Ethé 566. Dated 5 Rabīʿ i 1109/1697); Walker 74 (Ethé 570. Dated 26 Jumādā ii 1129/1717. qaṣīdahs only); Walker 99 (Ethé 567. Many glosses); Elliot 76 (Ethé 568); Elliot 77 (Ethé 569. Incomplete); Bodl. 748 (Ethé 571. Many glosses); London Or. 7942 (Meredith-Owens p. 53. ‘Dated’ 8 Shawwāl 664/1266;148 Sajjādī’s lām); i.o. 961 (Dated 7 Rabīʿ ii 1004/1595); i.o. 962 (Dated 10 Ṣafar 1006/1597); i.o. 950/ii (Dated 13 Ṣafar 1007/1598); Add. 25,808 (Rieu pp. 558–9. 16th century?); Add. 16,773 (Rieu p. 559. 16th century?); Add. 7726 (Rieu p. 559. 16th century?); Add. 25,018 (Rieu p. 560. 16th century?); Or. 7042 (Meredith-Owens p. 51. 16th century?); 9872 (Meredith-Owens p. 59. 16th century?); i.o. 951/i (=Robinson 146–51. Dated 12 Jumādā ii 1038/1629. ‘Intikhāb i dīwān’); i.o. 966 (Dated 16 Rabīʿ i 1101/1689); Add. 7727 (Rieu p. 559. 17th century?); Add. 25,809 (Rieu pp. 559–60. 17th century?); Or. 10922 (Meredith-Owens p. 60. 17th century?); i.o. 963 (Has an owner’s note dated 1183/1769–70); Add. 16,772 (Rieu p. 560. 18th century); i.o. 965 (17th or 18th century?); i.o. 964; i.o. 967; i.o. 3028; ras 297; Cambridge Or. 1350 (2nd Suppt. 170. Dated 30 Jumādā i 1035/1626); Or. 1349/2 (2nd Suppt. 169. 17th century?); Oo. 6. 28. (Browne Cat. ccviii); King’s, No. 167 (Browne Suppt. 542); Or. 255 (Browne Suppt. 1061); Jesus, No. 6 (Browne Suppt. 1062); Edinburgh Univ. 275 (16th century?); Univ. 274 (17th century?); Univ. 99 (Has an owner’s mark dated 1172/1757–8); Univ. 100 (88 qaṣīdahs); Univ. 276; New Coll. Or. 26; Paris Supplément 1771 (Blochet 1237. Two hands, attributed by Blochet to the 13th and 15th centuries respectively); Ancien fonds 133 fol. 182v–186v. (Richard. Ms. contains a note dated Jumādā i 752/1351. A few poems only); Supplément 1816 (Blochet 1232. 14th century? Contains also Tuḥfah and letters. Sajjādī’s ‘’); Supplément 623 (Blochet 1233. 16th century?); Supplément 620 (Blochet 1234. Dated 1009/1600–1); Supplément 621 (Blochet 1235. 17th century?); Supplément 622 (Blochet 1236. Dated 2 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1081/1671); Supplément 626 (Blochet 1238. 17th century?); Supplément 624 (Blochet 1239. 17th century? Fragment); Berlin Ms. or. quart. 2023/1 (Heinz 303. Dated 942/1535–6); Ms. or. fol. 299 (Pertsch 739); Minutoli 197 (Peitsch 740); Petermann 463 (Pertsch 741); Sprenger 1431 (Pertsch 743); Petermann 716/1 (Pertsch 682. Selections); Vienna Flügel 514/1; Leningrad Acad. C 1424 (Index 1489. 14th century? Lacunae); Acad. C 63/ii (Index 3439. Dated 1029/1620); Acad. D 3 (Index 1490. Dated 1047/1637–8); Dorn cccliii; Chanykov 51; Acad. B 137 (Index 1487); Acad. C 61 (Index 1488); Acad. B 136 (Index 3437); Acad. C 62 (Index 3438); Istanbul Fatih 3810 (Ritter-Reinert pp. 122–3. Copied by Arslān b. Aitughdī and dated 1 Muḥarram 702/1302); Ayasofya 2051/15 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330); Topkapı, Ahmet iii 2363 (Karatay 395. Dated Ramaḍān 867/1463); Topkapı, Revan 1016 (Karatay 396. Copied by Muḥammad Raḥīm and dated Muḥarram 1005/1596); Üniversite fy 258 (olim Rıza Paşa 246. Ateş 77. 16th century?); Esat 2633/1 (Duda p. 52. Dated Ramaḍān 1025/1616); Üniversite fy 699 (olim Halis Efendi 6672. Ateş 78. Dated 1031/1621–2); Üniversite fy 534 (Ateş 79. Dated 12 Shawwāl 1048/1639); Nuruosmaniye 4182 (Ateş 80. 17th century?); Cairo Dār al-kutub 153 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 677. Anthology dated 823/1419); 85 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 675. Dated Jumādā i 858/1454); 86 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 676. Dated 1009/1600–1); 144 adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 674. Dated Shaʿbān 1012/1604); Hamadan Iʿtimād al-daulah (Nuskhah-hā v p. 345. Ms. apparently dated 6 Shawwāl 1017/1609); Tehran Majlis iii 976 (12th century? Some leaves replaced later. Sajjādī’s mīm-jīm); Ṣādiq Anṣārī (Sajjādī’s ṣād. 13th century?); Adabīyāt i p. 253 (13th–14th century?); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 188 (Dated 16 Ṣafar 950/1543): Majlis iii 977 (Copied by Majd al-dīn ʿAlī in 999/1590–1); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 190 (Copied by Ibn Shams al-dīn Muḥammad Muʿjizī al-Yazdī and dated Rajab 1001/1593); Sipah-sālār ii 1188 (Dated 1002/1593–4); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 191 (Dated 1006/1597–8); Bayānī 10 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 9. Copied by Quṭb al-dīn b. Ḥasan Tūnī and dated 1013/1604–5); Sipah-sālār ii 1189 (Dated 1013/1604–5); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 187 (Copied for Akbar, regn. 1556–1605); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 189 (Copied by Muḥammad Laṭīf al-mashhūr bi Shōkhī al-Bukhārī and dated Rajab 1018/1609); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 183 (Copied by Muʿizz al-dīn Ḥusain Lankarī and dated Ṣafar 1019/1610); Majlis iii 978 (Dated 1038/1628–9); Majlis iii 979 (17th century?); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 182 (Dated 9 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1206/1792); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 186; etc.; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 407 (Copied by Ḥājjī ʿAlī Samarqandī and dated 2 Rabīʿ i 847/1443); Riḍawī vii 413 (Dated 898/1492–3); Riḍawī vii 406 (Dated 950/1543–4); Riḍawī vii 405 (Dated Ramaḍān 1007/1599); Riḍawī vii 412 (Dated 7 Jumādā ii 1016/1607); Dushanbe Acad. ii 370 (Dated 956/1549); 369 (Dated 1054/1644–5); 371–372; Pakistan (see Munz. Pak. vii pp. 52–7: numerous copies of which the oldest is dated 15 Rabīʿ i 963/1556); Bombay Rehatsek p. 158 no. 113–114; Brelvi p. xxx; Navsari Meherji Rana p. 89 no. 55 (Dated 1005/1596–7); Lucknow Sprenger 318 (several copies); Bankipore i 31 (‘beautiful Nastaʿlîq … apparently 14th century’); i 32 (Copied by Qāsim Shīrāzī and dated 1027/1618); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 722 no. 436; i p. 742 no. 261, 583; ii p. 1254 no. 72; Madras i 82–87; ii 587; Calcutta Būhār 291 (16th century?); Ivanow 456 (16th century?); Ivanow Curzon 196 (Dated 1086/1675); Ivanow 457 (17th century?); Ivanow 458 (18th century?); Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 976 (18th century?); Būhār 292 (19th century? Incomplete); Philadelphia Lewis Coll. 60 (16th century? Pictures). Cf. Munz. iii 22816–924.

Editions: [Lucknow] 1294/1878 (2 vols.); Lucknow 1309/1892; 1908; Tehran 1316sh./1937 (ed. ʿAlī ʿAbd-al-Rasūlī); 1336sh./957 (ed. M. ʿAbbāsī); 1338sh./1959 (ed. Ḍ. Sajjādī. Quotes the variants from four Mss.).

Partial editions: Tehran 1351sh./1972 (Guzīdah i asʿār i Kh. i Sh., ed. Ḍ. Sajjādī).

Edition and (Russian) translation of the rubāʿīyāt: K. Salemann, Четверостишiя Хакани, St. Petersburg 1875.

Translations of selected poems (Russian verse): Хагани, Лирика, Moscow 1980; Хакани, Ветер в руке, перевод…М. Синельникова, Moscow 1986; Хакани Ширвани: Рубаи, tr. B. Aslanov, Baku 1981.


A commentary on the qaṣāʾid of Khāqānī, ascribed (implausibly) to Jāmī, is reported in Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1252 no. 93.
Sharḥ i dīwān (or qaṣāʾid) i Khāqānī by Muḥammad b. Dāʾūd b. Muḥammad ʿAlawī Shādī-ābādī (see above, p. 156), for sultan Nāṣir al-dīn Khaljī, who reigned from 906/1500 to 916/1510. It elucidates only a selection of the qaṣāʾid. Mss.: Oxford Fraser 63 (Ethé 572. Dated Shawwāl 1042 /1633); Ouseley Add. 181 (Ethé 573); London i.o. 968 (Two hands, the later dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 995 /1587); Add. 25,811 (Rieu p. 561. Dated Shawwāl 1080/1670); Add. 27,315 (Rieu pp. 561–2. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1107/1696. With an introduction dedicated to Jahāngīr by ʿAlawī Lāhijī in which the latter appears to claim the authorship of the commentary);150 Add. 10,579 ii (Rieu p. 820. Dated Shaʿbān 1149/1736. 34 qaṣīdahs only); Or. 363 (Rieu p. 561. 17th century?); i.o. 969 (defective); i.o. 970 (fragment); i.o. Delhi 1283A–B; Edinburgh Univ. 277 (Dated 1045/1635–6); Paris Supplément 1036 (Blochet 1240. 19th century); Tehran Sipah-sālar v p. 188 (Dated 4 Muḥarram 1000/1591); Millī i 20 (Dated Jumādā ii 1032/1623); Majlis ii 412 (Dated 1238/1822–3); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 661 (17th century?); Tashkent Univ. 49 (Dated 1142/1730); Pakistan (Various copies, the oldest dated 7 Ramaḍān 1014/1606, are listed in Munz. Pak. vii p. 57-g); Lucknow Sprenger 319 (Dated 1062/1652); Bankipore i 34 (Dated 1036/1626–7); i 35 (Dated 1223/1808–9); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1252 no. 110, 112; Madras 267; Calcutta Būhār 293 (18th century?); Ivanow 459–460 (2 copies, 18th century?); Ivanow Curzon 196 (18th century? Fragment). Cf. Munz. v 37402–25.
Sharḥ i mushkilāt i dīwān i Khāqānī (as it is called in the Istanbul Mss.) or Maḥabbat-nāmah by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Muḥammad al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥasanī al-Maʿmūrī, called Ghanāʾī (Ghināʾī?). Pertsch (followed by Ethé ad i.o. 968 and by Minorsky) tentatively equated this commentator with the scribe Abū Turāb ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥusainī who completed his copy of Khāqānī’s Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain (=Berlin Pertsch no. 744) on 23 Rajab 1090/1679, but the identification seems unlikely if the dates in the Istanbul Mss. are correct. ʿAbd al-Rasūlī, who used this commentary in preparing his edition of the dīwān, says that it was written in 1018.151 Mss.: London Or. 7910 (Meredith-Owens p. 53. 18th–19th century?); ‘and probably also i.o. Delhi 1287A’ (Sto.); Cambridge Or. 250 (Browne Suppt. 1060. Dated 1235/1819–20); Berlin Sprenger 1432 (Pertsch 742. Dated 17 Muḥarram ‘32’, which Pertsch, on the basis of the above-quoted hypothesis concerning the authorship of this commentary, interpreted as 1132/1719); Vienna Flügel 515 (Dated 18 Rabīʿ i 1141/1728); Istanbul Üniversité fy 489 (Ateş 81. Dated 22 Shawwāl 1025/1616); Nuruosmaniye 3972 (Ateş 82. Dated 22 Muḥarram 1041/1631); Topkapı, Hazine 883 (Karatay 397. Copied by Aḥmad b. al-Ḥājj Ḥasan al-Sarāʾī and dated Jumādā ii 1060/1650); Hamadan Iʿtimād al-daulah 58 (Nuskhah-hā v p. 343. Dated 16 Ṣafar 1044/1634); Tehran Univ. ii 28 (Dated 10 Jumādā i 1037/1628); Maʿārif i 138 (Dated 1232/1817); Majlis ii 411; Lahore Univ. (Munz. Pak. vii pp. 58–9. Dated 7 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1104/1693 Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1252 no. 114; Madras ii 588 (Dated 1241/1825). Cf. Munz. v 37392–400.
Faraḥ-afzā by Qabūl Muḥammad, the author of Haft Qulzum, comments on ten qaṣīdahs of Khāqānī. Mss.: Bankipore Suppt, ii 2336 Lucknow Sprenger 320.
Miftāḥ al-kunūz fī sharḥ ashʿār Khāqānī by Riḍā Qulī Khān, called Hidāyat (d. 1288/1871–2). Mss.: London Or. 3401/ii (Rieu Suppt. 221. Dated Jumādā ii 1259/1843); Cf. Munz. v 37964–6. Edited by Ḍiyāʾ al-dīn Sajjādī in Nām-wārah i Duktur Maḥmūd i Afshār vi, Tehran 1370sh./1991, pp. 3422–3560.
Unidentified commentaries. Cambridge Oo. 6. 33. (Browne Cat. ccix); Leningrad Acad. C 1426 fol. 140a–170b (Index 2577. Ms. dated 1095/1684); Acad. C 1520 (Index 2578. Incomplete); Bombay Rehatsek p. 138 no. 41 (Dated 1068/1657–8. ‘Composed during the reign of Jehángyr’); Aligarh Subḥ. Mss. p. 48 no. 1 (Dated 1026/1617); See also Munz. v 37429–33.

Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain, or rather, as it is called in the oldest Ms. (Vienna mixt. 845), Khatm al-gharāʾib, describes Khāqānī’s first pilgrimage to Mecca; for its contents and date see above pp. 2378. (Begins, after a preface in prose, with the verse: mā-ēm naẓāragān i gham-nāk * z-īn ḥuqqah i sabz u muhrah i khāk).

Mss.: Dublin t.c.d. 1586; Manchester Lindesiana 558 (Dated 1083/1672–3); Lindesiana 136 (Dated 1130/1718); Lindesiana 92 (Dated 1170/1756–7); Oxford Fraser 61 (Ethé 560. Dated 7 Shaʿbān 1015/1606); Ouseley 69 (Ethé 574. Dated Muḥarram 1063/1652); Ouseley 383 (Ethé 575. Dated 16 Jumādā ii 3rd year of Aḥmad Shāh/1750); Ouseley Add. 107 (Ethé 578. Dated 1201/1786–7); Elliot 384 (Ethé 579. Dated 16 Rabīʿ ii 1209/1794); Pers. d. 49 (Beeston 2555. Dated 1284/1867–8); Fraser 62 (Ethé 576); Ouseley Add. 91 (Ethé 577); London i.o. 950/i (Dated 13 Ṣafar 1007/1598); Add. 25,018/ivv (Rieu p. 560. 16th century? With the author’s prose preface); Add. 7728 (Rieu p. 560. 16th century?); Add. 25,018 (Rieu p. 560. 16th century?); Or. 9872 (Meredith-Owens p. 59. 16th century?); Add. 7732 fol. 126–217 (Rieu p. 555. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1011/1603. Contains also ‘some other poems by Kh.’); Add. 7667/i (Rieu p. 809. Dated 1022/1613); i.o. 951/ii (=Robinson 146–51. Dated 12 Jumādā ii 1038/1629. 1 extraneous picture); i.o. 955 (Dated 14 Muḥarram 1058/1648); i.o. 954 (Dated, ‘as it seems’, 1078/1667–8, and followed by a prose summary. Slightly defective); i.o. 2866 (Dated 12 Dhū l-qaʿdah ‘8010’—for 1080/1670?–); Add. 25,810 (Rieu p. 560. Dated Muḥarram 1088/1677. With marginal annotations); soas 46725/i (Dated 21 Ṣafar 1094/1683); Add. 23,553 (Rieu p. 561. Dated 1096/1685. With variant readings and glosses); i.o. 956 (Dated 24 Rabīʿ i 1099/1688); Add. 16,776 (Rieu p. 561. 17th century? Incomplete); Add. 16,775 (Rieu p. 561. 17th century? With the preface); Add. 16,774 (Rieu p. 561. 17th century? With preface and marginal notes); Ross and Browne clxii (17th century?); i.o. 957 (Dated 1134/1721–2. Copious glosses): Or. 3401/i (Rieu Suppt. 221. Dated Jumādā ii 1259/1843. With the preface. Imperfect at end); i.o. 952; i.o. 953 (copious glosses); i.o. 958; i.o. 959; i.o. Delhi 1223 (two copies); ras 295–296; Cambridge Or. 1348/1 (2nd Suppt. 168. Ms. dated 5 Rabīʿ i 1023/1614); Or. 1350 (2nd Suppt. 170. Dated 30 Jumādā i 1035/1626); King’s, No. 115 (Browne Suppt. 279. Dated 1072/1661–2); Or. 277 (Browne Suppt. 278. Dated 1100/1688–9); Or. 1349/1 (2nd Suppt. 169. 17th century?); Or. 1568 (2nd Suppt. 355. 18th century?); Or. 255 (Browne Suppt. 1061); Jesus, No. 6 (Browne Suppt. 1062); Edinburgh Univ. 278; Paris Supplément 1816 (Blochet 1232. 14th century?); Supplément 623 (Blochet 1233. 16th century?); Supplément 620 (Blochet 1234. Dated 1009/1600–1); Supplément 621 (Blochet 1235. 17th century?); Supplément 622 (Blochet 1236. Dated 2 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1081/1671); Supplément 1366 fol. 161v seqq. (Blochet 1993. Ms. contains dates between 1009/1600 and 1010/1602); Supplément 625 (Blochet 1241. Dated Ramaḍān 1093/1682); Supplément 317 fol. 98 sqq. (Blochet 2179. 18th century?); Berlin Ms. or. quart. 2023/2 (Heinz 303. Dated 942/1535–6); Sprenger 1433 (Pertsch 744. Copied by Abū Turāb ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḥusainī and dated 23 Rajab 1090/1679); Sprenger 1434 (Pertsch 745); Sprenger 1435 (Pertsch 746); Vienna Mixt. 843 (uncatalogued. Dated 12 Jumādā i 593/1197. See the detailed description by Ī. Afshār, Maʿārif xvi, 1375/1999, pp. 3–38); Flügel 513 (Dated Jumādā i 1028/1619); Flügel 514/2; Copenhagen Mehren civ/2; Leningrad Acad. C 63/i (Index 3439. Dated 1029/1620); Acad. A 26 (Index 644. Dated 1054/1644–5); Acad. 25 (Index 643. Dated 1222/1807); Acad. B 139 (Index 645); Acad. B 3974 (Index 646); Acad. C 62 fol. 1b–84b (Index 3438); Dorn ccclii; Chanykov 50; Istanbul Ayasofya 1762/2 (Ateş 83. Copied by Masʿūd b. Manṣūr al-Mutaṭabbib and dated Rabīʿ i 791/1389); Topkapı, Ahmet iii 2363 (Karatay 395. Dated Ramaḍān 867/1463); Nuruosmaniye 4964/19 (Ateş 84 and 371. 15th century?); Üniversite fy 877 (olim Halis Efendi 8637. Ateş 85. 17th century?); Esat 2633/2 (Duda p. 52. Added by a second hand to a Ms. dated Ramaḍān 1025/1616); Üniversite fy 880 (olim Halis Efendi 4262. Ateş 86. Dated 1 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1287/1872); Cairo 6 mīm majāmīʿ fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 269. Dated Ṣafar 1106/1694); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy i 190 (Ms. copied by Ibn Shams al-dīn Muḥammad Muʿjizī al-Yazdī and dated Rajab 1001/1593); Sipah-sālār ii 1106 (Dated 1013/1604–5); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 191 (Dated Rabīʿ ii 1006/1597); Bayānī 9 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 9. 16th century?); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 187 (Copied for Akbar, regn. 1556–1605); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 178 (Dated l Dhū l-ḥijjah 1015/1607. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 189 (Copied by ‘al-Bukhārī’ and dated Shaʿbān 1015/1606 or 1025/1616);152 Sipah-sālār ii 1108 (Dated 1032/1622–3); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 180 (Copied in 1035/1625–6 by Muḥammad b. Mullā Mīr al-Ḥusainī al-Ustādī); Majlis ii 326 (Dated 1053/1643–4); Sipah-sālār ii 1107 (Copied by Muḥammad Masīḥ Shīrāzī in 1063/1653); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 181 (Intikhāb. Copied by ‘the famous calligrapher’ ʿAbd al-Rashīd, presumably the person of that name who died in India in 1081/1670; see EIr s.v. “Abd-al-Rašīd Daylamī’ by P.P. Soucek); Shūrā i Islāmī i 351 (copied by Mīr ʿAlī Harawī); Arak Bayāt (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 65. Dated 993/1585); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 407 (Copied by Ḥājjī ʿAlī Samarqandī and dated 2 Rabīʿ i 847/1443); Riḍawī vii 406 (Dated 950/1543–4); Riḍawī vii 412 (Dated 7 Jumādā ii 1016/1607); Riḍawī vii 198 (Dated 1029/1620); Riḍawī vii 199 (Dated 1140/1727–8); Dushanbe Acad. ii 369 (Dated 1054/1644–5); 373; Pakistan (various copies listed in Munz. Pak. vii pp. 46–51); Bombay Univ. 108; Rehatsek p. 187 no. 19–20 (2 Mss., one dated 24 Rabīʿ ii 1063/1653); Rehatsek p. 129 no. 12; Lucknow Sprenger 321 (several copies, one—evidently the one now in Berlin—of which was dated 1090/1679); Bankipore i 33 (Copied by Muḥammad Saʿīd b. Mīrzā Muḥammad al-Bukhārī in 1014/1605–6); Suppt. i 1806 (Dated 1024/1615); i 32/i, vi (Copied by Qāsim Shīrāzī and dated 1027/1618. Pictures); Suppt. i 1807 (Dated (9 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1092/1681. Beginning missing); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1476 no. 98, 107, 165; Calcutta Ivanow Curzon 197 (Dated 7 Rabīʿ ii 1042/1632); Ivanow 461 (18th century?); Ivanow Curzon 198 (Dated 17 Shaʿbān 12th year of Muḥammad-Akbar/1232/1817); Ivanow 462; Philadelphia Lewis Coll. 60 (16th century?). Cf. Munz. iv 28514–606.

Editions: Agra 1855 (with a commentary); Cawnpore 1284/1867 (Abridged, with marginal notes based on ʿAbd al-Salām’s commentary); Lahore 1867 (Intikhāb … Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain, followed by a commentary compiled once again from that of ʿAbd al-Salām); Lucknow 1876; 1930 (Sharḥ Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain. Text with an Urdu commentary by ʿAbd al-Bārī Āsī); Tehran 1333sh./1954 (ed. Y. Qarīb from various, mostly late, Mss., with an introduction).


Sharḥ i tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain by Shaikh ʿAbd al-Salām, written in 1057/1647. Mss.: London i.o. 960 (Dated 17 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1059/1649); i.o. Delhi 1242; Lucknow Sprenger 322; ‘Probably’ the same commentary is found also in Oxford Walker 90 (Ethé 581. Dated 1076/1665–6); Pakistan (Several copies listed in Munz. Pak. vii p. 51–2).
(same title) by Ghulām-Muḥammad N.ḥ (?). Ms.: Oxford Ouseley 61 (Ethé 580. Dated 5 Ṣafar 1124/1712).
(same title), anonymous, but (according to Ethé) different from the two preceeding works. Begins at once with the first verse of the poem. Ms.: London i.o. 2867.
(same title) by ʿAbd al-Ghanī bhkry. Ms.: Lahore Shērānī iii p. 442 (acc. to Munz. Pak. vii p. 54. Dated 7 Shawwāl 1146/1734).
(same title) by Saiyid Ismāʿīl Abjadī,153 begun in 1200/1786. Mss.: Madras ii 612 (Dated 1249/1833–4).

Edition: in Kullīyāt i Abjadī iv, Madras 1954.

Tuḥfat al-āfāq by Khwājah Muḥammad b. Walī Muḥammad. Ms.: London i.o. Delhi 1240 (Dated 1214/1799–1800).

Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, passim ʿAufī ii pp. 221–2154 (and Nafīsī’s notes pp. 705–7); id., Jawāmiʿ iii p. 79; Shams passim; Juwainī ii pp. 38–9; Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 404; Mustaufī pp. 665–6, 728–30; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī i pp. 149–58, ii p. 876, 883; Daulat-shāh pp. 78–83; Rāzī iii pp. 269–87 (no. 1385); Ādhar i pp. 149–94; N. de Khanikof, ‘Mémoire sur Khâcâni, poète persan du xiie siècle’, ja sér. 6, tome 4, 1863, pp. 137–200; sér. 6, tome 5, 1865, pp. 296–367 (with text and prose translation of several poems); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 200–13; id., Riyāḍ pp. 188–91; Furūzānfar ii pp. 300–52; M. Iqbāl, ‘Tadhkirah i Khāqānī (in Urdu), ocm xiii/1, 1936, pp. 3–42; V. Minorsky, ‘Khāqānī and Andronicus Comnenus’, bsoas xi, 1945, pp. 550–78, reprinted with addenda in his Iranica pp. 120–50 (Persian translation in fiz i/2, 1332sh./1953); O.L. Vil’chevskiy, Хакани, Sovetskoye Vostokovedeniye 1957/iv, pp. 63–76; id., « Хронограммы Хакани », Epigrafika Vostoka xiii, 1960, pp. 59–68 (translated by J.W. Clinton in Iranian studies ii/2–3, 1969, pp. 97–105); Hādī Ḥasan, ‘Khāqānī: his times, life and poetry’, in his Researches in Persian literature, Hyderabad 1958, pp. 13–28; M. Rifaqatullah Khan, ‘Life of Khaqani’, Indo-Iranica xii/2, 1959, pp. 24–44; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 181–2 (with further references); A. Ateş, ‘Ḫāḳānī’nin mektupları dergisi’, Belleten xxv, 1961, pp. 239–47; B. Reinert, ‘Masʾalah i tajdīd i maṭlaʿ dar qaṣāʾid i Khāqānī’, mdat xii/2, 1343/1964, pp. 126–49; idem, Ḫāqānī als Dichter, poetische Logik und Phantasie, Berlin 1972; ʿA. Dashtī, Khāqānī, shāʿir-ī dīr-āshnā, Tehran 1341sh./1962, 2nd. ed. /1976; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 776–94; Rypka pp. 202–8 (summarises the—largely fantastic—reconstruction of his biography by Vil’chevskiy); J.W. Clinton, ‘The Madāen Qasida of Xāqānī Sharvānī, i (ii)’, Edebiyât i, 1976, pp. 153–70, ii, 1977, pp. 191–206; A.M. Anvar, ‘The arch of Madaen from the point of view of the famous Arabic and Persian poets Khaghany and Bohtory’, Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan 14/i–ii, 1979, pp. 1–31; M. Muʿīn, Ḥawāshī … bar ashʿār i Khāqānī i Sharwānī, ed. with additional notes by Ḍ. Sajjādī, Tehran 1358sh./1979; A.L.F.A. Beelaert, ‘The function of the mamdūḥs in the 7th maqāla of the Tuḥfat al-ʿIrāqayn by Khāqānī Šīrwānī’, Manuscripts of the Middle East iii, 1988, pp. 16–22; eadem, ‘La qaṣide en honneur d’Ispahan de Xâqâni et la recherche du Xatm al-qarâʾeb’, in Pand-o sokhan, Mélanges offerts à Charles-Henri de Fouchécour, Tehran 1995, pp. 53–63; ei2 s.v. ‘Khāḳnī (B. Reinert).

§ 225. al-Ustādh al-Muwaffaq Abū Ṭāhir al-Khātūnī is mentioned a number of times in al-Bundārī’s abridgment of ʿImād al-dīn’s expanded Arabic translation of Anōsharwān b. Khālid’s history of the Seljuqs, where we read that he was one of the foremost wits at the time of Muḥammad (i) b. Malik-shāh (498/1105 to 511/1118) and the mustaufī to the Khātūn, i.e. the sultan’s queen. The text speaks of him as deceased;155 since al-Bundārī habitually draws attention to his own additions it would appear that Khātūnī must have died before ʿImād al-dīn (d. 597/1183) and possibly before Anōsharwān (d. 532/1138 or shortly afterwards). The same source tells us that he satirised several of the sultan’s ministers and officials, in prose and in verse, and quotes (in ʿImād al-dīn’s Arabic verse translation) a number of his epigrams.156 A few short Persian poems, largely of satirical content, are preserved in other sources. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī says that in the mosque in Sāwah there is ‘a library which takes its name from the wazīr (sic) Abū Ṭāhir al-Khātūnī containing all the fine books which existed in his time’ as well as astronomical instruments and the like.157 Rāwandī says that he himself saw Malik-shāh’s Shikār-nāmah (hunting journal) ‘in the handwriting of Abū Ṭāhir Khātūnī’, but it is not clear to me whether this implies that Khātūnī wrote such a work during the reign of Malik-shāh (i.e. that he was already attached to the court before 485/1092), or merely that he copied a manuscript of such a work at a later date.

On two occasions158 Daulat-shāh quotes the Tārīkh i al i Saljūq of Abū Ṭāhir Khātūnī, one time for an anecdote referring to the reign of Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik-shāh (529/1134 to 547/1152) and another in connection with the death of Sanjar’s daughter in 524/1130. However, if Khātūnī had really written a history of the Seljuqs and if it was still accessible (directly or indirectly) to Daulat-shāh more than 300 years later, then it would seem most astonishing that none of the historians who wrote about that dynasty betray any knowledge of such a work. Besides this, both of the stories which Daulat-shāh claims to have from this history are in their own right extremely dubious, as we have shown in the appropriate entries.159 One should therefore perhaps not give too much credence to another passage160 in which Daulat-shāh claims to be quoting Khātūnī’s book on the lives of the poets (Kitāb manāqib al-shuʿarāʾ).

lf ed. Horn p. 31 (one verse by ‘ustād Muwaffaq al-dīn Abū Ṭāhir Ḥānūtī’—or thus at least Horn’s reading—in the Vatican Ms.);161 Yawāqīt al-ʿulūm (anon., mid-6th/12th century), ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1345sh./1966, p. 261 (quotes a riddle of two verses); Ẓahīr al-dīn Naisābūrī, Saljūq-nāmah, Tehran 1332sh./1953, p. 34; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, p. 131, 136; al-Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣrah wa nukhbat al-ʿuṣrah, ed. M.Th. Houtsma (= his Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides ii), Leyden 1889, pp. 89, 105–8, 110, 113; Shams pp. 94–5, 256; Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 259; Ṣiḥāḥ p. 225; Daulat-shāh pp. 29, 58, 64, 76–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 66–7; Qazwīnī’s introduction to ʿAufī i pp. vii–viii n. 1, his note on p. 317, and his Yād-dāsht-hā v pp. 280–1; Browne, History ii pp. 326–7; ln s.v. ‘Abū Ṭāhir’ pp. 556–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 19 (with further references); EIr s.v. ‘Abū Ṭāher K̲ātūnī’ (Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh).

§ 226. Two verses by Ṣārim al-dīn Khīrah referring to Qiwām al-dīn (who was minister to Ṭoghrıl ii until 528/1133–4) are quoted by Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, p. 12.

§ 227. al-Ṣadr al-imām al-ajall Ṣadr al-millah wa l-dīn al-Khujandī and al-Ṣadr al-ajall Jamāl al-dīn al-Khujandī are the subjects of two successive entries in ʿAufī’s chapter on the religious dignitaries who dabbled in poetry and ʿAufī quotes a number of pieces by each of them.162 We have to do with two members (not sufficiently identified by ʿAufī) of a distinguished family of Shāfiʿī clerics, originally from Khujand (in Central Asia), but who gained prominence in Isfahan, the banū l-Khujandī (or, in Persian, Khujandiyān). Though for their own sake they do not merit a place in the history of Persian belles-lettres they were the patrons of several major poets of our period (Athīr, Jamāl al-dīn, Kamāl al-dīn, Khāqānī, Rafīʿ Lunbānī, Qamar, Zahīr Fāryābī). For this reason, but also because of the confusion which has surrounded them in the secondary literature, we find it expedient to enumerate here the most important members of this family.163

Abū Bakr Muḥammad (i) b. Thābit b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-Khujandī, the founder of the Khujandī lineage in Isfahan, was sent from Marw to Isfahan by Niẓām al-mulk and died in 483/1090–1.164

His son, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (i) succeeded him as the raʾīs of the Shāfiʿīs in Isfahan and was assassinated by the Ismāʿīlīs in 523/1129.165 His brother Aḥmad died on 1 Shaʿbān 531/1137.166 Ibn al-Athīr says that Abū l-Muẓaffar b. al-Khujandī (presumably a brother of these two) was assassinated by a Shiite (ʿalawī) while descending from the preacher’s chair in the mosque at Rai in 496/1102–3.167

ʿAbd al-Laṭīf i was succeeded by his son Ṣadr al-dīn Abū Bakr Muḥammad (ii). According to ʿImād al-dīn al-Kātib168 he fell foul of Sultan Masʿūd in 542/1147–8 and had to flee from Isfahan together with his brother Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd and other members of the family, whereupon the local mob sacked the Shāfiʿī madrasah and burned its library. The fugitives were received graciously by Jamāl al-dīn Muḥammad al-Jawād, the wazīr to the atabeg of Mosul, but soon afterwards they made peace with the sultan and returned to Isfahan. ʿImād al-dīn says further that he himself met Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd in Baghdad in Ṣafar 543/1148. In his Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain (written ca. 551/1156)169 Khāqānī praises Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad170 and his brother Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd.171 al-Subkī172 says that Muḥammad ii became (evidently after these events) the walī of the Madrasah Niẓāmīyah in Baghdad and that he died while travelling between Baghdad and Isfahan on 22 Shawwāl 552/1157. Ibn al-Athīr173 says that at the time of his death a great riot (fitnah ʿaẓīmah) broke out in Isfahan in which many people were killed. There is an elegy on the death of his brother Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd in the dīwān of Jamāl al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq.174

The just-mentioned Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd is not to be confused with Jamāl al-dīn Masʿūd al-Khujandī, whose relationship with the other members of the family is not clear, but who evidently belonged to the next generation. A number of his letters (one of them addressed to the atabeg Muḥammad Jahān-Pahlawān b. Ēldügüz, 570/1175 to 582/1186) and several of his Persian poems are preserved in a 13th-century anthology;175 the fact that he wrote poetry in Persian suggests that he might also be the ‘Jamāl al-dīn’ cited by ʿAufī. There is an ode to him in the dīwān of Athīr Akhsīkatī.176

This Masʿūd is perhaps the brother of Ṣadr al-dīn Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (ii), the son of Muḥammad ii. He was born in Rajab 535/1141, assumed the leadership of the Shāfiʿīs of Isfahan after (though presumably not right after) his father and died in Jumādā i 588/1184.177

He was succeeded by his son Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad (iii). He was killed by the military governor (shiḥnah) of Isfahan, Falak al-dīn Sunqur al-Ṭawīl in Jumādā ii 592/1196.178

Muḥammad iii is the last of the ṣadrs to be mentioned by al-Subkī, who, although he died almost two centuries later (in 771/1370), evidently derived his knowledge of the Shāfiʿīs of Isfahan from a source written at the end of the 12th century. Muḥammad would appear to have been succeeded by Ṣadr al-dīn ʿUmar al-Khujandī (perhaps his son), whom we seem to know only from the panegyrics of Kamāl al-dīn and Rafīʿ Lunbānī, and who was presumably the last of the ṣadrs before the Mongol invasion. The family, however, survived the conquest. Juwainī (iii pp. 79–80) mentions one qāḍī l-quḍāh Jamāl al-millah wa l-dīn Maḥmūd al-Khujandī in connection with the events of the year 650/1252–3.

next chapter: Part 3


^ Back to text1. In preparing the following notes I have made use of a set of photographs, preserved in the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, made from the ‘Robertson’ Ms., which is dated 20 Rajab 981/1573. This is written in a good, legible nastaʿlīq hand. The poems are not arranged alphabetically; the qaṣīdahs and strophic poems are grouped together according to their dedicatee and are followed by the muqaṭṭaʿāt.

^ Back to text2. See below, no. 222.

^ Back to text3. Shams’s poem is included in the dīwān of Ḍiyāʾ, fol. 89b–90a, where the verse in question reads: tu pārsī-nasab-ī chūn Khujand manshaʾ-at ast * zihī tafākhur i Salmān i fārisī ba Khujand.

^ Back to text4. Fol. 4a: ma-rā chu Salmān az Pārs ast maulid u aṣl * kih pārsī sukhan-am hast durr i ʿummānī.

^ Back to text5. Fol. 107a.

^ Back to text6. Juwainī i pp. 71–2.

^ Back to text7. Yalawach is a Turkish word for ‘ambassador, messenger’. Our poet treats it, doubtless under the constraints of the metre, as disyllabic. Cf. fol. 5b (metre: hazaj): madār i mulk Fakhru l-ḥaqqi wa l-dīn * panāh i khalq Ulugh Yalwāch i aʿẓam. The same reading is required also on fol. 3b paen.

^ Back to text8. See the detailed article on Maḥmūd Yalawāch and his family by Th.T. Allsen in In the service of the Khan, ed. I. de Rachewiltz (etc.), Wiesbaden 1993, pp. 122–31.

^ Back to text9. Fol. 9a.

^ Back to text10. Fol. 13a sqq.

^ Back to text11. Fol. 37b sqq.

^ Back to text12. In the ‘Robertson’ Ms. the word is consistently written with the points of the first two letters amalgamated into an inverted pyramid of three dots; one can thus equally well read or (it would be good to know how it is pointed in the Gulistān Ms.). Yabghū is well-known Turkish (or Eastern Iranian) royal title (see Doerfer iv pp. 124–36). Pīghū occurs in Chaghatai Turkish (and in the Persian lexica) as he name for a kind of falcon, but is not attested in any early texts (id., ii pp. 427–8, and the Nachtrag, iv p. 438).

^ Back to text13. ʿAufī i pp. 52–9; see also Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 173–4; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī pp. 1370–5; ln s.v. ‘Pīghū’ pp. 748–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 98; Ṣafa, Tārīkh ii pp. 729–31. Nafīsī has correctly noted that the poems quoted by ʿAufī on pp. 55–8 are clearly not by this king, but addressed to him, and has surmised that there is a lacuna in the text with the result that the name of their author has dropped out. This is not unlikely, but there is no basis for his assumption that this unknown author is the ‘Ḥusām al-dīn Bakhtyār b. Zangī Saljūqī’ with whom Hidāyat arbitrarily identified our Pīghū-Malik. Further confusion is caused by Nafīsī’s attempts to amalgamate Ḍiyāʾ’s various patrons into a single person.

^ Back to text14. Fol. 127b.

^ Back to text15. For whom see pl vi. The poem is quoted in Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī, pp. 1390–2.

^ Back to text16. Sprenger p. 16 no. 31.

^ Back to text17. See the account of the Ms. at the beginning of this article.

^ Back to text18. Namely the penultimate verse of the poem, reading: sāyah i yazdān Malik-shāh āftāb i khusrawān * ān shahansha-y (sic lege) kām-yāb, ān pād-shāh i kām-gār.

^ Back to text19. See above, p. 146, n. 12.

^ Back to text20. See Khāqānī’s dīwān, ed. Sajjādī, pp. 918–9 and Hādī Ḥasan’s first monograph, pp. 44–5.

^ Back to text21. Text (from the Madras Ms.) and translation in Hādī Ḥasan’s Researches, pp. 63–7.

^ Back to text22. See M. Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie i (translation of the Georgian chronicle), St. Petersburg 1849, p. 382.

^ Back to text23. Browne quotes the nisbah (twice) as al-Sanjarī but this is doubtless a scribal error in his Mss. In his new edition of ʿAufī (p. 487) Nafīsī emends the text (but without quoting the reading of the Mss.) to al-Sijzī.

^ Back to text24. For whom see also below, no. 291 (Shams al-dīn).

^ Back to text25. Both Ẓahīr al-dīn (p. 46) and Rāwandī (p. 175) have, wrongly, ‘Masʿūd’.

^ Back to text26. Ed. Ābādī, pp. 315–6.

^ Back to text27. My doubts are fuelled, first, by the early date of ʿAbd al-Jalīl’s book and, second, by the fact that ʿAufī’s Farqadī was the son of a man with the decidedly non-Shiite name ʿUmar.

^ Back to text28. Ādhar (old edition) p. 343; Khaiyām-pūr p. 547; Meier, Mahsatī pp. 42–3 (with further discussion).

^ Back to text29. Ed. Mudarris i Riḍawī p. 714.

^ Back to text30. Ibid., pp. 752–3.

^ Back to text31. Ibid., pp. 752–4.

^ Back to text32. According to Samʿānī fol. 398b.

^ Back to text33. Ibid., pp. 569–70.

^ Back to text34. Thus ‘Aufī. In the Tehran edition of Rāzī’s Haft Iqlīm the name appears as Ḥamīd al-dīn Masʿūd b. Shālī-kōb, but Ethé quotes it from the London Mss. as Ḥamīd al-dīn Masʿūd b. Saʿd Siyālkūtī.

^ Back to text35. This is to my knowledge the earliest Persian attestation for the Indian loan-word shālī (Sanskrit sāli-), ‘un-husked rice’.

^ Back to text36. See above, § 165.

^ Back to text37. Thus Rāwandī p. 187. Abū l-Ḥasan Baihaqī calls him al-imām mafkhar al-lisānain raʾīs afāḍil al-sādah Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Ḥusainī. The anonymous compiler of his dīwān calls him Ḥasan b. Aḥmad, which could easily be a misreading for Ḥasan b. Muḥammad. By contrast, ʿAufī (according to Ms. S) calls him Saiyid al-ajall Ashraf al-dīn Fakhr al-sādāt al-Ḥasan b. Nāṣir al-‘Alawī (Ms. E, followed by Browne, has ‘… Abī l-Ḥasan’). It is not entirely impossible that both are correct, i.e. that his father Muḥammad had the laqab Nāṣir (al-dīn). That he was a Ḥusainī saiyid is confirmed by his dīwān p. 26 l. 1: az pai i ān-kih Ḥasan-nām u ḥusainī-nasabam

^ Back to text38. Rāwandī p. 193 = dīwān pp. 49–52.

^ Back to text39. Rāwandī pp. 245–8 = dīwān pp. 211–4.

^ Back to text40. Rāwandī pp. 251–4 = dīwān pp. 215–8.

^ Back to text41. Rāwandī pp. 275–7 = dīwān pp. 9–10.

^ Back to text42. Thus according to Mudarris i Riḍawī, p. xxxix.

^ Back to text43. Robinson’s entry creates the erroneous impression that this copy contains poems by two authors, ‘Hasan ʿAznawi’ (sic) and ‘Sayyid Hasan’. The true situation is made clear in Ethé’s description.

^ Back to text44. Unpublished. An extract from the chapter on the saiyids of Ghaznah from a Ms. in the Āstān i quds i Riḍawī is in part quoted, in part paraphrased in Persian in a piecemeal fashion, by Mudarris i Riḍawī, pp. x, xxx, xxxix of his introduction.

^ Back to text45. The sharmsī date is given in the journal as ‘1312’, evidently in error.

^ Back to text46. Jājarmī ii p. 640 l. 5.

^ Back to text47. Cf. Daulat-shāh pp. 268–70; Khaiyām-pūr p. 161; ln s.v. ‘Ḥasan i Mutakallim’ p. 606.

^ Back to text48. Thus in Browne’s Mss.

^ Back to text49. Iqbāl and Hidāyat give the name as hjym, which can hardly be read other than as Hujaim.

^ Back to text50. The Arabic translation has ‘… lā al-ʿaqīq alladhī min (bad variant:) al-yaman’ and adds the evidently spurious gloss: ‘ai al-makān alladhī yusammā ʿaqīq al-yaman’. I take it that the ‘Yamīn’ required by the rhyme is used here in the meaning ‘Yaman’ (which is what the printed text has instead of it).

^ Back to text51. For whom see above, § 157.

^ Back to text52. For these dates see EIr s.v. ‘Āl-e Bāvand’ (W. Madelung) and for the identity of ʿImādī’s patron see the important article by Qazwīnī cited in our bibliography. M.S. Israeli argued (against Qazwīnī) that the patron was one ʿImād al-dīn Farāmarz b. Mardāwīj, of Gurgān, but at the time in question Māzandarān means Ṭabaristān, not Gurgān.

^ Back to text53. This seems the most likely reading of the Turkish name (‘falcon-heart’), despite the fact that Ibn Isfandyār (and some others) omit the -n- (probably by haplography). This ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was executed by order of Sultan Masʿūd in 541/1147; see Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā vi p. 26 and C.E. Bosworth in chi v p. 126, 132 (with further references).

^ Back to text54. Rāwandī pp. 210–2 = ʿAufī ii pp. 262–4.

^ Back to text55. See above, pp. 1467.

^ Back to text56. For whom see no. 304.

^ Back to text57. Thus the first words of ʿAufī’s entry. In both the Mss. available to Browne the correct heading for the article is missing, having been replaced by that of the previous entry: ‘… Sōzanī’.

^ Back to text58. Thus Ms. S.

^ Back to text59. Ed. Shāh-Husainī p. 12, last verse; in the other Ms. used by the editor the verse is missing altogether. Despite this, the editor (on p. 20 of his introduction) maintains the equation of ‘khar i khum-khānah’ with Hakīm Jalāl, but offers no arguments to support it.

^ Back to text60. Z(akarīyā’) 1–3 = ʿA(ufī) 1–3; Z.4 is not in ʿA.; Z.5 = ʿA.8; Z.6 = ʿA.11.

^ Back to text61. For which see below, no. 225 (Khātūnī).

^ Back to text62. I suppose that this is what ‘ba waqt i ʿaẓīmat i Māzandarān’ means.

^ Back to text63. Barbier de Meynard, Dictionaire géographique, historique et littéraire de la Perse, Paris 1861, p. 213 n. 1 says (apparently on the authority of Mustaufī’s Nuz’hat al-qulūb, but I have failed to find this information in that book) that the village of Khuwār was the birthplace of two poets, Malik al-kalām Faḍl Allāh, who flourished at the time of Tekish, and Abū l-Mafākhir, who lived at the time of the Seljuq Masʿūd. If this information is in fact contained in a source anterior to Daulat-shāh it would be easy to explain his attribution of these verses to Abū l-Mafākhir as the result of a confusion between the two compatriots.

^ Back to text64. The name is quoted thus by Rāwandī (p. 33); similarly ʿAufī and Shams, who call him Jamāl al-dīn (or Jamāl) Muḥammad (i) ʿAbd al-Razzāq. The evidence of these three independent early sources (Rāwandī was a contemporary of the poet) clearly outweighs that of Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (see the reference below, p. 218) who refers to our poet’s son as Kamāl al-dīn Abū l-Faḍl Ismāʿīl b. Abī Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Iṣfahānī. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, like many others after him, calls our poet Jamāl (al-dīn) ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ādhar even expressly states that his given name was ʿAbd al-Razzāq, but this only reflects the fact that from about the middle of the 13th century readers were no longer familiar with the use of the kasrah i iḍāfah to indicate filiation.

^ Back to text65. For whom see below, no. 217.

^ Back to text66. Dīwān, ed. Dastgirdī, p. 335, l. 3: tā chu man bāshand abr u bād dāʾim dar du faṣl * dar rabīʿ īn naqsh-band-ē, dar khazān ān zar-gar-ē.

^ Back to text67. Rāwandī p. 57. What speaks against the identity of the two is the fact that when Rāwandl quotes Jamāl’s poetry he refers to him not as ‘Jamāl i naqqāsh’ but with the names cited above. There is a poem in Jamāl’s dīwān (p. 295) addressing ‘Jamāl i naqqāsh’ (thus in the third verse), but it is not really clear whether it is by our poet (as M. Iqbāl maintained in his notes to Rāwandī, p. 477), or rather directed to him (as Dastgirdī claims in his introduction, pp. vii–ix). Sharwānī’s Nuz’hat al-majālis apparently quotes both ‘Jamāl al-dīn i ʿAbd al-Razzāq’ and ‘Jamāl i Naqqāsh’ which, if confirmed, would be a further argument against identifying these with one another. Ibn Isfandyār (Tārīkh i Tabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, ii p. 129) quotes a verse from a poem by ‘Naqqāshī i shāʿir’ in praise of the Bāwandid Ḥusām al-daulah Ardashīr; the latter was in fact one of Jamāl’s patrons, but I have not found the verse in his dīwān.

^ Back to text68. See below, no. 217.

^ Back to text69. For these see the detailed account below, no. 227 (Khujandī).

^ Back to text70. Dīwān, pp. 259–61. Seven verses from this poem are quoted (anonymously, and without the verse naming the deceased) by Rāwandī, p. 373.

^ Back to text71. See below no. 227. But we must await a critical edition of Jamāl’s dīwān before ruling out the possibility that the poem really commemorates Maḥmūd’s younger relative Jamāl al-dīn Masʿūd.

^ Back to text72. Pp. 85–8.

^ Back to text73. Pp. 124–8.

^ Back to text74. Pp. 146–8.

^ Back to text75. Apud Sprenger p. 16 no. 29.

^ Back to text76. Shams pp. 260–1; for the attribution see below, no. 302 (Sōzanī).

^ Back to text77. See above, p. 90 (no. 77).

^ Back to text78. For whom see below, no. 275.

^ Back to text79. Below, no. 233.

^ Back to text80. For the names see above, p. 212 fn.

^ Back to text81. Dīwān, verse 2624.

^ Back to text82. V. 2232.

^ Back to text83. V. 3510.

^ Back to text84. See below, no. 227.

^ Back to text85. This poem is quoted also by Juwainī ii pp. 165–6 and contains the king’s much discussed Turkish name in a verse the metre of which is at least reconcilable with the still most plausible reading ‘Meng-burnī’ (from men, ‘mole’, and burun, ‘nose’); jalāl i dunyē u din Meng-burnī ān shāh-ē * kih īzad-ash ba sazā kard bar jahān sulṭān. The reading * Meng-īrinī recently proposed by P. Jackson (Iran xxviii, 1990, p. 45 and 51 n.1) does not fit the metre and rests, moreover, on an untenable argument involving the name of an entirely different person.

^ Back to text86. For whom see pl vi.

^ Back to text87. Published in Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s introduction, pp. ix–x.

^ Back to text88. Published in Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s introduction, pp. cv–cxvi.

^ Back to text89. See also the list of Mss. (some of them unfortunately not adequately identified) in Baḥr al-ʿulūmī’s introduction pp. xciii–xcvii.

^ Back to text90. The Ismail Sâib collection is part of the University Library in Ankara (see World survey iii pp. 298–9).

^ Back to text91. Thus ʿAufī. Hidāyat gives his name as Bahāʾ al-dīn ʿAbd al-Karīm.

^ Back to text92. Identification proposed by C.E. Bosworth, in litteris.

^ Back to text93. The name is cited thus on two occasions by his contemporary al-Khāzinī and is probably correct, although the kunyah Abū l-Hafṣ is not mentioned by any other source (in the manuscripts of some of his treatises the kunyah appears rather as Abū l-Fath). His father’s name (Ibrāhīm) is mentioned also by Ibn Funduq and Ibn al-Athīr. Both Ibn Funduq and ʿArūḍī give him the laqab Ḥujjat al-ḥaqq.

^ Back to text94. Is it (al-)Khaiyāmī or (al-)Khaiyām? The former is used in most of the early sources both in Arabic (al-Khāzinī, al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn al-Athīr) and in Persian (ʿArūḍī); compare also the verse by Khāqānī (Dīwān, ed. Sajjādī p. 58) mentioning ‘ʿUmmar i Khaiyāmī’. But ‘ʿUmar al-Khaiyām’ is found often enough to make it difficult (though not, perhaps, impossible) to dismiss it as a mere graphic error, thus in Mss. of al-Kātib, Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī, Ibn al-Qifṭī, Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī; in the Mss. of Ibn Funduq (and those dependent on him) ‘al-Khaiyām’ and ‘al-Khaiyāmī’ both occur (see p. 97 l. 2; p. 110 l. 10; p. 112 l. 1; p. 117 l. 6; p. 119 l. 6; p. 126 l. 10; p. 163 l. 3 of the Arabic section, with the critical apparatus; according to my collation London Or. 9033 always has ‘al-Khaiyāmī’ except in the passage corresponding to p. 117 of the edition, where it too has ‘al-Khaiyām’). It is tempting to speculate that ‘Khaiyām’ (‘tent-maker’) was the nickname of a more or less remote ancestor and that his progeny consequently bore the nisbah al-Khaiyāmī; the usual Persian form ʿUmar i Khaiyām would then mean not “Umar the tent-maker’ but ‘ʿUmar the son (i.e. descendant) of the tent-maker’, while the Arabic ‘ʿUmar al-Khaiyām’ would represent a misunderstanding of the ambiguous Persian form. M.M. Ṭabāṭabāʾī has argued that we should distinguish between the scientist Khaiyāmī and the (Persian and Arabic) poet Khaiyām, but the sources do not bear this out. Even more untenable is Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s attempt to identify the author of the rubāʿīyāt with one ʿAlāʾ al-dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Khalaf al-Khurāsānī al-maʿrūf bi l-Khaiyām of whom Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (Majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, ed. M. Jawād, Damascus 1962–7, no. 1571) says that ‘he wrote a dīwān in Persian and his poems are many and famous in Khurāsān and Azerbaijan. Of the verses which I have translated [naqaltu can hardly mean anything else] from his handwriting are these’ (there follow two verses in Arabic). (In his footnote the Arab editor also expresses the opinion that ʿAlī, and not the scientist ʿUmar, is the ‘famous poet’.) This ʿAlī b. Muḥammad appears to be otherwise unknown. The verses quoted are of the usual sort of homoerotic taghazzul and have no affinity either with the ‘Khaiyamic’ quatrains or with the (in my judgement) authentic Arabic poems of Khaiyāmī.

^ Back to text95. For the supposed letter from Sanāʾī to ʿUmar see de Bruijn, Of piety and poetry, Leyden 1983, pp. 77–8, with further literature. Even if the letter were to be accepted at face value it would still add nothing to what we know about Khaiyāmī.

^ Back to text96. Evidently a scribal error for Abū ⟨Ḥātim⟩ al-Muẓaffar, for whom see pl ii § 781 (with further references).

^ Back to text97. In his entry for that year Ibn al-Athīr refers to two events of astronomical interest: first the calendar reform which fixed Naurōz to the point where the sun enters Aries and second the establishment of the observatory; Khaiyāmī and the others are mentioned only in connection with the second of these. The fact that he mentions the two events in succession is evidently the sole basis for the claim by later authors that Khaiyāmī was involved in (or indeed the principal architect of) the reform of the calendar. But Ibn al-Athīr does not actually say this. Moreover, it is well known that the Jalālī era does not begin in 467/1075 but in 471/1079 (15 March); from the fact that the observatory was built in 467 Ibn al-Athīr has evidently wrongly extrapolated the conclusion that the calendar reform was effected in the same year.

^ Back to text98. They are most conveniently accessible in the edition (facsimiles from Mss.) and Russian translation by B.A. Rozenfel’d and A.P. Yushkevich, ʿОмар Хаййāм Трактаты, Moscow 1961.

^ Back to text99. Edited from the Berlin Ms. by M. Mīnuwī, Tehran 1933, and reprinted several times. A facsimile of the Ms. and a Russian translation can be found in Rozenfel’d/Yushkevich. See also the remarks by T. Gandjeï in Der Islam 42, 1966, pp. 235–7.

^ Back to text100. London Add. 23,568 fol. 86–101 (Rieup. 853).

^ Back to text101. Published in Rozenfel’d/Yushkevich pp. 108–15 of the Arabic/Persian section and also in Yaghmāʾī pp. 35–42, with variants from the Hyderabad edition of 1941. There is a French translation by A. Christensen, ‘Un traité de métaphysique de ʿOmar Ḥayyām’, Le Monde Oriental (Uppsala) i, 1906, pp. 1–16.

^ Back to text102. His Kharīdat al-qaṣr is not accessible to me, but from the secondary literature one gains the impression that he quotes the same four verses as Ibn al-Qifṭī.

^ Back to text103. For this work see D.M. Dunlop’s introduction to his edition of The Muntakhab Ṣiwān al-Ḥikmah of Abū Sulaimān as-Sijistānī, The Hague (etc.) 1979, pp. xxiv–xxv, followed by an account of the manuscripts. I have worked with London Or. 9033 (not in the published catalogues), where the Risālah occupies fol. 129a to 149b and the section on al-Khaiyāmī is on fol. 144b–145a. The Risālah obviously predates 639/1241, the date of the oldest Ms. (Istanbul Murat Mulla 1408).

^ Back to text104. al-Shahrazūrī quotes some (not all) of the verses found in al-Risālah al-mulḥaqah, on which he is evidently dependent. The verses contained in the last three sources are quoted (not always correctly) and translated in A.S. Tritton, ‘ʿUmar Khayyam as an Arabic poet’, bsoas xxvii, 1964, pp. 431–3, evidently in total ignorance of the previous literature on the subject.

^ Back to text105. Compare, for example, Khaiyāmī’s: aṣūmu mina l-faḥshāʾi jahran wa khufyatan
*ʿafāfan wa ifṭārī bi taqdīsi fāṭirī
(‘I fast from vile conduct abstaining both publicly and secretly and my fast-breaking is to bless my creator’), with Maʿarrī’s much finer line (Luzūm mā lā yalzam, ed. ʿAzīz Zand, Cairo 1891–2, i p. 262): ana ṣāʾimun ṭūla l-ḥayāti wa innamā
*fiṭrī l-ḥimāmu wa yauma dhāka uʿaiyidu
(‘I am fasting for the whole of my life and only death will be my fast-breaking; on that day I shall celebrate my feast’).

^ Back to text106. A good number of authors have quite rightly drawn attention to parallels between the content of the rubāʿīyāt and that of Maʿarrī’s Luzūmīyāt. Whoever wrote: but-khānah u kaʿbah khānah i bandagī ast,
*nāqūs zadan tarānah i bandagī ast,
*zunnār u kalīsiyā u tasbīḥ u ṣalīb
*ḥaqqan ki hamah nishānah i bandagī ast.
(‘The idol-temple and the Kaʿbah are houses of bondage. Beating the wooden bell [of the Christians] is the song of bondage. The girdle, the synagogue, the prayer-beads and the cross, in truth all of them are signs of bondage’) could hardly have been ignorant of Maʿarrī’s notorious verses (Luzūm mā lā yalzam ii p. 201): hafat al-ḥanīfatu wa l-naṣārā mā htadat
*wa yahūdu ḥārat wa l-majūsu muḍallalah,
*ithnāni ahlu l-arḍi: dhū ʿaqlin bi-lā
*dīnin wa ākharu daiyinun lā ʿaqla lah
(‘The true believers are in error, the Christians are not on the right path, Judaea is confused, the Magians are led astray. The people of the earth are of two kinds: the one with reason but without religion, the other religious but devoid of reason.’) But this similarity is in itself no argument for the attribution of the rubāʿīyāt to Khaiyāmī. What the author (or authors) of the rubāʿīyāt have in common with Maʿarrī is their clear rejection of Islamic orthodoxy. But at the same time the hedonism of the rubāʿīyāt contrasts very strongly with the austere asceticism and moralism of Maʿarrī’s outlook.

^ Back to text107. The verses 11–3 of Tritton’s collection correspond to the first, second and last lines of the four-verse qiṭʿah quoted in Thaʿālibī, Yatimmah iv p. 309, l. 5–8. See also Qazwīnī’s edition of ʿArūḍī, p. 214 note 1.

^ Back to text108. See below, appendix iii.

^ Back to text109. Ẓahīrī p. 33, 39, 157, 284, 340 (one verse).

^ Back to text110. See above, § 21.

^ Back to text111. See in particular A.J. Arberry, The romance of the Rubaiyat, London 1959. The older printings of FitzGerald’s poem are listed below. For the relationship between this poem and the Persian sources see the meticulous study by Heron-Allen (below, under Editions: London 1899).

^ Back to text112. Cf. R. Gelpke, Die iranische Prosaliteratur im 20. Jahrhundert i, Wiesbaden 1962 pp. 21–37.

^ Back to text113. 116 Mss., many in private collections in India and elsewhere, are listed in chronological order in the appendix to Rempis’s book from 1935 (see below: Translations, German). Only a small sample has been reproduced here.

^ Back to text114. For a facsimile of this important early Ms. see editions: London 1898.

^ Back to text115. The Cambridge Ms. contains several other dīwāns, including that of Azraqī, as noted above, p. 37.

^ Back to text116. A detailed description of the Mss. in Paris can be found in Csillik’s two books (see editions, Szeged 1933 and 1934).

^ Back to text117. ‘The variations between the text of this Fifth Ed. [contained in the 1889 edition of the Letters and literary remains of Edward FitzGerald] and that of the Fourth Ed. consist in some 18 words and punctuation marks only. They are taken from a copy of the Fourth Ed. which contained them, in FitzGerald’s handwriting …’ (Potter p. 51). ‘Most reprints of the so-called Fourth version follow the revised text which constitutes the Fifth version.’ (Potter p. 45).

^ Back to text118. This translation, concerning which the most generous verdict would be that it is an attempt to send up the world of scholarship, has provoked a large amount of polemical literature. It might suffice to mention: J.C.E. Bowen, Translation or travesty? An enquiry into Robert Graves’s version of some Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Abingdon 1973.

^ Back to text119. The biographical sources which do not mention Khaiyāmī as a Persian poet are marked with a star.

^ Back to text120. See pl i § 1487; Brockelmann i pp. 468–9, Suppt. i pp. 850–1.

^ Back to text121. The early 17th-century Persian translation by Maqṣūd-ʿAlī Tabrīzī (see pl i § 1487) has now also been published (ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh and M. Surūr-Maulāʾī, Tehran 1365sh./1987; the entry on Khaiyām can be found on pp. 394–7). The translation substitutes two Persian rubāʿīs for the Arabic verses quoted in the original work.

^ Back to text122. Since the completion of this article the new edition of the ei has published two entries s.v. ‘Umar Khayyām’. Both fail to reflect the present state of research and both also contain an excessive number of factual errors. Undoubtedly, the old article by Minorsky is a better point of departure.

^ Back to text123. Thus ʿAufī. Rāzī, followed by Ādhar, omits ‘al-Ḥaddādī’ and includes this poet in his chapter devoted to Baghdad. There is thus evidently, somewhere along the line, a scribal confusion between ‘ḥaddādī’ and ‘Baghdādī’.

^ Back to text124. See below, no. 299.

^ Back to text125. For which see above, § 183.

^ Back to text126. The poem quoted by Nafīsī on pp. 1357–8 (with the radīf ‘gīrad’) is in the dīwān of Ḍiyāʾ, fol. 18b–19b; that on pp. 1358–9 (rhyming in -āl) is in the same dīwān, fol. 23b–25a (the verse where Nafīsī reads ‘pārsī-zādah’ is however different in the dīwān); that on p. 1360 (radīf ‘chashm’) is in the same dīwān, fob 15b–16b.

^ Back to text127. Khāqānī’s personal name is not indicated unambiguously in the poems, nor is it mentioned by the early biographical sources. Mustaufī, and most of the those after him, give it as Ibrāhīm. For his supposed name ‘Badīl’ see presently. [Many aspects of Khāqānī’s life and work, in part assessed differently, are discussed in the important book by A.L.F.A. Beelaert, A cure for grieving. Studies on the poetry of the 12th-century Persian court poet Khāqānī Širwānī, Leiden 2000. It was unfortunately not possible to incorporate the new finding in the present revised edition.]

^ Back to text128. As he says quite clearly in Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain, p. 34: mīlād i man az bilād i Sharwān, and elsewhere. Khanikov erroneously made him a native of Ganjah.

^ Back to text129. Dīwān, ed. Sajjādī, pp. 808–9. Surprisingly, this very famous poem appears to be missing in the ancient London manuscript.

^ Back to text130. Poetry is ‘permitted sorcery’ (siḥr ḥalāl).

^ Back to text131. Ed. Sajjādī p. 850.

^ Back to text132. This verse has been much belaboured to prove that Khāqānī’s personal name was Badīl, but it must be observed that Badīl is not a Muslim name. I understand it to mean that the boy was known within the family as ‘Badīl’ because he was the ‘replacement’ for a recently deceased elder brother.

^ Back to text133. See below no. 284. Some scholars have understood the words in Khāqānī’s ode to Isfahan (ed. Sajjādī p. 357): pānṣad i hijrat chu man na-zād yagānah to mean that Khāqānī was born in the year 500/1106–7, but in fact they evidently mean: ‘the first five centuries of the hijrah did not give birth to anyone as unique as I (the child of the 6th century)’. He says the same thing about himself again on p. 24, l. 14, and also about Akhsatān on p. 461 l. 3. Plausible arguments for putting Khāqānī’s birth in 521/1127–8 are adduced in Reinert’s article of 1965 (see below, bibliography).

^ Back to text134. Pp. 247–8.

^ Back to text135. Tuḥfah p. 84.

^ Back to text136. In his ode to the city of Isfahan (ed. Sajjādī p. 355) he says that he was in Mosul in 551 (thā nūn alif). We know from the Tuḥfah that he visited that town on his way back from Mecca; he must therefore have been in Mecca in Dhū l-ḥijjah 550 (January–February 1156). In the same poem he says that he was in Baghdad ‘last year’ (pār). In the Tuḥfah he says that he visited Baghdad on the way to Mecca, which would put the composition of the ode to Isfahan also in 551/1156. For the supposed reference in this poem to Mujīr Bailaqānī see below, no. 248.

^ Back to text137. The first part of the Tuḥfah describes an earlier visit to ʿIrāq and the hunting reserve (shikār-gāh) of the Seljuq sultan, where he made the acquaintance of the sultan’s wazīr. The latter gave Khāqānī a precious ring which the poet, on his return to Sharwān, was forced to surrender to his master.

^ Back to text138. Mentioned by name on p. 85.

^ Back to text139. For whom see below, no. 227 (Khujandī).

^ Back to text140. For Khāqānī’s elegy and its significance for determining the dates of Manūchihr’s reign see above p. 145 n. 9.

^ Back to text141. The name Akhsatān (in Georgian Aghsartan) is apparently of Ossetic origin (see Minorsky, Iranica p. 130). He was still alive in 584/1188 (when Niẓāmī dedicated his Lailē-Majnūn to him) and died before 600/1203–4 (from which year we have an inscription of his successor Farrukhzād b. Manūchihr).

^ Back to text142. See the references to that town in Sajjādī’s index geographicus.

^ Back to text143. The poem is not in the manuscripts of the dīwān, but this might mean merely that the dīwān was assembled before that date. ʿAbd al-Rasūlī (p. viii of the introduction to his edition), followed by Sajjādī and others, claims that the verses are from an ode by Kamāl al-dīn, but there is no such poem in Kamāl’s dīwān either.

^ Back to text144. See below, p. 279 fn.

^ Back to text145. The London Ms. Or. 7942 concludes with a colophon giving the name of the scribe as Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusain al-Sāmānī and the date of completion as 8 Shawwāl 664; the year is spelt out very clearly. However, the first half (or ‘volume’) of the Ms. ends on fol. 223a with a finely gilded medallion reading: bi rasm khizānat al-amīr al-aʿẓam al-ʿādil Yaḥyā b. Ḥāmid al-Khuwārazmī fī sanat arbaʿ wa tisʿīn wa khams-miʾah min al-hijrah al-nabawīyah, indicating that it was completed as early as 594/1197–8. Since both ‘volumes’ of the Ms. are all in the same quite characteristic handwriting and are on the same batch of paper I would assume that the date given in the panel is that of the manuscript and that the ‘colophon’ with the date 664/1266 was added by a later owner. I understand from A.L.F.A. Beelaert that M. Shafīʿī-Kadkanī maintains that the ‘outer pages’ of this Ms. are the work of ‘a, to him, well-known forger’. To this one must reply that the Ms. has actually been in the British Museum since 1913.

^ Back to text146. I have re-collated a few poems with the London Ms. and have nothing adverse to report. Sajjādī’s long introduction is less satisfactory, mainly because of his excessive reliance on secondary sources, especially Furūzānfar.

^ Back to text147. Mss. containing both the dīwān and Tuḥfat al-ʿirāqain, generally styled ‘Kulliyāt i Khāqānī’, are listed here and again below, for the latter work.

^ Back to text148. See above, p. 239 fn.

^ Back to text149. See also Minorsky, Iranica pp. 120–1.

^ Back to text150. This version is perhaps also contained in Bombay Rehatsek p. 138 (see below: unidentified commentaries). (Sto.)

^ Back to text151. See his introduction, p. x.

^ Back to text152. The date is given—according to the catalogue—in figures as ‘1015’ but in words as alf wa khamsat ʿishrīn. The Ms. contains after the dīwān a second colophon in which the scribe calls himself ‘Muḥammad Laṭīf al-mashhūr bi Shōkhī al-Bukhārī’ (Ātābāy reads ‘al-Najjārī’) with the date Rajab 1018/1609.

^ Back to text153. For whom see pl i § 1083.

^ Back to text154. There is a lacuna in the text evidently after p. 222 l. 16; the end of the article on Khāqānī is missing and what follows is the last part of the entry on Mujīr Bailaqānī (see Nafīsī’s edition, p. 406).

^ Back to text155. Zubdah p. 102: wa ilā ākhir ʿumrihi.

^ Back to text156. Qazwīnī has noted that the Persian original of the epigram translated in Zubdah p. 106 l. 13–4 is preserved in ʿAufī i p. 68 l. 10–11, where, however, it is attributed to Muʿīn al-mulk al-Aṣamm.

^ Back to text157. Yāqūt (Buldān iii p. 24), writing about half a century before Zakarīyāʾ, also speaks of a library in Sāwah, ‘of which none was larger in the world’, but he adds that it was burned by the Mongols during their sack of the town in 617/1220–1. It is thus clear that Zakarīyāʿ, though writing in the present tense, is in fact copying his information from an old book.

^ Back to text158. Daulat-shāh pp. 64, 76–7.

^ Back to text159. See above, p. 151 (ʿAmʿaq) and 211 (Jalāl al-dīn).

^ Back to text160. Daulat-shāh p. 58.

^ Back to text161. As pointed out above, p. 13, this verse is an early interpolation in Asadī’s book.

^ Back to text162. ʿAufī i pp. 265–8.

^ Back to text163. For the banū l-Khujandī see (apart from the primary sources listed in following footnotes): Qazwīnī’s notes in his edition of ʿAufī i p. 355; his Yād-dāsht-hā iv p. 191; Nafīsī’s takmilah to his edition of ʿAufī, pp. 798–9; Humāyūn-Farrukh’s introduction to his edition of the dīwān of Athīr Akhsīkatī pp. xcv–xcviii (lists eleven members of the family, some of them fictitious or doublets of others in the same list); the chapter on Isfahan in H. Halm, Die Ausbreitung der šāfiʿitischen Rechtsschule von den Anfängen bis zum 8./14. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1974, pp. 146–50 (very incomplete). [See now also the comprehensive article ‘Āl i Khujand’ in dmbi (Saiyid ʿAlī Āl i Dāʾūd), with in part different conclusions.]

^ Back to text164. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh, ed. Tornberg, x pp. 251–2; ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿīyah al-kubrā, ed. A. al-Qādirī, Cairo 1324/1906, 111 pp. 50–1.

^ Back to text165. Ibn al-Athīr x p. 464. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 198, likewise says that ‘Ṣadr al-dīn ʿAbd al-Latīf al-Khujandī’ died in Shawwāl 523; however he also tells an anecdote about this ṣadr and the atabeg Muḥammad b. Ēldügüz (who reigned half a century later), quoting three Persian verses with which Ṣadr al-dīn admonished that ruler. It is thus clear that Zakarīyāʾ has confused ʿAbd al-Laṭīf i with his grandson ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ii.

^ Back to text166. al-Subkī iv p. 50.

^ Back to text167. Ibn al-Athīr x p. 251.

^ Back to text168. See Zubdat al-nuṣrah wa nukhbat al-ʿuṣrah, abridged by al-Bundārī from the original of ʿImād al-dīn al-Iṣfahānī, ed. M.Th. Houtsma (= his Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides ii), Leyden 1889, pp. 220–1.

^ Back to text169. See above, p. 237.

^ Back to text170. Ed. Qarīb pp. 238–40. The verses mention ‘Ṣadr al-dīn’ and ‘Muḥammad al-Khujandī’.

^ Back to text171. Id. p. 241.

^ Back to text172. al-Subkī iv p. 80 (new edition vi p. 134). Similarly al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi l-wafayāt, ed. Ritter et al., 1931 sqq., iii no. 1330.

^ Back to text173. Ibn al-Athīr xi p. 150.

^ Back to text174. Ed. Dastgirdī pp. 259–61. Laqab and name occur on p. 260 l. 5, but see above, p. 213.

^ Back to text175. al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran–7, pp. 70–1, 71–2 (the letter to Jahān-Pahlawān), 87, 88 (the poems), 110. There is also a letter addressed to him on pp. 62–5.

^ Back to text176. Ed. Humāyūn-Farrukh pp. 298–301. His name is very clearly mentioned, and used as the basis for a pun, on p. 300 l. 3; see also the reference to Khujand in the next line. But the editor has allowed himself to be misled by the superscription according to which the qaṣīdah is dedicated to Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd.

^ Back to text177. Ibn al-Athīr xi p. 336; al-Subkī iv p. 261 (new edition vii p. 186). al-Ṣafadī xix no. 96 says he died in 580, evidently a scribal error.

^ Back to text178. See Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, p. 381; Ibn al-Athīr xii p. 81; al-Subkī iv p. 80. al-Subkī gives his name as Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Latīf (including him among the other Muḥammads of the relevant ṭabaqah) and specifies that he was the grandson of Abū Bakr Muḥammad (ii) b. ‘Abd al-Laṭīf b. Muḥammad b. Thābit b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. Ibn al-Athīr calls him Ṣadr al-dīn Maḥmūd (sic) b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. Muḥammad ⟨b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf b. Muḥammad⟩ b. Thābit raʾīs al-shāfīʿīyah bi Iṣfahān, with an obvious lacuna at the place indicated. (Qazwīnī, misled by Ibn al-Athīr, regarded him as the uncle, rather than the son, of his predecessor). Ibn al-Athīr includes his death at the hands of Sunqur in the events of 592 and this date is confirmed by Rāwandī; the old edition of al-Subkī has him die in Jumādā i or ii 572, but in the new edition (ed. ʿA. al-F.M. Ḥulw and M.M. al-Tanāḥī, Cairo 1964–76, vi pp. 134–5) this has been corrected to 592. A letter of ‘Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf’ dated Jumādā i ⟨5⟩85 can be found in al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil p. 283.

Cite this page
“3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 2”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 01 December 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲