Storey Online

3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 3
(27,747 words)

In Volume 5: Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period

previous chapter: Part 2

§ 228. A single verse by one Khurshēdī is quoted in two different places (pp. 12 and 115–6) by Shams i Qais.

§ 229. al-Shaikh al-ʿAmīd Jamāl al-dīn Iftikhār al-shuʿarāʾ Abū Bakr b. al-Musāʿid al-Khusrawī1 flourished, as ʿAufī tells us, under the last Ghaznavid, Abū l-Muẓaffar Khusrau-Malik (555/1160 to 582/1186), but also served his successor, the Ghorid Muʿizz al-dīn Muḥammad.2 ʿAufī quotes an ode to Khusrau-Malik3 and several ghazals.

ʿAufī ii pp. 407–11; Rāzī i pp. 332–3 (no. 343); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 199; Khaiyām-pūr p. 191 (‘Khusrawī i Bukhārāʾī’); C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, p. 128.

§ 230. Masʿūd Kinānī4 (‘roof-maker’) Jarbādhaqānī, a satirical poet at the time of the Seljuqs Ṭoghrıl ii and Masʿūd, appears to be known only from Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, who quotes four of his quatrains, one of them mocking ʿImād al-dīn, Masʿūd’s wazīr from 530/1136 to 532/1138, another directed against Muʾaiyad al-dīn Marzbān, who occupied the same position from 539/1144–5 to 540/1145–6.

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, pp. 12–3, 90, 128–9.

§ 231. Kōhyārī5 Ṭabari, a citizen of Āmul, is credited with two rubāʿīs in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Western Persia during the Seljuq period.

ʿAufī ii p. 240; Hidāyat, Majnwʿ i p. 487 (follows ʿAufī); Khaiyām-pūr p. 493.

§ 232. Kōshkakī6 al-Qāʾinī was a poet at the court of Sanjar. ʿAufī says that he specialised in invectives and quotes two samples of his satirical verse. Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī quotes a rubāʿī referring to Sanjar’s defeat at the hands of the Ghuzz (in 548/1154) and Rāzī adds two different poems about that same event.

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, p. 175; ʿAufī ii pp. 174–5, 358; Rāzī ii pp. 323–4 (no. 824); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 488; Khaiyām-pūr p. 492.

§ 233. Laṭīf al-dīn Zakī Marāghaʾī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Transoxania after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157). ʿAufī tells us that, although his family was from Marāghah, Laṭīf was born and raised in Kāshghar, and quotes two long qaṣīdahs, both apparently dedicated to the same ruler who, in the first is called ‘Khusrau Muʿizz i dunyā wa dīn’ (who is said to be a descendant of Sanjar), in the second ‘Khusrau i sharq Muʿizz al-dīn wa l-dunyā’. Elsewhere (ii p. 238) the same authority quotes a laudatory verse that ‘Laṭīf al-dīn Dhakī (sic) Marāghī’ addressed to Kāfī b. Abī l-Faraj Rūnī, together with the flattering reply of the latter.

ʿAufī ii pp. 238, 371–7; Rāzī iii pp. 264–5 (no. 1384); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 241–2; ln s.vv. ‘Laṭīf al-dīn’ pp. 213–4 and ‘Laṭīf p. 214; Khaiyām-pūr p. 248.

§ 234. Luʾluʾī is the first name in ʿArūḍī’s list of the poets of the ‘house of the Khāqān’, i.e. the Qarakhanids. Two verses are ascribed to a poet of this name in the marginal additions to Ms. nūn of Asadī’s Lughat i furs. Another two verses are quoted by Shams and four rubāʿīyāt are ascribed to Luʾluʾī in the Nuz’hat al-majālis of Jamāl al-dīn Sharwānī. To these Nafīsī has added another two verses from ‘other dictionaries’—one of them can be found in Surūrī’s Majmaʿ al-furs;7 the other (Nafīsī’s first verse on p. 39) I have not located—and another rubāʿī from an unidentified anthology. But Nafīsī unnecessarily complicates things by raising the question of whether some or all of these verses might belong not to ʿArūḍī’s Luʾluʾī but to the ‘kad-khudā (variant: dih-khudā) Luʾluʾī’ mentioned by Asadī in his Karshāsp-nāmah.8 In fact, Asadī refers to this person only as a dabīr and gives no indication that he was a poet. The marginal additions in Ms. nūn of lf have, of course, nothing to do with Asadī; the connection that Nafīsī draws between the verses quoted there and the passage in the Karshāsp-nāmah is thus without foundation.

lf ed. Iqbāl p. 333 and 530 (Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿArūḍī p. 28; Shams p. 359 (1 verse in Qazwīnī’s edition, two in the new edition p. 381); Sharwānī (see below, appendix iii); Nafīsī’s Dīwān i ʿAmʿaq (see above, § 169) pp. 36–9.

§ 235. The poetess Mahsatī9 is, with Abū Saʿīd and Khaiyāmī, the third of the great semi-legendary figures associated with the early Persian rubāʿī. We have no information whatsoever about the historical person who (apparently) lurks behind the legend. ʿAṭṭār, in one of the stories in his Ilāhī-nāmah, depicts Mahsatī as a singing girl at the court of Sanjar (511/1118 to 552/1157), but Mustaufī and his successors situate her at the court of Maḥmūd Ghaznawī (388/998 to 421/1030).

The Vatican manuscript of Asadī’s Lughat i furs ascribes one verse to Mahsatī, but in other copies of that dictionary the same verse is attributed to Rōdakī. Consequently one cannot be certain whether or not this name was known already to Asadī. A single quatrain by ‘Mahsatī the scribe’ (dabīr) is quoted by Shams to illustrate a bad rhyme. Only with the great anthologies of Sharwānī and Jājarmī do we begin to have a substantial selection of her rubāʿīyāt, exactly as is the case with Khaiyāmī.

Mahsatī and her lover Amīr Aḥmad are the protagonists of a novel which cannot be dated precisely, but of which the oldest copy appears to be a London manuscript dated 867/1462–3.10 This situates their story in the timeless past, in the exotic, semi-foreign town of Ganjah and the prose narrative is interspersed with the quatrains which the two lovers are supposed to have addressed to one another. 257 rubāʿīyāt (and a few poems in other metres) attested in anthologies and other sources, but without those found exclusively in manuscripts of the novel, were collected (together with a German translation) by the late Fritz Meier in Die schöne Mahsatī. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des persischen Vierzeilers, I (no more published), Wiesbaden 1963, in which all the available sources are critically assessed, the fundamental work for the study of this author. A smaller collection of poems had previously been published by Ṭ. Shihāb under the title Dīwān i Mahsatī i Ganjawī, Tehran 1335sh./1956, 2nd edition 1336sh./1957 (and reprints). The poems ascribed to Mahsatī are all of amatory, and generally decidedly sentimental content, though a small number (among them the half-quatrain quoted in lf) are pornographic.11

Translation of 257 quatrains (Italian): Mahsati Ganjavi, La luna e le perle, trans. R. Bargigli with introduction and notes by D. Meneghini, Milan 1999.

lf, ed. Horn, p. 45; ʿAṭṭār, Ilāhī-nāmah, ed. Ritter, pp. 233–5; Shams p. 219; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see Meier, and below, appendix iii); Mustaufī p. 757; Jājarmī ii pp. 1151–5, 1162–4, 1211–2, 1213; Yaghmāʾī p. 180; Daulat-shāh p. 65; Rāzī iii pp. 304–5 (no. 1399); F. Bagherzadeh, ‘Mahsati Ganjavi et les potiers de Rey’, in Mélanges offerts à Louis Bazin (=Varia Turcica xix), Paris 1992, pp. 161–76; ei2 s.v. ‘Mahsatī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn). A large number of other, mostly unpublished, sources are listed by Meier, pp. 117–124.

§ 236. Majd al-dīn Abū l-Barakāt is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157) where he is represented by a long ode, evidently in imitation of one by Lāmiʿī (whose name is mentioned in the 13th verse),12 dedicated to a ruler whom ʿAufī calls ‘Tāj al-dīn raʾīs i Khurāsān’, and to whom the poet applies the grander title of saiyid i Ērān. Hidāyat quotes the same poem, but calls its author Abū l-Barakāt Baihaqī, evidently identifying him with the person included by Ibn Funduq in his history of his native town (p. 246) as Majd al-dīn Abū l-Barakāt al-Faḍl b. ʿAlī al-ʿAlawī (with a genealogy reaching back to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib). Ibn Funduq proceeds to tell us that this man was a poet and prose writer in Persian and Arabic and illustrates his talents with five Arabic verses. But ʿAufī’s failure to refer to his Majd al-dīn as a saiyid or an ʿalawī speaks rather against the identification.

ʿAufī ii pp. 318–23; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 85–6; Khaiyām-pūr p. 15 (‘Abū l-Barakāt i Baihaqī’).

§ 237. Majd al-dīn Muḥammad al-Pāyēzī13 al-Nasawī is also cited in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar, where we find five of his rubāʿīyāt. ʿAufī says that he was one of the poets of ‘Sulṭān Sikandar;, i.e. the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad b. Tekish (596/1200 to 617/1220),14 that he himself saw him in Nasā in the year 600/1203–4 and that Majd al-dīn was the author of a poetical account of the deeds of the Khwārazm-shāhs with the title Shāhanshāh-nāmah.

ʿAufī ii pp. 345–6; Rāzī ii p. 35 (no. 540); Khaiyām-pūr p. 101 (‘Pāyēzī i Nasawī).

§ 238. Three verses by one Malaqābādī (??) are quoted by Shams p. 236.

§ 239. al-Qāḍī al-imām Shams al-dīn Manṣūr b. Maḥmūd al-Ūzjandī was, according to ʿAufī, a religious scholar and physician who entered the services of the Khiṭāy. ʿAufī quotes two of his odes, the first of which praises a commander of the Khiṭāy with the name Aḥmad and the title tayangū.15 The opening verse of this qaṣīdah is quoted also by Shams, who calls its author Qāḍī Manṣūr Farghānī. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī quotes the first three verses of the same poem, but calls its author ‘qāḍī madīnat Bukhārā ṣadr al-sharīʿah’, apparently confusing him with one of the Āl i Burhān; Zakarīyāʾ is, however, evidently correct in seeing this poem as the model for another with the same unusual rhyme by Shams Ṭabasī.16

ʿAufī i pp. 194–8 (and Qazwīnīʾs notes); Shams p. 273; Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, pp. 272–3; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 306; Khaiyām-pūr p. 305 (‘Shams i Ūzjandī’).

§ 240. Masʿūd b. Saʿd b. Salmān has left us with a substantial dīwān that is not only very rich in autobiographical data, but which also contains much information on the history of North-Western India during the last quarter of the 5th/11th century.17 He was born, as he indicates quite clearly in a number of poems, in Lahore, and not, as ʿAufī maintains, in Hamadān, nor in any of the other improbable places claimed by the authors of later tadhkirahs. His father Saʿd was a rich landowner and an official in the Ghaznavid administration18 and Masʿūd followed in his footsteps, serving five successive sultans, from Ibrāhīm b. Masʿūd (451/1059 to 492/1099) down to Bahrām-shāh (511/1117 to 552/1157), all of whom are mentioned in his poems. The earliest piece which can be dated precisely is his ode celebrating the appointment by Sultan Ibrāhīm of his son Saif al-daulah Maḥmūd as the governor of the Ghaznavid possessions in India; the poem fixes this event to the year 469 (tai u sīn u sih jīm), i.e. 1076–7, and roughly the same date would appear to be implied in another ode to Maḥmūd alluding to the fact that Naurōz fell in the Muslim month of Rajab.19 His poems describe in some detail Maḥmūd’s military campaigns against the Hindus, in which the poet appears to have participated personally, and are of especial interest since Maḥmūd’s governorship is not mentioned by any of the mediaeval historians. But after a while he was imprisoned by order of the sultan for a total of ten years; since Ibrāhīm was still on the throne after the poet’s release the date of his imprisonment cannot have been later than 482/1089–90).20 In the poems written during his incarceration the poet gives no real indication of the cause of his misfortune, but it is possible, as ʿArūḍī claims, that this was the result of the deposition and imprisonment of Maḥmūd by his father, Ibrāhīm, who suspected that his son was plotting to defect to the Seljuqs.

Masʿūd was eventually pardoned by Ibrāhīm and he subsequently returned to Lahore. When Ibrāhīm died, probably shortly afterwards, he was succeeded by his son Masʿūd iii, who appointed his own son, the future sultan Shēr-zād, as his governor in Lahore. Our poet enjoyed the favour of the new governor and especially that of his deputy, Abū Naṣr Fārisī, who had him appointed viceroy of Chālandar (or Jā-). But later he was imprisoned for a second time, evidently in the wake of the disgrace of his patron Abū Naṣr, though some of the verses composed during his second imprisonment seem to imply that Masʿūd had been accused (wrongly, he says) of misappropriation of funds. He was eventually pardoned by Sultan Masʿūd, i.e. before the death of the latter in 508/1115. The rest of his life seems to have been uneventful. He certainly lived until after the accession of Bahrām-shāh. Hidāyat and others state, on the authority of Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī, that our poet died in 515/1121–2. Although this date is not mentioned in the published text of the Chahār maqālah, it is possible that it was contained in some manuscript of that work and is in any event not implausible.

ʿAufī says Masʿūd left three dīwāns, in Persian, Arabic and ‘Hindūʾī’ (i.e. some Indian vernacular). Only the first of these has come down to us, but Waṭwāṭ does cite a good number of Masʿūd’s Arabic verses in his Ḥadāʾiq al-siḥr. There is no trace of his Indian dīwān.21 For his supposed epitome of the Shāh-nāmah see above p. 76.

Mss. of his dīwān: Manchester Lindesiana 95 (16th century?); Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 69a (Ethé 1333 = Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār. 4 tasmīṭs); Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/5. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); Elliot 109 (Ethé 526. Dated 27 Muḥarram 1018/1609); London Add. 7793/1 (fol. 1–164. Rieu p. 549. Dated Ramaḍān 1005/1597. Apparently Nūriyān’s bāʾ); [415] Egerton 701 (Rieu pp. 548–9. Dated Ramaḍan 1008/1600. Nūriyān’s qāf); i.o. 2862 (Dated 26 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1023/1614); i.o. 908; Paris Supplément 798 (Blochet 1210. 16th century?); Munich Cod. or. 279 fol. 1–91 (Aumer 18. 17th century? Selections); Leningrad Acad. D 187 (Index 1628. Dated 1012/1603–4); Salemann 15; Romaskewicz 8; Konya Izzet Koyunoğlu Kütübhanesi fy 1006 (Ateş, Istanbul Üniversite Cat. 21. Dated Shawwāl 1011/1603); Istanbul Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/6 (Mīkrūfilm-hā i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 430/i (Bayānī apparently attributes the Ms. to the 16th century); Aṣghar Mahdawī (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 78. Dated 12 Rabīʿ i 1045/1635); Mashhad Faculty of Theology (ex-Maulawī collection. Nuskhah-hā v p. 29 no. 197. Dated 1009/1600–1. Nūriyān’s sīn); Tashkent Acad. 160/1 (Semenov 763. Dated 1268/1851–2); Acad. 238/ix (Semenov 764. 19th century); Dushanbe Acad. ii 336 (18th century?); Lahore Univ. (Munz. Pak. vii p. 22. 16th century?); Hyderabad (Sindh) (Munz. Pak. vii p. 22. 15th–16th century?); Aligarh Subh p. 33 no. 32; Calcutta Ivanow 435 (=Sprenger 353. 18th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 25913–41.

Editions: Persia 1296/1879; Tehran 1318sh./1939 (Ed. R. Yāsimī; with an extensive introduction) and reprints; 1362sh./1983 (again reprinted from Yāsimī, with a new introduction); 1364–5sh./1986 (ed. M. Nūriyān in 2 vols., with variants from six Mss. in the second volume).

Glossary: Farhang i lughāt u kināyāt i dīwān i Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān, by M. Mahyār, Tehran 1377sh./1998.

lf ed. Iqbāl p. 30, 396 (Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿArūḍī pp. 28, 45–6 (and Qazwīnī’s notes); Waṭwāṭ passim; al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī, Kharīdat al-qaṣr (see Leyden Cat. ii p. 240); ʿAufī ii pp. 246–52; Shams passim; Jājarmī ii pp. 618–24; Daulat-shāh pp. 47–9; Rāzī ii pp. 542–54 (no. 1032); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 152b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Ādhar ii pp. 817–34; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 514–41; M. Qazwīnī (tr. E.G. Browne), ‘Masʿud-i-Saʿd-i-Salman’, jras 1905, pp. 693–740; 1906, pp. 11–51; S. Khwānsārī, Hiṣār i Nāy, Sharḥ i ḥāl i Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān, n.p. 1317sh./1938 (reprinted from Armaghān xixxx); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 483–501; Khaiyām-pūr p. 538; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, passim; Fouchécour, Nature pp. 229–30; N. Aḥmad, ‘A reference to the Agra Fort in an 11th century Persian codex’,22 Indo-Iranica xli, 1988, pp. 1–23; ei2 s.v. ‘Masʿūd i Saʿd’ (J.W. Clinton).

§ 241. Fakhr al-dīn Masʿūdī, of Marw, is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān, where we read that he was a leading religious authority who also produced poetry. He is evidently not identical with the earlier Masʿūdī Marwazī,23 of whom ʿAufī knows nothing.

ʿAufī ii pp. 163–4; Khaiyām-pūr p. 539.

§ 242. Muʾaiyad al-dīn al-Nasafī is the author of two didactic mathnawīs, Nasīm al-ṣabā ilā l-ṣibā (inc.: ai maṣābīḥ i āsmān i hudā * w-ai mafātīḥ i jannati l-maʾwā, and dedicated to one Majd al-dīn24), and Pahlawān-nāmah (inc.: marḥabā ai rafīq i ham-dam i man * bi-shnau īn sar-gudhasht i pur-gham i man); both are preserved in a 13th-century London manuscript, but neither has been published or studied. If he is in fact (as seems likely) the father of Shihāb al-dīn b. Muʾaiyad al-Samarqandī25 then he must have flourished in Samarqand around the middle of the 6th/12th century. ʿAufī, who mentions the Pahlawān-nāmah, puts its author at the very beginning of his chapter on the poets of Transoxania after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157) and quotes, among other things, a qaṣīdah and a qiṭʿah in which the poet addresses a ruler by the name of Jalāl i dīn; the latter is presumably identical with the ‘pahlawān i jahān Jalāl al-dīn; to whom the Pahlawān-nāmah is dedicated.26 The laqab Jalāl al-dīn was used by several of the Qarakhanids, notably al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī (524/1130 to 526/1132)27 and ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan (551/1156 to ca. 556/1160),28 either one of whom could conceivably have been Muʾaiyad’s patron. Two poems are attributed to ‘Muʾaiyad i Nasafī’ in the Tārīkh-nāmah i Harāt and a further qiṭʿah of five verses is added by Hidāyat.

Ms. of the two mathnawīs: London i.o. 929 (Dated Jumādā i 637/1239). (Neither poem is in Munz.).

ʿAufī ii pp. 359–62; Rāzī iii p. 356 (no. 1428); Saif b. Muḥammad al-Harawī, Tārīkh-nāmah i Harāt, Calcutta 1944, pp. 77–8; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 509–10; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī, iii pp. 1547–9; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 767–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 579.

§ 243. Fakhr al-dīn Abū Saʿīd29 Mubārak-shāh b. al-Ḥusain30 al-Marwarrūdhī (Persian: Marw-i-rōdī) died, according to Ibn al-Athīr,31 in Shawwāl 602/1206.32 He was, the historian assures us, a fine poet in Persian and in Arabic and had enjoyed a high position with the ruler of Ghaznah and Herat, Ghiyāth al-dīn al-Kabīr (i.e. the Ghorid Muḥammad33 b. Sām, 558/1163 to 599/1203). ʿAufī quotes, among other verses of his, a long qaṣīdah in praise of that king’s predecessor Saif al-dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥusain (556/1161 to 558/1163), while Minhāj i Sirāj says that he himself had seen in the private quarters of the daughter of the aforementioned Ghiyāth al-dīn a manuscript of a history (or of a Nisbat-nāmah, as he calls it) of the Ghorid kings, in verse, composed by Mubārak-shāh and originally dedicated to ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Ḥusain Jahān-sōz (544/1149 to 556/1161), but later rededicated to Ghiyāth al-dīn. The six mathnawī verses in mutaqārib metre by ‘Fakhr al-dīn Mubārak-shāh Marwazī’ which are quoted in the Rauḍāt al-jannāt of Muʿīn al-dīn Isfizārī34 in his account of that dynasty evidently belong to the work in question.

Mustaufī (followed by Khwānd-mīr and Ḥājjī Khalīfah) says that Mubārakshāh is the author of the Madkhal i manẓūm i nujūm,35 presumably the well-known versified treatise on astrology which is ascribed in some manuscripts to Naṣīr al-dīn Ṭūsī.36

Extant, but unpublished, is the didactic mathnawī Raḥīq al-taḥqīq (inc.: bādah i ʿishq dar dih, ai sāqī, * tā shawad lāf i ʿaql dar bāqī) by an author who, in the superscription to the Ayasofya manuscript, is identified as Fakhr al-dīn Mubārak-shāh Ghōrī and who indicates in the final verse that he completed the work in Muḥarram 584/1188. [būd māh i Muḥarram, awwal i sāl * sāl i hijrat ba ḥarf i thā fā dāl). Mss.: Istanbul Ayasofya 4792 fol. 767a–788a (see bsoas vi pp. 856–8. Copied by Asʿad b. Muḥammad al-Kātib and dated 816/1413–4); Üniversite fy 538/14 (Ateş 94. Dated 826/1423); Lâleli 2010/5 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i 403). Cf. Munz. iv 30111–2.

Storey has shown (contra Ross) that this author is not identical with his near contemporary the genealogist (in prose) Mubārak-shāh Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Qurashī.37 More recently Munzawī has confused him with the lexicographer Fakhr al-dīn Mubārak-shāh Qawwās, who lived a century later.38

ʿAufī i pp. 125–33 (and Qazwīnī ad loc. as well as his Yād-dāsht-hā vi pp. 95–9); Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh, ed. Tornberg, xii p. 160 ult.–161; Shams pp. 356–7; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Minhāj i Sirāj, Ṭabaqāt i Nāṣirī, Calcutta 1864, pp. 28–9, 81; Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, al-Juzʾ al-rābiʿ min talkhīṣ majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, ed. M. Jawād, Damascus 1962–7, no. 2301; Mustaufī p. 749; Muʿīn al-dīn Muḥammad Isfizārī, Rauḍāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf madīnat Harāt, ed. M. Kāẓim Imām, Tehran 1338sh./1959, pp. 355–7; Khwānd-mīr, Bombay ed., ii p. 155; Rāzī ii pp. 11–2 (no. 516); Ḥājjī Khalīfah v p. 472 no. 11680 (‘Mubārak ʿŪdhī’); Ādhar ii pp. 656–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 373–4 (‘Fakhr al-dīn i Khwārazmī’, sic!); E. Denison Ross, ‘The genealogies of Fakhr-ud-dín, Mubárak Sháh’, A volume of oriental studies presented to Edward G. Browne, Cambridge 1922, pp. 392–413; Ahmet-Zeki Validi, ‘On Mubarakshah Ghuri’, bsos vi, 1930–2, pp. 846–8; pl i § 1644; Khaiyām-pūr p. 433 (‘Fakhrī i Khwārazmī’).

§ 244. al-Saiyid Sharaf al-dīn39 Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-ʿAlawī was, according to ʿAufī, the elder brother of Saiyid Ḥasan Ghaznawī; this information is in so far problematic as those authorities who are not dependent on ʿAufī give Saiyid Ḥasan’s father the name Muḥammad, not Nāṣir.40 His contemporary Sanāʾī extols him in his Kār-nāmah i Balkhī as well as in a qaṣīdah in which he uses the same radīf (ātash u āb) that Saiyid Muḥammad employed in his qaṣīdah quoted by ʿAufī and dedicated (according to the same authority) to Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-daulah (i.e. Masʿūd iii, 492/1099 to 508/1115). Masʿūd i Saʿd composed a qiṭʿah praising the poetry of ‘Saiyid Muḥammad i Nāṣir’ and another bewailing the death of ‘Muḥammad i ʿAlawī’. ʿAufī quotes two more of his poems, one of which Rāzī (followed by Hidāyat) claims to have been dedicated to Bahrām-Shāh (512/1118 to 547/1152).

Masʿūd i Saʿd, Dīwān, ed. Yāsimī, p. 599, 604; Sanāʾī, Mathnawī-, ed. Mudarris i Riḍawī, vs. 255 sqq.; id., Dīwān, ed. Mudarris i Riḍawī, qaṣīdah no. 22; ʿArūḍī p. 28; ʿAufī ii pp. 267–70; Sharwānī Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Rāzī i p. 324 (no. 336); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 510–11; Qazwīnī/Browne, jras 1906 pp. 40–2; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 608–10; Khaiyām-pūr p. 521; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, p. 109; J.T.P. de Bruijn, Of piety and poetry, Leyden 1983, p. 56.

§ 245. The dīwān of a certain Muḥyī, who, in the manuscripts, is generally, but almost certainly wrongly, identified with Muḥyī l-dīn ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, the founder of the Qādirī order (died 561/1166), and which is not apparently attestable before the 11th/17th century, will be discussed in a later volume of this survey.

§ 246. The dīwān of one Muʿīn, supposedly the work of the Indian saint Muʿīn al-dīn Chishtī (died 633/1236), but preserved only in very late copies, has been discussed in pl i § 1259, third footnote of the second paragraph.

§ 247. Amīr al-shuʿarāʾ Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Muʿizzī al-Naisābūrī41 was the leading poet at the courts of the Seljuqs Malik-shāh (465/1072 to 485/1092), Berk-yāruq (487/1094 to 498/1105), Muḥammad (498/1105 to 511/1118) and Sanjar (511/1118 to 552/1157). He also addressed poems to their ministers (especially Niẓām al-mulk), the Ghaznavid Bahrām-shāh (Sanjar’s contemporary and vassal) the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 551/1156) and others. Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī met the famous poet, as he tells us, in 510/1116–7 when Sanjar and his court were encamped on the outskirts of Ṭōs, and again in 514/1120–1 in Naisābūr, and at the first of these encounters Muʿizzī told our informant the story of the beginning of his career, namely of how he had inherited the post of poet-laureate from his father Burhānī42 ‘in the early part of the reign of Malik-shāh’ but for a year failed to gain admittance to the king’s presence or to draw his salary, how he was eventually introduced to the sultan by the amīr ʿAlī b. Farāmarz and ingratiated himself with the ruler by means of two extemporised rubāʿīs, and how he was awarded the title ‘Amīr Muʿizzī’ with reference to Malik-shāh’s laqab Muʿizz al-dunyā wa l-dīn. According to ʿAufī Muʿizzī was killed by a stray arrow shot by Sanjar during target practice and an ‘arrow’ is mentioned also in two qiṭʿahs that Sanāʾī composed lamenting Muʿizzī’s death.43 However, there is a poem by Muʿizzī44 recounting how he had been wounded by the sultan’s arrow, spent twelve months convalescing, but in the end recovered and returned to the court. It would seem thus that Muʿizzī’s long absence from the court gave rise to rumours that he had died and that Sanāʾī took these false reports at face value. But in this event one cannot use Sanāʾī’s verses as evidence that he necessarily outlived Muʿizzī. Taqī puts Muʿizzī’s death in 542/1147–8. It is striking that ʿArūḍī consistently mentions Muʿizzī’s name without any of the usual eulogies that one would expect him to apply to a deceased contemporary; this might seem to indicate that the latter was still alive when ʿArūḍī completed his book in 552/1157.

Muʿizzī was greatly admired by men of letters of his own time and of several generations afterwards; in the eyes of ʿAufī he joins Rōdakī and ʿUnṣurī to complete the trinity of preeminent panegyrists. His dīwān, which Iqbāl has edited on the basis of late manuscripts, deserves a critical edition using the 14th-century London codex and exploiting the copious quotations from his verse contained in early anthologies.

Mss.: London i.o. 913 (Ms. copied by ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-ʿAlawī al-Kāshī in 713–4/1314–5. Pictures);45 i.o. 3027 (Dated 19 Shawwāl 1018/1610); i.o. 912 (Dated 1 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1046/1637); Add. 10,588 (Rieu pp. 552–3. 17th century? Ca. 8000 verses); Cambridge Browne Coll. v.65 no. 15 (Anthology dated 27 Ramaḍān 827/1424); Browne Coll v.5 (Dated 19 Jumādā ii 1252/1836); Paris Supplément 783 fol. 21v sqq. (Blochet 1981. 16th century?); Supplément 1035 (Blochet 1222. Dated 17 Ṣafar 1242/1826); Vienna Flügel 508 (Dated 14 Rajab 1241/1826); Leningrad Salemann 15; Istanbul Üniversite fy 335 (olim Rıza Paşa 1180. Ateş 29. 17th century?); Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/8 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Najaf Amīr al-muʾminīn 1660 (Munz. 26066. 18th century?); Tehran Univ. viii 2116 (Ascribed by the cataloguer to the 13th or 14th century. Ms. contains an evidently forged note with the date 16 Dhū l-qaʿdah 553/1158); Univ. ix 2122 (15th–16th century? Again with a forged date Rajab 662/1264); Majlis 6228/4 (Munz. 26059. Dated 12 Rabīʿ ii 996/1588); Univ. xv 5266 (17th century?); Malik 5579 (Munz. 26064. 18th century?); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 432/i; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 965/6 (Ms. dated 1041/1631–2);46 Tashkent Acad. 238/ii (Semenov 785. Dated 1270/1853–4); Lucknow Sprenger 387 (Two copies); Calcutta Ivanow 437 (17th century?); Ivanow 927 fol. 253v–268, 412v–425v (Modern); Būhār 287 (19th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 26056–26129.

Editions: Tehran 1318sh./1939 (Ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, with biography); 1362sh./1983 (Ed. N. Ḥaiyirī. Non vidi).

lf ed. Horn, passim (all quotations, some of them anonymous, are found only in the Vatican and India Office Mss.);47 also ed. Iqbāl p. 187 (Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿArūḍī pp. 28, 33, 40–2, 50; Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, p. 14; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 69–86; Shams passim; Mustaufī pp. 748–9; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 62b, 110b, 139a, 181a, 187a, 190a, 201a = Ethé 1333); Jājarmī i pp. 131–4, 144+xlv–144+xl, 216–8, ii p. 1056; Daulat-shāh pp. 57–60; Rāzī ii pp. 250–6 (no. 747); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 236b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 570–93; Browne, History ii pp. 327–30; M. Qazwīnī, ‘Qaṣīdah i Muʿizzī’ in his Bīst maqālah, 2nd edition, Tehran 1332sh./1954, i pp. 75–84 (article written in 1343/1924); id., Yād-dāsht-hā vii pp. 111–2; ʿAlī Riḍā Khusrawānī Ṭurfah, ‘Sharḥ i ḥāl i Amīr Muʿizzī’, Armaghān iv pp. 529–48; v pp. 15–30; Nafīsī’s notes on Baihaqī iii pp. 1279–94; J. Marek, ‘Amīr Muʿizzī (Einige Verse im Vergleich zweier Traditionen)’, Archiv Orientální 24, 1956, pp. 252–71; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 508–23; Khaiyām-pūr p. 552; Fouchécour, Nature pp. 201–26; ei2 s.v. ‘Muʿizzī’ (J.S. Meisami).

§ 248. Mujīr al-dīn Bailaqānī was, as his nisbah indicates, a native of the town of Bailaqān, in Transcaucasia, to the south of Sharwān, a compatriot and contemporary of Khāqānī, whom he addressed in his poems.48 During the 12th century Bailaqān stood on the boundary between the sphere of influence of the Sharwān-shāhs and Georgians, on the one hand, and that of the Seljuqs and Ēldügüzids, on the other,49 and this situation is reflected in Mujīr’s dīwān. This contains a few poems to the Sharwān-shāh Manūchihr ii,50 who died not long after 555/1160–1,51 and these must consequently belong to the earliest part of his career. The majority of his odes are addressed to the atabegs Nuṣrat al-dīn Jahān-pahlawān b. Ēldügüz (571/1175 to 582/1186) and his successor Qızıl Arslān (d. 587/1191)52 and to the Seljuq Arslān b. Ṭoghrıl (556/1161 to 571/1176), nominally the master, but in fact the puppet of Jahān-pahlawān. ʿAufī tells an anecdote about his rivalry with Athīr Akhsīkathī for the ear of Qızıl Arslān.53 Taqī54 puts his death in the year 594/1197–8, which (for once) must be roughly correct.

In his famous ode in praise of the town of Isfahan, Khāqānī speaks of how an ‘accursed devil’ (dēw i rajīm) had mocked that city and how the Isfahanis had in some way held Khāqānī responsible for the attack, an accusation which he rejects energetically. The commentators55 have identified this ‘devil’ with Khāqānī’s supposed pupil Mujīr (rajīm being an anagram for the latter’s name). There is in fact a (by Persian standards) decidedly restrained rubāʿī in Mujīr’s dīwān56 poking fun at the people of Isfahan. Abū l-Rajā Qummī, a nearly contemporary source, cites one verse from this quatrain and then a verse with which the ‘people of Isfahan’ replied to Mujīr’s attack. The story is expanded in later sources. Zakarīyāʾ3 al-Qazwīnī alludes to this same epigram and says that the raʾīs of Isfahan ordered all the local poets to respond to it, collected their efforts in a volume and sent it to Mujīr. Daulat-shāh says that Mujīr composed the quatrain when the atabeg sent him to that town as a tax collector and he adds a rubāʿī supposedly by the Isfahani poet Sharaf al-dīn i *Shafrūh replying to it (and which contains the verse already quoted, anonymously, by Abū l-Rajā), but he too has nothing to say of Khāqānī in this context. Rāzī quotes the same two rubāʿīs and adds an obscene qiṭʿah supposedly by Jamāl al-dīn57 attacking both Mujīr and Khāqānī, though Rāzī himself leaves Khāqānī out of the business. Rāzī then goes on to say that Mujīr was subsequently murdered in a bathhouse by the Isfahan mob. But this is perhaps merely a fanciful elaboration of the old story.

Mujīr’s dīwān contains several highly artificial poems (for example one in which he uses only the letters that do not take diacritical points) and a fair number in Arabic or with alternating Arabic and Persian verses.

Mss.: Oxford Elliot 86 (Ethé 559. Dated 28 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1005/1597. Ābādī’s ); Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/12. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); London Add. 8993 (Rieu p. 562. Dated 12 Shaʿbān 1016/1607. Evidently only a short extract. Ābādī’s ); Paris Supplément 783 fol. 42r sqq. (Blochet 1981. 16th century? Selections); Berlin Petermann 716/4 (Pertsch 682. Selections); Istanbul Lâlâ İsmail 487/14 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 500–1. Selected poems in a Ms. dated 741/1340–1. Ābādī’s lām); Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/4 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 420–1. Has a waqf-notice dated 1097/1685–6, but is apparently a good deal older. Ābādī’s ʿain); Tehran Univ viii 1883/1 (16th century? Ābādī’s mīm); Dih-khudā (Nuskhah-hā iii p. 19. Dated 1009/1600–1); Majlis 87150 (Dated 1020/1611–2. Ābādī’s mīm-jīm); Lucknow Sprenger 388. Cf. Munz. iii 25759–66.

Editions: Tehran 1323sh./1945 (ed. T. Bīnish from the incomplete London Ms.); 1358sh./1979 (critical edition by M. Ābādī, with an introduction).58

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, pp. 200–1; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, London 1921, passim (quotes five of his qaṣīdahs on pp. 301–27); ʿAufī ii pp. 222–4;59 Shams pp. 201, 406–7; Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 345; Mustaufī p. 749; Jājarmī i p. 144+xlii–xliii, 195–9, 362–4, ii pp. 530–42; Daulat-shāh 115–7; Rāzī iii pp. 306–13 (no. 1400); Ādhar i pp. 105–8; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 511–4; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 721–9; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 513–4; A.L.F.A. Beelaert, ‘La qaṣide en honneur d’Ispahan de Xâqâni’ in Pand-o sokhan, Mélanges offerts à Charles-Henri de Fouchécour, Tehran 1995, pp. 53–63 (discusses also Mujīr’s attack on the people of Isfahan).

§ 249. ʿUthmān Mukhtārī60 Ghaznawī, who has left us with a very substantial dīwān, flourished at the time of the Ghaznavids Masʿūd iii b. Ibrāhīm (492/1099 to 508/1115) and Abū l-Mulūk Malik-Arslān b. Masʿūd (509/1116 to 511/1117) and survived into the reign of the latter’s successor, Bahrām-shāh. The first period of his career is represented by one poem written for Masʿūd during the lifetime of his father (i.e. before 492/1099) and apparently also by six qaṣīdahs61 and one tarkīb62 addressed to a ruler whom the poet calls by the name Fanā-khusrau and by the titles ʿAḍud al-daulah, Mughīth al-dīn and Shāhanshāh i Bōyī. Of the three Buyids (āl i Bōyah) known to history as Fanā-khusrau63 the only one who lived in the time of Mukhtārī is Abū ʿAlī Fanā-khusrau b. Abī Kālījār, who ruled Naubandajān, in Fārs, as a vassal of the Seljuqs and is reported to have died in 487/1094.64 Although the titles used by Mukhtārī do not seem to be mentioned in other sources, the identity of his patron with this Fanā-khusrau would appear to be supported by a verse65 implying that the former was a contemporary (and opponent) of the Fatimid caliph al-Mustanṣir, who also died in 487/1094.

It appears that Mukhtārī was out of favour, or even in exile from Ghaznah, for most of Masʿūd’s reign, during which he attended the courts of various other rulers, notably the Seljuq ruler of Kirmān, Arslān-shāh i (495/1101 to 537/1142), the dedicatee of a large number of his poems, and also visited India. But he returned to Ghaznah with the ascension of Malik-Arslān, his principal patron. Only two poems in the dīwān are addressed to Malik-Arslān’s successor, his brother Bahrām-shāh.66

In the last part of his life Mukhtārī paid what was apparently a short visit to Samarqand, where he dedicated a good number of poems to the Qarakhanid Arslān-khān Muḥammad (ii) b. Sulaimān (495/1102 to ca. 523/1130) and various persons of his court. One of these appears to speak of seventeen years having passed in the reign of Muḥammad b. Sulaimān,67 and would thus imply that Mukhtārī was in Samarqand in 512/1118–9, and another poem,68 dedicated to one Khwājah Saʿd al-mulk, evidently a dignitary at the court of Muḥammad, would appear to have been written on the occasion of the beginning of Ramaḍān 513/1119.69 This is the last identifiable date in the dīwān. Taqī Kāshī, followed by others, puts his death in 544/1149–50 or 554/115970 but these dates are, as usual, worthless.

Mukhtārī was a younger contemporary of Masʿūd i Saʿd, whom he praised, and an older contemporary of Sanāʾī, by whom he was praised.

Mukhtārī’s dīwān is preserved notably in the 13th-century London manuscript Or. 3713, which forms the basis for the careful and richly annotated edition by Jalāl al-dīn Humāʾī. As already mentioned,71 the London manuscript also contains (apparently in the same hand) the dīwān of Azraqī and at least one poem is attributed by its scribe to both poets. Thus the occurrence of a given poem even in this oldest manuscript does not absolutely guarantee its authenticity. This codex (and some of the others) also contains a didactic mathnawī, Hunar-nāmah i Yamīnī, (inc.: gunbad i lājward i dāʾirah-gard * sāl-khwardah sipihr i sāl-naward) dedicated to the ruler of Ṭabas, Yamīn al-daulah Ismāʿīl i Gīlakī, but also containing an epilogue praising the Ghaznavid Malik-Arslān. The former is known to have been alive in 493/1099–1100 and is reported to have been an Ismāʿīlī. Although the Hunar-nāmah does deal with matters close to the hearts of the Ismāʿīlīs (astrology, cosmology etc.) there is nothing in the text that would reveal any attachment of the poet to their specific doctrines.

Mss. of the Dīwān: Oxford Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/4. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selection); Laud 295 (Ethé 527); London Or. 3713/vi (Rieu Suppt. 211. Copied by Muḥammad-Shāh b. ʿAlī b. Maḥmūd Iṣfahānī and dated 6 Rabīʿ ii 692/1293);72 Or. 4514/vii (Rieu Suppt. 215. Completed 14 Rabīʿ ii 1023/1614); Or. 3374 (Rieu Suppt. 216. Dated 1287/1870–1); Paris Supplément 744 (Blochet 1209. 16th century?); Supplément 783 fol. 14r sqq. (Blochet 1981. 16th century? Jalālī corresponds to 9 December. Selection); Leningrad Salemann 15; Romaskewicz 7; Tehran Sipah-sālār ii 265 (16th century?); Majlis iii 1059 (Dated 1010/1601–2); Shūrā i Islāmī i 35 (16th–17th century?); Qum Marʿashī xvi 4813 fol. 1–87 (Dated 1259/1843); Tashkent Acad. 160/iii (Semenov 799. Dated 1269/1852–3); Acad. 238/vii (Semenov 800. Ms. Dated 1270/1853–4); Lahore Shērānī (Munz. Pak. vii p. 59. 16th century?); Bankipore i 24 (16th century?). Cf. Munz iii 25840–73.

Editions: Tehran 1336sh./1957 (Ed. Rukn al-dīn Humāyūn-Farrukh); 1341sh./1962 (Fine critical edition by Jalāl al-dīn Humāʾī).

The Shahryār-nāmah attributed to Mukhtārī presents its own problems. The existence of such a poem was first adduced by Rieu in his detailed description of the manuscript London Add. 24,095 (Rieu pp. 542–3. 17th century? Pictures; the contents of the manuscript are published in Humāʾī’s edition of Mukhtārī’s dīwān, pp. 797–843). This codex contains five disconnected fragments: Frag. i (fol. 1a–11a) tells the story of the battles of Shahryār with Farāmarz and with Queen Farāng of Sarandīb and of those of the Dēw Arhang with Arjāsp and Zawārah. Frag. ii (fol. 12–3) tells of a meeting between Zāl and Solomon. Frag. iii (fol. 14) is the most important. It contains what are clearly the closing verses of a poem which calls itself ‘Nāmah i Shahryār’, which the author, ‘Mukhtārī’ versified in the course of three years and dedicated to ‘Masʿūd-shāh’, who is described as being ‘gul i bāgh u bustān i Maḥmūd-shāh’, i.e. a flower from the garden of king Maḥmūd, evidently the Ghaznavid Masʿūd iii. A transitional verse then leads directly into Frag. iv and v (fol. 15–6), two extracts from the Shāh-nāmah dealing with the adventures of Isfandyār.

A second manuscript supposedly containing Mukhtārī’s Shahryār-nāmah was acquired in Persia by the Russian scholar Chaykin and is now in Dushanbe Acad. ii 352. An edition of this has been published by Ghulām-Ḥusain Bīgdilī under the title Shahryār-nāmah i ʿUthmān i Mukhtārī i Ghaznawī, Tehran 1358sh./1979. The attribution of this poem, the beginning and end of which are missing in the unique manuscript, to Mukhtārī evidently rests on the fact that it includes in very much the same form the contents of the first fragment in the London manuscript (pp. 116–40 of the edition). The question, however, is whether the first three fragments in the London manuscript really all belong to the same poem.

Humāʾī, when he first published the London fragments, without having access to the Dushanbe manuscript, pointed out quite rightly that they contain a large number of linguistic irregularities, in particular bad rhymes (e.g. rhymes between majhūl and maʿrūf vowels and between dāl and dhāl. Nonetheless, he was inclined to think that they do represent an authentic, if youthful and immature, work by Mukhtārī. But in his posthumous Mukhtārī-nāmah the same scholar came to the conclusion that the poem, by then more familiar to him from the Dushanbe manuscript, could not possibly be by Mukhtārī Ghaznawī, the study of whose dīwān had occupied so many years of his life, but was the work of another Mukhtārī, dedicated to another Masʿūd, himself the son or descendant of some Maḥmūd (not him of Ghaznah), probably in India.

I think that the objections raised by Humāʾī against the attribution of the Dushanbe Shahryār-nāmah to Mukhtārī, or indeed to any Persian poet of the 11th or 12th century, are valid. At the same time the idea that the history of Persian literature should have known two Mukhtārīs, both of whom had a patron by the name of Masʿūd, and that both Masʿūds should have been descendants of a king by the name of Maḥmūd, is quite a far-fetched one. I should think it more likely that fragment iii of the London manuscript (a fragment unaffected, it seems, by the above-mentioned linguistic deficiencies) is indeed the conclusion of an epic poem by our Mukhtārī on the adventures of Shahryār, but that the compiler of the London manuscript combined this text (which he found, presumably, on a loose leaf from an old copy) with material from a later version of the story of Shahryār (namely that contained in the Dushanbe manuscript) as well as with two extracts from the Shāh-nāmah. In short, Mukhtārī did compose a Shahryār-nāmah, but all that we have of it are its final verses.

The one question that remains is that of the relationship between the Dushanbe Shahryār-nāmah, wrongly ascribed (by its modern editor) to Mukhtārī, and the Shahryār-nāmah contained in a Bankipore manuscript and ascribed there to Farrukhī.73 An examination of the latter work shows that the two are indeed quite different poems, although they do tell very much the same story. Here and there I have even found stray verses that are identical or virtually identical in the two, though the preceding and following verses are different. It would thus seem likely either that the author of the Dushanbe Shahryār-nāmah was familiar with the poem ascribed to Farrukhī, or else that both versifications are based on the same source in prose.

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī’s notes pp. 150–1); ʿAufī ii p. 412;74 Shams pp. 330, 381–2, 442; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333 fol. 97a, 108a, 149a, 243a, 246a); Jājarmī i pp. 116–8, 218–9; Daulat-shāh pp. 93–4; Rāzī i pp. 324–31 (no. 337); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 325a sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 598–607; Qazwīnī/Browne, jras 1906 pp. 44–6; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 501–7; id., Ḥamāsah4 pp. 311–5; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 528–9; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977 (see index, s.v. ʿUthmān); J. Humāʾī, Mukhtārī-nāmah, Tehran n.d. (published posthumously; the preface is dated 1360sh./1981. Fundamental); Gh.-Ḥ. Bīgdilī, ‘Shahryār-nāmah i ʿUthmān i Mukhtārī i Ghaznawī’, Āyandah vi/1–2, 1359sh./1980, pp. 77–86; ei2 s.v. ‘Mukhtārī’ (J.S. Meisami).

§ 250. Muẓaffarī, ‘a poet from Khurāsān’, (evidently not identical with the Muẓaffarī Panjdihī cited above, § 119) composed an ode to the Bāwandid Nuṣrat al-dīn Rustam b. ʿAlī (ca. 536/1142 to 560/1165) the first verse of which is quoted by Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i p. 113, and again ii p. 84.

§ 251. Muʿizz al-islām Najīb al-dīn Abū Bakr al-Tirmidhī al-Khaṭṭāṭ is represented by three rubāʿīs in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157), but all but the last of them are mutilated in Browne’s manuscript. ʿAufī says that he excelled both in serious and in frivolous poetry.

ʿAufī ii pp. 415–6; Khaiyām-pūr p. 597.

§ 252. A qaṣīdah by Ḥakīm Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Najībī al-Bāshtīnī is quoted by Ibn Funduq with words that imply that the two were contemporaries; i.e. he lived in the first half of the 6th/12th century.

Ibn Funduq p. 259; Khaiyām-pūr p. 597.

§ 253. No fewer than ten verses by a certain Najībī are quoted in the marginal additions to Ms. nūn of Asadī’s Lughat i furs. Their author could be identical with the Najībī Farghānī whom ʿArūḍī (p. 28 and 46) mentions among the poets of the Qarakhanids and the contemporaries of ʿAmʿaq; the fragment on p. 157 in fact mentions Farghānah.

lf ed. Iqbāl pp. 18, 156, 157, 242, 249, 402, 502, 502–3, 509, 529 (all verses from Ms. nūn in marg.); Nafīsī’s Dīwān i ʿAmʿaq, pp. 39–43.

§ 254. Saʿd al-dīn Asʿad al-Najjārī al-Samarqandī75 is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Transoxania after the time of Sanjar, where we are told that he specialised in the composition of rubāʿīyāt, a number of which are quoted. From the verses addressed to him by Aṣīl Samarqandī76 it is evident that he lived at the end of the 6th/12th or the very beginning of the 7th/13th century. He can thus hardly be identical with the ‘Najjār i Sāgharchī’ (Sāgharch is a village near Samarqand) whom ʿArūḍī lists among the poets at the court of the Qarakhanid Khiḍr b. Ibrāhīm (ruled briefly from 472/1080).77

ʿAufī ii pp. 383–4, 396; Rāzī iii p. 422 (no. 1478); Khaiyām-pūr p. 268 (‘Saʿd i Samarqandī’).

§ 255. A rubāʿī by Nāṣir al-dīn Rōzbihān lamenting the death of the Bāwandid ʿAlāʾ al-daulah Ḥasan (in 568/1173) is quoted by Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, ii p. 118 (also in Browne’s epitome, p. 251).

§ 256. Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥusain b. Ibrāhīm al-Naṭanzī al-Adīb, who died in Muḥarram 497/1103, according to Samʿānī, has been mentioned briefly in pl iii (Lexicography) § 91,78 81. A few fragments of his Persian verse are quoted by Waṭwāṭ and Shams and some samples of contrived poetry in Arabic and Persian, among them the one verse quoted by Waṭwāṭ, can be found in the anonymous Yawāqīt al-ʿulūm.

A poem by ‘Adīb al-Ṭabarī’79 is included in Jājarmī’s anthology (i p. 144+ii to 144+iii). From the fact that the poet mentions ‘sulṭān i aʿẓam’ and ‘Ghaznīn’ the editor has concluded that he was a contemporary of Maḥmūd, but this is far from certain. I wonder whether ‘al-Ṭabarī’ is not a scribal error for ‘al-Naṭanzī’, as the two words are very similar in Arabic script.

Samʿānī fol. 564a; Waṭwāṭ p. 17 (one verse); Yawāqīt al-ʿulūm, ed. M.T. Dānishpazhūh, Tehran 1345sh./1966, p. 177, 179; Shams pp. 317–8, 353, 402–3; Khaiyāmpūr pp. 35–6; EIr. s.v. ‘Adīb Naṭanzī’ (ʿA.N. Monzawī).

§ 257. Saʿd al-dīn Masʿūd al-Naukī is the author of three poems cited by ʿAufī, one of which expressly mentions the Ghaznavid Bahrām-shāh as his patron. Saif Harawī quotes two verses by ‘Masʿūd Naukī’ and one by ‘Naukī’. Rāzī includes him among the poets of Junābād.

ʿAufī ii pp. 291–5; Saif Harawī p. 50, 92; Rāzī ii p. 311 (no. 808); Khaiyām-pūr p. 621.

§ 258. Niẓāmī Ganjaʾī, whose personal name was Ilyās,80 is the most celebrated narrative poet of the Persians after Firdausī. His nisbah designates him as a native of Ganjah (Elizavetpol, Kirovabad) in Azerbaijan, then still a country with an Iranian population, and he spent the whole of his life in Transcaucasia; the verse in some copies of his poetic works which makes him a native of the hinterland of Qum is a spurious interpolation.81

In the prologue to his Lailē-Majnūn, which, as we shall see in a moment, was written in 584/1188, the author says that he was then 49 (haft sabʿ),82 indicating that he was born in 535/1140–1. His earliest work is the didactic poem Makhzan al-asrār (=m.a.), which he dedicated to Fakhr al-dīn Bahrām-shāh b. Dāʾūd, the ruler of Arzinjān from about 550/1155 to about 615/1218.83 From the dates of his subsequent poems it is clear that the m.a. must belong to the early part of Bahrām-shāh’s reign. The possibility of a more precise dating is suggested by a verse in which Niẓāmī speaks of how the prophet Muḥammad has already ‘slept’ for a certain number of ‘days’; the oldest and best manuscript (London i.o. 989, copied in 637/1239) gives this number as ‘550’.84 Muslim tradition puts the death of the prophet in ah 11; the verse thus seems to imply that the poem was composed in 561/1165–6. On the other hand, some of the manuscripts of m.a. end with verses stating that the poem was written in 552/1157, 559/1164, or 582/1186, but no such date is mentioned in the oldest copy, nor in other early manuscripts, and it is thus most likely that all of them are spurious.85

His second work, Khusrau-Shīrīn (Kh.Sh.),86 contains eulogies to the Seljuq sultan Ṭoghrıl (iii) b. Arslān (571/1176 to 590/1194), to his nominal vassal (but actual master) the atabeg of Azerbaijan, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Jahān-pahlawān b. Ēldügüz (571/1175 to 582/1186), and to one Qızıl-shāh, evidently the latter’s brother, Qızıl-Arslān, who was to succeed his brother and rule from 582/1186 to 587/1191. Towards the end we find once again verses ostensibly giving the date of completion of the poem, but differing from copy to copy (556/1160, 571/1175–6, 576/1180–1,87 not all of which are reconcilable with the dedications). Some, but not all, of the manuscripts also have an epilogue,88 evidently added by the poet at a later date, in which he refers to the death of his patron, the atabeg Muḥammad (in 582/1186), and praises his successor, Qızıl-Arslān, and the heir-apparent, Nuṣrat al-dīn Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad.

His third poem, Lailē-Majnūn (l.m.), was written, as we read in the prologue, after the completion of his Khusrau-Shīrīn89 at the invitation of the ruler of Sharwān, Jalāl al-daulah wa l-dīn Abū l-Muẓaffar Akhsatān, whom we have already encountered as the patron of Khāqānī. The date of completion of the work is given (for once quite unambiguously)90 as the end (salkh) of Rajab 584/September 1188.

The next poem in most of the copies of Niẓāmī’s opus is Haft paikar (h.p.). This is the only one of his works that is available in critical edition worthy of that name, thanks to the efforts of Ritter and Rypka, who distinguished two families of manuscripts. In the superior ‘b’ recension h.p. is dedicated to the ruler of Marāghah, ʿAlāʾ al-dīn b. Āq-Sunqur, whose Turkish name Niẓāmī quotes as Körp(e)-Arslān,91 and the date of composition is given (in words) as 14 Ramaḍān 593/1197.92 But in the ‘a’ recension the name of the dedicatee is miscopied as ‘Qızıl-Arslān’, while the verse indicating the year of composition has been altered, apparently to read 598/1202.93

Finally we have his retelling of the adventures of Alexander in two poems in the same metre, but with separate dībājahs; we shall refer to them as the first and second parts of the Iskandar-nāmah (Isk.N. i and ii). In many copies the two parts are styled Sharaf-nāmah and Iqbāl-nāmah respectively, but in others the two names are reversed, which is reason enough to avoid both of them.94 One also finds for the two parts Iskandar- (or Sikandar-)nāmah i barrī and baḥrī respectively, and for the second also Khirad-nāmah. There are some problems involved both with the absolute chronology of these poems and with their relative chronology within Niẓāmī’s opus. In Isk.N. i, p. 63 of the Baku edition, the poet lists his previous creations as: Makhzan al-asrār (l. 38), Khusrau-Shīrīn (l. 39), Lailē-Majnūn (l. 40) and Haft paikar (l. 41), but the last verse is missing in a number of manuscripts, including the two ancient codices in Oxford and Paris. Moreover, in an earlier passage in the same poem95 the author says explicitly that he has already created ‘three pearls’ before undertaking this ‘new ornament’, i.e. the Iskandar-nāmah. It would thus appear that at least the first part of the Iskandar-nāmah was written before Haft paikar (i.e. before 593/1197), but that after the composition of the latter someone (either Niẓāmī or perhaps more probably a later interpolator) added the verse referring to Haft paikar, but neglected to alter the one giving the number of the earlier poems as three.96

The prologue to Isk.N. i contains a dedication to a king whose laqab is given97 as ‘Nuṣrat al-dīn’. The superscription in some of the manuscripts identifies this patron as Nuṣrat al-dīn Abū Bakr, i.e. the man whom we have already met, as crown-prince, in the (secondary) epilogue to Khusrau-Shīrīn, and who succeeded his uncle and ruled from 587/1191 until 607/1210. However, other copies have the apparently fictitious name Nuṣrat al-dīn Abū l-Fatḥ and quite a few have only Nuṣrat al-dīn or ‘the late king’ and the like. But if we look not at the rubrics but at the actual text we see a verse in which the poet makes a rather elaborate pun on the name Bēshkīn;98 the poet’s patron is thus evidently not the atabeg Nuṣrat al-dīn Abū Bakr but his contemporary Nuṣrat al-dīn Bēshkīn, the ruler of Ahar.99 The name Nuṣrat al-dīn occurs also in most copies in the epilogue.100

Many of the manuscripts of Isk.N. ii also have a passage in their prologue praising ‘Malik Nuṣrat al-dīn’101 and twice mentioning his name Bēshkīn.102 This dedication goes on to speak of an earthquake which (evidently in the recent past) had struck Ganjah. The historical sources record earthquakes in northern Iraq in Rabīʿ i 590/1194 and in Shaʿbān 597/1201.103 If both parts of the Isk.N. were composed before h.p. (i.e. before 593/1197), then the first of these would seem to be intended; if, however, Niẓāmī returned to the Alexander story after writing h.p. then he is perhaps more likely to have had the latter in mind. One would naturally like to have confirmation that one or the other of the earthquakes was actually perceptible in Ganjah.

Other copies of Isk.N. ii (among them the ancient Paris manuscript) replace this dedication by a eulogy to a king called ʿIzz al-dīn and Abū l-Fatḥ Masʿūd b. Nūr al-dīn, doubtless the atabeg of Mosul Masʿūd ii b. Nūr al-dīn Arslān-shāh (607/1211 to 615/1218). However, the text of this eulogy is, apart from the names, almost entirely identical with the dedication in Isk.N. i104 and it can thus hardly be doubted that it is spurious. If Niẓāmī had really (as has often been claimed) rededicated his poem to another ruler he would surely have taken the trouble of composing a new dedication rather than merely recycling the one he had composed for Isk.N. i.

The narrative of Isk.N. ii concludes with a series of chapters describing the circumstances of the death of a number of Greek sages. The last of these (the death of Socrates) is followed by a section on the death of Niẓāmī105 at the age of 63 (which, if this and the date suggested above for his birth are both correct, would mean that he died in 598/1201–2). And after this there follows in many of the manuscripts (including some of those which have the name Nuṣrat al-dīn in the prologue) an evocation of ‘Malik ʿIzz i dīn’,106 though a few have here too ‘Malik Nuṣratu l-dīn’,107 and, some verses later, we find again the name ‘Masʿūd’.108 An explanation for these discrepancies and a suggestion for the chronology of Niẓāmī’s works can be found below in appendix ii.

For the death of the poet the tadhkirahs give, as usual, a vast array of dates, many of them clearly impossible, and it has also been the subject of much debate among modern scholars. The question was reopened, but not solved, by the discovery in Azerbaijan of what purports to be Niẓamī’s grave. The Arabic inscription thereon is known to me from the only partially intelligible hand-copy published by Bertel’s109 without indication of the place where the inscription was found (presumably Ganjah?) nor of the nature of the monument to which it appertains; it is also unclear whether the inscription is supposed to belong to the original tombstone or to a later replacement. What can be read is the name Niẓām al-dīn Abū Muḥammad b. (sic) Ilyās b. Yūsuf b. Dhakī (hardly Zakī). This is followed by what looks like fī rābiʿ al-ṣiyām, which would be a decidedly strange way of saying ‘on 4 Ramaḍān’, then by two words that I cannot read, and finally by what appears to be sanat khams wa sitt-miʾah, i.e. 605/1208–9. But one really needs some words to the effect that ‘he died’ or ‘he was buried’ for the whole to make sense. The date given here would fit with the chronology suggested above, but one must hesitate to accept it without access to a proper publication of the grave inscription.

Apart from the narrative poems Niẓāmī also composed a small number of lyrical pieces, mostly ghazals, and almost entirely of religious content. In his Lailē-Majnūn110 he speaks of having put together a dīwān; it is thus clear that at least one collection of his shorter poems was in circulation by 584/1188. ʿAufī quotes a few of them. Copies of Niẓāmī’s dīwān are astonishingly rare.

Mss.: Manchester Lindesiana 247 (16th century? Selections); Oxford Elliot 88 (Ethé 618); Ouseley Add. 114 (Ethé 619); Cambridge Or. 13 (Browne Suppt. 1110. Contains selections from his ghazalīyāt); Berlin Sprenger I486 (Pertsch 691/2 and Sprenger 428); Istanbul Ayasofya 2051/10 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated111 Shawwāl 730/1330); Tehran Ilāhīyāt i p. 61 (Dated 896/1490–1); Rampore State Library (Nadhīr Aḥmad 188); Calcutta Būhār 294 (18th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 26644–7.112

Editions of the dīwān: Tehran 1318sh./1929 (Ganjīnah i ganjawī, ed. W. Dastgirdī. Contains also a biography and glossary); 1334sh./1954–6 (ed. M. Ṭabāṭabāʾī; non vidi); 1337sh./1958 (ed. S. Nafīsī; non vidi); Baku 1981 (Ghazalīyāt, ed. M. Sulṭān-zādah, alias Sultanov; from Nafīsī). The edition ostensibly of the dīwān of Niẓāmī published in Agra 1283/1866–7 contains the poems of someone else; according to Ethé its text ‘differs entirely’ from that of the Oxford Mss. ‘in which not a single ḳaṣîdah or ghazal of that edition can be found’.

Translations: (Russian verse) Лирика, trans. Y.E. Bertel’s and K.A. Lipskerov, Moscow 1947; Лирика (various translators), Moscow 1960; also in Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991).

(Czech verse): Chvály, trans. J. Rypka and P. Eisner, Prague 1953.

Cf. M. Th. Houtsma, ‘Some remarks on the Dīwān of Niẓāmī’, A volume of oriental studies presented to Edward G. Browne, Cambridge 1933, pp. 224–7; J. Rypka, ‘Chand ghazal i tāzah az Niẓāmī i Ganjaʾī’, Armaghān xvi, 1314sh./1935, pp. 9–31; Nafīsī in his edition of ʿAufī pp. 746–60.

The mathnawīs of Niẓāmī were assembled and edited, evidently some time after the author’s death, in a collection generally known as the Khamsah (‘five’), less commonly as the Sittah (‘six’)—the count depends on whether the two parts of the Iskandar-nāmah are reckoned as one poem or as two—or else as Panj ganj (‘five treasures’). There are also some manuscripts containing one or more of the individual poems (most, though not all, of these are in fact truncated copies of the Khamsah) and quite rarely we find one of Niẓāmī’s poems in a collection with other mathnawīs. The oldest recorded copy of any of the poems in a public (and thus accessible) collection113 is the London Makhzan al-asrār in just such a miscellaneous manuscript dated 637/1239114 and it is followed by the Leningrad copy of the same poem from 710/1310–1 in a similar collection of religious writings in prose and verse. The earliest more-or-less complete manuscripts of the Khamsah are from the middle of the 14th century, namely the Paris copies of 763/1362 and 767/1366, the Berlin and Lahore manuscripts of 765/1363–4 and the Oxford copy of 767/1365 (by the same scribe as the older Paris codex), but there are also a few fragmentary Khamsahs dated to the first half of the same century.115

A pioneering attempt at a critical evaluation of the text of Niẓāmī was made by Ritter and Rypka in their edition of Haft paikar from 1934. In his introduction Ritter divided the consulted manuscripts into two families: ‘a’, represented mainly by the two copies made by Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusain b. Sānah (Paris Supplément 1817 and Oxford Ouseley 274–275), and ‘b’, the chief representative of which is the contemporaneous Berlin manuscript Minutoli 35. Only those verses that appear in both families are regarded as genuine. Those found only in ‘b’ are printed in square brackets, those particular to ‘a’ are relegated to the footnotes. In other words, Ritter and Rypka thought that in the first century and a half after the poet’s death two independent interpolated texts had come into existence; by paring away the supernumerary verses particular to each of these recensions it would be possible to restore the poet’s original words. This approach, which, despite the small number of copies used, certainly produced a plausible reading of the Haft paikar, has not been followed by more recent scholars.116

Since the 1940s useful critical editions of all six poems have been prepared by a team of Azeri scholars following a general plan laid down by Bertel’s. These are based on for the most part the same selection of Khamsah manuscripts and mainly follow the above-mentioned Paris and Oxford copies; the editors did not use the Berlin manuscript and made no attempt to divide the codices into families. Nonetheless, their full critical apparatus makes these the only editions (apart from the Ritter/Rypka h.p.) that are likely to be of any use to serious students.117 By contrast, Dastgirdī’s editions of the six poems published in Tehran in the 1930s, though supposedly based on a large number of manuscripts, quote hardly any variants and the editor’s choice of readings and his distinction between ‘authentic’ and ‘spurious’ verses seem to be largely arbitrary.118 It is astonishing that even some Western scholars have designated Dastgirdī’s editions as the ‘best’ or used them as the basis for translations into European languages. His explanatory notes are, however, often quite useful.

In the list that follows the manuscripts which contain one, several or all of the poems are assembled in a single sequence; where nothing else is noted the codices can be assumed to contain all the poems.

Mss.:119 Dublin Beatty 124 vol. i (Colophons dated 20 Jumādā ii 838/1435 and 25 Rabīʿ ii 839/1435. Pictures); Beatty 162 (Dated 886/1481–2. Pictures); Beatty 171 (Dated 8 Dhū l-qaʿdah 897/1492. Pictures); Beatty 137 (15th century? Without Isk.N. ii. Pictures); Beatty 141 (15th century? Pictures); Beatty 182 (Dated Shaʿbān 915/1509. Pictures); Beatty 195 (Copied in 936/1529–30 by Murshid ʿAṭṭār al-Shīrāzī. Pictures); Beatty 196 (Same year and scribe as Beatty 195. Pictures); Beatty 222 (Dated Ṣafar 959/1552. Without m.a. Pictures); Beatty 224 (m.a., with a miniature containing the date Dhū l-ḥijjah 96⟨0⟩/1553); Beatty 276 (Copied by Mullā Barqī and Mullā ʿArab-Shāh and dated 1081/1671. Pictures); Beatty 283 (18th century?); t.c.d. 1567 (‘Isk.N.’); Manchester Lindesiana 6 (=Robinson pp. 148–50. Dated 24 Rabīʿ ii 824/1421, but the colophon is possibly forged. Kh.Sh. only. Pictures attributed to the 16th century); Lindesiana 36 (=Robinson pp. 70–88. Dated Ṣafar 849/1445. Pictures); Lindesiana 9 (15th century?); Lindesiana 856 (16th century?); Rylands Pers. 856 (Robinson pp. 203–20. Pictures ascribed to 16th century); Lindesiana 198 (Dated 1012/1603–4); Lindesiana 186 (Dated 1012/1603–4. h.p. only); Lindesiana 61 (Dated 1023/1614. m.a. only); Lindesiana 35 (=Robinson pp. 227–8. Dated 3 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1037/1628. Pictures); Lindesiana 246 (Dated 1087/1676–7. h.p. and l.m.); Lindesiana 101b (Dated 1104/1692–3. m.a. only); Lindesiana 100 (Dated 1111/1699–1700. ‘Isk.N.’); Lindesiana 216 (18th century? l.m. only); Lindesiana 796 (Dated 1240/1824–5); Oxford Ouseley 274–275 (Ethé 585. Copied by Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusain b. Sānah120 and completed in Rabīʿ i 767/1365); Ouseley 304 (Ethé 586. Dated 14 Dhū l-ḥijjah 841/1438); Ouseley Add. 137 (Ethé 605. Dated [9?]81/1573–4 or [8]81/1476–7. l.m. Pictures.); Elliot 194 (Ethé 594; Robinson 134–45, 676–9, 898–903. 15th century? Pictures, some of which were added later); Elliot 192 (Ethé 587; Robinson 564–605. Dated 22 Muḥarram 907/1501. Pictures); Ouseley 205 (Ethé 607. Contains a seal dated 934/1527–8. h.p. and Isk.N. i); Marsh. 579 (Ethé 588; Robinson 710–25. Dated 956/1549. Pictures); Pers. d. 102 (Beeston 2845. Contains a seal dated 971/1563–4. l.m. Pictures);121 Douce 348 (Ethé 596. Dated 980/1572–3. Pictures. l.m., h.p. and Isk.N. i); Elliot 196 (Ethé 595. Dated 999/1590–1. m.a. missing); Ouseley 316 (Ethé 589; Robinson 1046–9. The copyist is given in one place as Mīr ʿAlī and in another as Bābā-shāh; Ethé remarks that ‘the handwriting is the same throughout’, which would imply that the two names belong to the same person, but Robinson identifies the latter with the Bābā-shāh who signed the Cambridge Fitzwilliam Haft paikar in 979/1571–2 and suggests that the former might be Mīr ʿAlī of Herat, who ‘died in 1550’. Pictures); Elliot 239 in marg. (Ethé 604; Robinson 904–14. Dated Shawwāl 990/1582 according to Ethé, but Robinson says only that the Ms. contains the dates Rabīʿ ii 979/1571—which he believes to be an error for 989/1581—and, in another place, 989/1581. Pictures. Kh.Sh. and, according to Robinson, also l.m.); Elliot 193 (Ethé 590. Dated 1010/1601–2); Whinfield 70 (Beeston 2558. Dated 1 Muḥarram 1014/1605. l.m.); Whinfield 69 (Beeston 2557. Dated 10 Ṣafar 1014/1605. Kh.Sh.); Elliot 197 (G.O.) (Ethé 591. Dated Ramaḍān 1021/1612. Lacunae. Pictures); Pers. c. 28 (Beeston 2661/1. Dated 14 Muḥarram 1029/1619. Pictures added later. Isk.N. i); Pers. c. 28 (Beeston 2661/3. Dated 9 Rabīʿ i 1031/1621. Isk.N. ii); Laud 128 (Ethé 615. Dated 14 Rabīʿ i 1037/1627. Isk.N. ii); Marsh. 654 (Ethé 608. Dated 1042/1632–3. Lacunae. Isk.N. i); Elliot 336 (Ethé 616. Rabīʿ i 1052/1642. Isk.N. ii); Ouseley 317 (Ethé 592; Robinson 1064–71. Dated Ṣafar to Ramaḍān 1056/1646. Pictures); Ouseley 302 (Ethé 600. Dated 16 Muḥarram 1059/1649. m.a. only); Ouseley 155 (Ethé 609. Dated 26 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1101/1690. Isk.N. i with Glosses); Walker 80 (Ethé 617. Dated 6 Shaʿbān 1104/1693. Isk.N ii); Ms. Pers. c. 1 (Ethé 1981. 16th–17th century? Isk.N. ii missing); Whinfield 71 (Beeston 2559. 17th century. h.p.); Walker 68 (Ethé 610. Dated 12 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1136 /1724. Isk.N. i); Fraser 69 (Ethé 611. Contains a seal dated 1148/1735–6. Isk.N. i); Bodl. 761 (Ethé 613. Contains a seal dated 1198/1783–4. Isk.N. i); Ouseley Add. 107 (Ethé 601. Dated 1201/1786–7. m.a.); Ouseley 277 (Ethé 612. 18th century? Isk.N. i); Walker 79 (Ethé 614. Dated 25 Ramaḍān 1224/1809. Isk.N. i); Whinfield 61 (Beeston 2462. Dated 25 Muḥarram 1230/1815. Isk.N. i); Elliot 195 (Ethé 595. Dated 23 Ramaḍān 1230/1815); Pers. f. 11 (Beeston 2561. Dated 12 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1247/1832. Last part of h.p. only); Ind. Inst. Pers. 89 fol. 153–76 (Beeston 2563. 19th century. Selections from Isk.N. i); Marsh. 369 (Ethé 602. m.a. only); Sale 29 (Ethé 603. m.a. only); Elliot 124 (Ethé 606. Substantial fragments of l.m.); Ind. Inst. Pers. 69 (Beeston 2556. l.m. and Isk.N. ii, here styled ‘Sharaf-nāmah’); Pers. d. 56 (Beeston 2560. h.p.); Eton122 122 (Dated 1033/1623–4. m.a.); Richmond Keir iii.7–27 (14th century? h.p., l.m., m.a., Kh.Sh. Pictures); Keir iii.82–1000 (Dated Ṣafar 848/1444. Pictures); Keir iii. 180–192 (15th century? l.m. and parts of h.p. and ‘Isk.N.’ Pictures); Keir v.7–41 (Dated 10 Rabīʿ i 912/1506. Pictures added later); Keir iii.296 (Dated Shawwāl 917/1511. One picture); London123 i.o. 989 (Dated Rabīʿ ii 637/1239. m.a. only); Or. 13297 (Titley 324A. Dated 790/1388. Inspexi. Pictures);124 Add. 7729 (Rieu pp. 564–70. Dated Shawwāl 802/1400); Or. 13529 (Titley 308. ‘Isk.N.’ With pictures attributed to ‘ca. 1400’. Inspexi);125 Khalili126 564 (Copied by Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Qāriʾ and dated 20 Ramaḍān 804/1402. Fragment of m.a., the other poems more or less complete. 3 extraneous pictures pasted over the text); Add. 27,261/i (Rieu pp. 868–71; Titley 98. Ms. dated Jumādā ii 814/1411. Pictures); Khalili 709 (Dated 14 Ramaḍān 819/1416. m.a., h.p., Isk.N. i–ii, all incomplete. Extraneous pictures painted over the text); Or. 7534 (Meredith-Owens p. 68. Dated 821/1418. Isk.N. i); Add. 27,259/i (Rieu pp. 866–7. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 821/1419); Or. 12087 (lacks Isk.N. i. Mereredith-Owens p. 75; Titley 322. Copied by Jaʿfar al-Ḥāfiẓ in 823/1420. Pictures. Inspexi); Or. 11919 (Meredith-Owens p. 74. Dated 838/1434–5. m.a.); Or. 12856 (Meredith-Owens p. 75; Titley 324. Dated 839/1435–6. Imperfect at beginning. Pictures); Khalili 880 (Dated 840/1436–7); Add. 25,900 (Rieu p. 570; Titley 311. Dated 846/1442–3. Pictures, mostly later); Add. 25,801 (Rieu pp. 572–3; Titley 338. Dated Jumādā ii 865/1461. m.a. Pictures ‘inserted’ later); Or. 2931 (Rieu Suppt. 226; Titley 317. Dated 3 Dhū l-qaʿdah 878/1474. Pictures); s.o.a.s. 24952 (Dated 880/1475–6. Isk.N. i. Pictures); r.a.s. 248a (Dated 10 Dhū l-qaʿdah 882 /1478. m.a., l.m. Pictures. Inspexi); i.o. 972 (=Robinson 81–5. Dated 21 Muḥarram 894/1488. Pictures); Or. 2834 (Rieu Suppt. 225; Titley 316. Dated Shawwāl 895/1490. Pictures); Or. 6810 (Meredith-Owens p. 66; Titley 319. Dated 900/1494–5. Pictures); Add. 25,800 (Rieu p. 572. 15th century? m.a. and Kh.Sh. Has a seal dated 934/1527–8); i.o. 976 (=Robinson 86–133. 15th century? Pictures, apparently from different periods); r.a.s. 246 (15th century? Pictures); r.a.s. 246a (Dated last of Ramaḍān 927/1521. Pictures. Inspexi); r.a.s. 249a (Dated 932/1525. Isk.N. i and ii. Pictures. Inspexi); Add. 16,780 (Rieu pp. 570–1; Titley 310. Dated Muḥarram 936/1529. Pictures); Or. 2265 (Rieu p. 1072; Titley 315. Completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 949/1543. Pictures);127 Or. 1578 (Rieu p. 574; Titley 301. Dated 952/1545–6. 11 leaves were replaced in 1264/1848. h.p. Pictures); i.o. 985 (=Robinson 136–9. Dated 1 Ṣafar 955/1548. m.a. and Isk.N. i and ii. Pictures); Khalili 710 (Dated 956/1549. m.a. Pictures); Or. 9869 (Meredith-Owens p. 70. Dated 960/1553. Last folio missing); Or. 1216 (Rieu p. 571; Titley 313. Dated Ramaḍān 961/1554. Pictures); Khalili 455 (Dated Rabīʿ i 964/1557. Pictures); i.o. 1000 (Copied by Muḥammad Bāqir b. Mullā Mīr ʿAlī and dated Rabīʿ i 965/1557. l.m. Pictures); Add. 26,144 (Rieu p. 571. Dated Jumādā ii 968/1561. Does not contain h.p.); i.o. 973 (=Robinson 303–20. Dated Rabīʿ ii 975/1567. Pictures); i.o. 990 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 976/1569. m.a. only); i.o. 986 (Dated 976/1568–9. m.a., l.m., Kh.Sh.); i.o. 991 (Dated 989/1581. m.a. only); Add. 17,329 (Rieu p. 571. Dated Muḥarram 994/1585–6); i.o. 1008 (Dated 7 Rabīʿ ii 994/1586. Isk.N. i); Or. 7045 (Meredith-Owens p. 67; Titley 320. Dated 994/1586. Pictures much later); i.o. 1004 (Dated 998/1589–90. h.p. only); Ross and Browne xxx (Contains the date 21 Ramaḍān 1000/1592); Or. 4385 (Rieu Suppt. no. 228. Completed Shaʿbān 1006/1598); Or. 12208 (Meredith-Owens p. 75; Titley 323. Dated 40 Ilāhī/1595–6. Pictures);128 Harleian 503 (Rieu p. 574. 16th century? Isk.N. i); Add. 27,260 (Rieu pp. 571–2; Titley 312. 16th century? Pictures); Or. 1363 (Rieu p. 572; Titley 314. 16th century? Pictures); Or. 2932 (Rieu Suppt. 227; Titley 318. 16th century? Pictures, some later); Ross and Browne xxxi (=Robinson 324–41. Pictures, which Robinson ascribes to the 16th century); i.o. 974 (=Robinson 1068–77. Dated 22 Rabīʿ ii 1014/1605. Pictures); i.o. 1022 (Dated 25 Shaʿbān 1016/1607. Isk.N. ii); i.o. 1007 (Dated 6 Ramaḍān 1017/1608. Isk.N. i); i.o. 992 (Dated 1017/1608–9. m.a., with copious glosses); Ross and Browne xxxii (Dated 4 Ṣafar 1018/1609. m.a. only); i.o. 983 (Dated 1024/1615. Isk.N. i, h.p., m.a., Kh.Sh.); Or. 7046 (Meredith-Owens p. 68. Dated 1027/1618. Without l.m.); Add. 16,781 (Rieu p. 573. Dated Rabīʿ i 1028/1619. m.a. only); r.a.s. 249 (Dated Muḥarram 1036/1626. Isk.N. i. Inspexi); Add. 26,145 (Rieu p. 572. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1042/1632. Imperfect at the end); i.o. 979 (Dated 1049/1639–40. Isk.N. ii missing); i.o. 1009 (Dated 11 Jumādā ii 1053/1643. Isk.N. i. Pictures); i.o. 975 (Dated Rajab 1054/1644); i.o. 980 (Has a dedication dated 12 Ramaḍān 1061/1651. Isk.N. ii missing); i.o. 1765/7 (Ms. contains the date 28 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1066/1656, but not all parts are in the same hand. m.a. only); i.o. 2870 (Dated 27 Muḥarram 1070/1659. m.a. only); i.o. 977 (Dated 1072/1661–2. Pictures); Add. 6613 (Rieu p. 572; Titley 309. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1076/1665. Pictures); Or. 12066 (Meredith-Owens p. 74; Titley 321. Dated 1076/1665–6. Imperfect at both ends. Pictures); r.a.s. 247 (Dated 1077/1666–7); i.o. 993 (Dated 5 Rabīʿ i 1079/1668. m.a. only); Add. 26,147 (Rieu p. 574. Isk.N. i with a few pages missing at the beginning. The last 3 folios, which contain verses giving the date of composition as 597/1200–1, are dated 7 Rabīʿ i 1090/1679); i.o. 988 (Dated ⟨10⟩92/1681. l.m. and Kh.Sh., the latter incomplete); Add. 19,500 (Rieu p. 573. Dated Muḥarram 1097/1686. m.a. with copious marginal notes); Add. 23,547 (Rieu p. 572. 17th century?); Add. 6614 (Rieu p. 574. 17th century? Some leaves at both ends replaced by a second hand. Isk.N. i); Khalili 543 (17th century? Pictures); i.o. 1023 (Dated 16 Muḥarram 1117/1705. Isk.N. ii only); Add. 26,146 (Rieu p. 574. Dated Jumādā i 1117/1705. Isk.N. i); i.o. 1001 (Dated 19 Rajab of year 49 ⟨of ʿĀlamgīr? /1705⟩. l.m.); i.o. 994 (Dated 13 Shaʿbān 1134 /1722. m.a. only, with glosses); i.o. 1027 (Dated 15 Ṣafar 1139/1726. Isk.N. ii, defective); i.o. 995 (Dated 18 Ṣafar 1150/1737. m.a. only, with glosses); Ross and Browne clxiii (Possibly dated 1150/1737–8. Isk.N. i only); i.o. 2869 (Dated 27 Jumādā ii 22nd year of Muḥammad-Shāh/1153/1740. m.a. and Kh.Sh.); i.o. 1010 (Dated in the reign of Muḥammad-Shāh [1131/1719 to 1161/1748]. Isk.N. i only); Or. 10940 fol. 1b–70b in marg. (Meredith-Owens p. 71. Ms. dated 1181/1767–8. m.a.); i.o. 1011 (Dated 27 Muḥarram 1187/1773. Isk.N. i only); i.o. 1005 (Dated 1195/1781. h.p. only); i.o. 987 (Completed 25 Jumādā i 1200/1786. m.a., h.p., Kh.Sh.); i.o. Delhi 1259 (Dated 1204/1789–90. l.m.); r.a.s. 250 (Dated 1212/1797–8. Isk.N. ii); Add. 23,548 (Rieu p. 573. 18th century? m.a.); Or. 4730 (Rieu Suppt. 230; Titley 302. 18th century? h.p. in Hebrew script. Imperfect. Pictures); Add. 16,783 (Rieu p. 574. 18th century? Some leaves missing at end. Isk.N. i); Add. 26,148 (Rieu p. 574. 18th century? Some leaves missing at beginning. Isk.N. i); Add.: 16,782 (Rieu p. 575. 18th century? Isk.N. ii); i.o. 1003 (Dated 26 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1222/1808. l.m. only); Ross and Browne clxiv (18th century? Isk.N. ii only); i.o. 1024 (Dated 4 Ṣafar 1223/1808. Isk.N. ii only); Add. 25,799 (Rieu p. 575. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1227/1816. Isk.N. i); Or. 4386 (Rieu Suppt. no. 229. dated 1 Shaʿbān 1237/1822); Or. 8756 (Meredith-Owens p. 69. Dated 1252/1836–7. Isk.N. ii); Or. 7047 (Meredith-Owens p. 68. Dated 1253/1837–8. l.m. and h.p.); Or. 4730 (Meredith-Owens p. 39. 18th–19th century? h.p. in Hebrew script. Imperfect); i.o. 978; i.o. 981 (without Isk.N. ii); i.o. 984 (without Isk.N. i and ii. Pictures); i.o. 996 and 997 (both m.a., incomplete); i.o. 999 (Kh.Sh. Pictures); i.o. 1002 (l.m.); i.o. 1006 (‘Modern copy’ of h.p.); i.o. 1012–1017 (All Isk.N. i only, the last two defective); i.o. 1025–1026 (Both Isk.N. ii only); i.o. 2868 (without Isk.N. i and ii); i.o. 2871 (m.a. only); i.o. 2873 (Kh.Sh. only); i.o. 3061 (m.a. only); i.o. Delhi 1234 (four late or undated copies of ‘Isk.N.’); i.o. Delhi 1279 (h.p.); r.a.s. 245 (Kh.Sh.), 248 (m.a.); s.o.a.s. (many copies, almost all very late); Cambridge Or. 964 (Browne Suppt. 451. Copied by Ṭaifūr b. Ḥājj Kamāl and dated 791/1389. End of Kh.Sh. and whole of h.p.); Or. 421 (Browne Suppt. 448. Dated 846/1442–3); Add. 3408 (Browne Hand-list 354. The first four poems were copied by Tūrān-shāh b. Tāj al-dīn b. Bahāʾ al-dīn and dated between 848/1444–5 and 850/1446–7, ‘Isk.N.’ was added in 1240/1824–5); Or. 245 (Browne Suppt. 447. Dated 853/1449); Fitzwilliam 1–1969 (Cat. p. 540–3. 15th century? Pictures); St John’s, No. 30 (Browne Suppt. 456. Dated 947/1540–1. Pictures); Fitzwilliam 373 (Cat. pp. 379–80. Copied by Muḥammad Muḥsin Tabrīzī in 949/1542–3. Pictures); Fitzwilliam 18–1948 (Cat. pp. 403–4. Copied by Bābā-shāh al-Iṣfahānī in 969/1561–2. h.p. Pictures); Oo. 6. 11. (Browne Cat. ccxi. Contains various dates in 992/1584. Pictures); Oo. 6. 29. (Browne Cat. ccxii. Completed 5 Jumādā i 993/1585); Or. 244 (Browne Suppt. 446. Dated 996/1588); Corpus, No. 209 (Browne Suppt. 428. 16th century? Kh.Sh.); Or. 805 (Browne Suppt. 450. 16th century?); Or. 1572 (2nd Suppt. 359. Dated 1019/1610–1); Corpus, No. 161 (Browne Suppt. 1171. ‘About 1023/1614–5’. m.a.); Add. 3139 (Browne Cat. ccxiii. ‘Not older than the 17th century’. Pictures); Add. 586 (Browne Cat. ccxiv. Dated 25 Dhū l-ḥijjah 31st year of ʿĀlamgīr/1687. m.a.); Ff. 5. 9. (Browne Cat. ccxv/ii. Dated 27 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1036/1627. m.a.); Add. 207 (Browne Cat. ccxvi. 16th or 17th century? Kh.Sh. Pictures); Corpus, No. 212 (Browne Suppt. 765. Dated 1247/1831–2. ‘Isk.N.’); Or. 243 (Browne Suppt. 445); Christ’s College, Dd.4.13 (Browne Suppt. 452); King’s, No. 152 (Browne Suppt. 453); Corpus, No. 234 (Browne Suppt. 1172. m.a.); King’s, No. 257 (Browne Suppt. 455. Kh.Sh.); Or. 13 (Browne Suppt. 1110. L.M. and selections from Kh.Sh., h.p. and ghazalīyāt); Corpus, No. 229 (Browne Suppt. 1372. h.p.); Add. 3736 (Browne Suppt. 763. ‘Isk.N.’); Christ’s, Dd.5.12 (Browne Suppt. 764. ‘Isk.N.’); Glasgow S.7 (Weir 12. Dated 1102/1690–1. Isk.N. ii); Edinburgh Univ. 280 (Dated 1104 /1692–3. l.m.); Univ. 279 (Dated 8th year of Shāh-ʿĀlam/1180/1766–7. Isk.N. i); New Coll. Or. 38; Univ. 101–3 (m.a., Kh.Sh., Isk.N. i); Paris Supplément 1817 (Blochet 1247. Copied by Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusain b. Sānah129 with various dates during 763/1362); Supplément 580 (Blochet 1248. Dated 1 Dhū l-ḥijjah 767/1366. First leaf missing. Pictures); Supplément 816 in marg. (Blochet 1382. Dated ⟨7⟩86/1384. A second hand has added the text of the Majmaʿ al-baḥrain to this Ms. and dated his work 1 Dhū l-ḥijjah 811/1409); Supplément 584/iii (Blochet 1535. Ms. dated 8 Shaʿbān 800/1398. m.a. and Kh.Sh., both incomplete); Supplément 2040 (Blochet 2454. Completed Ramaḍān 820/1417); Supplément 579 (Blochet 1249. Dated Thursday 21 Jumādā ii 840, i.e. 27 December 1436 or 3 January 1437); Supplément 1777 fol. 243 sqq. (Blochet 1645. Dated 25 Ṣafar 852/1448. m.a.); Supplément 591 (Blochet 1274. Dated 3 Dhū l-ḥijjah 870/1466. l.m., with Kh.Sh. in marg.); Supplément 781 fol. 3v sqq. (Blochet 1971. Ms. dated Rabīʿ i 892/1487. Without Isk.N. ii); Ancien fonds 280 (Blochet 1276/Richard. Dated 19 Muḥarram 900/1494. Isk.N. i and ii); Supplément 1112 (Blochet 1260. 15th century? Without m.a.. Pictures); Supplément 582 (Blochet 1262. 15th century? m.a., h.p. and Kh.Sh.); Ancien fonds 362 (Blochet 1268/Richard. 15th century? Kh.Sh. Pictures); Supplément 578 (Blochet 1250. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 909/1504. Pictures); Ancien fonds 281 (Blochet 1277/Richard. Dated 5 Jumādā ii 933/1527. Isk.N. i and ii); Supplément 985 (Blochet 1264. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 944/1538 by Mīr ʿAlī Mashhadī. m.a. Pictures); Supplément 794 fol. 226v sqq. (Blochet 1536. Dated 10 Ramaḍān 978/1572. Isk.N. ii); Ancien fonds 370 (Blochet 1269/Richard. Dated 7 Jumādā i 960/1553. First 8 folios added later. Kh.Sh.); Decourdemanche 1896 (Blochet 1251. Completed 966/1558–9. Pictures); Supplément 1956 (Blochet 1252. Dated 22 Jumādā ii 968/1561. Pictures); Supplément 575 (Blochet 1253. Completed 22 Shawwāl 972/1565); Supplément 581 (Blochet 1254. Completed 976/1568–9. Pictures); Supplément 794 fol. 1v sqq. (Blochet 1536. Dated 10 Shaʿbān 978/1570. Isk.N. i); Supplément 794 fol. 202–358 in marg. and 342–359 (Blochet 1536. Dated 20 Jumādā ii 979/1571. h.p.); Supplément 576 (Blochet 1255. Dated 989/1581); Supplément 1303 (Blochet 1275. Dated 1004/1595–6. Pictures. h.p.); Supplément 2026 (Blochet 2455. 16th century? Fragment containing h.p. and parts of Kh.Sh. and Isk.N. i); Supplément 585 (Blochet 1273. 16th century? l.m., beginning missing); Supplément 1454 (Blochet 1263. 16th century? m.a.); Supplément 574 (Blochet 1256. Dated 1021/1612–3); Supplément 1029 (Blochet 1257. Various dates ranging from 1029 to Ṣafar 1034/1624. Pictures); Supplément 1980 (Blochet 1258. Various dates, the most recent of which is 1 Shaʿbān 1034/1625. Pictures); Ancien fonds 230 (Blochet 1278/Richard. Dated with a chronogram to the year 1035/1625–6. Isk.N. i and ii); Ancien fonds 363 (Blochet 1270/Richard. Dated 1039/1629–30. Kh.Sh.); Supplément 1111 (Blochet 1259. Dated Ṣafar 1060/1650. Pictures); Supplément 973 (Blochet 1279. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1061/1651, later altered to 1073/1663. Isk.N. i and ii); Supplément 1897 (Blochet 1261. 17th century? Without Kh.Sh. or Isk.N. ii); Supplément 586 (Blochet 1265. 17th century? m.a.); Sup­plément 958 (Blochet 1266. 17th century? m.a.); Supplément 588 (Blochet 1271. 17th century? Kh.Sh.); Supplément 1898 (Blochet 1280. 17th century? Isk.N. i); Supplément 1198 (Blochet 1281. 17th century? Isk.N. i, end missing); Supplément 964 (Blochet 1272. Dated 12 Dhū l-ḥijjah ⟨1⟩162/1749. Kh.Sh.); Supplément 583 (Blochet 1282. 18th century? Isk.N. i); Supplément 1899 (Blochet 1283. 18th century? Isk.N. i); Supplément 1617 (Blochet 1284. 18th century? Isk.N. i); Supplement 1900 (Blochet 1285. 18th century? Isk.N. i); Richard p. 365 mentions also Smith-Lesouëf 216, 225 and 227 (all for Kh.Sh.); Supplément 2074 (Uncatalogued. Cf. Richard p. 237, 365); Strasbourg Hoghughi 4 (Dated 889/1484. Pictures); Florence Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana Ms. Or. 338 (Piemontese 82. Copied by Abū Bakr b. Ismāʿīl and dated 15 Dhū l-qaʿdah 773/1372.130Isk.N.’); Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana Ms. Or. 435 (Piemontese 81. 15th century? m.a.); Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana Ms. Or. 11 (Piemontese 80. 16th century? Pictures); Milan Bibl. Nazionale Braidense, Ms. fondo Castiglioni 22 (Piemontese 211. 16th century? Pictures); Rome Bibl. dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Ms. Caetani 36 (Piemontese 286. 15th century? Pictures); Vatican Pers. 32 (Rossi p. 59. 15th century? m.a., incomplete. 1 picture); Bibl. dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Ms. Caetani 82 (Piemontese 288. 15th or 16th century? l.m. Pictures added later); Bibl. dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Ms. Caetani 58 (Piemontese 287. Copied by Hidāyat al-Kātib al-Shīrāzī, who flourished at the end of the 16th century. Pictures); Vatican Pers. 27 (Rossi pp. 54–5. 16th century? Kh.Sh. only); Vatican Pers. 76 (Rossi pp. 97–8. 16th century? m.a. and Kh.Sh., both incomplete); Vatican Pers. 107/iii (Rossi p. 117. Ms. dated 27 Rajab 1063/1653. Kh.Sh., incomplete); Vatican Pers. 110 (Rossi pp. 119–20. Copied by Nūr al-dīn b. Abū Turāb al-Iṣfahānī in 1071/1660–1); Vatican Pers. 155 (Rossi p. 150. Dated 1254/1838–9. l.m.); Leyden Cat. dcxxxivix, mmdlxxx, mmdcccxiv (late or undated copies of individual poems); Heidelberg P. 328 (Berenbach ii p. 100. Completed 907/1501–2); Hamburg Orient. 215 in marg. (Brockelmann 179. Has an owner’s note dated 12 Muḥarram 1014/1605. Isk.N. i incomplete); Orient. 225 (Brockelmann 160. Dated 12 Rajab 1029/1620. Kh.Sh. only); Orient. 199 (Brockelmann 158. Dated 27 Muḥarram 1059/1649. Isk.N. i only); Orient. 200 (Brockelmann 159. Isk.N. ii only); Tübingen Ma. iii b. 32 (Heinz 384. Dated 2 Muḥarram 1232/1816. Isk.N. i); Halle d.m.g. 20 (Dated 1152/1739–40); d.m.g. 21 (16th century? Isk.N. i missing. Pictures); d.m.g. 23 (16th century? Kh.Sh. only, incomplete. Pictures); d.m.g. 22 (18th century? l.m. only. Pictures); d.m.g. 24 (19th century? Kh.Sh. only, incomplete); Leipzig Vollers 920–1 (both ‘Isk.N.’); Munich 205 Quatr. (Aumer 24. Dated 1044/1634–5. m.a.); Cim. 37 (Aumer 21. Pictures); 46 Quatr. (Aumer 22); Cod. or. 264 (Aumer 23. l.m., h.p., Isk.N. i–ii); 91 Quatr. (Aumer 25. ‘Ziemlich neu’. h.p.); 138 Quatr. (Aumer 26. Isk.N. i); Berlin Minutoli 35 (Pertsch 724. Various dates in 764/1362–3 and 765/1363–4); Diez fol. 74/5 (Pertsch 699a. Copied by Jaʿfar al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Tabrīzī and dated 14 Rabīʿ ii 820/1417. m.a., beginning missing); Ms. or. quart. 1970 (Heinz 334. Dated 20 Dhū l-ḥijjah 849/1446. Isk.N. ii. Pictures); Ms. or. oct. 1259 (Heinz 86. Completed 867/1462–3); Ms. or. quart. 1665 (Stchoukine 9. Copied by Sulṭān Ḥusain b. Sulṭān ʿAlī131 and dated 1 Jumādā ii 890/1485. Pictures); Ms. or. oct. 2076 (Heinz 385. Dated 5 Ramaḍān 890/1485); Minutoli 5 (Pertsch 730. Dated 897/1491–2. h.p. only); Diez A. fol. 7 (Pertsch 719; Stchoukine 4. Pictures ascribed to mid 15th century. The Ms. has a seal of Sulṭān Salīm Khān, i.e. presumably Selim i, 918/1512 to 926/1520); Sprenger 1475 (Pertsch 728; Stchoukine 6. Without Isk.N. i–ii. Pictures ascribed to mid 15th century, but altered later); Ms. or. oct. 3749 (Heinz 160; Stchoukine 12. 48 separate leaves, some with pictures, ascribed to the late 15th century); Ms. Diez. A. oct. 2 (Pertsch 689; Stchoukine 38. l.m. only. Pictures, possibly late 15th century, but later repainted); Ms. or. oct. 2050 (Heinz 162; Stchoukine 21. Copied by Ḥasan b. Kamāl al-dīn al-Hādī al-Yazdī and dated 7 Ṣafar 910/1504. Pictures); Ms. or. fol. 192 (Pertsch 723; Stchoukine 16. Dated Ramaḍān 956/1549. Incomplete. Pictures); Ms. or. quart. 1940 (Stchoukine 20. Dated Shaʿbān 975/1568. Pictures); Minutoli 1 (Pertsch 725; Stchoukine 23. Dated 981/1573–4. Pictures, some of which were added later); Petermann ii, 698 (Pertsch 727; Stchoukine 25. Copied by Dōst Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Dost al-Maddāh al-Bajīstānī and dated 10 Ramaḍān 994/1586. Without Isk.N. ii. Pictures); Ms. or. oct. 1583 (Heinz 237. Copied by Shihāb al-dīn i Manṣūr and dated 20 Rabīʿ i 1000/1592); Ms. or. fol. 193 (Pertsch 726. Copied by Ibrāhīm al-Kashmīrī in 998/1589 Without Isk.N. ii); Ms. or. quart. 1938 (Heinz 307. 16th century? l.m., h.p., Isk.N. i); Ms. or. fol. 107 (Pertsch 720; Stchoukine 31. Dated Shaʿbān 1041/1632. Pictures added later); Petermann ii, 112 (Pertsch 721. Copied by Bahāʾ al-dīn i ʿAlī Riḍā in 1052/1642–3); Sprenger 1484 (Pertsch 732. Dated 24 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1068/1658. Isk.N. ii only); Ms. or. fol. 209 (Pertsch 18. Dated 12 Ṣafar 1077/1666. This Ganjīnah contains, among other things: [no. 8a] Isk.N. i, [9b] Kh.Sh., [10d] m.a.); Ms. or. quart. 1981 (Stchoukine 58. Copied by Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā Muḥammad al-ʿUryānī and dated Jumādā ii 1083/1672. Pictures added later); Sprenger 1485 (Pertsch 737. Dated 25 Dhū l-ḥijjah of 41st year of an unnamed ruler [presumably Aurangzēb], which is equated with 1008 [presumably an error for 1108/1697], m.a. only); Ms. or. oct. 4048 (Stchoukine 81. Dated 16 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1178/1765. Kh.Sh. Pictures apparently later); Sprenger 1483 (Pertsch 733. Dated 1212/1797–8. Isk.N. ii only); Minutoli 154 (Pertsch 722; Stchoukine 45. Dated 14 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1247/1832. Pictures); Ms. or. oct. 1977 (Heinz 277; Stchoukine 75. Isk.N. ii. Pictures ascribed to 19th century); Sprenger 1513/4 (Pertsch 684. m.a. only); Petermann 453 (Pertsch 729. h.p. only.); Ms. or. fol. 298 (Pertsch 731. Isk.N. i only, with the verses dating the poem to 597); Gotha 41 (fragments of a Ms. of m.a.), Dresden 1 (Dated 985/1577–8); Bratislava 556 (Copied by Niʿmat Allāh b. ʿAlī-shāh al-Khurāsānī and dated 12 Ramaḍān 893/1488. Some leaves replaced in 19th century); Wroclaw Brockelmann Pers. 1 (Dated 12 Rajab 1011/1603); Brockelmann Pers. 2 (h.p. only); Vienna Flügel 512 (see also Duda p. 33–7. Contains the dates Ramaḍān 905/1500 and 3 Shaʿbān—acc. to Duda 3 Ṣafar—906/1500 or 1501. Isk. N. ii missing. Pictures); Copenhagen Mehren xcix (Dated 1096/1685. Isk.N. i); Mehren xcviii (Dated Muḥarram 1235/1819); Mehren cci (Two late copies of Isk.N. i); Uppsala Tornberg clii (Dated 1 Muḥarram 842/1438); Tornberg cli (Dated 843/1439–40. Pictures);132 Tornberg cliii (Dated 17 Shawwāl 984/1577. m.a.); Zetterstéen 421 (Dated Shawwāl 1029/1620); Tornberg clxxxii fol. 145a–152a (Fragment of h.p.);133 Helsinki 88b (Contains various dates in 1171/1757–8. Pictures); 85 (Isk.N. i); Leningrad Acad. C 1102 fol. 124b–210b (Index 3987. Dated 710/1310–1. m.a. only); Univ. 354 (Salemann-Rosen p. 14. Dated 778/1376–7 according to the Moscow edition of h.p.); Acad. B 1006 fol. 70a–111a (Index 121. Dated 847/1443–4. Isk.N. i); Univ. 1229* a–b (Romaskewicz p. 6, 15. Dated 856/1452. Kh.Sh., hp.); Acad. D 408 (Index 125. Dated 883/1478–9. Isk.N. ii. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxvii (Dated 884/1479–80. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxviii (Copied by Darwīsh Muḥammad Ṭāqī and dated 886/1481–2. Pictures); Acad. A 19 (Index 1190. Dated 896/1490–1. Lacunae. Pictures); Acad. C 1735 (Index 1197. Dated 899/1493–4. Pictures); Acad. C 57 (Index 1192. Dated 901/1495–6); Dorn cccxxxix (Dated 908/1502–3. Pictures); Dorn cccxl (Copied by Munʿim al-dīn al-Auḥadī in 913/1507–8. Lacunae. Pictures); Dorn cccxlix (Dated 936/1529–30. m.a.); Dorn cccxlvi (Copied by Sulṭān Muḥammad Nūr in 937/1530–1. Kh.Sh. only); Acad. D 212 (Index 1199. Dated 950/1543–4. Pictures); Dorn cccxli (Copied by Muḥammad Qāsim b. Shēr ʿAlī in 979/1571–2. Pictures); Acad. C 818 (Index 1195. Dated 982/1574–4); Dorn cccxlvii (Dated 990/1582–3, last leaves added in the 19th century. Isk.N. i–ii. Pictures); Acad. C 2409 (Index 1198. Dated 1041/1631–2); Acad. C 855/i (Index 3986. Dated 1109/1697–8. m.a.); Acad. B 1167 (Index 122. Dated 1127/1715. Isk.N. i); Acad. C 1148 (Index 4625. Dated 1134/1721–2. h.p.); Dorn cccxlviii (Dated 1189/1775–6. Kh.Sh.); Acad. B 1985 (Index 123. Dated 1206/1791–2. Isk.N. i); Acad. C 1138 (Index 124. Dated 1214/1799–1800. Isk.N. i); Acad. C 58 (Index 1193. Dated 1236/1820–1); Dorn cccxlii; Dorn cccxliii; Dorn cccxliv (Copied by Aḥmad al-Ḥusainī. Isk.N. [i and ii?] and beginning of h.p. only. Pictures); Dorn cccxlv (End of Kh.Sh., l.m., h.p., Isk.N. i); Acad. B 129 (Index 120. Isk.N. i–ii); Acad. A 22 (Index 1148. Kh.Sh., incomplete); Acad. A 23 (Index 1149. Kh.Sh., incomplete); Acad. B 132 (Index 1150. Kh.Sh.); Acad. C 1685 (Index 1151. Kh.Sh., incomplete. Pictures); Acad. C 1919 fol. 192b–250a (Index 1152. Kh.Sh.); Acad. D 654 (Index 1153. Kh.Sh. Pictures); Acad. B 2486 (Index 1191. h.p. and ‘Isk.N.’ only. Pictures); Acad. C 59 (Index 1194. Large lacunae. Pictures); Acad. C 1674 (Index 1196. Lacunae. Pictures); Acad. D 367 (Index 1200. Large lacunae. Pictures); Acad. A 20 (Index 3678. l.m. Pictures); Acad. B 130 (Index 3679. l.m.); Acad. C 1919 fol. 3a–25b, 250a–289b (Index 3680, 4626. l.m., h.p.); Istanbul134 Ayasofya 2051/1 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10 Ms. apparently dated135 Shawwāl 730/1330. m.a. only); Fatih 3747,3748,3752 (Ritter-Reinert p. 125; Duda, Ferhād p. 193. 3 volumes, copied by ʿImād and dated Rajab 776/1374–5);136 Topkapı, Hazine 690 (Karatay 474. Copied by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-mulaqqab bi Jalāl and dated Ṣafar 788/1386. h.p. only); Halet Efendi mulḥaq 137 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 10. Dated 788/1386. ‘Isk.N.’ only); Topkapı, Revan 861 (Karatay 460. Apparently contains the date Jumādā ii 794/1392);137 Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi 1950/1 (olim Fatih 3753. Ritter-Reinert pp. 244–5. Ms. copied by Manṣūr b. Muḥammad b. Waraqah Bihbihānī and dated Muḥarram 801/1398. Pictures); Üniversite fy 308 (Ateş 112. 14th century? m.a. only); Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi 1459 (Duda, Ferhād p. 194. Latest colophon dated Muḥarram 816/1413); Nuruosmaniye 3783 (Ateş 96. Dated 10 Muḥarram 831/1427); Fatih 4057/1 (Ritter-Reinert p. 245. Ms. copied by three scribes, with various dates in 830–1/1426–8); Topkapı, Hazine 789 (Karatay 399. Dated Ramaḍān 842/1439); Topkapı, Hazine 779 (Karatay 400; Stchoukine i. Copied by ʿImād Khabbāz Abr-kūhī and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Khwārazmī, who dated their work Shaʿbān 843/1440 and 857/1453 respectively. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 774138 (Karatay 401; Stchoukine ii. Dated Shaʿbān 844/1440–1. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 862 (Karatay 402; Stchoukine iii. Dated Rabīʿ i 846/1442. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 870 (Karatay 403; Stchoukine iv. Copied by Abū Bakr b. Ismāʿīl b. Maḥmūd b. ʿAlī al-Fārūqī and dated Rabīʿ i 848/1444. Pictures); Fatih 3749 (Ritter-Reinert p. 126. Dated 4 Ramaḍān 849/1445); Topkapı, Hazine 781 (Karatay 404; Stchoukine v. Copied by Yūsuf al-Jāmī in 849/1445–6. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 855 (Karatay 406; Stchoukine vi. Dated Rabīʿ i 850/1446. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 786 (Karatay 405; Stchoukine vii. Copied by Ibn Iskandar Quhistānī and dated Shawwāl 850/1446–7. Pictures signed by Sulṭān ʿAlī al-Bāwardī); Topkapı, Revan 866 (Karatay 407; Stchoukine viii. Copied by ʿAlī b. Niẓām al-Damghānī in 850/1446–7. Pictures); Ayasofya 3861/2 (Ateş 97. Copied by Shaikh al-Islām b. Ḥusain al-Ṣiddīqī and dated 857/1452); Topkapı, Hazine 773 (Karatay 408; Stchoukine x. Copied by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad Ismāʿīl and dated Rabīʿ i 865/1460–1. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 872 (Karatay 409. Copied by ʿAbd Ilāh and dated Rajab 879/1474); Topkapı, Revan 874 (Karatay 411; Stchoukine xii. Dated Rabīʿ ii 881/1476. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 761 (Karatay 410; Stchoukine xi. Copied by Shaikh Maḥmūd Pīr-Budāqī and Fakhr al-dīn Aḥmad, who dated their segments 20 Rabīʿ i 866/1461 and Shaʿbān 881/1476 respectively. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 880 (Karatay 475. Copied by Riyāḍī and dated 885/1480–1. m.a. only); Topkapı, Hazine 762 (Karatay 412; Stchoukine xiii. Copied by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Yaʿqūbī and dated Muḥarram 886/1481. Pictures); Fatih 3750 (Ritter-Reinert pp. 126–7. Copied by Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Naṣr Allāh Ḥusain Amīr and dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 888/1484); Topkapı, Hazine 754 (Karatay 413; Stchoukine xiv. Copied by Murshid al-dīn Muḥammad al-Kātib in 888/1483–4. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 768 (Karatay 414; Stchoukine xv. Copied by Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Masʿūd and dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 890/1485. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 731 (Karatay 477. Copied by Mīr Shaikh b. Qutlugh Khwājah Samarqandī and dated Rabīʿ ii 894/1489. l.m. only); Topkapı, Hazine 771 (Karatay 415; Stchoukine xvi. Copied by Ḥusain Kulūyah and dated Muḥarram 895/1489. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1008 (Karatay 416; Stchoukine xvii. Copied by Shaikh Murshid al-dīn and dated Rabīʿ ii 895/1490.139 Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 876 (Karatay 417. Copied by ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh Kātib in 897/1491–2); Topkapı, Hazine 787 (Karatay 418; Stchoukine xviii. Copied by ʿAlī b. Ḥājjī al-Mudhahhib and dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 899/1494. Pictures); Nuruosmaniye 3781 (Ateş 98. Copied by Muḥammad b. Jalāl al-Qummī and dated 6 Shawwāl 899/1494); Topkapı, Hazine 759 (Karatay 425; Stchoukine xxiii. Dated Shaʿbān 900/1495. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 778 (Karatay 426; Stchoukine xxiv. Dated Shawwāl 900/1495. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 792 (Karatay 427; Stchoukine xxv. Dated 902/1496–7. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 775 (Karatay 428; Stchoukine xxvii. Dated Muḥarram 903/1497. Pictures); Topkapı, Bağdat 145 (Karatay 429; Stchoukine lxiii. Copied by Mithālī Kāshānī and dated Muḥarram 904/1498. Pictures ascribed to the 16th century); Üniversite fy 286 (olim Rıza Paşa 2901. Ateş 102. Dated 26 Jumādā ii 905/1500); Topkapi, Hazine 769 (Karatay 430; Stchoukine xxviii. Dated Rajab 905/1500. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 873 (Karatay 433; Stchoukine liv. Copied by Maḥmūd b. Jalāl b. Maḥmūd al-Qummī and dated Rabīʿ ii 906/1500. Pictures added later); Nuruosmaniye 3780 (Ateş 99. 15th century?); Üniversite fy 1313 (Ateş 100; Edhem/Stchoukine xxv. 15th century? Pictures); Üniversite fy 539 (Ateş 101; Edhem/Stchoukine xxxix. Attributed by Ateş to 15th, by Edhem/Stchoukine to 17th century. Apparently without Isk.N. ii. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 858 (Karatay 419; Stchoukine lxix. 15th century? 1 damaged picture); Topkapı, Hazine 776 (Karatay 420; Stchoukine xx. Copied by Pīr Ḥasan al-Kātib. 15th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 857 (Karatay 421; Stchoukine xxi. Copied by Muḥammad al-Ḥusainī. 15th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Bağdat 147 (Karatay 422; Stchoukine p. 92. 15th century?); Topkapı, Bağdat 146 (Karatay 423; Stchoukine liii. 15th century? Pictures ascribed to 16th century); Topkapı, Revan 859 (Karatay 424; Stchoukine xxii. 15th century? Pictures); Nuruosmaniye 3784 fol. 1b–70a (Ateş 113. 15th century? m.a. only); Fatih 3751 (Ritter-Reinert p. 127. 15th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 1510/ii (Karatay 348; Stchoukine lxv. Copied by Luṭf Allāh b. Yaḥyā al-Tabrīzī and dated Rajab 906/1501. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 863 (Karatay 431; Stchoukine xxx. Dated Shaʿbān 906/1501. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 874140 (Karatay 434; Stchoukine xxix. Copied by Murshid al-dīn in 909/1503–4. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 791 (Karatay 435. Copied by Ḥasan al-Iṣfahānī in 911/1505–6. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 770 (Karatay 437; Stchoukine xxxii. Copied by Murshid al-dīn Muḥammad in 918/1512–3. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 788 (Karatay 438; Stchoukine xxxiii. Copied by Shaikh Muḥammad Aṣīl and dated Rabīʿ ii 919/1513. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 753 (Karatay 470; Stchoukine ix. One picture is dated 919/1513, others are ascribed by Stchoukine to various dates between the mid 15th to the mid 16th century); Topkapı, Hazine 783 (Karatay 439; Stchoukine xxxiv. Copied by Munʿim al-dīn Muḥammad al-Auḥadī al-Ḥusainī in 919/1513. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 766 (Karatay 440; Stchoukine xxxv. Copied by Hājjī ʿAlī Kātib and dated Rajab 922/1516. Pictures); Üniversite fy 1309 (Ateş 103; Edhem/Stchoukine xxvi. Copied by Yār-Muḥammad Harawī and dated Ramaḍān 923/1517. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 860 (Karatay 441; Stchoukine xxxvi. Copied by Murshid Kātib ʿAṭṭār in 927/1521. Pictures); Topkapı, Ahmet iii 3559 (Karatay 432; Stchoukine li. Copied by Shāh Maḥmūd Naishābūrī for the Safavid Ismāʿīl i, d. 930/1524. Pictures added later); Topkapı, Revan 877 (Karatay 442; Stchoukine lviii. Copied by Muḥammad Qāsim b. Sulṭān Maḥmūd ʿIshqābādī and dated Ramaḍān 933/1527. Pictures later); Topkapı, Hazine 785 (Karatay 443; Stchoukine xxxvii. Copied by Sulṭān Muḥammad Nūr in 934/1527–8. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 871 (Karatay 444; Stchoukine lxvi. Copied by Yār-Muḥammad al-Harawī and dated Ramaḍān 934/1528. Pictures of various dates); Topkapı, Revan 865 (Karatay 446; Stchoukine xxxviii. Dated 17 Jumādā ii 935/1529. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 856 (Karatay 445; Stchoukine lxvii. Dated Ramaḍān 935/1529. Pictures, repainted later); Topkapı, Hazine 760 (Karatay 447; Stchoukine xl. Copied by Murshid al-Kātib al-Shīrāzī and dated Jumādā i 941/1534. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 758 (Karatay 448; Stchoukine xlii. Copied by Murshid al-Kātib al-Shīrāzī and dated Rabiʿ ii 945/1538. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 765 (Karatay 449; Stchoukine xliii. Dated Rabīʿ ii 945/1538. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 755 (Karatay 450; Stchoukine xliv. Dated Rajab 947/1540. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 756 (Karatay 451; Stchoukine xlv. Copied by Muḥammad Qiwām Shīrāzī and dated Rabīʿ ii 951/1544. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 867 (Karatay 452; Stchoukine xlvi. Dated Rabīʿ ii 956/1549. Pictures); Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi 1990 (olim Fatih 3752bis. Ritter-Reinert p. 127. Copied by Salīm and dated 959/1552 and 961/1554. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 870 (Karatay 454; Stchoukine xlvii. Copied by ʿAlī-Qulī b. Qāra and dated Muḥarram 963/1555. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 793 (Karatay 453. Copied by Muḥammad Riḍāʾī and dated Rajab 963/1556); Topkapı, Hazine 780 (Karatay 455; Stchoukine xlix. Copied by Muḥsin b. Luṭf Allāh Maʿād al-Ḥasanī al-Sabzwārī and dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 968/1561. Pictures); Topkapi, Hazine 794 (Karatay 456; Stchoukine 1. Dated 970/1562–3. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 864 (Karatay 457. Copied by Khalīl b. Darwīsh Muḥammad al-Jāmī and dated Muḥarram 979/1571); Topkapı, Hazine 750 (Karatay 398 and his corrigenda; Stchoukine lii; Duda, Ferhad p. 193 no. 31. Copied by Shāh Muḥammad and apparently dated 1 Ramaḍān 979/1572, but subsequently altered to ‘779’. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 752 (Karatay 458. Copied by Murshid b. ʿAlī b. Murshid and dated Muḥarram 980/1572. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 883 (Karatay 481; Stchoukine lxviii. Copied by Aḥmad b. Sulṭān ʿAlī al-Harawī in 980/1572–3. Isk.N. i only. Pictures added later); Topkapı, Revan 875 (Karatay 459. Copied by Malik Muḥammad Tabrīzī and dated Muḥarram 987/1579); Üniversite fy 1384 (Ateş 104; Edhem/Stchoukine xxxvi. Copied by Amīr b. Muḥammad ʿAlī Ardistānī and dated 3 Jumādā ii 994/1586. m.a., Kh.Sh., Isk.N. i. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 749141 (Karatay 471; Stchoukine lvii. Dated 1000/1591–2. Pictures, some of which are later); Üniversite fy 249 (olim Rıza Paşa 3028. Ateş 105. Dated 9 Rabīʿ ii 1002/1594); Nuruosmaniye 3782 (Ateş 106. Copied by Shams b. Ṣadr Futūḥī and dated 9 Shaʿbān 1005/1596); Topkapı, Hazine 157142 (Karatay 436; Stchoukine lxiv. 16th century?143 Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 751 (Karatay 461. Copied by Hidāyat Allāh Shīrāzī. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 869 (Karatay 462. 16th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 763 (Karatay 463; Stchoukine lvi. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 868 (Karatay 464. 16th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 764 (Karatay 465; Stchoukine lxii. Copied by ʿAbd al-Ghaffār b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Qurashī. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 772 (Karatay 466. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 767 (Karatay 467; Stchoukine xxvi. Copied by Sulṭān ʿAlī Mashhadī. Pictures attributed to late 15th century); Topkapı, Hazine 777 (Karatay 468; Stchoukine lix. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 790 (Karatay 469; Stchoukine xli. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 879 (Karatay 476; Stchoukine xlviii. Copied by Sulṭān Muḥammad. 16th century? l.m. only. Pictures by three artists); Topkapı, Revan 881 (Karatay 479; Stchoukine Ixi. 16th century? Isk.N. ii and l.m. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 882 (Karatay 480; Stchoukine xxxix. Copied by ʿImād b. Muḥammad al-Harawī. 16th century? h.p.?144 Pictures); Üniversite fy 141 (Ateş 115; Edhem/Stchoukine xl. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan 878 (Karatay 472. Copied by Muḥammad ʿAlī b. ʿIzz al-dīn and dated Rabīʿ i 1051/1641); Topkapı, Hazine 730 (Karatay 478; Stchoukine xix. Copied by ʿAbd Allāh Mirzā and dated 1067/1656–7, but Stchoukine thinks that the date has been altered and that the pictures belong to the late 15th century. l.m. only); Topkapı, Hazine 782 (Karatay 473. 17th century?); Revan köşkü 1896/iii (Karatay 904. M.A and Kh.Sh.); Cairo 143 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 548. Copied by Zain al-ʿĀbidīn al-Ḥusainī al-Mashhadī and dated 895/1489–90); 167 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 549. Dated Jumādā ii 935/1529); 142 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 547. Dated 983/1575–6. Pictures); 137 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 545. Dated 1 Shawwāl 1042/1633. Pictures); 141 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 546. Dated 1249/1833–4. Pictures); 120 adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 544. Pictures); Madinah ʿĀrif Ḥikmat 129 (Nuskhah-hā v p. 483, 490. Dated 853/1449. m.a., Isk.N. i, Kh.Sh.); Najaf Amīr al-muʾminīn 1355 (Munz. 28065. Dated 863/1458–9); Tabriz Millī 405 (Cat. i p. 475; 13th century?);145 Arak Bayāt (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 65. Dated 773/1371–2); Tehran Shūrā i Islāmī i 301 (Ascribed to the 6th/12th century?! h.p., Isk.N. i and ii, beginning and end missing); Mahdawī 418 (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 63. Copied by Maḥmūd b. Najm al-dīn Tabrīzī and supposedly dated 27 Jumādā ii 631/1234. ‘Isk.N.’ only); Shūrā i Islāmī i 420 (Dated 712/1312–3. Without h.p. and with various lacunae); Univ. xv 5179 (Dated 718/1318. Pictures);146 Univ. xv 5134 (Copied by ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl b. ʿArab-shāh Ḥusainī and dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 788/1386. l.m., h.p., Isk.N. i Kh.Sh.); Adabīyāt i p. 53 (Dated 793/1391. Beginning and end missing); Adabīyāt i p. 53 (Dated 816/1413–4); Majlis iii 921 (Dated 824/1421); Malik 5122 (Munz. 28051. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 832/1429); Majlis viii 2360 (Copied by Mīr ʿAlī and dated 839/1435–6. Isk.N. i–ii. Pictures); Bayānī 5 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 8. Copied by Ḥasan Qāriʾ and dated 840/1436–7. l.m., h.p., Isk.N i–ii); Majlis viii 2359 (Dated 842/1438–9); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 522 (Copied by Munʿim al-dīn al-Auḥadī and dated 5 Dhū l-ḥijjah 897/1492); Majlis iii 928 (Dated 902/1496–7. Kh.Sh., l.m., h.p., Isk.N. i. Pictures); Majlis viii 2361 (Dated 899/1493–4. Fragment of m.a., Kh.Sh., ‘Isk.N.’); Bayānī 6 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 8. 15th century? l.m., h.p., ‘Isk.N.’); Bayānī 35/i (Nuskhah-hā i p. 15. 15th century?); Sipah-sālār ii 1148 (15th century? h.p.); Shūrā i Islāmī i 151 (Completed in 910/1504–5); Majlis iii 929 (Dated 918/1512–3. Without Isk.N. ii); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 512 (Dated 954/1547–8. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 513 (Copied by Muḥammad al-Qiwām al-Shīrāzī, who copied Istanbul, Topkapı, Hazine 756 in 951/1544. Pictures); Sipah-sālār ii 1142 (Copied by Murshid Shīrāzī and dated 956/1549. Pictures); Majlis viii 2362 (Dated 970/1562–3. Isk.N. i); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 508 (Dated 15 Jumādā i 984/1576. Pictures added later); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 518 (Copied by Shādī b. Luṭf Allāh with dates in 992–3/1584–5. Pictures, apparently added later); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 434 (Dated 994/1586. Pictures); Sipah-sālār ii 1143 (16th century. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 528 (Copied by Sulṭān ʿAlī al-Mashhadī, 16th century. m.a. 1 picture); Adabīyāt i p. 54 (16th century?); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 501 (Copied by Rūzbih al-Shīrāzī with the dates 23 Rabīʿ i ⟨10⟩11/1602 and Dhū l-ḥijjah 1010/1602. Isk.N. i–ii. 1 picture); Bayānī 8 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 9. Copied by Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ Ḥusainī and dated 1022/1613. m.a.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 517 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1026/1617. Incomplete. Pictures); Shūrā i Islāmī i 423 (Copied by Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ b. Ḥaidar Āshtiyānī Qummī and completed on 15 Rajab 1059/1649. Pictures); Shūrā i Islāmī i 260 (olim Bayānī 7. Copied by Mīr Muʿizz al-dīn Ḥusain b. Muḥammad Mīrak and dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1062/1652. Without h.p.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 457/ii (Ms. completed Rabīʿ i 1083/1672. m.a.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 503 (17th century? Isk.N. i–ii. 2 pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 507 (Dated 1115/1703–4. Kh.Sh., l.m.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 519 (Completed in Ṣafar 1187/1773); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 510 (Dated 9 Rabīʿ i 1238/1822. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 509 (Dated 1240/1824–5. m.a., Kh.Sh., h.p., ‘Isk.N.’ Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 527 (Dated 1240/1824–5. m.a.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 524 (Completed in 1248/1832–3); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 523 (Completed in 1250/1834–5); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 506 (Dated 1278/1861–2. Kh.Sh. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 521 (Pictures in Qājār style); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 520 (‘old’; end supplied by a second hand and dated Jumādā ii 1250/1834); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 511; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 514 (Copied by Maḥmūd Shīrāzī); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 516; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 525 (l.m., incomplete. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 526 (l.m.); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 502 (‘Isk.N.’, incomplete); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 504 (Fragment of ‘Isk.N.’); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 505 (Isk.N. i–ii, end missing. Pictures); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 300 (13th–14th century?); Riḍawī vii 301 (‘Dated’ 867/1462–3, but the cataloguer thinks it belongs to the 17th century); Riḍawī vii 302–303 (both 17th century?); Tashkent Acad. ii 840–843 (All 17th century. No. 842 has pictures); 845 (Dated 989/1581. Isk.N. i–ii); Dushanbe Acad. ii 375–402 (many copies of the Khamsah or individual poems. The oldest, no. 376, is dated 994/1586 and lacks l.m. No. 375 and 378 have pictures); Peshawar Univ. (Munz. Pak. vii p. 65. Dated Rajab 809/1406–7); Khaipur Public Library (Munz. Pak. vii p. 65. Dated 864/1459–60); Lahore Forman Christian College (Munz. Pak. vii p. 101. ‘Isk.N.’ supposedly ‘dated’ 4 Muḥarram 597/1200147); Shērānī (Munz. Pak. vii p. 70. 13th century? m.a.); Shērānī (Munz. Pak. vii p. 65. Dated 15 Shawwāl 765/1364. End of ‘Isk.N.’ missing); Public Library (Munz. Pak. vii p. 101. Dated 864/1459–60. ‘Isk.N.’ Pictures); Shērānī (Munz. Pak. vii p. 65. Ms. copied by Maulānā Aẓhar Tabrīzī and dated Rajab 877/1472. m.a., Kh.Sh., l.m.); Univ. (Munz. Pak. vii p. 70. Dated 1 Ṣafar 883/1478. m.a.); Univ. (Munz. Pak. vii p. 65. Dated 20 Ramaḍān 900/1495. Pictures); Bombay Rehatsek p. 169 no. 144 (Ms. of ‘Makhzan al-asrār’, without indication of author. Rehatsek says that the Ms. ‘was made in ah 552, or perhaps ah 750’; the former is in fact the date indicated in many Mss. for the composition of Niẓāmī’s poem, the latter, perhaps the date of copying, corresponds to 1349–50); Rehatsek p. 151 no. 84–87 (4 copies of Isk.N. i or ii, the oldest dated 970/1562–3); Rehatsek p. 170 no. 149–150 (2 copies of h.p., one dated 1085/1674–5); Rehatsek p. 134 no. 27 (Dated Asfan-dārmad 1045Y./1676. Kh.Sh. only); Navsari Meherji Rana p. 85 no. 32 (h.p., Kh.Sh., l.m.); Meherji Rana p. 95 no. 91/1 (l.m.); Meherji Rana p. 96 no. 95 (m.a.); Meherji Rana p. 96 no. 99 (‘Isk.N.’ incomplete); Aligarh (various copies of individual poems, the oldest a h.p. dated 996/1588, are listed in Subh. Mss. pp. 38–43); Hyderabad (various copies, none older than 1006/1597–8, and mostly undated are in Āṣafīyah p. 148, 242, 1480, 1482, 1486, 1478, 1490); Rampore State Library (Nadhīr Aḥmad 205–6. Two copies of Kh.Sh., the latter with pictures, dated 983/1575–6 and 984/1576–7 respectively); State Library (Nadhīr Aḥmad 224. Dated 1021/1612); Saulat 35–47 (late copies of individual poems); Lucknow Sprenger 422 (several copies); Bankipore i 37 (Copied by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī and dated 20 Ṣafar 835/1431); i 38 (Completed 3 Rajab 883/1478. Pictures); Suppt. i 1837 (Dated 13 Dhū l-ḥijjah 890/1485. Pictures); i 40 (15th century? m.a. and l.m. Pictures); Suppt. i 1811 (Dated Jumādā i 922 /1516. Fragment of Kh.Sh.); Suppt. i 1812 (16th century? Isk.N. i only, end missing); i 39 (16th century? l.m. and end of Isk.N. ii missing); Suppt. i 1808 (Dated Muḥarram 1041/1631); Suppt. i 1809 (Dated Shawwāl 1047/1638. Without l.m. Pictures); Suppt. i 1810 (17th century? h.p. and Isk.N. ii missing); i 42 (17th century? Isk.N. i only. Pictures); i 43 (Dated 27 Ṣafar 1143/1730. Isk.N. i only); i 44 (Dated 11 Ṣafar 1144/1731. Isk.N. i only. Pictures); i 41 (Dated 22 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1237/1822. Kh.Sh. only. Pictures); Suppt. i 1813 (19th century. Isk.N. i); Suppt. i 1814 (19th century. Fragment of Isk.N. i); Madras i 118, 122–4, 140, ii 590 (late or undated copies of individual poems); Calcutta Ivanow 473 (15th–16th century? Isk.N. i–ii only); Madrasah cxxxviii (Copied by Muḥammad ʿAlī b. Darwīsh ʿAlī and dated 919/1513. m.a. and Kh.Sh.); Būhār 295 (Dated 941/1534–5. Pictures); Būhār 296 (Dated 16 Rabīʿ i 1041/1631. m.a.); Ivanow 471 (Dated 1083/1672–3. Kh.Sh.); Ivanow 467 (Fragment dated 1085/1674–5); Ivanow 466 (Dated 1090/1679); Ivanow 468 (Dated 1090/1679. m.a.); Ivanow 472 (17th century? Kh.Sh.); Ivanow 475 (Dated 27th year of Muḥammad-Shāh/1157/1744. Isk.N. ii); Ivanow 470 (Dated 1169/1755–6. l.m.); Ivanow 474 (18th century? Isk.N. i); Ivanow Curzon 200 (18th century? Isk.N. i. Pictures); Ivanow Curzon 201 (18th century? Isk.N. ii); Madrasah cxxxix (Dated 1812. h.p.); Madrasah cxl (19th century? h.p.); Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 977 (19th century? Kh.Sh.); Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 978 (19th century? Isk.N. i); Madrasah cxxxvii (Isk.N. ii missing); Washington Vever148 236 (Contains the date 837/1433–4. Pictures); Vever 237 (15th century? Pictures); Vever 238–40 (Three pages, one with the date 15 Rabīʿ ii 903/1497); Vever 249 (Completed in 934/1527–8. Pictures); Vever 253 (16th century? Pictures); Vever 254 (16th century? m.a. missing. Pictures); Vever 260 (16th century? m.a. and Isk.N. ii missing. Pictures); Vever 272 (Dated Rajab 1055/1645. Isk.N. i–ii missing. Pictures); Vever 51 (an ‘anthology’ containing ‘sections from’ m.a., Isk.N. i, Kh.Sh., h.p. and Sanāʾī’s Ḥadīqah. 17th century? Pictures); and various detached pages; Princeton 7 (Copied by Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Tustarī al-Kāghadhī and dated 20 Shawwāl 849/1446. Pictures); 8 (Dated 898/1492–3. Fragments of m.a., Kh.Sh., l.m., h.p. Pictures apparently added later); 9 (Copied by al-Kātib al-Shīrāzī in 970/1562–3. Pictures); New York Jackson-Yohannan 6 (Dated 853/1449–50. Pictures); Jackson-Yohannan 7 (Copied by Naʿīm al-dīn and dated 24 Shawwāl 915/1510. Pictures); Jackson-Yohannan 8 (Copied by Sulṭān Muḥammad Nūr in 931/1524–5. Pictures);149 Jackson-Yohannan 10 (h.p. Copied, according to the colophon, by Aẓhar in 988/1580, but the pictures are all signed by Bihzād and must thus, if authentic, be more than 50 years older); Jackson-Yohannan 9 (16th century? Pictures); Morgan Collection (see Martinovitch, jaos 45, 1925, p. 108. Dated 1087/1675–6); Various illustrated copies, none older than the 16th century, are listed in B. Schmitz, Islamic manuscripts in the New York Public Library, New York/Oxford 1992, pp. 76–9, 94–6, 196–200, 208–9, 359–60; Philadelphia Lewis Coll. 64 (16th century? Isk.N. i. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 62 (Copied by Ḥājjī Muḥammad al-Jārpādaqānī [sic cat.] and dated 1037/1627–8. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 63 (19th century? Pictures); Lewis Coll. 65 (Dated 1248/1832–3. Isk.N. i. Pictures); Cambridge (Mass.) Hofer Collection (Nuskhah-hā iv p. 11. Ms. dated 827/1424. ‘Isk.N.’, Kh.Sh., l.m.); id. (Nuskhah-hā iv p. 10. Dated 833/1429–30).

Editions of the Khamsah: Bombay 1834; 1838; 1265/1849 (ed. Faḍl al-dīn K’hamkar, without Isk.N. ii); 1285/1869 (Mīrzā Bāqir’s press, again without Isk.N. ii); 1298/1881 (ed. Fatḥ al-Karīm); 1328/1910 (ed. Muẓaffarī); Tehran 1261/1845; 1314–6/1896–8; 1341sh./1962–3; Tabriz 1261/1845.

Complete translation of the Khamsah and dīwān (Russian verse): Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, 5 volumes, Moscow 1985, reprinted in 3 volumes, Baku 1991 (various translators; the works are listed separately below).

Translation of extensive extracts from the Khamsah and dīwān (Russian verse): Низами Стихотворения и поэмы (various translators), Leningrad 1981.

The individual poems:

Makhzan al-asrār (inc.: bi-smi llāhi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīm * hast kalīd i dar i ganj i ḥakīm); for its date and dedicatee see above p. 274. Niẓāmī’s earliest book is also the only one without a continuous narrative content. Instead it contains, after extended opening sections, twenty homilies, each illustrated by a short anecdote. The author avows his indebtedness to Sanāʾī’s Ḥadīqah.

Mss.: see Khamsah.

Editions: London 1844 (Makhzan ul asrár, the treasury of secretsEdited from an ancient manuscript150by Nathaniel Bland); Cawnpore 1869 (with marginal notes); Lucknow 1869; 1872; 1881 (with a commentary, Ẓuhūr al-asrār, by Ẓuhūr al-Ḥasan Banhūrī); Lahore [1887] (with marginal notes by M. Riḍā); [1921] (with the same notes); 1922 (with notes substantially the same); Tehran 1313sh./1934 (ed. Waḥīd Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; 1363sh./1984 (ed. B. Tharwatiyān; non vidi); Baku 1960 (critical edition by Ä.Ä. Älizadä).

Partial edition: Guzīdah i Makhzanu l-asrār, by ʿAbd al-Muḥammad Āyatī, Tehran 1367sh./1988–9.

Translations: (Turkish verse): Ms. Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 529.

(English prose): Makhzanol Asrār. The treasury of mysteries … translated for the first time from the Persian, with an introductory essay on the life and times of Nezāmi, by Gh.H.D. Dārāb, London 1945 (important review by V. Minorsky, bsoas xii, 1948, pp. 411–5).

(Russian verse): Сокровищница тайн, trans. K.A. Lipskerov and S.V. Shervinski, Moscow 1959; this version is also in Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991). (French prose): Le trésor des secrets, trans. Dj. Mortazavi, Paris 1987.

Partial translation: (German verse): J.Ch. Bürgel, ‘Nizami über Sprache und Dichtung. Ein Abschnitt aus der « Schatzkammer der Geheimnisse » eingeleitet, übertragen und erläutert’, Islamwissenschaftliche Abhandlu­ngen Fritz Meier zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 1974, pp. 9–28.

Epitomes: Ms.: Gotha 40/3 (Baḥr al-durar. ‘Offenbar sehr alt’); Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 4904 fol. 232a–242b (Ateş 114. Dated 940/1533–4).


(1) Sharḥ i Makhzan al-asrār, by Muḥammad b. Qiwām b. Rustam b. Aḥmad b. Maḥmūd al-Balkhī, known as Karʾī (Karkhī? Bakraʾī?), elucidating 1310 difficult verses, was written, as the author says in at least two different places, in 795/1392–3 (the chronogram cited by Sprenger giving the date of composition as 1091/1680 does not belong to this work).151 In the introduction the author says that he had previously composed a similar work on the difficult verses of the two parts of the Iskandar-nāmah. Mss.: London Add. 26,149 (Rieu p. 573. Has a note of purchase dated 1089/1678–9. Incomplete); Or. 2934 (Rieu Suppt. 233. Beginning missing. Contains a note of purchase dated 1091/1680); i.o. 998 (incomplete); Paris Supplément 587 (Blochet 1267. 18th century? Beginning only); Tehran Majlis ii 932; Tashkent Acad. ii 848–849; Calcutta Fort William College (Sprenger 424); Rampore Saulat 157 and apparently also 158 (both 18th or 19th century); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah iii p. 625 no. 290 (Dated 1069–1658–9); Āṣafīyah ii p. 1482 no. 185; Madras ii 593.

(2) Sharḥ i Makhzan al-asrār by ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd birādar i qāḍī Rafīʿ al-dīn. Mss.: Leningrad Acad. B 133 fol. 2b–147a (Index 2619. Dated 917/1511–2).

(3) Sharḥ i Makhzan al-asrār by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Ḥasan b. Ṭāhir Jaunpūrī (d. 975/1567).152 Ms.: Hyderabad Āṣafīyah iii p. 200 no. 1301 (Dated 1109/1697–8).

(4) Sharḥ i Makhzan al-asrār, beginning with the first verse of the poem followed by the gloss: iftitāḥ i kitāb ba taqdīm i miṣrāʿ i awwal bar tasmīyah etc. The i.o. Ms. designates one Muḥammad b. al-Khalī Saʿd al-dīn as kātib al-kalimāt, i.e. copyist and perhaps also author of the work. Ms.: London i.o. 2872 (Dated Jumādā i ⟨10⟩51/1641).

(5) [same title] by Qāḍī Ibrāhīm Ṭhaṭaʾī, evidently dependent on Muḥammad b. Qiwām. Mss.: London i.o. Delhi 1060 (dated 1221/1806); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1482 no. 183 (Dated 1068/1657–8); Calcutta Ivanow Curzon 203 (18th century?).

(6) An unidentified commentary with the same title, beginning, without any introduction, with the first verse of the poem is found in Calcutta Ivanow 469 (18th century?).

(7) The text of Makhzan al-asrār with an incomplete commentary in Turkish is found in a Ms. which once belonged to the well-known historian Ismāʿīl b. Meḥmet, called Küçük Çelebī (died 1173 /1759–60), presumably the author of the commentary. Ms.: Istanbul Esat 2901 (Duda p. 59).

(8) Ẓuhūr al-asrār by Ẓuhūr al-Ḥasan Banhūrī. Edition: Lucknow 1881; 1185.

Khusrau-Shīrīn (inc.: khudāwand-ā, dar i taufīq bu-gshāy * niẓāmī rā rah i taḥqīq bu-nmāy); for the title, date and dedicatee see above p. 275. The romantic story of the Sasanian emperor Khusrau Parwēz and his queen, the Armenian princess Shīrīn, much expanded and elaborated from the account of these persons in the Shāh-nāmah.

Mss.: see Khamsah.

Editions: [Bombay] 1249/1833 (ed. Ḥamzah Māzandarānī. Pictures); Lahore 1288/1871 (with marginal notes); 1310/1892–3 (‘2nd edition’, with marginal notes); Lucknow 1288/1871; Cawnpore 1881; 1304/1887; Tehran 1313sh./1934 (ed. Waḥīd Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; 1343sh./1964–5 (ed. Ḥ. Pazhmān Bakhtyārī); 1344sh./1965 (ed. ʿA. Ḥusūrī); 1353sh./1974 (ed. ʿA. al-M. Āyatī); 1366sh./1987); Baku 1960 (critical edition by L.A. Khetagurov).

Partial editions: Stralsund 1815 (Carminun orientalium trigaedidit, latine vertit, notas adjecit J.C.L. Kosegarten, pp. 87–107: ‘Carmen persicum Nisâmi Kendschewi in laudem altissimi Dei’, from the beginning of Kh.Sh., with a Latin verse translation); Prague 1933 (Ferhād und Schīrīn. Die literarische Geschichte eines persischen Sagenstofes von H.W. Duda = Monografie Archiva Orientálního II. Contains a critical edition and translation of the Farhād-Shīrīn episode, a detailed summary of the whole poem and a study of the earlier and later versions of the story).

Translation (Turkish): by Shaikhī (15th century). See Gibb, A History of Ottoman poetry, i p. 299 sqq. Ms.: Cambridge Or. 663 (Browne Suppt. 430. Dated 908/1502–3). Edition: Şeyhî ve Husrev ü Şîrîn, ed. F.K. Timurtaş, Istanbul 1980.

(French prose): Le roman de Chosroès et Chîrîn traduit du persan par Henri Massé, Paris 1970 (omits the beginning and end).

(Japanese): by A. Okada, Tokyo 1977.

(German prose and verse): Chosrou und Schirin; Übertragung …, Nachwort und Erläuterungen von J.C. Bürgel, Zurich 1980.

(Russian prose): Хосров и ширин. Филологический перевод с Фарси и комментарии Г.Ю. Алиеба, М.н.Османова, Baku 1985.

(Russian verse): Хосров и ширин, trans. K. Lipskerov in Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991).

Abridgment: Ms.: London Or. 2933 (Rieu Suppt. 231; Titley 326. Dated 25 Muḥarram of the 8th year of Muḥammad Shāh = 1139/1756).

Prose paraphrase: Surūd i Khusrawī, written by Ghulām Ḥusain Khān Munshī in 1230/1815, for some English officers. The same author also wrote abridgments of the two parts of the Iskandar-nāmah (see below). Ms.: London Add. 27,270 (Rieu pp. 575–6. Autograph).

Modern epitome: Khulāṣah i Khusrau u Shīrīn, with commentary, by S. Sīrjānī, Tehran–7.

Lailē-Majnūn (inc.: ai nām i tu bihtarīn sar-āghāz * bē nām i tu nāmah kai kunam bāz); for the title, date and dedicatee see above p. 275. A retelling of a famous love story from pre-Islamic Arabia.

Mss.: see Khamsah.

Editions: [India] 1264/1848; Lucknow 1286/1870; 1888; Bombay 1292/1875; 1302/1885; Lahore 1307/1890; Cawnpore 1904; Tehran 1313sh./1934 (ed. W. Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; 1364sh./1985 (ed. B. Tharwatiyān; non vidi); 1369sh./1990 (ed. B. Zanjānī; non vidi); Moscow 1965 (critical edition by A.A. Aleskerzade [Persian title page: ʿAlī-Aṣghar-zādah] and F. Babayev).

Translations: (English verse, abridged): Lailí and Majnún, a poem from the original of Nazámi (sic) by J. Atkinson, London 1836, republished London (printed Edinburgh) 1894, London 1905 (with an introduction by L. Cranmer Byng) and Allahabad 1915.

(English prose, abridged): E. Mattin and G. Hill, The story of Layla and Majnun (from Gelpke’s German), London 1966; Layla and Majnunprose adaptation by C. Turner, London 1997, reprinted New Delhi and Calcutta 1998.153

(Russian verse): Лейла и меджнун trans. A. Globa, Moscow 1935; Лейли и меджнун trans. P. Antokol’ski, Moscow 1957; [same title], trans. A. Starostina, Baku 1982; [same title], trans. T. Streshnevova, in, Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочичнений Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991).

(Russian prose): Лейли и Мелжнун, trans. Rustam Aliyev, Baku 1981.

(Armenian) Leyli ew Mejnun, trans. A. Isahakyan, Erevan/Moscow 1947.

(German prose, abridged): Leila und Madschnun. Der berühmteste Liebes­roman des Morgenlandes erstmal aus dem Persischen verdeutscht und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Rudolf Gelpke, Zurich 1963 (with photographs of miniatures).

(Italian prose): Leylā e Majnūn, trans. Giovanna Calasso, Milan 1985.

Epitome: Ms.: Gotha 40/4 (Baḥr al-durar. ‘Offenbar sehr alt’).

Haft paikar (inc.: ai jahān-dīdah būd khwēsh az tu * hēch būdī na-būdah pēsh az tu); for the date and dedicatee see above p. 275. Niẓāmī’s second reworking of an episode of Sasanian history from the Shāh-nāmah, this time that of the emperor Bahrām i Gōr. Its central and best known portion is occupied by the seven stories with which Bahrām is regaled by his queens on seven consecutive nights, among them the famous story of ‘Turando’ (though the author does not actually use this name). But the moralist Niẓāmī goes on to counterbalance the sensuality of these tales by the story of the unjust minister and his seven victims, and in so doing succeeds in giving the poem a structural coherence and unity of purpose which I should think is without parallel in Islamic narrative literature. It is Niẓāmī’s masterpiece.154

Mss.: see Khamsah.

Editions: [Bombay] [1849] (The Book colled [sic] Huft Piker of Mowlana Shaik Nizamee Sahib Allihir Ruhma the stories of Buhram Goor; Lathographed [sic] by Lucksheemon Wilhoojee, with marginal notes); [Lucknow] 1288/1871 (with appendix of supernumerary verses contained in the Bombay edition); Lucknow 1290/1873 (with the same appendix); 1904; [Lucknow] 1304/1887; Prague (printed Istanbul) 1934 (Heft peikar, ein romantisches Epos des Niẓāmī Genğe’ī herausgegeben von H. Ritter und J. Rypka. = Monografie archivu orientálního, Vol. III); Tehran 1315sh./1936 (ed. W. Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; 1373sh./1994 (ed. B. Zanjānī; non vidi); Moscow 1987 (critical edition by T.A. Magerramov [= Ṭāhir Aḥmad-oghli Muḥarram-ov]).

Translations (English ‘blank verse’): C.E. Wilson, The Haft paikar (The seven beauties) … translated from the Persian with a commentary, 2 volumes, London 1924 (the translation is complete, though partially in Latin, but based on an inadequate text. The commentary, which occupies the whole of the second volume, is still of value).

(English verse): The Haft Paykar a medieval Persian romance, trans. J.S. Meisami, Oxford/New York 1995.

(Russian verse): Семь красавиц, trans. V. Derzhavin, Moscow 1959; reprinted Baku 1983; also in Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991).

(Russian prose): Семь красавиц, trans. Rustam Aliyev (with commentary), Baku 1983.

(Italian prose): Le sette principesse, trans. A. Bausani, Bari 1967 (complete, despite the title); reprinted Milan 1982.

Partial translations: (German verse): F. von Erdmann, Die Schöne vom Schlosse …, Kazan 1832; second edition under the title Behram-gur und die russische Fuerstentochter, Kasan/Berlin 1844 (with the Persian text and extensive notes); Die sieben Prinzessinnen; Nacherzählung in Versen von M. Remané, ausgewählt und aus dem Persischen übersetzt von B. Alavi, Berlin 1980.

(German prose): Die sieben Geschichten der sieben Prinzessinnen, trans. R. Gelpke, Zurich 1959 (with miniatures); J. Rypka, ‘Der vierte Gesang von Niẓāmīs Haft Paikar neu übersetzt’, Oriens xv, 1962, pp. 234–41.

(Italian prose): F. Gabrieli, ‘Versioni da Niẓāmī’, aionx, 1937–8, pp. 31–72 (three episodes).

(English prose): E. Mattin and G. Hill, The story of the seven princesses (from Gelpke’s German), Oxford 1976.

Commentary: M. Muʿīn, Taḥlīl i Haft Paikar i Niẓāmī, Tehran 1338sh./1958–9.

Iskandar-nāmah, in two parts, called respectively Sharaf-nāmah (inc.: khudāy-ā, jahān-pādshāhī tu-rā-st * zi mā khidmat āyad, khudāʾī tu-rā-st) and Iqbāl-nāmah (inc.: khirad har-kujā ganj-ē ārad padīd * zi nām i khudā sāzad ān-rā kalīd). The story of Alexander, following, and in the same metre as, the Shāh-nāmah. For its date and dedicatee see above pp. 2769, below appendix ii, and (also for a summary of the contents) my article ‘Eskandar-nāma of Neẓāmī’ in EIr.

Mss.: See Khamsah.

Editions: (a) Sharaf-nāmah and Iqbāl-nāmah together: Calcutta 1810; 1825; 1835; 1263/1847; 1269/1852; Lucknow 1293/1905 (with interlinear Urdu translation and marginal notes by Fatḥ Muḥammad); Cawnpore 1878 (with marginal notes on the Isk.N. i alone).

(b) Sharaf-nāmah (Isk.N. i) alone: [Calcutta] [1810] (incomplete); 1812 (with the title Muntakhab al-shurūḥ i Sikandar-nūmah, and on the English title page: The Seconder Náma of Nizámi. With a selection from the works of the most celebrated commentators, by Beder Ali & Mir Hosain Âli), reprinted 1825; 1243/1828; Calcutta 1818; [Lucknow] 1282/1865–6 (with marginal notes); 1873; Lucknow 1878–9 (ed. with marginal notes by M. Hādī ʿAlī and followed by a glossary entitled Farhang i Sikandar-nāmah by S. Ibn i Ḥasan b. Qāsim ʿAlī); 1889 (reprint of the Calcutta edition of 1812); 1894; Bombay 1277/1860–1 (with marginal notes); 1292/1875; 1907; [Cawnpore?] 1862 (with marginal notes); Cawnpore 1868 (with marginal notes); 1869; 1870; 1314/1896 (with interlinear Urdu translation and notes by Bālak Rām); Lahore 1889; Delhi 1316–7/1898–9 (2 vols, with notes); 1323/1906 (Jild i thānī i Sikandar-nāmah i barrī, with notes by Ḥ. Ākhund-zādah); Tehran 1316sh./1939 (ed. W. Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; 1368sh./1989 (ed. B. Tharwatiyān); Baku 1947 (critical edition by Ä.Ä. Älizadä).

(c) Iqbāl-nāmah (Isk.N. ii) alone: Calcutta 1852–69 (Khirad-námahë Iskandary, also called the Sikandar-námahë Baḥry, by Nitzámy edited by A. Sprenger and Aga Mohammed Shooshteree, 2 fasc., the second edited by Ághá Ahmad ’Alí); Bombay 1277/1860; Cawnpore 1288/1871; 1878; 1892; Lucknow 1879; Tehran 1317sh./1939 (ed. W. Dastgirdī, with notes) and reprints; Baku 1947 (critical edition by F. Babayev).

Translations of one or both parts: (English prose): H. Wilberforce Clarke, The Sikandar Nāma, e Bara, or Book of Alexander the Greattranslatedwith critical and explanatory remarks, with an introductory preface, and with a life of the author, collected from various Persian sources, London 1881 (Isk.N. i).

(Russian verse): Искендер-наме (both parts, in two volumes), trans. K. Lipskerov, Baku 1953, reprinted 1983; also in Низами Ганджеви: Собрание сочинений, Moscow 1985 (reprint Baku 1991).

(Russian prose): Искендер-наме, trans. Ye. E. Bertel’s (Isk.N. i) and A.K. Arends (Isk.N. ii), Baku 1983.

(German prose): Das Alexanderbuch (Isk.N. i and ii, the prologues and epilogues abbreviated), trans, and annotated by J.Chr. Bürgel, Zurich 1991.

Partial translations: (French prose): Expédition d’Alexandre le Grand contre les Russes: Extrait de l’Alexandréide ou Iskèndèr-Namé de Nizâmy, traduitpar Louis Spitznageltraduction entièrement refonduepar F.B. CharmoyTome premier, St. Petersburg 1828 (with the Persian text, recording variants from a large number of Mss.).

(German verse): H. Ethé, ‘Alexanders Zug zum Lebensquell im Land der Finsternisse. Eine Episode aus Nizâmîs Jskendernâme [i], übersetzt, commentiert und besonders seinem mystischen Inhalt nach genauer beleuchtet’ (with the Persian text), SB München 1871, pp. 343–405.

(Swedish prose): Sikándar-nāmah I–XV (= about the first 900 verses of Isk.N. i), trans. A.E. Hermelin, Lund 1933.

Commentaries and glossaries (all apparently only to Isk.N. i):

A work by one Ḥāmid b. Jamāl Bukhārī al-Ḥasanī (Dorn: al-Ḥusainī) al-Jaunpūrī (inc.: ḥamd bē nihāyat wa sipās bē ghāyat [Dorn: bē ʿināyat] etc.) and dedicated to Farīd al-dīn Abū l-Muẓaffar Shēr-Shāh (947/1540 to 952/1545) contains, according to Rieu, ‘a commentary on some difficult verses in the first part of Iskandar Nāmah’. In the subscription of the Leningrad copy the work is called Kilīd i kitāb i Sharaf-nāmah, but Dorn says (on what basis?) that the author ‘paraît avoir donné à son ouvrage le titre de kashf al-daqāʾiq …’ and states that it is a glossary of the Arabic words occurring in the Isk.N. Mss.: London Add. 10,579/i (Rieu p. 820. Dated Muḥarram 1096/1684); Leningrad Dorn D fol. 14–37 (Dated 3 Jumādā i 1176/1762). Cf. Munz. Pak. vii p. 130.
Fawāʾid (Qawāʾid, Qawāʿid) i ʿAlī-shērī by Muḥyī l-dīn b. Niẓām al-dīn, written in 956/1549–50 for Naṣīr al-dīn ʿAlī-shēr. See the description in Sprenger. Mss.: London Add. 26,243 ii (Rieu p. 859. 18th century?); Cambridge Browne Coll. Sup. 2 (Dated 1086/1675–6); Halle d.m.g. 25 (Has a seal dated 1206/1791–2. Incomplete; title not indicated in the Ms.; ‘vielleicht identisch’ with the work described by Rieu and Sprenger); Berlin Sprenger 1481 (Pertsch 734. Dated 8 Rabīʿ i 1269/1852); Lucknow Sprenger 425 (several copies); Calcutta Ivanow Curzon 202 (Dated 10 Rabīʿ ii 1082/1671). Cf. Munz. Pak. vii pp. 130–2.
A commentary beginning sipās bē qiyās wa sitāyish bē shumār mar khāliq ē rā … Ms.: Munich 188 Quatr. (Aumer 27. Dated 1139/1726–7).
Sharḥ i (abyāt i) Iskandar-nāmah by Sirāj al-dīn ʿAlī Khān, called Ārzū (d. 1169/1755–6). ‘This commentary forms the basis of the glosses to the lithographed Lucnow [sic] edition of the [first part of?] the Sikandar-námah, 1263 and 1266, 8vo. 311 pp. 23 bayts, also of the notes of Badr’alyy and Myr Hosayn in the Calcutta edition, 1812, 4to. and of the somewhat fuller commentary of the Calcutta edition of 1253, reprinted 1260 = 1844, lithographed at Bombay with three other works on the margin, 1261 folio, the commentaries are all essentially identical.’ (Sprenger). Mss.: London Or. 3513 (Rieu Suppt. no. 232. 18th century?); Berlin Sprenger 1482 (Pertsch 736); Rampore Saulat 148–150; Lucknow Sprenger 426 (two copies).

Edition: in the margins of the Bombay edition of the poem of 1277/1860.

Sharḥ i Sharaf-nāmah by Mullā Muḥammad Saʿd Allāh of Patna, written in 1196/1782. Mss.: Lucknow Sprenger 427; Extracts from the same work are apparently contained in Berlin Ms. or. oct. 70 fol. 1b–18b (Pertsch 735).
Miftāḥ al-Kunūz by Ghiyāth al-dīn [b.?] Jalāl al-dīn b. Sharaf al-dīn al-Ṣiddīqī. Ms.: Manchester Lindesiana 605 (Dated 1254/1838–9).
Commentary by Nūr Muḥammad. Ms.: Lucknow Sprenger 425.
Commentary by Pīr ʿAlī Rasūl-pūrī. Mss.: Rampore Saulat 151 (modern); Lucknow Sprenger 425.
A short commentary written by order of Jahāngīr and dated by a chronogram to 1025/1616. The author’s name is given by Bilgrami as ‘Aman Ali’, for which Storey (in the margin of Bilgrami’s catalogue) proposes ‘Amānī?’, evidently Amān Allāh Amānī Ḥusainī (for whom see pl i § 1115, third footnote.). Mss.: London i.o. Delhi 1245; a commentary with the same incipit was reported in Lucknow Sprenger 425.
Sharḥ i Sikandar-nāmah, an anonymous commentary which Ethé declares to be ‘different not only from that of the Calcutta edition, but also from all those described in Rieu […]; Pertsch […], and A. Sprenger’. It begins, without any preface, with the first verse of the poem, which is then glossed: la-mā khalaqtu l-jinn wa l-insān illā li yaʿbudū-ni. bar pād-shāhān i mamlakat i ashʿār wa jahān-dārān i wilāyat i afkār … Ms.: London i.o. 1018; i.o. 1019 (incomplete).
Sharḥ i abyāt i Iskandar-nāmah, ‘another anonymous commentary on the difficult verses of the first part of the Isk.N.’ Ms.: London i.o. 1020.
Farhang i Sikandar-nāmah i barrī. Ms. London i.o. 1021.
Kilīd i Sikandar-nāmah, ‘a similar, but shorter glossary’. Mss.: Oxford Ms. Pers. e. 11 (Ethé 1982); Calcutta Ivanow 1st Suppt. 796 (19th century? ‘Apparently the same work’).
Two copies of an anonymous commentary (the second of which is a mere fragment) are found in Berlin Ms. Or. oct. 70 fol. 19b–53b and 54–61 (Pertsch 735).
Unidentified commentaries. Ms.: Cambridge Corpus, No. 213 (Browne Suppt. 766. Dated 1246/1830–1); Bombay Univ. vii (Dated 4 Rabīʿ i 1241/1825).

Abridgments: Futūḥāṭ i Sikandarī, in prose, made by Ghulām Ḥusain (see above, ad Khusrau-Shīrīn), the first part in 1209/1794–5 and the second in 1221/1806–7. Mss.: Cambridge Add. 314 (Browne Cat. ccxvii. Part 1); Add. 315 (Browne Cat. ccxviii. Dated 9 Shawwāl 1221/1806, apparently the autograph. Part 2).

Selections from the Khamsah:

Khulāṣat i khamsah, a collection of extracts arranged under topical headings. The poem from which each quotation is taken is indicated, the first extract being from the opening section of m.a. (inc.: ai hamah hastī zi tu paidā shudah * khāk i ḍaʿīf az tu tuwānā shudah). The manuscripts evidently differ considerably from one another; most copies have 37 chapters, but some omit chapters 5 (on love) and 31 (women), perhaps out of prudery. A number of the copies also have a preface in prose (inc.: bar aṣḥāb i daulat wa arbāb i muknat wājib wa lāzim ast kih baʿd az qirāʾat i qurʾān etc.) which the editor considers spurious. The author and date of the compilation are unknown; the oldest dated copy is Istanbul Esat 2918 from 883/1479.

Mss.: Dublin Beatty 178 fol. 106–51 in marg. (16th century? In 38 chapters, presumably this work);155 Oxford Walker 44 (Ethé 599. Dated 6 Muḥarram 1152/1739. Incomplete); Ouseley Add. 106 (Ethé 597, with the preface); Bodl. 102 (Ethé 598); London i.o. 982 (=Robinson 145. Dated 982/1574–5. 1 picture); Add. 7731 (Rieu p. 575. 16th century? With the preface); Add. 19,661/i (Rieu p. 845. 16th century?); Grenville xxxviii (Rieu p. 575. 17th century?); Add. 7730 (Rieu p. 575. Dated Ṣafar 1231/1816); i.o. 2874; r.a.s. 363 (Pictures); Paris Supplément 590 (Blochet 1288. Dated 20 Ramaḍān 991/1583); Ancien fonds 354/vi (Blochet 1289/Richard. Ms. dated 26 Dhū l-qaʿdah 994/1586. 30 chapters only); Supplément 589 (Blochet 1286. 16th century?); Supplément 1406 (Blochet 1287. 16th century? End missing); Supplément 592/i (Blochet 1290. Dated 25 Rajab 1148/1735. Beginning missing); Naples Bibl. Nazionale Ms. iii. G. 41 (Piemontese 230/iii. Ms. dated Shawwāl 924/1518); Leyden Cat. ii 633; Hamburg Orient. 218 fol. 1v–68r (Brockelmann 184. Dated 967/1559–60); Berlin Sprenger 1476 (Pertsch 738. 3 copies of different recensions of the work bound together: the first undated, the second dated Jumādā ii 1087 /1676, the third 18 Rabīʿ i 22nd year of Aurangzēb /1679); Leningrad Acad. C 1863 fol. 8a–22b (Index 1174. Chap. 28–40 only); Istanbul Esat 2918 (Duda pp. 59–60. Dated 1 Dhū l-ḥijjah 883/1479); Fatih 3742 (Ritter-Reinert p. 128. Copied by Pīr Ḥusain al-Kātib. 15th century?); Üniversite fy 398 (olim Rıza Paşa 1585. Ateş 107. Copied by Murshid al-dīn Muḥammad and dated Muḥarram 916/1510); Üniversite fy 528 (Ateş 108. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 955/1548); Topkapı, Revan 884 (Karatay 483; Stchoukine lx. Copied by Muḥammad Ḥusain al-Ḥusainī in Muḥarram 982/1574. Pictures); Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi 1922/1 (olim Fatih 3743. Ritter-Reinert p. 249. 15th–16th century?); Üniversite fy 154 (Ateş 109. Copied by ʿAḍud al-Mudhahhib. 16th century?); Topkapı, Emanet Hazinesi 1654 (Karatay 482. Copied by Shāh Maḥmūd. 16th century?); Cairo Dār al-kutub 57 adab fārisī Talʿat (Ṭirāzī i p. 131. Dated 901/1495–6) [Munz.]; Tehran Daftar i Miftāḥ 298 (Munz. 29643. Dated Jumādā ii 967/1560); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 515; Shūrā i Islāmī i 102; etc.; Tashkent Acad. ii 844 (17th–18th century?); Acad. vi 4425; Dushanbe Acad. ii 403–406; Pakistan (various copies, the oldest dated 1017/1608–9, are listed in Munz. Pak. vii pp. 69–70); Calcutta Ivanow 476 (=Sprenger 423. Dated 1135/1722–3); Bankipore i 45 (Dated 1061/1651); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 1478 no. 124 149; Philadelphia Lewis Coll. 66 (Dated 982/1574–5. Presumably this epitome). Cf. Munz. iv 29640–67.

Edition: Choix de vers tirés de la Khamsa de Niẓāmī. Texte persan publié par M. Th. Houtsma, Leyden 1921.

A different version of this selection, in which are also incorporated selections from mathnawīs of Amīr Khusrau and Jāmī, is found in Berlin Petermann 486/1 (Pertsch 16. Dated 6 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1052/1643) and evidently also Leningrad Dorn cccxxiii (Dated 955/1548); Acad. C 112 fol. 1b–214a (Index 1173. Dated 1060/1650).

Apparently extensive extracts from all six poems occupy the larger portion of the anthology in New York Jackson-Yohannan 11 (Dated, according to the catalogue, 123⟨0⟩/1815, but perhaps rather 1⟨0⟩23/1614; none of the many authors excerpted in it lived past the first quarter of the 17th century. Pictures).
Unspecified epitomes: Mss.: Glasgow v.8.21 (Weir 13. ‘Kitāb al-intikhāb’); Istanbul Üniversite fy 472/11 (Ateş 110. Dated 898/1492–3); Üniversite fy 508 (Ateş 111. 16th century?).

ʿAufī ii pp. 396–7; Shams pp. 80, 145–6; Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, pp. 351–2; Mustaufī pp. 752–3; Jājarmī ii pp. 624–8 (one qaṣīdah); Daulat-shāh pp. 128–31; Rāzī ii pp. 493–501 (no. 988); Ādhar iii pp. 1327–43; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 637–54; id., Riyāḍ pp. 149–53; W. Bacher, Niẓâmî’s Leben und Werke und der zweite Teil des Niẓâmîschen Alexanderbuches. Mit persischen Texten als Anhang …, Leipzig 1871; id., Memoir of the life and writings of the Persian poet Nizami, and analysis of the second part of his Alexander-Book (translated from the preceding by S. Robinson), London 1873; J.J. Modi, ‘The date of the death of Niz̤āmī, jbbras xii, pp. 143–50; H. Ritter, Über die Bildersprache Niẓāmīs, Berlin/Leipzig 1927; Ye. E. Bertel’s, Низами. Творческий путь поэта, Moscow 1956; id., « Пизами, Монография » (an extensive biographical and critical study, published posthumously in his:) Избранные труды: Низами и Фузули, Moscow 1962, pp. 13–450; Ṣafā ii pp. 798–824; Khaiyām-pūr p. 610 (with much further literature); Colloquio sul poeta persiano Niẓāmī e la leggenda iranica di Alessandro Magno, Rome 1977 (articles on the Isk.N. by Zarrinkoob, Chelkowski, Meier, Scarcia, Safa, Bausani); A.E. Krymski, Низами и его современники, Baku 1981; B. Zanjānī, ‘Tārīkh i wilādat u wafāt i Niẓāmī i Ganjawī, Āyandah XI 12, 1363sh./1984, pp. 875–8; J.S. Meisami, ‘Allegorical gardens in the Persian poetic tradition: Nezami, Rumi, Hafez’, International journal of Middle East studies xvii, 1985, pp. 229–60; Īrān-shināsī iii/3 and iii/4, 1370sh./1991–2 (papers held at two conferences in 1991); P. Orsatti, ‘L’innamoramento di Ḫusraw e Šīrīn nel poema di Niẓāmī e il potere psicagogico della parola’, rso lxxi, supplemento 2, 1997, pp. 129–45; ei2 s.v. ‘Niẓāmī Ganjawī’ (P. Chelkowski; with further literature); EIr s.vv. ‘Eskandarnāma-yi Neẓāmī’, ‘Haft peykar’.

next chapter: Part 4


^ Back to text1. Thus ʿAufī. Rāzī calls him Abū Bakr b. al-Musāʿid al-Khusrawī, but in Hidāyat this is garbled to Shaikh Jamāl al-dīn Abū al-Mushāhid, alias Khusrawī Bukhārāʾī.

^ Back to text2. ʿAufī’s precise words are: dar daulat i Khusrau-Malik iqbāl-hā dīd wa dar awāʾil i aiyām i salṭanat i muʿizzī qabūl yāftah.

^ Back to text3. ʿAufī refers to the dedicatee of the poem as ‘sulṭān i shahīd’; the poem itself contains in a verse that is mutilated in the only Ms. available to the editor (p. 408, l. 13) the name ‘Bū l-Muẓaffar’. Hidāyat quotes a few verses from this poem (the variants are recorded in Browne’s apparatus criticus) and reads instead of the mutilated half-verse: wārith i takht i shahī Khusrau-Malik, khwarshēd i mulk, but this is perhaps merely Hidāyat’s own emendation.

^ Back to text4. Thus three times in Abū l-Rajāʾ. On p. 128: kyʾny.

^ Back to text5. Thus ʿAufī; Hidāyat has Kōhsārī.

^ Back to text6. Thus ʿAufī ii p. 174 (in the text), p. 358 (in Ms. E) and the other sources. The evidently erroneous variant Kōshkī is found in ʿAufī ii p. 174 (in the superscription) and p. 358 (in Ms. S).

^ Back to text7. Dabīr-Siyāqī’s edition, p. 309, but in some of the Mss. it is ascribed not to ‘Luʾluʾī’ but to ‘Maulawī’.

^ Back to text8. Ed. Huart vs. 294; ed. Yaghmāʾī p. 21 vs. 31.

^ Back to text9. The name Mahsatī (metrical variant: Mahastī) is discussed at length by Meier, pp. 43–57, with the plausible conclusion that it is a compound of mah, ‘moon’, and the early Indian loanword satī, ‘virtuous lady’.

^ Back to text10. London Or. 8755 fol. 22b–108a (Meredith-Owens p. 69). This will be discussed, together with other works of narrative prose, in pl iii/3.

^ Back to text11. I suspect now that Mahsatī is a fictitious personage and that all of the quatrains attributed to her and her various lovers are extracted from some early form of the novel. See the discussion in appendix iii, especially p. 380.

^ Back to text12. See Muṣaffā’s remarks in his edition of Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 217 note 5.

^ Back to text13. Thus Browne’s reading, on the basis of one of the two Mss. of ʿAufī’s book. The two Mss. of Rāzī’s Haft Iqlīm consulted by Ethéhave ‘al-Bānīrī’ or ‘b. al-Bānīrī’.

^ Back to text14. See above, § 160 (Abū ʿAlī).

^ Back to text15. For which see Doerfer ii pp. 651–2, with further literature. It does not seem possible to say whether or not this Aḥmad is identical with any of the tayangū s mentioned in the historical sources.

^ Back to text16. For which see below, no. 292.

^ Back to text17. The following notes are based almost entirely on Qazwīnī’s classic study of 1905–6, where the reader can find the verses that attest the data summarised here.

^ Back to text18. He is evidently the Saʿd i Salmān mentioned by Baihaqī (p. 501) in his account of the events of the year 427/1036.

^ Back to text19. The Zoroastrian New Year fell on 26 February in 1075 and 1076 and on 25 February in 1077, each of which would correspond to a date in Rajab. The calculations in Qazwīnī/Browne, jras 1905, pp. 714–5, which put the poem earlier, involve the false assumption that Naurōz was fixed to the vernal equinox.

^ Back to text20. The date given by ʿArūḍī, namely 472/1079–80, is much too early.

^ Back to text21. Qazwīnī has taken perhaps a too sceptical view of the alleged Indian dīwān. He points to various passages where Masʿūd parades his proficiency in Arabic and Persian but says nothing of ‘Indian’. ‘It would be absurd’, Qazwīnī writes, ‘for anyone to boast of knowing two languages while concealing the fact that he was acquainted with a third.’ But this argument overlooks the fact that in Ghaznavid India Arabic and Persian were prestige languages, while the native tongues were not. It would seem most likely that Masʿūd, as the scion of a family long established—as he himself states—in Lahore, did know the local language and it is thus not impossible that he might have composed the odd poem in it.

^ Back to text22. The distinguished Pakistani scholar did not, of course, really have access to an 11th-century manuscript of Masʿūd’s poems; here ‘codex’ means ‘text’.

^ Back to text23. Above, § 105.

^ Back to text24. J.T.P. de Bruijn, who has studied the two mathnawīs, tells me that he thinks the dedicatee of the Nasīm al-ṣabā is Anwarī’s patron Majd al-dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ʿImrānī, for whom see above p. 203; Mudarris’s edition of Anwarī’s dīwān ii pp. 76–7; Nafīsī’s edition of the same dīwān pp. xliv–xlv.

^ Back to text25. See below, no. 298.

^ Back to text26. Fol. 96a.

^ Back to text27. See O. Pritsak, Der Islam xxxi, 1953–4, p. 52.

^ Back to text28. Cf. Pritsak, op. cit. p. 54 and (specifically for his laqab) Ateş’s Turkish introduction to Ẓahīrī, pp. 65–70.

^ Back to text29. The kunyah is mentioned only by Ibn al-Fuwaṭī.

^ Back to text30. His father’s name is given thus by ʿAufī and Ibn al-Fuwaṭī. The published text of Ibn al-Athīr has ‘al-Ḥasan’, presumably a scribal error.

^ Back to text31. xii pp. 160–1. The same author, xii p. 101, mentions ‘al-Fakhr Mubārak-Shāh’ in connection with Ghiyāth al-dīn’s conversion to the Shāfiʿī madhhab, but I suspect that here the author has confused our Mubārak-shāh with Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī.

^ Back to text32. The same date is given by Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, who claims that Naṣīr al-dīn Ṭūsī ‘told me’ it, but given the fact that Ibn al-Fuwaṭī’s whole entry agrees more or less literally with Ibn al-Athīr the claim has to be taken with a grain of salt.

^ Back to text33. In Ibn al-Fuwaṭī wrongly ‘Maḥmūd’.

^ Back to text34. For this work, which has since been published (see our bibliography), cf. pl i § 468, first paragraph, where ‘1648’ is an error for ‘1468’.

^ Back to text35. With variants in the Mss. Khwānd-mīr and Ḥājjī Khalīfah both quote the title in the Arabic form al-Madkhal al-manẓūm fī baḥr al-nujūm.

^ Back to text36. See pl ii § 91, work (4). The work is also contained (but not attributed to any author) in an old anthology in Tehran from which it was published, with variants from four other Mss., in Yaghmāʾī pp. 15–32. One of these copies (Yaghmāʾī’s mīm-dāl) contains a dedication to a certain Jalāl al-dīn bar (read: Bū) Maḥāmid Muḥammad i Aḥmad and concludes with verses giving the date of composition as 1 Jumādā ii 616/1219. (Cf. Calcutta, Ivanow Curzon 645, where the name of the patron is garbled and the date altered to 816). The same date (616) is found also in a manuscript of a work with the same title (presumably the same poem) in Isfahan, Kitāb-khānah i Riḍawīyah i Madrasah i Ṣadr (see Nuskhah-hā v p. 313, no. 22/i) ascribed there to ‘Fakhr al-dīn Mubārak-shāh Ghaznawī Bukhārī (sic)’. If this date is correct the poem cannot be the work of Mubārak-shāh (who died 14 years earlier). See further S. Nafīsī, ‘Ashʿār i fārsī i Khwājah’, in Yād-nāmah i Khwājah Naşīr al-dīn i Ṭūsī i, Tehran 1336sh./1957, pp. 34–44, where Ṭūsī’s authorship is upheld.

^ Back to text37. For whom see also ei2 Suppt. s.v. ‘Fakhr-i Mudabbir’ (C.E. Bosworth).

^ Back to text38. Qawwās flourished under ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Khaljī, at the end of the 7th/13th or the beginning of 8th/14th century; cf. pl iii § 2.

^ Back to text39. His laqab is quoted thus by Sanāʾī in his Kār-nāmah; ʿAufī gives it as Jamāl al-dīn.

^ Back to text40. See above p. 202 n. 121, where the possibility of reconciling the two traditions is discussed. Qazwīnī accepted that the two were brothers, but Mudarris i Riḍawī (in his introduction to Saiyid Ḥasan’s dīwān) and Gh. M. Khan (in Islamic Culture xxiii, 1949, pp. 220–1) both claimed, apparently independently, that Saiyid Muḥammad was the brother of a different Saiyid Ḥasan (namely the one whose death is lamented in the dīwān of Masūd i Saʿd, ed. Yāsimī, pp. 62–3; the name of this Saiyid’s father is, however, not indicated in the poem) and that ʿAufī consequently confused the two Ḥasans.

^ Back to text41. Thus ʿAufī.

^ Back to text42. See above, § 49.

^ Back to text43. See Sanāʾī’s dīwān, ed. Mudarris i Riḍawī, p. 1051, 1057.

^ Back to text44. Dīwān pp. 575–7. The discrepancy was noted by Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 571, Hādī Ḥasan, Falakī-i Shirwānī p. 96 and in Iqbāl’s introduction to Muʿizzī’s dīwān, pp. ix–x. Iqbāl discusses in this context also another poem (dīwān pp. 378–9) addressed to Qiwām al-mulk Muḥammad b. Fakhr al-mulk, who was wazīr from 500/1106 to 511/1118, but the ‘arrow’ mentioned in this poem is evidently to be understood metaphorically. Thus one cannot accept the very early date which Iqbāl assigns to Muʿizzī’s accident.

^ Back to text45. This is the famous India Office ‘Six dīwāns’, containing a selection of poems by (1) Muʿizzī, (2) Athīr Akhsīkatī, (3) Adīb Ṣābir, (4) Qamar Iṣfahānī, (5) Shams Ṭabasī and (6) Nāṣir i Khusrau, of which nos. 3, 5 and 6 are signed and dated. For the miniatures see Robinson 1–53. The first picture illustrates ʿArūḍī’s story of Muʿizzīs first meeting with Malik-shāh (but the king is identified in the accompanying text as Sanjar). Most of the other pictures show a poet (with turban and more or less pronounced Persian physiognomy) in the presence of a king and his courtiers (usually Mongol in features, dress and hairstyle). According to Robinson the poet is in each case ‘presenting or reading a scroll of verse’ to the ruler, but this is hardly correct. For one thing, Persians do not write their poems on scrolls, but in codices, and for another, what is depicted is clearly not a scroll but a rolled-up piece of fabric. It seems to me that what the pictures show is the receipt by the poet of a ‘robe of honour’ (khilʿah) as a reward for his panegyrics, a situation very well known to readers of Persian and Arabic texts. The Ms. now in the India Office was at one time in the possession of the Safavid royal family and has in many places the seal of one Ismāʿīl (certainly not Ismāʿīl i, probably Ismāʿīl iii, according to A.H. Morton). There is in Mashhad (Riḍawī vii 965) a Ms. containing the same six dīwāns, plus those of two poets from the 13th century (Rukn al-dīn Daʿwā-dār and Farīd i Aḥwāl, both to be discussed in pl vi) copied by Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar Iṣfahānī with dates between 1039/1629–30 and 1041/1631–2; it seems likely that the Mashhad Ms. was copied (or excerpted) from the one now in the India Office (see also Bīnish’s introduction to his edition of the dīwān of Shams Ṭabasī, pp. xlvi–xlvii).

^ Back to text46. See previous footnote.

^ Back to text47. For these interpolated quotations see above, p. 13.

^ Back to text48. There is an ode praising Khāqānī in Mujīr’s dīwan, ed. Ābadī, pp. 20–2, and a qiṭʿah attacking him on p. 302; see also p. 393.

^ Back to text49. See C. Cahen and V. Minorsky, ‘Le recueil transcaucasien de Masʿūd b. Nāmdār (début du VIe/XIIe siècle)’, ja ccxxxvii, 1949, pp. 93–142.

^ Back to text50. Dīwān pp. 87–9, 112–6.

^ Back to text51. See above, p. 146 n. 12.

^ Back to text52. Rieu says that Mujīr wrote an elegy on the death of Qızıl Arslān (and consequently outlived him), referring to ‘fol. 27’ of the London Ms. There are indeed some elegiac verses on fol. 27b of that copy, but they are in fact a short extract from the poem on pp. 43–8 of Ābādī’s edition. When the verses are read in context it becomes clear that Mujīr is in fact consoling Qızıl Arslān on the demise of his father. Daulat-shāh says that Mujīr adressed poems to Ēldügüz, but this too I have been unable to confirm.

^ Back to text53. The poem quoted by ʿAufī in this context is in the dīwān, pp. 295–6.

^ Back to text54. Apud Sprenger p. 16 no. 28.

^ Back to text55. E.g. the 17th-century commentary by Ghanāʾī (see above p. 243), whose gloss is reproduced in F. Spiegel, Chrestomathia Persica, Leipzig 1846, pp. 100–1.

^ Back to text56. P. 396.

^ Back to text57. The poem is in Dastgirdī’s uncritical edition of Jamāl’s dīwān, pp. 400–1, but this proves nothing.

^ Back to text58. Ābādī’s introduction deals extensively with stylistic and linguistic features of the poems but has next to nothing to say about the poet’s life.

^ Back to text59. See above, p. 247 fn. (Khāqānī).

^ Back to text60. Thus ʿArūḍī, and Mukhtārī himself, dīwān, ed. Humāʾī, p. 247. Rāzī, and others after him, call him Ḥakīm ʿUthmān b. Muḥammad al-Mukhtārī. Taqī (quoted by Humāʾī, Mukhtārī-nāmah p. 111) calls him Ḥakīm Sirāj al-dīn Abū l-Majd ʿUthmān Mukhtārī, while Humāʾī (op. cit. pp. 133–7) ascribes to him (with unconvincing arguments) the kunyah Abū ʿUmar or Abū ʿAmr and proposes that his father was likewise named ʿUmar.

^ Back to text61. Dīwān pp. 43–7, 76–7, 105–14, 541–63, 474–5, 521–4; in the last ‘Bōyī’ rhymes with nikōʾī etc.

^ Back to text62. Pp. 541–57.

^ Back to text63. The other two are the celebrated amīr al-umarāʾ ʿAḍud al-daulah Fanā-khusrau (338/949 to 372/983) and the ruler of Rai, Fanā-khusrau b. Majd al-daulah Rustam (succeeded his father in 420/1029).

^ Back to text64. See H. Bowen, ‘The last Buwayhids’, jras 1929 pp. 225–45, especially pp. 242–5.

^ Back to text65. P. 108 l. 1.

^ Back to text66. Dīwān pp. 82–5 and 500–1. The latter poem, consisting of six verses, is quoted in extenso, but anonymously, in Naṣr Allāh’s translation of Kalīlah wa Dimnah (ed. Mīnuwī p. 306) as well as by Ibn al-Mujāwir, Taʾrīkh al-mustabṣir (ed. Löfgren, Leyden 1951–4, p. 178), where it is attributed (at least in the available Mss.) to ‘al-Ḥakīm Faḍl Allāh al-Ghaznawī’; this is apparently a scribal error for ‘… Naṣr Allāh …’, whom Ibn al-Mujāwir evidently mistook for the author of the verses.

^ Back to text67. Dīwān p. 79 l. 3.

^ Back to text68. Pp. 472–3.

^ Back to text69. The poem speaks of the coincidence of the first day of Dai with the first of Ramaḍān. Humāʾī (Mukhtārī-nāmah pp. 98–101) pointed out that 1 Dai of the Zoroastrian calendar corresponded approximately to 1 Ramaḍān in 514/1120 and 515/1121, but elsewhere (op. cit., pp. 301–2) he rejected this date, as it is in contradiction with the date he had adduced from the above-cited verse on p. 79. The first of Dai has, however, no particular importance in the Zoroastrian calendar so that it would seem rather pointless for the poet to draw attention to its coincidence with the beginning of the Muslim fast. I think it thus more likely that Mukhtārī is referring here to the Jalālī calendar, in which Dai is the first of the three winter months. 1 Ramaḍān 513 corresponds (roughly, i.e. according to the tables) to 6 December 1119; in that year 1 Dai.

^ Back to text70. Mukhtārī-nāmah p. 317, with references also to other tadhkirahs. Sprenger, p. 16 no. 15, quotes only the later date.

^ Back to text71. Above, p. 36 n. 79. I should like to add now that the poem dedicated to Abū l-Mulūk Arslān-Shāh ascribed to Azraqī in Nafīsī’s edition of his dīwān (where it is no. 25; see above, p. 35)—but not in the London Ms.—is in fact by Mukhtārī (see his dīwān, pp. 85–90); pseudo-Azraqī/Nafīsī no. 23 (likewise missing in the section of Or. 3712 devoted to Azraqī) is also by Mukhtārī (see his dīwān, pp. 157–9).

^ Back to text72. Thus Rieu Suppt. p. 142, beginning of first column, and Humāʾī p. 12 of his edition. Rieu Suppt. p. 143, end of the first column, misquotes the date as ‘693’. As noted above, p. 36 n. 79, Humāʾī gives this Ms.—his ‘ṣād’—the wrong call-number.

^ Back to text73. See above, p. 49.

^ Back to text74. ʿAufī mentions Mukhtārī in passing in connection with Aḥmad b. Muḥammad (above § 165). His actual entry on Mukhtārī has dropped out of the Mss. used by Browne, but it is quoted explicitly by Rāzī.

^ Back to text75. Thus ʿAufī in both passages in which he is mentioned. Rāzī, who is evidently entirely dependent on ʿAufī, omits ‘Najjārī’ and includes this poet in his chapter on Bukhārā; i.e. he read ‘Najjārī’ as ‘Bukhārī’.

^ Back to text76. See above, § 173.

^ Back to text77. ʿArūḍī p. 28, 46 (and Qazwīnī’s notes, p. 152). For an earlier Najjār see above, § 120.

^ Back to text78. The Mirqāṭ discussed there has been published (ed. Sajjādī, Tehran 13426sh./1967). It is my intention to return to these works in the planned final fascicule of pl iii.

^ Back to text79. The same name—and presumably the same poem—is recorded also in the anonymous Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 192b). This anthology (which I have not seen myself) evidently shares quite a bit of its material with Jājarmī. The most recent poet quoted therein appears to be Jājarmī’s father, Badr al-dīn.

^ Back to text80. As the poet tells us, in his Lailē-Majnūn, Moscow edition, p. 77 (ix 46). In the same poem, p. 87 (xii 9), he says: gar shud pidar-am ba sunnat (var.: nisbat) i jad * Yūsuf pisar i Zakī Muʾaiyad, but it is not entirely clear to me whether this means that Yūsuf was the name of his father or rather of his grandfather. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī (and others after him) gives his kunyah as Abū Muḥammad. Daulat-shāh and his successors call him Niẓām al-dīn Abū Muḥammad b. Yūsuf b. Muʾaiyad Muṭarrizī; for the names given on his (supposed) tomb see below, p. 279.

^ Back to text81. Chu dur gar-chih dar baḥr i Ganjah gum am * walē az quhistān i shahr i Qum am. The verse is quoted by Ādhar (who says that Niẓāmī’s father came from Tafrish, near Qum) and also quoted (and rejected) in a footnote in Dastgirdī’s edition of the second part of the Iskandar-nāmah, p. 29. The corresponding section in the Baku edition (p. 19) has no trace of the verse, from which one must conclude that it is not found in any of the manuscripts on which that edition is based.

^ Back to text82. Moscow edition p. 72 (ix 4).

^ Back to text83. Zambaur p. 145.

^ Back to text84. See the Baku edition, p. 26 (x 17). The i.o. Ms. (fol. 4a, followed by Bland’s edition; see below p. 301) has: ‘550 are (too) many days of slumber’ (pānṣad u panjāh bas aiyām i khwāb), but the Baku apparatus quotes the variants ‘570’ (pānṣad u haftād) or ‘580’ (pānṣad u hashtād); the reading adopted by the editor (evidently from the Paris Ms.) is panjah nah (or nuh?) bas aiyām i khwāb, but this does not seem to make any sense, nor can I scan it. The dates implied by the three first-mentioned variants are 561, 581 and 591, only the first of which seems possible; the last would put this poem later than Lailē-Majnūn (composed in 584/1188), the second would leave only one year for the composition of Khusrau-Shīrīn (which was at least begun before 582/1186).

^ Back to text85. See the apparatus in the Baku edition, pp. 248–9, and Rieu p. 565. None of the Mss. used in preparing the Baku edition have these verses in the first hand (in ‘t’ they were added by a second hand; ‘r’ is Dastgirdī’s printed edition). In any event, the verses do not speak expressly of the composition, but only of the ‘writing’ of the poem. I think it possible that they go back to an early rhymed colophon recording the copying of the poem in 582 and that the earlier dates in some Mss. represent attempts by subsequent copyists to ‘emend’ the supposed date of composition.

^ Back to text86. For the title, see presently.

^ Back to text87. These are the dates recorded in the Baku edition, p. 773 l. 55 and apparatus. The catalogues mention others as well.

^ Back to text88. Begins on p. 783 of the Baku edition.

^ Back to text89. Moscow edition p. 44 l. 43–4. The forms quoted for the two titles, which are assured by the metre, are copulative compounds (dvandvas); see, with further examples of Persian book titles of this sort, de Blois, Burzōy pp. 96–7.

^ Back to text90. See the Moscow edition p. 49 (v 94–5) where the date is given (without significant variants) in the first verse in letters (thai wa fai dāl), in the second in words (hashtād u chahār baʿd pānṣad).

^ Back to text91. See the Prague edition p. 18 (v 12). The text has ‘shāh Kurp-Arsalān’ (the vocalisation given by the editors is wrong), presumably an elided form, or poetic licence, for *Körpe-Arslān, ‘late-born lion’. Ibn al-Fuwaṭī refers to this ruler as ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Arslān b. krbh b. Nuṣrat al-dīn Abah Arslān b. atābeg Qara-Sunqur, which is garbled (the first ‘ibn’ is certainly wrong). al-Nasawī calls him ʿAlāʾ al-dīn krʾbh (unpointed). He died, according to Ibn al-Athīr (who gives the year) and Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (year and month) in Dhū l-qaʿdah 604/1208. See Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh, ed. Tornberg, xii p. 182; Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, al-Juzʾ al-rābiʿ min talkhīṣ majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, ed. M. Jawād, Damascus 1962–7, no. 1598; Shihāb al-dīn al-Nasawī, Sīrat al-sulṭān Jalāl al-dīn Meng-burnī, ed. Houdas, Paris 1891, p. 129; Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā vi pp. 45–6; ei2 s.v. ‘Marāgha’ (V. Minorsky); EIr. s.v. ‘Atābakān-e Marāḡa’ (K.A. Luther).

^ Back to text92. Prague edition p. 302 (lui 63–4).

^ Back to text93. The apparatus in the Prague and Moscow editions indicates a number of different variants, but the intended date seems to be thā u ṣād u ḥē. I am preparing an article on this question and, in general, on the two recensions of h.p. and limit myself for the moment to saying that the testimony of the manuscripts of the ‘a’ recension has no authority in this matter.

^ Back to text94. The title Sharaf-nāmah is mentioned by the poet himself in Isk.N. i (Baku edition) p. 39 (viii 124), and the name Iqbāl(-nāmah) is alluded to in Isk.N. ii p. 225 (xli 41). But it is not clear from either passage that these names refer specifically to the first and second parts, rather than to the Isk.N. as a whole.

^ Back to text95. P. 43 (ix 49–51).

^ Back to text96. In some Mss. h.p. actually comes at the end (after Isk.N. i and ii), as it evidently did in the copies known to Amīr Khusrau, who completed his own Khamsah in 701/1301–2 (before the date of any of the surviving Mss. of Niẓāmī’s Khamsah). The order of Khusrau’s five poems (clearly indicated by the author at various points in the text) is (1) Maṭlaʿ al-anwār, (2) Shīrīn-Khusrau, (3) Majnūn-Lailē, (4) Āʾinah i Sikan-darī, (5) Hasht bihisht.

^ Back to text97. Baku edition p. 46 (x 11).

^ Back to text98. P. 46 (x 12). As the apparatus informs us, this verse is missing in some copies.

^ Back to text99. There is a fairly large corpus of coins of ‘Malik al-umarāʾ Bēshkīn b. Muḥammad’ naming also the atabeg Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad and the caliph al-Nāṣir li dīn Allāh, some with the mint-name Ahar and the date 594/1197–8. Coins of ‘Nuṣrat al-dīn Maḥmūd b. Bēshkīn b. Muḥammad’ (i.e. his son) bear dates from 610/1213–4 up to 623/1226. The name Bēshkīn (‘whose hatred is more’) is confirmed by Niẓāmī’s pun and by the Armenian spelling Bēšk‘ēn; the Muslim literary sources have also byštkyn. ‘Amīr sipāh-sālār i ajall i kabīr Nuṣrat al-dīn byškyn’ is mentioned in a letter from the atabeg Muḥammad b. Ēldügüz dated 20 Muḥarram 578/1182 preserved in al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil. Ibn al-Fuwaṭī speaks of a battle near Tabriz in 605/1208–9 between Nuṣrat al-dīn byškyn and ʿIzz al-dīn Arslān Abah, the (otherwise unknown) ruler of Marāghah (evidently a relative of the dedicatee of h.p.), in which the latter was killed; elsewhere the same author quotes the Taʾrīkh Bēshkīn by a certain al-qāḍī Afdal al-dīn. Bēshkīn’s laqab Nuṣrat al-dīn is consequently well attested in the historical sources and it occurs also in poems of Ẓahīr Fāryābī (see below § 311). His son is mentioned repeatedly in Nasawī’s biography of the Khwārazm-shāh Jalāl al-dīn Meng-burnī, though both in the Arabic original and in the Persian translation his name is cited consistently as Nuṣrat al-dīn Muḥammad (sic) b. byštkyn (sic). Thus Niẓāmī’s patron is attested as an amīr from 578/1182 and as a malik from 594/1197–8 onwards. He died at some time between 605/1208–9 and 610/1213–4. There is no support in any source for the claim that the atabeg Abū Bakr used the name Bēshkīn. References: Shihāb al-dīn al-Nasawī, Sīrat al-sulṭān Jalāl al-dīn Meng-burnī, ed. Houdas, Paris 1891, passim; the anonymous Persian translation of the same, ed. M. Mīnuwī, Tehran 1344sh./1965, passim, and the editor’s notes pp. 295–6, 407–8; Yāqūt, Buldān i p. 409; al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil, ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran, pp. 140–1; Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, al-Juzʾ al-rābiʿ min talkhīṣ majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, ed. M. Jawād, Damascus 1962–7, no. 18, 1598; V. Minorsky, ‘Caucasica II’, bsoas xiii/4, 1951, pp. 868–77; D.K. Kouymjian, A numismatic history of Southeastern Caucasia and Adharhayjān based on Islamic coinage of the 5th/11th to the 7th/13th centuries (Microfilm), Ann Arbor 1969, pp. 369–409.—I am very grateful to A.H. Morton who set me on the path to the correct identification of Niẓāmī’s patron and who supplied me with practically all of these references. I see now that the great Persian scholar M. Qazwīnī already suggested this identification (if tentatively) in his posthumously published Yād-dāsht-hā iv p. 73.

^ Back to text100. P. 500 (lxi 4), though in at least one copy (London Or. 2834) Nuṣrat al-dīn is replaced by ʿIzz al-dīn.

^ Back to text101. Baku edition p. 19 (vi 10); thus in all the manuscripts consulted by the editors. The edition by Waḥīd Dastgirdī (cited in the Baku apparatus as ‘W’) has malik ʿIzz i dīn’, but this is evidently a wild conjecture by the Persian editor.

^ Back to text102. P. 20 (vi 27–8).

^ Back to text103. See Ibn al-Athīr xii p. 72, 113. The first of these only is mentioned in N.N. Ambraseys and C.P. Melville, A history of Persian earthquakes, Cambridge (etc.) 1982, p. 42.

^ Back to text104. In these Mss. Isk.N. ii chap. vi is replaced by Isk.N. i chap. xxi with the following alterations: x 10 is replaced by Isk.N. ii vi 11 (the verse mentioning Mosul); x 11–12 are replaced by the five verses printed in the apparatus to Isk.N. ii p. 19; after xi 5 the Mss. consulted by me all insert the verse quoted in the apparatus (mentioning Alp Arslān).

^ Back to text105. Pp. 221–2.

^ Back to text106. Pp. 222, l. 5.

^ Back to text107. See the apparatus in the Baku edition and Rieu, p. 570a.

^ Back to text108. P. 230, l. 62.

^ Back to text109. Ye. E. Bertel’s, Низами Творческий путь поэта, Moscow 1956, p. 243. Bertel’s refers to the publication of the inscription by A.A. Aleskerzade in the volume Архитектура Азербайджана. Эпоха Низами edited by S.A. Dadashev and M.A. Useynov, Moscow/Baku 1947, p. 280, which I have not been able to find. See also the review by M. D’yakonov, Вопросы Истории, 1948/ix, pp. 119–22, according to whom the book in question also includes a publication of Khāqānī’s grave inscription, with the date 595/1198–9.

^ Back to text110. Moscow edition p. 39 (v 2).

^ Back to text111. According to the description in Mīkrūfīlm-hā this majmūʿah was copied by Maḥmūd b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Tabrīzī Sirāj and contains three colophons with a date in Shawwāl 730; this year is mentioned also by Ritter (Der Islam xxi, 1933, p. 96; xxii, 1934, p. 104, etc.). However, the Ms. contains towards the end the dīwān of Nāṣir Bukhārāʾī, who was still alive in 767/1365–6 (see below, chap. iv) and is thus unlikely to have completed his dīwān more than 30 years earlier. It remains thus to be examined whether Nāṣir’s dīwān is a later addition to the Ms., or whether the date ‘730’ (assuming that is written out in Arabic) cannot be read as ‘930’.

^ Back to text112. The Strasbourg Ms. listed by Munzawī is not of the dīwān but of the Khamsah and can be found below in its proper place.

^ Back to text113. A copy of one (or both?) of the parts of the Iskandar-nāmah, supposedly dated 631/1234, has been reported in a private collection in Tehran (see below, p. 297), but this needs to be checked before any conclusions can be drawn.

^ Back to text114. This copy contains also the two mathnawīs by Muʾaiyad al-Nasafī (see above, § 242) and the three authentic mathnawīs of Sanāʾī (below, pp. 3303). It is evidently the basis for Bland’s edition of m.a. (see below, p. 301).

^ Back to text115. The dates found in Khamsah Mss. from before the year 800 of the hijrah are: 712/1312–3 (Tehran, incomplete); 718/1318 (Tehran, incomplete); 763/1362 (Paris); 765/1363–4 (Berlin, Lahore); 767/1365–6 (Oxford, Paris); 773/1371–2 (Arak); 776/1374–5 (Istanbul); 778/1376–7 (Leningrad); 786/1384 (Paris); 788/1386 (Tehran); 790/1388 (London); 791/1389 (Cambridge, incomplete); 793/1391 (Tehran); 794/1392 (Istanbul). Details of all of these Mss. are given below.

^ Back to text116. I have reexamined the question of the two recensions of h.p., with conclusions slightly different from Ritter’s, in the article announced above, p. 441, fn.

^ Back to text117. More recently, copiously annotated new editions of some (or all?) of the poems have been published by B. Tharwatiyān; I have seen only his Kh.Sh. and his Isk.N. i (Sharaf-nāmah), but editions of m.a. and l.m. are mentioned in the publisher’s advertisement accompanying the latter. The text in the two volumes that have been seen is largely identical with that of the Baku editions and Tharwatiyān reproduces (it seems faithfully) the Baku critical apparatus, but he also adds further variants from two Mss. (one Ms. in each volume) in Tabriz, one of them dated 754/1353 (see below, p. 297 fn.). I have not seen Zanjānī’s editions of l.m. and h.p.

^ Back to text118. Dastgirdī’s drastically truncated version of l.m. is an extreme example of his method.

^ Back to text119. Compare Munz. iv 27352–493 (‘Iskandar-nāmah’, 28033–253 (‘Panj ganj’); 29504–620 (‘Khusrau u Shīrīn’); 33682–819 (‘Lailī u Majnūn’); 34730–869 (‘Makhzan al-asrār’); 36498–36603 (‘Haft paikar’); Munz. Pak. vii pp. 65–130. Our list is intended mainly to complement those compiled by Munzawī, rather than to reproduce them. See also Fozila Sulaimonova, Низомий « Хамса »сига Ишланган Расмлар, Tashkent 1985 (in Uzbek, Russian and ‘English’; descriptions of and illustrations from 22 Mss. in various collections, some not otherwise catalogued).

^ Back to text120. Cf. Paris Supplément 1817.

^ Back to text121. Cf. A.F.L. Beeston, ‘The Atkinson Lailâ Majnûn’, Bodleian Library Record iv, pp. 63–6.

^ Back to text122. I learn from C. Melville that the Eton manuscripts are now kept in the University Library at Cambridge.

^ Back to text123. Apart from the catalogues listed above, in the chapter Manuscript Collections, see also N.M. Titley, Miniatures from Persian manuscriptsin the British Library and the British Museum, London 1977 (quoted as ‘Titley’). The book also contains descriptions of a number of detached miniatures (not included here).

^ Back to text124. m.a., Kh.Sh. and h.p. are all followed by colophons with dates in 788, with the name of the scribe effaced in all three (… Maḥmūd b. Maḥmūd … is legible in the last); l.m. is dated 790; Isk.N. i is undated; Isk.N. ii is missing.

^ Back to text125. Or. 13529 is a fragment of a beautiful old Ms. of Isk.N. i (called in the superscription to the epilogue ʿjild i auwal az Sharaf-nāmah i Iskandarī’), interspersed with new pages (now separated) in shikastah script.

^ Back to text126. The Mss. in the Khalili collection (which also contains a number of loose leaves, not listed here) are being catalogued by the present author.

^ Back to text127. The pictures are described and reproduced in The poems of Nizami described by Laurence Binyon, London 1928.

^ Back to text128. The miniatures in Or. 12208 are reproduced and discussed in B. Brend, The Emperor Akbar’s Khamsa of Nizāmī, London 1995.

^ Back to text129. Cf. Oxford Ouseley 274–275.

^ Back to text130. The hijrī and Christian years are quoted thus in Piemontese’s description; in the older catalogue Pizzi had read the date as ‘793’. Piemontese quotes the colophon as saying sanat thalāth wa sabʿ-miʾah, but this is evidently a misprint.

^ Back to text131. For whom see Robinson, Paintings p. 48.

^ Back to text132. For the pictures see K. Ådahl, A Khamsa of Nizami of 1439, Uppsala 1981.

^ Back to text133. See below, p. 373 fn.

^ Back to text134. Besides the sources listed above, in the General Bibliography, see also I. Stchoukine, Les peintures des manuscrits de la « Khamseh » de Niẓâmî au Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi d’Istanbul, Paris 1977 (quoted as ‘Stchoukine’).

^ Back to text135. See above p. 279 (dīwān).

^ Back to text136. This is the oldest recorded dated Ms. of the Khamsah in Istanbul. For Hazine 750, supposedly copied in 779, see below s.a. 979.

^ Back to text137. Thus Ritter in the introduction to his edition of Haft paikar, p. viii, with the remark that the last digit of ‘794’ is ‘unsicher’. Ritter gives the name of the scribe as Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusain b. Sānā and identifies him with the son of the copyist of the 14th-century Oxford and Paris Mss., Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusain b. Sānah (note the different spelling). Karatay, however, gives the date of the Ms. as Jumādā i 990/1582 and the scribe’s name as M. b. A. b. al-Ḥ. Sāsān.

^ Back to text138. Stchoukine gives the call-numbers as ‘H. 724’.

^ Back to text139. Thus Stchoukine. Karatay has ‘Rabīʿ i 796 (1491)’ but this is clearly an error for 896/1491.

^ Back to text140. Stchoukine: ‘H. 784’.

^ Back to text141. Stchoukine: ‘H. 479’.

^ Back to text142. Stchoukine: ‘H. 757’.

^ Back to text143. Ostensibly copied by Sulṭān ʿAlī Mashhadī, illuminated by Maulānā Yār in 916/1510–1 and illustrated by Bihzād in 918/1512–3, but Stchoukine says that the colophon is a fake and that the Ms. was produced in Istanbul, ca. 1560.

^ Back to text144. Stchoukine says that this Ms. contains Niẓāmī’s h.p. Karatay says it is the ‘Iqbāl-nāmah’, but the incipit which he quotes (ai jahān-āfrīn, khudāy i jahān * ṣāniʿ u mubdiʿ i makān u zamān) belongs to none of Niẓāmī’s poems, though it is in the metre of h.p.

^ Back to text145. The supposedly old Ms. Tabriz Millī 405 was consulted by Tharwatiyān for his edition of Kh.Sh. (see above p. 281 fn.). He remarks (p. 64 of the introduction) that it is much ‘altered’ and definitely inferior to the old Paris and Oxford Mss. Tabriz Millī 45 was used by the same scholar in his edition of Isk.N. i, where we are told that it contains h.p. and Isk.N. i–ii, is signed by Ismāʿīl Maḥmūd and was completed in Rabīʿ ii 754/1353.

^ Back to text146. Univ. 5179, containing l.m., h.p. and Isk.N. i–ii (these called ‘Iskandar-nāmah’ and ‘Sharaf-nāmah’ respectively), is now available in a facsimile edition (with introductions by J. Shīrāziyān and M. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1368sh./1989). The quality of the photography is poor and the text is consequently not easy to read. The folios have evidently been rearranged for the facsimile; the pages of each poem are numbered separately, with no foliation visible on the photographs, and the miniatures, which can hardly be called masterpieces, have been photographed separately and pasted into the book. The date 718 (1318) occurs in figures at the end of h.p. and written out in Arabic (but not very clear in the facsimile) at the end of Isk.N. i. The last two pages seem to be in a different hand from the rest.

^ Back to text147. This is given in a number of late copies as the date of composition and has doubtless been misunderstood by Munzawī’s informant.

^ Back to text148. See G.D. Lowry, M.C. Beach et al., An annotated and illustrated checklist of the Vever Collection (now in the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution), Washington (etc.) 1988.

^ Back to text149. Jackson-Yohannan 8 is evidently (though this is for some reason not explicitly mentioned in the volume) the manuscript some of whose miniatures are reproduced in P.J. Chelkowski, Mirror of the invisible world. Tales from the Khamseh of Nizami, New York 1975, with a prose summary of Kh.Sh., l.m. and h.p. only.

^ Back to text150. The identity of this manuscript is not revealed (Bland’s second volume, which was to have contained the variants and commentary, was never published), but I have no doubt that the edition is based on London i.o. 989, i.e. the oldest recorded copy. The edition appears to agree throughout with the text of the i.o. Ms., though not with the superscriptions (which are askew in the Ms.), but Bland has modernised the orthography and filled a few lacunae towards the end. This edition was used (though not given sufficient weight) by the editor of the Baku edition, but otherwise seems to have attracted little attention. When I consulted the British Library’s copy in 1994 the pages were still uncut.

^ Back to text151. See the discussion by N. Aḥmad, Indo-Iranica (Calcutta) xix/3, 1966, pp. 25–8.

^ Back to text152. ‘Shaikh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī b. Ḥasan b. Ṭāhir Jaunpūrī, a Chistī shaikh, born at Jaunpūr in 898/1492–3, was taken to Delhi at the age of one and a half years by his father, a well-known sufi. Among his works was a Risālah i ʿainīyah. ʿAbd al-Qādir Badāʾūnī was one of his pupils. He died on 6 Jumādā ii 976/1567.’ (Sto.)

^ Back to text153. I have seen only the Indian reprint. It is claimed there that this is a translation from the Persian, but its dependence on the book by Mattin and Hill, though unacknowledged, is manifest.

^ Back to text154. Ritter, in his introduction to the Prague edition, calls the Haft paikar ‘das beste und schönste romantische Epos der neupersischen Dichtung und zugleich … eine der bedeutendsten poetischen Schöpfungen der morgenländischen indogermanischen Literatur überhaupt’.

^ Back to text155. Arberry gives the title as ‘Khulāṣah i Jamshīd’, but I wonder whether the last word is not a misreading of ‘khamsah’?

Cite this page
“3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 3”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 08 December 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲