Storey Online

3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 4
(21,300 words)

In Volume 5: Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period

previous chapter: Part 3

§ 259. Parwēz Khātūn (which Dih-khudā emends to the female name Parwīn Khātūn) is credited with three verses in lf ed. Iqbāl pp. 505–6 (Ms. nūn in marg.)

ln s.v. ‘Parwīn Khātūn’.

§ 260. One verse is ascribed to Pisar i Rāmī in two different entries in lf ed. Iqbāl p. 18, 303 (Ms. nūn in marg.).

§ 261. Qāḍī Sharwānī is cited as the author of a total of eleven verses in Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, pp. 153, 155, 165, 173–4, all referring to events during the reigns of the Seljuqs Malik-shāh iii (547/1152 to 548/1153) and his successor Muḥammad ii.

§ 262. Malik al-shuʿarāʾ Qādirī is the author of a poem of twenty verses quoted by Jājarmī and addressed (according to Jājarmī’s superscription) to Alp Arslān (455/1063 to 465/1072). But the name of this king does not appear in the poem itself; instead this ends with a verse evoking one ‘khudāwand i muʾaiyad, mīr Wardān-shāh bin Aḥmad’, whom I am unable to identify. Hidāyat quotes twelve verses from the same poem, but ascribes them wrongly to Qādirī Hindūstānī, i.e. the Moghol prince Dārā Shukōh b. Shāh-jahān.

One verse by perhaps the same Qādirī is quoted in the marginal additions in Ms. nūn of Asadī’s dictionary.

lf, ed. Iqbāl, p. 160; Jājarmī pp. 482–4; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 465.

§ 263. Niẓām al-dīn Maḥmūd Iṣfahānī, called Qamar1 is the author of good-sized collection of poems preserved in an early 14th-century manuscript in London and who is also quoted once by Shams i Qais; I regret greatly that I have been unable to find a copy of the printed edition of his dīwān. The London codex has a few introductory lines stating that the majority of his poems are in praise of the Āl i Khujand, the leaders of the Shāfiʿī faction in Isfahan.2 Unfortunately, the poems have no superscriptions (apart from the usual ‘wa lahu aiḍan’); the patrons who are mentioned in the verses themselves include Khalīfah i ʿAjam Rukn al-dīn (clearly one or another of the Āl i Ṣāʿid, the leaders of the Ḥanafī faction in Isfahan),3 Khān i aʿẓam Salghur-shāh (evidently one of the Salghurid atabegs in Fārs), Shāh i Ērān ʿImād al-dīn, Malik Saʿd al-dīn (alias Ulugh i aʿẓam atābeg) and Khān i aʿẓam Quṭb al-dīn.

Mss.: London i.o. 1028 (Ms. copied by ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-ʿAlawī al-Kāshī in 713–4/1314–5. Pictures); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 965/7 (Ms. dated 1041/1631–2). For these two Mss. see above, p. 264 fn (Muʿizzī) and also Munz. iii 25385–6.

Edition: Mashhad 1363sh./1984 (ed. T. Bīnish, non vidi).

Shams p. 356; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 635–6; Khaiyām-pūr p. 475 (‘Qamarī’) and 607 (‘Niẓām i Iṣfahānī’).

§ 264. Qiwāmī Ganjaʾī is the author of a well-known qaṣīdah maṣnūʿah illustrating the rhetorical figures, noted in pl iii (Rhetoric) pp. 207–8. The poem is dedicated to the atabeg of Azerbaijan Qızıl Arslān (582/1186 to 587/1191) and can be found in a large number of anthologies; to those mentioned in pl iii it will suffice to add Jājarmī i pp. 86–94 and Yaghmāʾī pp. 198–202.

The only other recorded works4 of this author are one quatrain ascribed to him by Sharwānī5 and a highly artificial ode illustrating the figure known as taqsīm; an extract from the latter can be found in Shams (pp. 359–60), the full text in Jājarmī (i pp. 118–9).

Daulat-shāh (p. 128) calls this author Qiwāmī Muṭarrizī and supplies us with the highly questionable information that he was the brother of Niẓāmī. See also Khaiyām-pūr p. 476.

§ 265. Badr al-dīn al-Qiwāmī al-Rāzī (as ʿAufī calls him) or Qiwāmī Khabbāz (‘the baker’, as he is called in the 14th-century London manuscript of his dīwān) flourished in the first half of the 6th/12th century. In an ode to Qiwām al-dīn Darguzīnī, who was wazīr to the Seljuq sultans Maḥmūd ii, Dāʾūd and Ṭoghrıl ii, and was executed in 527/1133, Qiwāmī alludes to the recent death of ‘the late sultan’,6 evidently that of Maḥmūd in 525/1131, and seems to indicate also that he owed his pen name Qiwāmī to his patronage by this very Qiwām al-dīn. But the majority of his poems are of religious or didactic content, many of them praising ʿAlī and the imāms of the twelver Shiites, and in quite a few of them the poet pays his compliments to the leader of the Shiites in Rai, Naqīb at-nuqabāʾ Sharaf al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Murtaḍā. The dīwān contains also (pp. 20–1) an exchange of poems between Qiwāmī and ʿImādī.

Mss.: London Or. 6464 fol. 1a–80a (Meredith-Owens p. 51. Ms. dated 5 Ramaḍān 732/1332; inspexi); Tehran Bayānī 58/6 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 16. 17th century? Selection). Cf. Munz. iii 25389–90.

Edition: Tehran 1334sh./1955–6 (ed. Jalāl al-dīn Ḥasanī Urmawī-Muḥaddith from the London Ms., with valuable notes).

ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-naqḍ, ed. Muḥaddith, p. 230, 252; ʿAufī ii pp. 236–8; Rāzī iii pp. 34–8 (no. 1073); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 476–7; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 695–707; Khaiyām-pūr p. 476.

§ 266. al-Amīr Qiwāmī al-Khuwāfī7 is included by ʿAufī amongst the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157). ʿAufī states that he met this poet in Naisābūr, on which occasion Qiwāmī recited one of his verses satirising a doctor, a certain Saʿd, who had once in Herat prescribed a medicine to our poet which only made him more ill than before.

ʿAufī ii p. 357; Rāzī ii p. 175 (no. 664); Khaiyām-pūr p. 476.

§ 267. Three qaṣīdahs by one Kamāl al-dīn Quṭbī al-Marwī, followed by another by perhaps the same ‘al-Marghazī’ are contained in an old anthology in Bologna. The first two poems evoke a king who is addressed as ‘shāh i muẓaffar’ and ‘shāh khusrau malik ʿUthmān’, whom Piemontese has proposed to identify with Muẓaffar al-dīn Qızıl Arslān ʿUthmān b. Ēldügüz, the atabeg of Azerbaijan from 582/1186 to 587/1191. I have found no other reference to a poet of this name.

Ms.: Bologna Biblioteca Universitaria Ms. 3283/iii (Piemontese 3. 13th century?).

§ 268. Ustād al-aʾimmah Raḍī al-dīn Muḥammad al-Naisābūrī is enumerated by ʿAufī among the religious scholars of Naisābūr who produced Persian poetry. He is evidently identical with ‘al-Raḍī al-Naisābūrī’, the principal opponent of Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī in his famous ‘debates’ (munāẓarāt) on points of Islamic law. Fakhr al-dīn, who had a very low opinion of Raḍī’s intelligence, speaks of one particular debate in the year 582/1186, ‘the year for which the astrologers had predicted a windy deluge’,8 and in another passage9 he says that after going to Samarqand and staying there for ‘some years’ he returned to Bukhārā and engaged in another debate with Raḍī. Ibn Abī l-Wafāʾ mentions ‘al-Raḍī al-Naisābūrī’ (presumably the same one) in his biographical dictionary of Ḥanafī scholars.

As a poet Raḍī eulogised several of the Qarakhanids. Hādī Ḥasan and Nafīsī have both attempted (as it seems independently) to identify the patrons mentioned in his poems, but they have come to in part different and in both cases unsatisfactory results so that one must await the full publication of the surviving poems before the question can be settled. From the extracts quoted by them it is, however, evident that a large portion of the poems eulogise a king with the titles Nuṣrat al-dunyā wa l-dīn and Arslān-Khān and who is apparently not (as both scholars maintained) ʿUthmān i (600/1203–4 to 607/1211) but rather his father Nuṣrat al-dunyā wa l-din Arslān-Khān Ibrāhīm iv b. al-Ḥusain (574/1178 to 600/1203–4). Other poems mention one Abū l-Muẓaffar, evidently the uncle and predecessor of the just-mentioned Ibrāhīm, Abū l-Muẓaffar Masʿūd ii b. al-Ḥasan (556/1160 to 574/1178), others one Ghiyāth i millat, evidently Masʿūd’s son and co-ruler Ghiyāth al-dunyā wa l-dīn Muḥammad iv. He also praised several of the Āl i Burhān, the spiritual leaders of Bukhārā; Hādī Ḥasan quotes (p. 449) a poem mentioning the year 559/1163–4 and addressing a cleric whom the poet calls merely ‘āftāb i nasl i Burhān’, evidently the ṣadr Muḥammad i b. ʿUmar. ʿAufī quotes a Persian poem to one ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz,10 probably the son of the just-mentioned Muḥammad, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ii (ca. 570/1174 to 593/1196–7), as well as two Arabic verses directed to ‘Burhān al-islām Tāj al-dīn’, evidently his successor, ʿUmar ii, ʿAufī’s own teacher.

Ādhar and Hidāyat (both apparently following Taqī) confused Raḍī’s principal patron ‘Arslān-Khān’ with the Seljuq Arslān b. Ṭoghrıl; their error was set right by Qazwīnī. Taqī11 gives the date of his death as 598/1201–2.

It is possible, but not certain, that this poet is identical with the Raḍī al-dīn Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Naisābūrī who is given as the author of the Persian moralising tract Makārim al-akhlāq.12

Mss. of his dīwān: Paris Supplément 791 fol. 76v sqq. (Blochet 1988. Dated 18 Shawwāl 1006/1598); Supplément 797 fol. 92r sqq. (Blochet 1990. 16th century?); Leningrad Univ. 1202a (Romaskewicz p. 7); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 430/iv (Bayānī apparently attributes the Ms. to the 16th century); Adabīyāt ii p. 11 (In a daftar dated 1007/1598–9); Univ. ix 2589/1 (Dated 12 Jumādā ii 1015/1606); Lucknow Sprenger 457; Aligarh Subḥ. Mss. p. 35 no. 66 (Dated 1008/1599–1600). Cf. Munz. iii 23192–7.

Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī, Munāẓarāt, ed. Fatḥ Allāh Khulaif, 2nd edition, Beyrouth 1984, passim; ʿAufī i pp. 219–28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc. and the note in Nafīsī’s edition p. 633); Shams passim (see the index s.v. Raḍī); Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 252, 317; Ibn Abī l-Wafāʾ, al-Jawāhir al-muḍīʾah fī ṭabaqāt al-ḥanafīyah, Hyderabad 1332/1914, ii p. 370; Rāzī ii pp. 243–50 (no. 746); mf p. 278; Ādhar ii pp. 686–91; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 231–4; id., Riyāḍ pp. 78, 194–5; Hādī Ḥasan, ‘The poet Radi’ud-din of Nishapur His life and times’, Aryan Path (Bombay) xiii, 1942, pp. 446–54, 496–507; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī p. 1339–46, 1397–9; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 849–52; Khaiyām-pūr p. 234.

§ 269. Rafīʿ al-dīn al-Lunbānī (Lunbān is a village near Isfahan) is the name given to two different writers, possibly father and son, who have been confused with each other in apparently all the previous secondary literature. Rafīʿ the elder is mentioned by Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī in his entry on the village of Lunbān, where his names are given as al-adīb al-fāḍil ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-mulaqqab bi l-Rafīʿ. He was (our source tells us) the author of some fine poems and of a collection of letters13 and was closely associated with Jamāl al-dīn al-Khujandī.14 At one point he applied (it would seem successfully) for a job as the keeper of the library of Ṣadr al-dīn al-Khujandī, presumably the ṣadr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ii, the leader of the Shāfiʿī faction in Isfahan from after 552/1157 until his death in 588/1184. We are told further that Rafīʿ was killed during the conflict between sultan Ṭoghrıl (i.e. the Seljuq Ṭoghrıl iii, 571/1176 to 590/1194) and ‘the sons of atabeg Muḥammad’, i.e. evidently at the time when Ṭoghrıl freed himself from the tutelage of the Ēldügüzids (587/1191); Rafīʿ was namely one of a party of supporters of the Khujandīs who were travelling from Isfahan to Baghdad when they were ambushed and robbed by one of the Ēldügüzid commanders and it was in this raid that he lost his life.15 Zakarīyāʾ quotes six of his verses in Arabic and two of those in Persian. He is presumably the Rafīʿ al-Lunbānī several of whose Arabic letters are quoted by the anonymous 13th-century compiler of al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil.

The Persian dīwān of Rafīʿ al-dīn Lunbānī, which is extant notably in a 13th-century manuscript in Dublin, cannot be the work of Rafīʿ the elder, since many of the poems in it were obviously composed as much as thirty years after the time of his death, but must belong to a younger namesake, evidently the Rafīʿ al-dīn al-Lunbānī al-Iṣfahānī of whom ʿAufī speaks as of a contemporary. I regret greatly that I have not been able to find a copy of the edition of his dīwān published some years ago by Taqī Bīnish, apparently on the basis of the Dublin manuscript,16 but I have consulted the valuable article by the same scholar from 1971, which describes the Dublin copy and cites the incipits and patrons of all the poems found there. This codex contains odes to the Khwārazm-shāh Jalāl al-dīn Meng-burnī (617/1220 to 628/1231), the leaders of the religious factions in Isfahan (Ṣadr al-dīn ʿUmar al-Khujandī and Rukn al-dīn Masʿūd b. Ṣāʿid) and the Salghurid ruler of Fārs, Muẓaffar al-dīn Abū Bakr b. Saʿd b. Zangī (628/1231 to 658/1260), all of whom we have encountered as patrons of Kamāl al-dīn Iṣfahānī,17 as well as various ministers and as yet unidentified persons. The poems by ‘Rafīʿ al-dīn al-Lunbānī’ which are quoted by Jājarmī are clearly all by this same Rafīʿ the younger.18

Since the publication of the entry on Rafīʿ in the first edition of this survey, in 1994, a new version, ostensibly of the dīwān of Rafīʿ al-dīn Lunbānī, was published by M. Huwaidā, strangely without any reference either to Bīnish’s edition or to the Dublin manuscript. This is an exceedingly poor piece of work,19 but it does contain, as an appendix, a small collection of Arabic or bilingual poems, evidently taken from an old anthology copied in Dhū l-qaʿdah 728/1328.20 These additional poems are manifestly not by Rafīʿ the younger, but by Rafīʿ the elder. Thus, the six Arabic verses quoted by Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī can be found in Huwaidā’s appendix at the beginning of a bilingual tarjīʿ (clearly much corrupted in the edition) on p. 186. The same appendix contains an Arabic ode to the above-mentioned ṣadr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (ii) al-Khujandī,21 and a bilingual poem in which the poet gives his own name as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Lunbānī,22 again in agreement with Zakarīyāʾ. I am not able to offer a positive identification for the other patrons mentioned in these appended poems,23 but they are clearly different from those addressed in the Persian dīwān. The editor has also inserted a small number of Persian rubāʿīs and other short poems from the same old manuscript into the main body of the dīwān; these (or at least some of them) are identified in the footnotes with the signum wāw and evidently also belong to the elder Rafīʿ. The styles of the two authors seem rather different, though the bilingual tarjīʿ of the younger Rafīʿ quoted by Jājarmī, pp. 795–9, does seem to imitate the manner of his elder namesake.

Ibn al-Fuwaṭī has a short entry24 on two poets, Kāmil al-dīn Abū l-Maḥāsin b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd al-Lunbānī and ‘his brother’, whom he calls Rafīʿ al-dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd, and quotes four Arabic verses by the former. There is clearly a mistake here. If the two are indeed brothers, then we must presumably correct the second name to Rafīʿ al-dīn ⟨b.⟩ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd, with omission of the ism. al-Ṣafadī has an entry on Abū Ṭāhir ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Lunbānī (text: al-Lubnānī) min ahl Iṣfahān (without laqab), who ‘went to Baghdad in the company of Ṣadr al-dīn ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Khujandī (i.e. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ii) and died in the year 584’ i.e. 1188–9, presumably Rafīʿ the elder, though in this case either the date of his death given by al-Ṣafadī, or that implied by Zakarīyāʾ, must be some three years off. The situation is, however, complicated by the fact that ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Rāfiʿī al-Qazwīnī25 (a contemporary of Rafīʿ the elder) has an entry on one ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Muḥammad al-Lunbānī (text: al-Lubnānī) al-Iṣfahānī (again without laqab), an Arabic scholar and author of commentaries, whom al-Rāfiʿī ‘met in Isfahan’ and who ‘accompanied the Khujandī ṣadrs to Qazwīn in the year 581’, i.e. 1185–6, and who would also seem a likely candidate for identification with the elder Rafīʿ. It is possible that ‘Muḥammad’ is an error for ‘Masʿūd’, though it is perhaps not entirely unthinkable that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Muḥammad and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd are two different, but contemporaneous, persons from the same village. In the latter case the question of which of the two is to be identified with Rafīʿ the elder would have to remain open. In any event, the quoted sources concur in indicating that the given name of the elder Rafīʿ was ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, that he was intimately associated with the Khujandī ṣadrs and that he died at some time between 584/1188–9 and 587/1191.

Amīn Rāzī has two successive entries in his chapter on Isfahan, the first (no. 871) on Rafīʿ al-dīn Masʿūd Lunbānī (edition: Lubnānī),—but one of Ethé’s manuscripts apparently has ‘b. Masʿūd’—, who was (the author tells us) a contemporary of Kamāl al-dīn Iṣfahānī, the second (no. 872) on Rafīʿ al-dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Lunbānī (again mispointed in the edition). The poems in the first entry can be found in the Persian dīwān of Rafīʿ the younger, who was indeed a contemporary of Kamāl Iṣfahānī. In the second entry at least some of the verses are evidently by Rafīʿ the elder,26 whose name, as we have seen, was indeed ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. It is thus clear that Rāzī was still aware of the fact that there were two different poets by the name of Rafīʿ Lunbānī.

Taqī27 says that Rafīʿ al-dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Lunbānī died in 603/1206–7, but this is too late for Rafīʿ the elder and too early for Rafīʿ the younger. Later authors perpetuate the confusion.

Mss. of the dīwān: Dublin Beatty 103/viii (Ms. completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 699/1300); London Or. 2846/iv (Rieu Suppt. 239. Dated Rabīʿ i 1019/1610. First page missing); Istanbul Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/10 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Tehran Majlis iii 986 (17th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 23199–202.

Editions:28 [Place? Date?] (Ed. T. Bīnish, non vidi); [n.p.] 1373sh./1995 (Ed. M. Huwaidā).

ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Rāfiʿī, Kitāb al-tadwīn (see the text); ʿAufī ii pp. 400–1 (none of the verses cited are in Huwaidā’s edition); Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, pp. 301–2; al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil, ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran–7, pp. 27–35; Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, Talkhīṣ majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb (see the text); Mustaufī p. 732; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī pp. 289–91, 291–3, 297–301, 325–8, 367–9, 592–4, 777–8, 790–801, 877–8; al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi l-wafayāt xviii, Beyrouth 1408/1988, no. 557; Daulat-shāh p. 155–7; Rāzī ii pp. 383–6 (no. 871–2); Ādhar iii pp. 944–5; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 234–5; M. Ṭabāṭabāʾī, ‘Rafīʿu l-dīn i Lunbānī’, Armaghān xvii, 1315sh./1936, pp. 86–91, 262–7; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 846–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 236; ln s.v. ‘Rafīʿ’ p. 564; T. Bīnish, ‘Rafīʿu l-dīn i Lunbānī wa dīwān i shiʿr i ū’, mdam viii, 1350sh./1971–2, pp. 837–56.

§ 270. Rafīʿ Marwazī appears to be mentioned only in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān, where we find four rubāʿīyāt and two ghazals.

ʿAufī ii pp. 161–2; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 638–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 236.

§ 271. Rafīʿ al-dīn al-Marzbān29 al-Fārisī is cited by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Western Persia after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157) where we find two qaṣīdahs addressed to a king who, in the first poem, is called Sulṭān Malik-Arslān, in the second Shāh i jahān Arslān, evidently the Seljuq Muʿizz al-dīn Arslān b. Ṭoghrıl (556/1161 to 571/1176). Rāzī includes our poet in his chapter on the distinguished citizens of Shīrāz and states that some authorities make him a contemporary of the ancient poets Ḥanẓalah Bādghīsī and Abū Salīk Gurgānī,30 while others say that he was one of the poets of the Seljuqs. Rāzī wisely expresses preference for the latter opinion and proceeds to quote five poems, none of them in ʿAufī. Further verses are added by Hidāyat.

ʿAufī ii pp. 398–400; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see above, p. 142); Rāzī i pp. 194–6 (no. 189); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 502–3; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 235–6 (‘Rafīʿ i Shīrāzī’); ln s.v. ‘Rafīʿ i Shīrāzī’ p. 565.

§ 272. Ustād Abū Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Rashīdī al-Samarqandī31 flourished in the last quarter of the 5th/11th century. Our earliest source, ʿArūḍī, says that the young Rashīdī was one of the many poets at the court of the Qarakhanid Khiḍr b. Ibrāhīm (who ruled for a year or so from 472/1080) and as such subordinate to the amīr al-shuʿarā ʿAmʿaq, and that he enjoyed special favour with the sultan’s queen Satī Zainab (it is evidently to her that his Zainab-nāmah, mentioned by ʿAufī, was dedicated). ʿArūḍī reports further on the rivalry between ʿAmʿaq and the saiyid al-shuʿarā Rashīdī and quotes three verses with which the latter lampooned the former. ʿAufī, who includes Rashīdī in his section on the poets in Transoxania during the Seljuq period, quotes from a qaṣīdah which he dedicated to Abū l-Fatḥ Malik-Shāh (465/1072 to 485/1092)—name and kunyah are both mentioned in the verses—whom our poet could well have served either before or after Khiḍr. The same authority also quotes a poem dedicated to one of the later Qarakhanids, Qadir-khān Abū l-Maʿālī Jibrāʾīl b. Aḥmad (492/1099 to 495/1102). Rashīdī exchanged poems with Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān. ʿAufī (followed by Rāzī and others) quotes a qiṭʿah of four verses addressed to Masʿūd and a long poem which he claims to be Masʿūd’s response, but the latter is in fact evidently Rashīdī’s answer to a qaṣīdah addressed to him by Masʿūd (and included in the dīwān of the latter), written during Masʿūd’s imprisonment by order of the Ghaznavid Ibrāhīm.32 Shams quotes an elaborate poem by Rashīdī Samarqandī to illustrate the device known as taushīḥ. Daulat-shāh claims that he was a pupil of Qaṭrān,33 the teacher of Rūḥānī Samarqandī,34 Saif al-dīn Isfarangī35 and of Ẓahīr al-dīn Fāryābī,36 adding in the last quoted passage that he wrote a narrative poem called Mihr u Wafā. One verse by (our?) Rashīdī is quoted in lf, ed. Iqbāl, p. 404 from the marginal additions in Ms. nūn. The possibility that our poet might also be the Ismāʿīl Rashīdī quoted in lf /Iqbāl p. 357 was rejected supra § 74.

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.), 46–7; ʿAufī ii pp. 176–81; Shams pp. 362–4; Daulat-shāh p. 67, 109, 110; Rāzī iii pp. 345–52 (no. 1425; has two long poems not in ʿAufī); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 87–8 (‘Arshadī’); Khaiyām-pūr p. 230; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 547–51; ln s.v. ‘Rashīdī’ p. 473.

272a. Abū Muḥammad Rōzbihān b. Abī Naṣr al-Baqlī al-Fasāʾī al-Shīrāzī, known as Shaikh i Shaṭṭāḥ, a mystic and prolific author in Arabic and Persian, is reported to have lived from 522/1128 to 606/1209. He is not cited as a poet in early sources, but various poetical compositions, among a fair-sized mathnawī with the title Tuḥfat al-ʿirfān (inc.: ay qadīm ē kih dar jalāl i qidam * nabawad dhāt i tu qarīn i ʿadam) are attributed to him in later collective manuscripts.

Selections of his poems have been noted in (for example) London i.o. 1693 fol. 84a in marg; i.o. 1747 fol. 68b; i.o. 1766 fol. 30a; Konya [a Ms. is mentioned, without call-number, by Ernst p. 154]; Istanbul Üniversite fy 538/19 (Ateş 95. Dated 826/1423. Tuḥfat al-ʿirfān).

Collections of poems (including Tuḥfat al-ʿirfān) have been published in: M.T. Mīr, Sharḥ i ḥāl u āthār u ashʿār i (…) R.B., Tehran 1354sh./1975, pp. 52–103; Gh. ʿA. Āryā, Sharḥ i aḥwāl u āthār u majmūʿah i ashʿār i (…) R.B., Tehran 1363sh./1984, pp. 78–159.

Jāmī, Nafaḥāt pp. 240–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 235–6; id., Riyāḍ p. 79; Khaiyām-pūr p. 242; C.W. Ernst, Rūzbihān Baqlī, Richmond 1996; ei2 s.v. ‘Rūzbihān’ (C. Ernst).

§ 273. Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Rūḥānī, called also ʿUṭārid al-thānī, is represented by a sizable selection of poems in ʿAufī’s anthology, one of them eulogising, as our source tells us, the Ghaznavid Bahrām-shāh (511/1117 to 552/1157). ʿAufī does not inform us of his nisbah, but Daulat-shāh has a brief entry on one Ḥakīm Rūḥānī Samarqandī, presumably our poet, who he says was a pupil of Rashīdī and whom he represents by two verses not quoted by ʿAufī. Jājarmī quotes two substantial poems, one of them a Saugand-nāmah pledging allegiance to Bahrām-shāh. Rāzī quotes a few verses from the same poem and says also that after serving Bahrām-shāh our poet attached himself to the court of the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 551/1156). He is clearly not identical with the Amīr Rūḥānī several of whose verses are cited by Firishtah in his account of the events of the year 624/1227.37

lf ed. Iqbāl pp. 156–7 (one verse in Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿAufī ii pp. 282–6; Saif Harawī pp. 237–8 (five verses from the Saugand-nāmah); Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 41b); Jājarmī i p. 144+vii to 144+viii, 211–3; Daulat-shāh p. 109; Rāzī iii pp. 371–3 (no. 1433); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 240; id., Riyāḍ p. 195; G.M. Khan in Islamic culture xxiii, 1949, pp. 228, 232–4 (partial edition and translation of the Saugand-nāmah); Khaiyām-pūr p. 240; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 610–4.

§ 274. Rūḥī Walwālijī is the author of a handful of satirical verses, but also of two long odes, quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān. In one of the latter he engages in some ritualised boasting, comparing himself with Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān, and calling himself the third in series after Farrukhī and Qaṭrān; it is from the latter verse that Daulat-shāh evidently extrapolated the ‘information’ that he was a pupil of Qaṭrān. In fact the same poem mentions also ‘Farīd i Ghīlānī’, who was one of the religious scholars who debated with Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī38 towards the end of the 6th/12th century; it is thus in this period that we must place our poet.

He is perhaps identical with Rūḥī Shāristānī, the author of a poem, quoted by Hidāyat from the tadhkirah of Auḥadī, praising ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar Ṭamghāj-khān’, evidently the Qarakhanid Abū l-Muẓaffar Qılıch Ṭamghach-Khān Masʿūd (556/1161 to 574/1178), Ẓahīrī’s patron.

A verse by (the same?) Rūḥī is cited by Saif Harawī p. 69. The same author quotes (p. 116, 616, 623) three poems by ‘Walwālijī’ (Rūḥī? Or the Samanid poet Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ, supra § 110?)

ʿAufī ii pp. 165–74; Daulat-shāh p. 67; mf p. 932 (verse by ‘Ḥakīm Rūḥī’); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 240–1; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 639–43; Khaiyām-pūr p. 241 (two entries).

§ 275. Abū l-Faraj b. Masʿūd al-Rūnī was a panegyrist of the Ghaznavids and of their governors in Lahore. His nisbah Rūnī (if it be indeed a nisbah) has not been explained satisfactorily. ʿAufī says explicitly that Abū l-Faraj was born in Lahore, and the 10th/16th-century Indian historian Badāʾūnī39 states in connection with Abū l-Faraj Rūʾinī (as he calls him) that ‘rwyn is the name of a village in the dependencies of Lahore, but today it is apparently (sic! gōyā) ruined and no trace of it remains’. In the absence of independent confirmation one must suspect that the ‘village’ in question was invented to explain the name of the famous poet. By contrast, Mustaufī says that our poet hailed from Rūnah in Khurāsān, and there is in fact still a village by this name in the environs of Naisābūr. There is (or was) also a Rūn in Sīstān (mentioned repeatedly in the Tārīkh i Sīstān). Whether either of these really has anything to do with the poet is another question.

Rūnī’s dīwān consists largely of odes to the Ghaznavids Abū l-Muẓaffar Ibrāhīm (451/1059 to 492/1099, or shortly afterwards) and his son and successor Abū Saʿd Masʿūd iii (died in 508/1115), whom he praised as governor (malik) of Lahore during his father’s lifetime and then later as sultan, and to various personalities at their courts. Masʿūd i Saʿd refers to him as his master. The dates given for his death by the tadhkirahs (489/1096 in Taqī Kāshī and even earlier in some of the others) are, as usual, worthless. Rūnī certainly survived into the reign of Masʿūd and was apparently alive at least until the end of 495/1102, judging from the poem40 dedicated to Masʿūd (his name occurs in the third verse) beginning shāh rā rōy i bakht gul-gūn bād * jashn i ābān bar ō humāyūn bād and ending jashn u aiyām i ʿīd u ʿazm i safar * har sih bar shahryār maimūn bād; the festival of Ābānagān coincided with ʿĪd al-aḍḥā in 495/1102, when both fell on 25 September.

Mss.: Dublin Beatty 103/iv (Ms. completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 699/1300); Oxford Whinfield 8 (Beeston 2827/21. 16th century); Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/10. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); Marsh. 55 (Ethé 523. End missing); London Or. 3713/i (Rieu Suppt. 211. Copied by Muḥammad Shāh b. ʿAlī b. Maḥmūd Iṣfahānī and dated 6 Rabīʿ ii 692/1293); Add. 27,318 (Rieu pp. 547–8. 16th century?); Add 7793/ii (fol. 165–244. Rieu p. 549. Dated Ramaḍān 1021/1612); i.o. 905 (Dated 24 Shawwāl 1069/1659. End missing); Or. 11958 (Meredith-Owens p. 64. Dated 1154/1741–2); Or. 1777/ii (Rieu pp. 999–1000. 19th century? Selections); i.o. 328 fol. 378–432; Paris Supplément 797 fol. 15v sqq. (Blochet 1990. 16th century?); Supplément 759 (Blochet 1208. 17th century?); Supplément 760 fol. 73v sqq. (Blochet 1556. 17th century?); Hamburg Orient. 228 (Brockelmann 157); Istanbul Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/12 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Tashkent Acad. 2141 (Semenov 765. Dated 1106/1694–5. Pictures); Hamadan Īʿtimād al-daulah (Nuskhah-hā v p. 345. Ms. apparently dated 6 Shawwāl 1017/1609); Tehran Majlis 4841/1 (Munz. 21376. Dated Rabīʿ ii 996/1588); Miftāḥ 623 (Nuskhah-hā vii p. 154. 16th century?); Lahore (4 Mss. in Munz. Pak. vii pp. 21–2); Peshawar Islamīyah 1823(2) (Dated 1134/1721–2); Calcutta Ivanow 431 (Dated 1078/1667–8); Ivanow 432 (17th century? These two Mss. are also described in Sprenger 66); Ivanow Curzon 189 (17th century? Incomplete); Būhār 280 (19th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 21375–417 (many late Mss.).

Editions: Bombay 1319–20/1902 (in the margin of Dīwān i ʿUnṣurī); Tehran 1305sh./1926 (Ed. K.I. Chaykin, based on 6 Mss. in private collections); Mashhad n.d. (Preface dated 1347sh./1968–9. Ed. M. Mahdawī-Dāmghānī; based mainly on the Dublin Ms.).

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ passim; ʿAufī ii p.6 241–5; Shams passim (see the index s.v. ‘Bulfaraj’); Mustaufī p. 718; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 fol. 128b, 136b, 143a, 146a, 152a = Ethé 1333); Jājarmī i pp. 256–7; Rāzī i pp. 339–44 (no. 358); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 135b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 70–8; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Faraj’ p. 715; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 470–6; Khaiyām-pūr p. 21; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, passim; ei2 Suppt. s.v. ‘Abu ’l-Faradj’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn); EIr s.v. ‘Abu’l-Faraj Rūnī’ (M. Siddiqi).

[275a. Daulat-shāh knows nothing of Abū l-Faraj Rūnī, but he does have an entry on one Abū l-Faraj Sijzī, the contents of which are repeated by the later tadhkirahs, and quotes three verses by him. This Abū l-Faraj was supposedly a panegyrist of Abū ʿAlī Simjūr (recte Sīmjūr). When the latter was defeated by Maḥmūd of Ghaznah (in 384/994) the victor resolved to have his revenge on Abū l-Faraj, who had previously penned a satire against him, but the poet’s life was saved by his former pupil, Maḥmūd’s poet-laureate ʿUnṣurī. This supposedly early poet is not mentioned by any source before Daulat-shāh and I should think that he is entirely fictitious; more precisely that he is a mythical doppelgänger of Abū l-Faraj Rūnī (who might have been supposed to hail from Rūn in Sīstān, see above) transported back into the early Ghaznavid period.

Daulat-shāh claims to have seen a number of his poems in collections, but Rāzī says that he knows only the three verses cited by Daulat-shāh, while Ādhar says explicitly that everything other than these that has been ascribed to Abū l-Faraj Sijzī is in fact by Abū l-Faraj Rūnī. A collection of poems by Abū l-Faraj Sijzī is reported in Paris Supplément 783 fol. 51r sqq. (Blochet 1981, 16th century?) but it would be very surprising if these did not reveal themselves to be by Rūnī.

Daulat-shāh pp. 39–40; Rāzī i p. 293 (no. 303; name misspelt in the edition); Ādhar i pp. 420–2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 70; Browne, History ii p. 153; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Faraj’ p. 716; Khaiyām-pūr p. 21; EIr s.v. ‘Abu’l-Faraj Sejzī’ (M. Dabīrsīāqī).]

§ 276. Shihāb al-dīn Ṣābir b. Ismāʿīl al-Tirmidhī,41 generally known as Adīb Ṣābir, divided his time between the court of the Seljuq Sanjar (511/1118 to 552/1157) and that of the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 568/1172). His dīwān consists almost entirely of panegyric poems dedicated to one or the other of these kings or else to various persons in their retinue, the largest number being in praise of Sanjar’s raʾīs i Khurāsān Majd al-dīn ʿAlī b. Jaʿfar al-Mūsawī, in whom we must see Ṣābir’s principal patron. In the end he was caught up in the rivalry between his two royal masters. According to Juwainī, Sanjar sent Adīb Ṣābir with a message to Atsız. While at the court in Khwārazm our poet discovered that Atsız had sent two men (Juwainī says that they were malāḥidah, i.e. Ismāʿīlīs) to murder the sultan. Ṣābir sent a message to Sanjar warning him of the plot and Atsız, having somehow found out about the poet’s message, had the latter drowned in the Oxus. The implication of the story is thus that Ṣābir, while posing as a panegyrist of the Khwārazm-shāh, was in fact a spy in the service of a rival power. Although Juwainī does not give the precise date of this event, he implies that it was at some time between 538/1143–4 and 542/1147–8. Daulat-shāh, who repeats the same story, gives the date of Ṣābir’s death as 546/1151–2, but this seems too late.

Mss. of his dīwān: Oxford Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/13. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); London i.o. 911 (Copied by ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-ʿAlawī al-Kāshī and dated Muḥarram 714/1314. Pictures);42 Or. 327 (Rieu p. 552. 16th century?); Or. 2846/ii (Rieu Suppt. 239. Dated Rabīʿ i 1019/1610. Imperfect at beginning); Paris Supplément 1386/i (Blochet 1214. Dated 12 Ṣafar 1039/1629 by Muḥammad Ḥakīm b. Kamāl al-dīn al-Kirmānī); Berlin Petermann 716/3 (Pertsch 682. Selections); Tehran Univ. viii 1408/1 (Dated Shawwāl 1015/1607); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 5 (Dated 5 Shawwāl 1246/1831); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 6; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 965/4 (Ms. dated 1041/1631–2); Lahore (2 Mss., one dated 24 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1047/1638, are mentioned by Munz. Pak. vii p. 39); Peshawar (Munz. Pak. vii p. 39); Bombay Rehatsek p. 140 no. 48; Lucknow Sprenger 73; Hyderabad Āṣafīyah p. 288 no. 926 (Time of Shāh-jahān, i.e. 17th century). Cf. Munz. iii 24088–126.

Editions: Tehran 1331sh./1952 (Ed. ʿAlī Qawīm); 1343sh./1964 (ed. M.ʿA. Nāṣiḥ).

ʿAufī ii pp. 117–25; Shams p. 223, 359, 437; Juwainī ii p. 8; Mustaufī p. 715; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī i pp. 199–202; Daulat-shāh pp. 92–3; Rāzī ii pp. 86–92 (no. 573); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 216b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 314–25; Browne, History ii pp. 333–5; S. Nafīsī, ‘Adīb Ṣābir i Tirmidhī’, Armaghān iv, 1920, pp. 230–45, 294–306; ln s.v ‘Adīb’ pp. 1582–5; Ṣafa, Tārīkh ii pp. 643–50; Khaiyām-pūr p. 35; EIr s.v. ‘Adīb Ṣāber’ (Dh. Ṣafā); ei2 s.v. ‘Ṣābir’.

§ 277. Saʿd al-dīn Sharaf al-ḥukamāʾ Kāfī al-Bukhārī is quoted by ʿAufī as the author of a gnomic qaṣīdah, in which the poet calls himself Saʿd Kāfī, and of a poem addressed to ʿAufī’s maternal uncle, Majd al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAdnān Sukhakatī,43 who was chief physician at the time of the Qarakhanid Ibrāhīm (iv) b. Husain (574/1178 to 600/1203–4).

ʿAufī ii pp. 378–82, 386–7; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Rāzī iii pp. 420–1 (no. 1477); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 481; Khaiyām-pūr p. 481 (‘Kāfī i Bukhārāʾī).

§ 278. Sadīd al-dīn Sharaf al-nudamāʾ ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Ghaznawī, whom ʿAufī also calls ‘Muʿizzī i Ghaznawī’ (but was this name actually used by the poet, or rather merely bestowed on him by the anthologist?), is quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157), where we find three panegyric poems, the first and third of which mention as his patron the Ghaznavid Sirāj al-daulah Khusrau-Malik of Lahore (555/1160 to 582/1186). Rāzī quotes four verses from the first of these, but says that their author was a panegyrist of Khusrau-shāh b. Bahrām-shāh (ca. 552/1157 to 555/1160). It is certainly possible that Sadīd al-dīn served both sultans in succession, in which case his sobriquet Muʿizzī Ghaznawī could refer to Khusrau-shāh’s title Muʿizz al-daulah. But it could also be that Rāzī has misquoted the name of the patron.

ʿAufī ii pp. 405–7; Rāzī i p. 332 (no. 342; the laqab is misprinted); Khaiyām-pūr p. 263; C.E. Bosworth, The later Ghaznavids, Edinburgh 1977, p. 128.

§ 279. A certain Ṣafī al-dīn is included by ʿAufī, who says that he met this poet in Nasā, presumably during his stay in that town in 600/1203–4,44 in his chapter on the poets of Western Persia after the time of Sanjar. The verses quoted by ʿAufī include an elegy on the death of one Fakhr al-dīn Zangī b. Munawwar.

ʿAufī ii pp. 404–5; Hidāyat, Riyāḍ pp. 218–9; Khaiyām-pūr p. 339 (‘Ṣafī i Iṣfahānī’).

§ 280. Saʿīd al-Ṭāʾī is the author of a poem lamenting the impermanence of the world, quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Western Persia during the Seljuq period.

ʿAufī ii pp. 238–9; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 248 (follows ʿAufī); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 694–5; Khaiyām-pūr p. 270.

§ 281. al-Ḥakīm ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Saifī al-Naisābūrī is included in ʿAufî’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān, where he is credited with four ghazals and two rubāʿīs. ʿAufī’s contemporary Shams i Qais quotes (the same?) Saifī Naisābūrī as the author of a contrived poem in which every miṣrāʿ contains the words sang and sīm. The latter is cited also by Jājarmī, who adds a second poem of the same type. Daulat-shāh, who also has a few verses from the poem cited by Shams, adds that Saifī was a eulogist of the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Tekish (568/1172 to 596/1200). There is also a ‘Saifī’ to whom Rāzī, in his chapter on Naisābūr, ascribes one rubāʿī. Whether our poet is really identical with the Saifī mentioned in pl iii § 410 is unclear.

ʿAufī ii pp. 159–61; Shams pp. 355–6; Jājarmī i p. 144+xv to 144+xvii; Daulat-shāh p. 108; Rāzī ii p. 267 (no. 757); Ādhar ii pp. 692–3; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 252; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 626–8; Khaiyām-pūr p. 284.

§ 282. al-Ḥakīm Shihāb al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ṣāʾigh is included by ʿAufī, who admits to knowledge of only one religious qaṣīdah, in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157).

ʿAufī ii pp. 414–5; ln s.v. ‘Ṣāʾigh’ p. 3; Khaiyām-pūr p. 329.

§ 283. Maḥmūd b. ʿAlī al-Samāʾī al-Marwazī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān. Rāzī repeats a few of the verses cited by ʿAufī, adding to them the information (or perhaps rather only his deduction) that our poet attended the court of Sanjar. Hidāyat, who likewise offers no verses apart from those quoted by ʿAufī, says that he traded satires with Sōzānī.

ʿAufī ii pp. 145–7; Rāzī ii pp. 13–14 (no. 518; name misspelt in the edition); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 248; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 685–8; Khaiyām-pūr p. 276.

§ 284. Abū l-Majd45 Majdūd b. Ādam Ghaznawī, called Sanāʾī was the foremost religious poet of the first half of the 12th century. His life and work have recently been the subject of an exhaustive study by de Bruijn and the following is for the most part a synopsis of some of his conclusions. Sanāʾī was born probably around 480/1087 (certainly not as early as 437/1045–6, as is claimed in several of the tadhkirahs) in Ghaznah. The earliest period in his career is represented by a number of poems addressed to various middle- ranking bureaucratic, military and religious figures of the time of Masʿūd iii (ca. 492/1099 to 508/1115). Although the sultan’s name is mentioned in these poems, none of them are actually addressed to him and it is thus likely that the young poet did not succeed in having himself presented to the king. He also courted the leading poets at Ghaznah, Masʿūd’s i Saʿd (whose dīwān he collected) and Mukhtārī. Before the end of Masʿūd’s reign he left his native town for Balkh, where he composed his first major work, the Kār-nāmah i Balkhī, in which he gives, from a distance, a spirited portrait of life in Ghaznah; the approximate date of the poem is clear from the fact that he still speaks of Masʿūd as the reigning sultan. In Balkh he entered the service of a certain Imām Asʿad, but he fell out with the latter and saw himself forced to flee to Sarakhs, where he enjoyed the patronage of a leading Ḥanafī cleric, Muḥammad b. Manṣūr, to whom he dedicated a number of poems, including his mathnawī Sair al-ʿibād. He also appears to have spent some time in Herat. He returned to Ghaznah during the reign of Bahrām-shāh (511/1117 to 552/1157), who is the dedicatee of his principal work, Ḥadīqat al-haqīqah, and of a number of panegyric poems. From the preface to the Ḥadīqah by Sanāʾī’s disciple Muḥammad al-Raffāʾ it is evident that the poet died before that sultan, since Raffāʾ tells us that his own posthumous edition of the poem was made at the explicit command of Bahrām-shāh. According to a supposed eyewitness account of Sanaʾī’s death that has been appended in many manuscripts to Raffā’s preface (though it is clearly not by Raffāʾ himself) the poet died on Sunday 11 Shaʿbān 525. This date corresponds, according to the tables, to 8 July 1131, which was a Wednesday; the discrepancy between Wednesday and Sunday seems too great to be explained simply by a delayed sighting of the new crescent and suggests that the date has been tampered with. But the year 525/1131 does seem to be consistent with the dates given in the rhymed epilogue to the Ḥadīqah46 which suggest that Sanāʾī completed one version of the poem at the beginning of 525 and that Raffaʾ finished his (posthumous) edition of it in 534/1139–40. For the (wildly differing) dates given by the tadhkirahs see de Bruijn pp. 23–5.

Sanāʾī’s Dīwān contains both profane (mainly panegyric) and religious poems. For the textual history, which is extraordinarily complicated, see de Bruijn pp. 91–112. Some copies (in part with the title Kullīyāt) include one or more of the poet’s mathnawīs, which we, however, will list separately.

Mss.:47 Oxford Ms. Pers. d. 51 (Beeston 2549. Dated 29 Rabīʿ i 1007/1598); Elliot 108 (Ethé 537); London i.o. 927 (ashʿār i Sanāʾī, including also mathnawīs);48 Add. 27,311 (Rieu p. 551. 16th century?); Add. 16,779 ii (Rieu p. 825. 16th century?); Or. 4514/iii (Rieu Suppt. 215. Completed 14 Rabīʿ ii 1023/1614); i.o. 928 (=Robinson 146–51. Ms. dated 12 Jumādā ii 1038/1629. Small selection, with 1 extraneous picture); Or. 3302 (Rieu Suppt. 214. ‘Before ah 1280’ 71863–4); Paris Supplément 705 (Blochet 1221. 16th century? Selections only); Istanbul Velieddin 2627/6–7 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3. Dated 10 Rabīʿ i 684/1285); Halet Efendi 135/3 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 498. Ms. dated 717/1317–8. Selection); Ayasofya 2051/4 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330. ‘qaṣāʾid ’); Nafiz Paşa 894 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 103. Dated 13 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1013/1605); Nuruosmaniye 3809 (Ateş 31. 17th century?); Tehran Millī 2353 (see de Bruijn pp. 100–1. Supposedly 12th century);49 Bayānī (Nuskhah-hā i p. 16. Dated 995/1587); Univ. ii 13/1 (Ms. dated 1 Jumādā i 1003/1595); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 275; Mashhad Malik 5468 (see de Bruijn p. 98. 12th–13th century?); Riḍawī vii 440 (Dated Rabīʿ i 1022/1613); Tashkent Acad. ii 786–787 (17th century?); Kabul Museum 318 (Cat. p. 157; de Bruijn pp. 98–100. Supposedly 12th century. Facsimile published in Kabul, 1356sh./1977); Bankipore i 22 (16th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 438/2 (16th–17th century?).

Editions: Tehran 1274/1858; 1320sh./1941 (ed. Mudarris i Riḍawī); 1336sh./1957 (ed. Maẓāhir i Muṣaffā); 1341sh.1962 (revised and enlarged version of Mudarris’s edition), reprinted 1355sh./1976; Bombay 1328/1910.


Kār-nāmah i Balkhī, also called Muṭāyabah-nāmah (inc.: waiḥ-ak ai naqsh-band i bē khāmah * qāṣid i rāygān i bē-nāmah). See above, p. 329.

Mss.: Oxford Ms. Pers. d. 51 fol. 482b sqq. (Beeston 2549. Dated 29 Rabīʿ i 1007/1598); London i.o. 916/3 (Dated Jumādā ii 637/1240. Defective); i.o. 914/5; i.o. 927 fol. 380a sqq.; Istanbul Bağdatli Vehbi 1672/3 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 102; de Bruijn pp. 123–4. Ms. copied by Abū Saʿīd Maudūd al-Iṣfahānī and dated 7 Shawwāl 552/1157); Velieddin 2627/4 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3, 126. Ms. dated 14 Jumādā i 684/1285); Fatih 3734/5 (Ritter-Reinert p. 115. Ms. copied by Gulshanī Harawī and dated 884/1479–80); Tehran Univ. ii 13/ii (Ms. dated 1 Jumādā i 1003/1595); Dushanbe Acad. ii 350 (17th–18th century?); Kabul Museum 318 (Cat. p. 157; de Bruijn pp. 98–100. Supposedly 12th century. Facsimile published in Kabul, 1356sh./1977). Cf. Munz. iv 32964–73.

Editions: M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī in fiz iv/3, 1334sh./1955, pp. 297–354, and again in his Mathnawī-hā i Ḥakīm Sanāʾī, Tehran 1348sh./1969, pp. 141–78.

Sair al-ʿibād ilā l-maʿād, or Kunūz al-rumūz, (inc.: marḥaban ai barīd i sulṭān-wash * takht-at az āb u tāj-at az ātash) is accompanied in some copies (beginning with the Istanbul Ms. dated 674/1275) by a commentary in prose which some modern scholars have ascribed (most probably wrongly) to Fakhr al-dīn Rāzī. Cf. de Bruijn p. 118.

Mss.: Oxford Ms. Pers. d. 51 fol. 466b sqq. (Beeston 2549. Dated 29 Rabīʿ i 1007/1598); Elliot 108 (Ethé 537); London i.o. 916/2 (Ms. dated Jumādā ii 637/1240); Or. 3302 fol. 186b–221a (Rieu Suppt 214. ‘Before ah 1280’ 71863–4); Or. 4514/ii (Rieu Suppt. 215. Completed 14 Rabīʿ ii 1023/1614); i.o. 914/4; i.o. 917/1 (Copied by Qiwām b. Muḥammad Shīrāzī); i.o. 927 fol. 365a sqq.; Leningrad Acad. C 1102 fol. 260b–286b (Index 2275. Dated 708/1307–8); Istanbul Bağdatli Vehbi 1672/2 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 102; de Bruijn pp. 123–4. Ms. copied by Abū Saʿīd Maudūd al-Iṣfahānī and dated 7 Shawwāl 552/1157); Nâfiz Paşa 410 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 105. Dated Ṣafar 674/1275. With the commentary); Velieddin 2627/3 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3, 126. Ms. dated 14 Jumādā i 684/1285); Ayasofya 2051/3 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Dated 25 Shawwāl 730/1330); Üniversite fy 538/12 (Ateş 47. Dated 826/1423); Fatih 3734/4 (Ritter-Reinert p. 115. Ms. copied by Gulshanī Harawī and dated 884/1479–80); Aya Sofya 3241 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 105. Dated 885/1480–1. With the commentary); Nuruosmaniye 4964/31 (Ateş 48. 15th century?); Şehit Ali Paşa 1207/3 (See de Bruijn p. 268 n. 21. Dated 913/1507–8. With the commentary); Halet Efendi 786/15 (See de Bruijn p. 268 n. 21. Dated 1032/1622–3. With the commentary); Topkapı, Yeniler 3505 (Karatay 390. 18th century? Title given as Ilāhī-nāmah); Aya Sofya 4803/4 (See de Bruijn p. 268 n. 21. With the commentary); Lâleli 2010/3 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i 403); Tehran Millī 2353 (see de Bruijn pp. 100–1. Supposedly 12th century);50 Mīnuwī collection (See Mudarris’s introduction. Dated 886/1481. With the commentary); Majlis iii 1099 (Dated 1011/1602–3); Kabul Museum 318 (Cat. p. 157; de Bruijn pp. 98–100. Supposedly 12th century. Facsimile published in Kabul, 1356sh./1977); Calcutta Būhār 285 (17th century?). Cf. Munz. iv 31259–81.

Editions of the poem (and, where mentioned, of the commentary): Tehran 1316sh./1937 (ed. S. Nafīsī); Kabul 1344sh./1965 (ed. M. Harawī, with the commentary); also in Mathnawī-hā i Ḥakīm Sanāʾī, ed. M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī, Tehran 1348sh./1969, pp. 179–233 (text) and 235–316 (the commentary).

Translation (Italian verse): Sair al-ʿibād: Viaggio nel regno del ritorno, tr. C. Saccone (with introduction and notes), Parma 1993.

Ḥadīqat al-ḥaqīqah wa sharīʿat al-ṭarīqah, (inc.: ai darūn-parwar i birūn-ārāy * ai khirad-bakhsh i bēkhirad-bakhshāy) Sanāʾī’s best-known work, is a long didactic poem with some interspersed narrative passages. The textual history of the work is discussed by de Bruijn, pp. 119–39. Many copies begin with a preface in prose by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Raffāʾ (which, in some manuscripts, has been clumsily reworked into a preface to the dīwān attributed to Sanāʾī himself) describing the genesis of the poem: Bahrām-shāh invited Sanāʾī to attend his royal court, but the poet excused himself and instead sent him a poem with the name Fakhrī-nāmah. Afterwards, he began work on a book with the title Ḥadīqat al-ḥaqīqah (etc.). Some envious people tried to disperse (mutafarriq kardan) his book (i.e. presumably the fair copy that he had sent to the king) by taking away parts of it. Unable to recover these lost parts the poet re-edited what he had composed (ān-chih guftah būd; presumably meaning his own rough draft) and sent it to Khwājah Imām Burhān al-dīn in Baghdad. Then he compiled another copy from the material remaining in his possession (ān-chih ba dast i ō bimānd). After the poet’s death the author of the preface prepared a copy at the command of Bahrām-shāh. It seems as though the surviving manuscripts of the poem go back to, and in part combine, the various recensions mentioned in this preface. Two of the oldest manuscripts (Istanbul Bağdatli Vehbi 1672—copied in 552/1157, two decades after the death of the author—and Velieddin 2627 of 684/1285) actually give the poem the title Fakhrī-nāmah and de Bruijn has shown that at least the older of these seems to contain Sanāʾī’s first, considerably shorter, version (or perhaps rather the truncated edition of the same prepared by the ‘envious people’?). Most other manuscripts contain a versified epilogue, apparently written by Sanāʾī for the copy that he sent to Baghdad and subsequently reproduced in the definitive edition by Raffāʾ. In some copies this contains the information that the epilogue in question was written between 524 and 525 (i.e. 1130–1). In others we find instead the dates 525 and 534 (the latter, corresponding to 1139–40, being perhaps the date of the completion of Raffaʾ’s recension) and others again contain what is apparently a contamination of the two versions.

Mss.:51 Dublin t.c.d. 1559 (Dated 930/1523–4); Beatty 380 (17th century?); Manchester Lindesiana 843 (Copied by Aḥmad b. al-Ḥabīb Abī Isḥāq in Shawwāl 681/1283. See also de Bruijn p. 126); Lindesiana 13 (16th century?); Lindesiana 12 (=Robinson pp. 226–7. Dated Rajab 1016/1607. Pictures); Lindesiana 106 (17th century?); Oxford Fraser 93 (Ethé 531. Dated 20 Shawwāl 1002/1594); Ms. Pers. d. 51 fol. 264b sqq.(Beeston 2549. Dated 29 Rabīʿ i 1007/1598); Ouseley Add. 37 (Ethé 534. Dated 12 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1056/1646); Ouseley 315 (Ethé 533. Dated during the governorship of Sulṭān Muḥammad Murād-bakhsh, who died in 1071/1661, but Ethé thinks this colophon was added later); Whinfield 83 (Beeston 2550. End missing); Ind. Inst. Pers. 43 (Beeston 2551. 18th century?); Elliot 151 (Ethé 528); Elliot 152 (Ethé 529); Elliot 153 (Ethé 530); Elliot 154 (Ethé 532); Ouseley Add. 88 (Ethé 535); London i.o. 916/1 (Ms. dated Jumādā ii 637/1240. Defective); Add. 25,329 (Rieu p. 550. Dated Ṣafar 890/1485); Or. 358 (Rieu p. 550. 16th century?); Or. 4514/i (Rieu Suppt. 215. Completed 14 Rabīʿ ii 1023/1614); i.o. 918 (Dated 1027 /1618); Add. 16,778 (Rieu p. 551. Dated 1040 /1630–1); Or. 6965 (Meredith-Owens p. 67. Dated 1048/1638–9); i.o. 915/1 (Ms. completed Muḥarram 1061/1651); Add. 16,777 (Rieu pp. 549–50. Dated 1076/1665–6); i.o. 919 (Dated 26 Shawwāl 1077 /1667); Add. 26,150 (Rieu p. 551. 17th century?); i.o. 914/1; i.o. 917/2 (Copied by Qiwām b. Muḥammad Shīrāzī. Incomplete); i.o. 920; i.o. 921 (defective); i.o. 922 (defective); Cambridge Or. 1584 (2nd Suppt. 370. Dated 1004/1595–6); Add. 3209 (Browne Cat. cciii. Dated 3 Ṣafar 1012/1603 and copied from and collated with a Ms. dated Ramaḍān 617/1220); Add. 810 (Browne Cat. cciv. Dated 26 Rabīʿ ii 1032/1623); Or. 254 (Browne Suppt. 392. Dated 1067/1656–7); Or. 272 (Browne Suppt. 393. Dated 1094/1683); Browne Coll. v.6; Paris Supplément 1494 (Blochet 1215. Dated 7 Rabīʿ ii 908/1502); Supplément 1839 (Blochet 1216. Dated ⟨1⟩122/1710); Supplément 703 (Blochet 1217. 18th century?); Strasbourg Landauer 20 (=Hoghughi 8. Dated 1 Jumādā ii 1035/1621); Landauer 21 (=Hoghughi 9. Dated 29 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1099/1688); Turin 70/i (Dated 1003/1595); 69 (Dated 1049/1640); Rome Vatican Pers. 88 (Rossi pp. 106–7. Copied by Saiyid Jamāl al-dīn b. Muḥammad al-Ḥusainī and dated 19 Shaʿbān 1020/1611);52 Leyden Cat. v p. 181 no. 2579 (Dated 987/1579. Pictures); Heidelberg Or. P. 430 (Berenbach ii p. 88; de Bruijn p. 126. Copied by Aḥmad b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad and dated 687/1288); Göttingen Divshali/Luft 57 (Dated 27 Ramaḍān 1024/1615); Munich 174 Quatr. (Aumer 19); Berlin Sprenger 1513/1 (Pertsch 684. Dated Rabīʿ ii 894/1489); Sprenger 1512 (Pertsch 717. Dated 27 Muḥarram 1067/1656); Vienna Flügel 509 (also Duda pp. 65–6. Dated 1 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1052/1643); Leningrad Acad. A 16 (Index 1037); Acad. A 885 (Index 1038); Acad. A 973 (Index 1039); Acad. C 54 (Index 1041); Dorn cccl (Pictures); Istanbul Bağdatli Vehbi 1672/1 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 102; de Bruijn pp. 123–4. Ms. copied by Abū Saʿīd Maudūd al-Iṣfahānī and dated 7 Shawwāl 552/1157. Title given as Fakhrī-nāmah); Velieddin 2627/1 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3, 126. Dated 14 Jumādā i 684/1285. ‘Fakhrī-namah’, with preface); Esat 1387 (Duda p. 63; Der Islam 22 p. 103. Early 14th century? ‘Fakhrī-nāmah’); Ayasofya 1762/1 (Ateş 32. Dated Ṣafar 791/1389); Ayasofya 1761 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 103–4. Dated 828/1424–5); Fatih 3734/1–2 (Ritter-Reinert p. 115. Ms. copied by Gulshanī Harawī and dated 884/1479–80. ‘Fakhrī-nāmah’ with Raffāʿ’s preface); Üniversite fy 475/1 (Ateş 33. Copied by ʿAlī b. Ḥaidar and dated 25 Rajab 898/1490); Ayasofya 3865 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 104. 15th century?); Nuruosmaniye 2361 (Ateş 34. 15th century?); Fatih 3732 (Ritter-Reinert p. 116. 16th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 277 (Karatay 391. Dated Rabīʿ i 912/1506); Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi 1977 (olim Fatih 3733. Ritter-Reinert pp. 115–6. Copied by Munʿim al-dīn al-Auḥadī and dated Rabīʿ ii 915/1509); Şehit Ali 1165 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 104. Dated 986/1578); Nafiz Paşa 894 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, p. 103. Dated 13 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1013/1605); Nuruosmaniye 2363 (Ateş 35. Dated 10 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1018/1610); Nuruosmaniye 2364 (Ateş 36. Dated 1032/1622–3); Üniversite fy 37 (Ateş 37. Copied by Muḥibb i ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Mashhadī and dated 15 Rabīʿ i 1039/1629); Topkapı, Revan 1039 (Karatay 392. Dated 1039/1629–30); Nuruosmaniye 2362 (Ateş 38. Copied by ʿAbd al-Rashīd and dated 1046/1636–7); Üniversite fy 1245 (Ateş 39. Dated 12 Rabīʿ ii 1093/1682); Üniversite fy 177 (Ateş 40. Dated 2 Ṣafar 1098/1686); Tehran Millī 2353 (see de Bruijn pp. 100–1. Supposedly 12th century); Shūrā i Islāmī i 309 (olim Bayānī. Copied by ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Asʿad Tājī and dated 24 Ramaḍàn 691/1292); Majlis viii 2346 (cf. de Bruijn pp. 126–7. Dated 758/1356–7); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 271 (Copied by Murshid al-dīn and dated 900/1494–5); Sipah-sālār ii 1130 (Dated 920/1514); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 431/i (Ms. copied by Pīr Ḥusain al-Shīrāzī and dated Shaʿbān 934/1528); Sipah-sālār ii 1131 (Dated 1017 /1608–9); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 451/ii (Dated 1 Jumādā ii 1018/1609); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 273 (Copied by Quṭb al-dīn b. Ḥasan and dated Rabīʿ i 1025/1616); Majlis ii 917 (Dated 1025/1616); Shūrā i Islāmī i 259 (olim Bayānī. Copied by Mīr Muḥammad Qāsim in 1051/1641–2); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 270 (Dated 29 Ramaḍān 1070/1660); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 269 (Contains a seal dated 1072/1661–2); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 433/ii (Ms. dated 1 Ṣafar 1073/1662); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 272; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 454/i; Majlis i 625; Majlis i 653 (‘old’); Majlis ii 916 (15th century?); Sipah-sālār ii 1132; Tashkent Acad. ii 790 (Dated 11 Ṣafar 1010/1601); Dushanbe Acad. ii 344–349; Kabul Museum 318 (Cat. p. 157; de Bruijn pp. 98–100. Supposedly 12th century. Facsimile published in Kabul, 1356sh./1977); Bombay Rehatsek p. 134 no. 25 (Dated 1005/1596–7); Univ. iii (Dated Ṣafar 1106/1694); Rehatsek p. 134 no. 24 (Dated 46th year of ʿĀlamgīr/1718. With a commentary); Rehatsek p. 133 no. 23; Kapurthala 59 (ocm ii/4, 1927, p. 19. Dated 1086/1675–6); Aligarh Subḥ. p. 41 no. 49 (Dated 1057/1647); Lucknow Sprenger 496 (several copies); Bankipore i 18 (15th century?); i 17 (16th century?); Suppt. i 1805 (18th century?); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 414 nos. 389 (Dated 871/1466–7), 388, 497; Āṣafíyah iii p. 196 no. 1503; Madras 107–110; Calcutta Būhār 281 (16th century? End missing); Ivanow 438/4 (16th–17th century?); Būhār 282 (Copied by Muḥammad Riḍā Miṣrī and dated Rabīʿ i 1033/1623–4, some leaves added later); Madrasah cxxxv (Dated 3 Shaʿbān 1099/1687); Ivanow 439 (17th century?); Ivanow 444 (17th century? Bk. 1 only); Ivanow 442 (Dated 1186/1772–3); Ivanow 440 (18th century? Defective); Ivanow 441 (18th century?); Ivanow 443 (18th century?); Chicago Collection of Halil Inalcik (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i p. 75; de Bruijn pp. 124–5. Copied by Siyāwush b. Abī l-Faḍl al-Marwazī and dated 2 Shaʿbān 588/1192. Title given as Ilāhī-nāmah. Defective).

Editions: Bombay 1275/1858–9; Lucknow 1295/1878; Tehran 1329sh./1950–1 (ed. M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī; see the review by H. Ritter, Oriens v, 1952, pp. 190–2, and de Bruijn p. 123).

Partial translations (English): J. Stephenson (1st book, with Persian text), Calcutta 1911, reprinted 1968; D. Pendlebury (‘translated and abridged’) 1974.


(a) Intikhāb (or Muntakhab) i ḥadīqah, or Intikhāb (Istanbul copies: Muntakhab) az muntakhab i ḥadīqah, (ine.: ḥamd bē ḥad ṣifāt i yazdān rā * madḥ bē qadḥ dhāt i subḥān rā, or in some copies: ḥamd u shukr u thanā ʿalā l-iṭlāq * dhāt i ḥaq rā sazad ba istiḥqāq = ‘incipit ii’), by an author who calls himself Dāʿī presumably Niẓām al-dīn Maḥmūd b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥusainī al-Shīrāzī, known as Dāʿī who collected his dīwān in 865/1460–1, when he was 55 years old, and who is also the author of a commentary on Rūmī’s Mathnawī.53 In at least some copies it contains verses in which the compiler says that with it he has reduced his earlier epitome of the Ḥadīqah to 1001 verses; it remains to be investigated whether any of the Mss. listed here contain the earlier version. In some copies the work is attributed to Sanāʾī himself, or else to ʿAṭṭār. See also de Bruijn, p. 121.

Mss.: Oxford Ouseley 190 (Ethé 536. Dated 930/1523–4); Canonici Or. 122 (Ethé ii 2405; Robinson 1037–44. Copied by ʿAlī al-Kātib al-Sulṭānī who died ‘about’ 950/1543, according to Ethé, while one of the miniatures is signed by Kamāl Tabrīzī who ‘seems to have flourished about 1575’ according to Robinson. Pictures, apparently by several artists); Richmond Keir iii.298–301 (Dated 978/1570–1. Pictures); London Or. 11523 (Meredith-Owens p. 73. Copied by Shāh Maḥmūd Naishāpūrī, ca. 950/1543); i.o. 925 (incipit ii); Berlin Petermann 444 (Pertsch 718. Copied by Muʿīn b. Rafīʿ al-dīn al-Ad’hamī and dated Rajab 905/1500. Title given as Thamarat al-ḥadīqah li ahl al-haqīqah); Vienna Flügel 510 fol. 3v–42r (see also Duda pp. 15–19, where the Ms. is ascribed to the 16th century. Pictures); Istanbul Topkapı, Revan 1040 (Karatay 393. Copied by Shams al-dīn Muḥammad al-Sharīf al-Kirmānī in 916/1510–1. Incipit ii. Title given as Ḥadaqat al-ḥadīqah); Üniversite fy 498 (Ateş 43. 16th century?); Üniversite fy 1122 (Ateş 45. 17th century?); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy i 274 (15th century? Pictures, one of which is signed by Bahrām Qulī Afshār Naqqāsh); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 276; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 455; Bombay Univ. 13; Lucknow Sprenger 130 (incipit ii); Bankipore i 19 (Copied by Muhammad ʿAlī b. ʿIzz al-dīn Aḥmad and dated 3 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1061/1651. Ca. 1200 verses); i 20 (Copied by Jān Muḥammad b. Maulānā Khiḍr. 16th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 446 (Dated 33rd year of Aurangzēb/1101/1689–90).

Edition: Tehran 1316/1898–9 (ed. ʿAlī-Naqī Muʾtamin i dīwān, under the title Laṭīfat al-ʿirfān, according to Tehran Majlis Cat. iii p. 144).

(b) Unidentified or unspecified epitomes: Mss.: Paris Supplément 704 (Blochet 1218. 16th century?); Ancien fonds 325 fol. 1v–4r (Blochet 2156/Richard. Ms. dated 1071/1661. 79 verses only); Leningrad Dorn cccli (Copied by Shāh Maḥmūd in 928/1522); Istanbul Üniversite fy 538/17 (Ateş 41. Dated 826/1423); Üniversite fy 1080 (Ateş 42. 15th century?); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 461/iii (Ms. contains a seal with the date 1107/1695–6).

Commentaries and glossaries:

(a) Laṭāʾif al-ḥadāʾiq min nafāʾis al-daqāʾiq, or in some copies Sharḥ al-ḥadīqah, by ʿAbd al-Latīf b. ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAbbāsī (died 1048/1638–9 or 1049/1639–40), for whom see pl i § 1112, first footnote of the third paragraph.54 A revised text of the Ḥadīqah on the basis of various manuscripts with commentary, completed in 1042/1632–3 with help from Mīr ʿImād al-dīn Maḥmūd, called Ilāhī (see pl i § 1121). Some Mss. appear to contain an abridged version. See the description in the i.o. catalogue.

Mss.: Oxford Whinfield 24 (Beeston 2552. Dated 1093/1682); London i.o. 923 (Dated 20 Jumādā i 1044/1634. Apparently the author’s autograph of the abridged version); i.o. 924 (Written in the reign of Muḥammad Shāh); Or. 11684 (Meredith-Owens p. 73. 17th century? Defective at end); i.o. Delhi 1257 (18th century? Incomplete); Or. 9744 (Meredith-Owens p. 70. 19th century? Presumably this work is intended); Cambridge King’s, No. 151 (Browne Suppt. 394. Dated Rabīʿ i 1102/1690. Title given as Mirāt al-ḥadāʾiq, presumably the same work?); Edinburgh Univ. 273 (Dated ⟨10⟩51/1641–2); Turin Bibl. Nazionale Ms. iii.3 (Piemontese 354. Dated 17 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1049/1640); Bankipore i 21; Calcutta Ivanow 445 (Dated 38th year of Aurangzēb/1107/1695–6. 2nd half only); Ivanow Curzon 192 (17th–18th century?); Būhār 283–4 (19th century?); Aligarh Subḥ. p. 49 no. 12.

Edition: Lucknow 1877 (according to the Bankipore Catalogue i p. 29, where a detailed account of the work can be found); 1304/1886.

(b) Sharḥ i ḥadīqat i Ḥakim Sanāʾī by Muḥammad Nūr Allāh Aḥrārī Ghaznawī. Mss.: Lucknow Sprenger 497; Aligarh Subḥ. p. 48 no. 4.

(c) Ṭarīqah bar ḥadīqah by Mīrzā ʿAlā al-dīn Aḥmad Khān, called ʿAlāʾī, governor of Lūhārū, and Maulawī Muḥammad Rukn al-dīn Qādirī Ḥiṣārī. Apparently comments only on the first two chapters. See Browne, Cat. cciv.

Edition: Lūhārū 1290/1873.

(d) Unidentified commentary: Paris Supplément 1678 (Blochet 1219. 18th century? Beginning and end missing);

(e) Miftāḥ al-ḥadīqah, an anonymous versified vocabulary (begins with the first verse of Niẓāmī’s Makhzan al-asrār). Ms.: Calcutta Ivanow 447 (17th century?).

Doubtful and spurious works:

Ṭarīq al-taḥqīq (inc.: ibtidāʾ i sukhan ba nām i khudā-st * ān-kih bē mithl u shibh u bē hamtā-st) is attributed in the oldest Ms. (Istanbul Üniversite; fy 593) to one Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Nakhjawānī, doubtless the true author.55 It has been claimed56 that the last verse (khaṭm i īn naẓm bar saʿādat bād …) contains, in the last three words, a chronogram for the year 744/1343–4; this is possible, but the formulation of the verse is not such that it must necessarily contain a chronogram. It seems to me therefore that the question of the date of the poem remains open. Later manuscripts contain interpolated verses ascribing the work to Sanāʾī and stating that it was composed in 528/1133–4. We have thus clearly to do with a poem that was composed in good faith by the otherwise unknown Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan, but later fraudulently ascribed to Sanāʾī.

Mss.:57 London i.o. 926 (Dated 15 Jumādā ii 1061/1651); i.o. 914/2; Istanbul Üniversite; fy 593/4 (olim Rıza Paşa 3009. Ateş 570. Ms. dated Ramaḍān 890/1485. Title given in the superscription as Miṣbāh al-arwāḥ and in the colophon as Ṭarīqat al-muḥaqqiqīn. Author given as Malik al-ʿārifin Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Nakhja-wānī al-maʿrūf bi l-Jāmī); Üniversite; fy 474/6 (Ateş 50. Dated 22 Ramaḍān 898/1493. Apparently attributed to Auḥadī Kirmānī); Üniversite fy 70 (Ateş 51. Dated 1274/1857–8); Bombay Rehatsek p. 128 (Dated 946/1539–40. The author’s name is given as Aḥmad b. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Khuwāfī); Hyderabad Āṣafīyah i p. 454 no. 734 (Dated 1210/1787–8).

Editions: Tehran 13⟨0⟩9/1891–2; 1348sh./1969 (in Mathnawī-hā i ḥakīm Sanāʾī, ed. M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī, p. 89–139); Bombay 1318/1900 (title given as Zād al-sālikīn); Lahore 1936; Shiraz 1318sh./1939–40; Lund 1973 (Ṭarīq ut-taḥqīq. A Sufi Mathnavi ascribed toSanaʾīA critical edition, with a history of the text and a commentary [by] Bo Utas).

See also B. Utas, A Persian Sufi poem: vocabulary and terminology. Concor­dance, frequency word-list, statistical survey, Arabic loan-words and Sufi-religious terminology in Ṭarīq ut-taḥqīq (A.H. 744), Lund 1977 (contains also a reprint of his edition of the text).

Qiṣṣat i Bahrām u Bihrōz, alias Gharīb-nāmah, (inc.: īn-chunīn guft rāwī i hamah-dān * kih ba ʿahd i qadīm dar Hamadān) is really by Kamāl al-dīn Bannāʾī, called Ḥālī (d. 918/1512–3), but because of the scribal similarity between the names Bannāʾī and ‘Thanāʾī’ the whole or parts of the poem have found their way into Mss. of the works of our poet, e.g. London i.o. 914/3 (see also the Bankipore Catalogue i p. 20); i.o. 915 fol. 316–31; Paris Supplément 1103/ii (Blochet 1220. Dated 1284/1867–8).
ʿIshq-nāmah, or Kunūz al-asrār (inc.: ʿishq murgh i nishīman i qidam ast * qūt i ō gah wujūd u gah ʿadam as), a versified commentary on the Sawāniḥ of Aḥmad Ghazālī.

Mss.: London i.o. 914/6; i.o. 915/2 (Ms. completed Muḥarram 1061/1651). Cf. Munz. iv 33077–80.

Edition: Tehran 1348sh./1969 (in Mathnawī-hā i ḥakīm Sanāʾī, ed. M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī, pp. 17–47. J.T.P. de Bruijn tells me that this poem has been republished as the work of ʿIzz al-dīn Maḥmūd Kāshānī (died 735/1334–5), in Sih sharḥ bar sawāniḥ al-ʿushshāq i Aḥmad i Ghazāli, ed. A. Mujāhid, Tehran 1372sh./1993, pp. 3–30.

ʿAql-nāmah is a short didactic work without dedication or internal indication of its authorship, de Bruijn (pp. 114–5) considers it probably spurious.

Mss.: London i.o. 914/7; i.o. 915/3 (Dated Muḥarram 1061/1651); i.o. 927 fol. 393b–411; Istanbul Velieddin 2627/2 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3, 126. Ms. dated 14 Jumādā i 684/1285); Fatih 3734/3 (Ritter-Reinert p. 115. Ms. copied by Gulshanī Harawī and dated 884/1479–80); Tehran Sipah-sālār 347/2 (Munz. 32392. Dated 920/1514); Dushanbe Acad. ii 351 (17th–18th century?). Cf. Munz. iv 32390–4.

Edition: Mathnawī-hā i Ḥakīm Sanāʾī, ed. M.T. Mudarris-i Riḍawī, Tehran 1348sh./1969, pp. 1–15.

Taḥrīmat al-qalam, or Tajrubat al-ʿilm, is another short mathnawī without dedication and is likewise probably spurious (see de Bruijn pp. 115–7).

Mss.: Istanbul Velieddin 2627/5 (Ritter, Der Islam xxii, 1934, pp. 102–3; de Bruijn pp. 102–3, 126. Dated 8 Shaʿbān 683/1284); Fatih 3734/6 (Ritter-Reinert p. 115. Ms. copied by Gulshanī Harawī and dated 884/1479–80); Kabul Museum 318 (Cat. p. 157; de Bruijn pp. 98–100. Supposedly 12th century. Facsimile published in Kabul, 1356sh./1977). Cf. Munz. iv 28380.

Editions: M. Mīnuwī, fiz v/1, 1335sh./1956, pp. 5–15; Mathnawī-hā i Hakim Sanāʾī, ed. M.T. Mudarris i Riḍawī, Tehran 1348sh./1969, pp. 81–8.

ʿArūḍī p. 28; Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī, Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, pp. 17–18; Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 252–7; id., Jawāmiʿ iii p. 58, 316; Shams passim; Mustaufī p. 660, 736; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, fol. 5b, 17b, 85a); Jājarmī (see the index); Daulat-shāh pp. 95–9; Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 285b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 254–74; id., Riyāḍ pp. 196–210; H. Ritter, ‘Philologika VIII: Anṣārī Herewī—Senāʾī Ġaznewī’, Der Islam xxii, 1935, pp. 89–105; R.A. Nicholson, A Persian forerunner of Dante, Towyn-on-Sea 1944; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 552–86; Khaiyām-pūr p. 277; Colloquio italo-iraniano: il poeta mistico Sanāʾī, Rome 1979 (articles by Bausani and Zipoli); J.Ch. Bürgel, ‘Sanāʾīs « Jenseitsreise der Gottesknechte » [i.e. Sair al-ʿibād] als Poesia docta’, Der Islam 60, 1983, pp. 78–90; id., ‘ʿIlm i nafs wa ʿilm i nujūm dar sair al-ʿibād’, Āyandah v, 1979, pp. 5–13 (translation of the preceding); J.T.P. de Bruijn, Of piety and poetry. The interaction of religion and literature in the life and works of Ḥakim Sanāʾī of Ghazna, Leiden 1983 (fundamental); id., ‘The transmission of early Persian ghazals (with special reference to the Dīvān of Sanāʾī)’, Manuscripts of the Middle East iii, 1988, pp. 27–31; F. de Blois, ‘A bilingual poem by Ḥāfiẓ’ [and one by Sanāʾī58], Oriente moderno, nouva serie xv/2, 1996 [published 1998], pp. 379–84; ei2 s.v. ‘Sanāʾī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn, with further literature).

§ 285. Majd al-dīn Iftikhār al-ḥukamaʾ Abū l-Siḥrī (or al-Shajarī?) al-Ṣandalī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157), where we find a qaṣīdah dedicated to one ‘Pahlawān i jahān Ḍiyāʾ al-dīn Qāḍī i Tūlak’.59

ʿAufī ii p. 334–6; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 314; Khaiyām-pūr p. 342.

§ 286. Shāh Bū Rajāʾ—or perhaps rather Shāh i Bū Rajāʾ (i.e. Shāh, son of Abū Rajāʾ)—is listed by ʿArūḍī among the Ghaznavid poets. ʿAufī calls him al-Ḥakīm Shihāb al-dīn Shāh ʿAlī Abī Rajāʾ al-Ghaznawī,60 (read either Shāh ʿAlī i Abī Rajāʾ or Shāh ʿAlī Abū Rajā), and quotes, along with some shorter pieces, two odes to Abū l-Muẓaffar Bahrām-Shāh b. Masʿūd (511/1117 to 552/1157; the king’s name is mentioned in both poems). Ibn al-Mujāwir quotes two verses ‘li ibn al-Rajā’ (read li Abī l-Rajā or li ibn Abī l-Rajā?). According to Ādhar he died in 598/1201–2, to Hidāyat in 597/1200–1, but these dates seem very late.

I wonder whether Shihāb al-dīn Shāh ʿAlī al-Ghaznawī is not identical with ʿAlī b. al-Muẓaffar al-Shihābī61 al-Ghaznawī, the author of a mathnawī with the title Pahlawān-nāmah, extracts from which make up the first part of the didactic anthology Baḥr al-durar (only reported Ms.: Gotha 40). The epitome, and presumably also the poem itself, begins with the verse ba nām i khudāwand i kaiwān u hōr * kih hast āfrīnandah i pīl u mōr; from the metre alone it is evident that this has nothing to do with the Pahlawān-nāmah of Muʾaiyad al-Nasafī.62 The poem does not appear to be recorded elsewhere, but the fact that all the other poets who are epitomised in the Baḥr al-durar lived in the 11th (Firdausī, Asadī), 12th (Niẓāmī) or 13th (Qāniʿī)63 centuries suggests that ʿAlī b. al-Muẓaffar might belong to the pre-Mongol period.64

ʿArūḍī p. 28; ʿAufī ii pp. 276–82 (and the note in Nafīsī’s edition p. 728); Ibn al-Mujāwir, Taʾrīkh al-mustabṣir, ed. Löfgren, Leyden 1951–4, p. 84; Rāzī i p. 331 (no. 338); Ādhar (old edition) p. 113; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 68–70; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 615–8; EIr s.v. ‘Gaznavī’.65

§ 287. Shahryārī (the superscription is missing in the Mss. of ʿAufī’s work and only this much of the name occurs in the body of the text) 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 seven rubāʿīs.

ʿAufī ii pp. 336–7; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Khaiyām-pūr p. 312.

§ 288. Shamālī (or Shimālī) al-Dihistānī is the author of a substantial qaṣīdah (quoted by Jājarmī) in praise of a king who is named in the verse: tāju l-mulūk Nuṣrat i dīn, khusrau-ē kih hast * bar nām i ō ṭarī hamah mulk i Ṭabarsitān; evidently the Bāwandid Nuṣrat al-dīn Rustam b. ʿAlī (ca. 536/1142 to 560/1165). He is presumably identical with the Shamālī who is the victim of some satirical verses by Ṣābir which are quoted by ʿAufī. Hidāyat quotes some verses from the ode cited by Jājarmī and adds two more poems.

Diwān i Adīb Ṣābir, ed. Qawīm, p. 301; ʿAufī ii p. 123; Jājarmī ii pp. 504–6; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 309–10; Khaiyām-pūr p. 304.

§ 289. Shams al-dīn Lāgharī is quoted by Rāwandī (Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, pp. 394–5) as the author of three verses mocking the bāṭinīyān (Ismāʿīlīs).

§ 290. Shams Sujāsī is, according to Mustaufī, a poet who collected the dīwān of Ẓahīr Fāryābī and who died in 602/1205–6. He is thus presumably to be identified with the unnamed author of the prose introduction which we find in some copies of Ẓahīr’s poems. (See below, p. 356).

One qaṣīdah by Shams al-dīn al-Sujāsī is found in Bologna Biblioteca Universitaria Ms. 3283/v (Piemontese 3. 13th century?) and three verses by ‘Shams al-dīn Ṭāhir Snjʾsy’ are cited by Rāzī.

Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Mustaufī p. 736; Rāzī iii pp. 201–2 (no. 1301); Ḥājjī Khalīfah iii p. 293, no. 5532.

§ 291. Shams al-dīn Mubārak-Shāh b. al-Aʿazz al-Sijzī66 is quoted in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157), where we find, among other things, a qiṭʿah dedicated to Naṣīr al-dīn, the wazīr of the maliks of Nīmrōz (i.e. Sistan),67 a rubāʿī addressed to one Bahrām-shāh (evidently not the Ghaznavid, but his namesake, the ruler of Sīstān from 610/1212 to 618/1221), a eulogy on one Nāṣir al-dīn ʿUthmān (evidently the brother of the just-mentioned Bahrām-shāh, khudāwand Nāṣir al-dīn ʿUthmān b. Ḥarb, who died in 604/1207–868) and a poem which he wrote (still according to ʿAufī) during his imprisonment in Kirmān.

ʿAufī ii pp. 348–9; Rāzī i pp. 293–4 (no. 304); Khaiyām-pūr p. 306 (‘Shams i Sanjarī’).

§ 292. Shams al-dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Ṭabasī69 is the author of a slender dīwān preserved notably in two ancient manuscripts in Dublin and London. Hardly anything is known about him except that in one of his poems70 he mentions the building of a fortress in the year 591/1195. ʿAufī speaks of him in the past tense. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī says that Shams al-Ṭabasī was a pupil of Raḍī al-dīn al-Naisabūrī and that it was his teacher who encouraged him to emulate the style of Khāqānī. The same author quotes the first verses of an ode (which we know also from ʿAufī and from Shams’s dīwān) employing the same rhyme and metre as a ‘famous’ poem by ‘the qāḍī of Bukhārā Ṣadr al-sharīʿah’ (in fact it is by Manṣūr b. Maḥmud al-Ūzjandī)71 and he adds that Shams’s poem was addressed to the ‘wazīr of Bukhārā’. Zakarīyāʾ says further that Shams died young.

At least one of Shams’s odes is clearly dedicated to one or other of the Burhānī ṣadrs.72 But the majority of his poems are addressed to a wazīr whom he calls Niẓām al-mulk Ṣadr al-dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad,73 who has not been identified satisfactorily, but who is perhaps the ‘wazīr of Bukhārā’ mentioned by Zakarīyāʾ. Modern scholars have described Shams as a poet at the court of the Qarakhanids, but it does not seem possible to substantiate this.74

Mss. of his dīwān: Dublin Beatty 103/vi (Ms. completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 699/1300. Beginning missing); Oxford Elliot 86 (Ethé 621); London i.o. 1030 (Copied by ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-ʿAlawī al-Kāshī and dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 713/1314. Pictures);75 Istanbul Hekimoğlu Ali paşa 669/3 (Mīkrūfīīm-hā; i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Tehran Bayānī 56/5 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 15. Dated 995/1587); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 965/5 (Ms. dated 1041/1631–2); Rampore State Library (Nadhīr Aḥmad 177. qaṣāʾid). Cf. Munz. iii 23881–90.

Edition: Mashhad 1343sh./1965 (ed. T. Bīnish, mainly from the Dublin and India Office Mss., with extensive notes).

ʿAufī ii pp. 307–11; Shams p. 273; Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, pp. 272–3; Mustaufī p. 737; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī passim; Yaghmāʾī pp. 91–3, 208–9, 271; Daulat-shāh pp. 161–6; Rāzī 1 pp. 163–5 (no. 153); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 306–9; id., Riyāḍ p. 211; Khaiyām-pūr p. 306; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 834–44.

§ 293. al-Ḥakīm Shamsī al-Aʿraj al-Bukhārī was another of the poets connected with the Āl i Burhān of Bukhārā. ʿAufī quotes, among other things, a qiṭʿah composed after the death of ‘Ṣadr i saʿd’ (a title given both to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz i b. ʿUmar and to his great-grandson ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ii, who died in 593/1196–7, and who is evidently intended here) and another addressed to al-Ṣadr al-kabīr ʿUmar (ii) b. Masʿūd (who succeeded the just mentioned ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ii and died before 603/1206).

ʿAufī i p. 174, ii pp. 384–5; Rāzī iii p. 422 (no. 1479. Name misspelt both in the edition and in Ethé’s Mss.); Khaiyām-pūr p. 308.

§ 294. Sharaf al-ḥukamāʾ Shamsī Dihistānī is credited with one ghazal in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157).

ʿAufī ii p. 355; Khaiyām-pūr p. 308.

§ 295. Sharaf al-dīn Panjdihī is the subject of the last entry in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157). ʿAufī says that he was from the vicinity of Zāwah and Khwāf (south of Naisābūr); in this case the nisbah Panjdihī (if correctly read)76 cannot refer to Panjdih near Marw, but must relate to the similarly named conglomeration of villages in Kōhistān. ʿAufī says further that he followed the manner of Kōshkakī and Rūḥī77 and quotes verses in which he satirised one Saʿd i dīn, a rubāʿī directed against a certain Shihāb al-dīn, and an exchange of invectives between him and one Sirājī Isfarāʾinī.

ʿAufī ii pp. 358–9.

§ 296. Sharaf al-dīn Muḥammad, with a by-name which has traditionally been read as Shufurwah or Shafurwah (or -waʾī), but for which the correct reading is perhaps Shafrūh, was a member of a distinguished family of Ḥanafī clerics in Isfahan78 and the author of an extant (but unpublished) Persian dīwān.

In the London manuscript, which was studied by Qazwīnī, the majority of the poems are dedicated to a king by the name of Shams al-dīn Muḥammad, apparently the atabeg Jahān-pahlawān Muḥammad b. Ēldügüz (571/1175 to 582/1186). There is only one poem lauding the Seljuq Arslān b. Ṭoghrıl (556/1161 to 571/1176)—this ode is quoted also by ʿAufī—and one praising his successor Ṭoghrıl iii. The latter, a strophic poem, is found also (in virtually the same form as in the London manuscript) in Daulat-shāh’s entry devoted to our poet. However a slightly different version of the same poem is quoted by Rāwandī (anonymously, but in a context where Rāwandī seems to be claiming the authorship for himself), but here it evokes the Rūm-Seljuq Ghiyāth al-dīn Kai-Khusrau i (588/1192 to 607/1210, with an interruption), the dedicatee of Rāwandī’s history. Moreover it is also included in Jājarmī’s anthology as the work of Rāwandī but with a dedication to Kai-Khusrau’s brother and rival Rukn al-dīn Sulaimān ii (592/1196 to 600/1204), the king to whom Rāwandī (as he himself tells us) had originally intended to dedicate his book. As quoted by Jājarmī, the poem is a rebus or picture-poem; in the second miṣrāʿ of each verse the words are represented by pictures and the reader is evidently expected to put in the words that fit the metre and rhyme. In the unique manuscript of Rāwandī’s book there are apparently no pictures, but the poem is preceded by a rubāʿī which instructs the reader to ‘recite one half (of each verse) as it is written, for the other half has meaning and metre through the names of the pictures’;79 it is thus clear that in Rāwandī’s original manuscript the poem must have appeared in the same semi-pictorial form as in Jājarmī’s anthology.

A.H. Morton has recently devoted a detailed study to this picture-poem and pointed out that the versions quoted by Daulat-shāh and in the London manuscript are very close to each other; in particular both omit one verse, thus spoiling the structure of the stanzas. He suggests that the poem is in fact by Sharaf al-dīn and was dedicated to Ṭoghrıl and that it was quoted by Daulat-shāh evidently from a copy that was already defective in the same way as the London manuscript. Rāwandī then reworked the ode as a picture-poem and rededicated it first to Sulaimān and then to Kai-Khusrau. Jājarmī in turn quoted it either from the first (now lost) version of Rāwandī’s history, or from some other unknown work of his. This is certainly a plausible construction, though one might wonder whether the poem is not really by Rāwandī and that it was dedicated by him to three Seljuqs in succession, but that the notoriously unreliable Daulat-shāh has wrongly ascribed it to Sharaf al-dīn. It would in this case have entered the manuscripts of the dīwān of Sharaf al-dīn from Daulat-shāh’s tadhkirah.

What seems to be a much fuller recension of Sharaf’s dīwān is found in the Calcutta manuscript and this contains (according to Ivanow) not one but a large number of poems to Ṭoghrıl as well as some to Ēldügüz, but this needs checking.

ʿAufī gives our poet’s name as Sharaf al-daulah wa l-dīn Muḥammad (i) *Shafrūh, but Jājarmī, like most of the later authors, quotes him as al-imām al-saʿīd Sharaf al-dīn ʿAbd al-Muʾmin (i) *Shafrūh al-Iṣfahānī.80 ‘Muḥammad’ and ‘ʿAbd al-Muʾmin’ cannot both be correct.81 It seems that the later tradition has erroneously identified our poet with another well-known member of the same family, namely ʿAbd al-Muʾmin b. Hibat Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Hibat Allāh b. Ḥamzah al-maʿrūf bi *Shafrūh, the author of the Aṭbāq al-dhahab, an Arabic moralising homily in imitation of al-Zamakhsharī’s Aṭwāq al-dhahab. Ibn Abī l-Wafāʾ82 says that this writer went to Damascus in 569/1173–4 and thence to Cairo, where he met Ṣalāh al-dīn. al-Ṣafadī83 actually gives his laqab as Sharaf al-dīn and adds that he returned from Egypt to Damascus at the end of 570/1175 and then went back to Isfahan, where he died. In any case it is clear that the banū *Shafrūh produced a good number of learned men and that there is an obvious danger of confounding them with one another. ʿAufī’s identification of our poet avoids this danger and has also the advantage of greater antiquity.

Mss. of the dīwān: London Or. 2846/iii (Rieu Suppt. 239. Dated Rabīʿ i 1019/1610); Paris Supplément 1386/ii (Blochet 1214. Copied by Muḥammad Ḥakīm b. Kamāl al-dīn al-Kirmānī and dated 12 Ṣafar 1039/1629); Berlin Petermann 716/5 (Pertsch 682. Selections); Istanbul Ayasofya 2051/11 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330); Tehran Univ. ix 2589/2 (Dated 12 Jumādā ii 1015/1606); Rampore State Library (Nadhīr Aḥmad 148. Dated 1021/1612); Calcutta Ivanow 465 (17th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 23813–8.

Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, ed. M. Iqbāl, pp. 458–9 (and the editor’s note); ʿAufī i pp. 268–73 (and Qazwīnī ad loc. and the notes in Nafīsī’s edition pp. 639–47); Shams pp. 123, 327, 344–5, 397; Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 197; Mustaufī pp. 736–7; Jājarmī ii pp. 1079–81, 1117; Daulat-shāh pp. 154–5; Rāzī ii pp. 361–6 (no. 867); Ādhar iii pp. 948–50; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ pp. 302–3; id., Riyāḍ pp. 212–3; ʿA. Iqbāl, ‘Khānadān i Shufurwah’, Yādgār v/6–7, 1327sh./1949, pp. 108–17; Qazwīnī, Yād-dāsht-hā v pp. 221–2; Khaiyām-pūr p. 296; ln s.vv. ‘Shafarwah’ (thus vocalised) and ‘Shafarwaʾī’; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 740–3; Ismāʿīl Nawāb Ṣafā, ‘Sharaf al-dīn Shufurwah’, Āyandah viii, 1361sh./1982, pp. 493–501; A.H. Morton, ‘The Muʾnis al-Aḥrār and its twenty-ninth chapter’, in M.L. Swietochowski and S. Carboni, Illustrated poetry and epic images. Persian paintings of the 1330s and 1340s, New York 1994, pp. 49–66 (with text and translation of the picture-poem and reproduction of the illustrated pages); ei2 s.v. ‘Shufurwa’.

§ 297. Dihqān ʿAlī Shaṭranjī is the last name in ʿArūḍī’s list of the poets of the āl i khāqān, i.e. the Qarakhanids, which suggests that he was still alive at the time of, or shortly before the completion of ʿArūḍī’s book in 552/1157. ʿAufī quotes a hundred of his verses in his section on the poets in Transoxania during the Seljuq period; these are largely of gnomic or satirical character and give no indication of the names of any patrons or identifiable contemporaries. Daulat-shāh claims that he was a pupil of Sōzanī. Rāzī, who is otherwise entirely dependent on ʿAufī, includes him among the poets of Samarqand.

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); ʿAufī ii pp. 199–207; id., Jawāmiʿ (facsimile) p. 293 (no. 1024); Daulat-shāh p. 102; Rāzī iii pp. 368–71 (no. 1432); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 344–5; Nafīsī in his edition of Baihaqī, p. 1397; Khaiyām-pūr p. 299; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 636–8.

§ 298. Shihāb al-dīn Aḥmad b. al-Muʾaiyad al-Samarqandī follows in ʿAufī’s anthology immediately after Muʾaiyad al-Nasafī.84 Although the sources do not specifically say that the former is the son of the latter it is most likely that this is in fact the case. The assumption is supported by the fact that Shams quotes him as ‘Shihāb i Muʾaiyad i Nasafī’; the father evidently hailed from Nasaf, the son from Samarqand. ʿAufī quotes two substantial qaṣīdahs of his, the second of which is dedicated to an unidentified Nāṣir i dīn. One verse from this poem85 is quoted, and attributed to Shihāb, by Shams i Qais; the same verse and one other from the same poem86 occur also (with minor variants) as the first and third verses of a qiṭʿah which Saif b. Muḥammad al-Harawī87 ascribes to ‘Muʾaiyad i Nasafī’. It is thus possible that Shihāb is quoting here two verses of his father’s. Rāzī adds one qaṣīdah and two verses not quoted by ʿAufī, while Hidāyat adds two further poems, one of which refers to the poet’s patron as ‘Malik Ṭamghāch Khān Masʿūd Rukn al-dīn wa l-dunyā’. Further poems are quoted by Nafīsī from an unidentified safīnah, and one of these88 is dedicated to ‘khusrau i mashriq Masʿūd’, evidently the same monarch. There were two Qarakhanids by the name of Masʿūd, but if we are to attach any importance to the fact that ʿAufī includes our poet (and his father) in his chapter devoted to bards who flourished after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157), then the intended ruler must be Rukn al-dīn wa l-dunyā Qılıch Ṭamghach Khān Masʿūd (ii) b. al-Ḥasan (ca. 556/1160 to 574/1178).89 Our poet is presumably identical with the ‘Shihāb i dīn i Muʾaiyad’ praised in a poem by Sōzanī,90 whose principal patron was precisely the aforementioned Masʿūd ii.

Qazwīnī91 wrote that the ‘Shihābī’ listed by ʿArūḍī (p. 28) among the poets of the Seljuqs is ‘apparently’ (gūyā) to be identified with Shihāb al-dīn b. Muʾaiyad, but this seems far from certain. In the surviving verses our poet refers to himself as ‘Shihāb’, not ‘Shihābī’.

ʿAufī ii pp. 362–7; Shams p. 441; Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii);; Rāzī iii pp. 356–60 (no. 1429); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 310–1; Nafīsī’s notes to his edition of Baihaqī, iii pp. 1352–5, 1534–46, 1549; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 769–74; ln s.v. ‘Aḥmad’ pp. 1451–2; Khaiyām-pūr p. 310 (‘Shihāb i Samarqandī’).

§ 299. Shihābī Ghazāl (or Ghazzāl) Khujandī92 is known to us only from a few fragments quoted by ʿAufī. These include a rubāʿī mocking Sanjar, evidently in the aftermath of his defeat at the hands of the Ghuzz in 548/1153, and some verses in praise of Shihāb al-daulah wa l-dīn, wazīr in Herat. ʿAufī also quotes two verses which he heard from the poet’s own mouth (evidently in Bukhārā) and which had been addressed to him by ‘Burhān i islām’ (i.e. al-ṣadr al-kabīr ʿUmar ii b. Masʿūd, the clerical ruler of Bukhārā from 593/1196–7 to ca. 616/1219) at the time when Shihābī arrived in Bukhārā from Marw. Two poems by perhaps the same Shihābī are quoted by Saif Harawī. See also above § 184 (Ḍiyāʾ) and § 222 (Khālah).

ʿAufī ii pp. 392–3; Saif Harawī pp. 103–4, 120; Rāzī iii p. 459 (no. 1527); Khaiyām-pūr p. 311.

§ 300. Muʿīn al-dīn Sirājī Balkhī is the author of two ghazals quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157). Rāzī has in his chapter on the notable men of Balkh an entry on one ‘Sirāj al-dīn’ which begins with the same words as ʿAufī’s entry on Sirājī Balkhī, but quotes a different set of verses, and states that this poet served at the court of the Khwārazm-shāhs.

ʿAufī ii pp. 323–4; Rāzī ii pp. 76–7 (no. 565); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 247; Khaiyām-pūr p. 264 (‘Sirāj’ and ‘Sirājī’).

§ 301. Jamāl al-dīn Fakhr al-shuʿarāʾ Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sirājī is also quoted in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar as the author of three poems, two of them expressly dedicated to the last Ghaznavid ruler of Lahore, Sirāj al-daulah Khusrau-Malik (555/1160 to 582/1186) from whom the poet evidently had his pen name.

This poet and the one mentioned in the previous entry are evidently both different from the Sirājī, alias Sirāj al-dīn Khurasānī, a native of Khurāsān who attached himself to the sultan of Delhi Shams al-dīn Iltumish (607/1211 to 633/1236) and whose dīwān has been published by Nazir Ahmad (Aligarh 1972) which a valuable introduction in Persian and English. He is on the border between our period and the next, but has been held over for the next volume of this survey.

ʿAufī ii pp. 324–7; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 245; Khaiyām-pūr p. 246 (‘Sirājī i Khurāsānī’).

§ 302. Sōzanī, the celebrated satirical poet. ʿAufī calls him al-Ḥakīm Tāj al-shuʿarāʾ Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Sūzanī and Muḥammad is also the name by which he refers to himself in his poems.93 However, he gives his father’s name as Masʿūd (not ʿAlī)94 and indicates that he followed his father in the profession of poetry. He was born, again according to ʿAufī, in Nasaf (Nakhshab), but spent most of his life in Samarqand, and he is often called Sōzanī Samarqandī. His pen name comes from sōzan, ‘needle’, and was perhaps chosen to match the sharp wit of his satires.95 His time can be determined from the fact that his qaṣīdahs mostly address the rulers of Samarqand during the second and third quarters of the 12th century. His earliest unambiguously identifiable patron is the Qarakhanid Arslān-shāh Muḥammad (ii) b. Sulaimān (495/1102 to ca. 523/1129), and he praised his successors down to Qılıch Ṭamghāch Khān Rukn al-dīn Masʿūd (ii) b. Ḥasan (ca. 556/1161 to 574/1178), his principal patron. He also praised the clerical rulers of Bukhārā (the ṣadrs of the Āl i Burhān), the Seljuq Sanjar and various lesser personages. There is one (authentic?) poem96 eulogising the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız. In one poem97 addressed to Masʿūd’s wazīr Saʿd al-mulk Masʿūd b. Asʿad he mentions the date Muḥarram 560/1164. Daulat-shāh (himself a native of Samarqand) says that Sōzanī died in 569/1173–4; since he gives this date in connection with a precise localisation of the poet’s grave it is likely that he found the date on the gravestone; it could thus very well be correct. As there are verses in which the poet gives his age as past 80 he must then have been born before 489/1096.

Sōzanī is, however, most famous not for his panegyrics but for his facetiae and his often grotesquely obscene invectives. In one poem98 he lists his illustrious predecessors in the art of diatribe: Munjīk,99 Khujastah,100 Khwājah Najībī,101 Khaṭīrī,102 Ṭaiyān,103 Qarīʿ104 ʿAmʿaq105 and Ḥakkāk.106 Identifiable victims are the poets Sanāʾī and Waṭwāṭ; the Niẓāmī against whom one of his poems is directed107 is presumably not Niẓāmī of Ganjah, whom he is unlikely to have met, but rather Sōzanī’s compatriot Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī Samarqandī.108 The satirical poems contain many rare (i.e. dialect or slang) words and are of great lexicographical interest, or rather would be if we had a better text at our disposal. The qaṣīdahs on the other hand are written in an unencumbered style reminiscent of the poets of the 10th and 11th centuries.

Daulat-shāh says that in his old age Sōzanī repented, made the pilgimage to Mecca and devoted himself to edifying poetry. This may well be true, though it could just as well be a mere topos.

Mss. of his dīwān: Oxford Elliot 110 (Ethé 541. Lacunae); Ousley Add. 89 (Ethé 542); London Or. 11521 (Meredith-Owens p. 63. 16th–17th century?); Cambridge Or. 563 (Browne Suppt. 1071); Paris Supplément 783 fol. 57v sqq. (Blochet 1981. 16th century? Selections); Berlin Sprenger 1520 (Pertsch 716); Istanbul Fatih 3831 (Ritter-Reinert pp. 116–7. Dated Shaʿbān 880/1475); Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 465/iv (14th–15th century? 7 qaṣīdahs only); Sipah-sālār ii 1204 (Dated 1033/1623–4); Gulistān/Ātābāy i 278 (Dated Shawwāl 1258/1842); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 441 (Dated 4 Muḥarram 1204/1789); Dushanbe Acad. ii 364 (Dated 1129/1717); Acad. ii 363 (19th century?); Lucknow Sprenger 528 (two copies); Calcutta Ivanow 449 (Dated 1011/1602–3). Cf. Munz. iii 23622–49.

Edition: Tehran 1338sh./1959 (ed. Nāṣir al-dīn Shāh-Ḥusainī).

ʿAufī ii pp. 191–8; Shams pp. 260–2;109 Qawwās passim; Mustaufī pp. 733–4; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī i pp. 10–11, 26–30, 204–8, ii pp. 917–9, 942–3, 1212–3; Daulat-shāh pp. 100–3; Rāzī iii pp. 392–400 (no. 1461); Taqī (see London Or. 3506 fol. 361a sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105; Paris Supplément 799 fol. 20r sqq. = Blochet 1242); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 249–52; id., Riyāḍ p. 210; Browne, History ii pp. 342–3; Qazwīnī’s notes to ʿArūḍī, pp. 116–7; Furūzānfar i pp. 334–44; Nafīsī’s notes to Baihaqī iii pp. 1323–39; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 622–6; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 279–80; R. Zipoli, ‘I Carmina Priapea di Sûzanî’, Annali di Ca’ Foscari xxxiv/3, 1995, pp. 205–56; ei2 s.v. ‘Sūzanī’.

§ 303. al-Ṣadr al-ajall Fakhr al-ruʾasāʾ Tāj al-dīn al-Ābī was a contemporary of ʿAufī, who describes him as one of the dignitaries of Sarakhs and who quotes a number of his poems. Ibn Isfandyār cites two rubāʿīs by ‘Tāj i Ābī’.

Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, ii p. 133, 147; ʿAufī i pp. 145–7; ln s.v. ‘Tāj al-dīn’ pp. 57–8; Khaiyām-pūr p. 108.

§ 304. Shihāb al-dīn Abū l-Ḥasan Ṭalḥah, of Marw110, is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of the Seljuqs of Khurāsān, where we find an elegy on the death of Samāʾī111 and eighteen rubāʿīs, a genre which, still according to ʿAufī, accounts for the greatest part of his output. Rāzī’s statement that he ‘also’ (i.e. like Samāʾī) lived at the time of Sanjar is perhaps only a surmise.

ʿAufī ii pp. 153–6; Sharwānī, Nuzʿhat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Rāzī ii pp. 14–6 (no. 519); Ādhar ii pp. 656–7; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 690–2; Khaiyām-pūr p. 17 (‘Abū l-Ḥasan’) and 358 (‘Ṭalḥah i Marwazī’).

§ 305. Abū l-Faḍl ʿUthmān b. Aḥmad al-Harawī, called also Ḥājjī Harēwah,112 is included by ʿAufī, who says that he met this poet in Naisābūr (which he visited in 603/1206–7), in his chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar. ʿAufī says further that Abū l-Faḍl engaged in poetical polemics with Rafīʿ (perhaps Rafīʿ Marwazī, above § 270) and quotes three of his verses lampooning Rafīʿ as well as three of his rubāʿīs.

ʿAufī ii pp. 346–7; Rāzī ii p. 149 (no. 632); ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Faḍl’ p. 728; Khaiyām-pūr p. 384 (two entries).

§ 306. Al-Ḥakīm Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad al-Balkhī al-Wāʿiẓī is represented by one qaṣidah in ʿAufī’s chapter on the poets of Khurāsān after the time of Sanjar (i.e. after 552/1157). ʿAufī tells us that most of his poetry was of religious content.

ʿAufī ii p. 356; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 655; Khaiyām-pūr p. 641.

§ 307. Three verses by one Qāʾinī Warrāq are quoted by Shams i Qais (p. 180).

Cf. Khaiyām-pūr pp. 467 and 647.

§ 308. Rashīd al-dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-ʿUmarī,113 known as Waṭwāṭ, was a poet, secretary and prolific author in Arabic and Persian. al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī and Yāqūt (and several later sources) say that he was born in Balkh.114 Daulat-shāh—like those dependent on him—says that he died in 578/1182–3, in his 97th year, which would put his birth in 481/1088–9, and adds that his grave is to be found in Gurgānj,115 the capital of Khwārazm; from this one can perhaps deduce that Daulat-shāh (or his source) had these dates from the tombstone. The implied birth-date is in any case consistent with Juwainī’s statement that Rashid was ‘past his 80th year’ when he greeted the accession to the throne of the Khwārazm-shāh ʿAlā al-dīn Tekish in 568/1172, indicating that he was born a few years before 488/1095. The year given for his death in Yāqūt’s biographical dictionary, namely 573/1177–8 (in figures and not spelt out), is perhaps a scribe’s error for 578.

Rashīd was chief secretary (ṣāḥib dīwān al-inshāʾ) under the Khwārazm-shāh Atsız (521/1127 to 551/1156) and his successor Ēl-Arslān (died 568/1172); in one of his verses he says that he served the former for ‘thirty years’, i.e. for the whole of his reign. His loyalty to Atsız earned him the enmity of the Seljuq sultan Sanjar who, according to an anecdote told by Juwainī (and repeated by many others), at one point resolved to have Rashīd cut into thirty pieces, but who was dissuaded from doing so by his own chief secretary, Muntajab al-dīn al-Juwainī, the uncle of our informant’s great-grandfather. We possess a considerable number of Rashīd’s letters, both of those he wrote on behalf of his masters (in Arabic to the caliph and his entourage, in Persian to Sanjar and others) as well as of his own private letters in both languages.116 Rashīd’s Persian dīwān, containing more than 8500 verses in Nafīsī’s edition, consists largely of poems eulogising Atsız. The fact that none of the poems is dedicated to that king’s successors led Nafīsī to the conclusion that Rashīd left Khwārazm after the death of Atsız, but this overlooks the fact that many of his letters were clearly written on behalf of Ēl-Arslān and several refer explicitly to events during his reign.117 Thus the absence of poems dedicated to Atsız’s successors shows only that Rashid compiled his dīwān long before the end of his life.

For his prose writings in Persian and Arabic see my article in ei2. A discussion of his paraphrases (in prose and verse) of the sayings of the first four caliphs is planned for pl iv (Traditions).

Mss. of the dīwān: Dublin Beatty 103/iii (Ms. completed Dhū l-ḥijjah 699/1300); London Or. 3376/ii (Rieu Suppt. 234. Dated 2 Dhū l-qaʾdah 1002/1594. Imperfect at end); Add. 16,791 (Rieu p. 553. Dated Ramaḍan 1063/1653); Or. 283 (Rieu p. 553. 17th century?); Or. 2889/iv (Rieu Suppt. 212. Completed 28 Jumādā i 1293/1876); Tehran Majlis 4841/1 (Munz. 26969. Dated Rabīʿ ii 996/1588); Sipah-sālār ii 1196 (18th century?); Mashhad Riḍawī vii 428 (Dated Jumādā ii 1012/1603); Lucknow Sprenger 464 (Dated 1064/1653–4); Madras i 20 (‘very old’). Cf. Munz. iii 26968–83.

Edition: Tehran 1339sh./1961 (ed. S. Nafīsī, with an extensive introduction).

Ibn Funduq, Tatimmat ṣiwān al-ḥikmah, ed. M. Shafīʿ, Lahore 1935, pp. 166–8 of the Arabic section and 112–3 of the Persian; al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī, Kharīdat al-qaṣr (the section on Waṭwāṭ, containing a good number of his Arabic letters and verses, was published by M. Shafīʿ in ocm, 1934–5, at the end of fascicules xi/1, xi/2, xi/3, xii/4, separate pagination); Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i pp. 109–12 (also Browne’s epitome pp. 62–5); Yāqūt, Irshād vii pp. 91–5; ʿAufī i pp. 80–6; Shams passim; Juwainī ii pp. 6–14, 18; Zakarīyāʿ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī, Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, pp. 223–5; al-Mukhtārāt min al-rasāʾil, ed. Ī. Afshār, Tehran–7, pp. 149–52, 283–4 (various letters); Mustaufī pp. 856–7; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Jājarmī passim; Daulat-shāh pp. 87–92; Jāmī, Bahāristān, Rāzī ii pp. 68–76 (no. 563); Taqī (his entry is printed in Nafīsī’s introduction, pp. 10–15; see also London Or. 3506 fol. 368b sqq. = Rieu Suppt. 105; Paris Supplément 799 fol. 122r sqq. = Blochet 1242); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 222–31; Browne, History ii pp. 330–3; Furūzānfar i pp. 345–56; Bahār ii pp. 400–3; Brockelmann i pp. 275–6, Suppt. i p. 486; A. Ateş, ‘Raşīd al-Dīn Vaṭvāt’ın eserlerinin bâzı yazma nüshaları’, Tarih dergisi x, 1959, pp. 1–24; Khaiyām-pūr p. 229 (with further references); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 628–36; pl iii/1 § 120, 277; ei2 s.v. ‘Rashīd al-Dīn Waṭwāṭ’.

§ 309. Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān al-Yamīnī118 al-Kātib is included by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore at the time of the Seljuqs, where we find a qaṣīdah dedicated to the Ghaznavid Yamīn al-daulah Bahrām-shāh (511/1117 to 552/1157), to whom he owed his pen name, as well a number of ghazals and rubāʿīyāt. ʿAufī also mentions a lost work of his with the title Bazm-ārā i Fakhrī. Hidāyat splits the poems cited by ʿAufī between two poets, ‘Kātib i Khurasānī’ and ‘Yamīnī i Ghaznawī’, both of whom he makes contemporaries of Maḥmūd of Ghaznah.

lf ed. Iqbāl p. 17 (one verse by ‘Muḥammad i ʿUthmān’ in Ms. nūn in marg.); ʿAufī ii pp. 687–91; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 485–6 (‘Kātib’), 656 (‘Yamīnī’); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 619–21; Khaiyām-pūr p. 384 (‘ʿUtbī i Kātib’) and 660 (‘Yamīnī i Ghaznawī’).

§ 310. al-Kāfī Ẓafar al-Hamadānī is the first name in ʿAufï’s chapter on the poets of Western Persia during the Seljuq period. Here we find a ghazal as well as a qaṣīdah praising a king by the name of Malik-shāh, who could in principle be either Malik-shāh (i) b. Alp-Arslān (465/1072 to 485/1092) or Malik-shāh (iii) b. Maḥmud (547/1152 to 548/1153), though Ẓafar’s position at the very beginning of the chapter would seem to favour identifying his patron with the former.119 The 12th-century Shiite apologist ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-Rāzī wrote that although Kāfī Ẓafar was a Sunnite, his dīwān contains so many poems in praise of ʿAlī and his family that people suspected him of Shiism. Eight short poems by ‘Ẓafar Hamadānī’, all of homiletic content, are quoted in the anonymous Baḥr al-fawāʾid, a work written at the beginning of the second half of the 6th/12th century; in one of these the poet refers to himself as ‘Ẓafar’ and in another he alludes to Malik-shāh (i) and his minister Tāj al-mulk (died 485/1093).120 The old anthology published by Yaghmāʾī contains two substantial poems by Kāfī Ẓafar, one of them an ode to a person addressed as ʿṣadr i islām saiyidu l-wuzarāʾ and as ‘ōstād i raʾīs Nōshirwān’ evidently the wazīr Anōshēruwān b. Khālid (died 532/1138).

Abū l-Rajāʾ Qummī121 quotes two verses by Auḥad al-dīn Abū l-ʿAshāʾir, ‘the son of Kāfī Ẓafar’, and al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī devotes an entry to the same person in the chapter of his Kharīdat al-qaṣr devoted to the notables of Hamadān,122 evidently with the information that he died after 555/1160.

Baḥr al-fawāʾid, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1345sh./1966, pp. 3, 441–4 (see also Meisami’s translation, The sea of precious virtues, Salt Lake City, 1991, pp. 4–5, 303–6 and notes); ʿAbd al-Jalīl al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-naqḍ, ed. Muhaddith, Tehran 1331sh./1952, p. 252; ʿAufī ii pp. 210–4 (and the notes in Nafīsī’s edition, pp. 696–704); Shams p. 339 (two verses by ‘Kāfī Ẓafar i Hamadānī’); Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii); Yaghmāʾī pp. 114–6, 122–7; Rāzī ii pp. 554–6 (no. 1034); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 480; Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 598–600; Khaiyām-pūr p. 362 (‘Ẓafar i Hamadānī’) and 481 (‘Kāfī i Hamadānī’).

§ 311. Ẓahīr al-dīn Abū l-Faḍl Ṭāhir b. Muḥammad Fāryābī was, like his contemporary Athīr Akhsīkatī, a native of Eastern Iran who emigrated to the North-West. His first major patron seems to have been the ruler of Naisābūr, the ‘King of the East’ ʿAḍud al-dīn Ṭoghān-shāh, who died in Muḥarram 582/1186,123 the dedicatee of about a dozen of his poems. Ibn Isfandyār says that for some time Ẓahīr served at the court of the Bāwandid ruler of Ṭabaristān, Ḥusām al-daulah Abū l-Ḥasan Ardashīr b. al-Ḥasan (568/1173 to 602/1205–6), and then departed, with Ardashīr’s permission, to ‘visit’ the atabeg of Azerbaijan Qızıl Arslān b. Ēldügüz (582/1186 to 587/1191). Poems to both of these (a rather larger number to the latter) can be found in his dīwān. After the death of Qızıl Arslān, Ẓahīr praised the atabeg Nuṣrat al-dīn Abū Bakr (591/1195 to 607/1210), his principal patron. However, it must be said that although a good number of poems do mention this ruler by name (i.e. Abū Bakr) there are at least two odes124 to his contemporary Nuṣrat al-dīn Bēshkīn, the ruler of Ahar and dedicatee of Niẓāmī’s Iskandar-nāmah.125 It is therefore possible that some of the many poems which mention only ‘Nuṣrat al-dīn’, without personal names, might in fact have been directed towards the latter, rather than the atabeg. There is also at least one poem to the Seljuq Ṭoghrıl iii126 and one to Khāqānī’s patron Akhsatān.127 Several poems are addressed to one or more of the Khujandī ṣadrs of Isfahan, and to various ministers.

Mustaufī says that Ẓahīr died in Tabrīz in 598/1201–2. Some copies of his dīwān contain a preface128 (inc. sipās bē nihāyat u āfrīn bē pāyān qādir-ē rā kih du shamʿ dar hujrah i dimāgh i mā afrōkht), the author of which (not named, but evidently the Shams al-dīn Sujāsī who, again according to Mustaufī, collected Ẓahīr’s poems)129 states that he had hoped to meet Ẓahīr, but that the latter had died before he could do so. He thereupon collected Ẓahīr’s poems and dedicated the compilation to the wazīr Majd al-daulah wa l-dīn.

Ẓahīr is a poet who has been particularly badly served by the copyists and printers. At least some of the editions lithographed in India ostensibly of the dīwān or ‘Kullīyāt’ of Ẓahīr Fāryābī contain the works of a different and much later poet (according to Nafīsī the 11th/17th-century writer Ẓahīr Shīrāzī), while the old Tehran edition (and evidently many of the manuscripts) contains many poems by Shams Ṭabasī. Taqī Bīnish, in his careful edition of Ẓahīr’s dīwān, has attempted to eliminate the spurious poems, but since he had only late manuscripts at his disposal his results cannot be regarded as altogether final.

Mss.: Dublin Beatty 331 (Copied by Murshid al-Kātib and dated 20 Dhū l-ḥijjah 882/1478); Beatty 262 (Copied by Shāh Qāsim and dated ‘Jumādā’ 1023/1614. Pictures); Manchester Lindesiana 261 (16th century?); Lindesiana 574 (Dated 1105/1693–4); Oxford Whinfield 8 (Beeston 2827/20. Dated 18 Rabīʿ ii 1008/1599); Whinfield 54 (Beeston 2662/2. Dated 9 Rajab 1012/1603. Selections); Elliot 120 (Ethé 583. Dated 26 Rajab 1015/1606); Elliot 119 (Ethé 582. Incomplete; with the preface); Elliot 421 (Ethé 584); London Or. 3325 (Rieu Suppt. 222. Dated Ramadān 873/1469. Contains the preface); Add. 19,498 (Rieu pp. 562–3. 16th century?); Or. 3301 (Rieu Suppt. 223. 16th century? With preface); Or. 10916 (Meredith-Owens p. 59. 16th–17th century?); Add. 7733 (Rieu p. 563. Dated Shawwāl 1035/1626); Or. 2880/i (Rieu Suppt. 224. Completed Jumādā i 1245/1829); i.o. 971; Cambridge Or. 1696 (2nd Suppt. 441. Dated 902/1496–7); Or. 1347 (2nd Suppt. 167. 16th century?); Oo. 6. 46. (Browne Cat. ccx); Paris Supplément 795 fol. 1v sqq. (Blochet 1969. Dated 8 Ramaḍān 847/1443); Supplément 701 (Blochet 1246. Dated 8 Shaʿbān 1016/1607. Contains the dīwāns of Azraqī and of Ẓahīr al-dīn, but the pages are in disorder); Supplément 700 (Blochet 1243. 17th century?); Supplément 807 (Blochet 1244. 17th century?); Supplément 1841 (Blochet 1245. 19th century); Berlin Ms. or. oct. 69 (Pertsch 747. Dated Monday 11 Jumādā ii ⟨?1⟩152/1739); Minutoli 24 (Pertsch 748. Has a seal dated 1158/1745); Sprenger 1523 (Pertsch 691/1. Dated 1217/1802–3); Ms. or. oct. 2855 (Heinz 374. Dated 6 Ṣafar 1290/1873); Vienna Krafft clxxxviii; Uppsala Tornberg clxvii (Ms. dated 28 Shawwāl 831 /1428. Contains, according to the catalogue, the dīwān of Ẓahīr al-dīn as no. 2, and that of Ḥasan [scil. Dihlawī] as no. 4, but of the incipits quoted there the former belongs to Ḥasan and the latter to Ẓahīr); Leningrad Acad. C 1962 fol. 1b–49b (Index 1562. Ms. dated 878/1473–4); Acad. A 481 fol. 1b–144a (Index 1559. Dated 989/1581); Acad. C 64 (Index 1561. Dated 1241/1825–6); Acad. B 138 (Index 1560); Istanbul Esat 2655 (Duda p. 70. Copied by Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Sharaf al-ʿArabī Abūh and dated 10 Rabīʿ ii 717/1317); Ayasofya 2051/16 (Mīkrūfīlm-hā i pp. 409–10. Ms. apparently dated Shawwāl 730/1330); Üniversite fy 496/1 (Ateş 88. Copied by al-Ḥusain b. Muḥammad al-Madīnī and dated 21 Jumādā i 759/1358); Topkapı, Hazine 796 fol. 218b sqq. (Karatay 887. Ms. dated Rabīʿ i 810/1407. Pictures); Üniversite fy 668 (olim Halis Efendi 4842. Ateş 89. Copied by Shaikh b. Ḥasan b. Aḥmad al-Ṣaghīr and dated 840/1436–7); Nuruosmaniye 4190 fol. 102b–182b (Ateş 90 and 431. Dated 7 Jumādā ii 844/1440 or 884/1479);130 Fatih 3842 (Ritter-Reinert pp. 123–4. 15th century? Has an owner’s mark dated 906/1500–1); Üniversite 1120 (olim Halis Efendi 5362. Ateş 91. 15th century?); Üniversite fy 157 (Ateş 92. Dated 1044/1634–5); Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 669/5 (Mīkrūfilm-hā i pp. 420–1. Apparently old); Cairo 57 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 761. Dated 1047/1637–8); 58 mīm adab fārisī (Ṭirāzī i 762); Tehran Majlis viii 2460 (13th century?); Bayānī 54/1 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 15. Dated 768/1366–7); Malik 4925/11 (Munz. 24426. ‘Circa’ 842/1438–9); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 420/iii (Ms. dated 862/1457–8. Selection of qaṣīdahs and tarklbāt); Bayānī 12 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 9. Copied by Ghiyāth al-dīn Qāsimī and dated 883/1478–9); Sipah-sālār ii 1223 (Dated 895/1489–90); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 435/ii (Ms. dated 866/1461); Bayānī 56/1 (Nuskhah-hā i p. 15. Dated 995/1587); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 305 (Has an owner’s mark with the date 1000/1591–2); Univ. ix 2589/3 (Dated Jumādā i 1015/1606); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 304; Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 306; Mashhad Riḍawī vii 741/1 (Ms. dated 10 Rabīʿ ii 1055/1645); Riḍawī vii 360/2 (17th century?); Dushanbe Acad. ii 374 (Dated 14 Rabīʿ i 1077/1666); Pakistan (see Munz. Pak. vii pp. 159–60); Bombay Rehatsek p. 142 no. 57; Lucknow Sprenger 542 (with the preface); Aligarh Subḥ. Mss. p. 31 no. 6 (Dated 1009/1600–1); Bankipore i 36 (15th century? With the preface); Madras 29 (15th century?). Cf. Munz. iii 24419–96.

Editions containing (or purporting to contain) Ẓahīr’s dīwān. Calcutta 1245/1829–30; Lucknow 1295/1878; 1307/1895; 1331/1913; 1926; Tehran 1324/1906 (ed. Shaikh Aḥmad Shīrāzī); 1338sh./1959–60 (ed. H. Raḍī); Cawnpore 1916; Ilāhābād n.d. (‘qaṣāʾid’, apparently authentic, with a long introduction in Urdu by Maulawī Ḥāfiẓ Jalāl al-dīn Aḥmad Jaʿfarī Zainabī); Mashhad 1337sh./1959 (critical edition by T. Bīnish).

His Qaṣīdah maṣnūʿah is found in Istanbul Université fy 931/5 (Ateş 93. Dated 2 Rabīʿ i 962/1555).

Ibn Isfandyār, Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i pp. 120–1 (also in Browne’s epitome, pp. 71–3); ʿAufī ii pp. 298–307 (and the note in Nafīsī’s edition pp. 733–4); Shams passim; Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār (Oxford Elliot 37 = Ethé 1333, passim); Mustaufī pp. 737–8; Jājarmī passim; Daulat-shāh pp. 109–14;131 Rāzī ii pp. 77–82 (no. 566); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 330–6; id., Riyāḍ pp. 219–20; Browne, History ii pp. 412–25 (with translations of a number of poems); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 750–64; G.M. Khan, ‘Diwan i Zahir and its authorship’, Sind University Research Journal, Arts series, i, 1961, pp. 1–4; Khaiyām-pūr p. 363; A.Ḥ. ʿĀbidī, ‘Ashʿār i tāzah az Ẓahīr i Fāryābī’, Nām-wārah i Duktur Maḥmūd i Afshār vi, Tehran 1370sh./1991, pp. 3561–91; EIr. s.v. ‘Fāryābī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn).

§ 312. Ẓahīr al-dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. *Shafrūh was, according to ʿAufī, the cousin (pisar-ʿamm) of Sharaf al-dīn i *Shafrūh.132 The dīwān ascribed to him in London i.o. 934 is evidently the work of a later poet (according to Qazwīnī, it is by Rukn al-dīn b. Rafīʿ al-dīn Kirmānī, a contemporary of Mustaufī, but according to Nafīsī133 it is by the 14th-century poet Rukn al-dīn Harawī, known as Rukn i Ṣāʾin).

ʿAufī i pp. 273–4 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Sharwānī, Nuz’hat al-majālis (see below, appendix iii);134 Rāzī ii p. 366 (no. 868; from ʿAufī); Hidāyat, Riyāḍ p. 104; Khaiyām-pūr p. 363 (‘Ẓahīr i Iṣfahānī’); ei2 s.v. ‘Shufurwa’.

§ 313. Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm, known as Zar-rēs, is included by ʿAufī in his chapter on the poets of Ghaznah and Lahore at the time of the Seljuqs, where we find two of his ghazals.

ʿAufī ii pp. 295–7; Rāzī i pp. 331–2 (no. 340); Khaiyām-pūr p. 247.

next chapter: Appendix I: Anonymous Narrative Poems Attributed to the Pre-Mongol Period


^ Back to text1. Thus in the ancient Ms. of his dīwān; Shams refers to him as Amīr Maḥmūd Qamar, while Hidāyat calls him Niẓām al-dīn Qamarī.

^ Back to text2. For whom see above, § 227.

^ Back to text3. There is also a poem by Rafīʿ Lunbānī (the younger) (see below, no. 269; the verses are in Huwaidā’s edition on p. 139) addressing khalīfah i ʿajam u shāh i sharʿ Ruknu l-dīn, apparently Rukn al-dīn Masʿūd.

^ Back to text4. Munzawī iii 25391–2 lists two copies of the ‘dīwān’ of Qiwāmī Ganjawī; one of these is in fact yet another copy of the qaṣīdah maṣnūʿah in an anthology (Tehran Majlis viii 2326), the other a commentary on the same in Tashkent Acad. ii 851.

^ Back to text5. See below, p. 384.

^ Back to text6. Dīwān p. 46: dar ān fitrah kih shud sulṭān i māḍī * zi lashkar-gah ba dāru l-mulk i riḍwān.

^ Back to text7. The nisbah refers to Khwāf in Kōhistān.

^ Back to text8. Munāẓarāt p. 32. For this event see above, p. 152.

^ Back to text9. P. 53.

^ Back to text10. ʿAufī i p. 226 i. 9.

^ Back to text11. Apud Sprenger p. 16 no. 26.

^ Back to text12. Cf. Fouchécour, Moralia pp. 283–8, who refers to an edition of the Makārim al-akhlāq by Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1341sh./1962 (which I have not seen). This work is evidently not the same as the thus titled Arabic work by Raḍī al-dīn al-Ḥasan b. al-Faḍl al-Ṭabrisī (see pl i § 218), though the identical laqabs suggest that there might be some confusion involved in the identification of the author of the Persian work.

^ Back to text13. The published text has: ‘lahu ashʿār fī ghāyat al-ḥusn wa dīwān wa rasāʾil’, but this is presumably an error for ‘…. wa dīwān rasāʾil’.

^ Back to text14. Either Jamāl al-dīn Maḥmūd or (and perhaps more probably) his younger relative Jamāl al-dīn Masʿūd; for these, and for the ṣadr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ii, see above, pp. 2501.

^ Back to text15. The story seems to imply that the Shāfīʿī faction supported Ṭoghrıl’s coup; the ṣadr’s household was thus fair game for the atabeg’s forces.

^ Back to text16. I have been shown a photocopy of the title-page of this edition, which reads Dīwān i Rafīʿu l-dīn i Lunbānī (qarn i shashum i hijrī) bar asās i nuskhah i muʾarrakh i 619 [?!] i hijrī, etc.; date and place of publication are not indicated on the photocopy. Presumably ‘619’ is a misprint for ‘699’, the date of Dublin Beatty 103?

^ Back to text17. See above § 217.

^ Back to text18. Jājarmī quotes a total of thirteen poems by Rafīʿ, all of them in Bīnish’s list, apart from the tarjīʿ in Jājarmī pp. 799–810, which seems to be missing in the Dublin manuscript.

^ Back to text19. For example, the three tarjīʿs by Rafīʿ the younger published in the edition of Jājarmī’s Muʾnis al-aḥrār pp. 790–810, can be found also in Huwaidā’s edition of the dīwān, pp. 131–142, but Huwaidā has taken the stanzas of the three poems, mixed them up, and rearranged them in a single alphabetic series! Apparently, the editor does not know what a tarjīʿ is.

^ Back to text20. See the very vague account of this manuscript in Huwaidā’s introduction, p. 6. I deduce (but regret that the editor has not said this explicitly) that the poems published on pp. 171–200 of the edition, are all taken from this source.

^ Back to text21. Edition, pp. 175–178; the name of the dedicatee is found (misprinted) on p. 177, the fifth verse.

^ Back to text22. Edition, p. 195.

^ Back to text23. On pp. 196–8 the editor has (apparently without noticing it) published fragments of two different poems; the metre changes after the first miṣrāʿ of the last verse on p. 196. The second of these, at least, addresses one Muḥammad b. Yūnus, Ṣārim al-dīn, perhaps Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Yūnus al-Mauṣilī, a prominent Shāfiʿī scholar in the second half of the 6th/12th century.

^ Back to text24. The entry was published by Maulawī in the supplement to ocm xv/4, 1939, p. 55, and begins: ‘Kāmil al-dīn Abū l-Maḥāsin b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd al-Lunbānī (text: al-Lubnānī) al-shāʿir wa huwa akhū Rafīʿ al-dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Masʿūd wa kāna shāʿiran aiḍan …’. The editor proposed emending akhū to ibn, but this is more radical than the emendation proposed above.

^ Back to text25. Kitāb al-tadwīn fī dhikr ahl al-ʿilm bi Qazwīn, London Add. 21,468 (=Arab. Cat. 959), fol. 454a (inspexi). The passage is quoted (explicitly from al-Rāfiʿī, and with the same names) also in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāh fī ṭabaqāt al-lughawīyīn wa l-nuḥāh, ed. Muḥammad al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, n.p. (apparently Cairo) 1384/1964–5, no. 1551.

^ Back to text26. The first rubāʿī in entry 872 appears in Huwaidā’s edition on p. 165, from Ms. wāw. The next three rubāʿīs are on p. 170, 168 and 166 respectively, all without indication of the source. These are followed by a ghazal, printed in the edition on p. 152, from wāw, and by four verses from the already mentioned poem on p. 196, in Huwaidā’s appendix.

^ Back to text27. Apud Sprenger p. 17 no. 38.

^ Back to text28. See the discussion of these editions in the article.

^ Back to text29. Marzbān is the name by which the poet refers to himself (see ʿAufī ii p. 399, l. 18). ʿAufī says further (ii p. 400) that there were two leading poets by the name of Rafīʿ, namely in an earlier age Rafīʿ Marzbān, who was also known by the epithet ‘Pārsī dabīr’, and then (in ʿAufī’s own time) Rafīʿ Lunbānī. Zakarīyāʾ al-Qazwīnī (Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1848, p. 197) lists ‘Rafīʿ fārisī dabīr’ among the eminent poets of Isfahan, but since no other source seems to link this Rafīʿ with Isfahan we must assume that Zakarīyāʾ has confused him with Rafīʿ Lunbānī (the younger).

^ Back to text30. The early dating rests presumably on a confusion between him and Marzbān b. Rustam b. Sharwīn, the author of the oldest (lost) version of the Marzbān-nāmah and who, according to Ibn Isfandyār, (Tārīkh i Ṭabaristān, ed. ʿA. Iqbāl, Tehran 1320sh./1941, i p. 137; Browne’s epitome p. 86) also wrote a dīwān in the dialect of Ṭabaristān.

^ Back to text31. The name is quoted thus, without ism, by ʿAufī. Qazwīnī (in his notes to ʿArūḍī p. 152) gives his ism as ‘ʿAbd Allāh or ʿAbd al-Saiyid’, but indicates no source for these.

^ Back to text32. See Qazwīnī in jras 1906 pp. 34–7.

^ Back to text33. Daulat-shāh p. 67.

^ Back to text34. P. 109.

^ Back to text35. Id.

^ Back to text36. P. 110.

^ Back to text37. Tārīkh i Firishtah, ed. Briggs, i p. 115.

^ Back to text38. Munāẓarāt, ed. Fatḥ Allāh Khulaif, 2nd edition, Beyrouth 1984, pp. 59–63.

^ Back to text39. Muntakhab al-tawārīkh i, Calcutta 1868, p. 37.

^ Back to text40. Ed. Chaykin pp. 41–2; Ed. Mahdawī pp. 55–6.

^ Back to text41. Thus ʿAufī. The laqab Shihāb al-dīn and the names Ṣābir b. Ismāʿīl are mentioned in poems addressed to him by Waṭwāṭ. In his own poems he calls himself Ṣābir and Adīb and confirms that he was a native of Tirmidh.

^ Back to text42. For this, and the Mashhad Ms., see above, p. 264 fn.

^ Back to text43. For whom see ʿAufī i pp. 179–81 and Qazwīnī ad loc.

^ Back to text44. See above, § 237 (Majd al-dīn).

^ Back to text45. The kunyah is given thus by ʿAufī and on the title page of some of the old Mss. The other components of the name are all attestable in the poems themselves.

^ Back to text46. For this, see below p. 333.

^ Back to text47. See also de Bruijn pp. 95–8 and Munz. iii 23584–614.

^ Back to text48. For this and other Mss. see Nazir Ahmad, ‘Some original prose and poetical pieces of Hakim Sanaʾi’ Indo-Iranica xvi/2, 1963, pp. 48–65, who says (p. 50) that the i.o. Ms. contains a colophon dated 17 Ṣafar 1006/1597.

^ Back to text49. In its present form the Ms. is bound with a title-page mentioning one of the atabegs of Marāghah (who has not, in my judgement, been satisfactorily identified in the existing literature) but it is not certain that this page is really part of the Ms. or that the Ms. itself is not at least in part a forgery. See the detailed discussion in de Bruijn.

^ Back to text50. See above p. 330 (dīwān).

^ Back to text51. Cf. de Bruijn pp. 119–39; Munz. iv 29095–225.

^ Back to text52. Thus p. 107. On p. 106: ‘1029’.

^ Back to text53. See also EIr s.v. ‘Dāʿī Šīrāzī’ (Dh. Ṣafā), where the abridgement of the Ḥadīqah is not mentioned.

^ Back to text54. See also S. Akbar Ali, ‘Life and works of ʿAbd-al-Latif al-Abbasi of Gujarat’, Islamic Culture xxxi/1, 1957, pp. 40–54.

^ Back to text55. Ḥājjī Khalīfah (new edition ii col. 1705) mentions this poem (he quotes its first miṣrāʿ) as Miṣbāh al-arwāḥ wa asrār al-ashbāḥ and ascribes it to al-Shaikh Auḥad al-dīn Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Nakhjawānī al-Kirmānī who he says died in 534/1139–40. It seems, however, that this authority has confused the present work with the Miṣbāh al-arwāḥ of Auḥad al-dīn Kirmānī; the name that he gives its author is a contamination of those of the two authors in question.

^ Back to text56. By ʿAlī Akbar Shahristānī, followed by Utas, A Persian Sufi poem, p. 9.

^ Back to text57. A large number of Mss. (only the oldest of which are reiterated here) are listed in Utas’s edition, pp. 11–40. See also Munz. iv 30234–43.

^ Back to text58. This ghazal by Sanāʾī is also quoted anonymously (and not identified by the editor), with some significant variants, in Jājarmī ii pp. 1106–7.

^ Back to text59. Thus according to ʿAufī. In the verses themselves the dedicatee is addressed only as Ḍiyāʾ al-dīn.

^ Back to text60. The name given to him by Rāzī, namely Shihāb al-dīn Shāh Abū ʿAlī Rajā, is evidently a corruption of this.

^ Back to text61. Pertsch prints the name with unpointed sīn, which renders it meaningless. Or read al-Suhāʾī?

^ Back to text62. See above, § 242.

^ Back to text63. To be discussed in pl vi.

^ Back to text64. According to Horn (GIrPh i/2 p. 10 n. 2) the Baḥr al-durar is the compilation of one Zakarīyāʾ al-Muḥarrir and the Gotha manuscript, though not itself dated, has a marginal note with the date 15 Ṣafar 766/1364.

^ Back to text65. The unsigned article appears in EIr x, pp. 388–9, out of the correct alphabetical series.

^ Back to text66. Thus in ʿAufī, Ms. ‘S’. Browne, following Ms. ‘E’, reads the nisbah as al-Sanjarī.

^ Back to text67. For this wazīr see above, § 190 (Farīd al-dīn).

^ Back to text68. According to Tārīkh i Sīstān pp. 392–3.

^ Back to text69. Thus ʿAufī.

^ Back to text70. Dīwān p. 89.

^ Back to text71. See above, § 239.

^ Back to text72. Dīwān pp. 72–4. In l. 1268 the patron is addressed as afsar i Burhāniyān.

^ Back to text73. Name and patronym are found on p. 55 l. 965 and p. 78 l. 1353 (with textual variants in the latter passage).

^ Back to text74. The eight verses ascribed to Shams Ṭabasī in the Āthār al-wuzarāʾ of Saif al-dīn Ḥājjī b. Niẓām ʿAqīlī, ed. J. Ḥusainī Urmawī, Tehran 1337sh./1959, pp. 5–6, in which the poet quotes some verses which he says were addressed to him in a dream by the ghost of Firdausi, are in fact by Shams al-dīn Jāsbī (from Jāsb, a village near Qum; see Ādhar, new edition, ii pp. 1258–9, where a different poem of his can be found), as will be demonstrated in the entry devoted to this poet in pl vi. The ‘quotation’ from Firdausi recurs in the ‘Bāysunghur’ preface to the Shāh-nāmah as well as in other late sources, as is discussed (with incorrect conclusions) by M.A. Riyāḥī, Sar-chashmah-hā i Firdausī-shināsī, Tehran 1372sh./1993–4, pp. 305–8. (I am indebted to Kambiz Eslami of Princeton, who called my attention to this for me inaccessible publication and provided photocopies of the relevant pages.)

^ Back to text75. For this, and the Mashhad Ms., see above, p. 264 fn.

^ Back to text76. Instead of the Panjdihī of Ms. E, Ms. S. has in one place byḥdy, in another the same rasm without dots.

^ Back to text77. For whom see above, § 232 and 274.

^ Back to text78. Nafīsī, in the notes to his edition of ʿAufī, has collected the material on the various members of this family contained in the Kitāb al-jawāhir al-muḍīʾah fī ṭabaqāt al-ḥanafīyah of Ibn Abī l-Wafāʾ. They seem to have used a shared shuhrah which appears in the printed text as ‘ibn šfrwh’ or ‘ibn šwrwh’ or ‘ibn sfrwyh’ with other predictable graphic variants (q or gh or m for f; etc.) The fluctuation between -f- and -w- is less easy to explain away as mere scribal negligence and suggests rather an Iranian form with -ß-; in this case the various Arabic spellings could reflect a local (Isfahani) variant of Persian shab-rō(y), ‘Black-face’. There is in any event no justification for the claim by the authors of the late tadhkirahs that ‘Shufurwah’ (or whatever) is the name of a village near Isfahan; ‘ibn *Shafrūh’ is clearly a family name referring to a remote ancestor.

^ Back to text79. yak nīmah nibishtah khwān, kih ān nīm i digar (text: nīma digar, which is ungrammatical) * az nām i ṣuwar maʿnawī u mauzūn ast.

^ Back to text80. Thus Jājarmī ii p. 1079.

^ Back to text81. Nafīsī claims that Muḥammad was his name and ʿAbd al-Muʾmin his laqab, but ʿAbd al-Muʾmin is not a laqab.

^ Back to text82. al-Jawāhir al-muḍīʾah, Hyderabad 1332/1914, i p. 332 and ii p. 375. In the latter passage his shuhrah is given as šwrwh, in the former it is corrupted to šrwh.

^ Back to text83. al-Wāfī bi l-wafayāt xix, Beyrouth 1413/1993, no. 217.

^ Back to text84. For whom see above, § 242.

^ Back to text85. ʿAufī ii p. 366, l. 13–14 .

^ Back to text86. Loc. cit., lines 17–8.

^ Back to text87. Tārīkh-nāmah i Harāt, Calcutta 1944, p. 78.

^ Back to text88. Pp. 1539–40 of Nafīsī’s publication.

^ Back to text89. For whom see O. Pritsak, Der Islam xxxi, 1953–4, p. 55. Pritsak himself (op. cit., p. 48; following Qazwīnī) identified Shihāb’s patron as Masʿūd (i) b. Muḥammad (488/1095 to 490/1097), but this must be rejected for the reason indicated above.

^ Back to text90. Dīwān, p. 441.

^ Back to text91. In his commentary to ʿArūḍī, p. 155.

^ Back to text92. Thus ʿAufī, whereby the second word can be read either as ghazāl, ‘gazelle’, or as ghazzāl, ‘spinner’.

^ Back to text93. Dīwān p. 446, i. 1 and 183, l. 21. The editor (on p. 3 of his introduction) also cites verses in which the poet appears to call himself ʿUmar and Bū Bakr. However in the first verse (=dīwān p. 112, l. 4) one of the manuscripts available to the editor has not nām i man chūn ṣāḥib i ʿādil ʿUmar khwānand khalq, but … ʿādil hamē khwānand … and this reading must obviously be preferred (‘ṣāḥib i ʿādil’ here means ‘Muḥammad’). The verse giving his name (nām) as Bū Bakr is found in a religious poem (dīwān p. 1, second verse from the bottom) which, as the editor admits, is missing in most copies of the dīwān. It is probably spurious. It is, however, not impossible that the poet had Abū Bakr as a kunyah. Nafīsī (in the notes to his edition of ʿAufī, p. 694) quotes a verse in which Sōzanī appears to give his name as Ibrāhīm, but in the printed dīwān (p. 267, l. 8) we read not man gar Ibrāhīm nām-am, but gar na Ibrāhīm nām-am.

^ Back to text94. Dīwān p. 183, l. 21; 389, ult. and elsewhere.

^ Back to text95. There are a number of poems in the dīwān in which he plays on the name, e.g. pp. 390–2, 447. ʿAufī’s story according to which he chose the name as a result of a love affair with a needle-maker need hardly be taken seriously.

^ Back to text96. Dīwān pp. 341–2.

^ Back to text97. Pp. 141–2.

^ Back to text98. P. 93.

^ Back to text99. See above, § 114.

^ Back to text100. Above, § 88.

^ Back to text101. Perhaps Najībī Farghānī, above § 253.

^ Back to text102. Above, § 87.

^ Back to text103. Above § 147.

^ Back to text104. Above § 128.

^ Back to text105. Above, § 169.

^ Back to text106. Above, § 63.

^ Back to text107. Pp. 62–4.

^ Back to text108. It is noteworthy that ʿArūḍī makes no mention of him in his Chahār maqālah. For the person that Sōzanī calls khar i khum-khānah see above, § 210 (Jalāl).

^ Back to text109. Shams quotes (anonymously in Qazwīnī’s Ms., but attributed to Sōzanī in the others; see the new edition, pp. 284–7, and above § 77 ad Jauharī) two poems illustrating taḍmīn (breaking of words at the rhyme, here for comical effect). Of the two only the latter is in the printed dīwān (p. 329).

^ Back to text110. As is implied by ʿAufī’s words khiṭṭah i Marw ba makān i ō mufākhir.

^ Back to text111. See above, § 283.

^ Back to text112. Harēwah is supposedly a local form of the the nisbah from Harāt/Harēw. See ln s.v. harēwah.

^ Back to text113. These are the names mentioned by the author himself in the prefaces to his various prose writings; several of the biographical sources omit the second Muḥammad. Yāqūt quotes in full the genealogy which makes him a descendant of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb in the 13th generation and which, most implausibly, gives the Arab caliph a great-grandson with the Persian name Mardōyah.

^ Back to text114. The printed text of Ibn Funduq’s Tatimmah gives him the nisbahs al-Bukhārī al-Khuwārazmī, suggesting that he hailed from Bukhārā, but the nisbahs are missing in two of the editor’s Mss. and also (according to my collation) in London Or. 9033 fol. 127a.

^ Back to text115. Daulat-shāh p. 91, using the arabicized form Jurjānīyah.

^ Back to text116. Those Persian letters that Waṭwāṭ collected himself in Abkār al-afkār fī l-rasāʾil wa l-ashʿār and ʿArāʾis al-khawāṭir wa nafāʾis al-nawādir were published, with an extensive introduction, by Q. Tūysirkānī as Nāmah-hā i Rashīd al-dīn Waṭwāṭ, Tehran 1338sh./1960, and a large number of Arabic letters were published (from an unidentified source) by Muḥammad Fahmī under the title Majmūʿat rasāʾil Rashīd al-dīn al-Waṭwāṭ, 2 parts, Cairo 1315/1897–8. Ten of the latter are translated and analysed by H. Horst, ‘Arabische Briefe der Ḫōrazmšāhs an den Kalifenhof aus der Feder des Rašīd ad-Dīn Waṭwāṭ’, zdmg 116, 1966, pp. 24–43, and the same author has summarised many of the Persian letters (including several that have not yet been published) in his book Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselǧūqen (sic) und Ḫōrazmšāhs, Wiesbaden 1964.

^ Back to text117. E.g. Majmūʿah i pp. 24 and 31 refer to the accession of the caliph al-Mustanjid in 555/1160.

^ Back to text118. The nisbah, which is clearly indicated at the beginning of ʿAufī’s entry, is, in the superscription, corrupt in both Mss. (see Browne’s apparatus criticus) and was ‘emended’ by Browne most unfortunately to ‘al-ʿUtbī’.

^ Back to text119. Differently Ṣafā.

^ Back to text120. The verse, which is quoted both on p. 3 and on p. 443, reads: ān kī-st mulk-shāh u mar īn kī-st tāj i mulk * ān kī-st qadr-khwān i salāṭīn i nām-dār. The metre does not allow ‘Malik-shāh’, but it can hardly be doubted that with ‘mulk-shāh’ and ‘tāj i mulk’ the poet is indeed alluding to the sultan and his wazīr.

^ Back to text121. Tārīkh al-wuzarāʾ, ed. M.T. Dānish-pazhūh, Tehran 1363sh./1985, p. 166.

^ Back to text122. See Leyden Cat. ii p. 234.

^ Back to text123. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh, ed. Tornberg, xi p. 249.

^ Back to text124. The poem beginning on p. 52 of Bīnish’s edition mentions Bēshkīn in the verses as well as in the superscription in Ms. alif. The poem beginning on p. 243 mentions ‘Nuṣrat i dīn Bēshkīn’ in the verses and names this king again in the superscription in Ms. alif. The rubrics in other Mss. identify Abū Bakr as the dedicatee of both poems, as does Bīnish.

^ Back to text125. The historical material concerning this ruler is collected above, p. 356 n. 361.

^ Back to text126. The name Ṭoghrıl is mentioned on p. 42.

^ Back to text127. P. 132.

^ Back to text128. See Bīnish’s edition, pp. 2–9.

^ Back to text129. See above, § 290.

^ Back to text130. Different dates are given in Ateş’s two entries.

^ Back to text131. The verse attributed to Ẓahīr on p. 114 in fact belongs to a qaṣīdah by Jamāl al-dīn Iṣfahānī; see M. Iqbāl in his edition of Rāwandī’s Rāḥat al-ṣudūr p. 36 n. 4.

^ Back to text132. For whom see above, § 296, where the name of their common ancestor is discussed.

^ Back to text133. His edition of ʿAufī p. 646.

^ Back to text134. Also contains contains rubāʿīs by ʿIzz al-dīn (i) *Shafrūh, whom Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī (Āthār al-bilād, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 197) enumerates among the poets of Isfahan.

Cite this page
“3 From the End of the 11th Century to the First Quarter of the 13th: Part 4”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 01 December 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲