The Saga of AbuAbu- Sa`id Bahãdor Khãn: The AbuAbu- Sa`idnãmé I ntroduction The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century decimated Iran’s power elite and as a result, Tuco-Mongols dominated Iran’s power structure almost continuously up to the nineteenth century. Yet, despite such a prolonged subjugation by Turco-Mongols, Iran did not succumb to Turkicization as Anatolia did in becoming Turkey. If Iran remained Persian, it was primarily because the cast of Persian viziers and administrators were able to lure Mongol royalty, particularly Abu-Sa`id Bahãdor Khãn, into the wonderful world of Persian literature and culture. Abu-Sa`id’s strong affinity for Persian culture established a standard of princely education that was adopted by subsequent Turco-Mongol rulers of Iran. This princely education, termed as Farhang-e Shãhãné (royal curriculum) by Persian chroniclers, required royalty to be both educated in Persian literature and to patronize the sumptuous reproduction of its major works. The ensuing legacy of richly illuminated manuscripts enshrined Persian literature in a way never done before and firmly established Persian as the language of the court and consequently, as the administrative language of the land. A pivotal element in the Turco-Mongols’ adoption of Persian royal culture was the creation of an epic history of the Mongols projected over an illustrated copy of the Shãhnãmé (Book ofKings) in which---as it shall be argued---every painting was designed to have a dual representation: to reflect a story of the Shãhnãmé and at the same time, evoke an episode of Mongol history. It was an ambitious and complex project that lasted many years, perhaps as many as 20 years. It came in the wake of the Jãme`ottavãrikh (Universal history) written under the supervision of the famous vizier Rashidoddin and used some of the very historians that participated in the writing of the Jãme`ottavãrikh. The project gathered such a momentum that the text of the Jãme`ottavãrikh was even modified 1 in order to achieve a better connection between the Shãhnãmé and Mongol history. The result was a grand illustrated manuscript that is generally referred to in western publications as the Demotte Shãhnãmé, a name that ironically celebrates the man most responsible for its dispersment. After surviving five centuries of turmoil, the manuscript was dismembered upon reaching the Paris market early this century. Its paintings were individually sold, and pages that contained paintings on the front and the back were further mutilated when they were split---and pasted on another text page---and sold as separate folios. The remaining text was discarded or lost. The dispersed pages of the manuscript have fascinated collectors and scholars alike, and generated numerous studies with much speculations on their origin, ranging from Tabriz to Samarqand and from circa 1300 to 1400.1 However, no connection was ever established with an unidentified Abu-Sa`idnãmé (Book of Abu-Sa`id) mentioned by the calligrapher-chronicler Dust-Mohammad in the preface to the 952/1545 Bahrãm Mirzã album.2 In an effort to revive the name of the manuscript's patron, Abu-Sa`id Bahãdor Khãn, it shall be further argued that what Dust-Mohammad referred to as AbuSa`idnãmé is none other than this grand Il-Khãnid Shãhnãmé conceived as an illustrated epic history of the Mongols. Throughout this study, extensive use has been made of a work by O. Grabar and S. Blair who first suggested a possible linkage between the illustrations and events of the IlKhãnid period, and whose efforts led to a sequential reconstruction of the dispersed manuscript.3 Their conclusions, however, are not always justified and shall be reevaluated where necessary. The relationship of the illustrations with events of Mongol history are investigated in Part I, the sources explored for devising such relationships are discussed in Part III, and the purpose of this historic enterprise is explained in Part IV.4 Although the main conclusions are based on the internal evidence produced in Part I, additional circumstantial evidence such as Dust-Mohammad's above cited account in conjunction with the calligraphic evidence presented in Part II, and peculiar aspects of related contemporary texts explained in Part III, reinforce these conclusions and reveal the extent of resources 1. For a recapitulation of studies related to this Shãhnãmé see Grabar & Blair, 191--923. 2 . See Part II. 3. Grabar & Blair (1980), 48--55. 4. I am indebted to Tom Lentz, Julian Raby and Teresa Fitzherbert for their pertinent proposals in regards to the division and sequencing of topics as well as useful suggestions in many areas of this study. 2 mobilized for this manuscript. It is a manuscript that should not only be studied for its artistic merits but also for its importance as a historical document illustrating intricate aspects of Mongol politics, and for its crucial role in the irreversible tilt of royal libraryateliers towards the production of illustrated Persian literary works. Part I The pictorial evidence An unusual aspect of this Il-Khãnid manuscript is the illustration program that differs substantially from all other Shãhnãmé manuscripts. There seems to be no general pattern in the selection of illustrated episodes. Other grand Shãhnãmés usually display a higher concentration of illustrations at the beginning, but here, the density of illustrations is higher in the second half of the manuscript. Many selected episodes are secondary events not illustrated elsewhere and incorporate odd iconographic features unrelated to the Shãhnãmé narrative, the most striking of these is Rostam's imperial Chinese robe in f i g. 4, 4 instead of his protective tunic, the babr-e bayãn, traditionally rendered (or rather misrendered)5 as a tiger skin coat. The oddities though, are clues to Mongol history. Concrete visual indices reveal the double nature of each illustration reflecting episodes of both the Shãhnãmé and Mongol history. Section headings are used as key indicators by incorporating additional informative sentences such as "Picture of the Iron Horses and Soldiers" in f i g. 29, 29 and by their judicious positioning next to the illustration. If placed right above or close to the top of the illustration, they are descriptive titles. If placed on the side, the information is more complex: in f i g. 34 the heading is placed at mid-height, indicating that it draws on both, upper and lower, stories to gain a meaning; its content however does not describe the illustration. Forty-seven illustrations of this grand Shãhnãmé, and three additional Jalãyerid ones, have been identified here below as representations of Mongol history and discussed in chronological order. The identifications are primarily based on the matching of Shãhnãmé stories with events of the Jãme`ottavãrikh. Some match perfectly, some require a stretch of imagination. However, it is the massive weight of the 50 identifications as a 5. For the correct interpretation of babr-e bayãn as a magical beaver skin see Omid-Salar (1983); also Khaleghi - Motlagh (1988). For a synopsis see Soudavar (1992), 167. 3 whole that gives credence to the weaker links by establishing a pattern of arguments that serve both the strong and the weak connections. It is therefore suggested to the reader to focus on the more conclusive (* marked) identifications in a first reading, and tackle the rest in a second one. A thematic explanation of the illustrations is presented in Part IV. The remaining illustrations have similarly complex and unorthodox compositions. If as yet unidentified, further study will certainly reveal a linkage with Mongol history. Note---The "GB" number in parenthesis, refers to the sequence number of documented illustrations in the reconstructed manuscript by Grabar and Blair; the TKS numbers give the references of related Jalãyerid miniatures of album H.2153 in Topkapu Saray Library, Istanbul. To differentiate the Shãhnãmé story from the corresponding episode of Mongol history, the former is narrated here in the present tense and the latter in the past tense. 1.1. I llustrations pertaining to Changiz (r.603-(r.603-- 24/1206-24/1206-- 27) In spite of their nomadic background, the Mongols had made a genuine effort to record the early life of Changiz. According to Rashidoddin, documents in Uyghur script and pertaining to Mongol history were haphazardly kept in the Il-Khãnid treasury, inaccessible to most but a few Mongol dignitaries. Rashidoddin was exceptionally allowed access to these documents, when Ghãzãn ordered him to compile the history of the Mongols (i.e. volume I of the Jãme`ottavãrikh).6 Also, the Great Khãn Qubilãy’s envoy to the Il-Khãnid court, Pulãd (Bolãd) Ching-Sãng (d.712/1312), and the il-khãn Ghãzãn himself, provided much valuable information on the period of Changiz’ rise to power. Yet, Rashidoddin avowed that Ghãzãn “did not divulge certain secrets of Mongol history which thus remain unreported in this book (Jãme`ottavãrikh).” 7 In addition to the Jãme`ottavãrikh, the discussions under f i gs. 1, 1 2, make use of a Sino-Mongolian source on the early days of Changiz, the Secret History of the Mongols, that possibly reveal some of the “unreported” secrets that Rashidoddin alluded to.8 Fi g. 1 * A l exander Comi ng out of the L and of D arkness ( GB 36) Contrary to Ferdowsi's narration---which does not describe a companion prince for Alexander---this illustration depicts two princes riding in the land of darkness. At first glance, either of the two may be considered as Alexander. However, the elder prince's 6. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:18. 7. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:970. 8. The Secret History of the Mongols, a Mongolian version of which (written in Chinese characters) has survived, is generally thought to be of similar content as the Mongol dynastic history kept at the Il -Khãnid treasury and occasionally referred to as the Ãltãn Debter; Pelliot (1949), 1--3. 4 mount depicted as a long-eared ass differentiates his status from that of the younger prince riding a horse. In Persian illustrative iconography as well as literary texts, the ass or the mule is used to underline the inferior status of a king or hero's companion.9 So important is this distinction that in a tenth century story recounted by Nezãmi-ye `Aruzi, the celebrated physician Mohammad-e Zakariyyã-ye Rãzi, in fear of the king’s reprisal because of a harsh medical treatment that he was about to administer, and planning his escape beforehand, asked for the fastest horse of the kingdom for himself and the fastest mule for his servant.10 Although they had to escape together and would have been slowed down by the pace of the mule, Nezãmi, in conformity with narrative and illustrative traditions, differentiated the mounts in order to maintain the hierarchical distinction. Therefore the long-eared ass in these illustrations must point to a non-Changizid ruler, considered inferior in rank in respect to the young prince riding a horse.11 The illustration here relates to the story of the Kerait chieftain Ong Khãn who after befriending Changiz fell at odds with him; he was defeated, and later killed by a rival tribe. Ong Khãn's real name was Toghrol, and Ong was the Mongol pronunciation of Wãng (King), a title conferred to him by a Chin (Jin) general after his assistance in vanquishing their common enemy, the Tãtãrs.12 As a man named king, he was drawn wearing a crown; but his non-Changizid status had to be emphasized as well, he was thus depicted riding an ass. Ong Khãn was ãndã (sworn brothers, who mutually support each other) with Changiz' father, Yesukãy Bahãdor. According to Rashidoddin, in the spring of 592/1196, Ong Khãn, embattled and distraught, sent two of his nokars (attendants) to the "heights of Kelurãn," seeking help from Changiz. Changiz obliged and brought him to his own encampments. "In autumn they both rode through a valley called Qarãun Qabchãl, meaning dark forest, and since (Ong Khãn) was ãndã to Yesukãy Bahãdor, they became like father and son, and feasted together." 13 The two riders on the top seem to refer to the two nokars, the land of darkness is equated with the Qarãun Qabchãl, while the king riding along with the young prince alludes to Ong Khãn and Changiz, as father and son. The father and son 9. See for instance Soudavar (1992), 87 and 243 10. Nezãmi (1927), 82--85. 11. Another possibility, that the ass-rider was Uljãytu before his accession to the throne when he was referred to by his birth-name, Kharbandé (ass-herd), is rejected here since the rider is an elderly crowned ruler and not a young prince. 12. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:90. 13. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:266--67. Rashidoddin translates Qarãun Qabchãl as "black forest (bishé)" but Doerfer translates it as dark strait or mountain pass; Doerfer (1963), 1:386 and 403. 5 relationship was further stressed by Rashidoddin in stating that Changiz "sat before Ong Khãn in the way of sons (before their father)." 14 The Secret History of the Mongols confirms both the meeting in the Qarãun Qabchãl and the father and son relationship that existed between Ong Khãn and Changiz; it also reveals---unlike the Jãme`ottavãrikh---how in those early days, the Christian Keraits looked down on the Mongol tribe of Changiz, and refused Ong Khãn’s daughter to Changiz’ eldest son, Juchi.15 The superior status of the Keraits was such that even after their rise to power, the Changizids took pride in marrying Kerait women. Consequently, some of the most important women in the lineage of the il-khãns were related to Ong Khãn, including Sorqoqtani and Doquz Khãtun.16 In spite of the later conflict with Changiz, Ong Khãn’s high status in this illustration---projected as father to Changiz and riding ahead of him---is not only in deference to these relationships but also to honor the lineage of Uljãytu whose mother, Uruk Khãtun, was a direct descendant of Ong Khãn.17 According to the Il-Khãnid statesman `Atãmalek-e Jovayni: "in Mongol customs, the rank of sons sharing the same father was dependent on the nobility of their mother." 18 This illustration was meant to emphasize Uljãytu's---and by extension Abu-Sa`id's---high status through a noble maternal lineage that linked him to Ong Khãn. 1.2. I llustrations pertaining to Changiz' sons Changiz’ empire was to be divided among four of his sons: Juchi, Chaghatãy, Ogdãy and Tuloy.19 Juchi’s relationship with his brothers was much strained, and his premature death some six months before his father’s, averted a succession war. His sons though, in a concerted effort with other Changizid princes, continued under Changiz’ successor, Ogdãy, their forays into the European heartland. Later on, kinship considerations gave way to bitter rivalry and descendants of Juchi strongly contested the IlKhãnid domains in the Caucasus and Ãzarbãyjãn. 14. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:93. 15. Kahn (1984), 78--79. 16. The all powerful Sorqoqtani, who married Tuloy and gave birth to Mungkã, Hulãgu, Qubilãy, and Arigh Bokã, was Ong Khãn’s niece, and Doquz Khãtun (wife of Hulãgu) was his granddaughter; Rashidoddin (1976), 1:91. 17. Uruk Khãtun was the daughter of Sãrijé, brother of Doquz Khãtun and grandson of Ong Khãn from the Albã clan of the Kerait tribe, Rashidoddin (1976), 1:91. 18. Jovayni (1912), 1:29. 19. These four sons were all from Changiz’ main wife, Borté Fujin. His sons from other wives did not enjoy the same status and prestige as these four. 6 Fi g. 2 * Fereydun A ski ng A bout hi s L i neage ( GB 2) 20 As a section heading, the title of this painting is not found in the two earlier dated Shãhnãmés, neither in the 1217 Florence manuscript nor the 675/1276 British Library one (Add.21. 103).21 This is an unnecessary heading, closely following a more important one announcing "The birth of Fereydun." Its sole purpose is to explain the relevance of the illustration: a prince inquiring about his unknown or dubious lineage. It alludes to the illegitimate birth of Changiz' "first son," Juchi, related by the Secret History of the Mongols---but glossed over by Rashidoddin.22 According to the Secret History, the Merkits, avenging the abduction of one of their chieftain's wife, captured Changiz’ wife, Borté Fujin; she was pregnant when subsequently recovered by the combined forces of Changiz and his ally, Ong Khãn, and gave birth to Juchi.23 The illustration here probably refers to an incident that reportedly occurred on the eve of Changiz' departure for the conquest of Iran. In reply to concerns on his succession, Changiz asked Juchi's opinion. Sensing that Changiz was designating his eldest son as successor, Chaghatãy (Changiz' second son) exclaimed: "How could we allow ourselves to be ruled by this bastard son of a Merkid?" 24 The two brothers seized each other by the collar but were separated by one of Changiz' commanders. Changiz intervened and appointed Ogdãy (r.624--39/1227--41) as his successor. The other brothers then swore allegiance to him. The gesture of the two men holding their hands over their heart seems to illustrate this oath of allegiance. Their presence is not accounted for in the Shãhnãmé narration; they were only added as pointers to the incident before Changiz. Reference to Juchi's illegitimate birth particularly suited Abu-Sa`id since Juchi's descendant, the khãn Ozbeg (r.712--42/1312--41)25 of the Qebchãq Khãnate (Golden Horde), initiated military expeditions against the Il-Khãnid state in 718/1318, 725/1325 and 735/1335. Abu-Sa`id sent Amir Chupãn (Chobãn) on punitive expeditions to northern 20. The present study reverses a previous interpretation in Soudavar (1992), 42 21. Ferdowsi (1988), 1:64. The inclusion of a similar heading in contemporary Injuid manuscripts was most probably influenced by the activities surrounding the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. The influence of other headings on later manuscripts shall be discussed as encountered. 22. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:72 and 505; see also 3.2.3. 23. Kahn (1984), 40. Changiz's own mother had been abducted from the Merkit tribe. 24. Kahn (1984), 167--8. Kahn has adopted the translation "bastard" for the Mongolian term cul ulja'ur according to the arguments stated in Cleaves (1982), 190 and note 41. The meaning of the unfamiliar Mongolian term is deduced from the violent reaction of Juchi against his brother and the subsequent defense of the honor of Changiz' wife by one of his generals. 25. Samarqandi (1993), 65 and 91. 7 Ãzarbãyjãn and Georgia on the first two occasions, and was preparing to repel the third attack when he died en route in Arrãn.26 The belittling of the dynastic head of a neighboring state seems to be a recurring theme in Persian painting. Another example is provided by an anachronistic portrait of Bãbor (r.932-37/1526-30), the founder of the Mughal dynasty, kissing the hand of Shãh Esmã`il I (r.907-30/1501-24), painted at the end of the reign of Shãh `Abbãs II (r.1052-1077/1642-66), when the latter displayed much animosity towards the Mughal emperor Aurangzib (r.1068-1118/1658-1707) and was preparing to invade India (ff i g. 2a). 2a `Abbãs II died while preparing for the campaign of Qandahãr.27 Fi g. 3 BahrãmBahrãm- e Gur i n the T reasury of Jamshi d ( GB 48) According to the Jãme`ottavãrikh, Ogdãy built a palace in Qaraqorum, for which "he ordered reputed jewelers to make appropriate containers, in gold and silver, in the shape of animals such as elephants, lions, horses etc... for his drinking pavilion (sharãbkhãné)." 28 The Franciscan William of Rubruck who had met in Qaraqorum the jeweler-craftsman responsible for the gold and silver edifice, the Parisian William Buchier, relates: "At the entrance to this great palace, since it was unfitting that skins of milk and other drink be brought through there, Master William of Paris had constructed for him (Mungkã Qããn) a large tree made of silver, with four silver lions at its roots, each one containing a conduit-pipe and spewing forth white milk of mares." 29 Since the fountain tree stood in Ogdãy's palace, Rashidoddin assumed it to be part of Ogdãy's constructions, but the more reliable account of Rubruck designates Mungkã Qããn (r.649--58/1251--60) as its patron.30 This illustration is obviously based on Rashidoddin's account and not on Rubruck's. 26. Samarqandi (1993), 65 and 91; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 163 and 188. 27. Soudavar (1992), 371--72. 28. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:478. The text of Jovayni's description of the palace of Qaraqorum in the present edition of the Jahãngoshã is scrambled and less clear than the Jãme`ottavãrikh. The same animals are enumerated, seemingly as transportation means for heavy containers and not as animal-shaped gold containers; Jovayni (1912), 1:193. It is probable that his original text was similar to Rashidoddin's (who used him as a primary source for that period) but got distorted as a result of scribal mistakes. A pavilion depicted in an unidentified Jãme`ottavãrikh page reproduced in Morgan (1986), 115, may represent Mungkã's drinking pavilion in Qaraqorum. 29. Rubruck (1990), 209. Buchier was captured in Belgrade in 1242 and given as slave to Tuloy's wife, Sorqoqtani. He was then inherited by Arigh Bokã who lent him to Mungkã Qããn for the palace project; ibid., 208. William of Rubruck was sent by King Louis IX of France to Qaraqorum. 30. Rubruck recounts that he was in Mungkã Qããn's camp when the news of the fountain's completion reached the Khãn. The Khãn and his retinue reached Qaraqorum on April 5, 1254 to see it for the first time, Rubruck (1990), 208--11. 8 The Jãme`ottavãrikh's description of Ogdãy's pavilion is very similar to the Shãhnãmé's description of Jamshid's treasury which includes: pairs of onagers, pairs of lions, pheasants and peacocks, all in gold and with jeweled eyes. The illustration closely follows Ferdowsi's description of the discoveries of Bahrãm and his companion priest. The only allusion to the Qaraqorum court is made in the Mongolian attires of Bahrãm and the priest (mobad), the latter differently dressed than the mobads depicted in f i g. 16, 16 The Mobads Interrogating Zãl. 1.3. I llustration pertaining to Qubilãy (r.658-(r.658-- 93/1260-93/1260-- 94) In 1251, Tuloy’s powerful widow, Sorqoqtani, in alliance with Juchi’s son, Bãtu, engineered the election of her elder son, Mungkã, as Great Khãn.31 The transfer of the Great Khãn (qããn) title to the house of Tuloy turned out to be irreversible and after Mungkã, his brother Qubilãy who was in charge of the China campaign, became the fourth of the Mongol Great Khãns to succeed Changiz. Upon ascending to the throne Qubilãy shifted the capital of the Mongol empire to Beijing, which was then renamed Khãn-bãligh, City of the Khãn. He is the founder of the Yuan dynasty (1260--1370) of China. Fi g. 4 * Rostam Sl ayi ng Shaghãd ( GB 2) Rostam falls into a pit dug by his treacherous brother, Shaghãd, and lined with sharp blades (tigh). He is mortally wounded but as a last heroic act, he lets loose an arrow that pins his brother to the tree behind which he was hiding. The purpose of this illustration is revealed by a striking visiual clue: Rostam is not wearing his customary tiger-skin tunic (as in f i g. 12, 12 Rostam Shooting an Arrow in Esfandiãr's Eye), but an imperial Chinese robe.32 It points to the story of a Chinese emperor killing his brother: the story of Qubilãy Qããn and his younger brother, Arigh Bokã. Arigh Bokã had contested Qubilãy’s election as Great Khãn on grounds that the election gathering (quriltãy) should have been held on the sacred land of Mogholestãn (Mongolia) and not in China. He subsequently convened a quriltãy in Mogholestãn which elected him as Great Khãn. War broke out between the two brothers and after several years of struggle, Arigh Bokã surrendered in 662/1264. According to Persian sources, Qubilãy castigated him for his treachery and, on the advice of his "Chinese counselors," ordered a peculiar punishment for his rebellious brother: Arigh Bokã was incarcerated in a prison with walls 31. For Bãtu's role as a kingmaker and his relationship with Mungkã see Allsen (1979), 45--50. 32. The composition of this painting, is very similar to an illustrated scene of the same subect in the Edinburgh Jãme`ottavãrikh (Talbot Rice & Gray, (1976), 76), see f i g. 58. A possible explanation is offered under 3.5. I am indebted to Ms. T. Fitzherbert to have reminded me of the parallelism between these two paintings. 9 made of cactus spines (khãr-e moghilãn), where he perished within a year or two.33 Both stories are about a brother killing a younger and treacherous brother; Qubilãy is portrayed here as Rostam causing the death of his brother. The blade-lined well is to recall Arigh Bokã's prison; its analogy with Rostam's death pit rests on a pun with the word tigh (blade) which also means spine in Persian.34 Rostam's attire is similar to the one worn by Qubilãy in a painting now in the National Palace Museum, Taipei ( f i g. 4b), 4b but Rostam’s face with a white beard displays a sriking similarity with Changiz’ portrait ( f i g. 4a) in the same collection.35 One can only assume that either a similar old age portrait of Qubilãy was available to the artist, or that he mistook the portrait of Changiz wearing a Chinese imperial robe for Qubilãy’s. ... I llustration pertaining to Teymur Qããn (r.693-(r.693-706/1294-706/1294-- 1307) After a long reign of thirty four years Qubilãy was succeeded by his grandson, Teymur (Ch’eng-tsung), recognized as the new qããn and nominal suzerain of the il-khãns. Fi g. 5 * A l exander Reachi ng the Ci ty of the Brahmans ( GB 32) While the left part of this painting may illustrate Alexander’s visit to the ascetic Brahmans, the courtly gathering on the right is unrelated to the surrounding Shãhnãmé text. Two indices orient the reader towards the event of Mongol history that this painting was meant to evoke: the section heading suggests a Mongol emperor’s lonely visit to ascetics or Buddhist monks (bakhshis),36 and the Chinese style braided pony tail of the seated ruler points to a Yuan emperor. The full meaning of this illustration is revealed by a combination 33. Khãndamir (1974), 64. The death of Arigh Bokã is apparently not reported in Chinese sources. Rashidoddin puts Arigh Bokã's death in the fall of 664/1265, Rashidoddin (1976), 1:631--32. 34. Considering the important influence that Chinese painting had on the development of Persian painting, it is interesting to note how visual puns also appear in Chinese designs and compositions. “Most designs in Chinese art contain layers of meaning waiting to be uncovered” and the highl y educated elite of Chinese society, especially in the post Yuan era, “relished the game of testing their wit and erudition by discovering hidden meanings in art;” Cort & Stuart (1993), 33. For example, the word fu, for bat, was pronounced similar to the words “good fortune”, and hong fu (red bat) similar to “abundant good fortune”; depending on the color scheme, the bat, in plain or red, became a frequently used iconographical element in Chinese designs; same was true for the cloud (yun) motif which sounded like “luck,” ibid., 57. 35. The headgear is a main element in this identification. Only two of the Yuan dynastic portraits---Changiz and Qubilãy---have similar headgears to Rostam’s and the remaining emperors wear different ones (Weidner (1982), pls. 2, 4, 5). While this group of paintings may be copies of the Ming period, they were surely copied from the original Yuan paintings that hung in the Han-lin Academy; ibid., 56--62. As argued elsewhere, the activities and organization of the Han-lin Academy inspired the production of the Jãme`ottavãrikh at the Il -Khãnid court and reproductions of the Han-lin imperial portraits served as model for later activities of the Il -Khãnid libraryatelier; Soudavar (1993). 36. Buddhist monks (bakhshis) were held in high esteem by Mongol rulers; see also Fi g. 15 The Mobads Interrogating Zãl. 10 of the two Yuan reign accounts, namely those of Qubilãy and Teymur, that appear in the first volume of the Jãme`ottavãrikh,. Rashidoddin relates that tradesmen who had brought jewelry for Teymur Qããn, bribed some officials to value them at 600,000 bãlash,37 in a transaction with the treasury. A disgruntled officer who was left out by the conspirators, reported their scheme to the qããn. A new appraisal valued the jewelry at half the previous one, and Teymur Qããn had the conspirators---including twelve amirs and viziers---arrested and sentenced to death. To annul the sentence, their relatives first implored the emperor’s pardon through the auspices of his mother. Since she could not prevail, they sought the intervention of Tanpé, a Tibetan Buddhist monk much honored by the qããn. By chance, the Zuzavãbé comet had appeared in the sky on that day, and Tanpé summoned the emperor to come and pray against the bad omen that it portended. When Teymur Qããn arrived, Tanpé first demanded the release of 40 prisoners, and then, an additional 100, contending that such benevolence would counter the bad omen of the comet. The high number of released prisoners inevitably included the tradesmen and the corrupt officials. The qããn prayed there for a week and upon his return, reinstated the released officials, but demanded the restitution of the price overage to the treasury.38 Within his narration, Rashidoddin refers the reader to the Qubilãy section were he states that Tanpé had a fellow Tibetan monk named Kanpé who resided with him in the private Buddhist sanctuary (bot-khãné) of Qubilãy Qããn.39 Hence the depiction of two ascetics in the top left of this painting. The gathering on the right was probably meant to evoke Teymur Qããn’s deliberations on the jewelry transaction, and Alexander’s ride to the city of Brahmans represented the qããn’s visit to the Tibetan monks, as its sequel. 1.4. I llustrations pertaining to Hulãgu (r.654-(r.654-- 63/1256-63/1256-- 65) Mungkã Qããn had dispatched his brother Hulãgu westward, with mission to destroy the order of the Esmã`ilis, abolish the caliphate and pacify the nations of western Asia as far as the borders of Egypt. Hulãgu was successful in the first two, but failed in his attempt to conquer Mameluk Egypt. Nevertheless, Kãshãni qualifies him as worldconqueror (jahãngir) and world-emperor (jahãndãr).40 In the following three illustrations Hulãgu is identified with world-emperor Fereydun, and Zahhãk refers alternately to the `Abbãsid caliphs and the Esmã`ili ruler. 37. A bãlash was valued at 2000, or 200 dinãrs, depending on whether it referred to a gold or silver bãlash. 38. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:678--79. 39. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:661--62.. 40. Kãshãni (1969), 107. 11 Fi g. 6 Z ahhãk Enthroned ( GB 1) The section heading preceding the illustration reads: "Zahhãk's reign was a thousand years." The emphasis of the surrounding text is on the Arab origin of the tyrant usurper Zahhãk. Zahhãk primarily alludes here to the `Abbãsids who were not treated with high regards in the writings of the Persian administrators of the Il-Khãnid court, especially after Uljãytu's conversion to Shi`ism. Kãshãni, "quoting" Ghãzãn, qualifies them as "sinful (fãseq), debauchees (fãjer) and adulterers (zãni)." 41 The number thousand in Persian is also used as a symbolic adjective indicating high quantity or lengthy period of time; therefore, the "thousand years" reign may refer to the combined lasting caliphate of the Omayyads and the `Abbãsid (41--656/661--1258), considered as an usurpation of Muslim rulership that, according to the Shi`ites, rightfully belonged to descendants of the Prophet Mohammad.42 Mongol conquests were systematically referred to by Jovayni, Rashidoddin and their followers, including Kãshãni and Shabãnkãréi, as deliverance (estekhlãs); thus the conquest of Baghdad was considered as deliverance from the "usurpation" of the `Abbãsids. Fi g. 7 Fereydun Capturi ng Z ahhãk ( GB 3) The rendering of the palace of Zahhãk as a fortress with escalating walls alludes here to one of the Esmã`ili fortresses conquered by Hulãgu, of which the most famous was the impregnable fortress of Alamut that was still in Esmã`ili hands after the submission of the last grand master of the order, Roknoddin Khorshãh (r.653--54/1255--56), to Hulãgu. Hulãgu took Khorshãh to Alamut to negotiate the surrender of the fortress. The defenders capitulated after a few days of negotiations. "Hulãgu then climbed to the top to explore the Alamut fortress and was amazed by the magnificence of that mountain." 43 This illustration may refer to Hulãgu's visit to the Alamut premises. However, the painting has been mutilated on the right side where the hands of a person greeting Fereydun may well be the hands of Zahhãk, depicted in the same attire as in f i g. 5 . If so, the painting alludes to the surrender of Khorshãh to Hulãgu at the fortress of Meymundezh on Sunday 29th of Shavvãl 654/19 November 1256,44 rather than the capitulation of Alamut. 41. Kãshãni (1969), 94. 42. Because of a strong belief in the special status of Changiz’ descendants amongst Mongols, Muslim Changizid princes such as Ghãzãn and Uljãytu, could easily project the same privileged status to the Prophet Mohammad’s descendants and concur with the Shi`ites in claiming that the `Abbãsid caliphs were usurpers. 43. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:696. 44. For the discrepancy in the date of Khorshãh's capitulation in two section of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, see Daftari (1991), 697--98. 12 Fi g. 8 * Fereydun L eadi ng Z ahhãk to M ount D amãvand ( GB 4) 45 Despite Khorshãh's cooperation, Hulãgu decided to send him to Qaraqorum. When news of his dispatch reached Mungkã Qããn, he questioned his brother's decision and exclaimed: "it is a waste of ulãgh (mount)." 46 The qããn then sent envoys to kill him en route. Khorshãh's voyage to Qaraqorum is equated here with Zahhãk's journey to mount Damãvand where he faced death. Two additional clues reveal the identity of Khorshãh. The first clue is the depiction of Zahhãk as a white-bearded old man; such old man is described in Persian by the adjective pir, a term which was also used to refer to Esmã`ili leaders.47 The second clue is Zahhãk's mount depicted as a Bactrian camel;48 it alludes to Khorshãh's passion for watching camel fights. Rashidoddin recounts that to satisfy the passion of his guest-prisoner, Hulãgu once gave him one hundred male Bactrian camel (shotor-e bakhti).49 Considering that Rashidoddin contends that the Alamut mountain was in the shape of a crouching camel,50 one may also conclude that the image of the pir on top of a camel alludes to the Pir-e Alamut, the founder of the Nezãri branch of the Esmã`ilis in Iran, Hasan-e Sabbãh, whose order nearly came to an end with the death of Khorshãh. Fi g. 9 Rashnavãd Battl i ng the Rumi s ( GB 27) This illustration probably alludes to Hulãgu's dispatch of his general Bãyju Nuyãn to capture Rum (Anatolia). Bãyju, equated here with the commander of the Iranian forces Rashnavãd, defeated the Saljuq Ghiãsoddin Kay-Khosrow of Rum in a battle prior to Hulãgu's departure for the conquest of Baghdad in 1258.51 Fi g. 10 Fereydun Prepari ng ng to Greet I raj and Seei ng hi s Cof f i n ( GB 7) As Hulãgu embarked on his westward mission, some of his sons remained in the services of Mungkã Qããn. Among them, his second son, Jumaqur joined Arigh Bokã in the war of succession that erupted after Mungkã's death; but as Arigh Bokã's fortunes turned, 45. The section heading inserted here does not appear in earlier or contemporary Shãhnãmés (Ferdowsi (1988), 1:84) and its purpose is to focus the reader's attention on the journey of Zahhãk. 46. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:697. In Mongol times, ulãgh referred to mounts used in-between relay and postal stations. 47. In the post Alamut period, Esmã`ili leaders were increasingly referred to as pirs, a term that usually designated Sufi shaykhs; Daftari (1991), 468. 48. Ferdowsi describes Zahhãk's mount as hayun (a big animal that may be interpreted as camel); Ferdowsi (1988), 1:84. 49. Rashidoddin (1977), 193. 50. Rashidoddin (1977), 191. 51. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:698. The scene may also allude to Amir Chupãn's mission to pacify the Turkamans of Anatolia during Uljãytu's reign. However, the latter mission did not result in a battle engagement with the adversaries as the Turkamans preferred to retreat and avoid confrontation, Kãshãni (1969), 169. 13 and upon insistence of his father who remained loyal to Qubilãy, Jumaqur decided to split towards Samarqand (662/1264).52 Hulãgu sent one of his generals to bring back the prince along with the rest of Hulãgu's household. Jumaqur was struck ill and died en route. Like Fereydun, Hulãgu was awaiting his son's return, but received instead the news of his death. He blamed his general for negligence and sentenced him to a severe beating.53 The illustration conveys the story of Hulãgu's disappointment, heightened by the depiction of Fereydun's mourning army. The main clue is provided by the title, different than earlier or contemporary Shãhnãmés, emphasizing preparation to greet Iraj rather than the usual title announcing Fereydun "learning about Iraj's death." 54 Fi g. 11 * T he Rei gn of Garshãsb Son of Z av W as N i ne Y ears ( GB 15) The nine years stated in the section heading placed on top of this illustration corresponds to the exact reign years of Hulãgu in Iran, from 654/1256 to 663/1265. It is to be noted that since Hulãgu was never formally enthroned in Iran, the scene omits the two attendants with swords and belts hanging over their shoulders, traditionally present in Mongol enthronement scenes (see f i gs. 18 and 50). Garshãsb's independent rule was contested in earlier historical texts. The 10th/11th century historian Sa`ãlabi, quoting his predecessors Tabari and Ebn-e Khordãdbeh, states that although Zav and Garshãsb are known to have shared the kingship of Iran, the real king was Zav, and Garshãsb was his most important assistant and in charge of all military affairs.55 Ebn-e Asir (555--630/1160--1233) reiterates that Garshãsb was only a vizier and assistant in Zav's reign, but also asserts that he ruled for nine years after Zav's three years rule.56 Since this Shãhnãmé manuscript was being prepared in the wake of the Jãme`ottavãrikh production---which made use of all the above mentioned sources---it is probable that Hulãgu's depiction as Garshãsb was not only based on the similar length of rule but also on the fact that Hulãgu was initially sent by Mungkã Qããn to pacify Iran and that he ruled as viceroy.57 In the words of the Il-Khãnid historian and statesman, 52. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:626. 53. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:680 and 745--46. 54. Ferdowsi (1988), 1:122 55. Sa`ãlabi (1989), 88. 56. Ebn-e Asir (1985), 26 and 52. Gardizi contends that Garshãsb was sent by Zav to conquer Zãbolestãn and that he was in effect the ancestor of Sãm, Zãl and Rostam; Gardizi (1989), 41-42. 57. Garshãsb's reign is eliminated from the Jãme`ottavãrikh and the replacement of its first volume prepared by Hãfez-e Abru; see Rosen (1971), 71. In the latest study of the Shãhnãmé, the title and the three couplets pertaining to the reign of Garshãsb have been considered as non original verses, inserted in Ferdowsi's work as early as 675/1276, the date of completion of the British Library manuscript (Add. 21.103)---which includes these couplets---and prior to the copying of this Il -Khãnid manuscript; Ferdowsi (1988), 1:329. 14 Hamdollãh-e Mostowfi: "during his (Hulãgu's) rule, decrees were issued in the name of the qããn and the civil administration was in the hands of Arghun Ãghã," who reported directly to the qããn.58 1.5. I llustration pertaining to Abãqã (r.663-(r.663-- 80/1265-80/1265-- 82) Abãqã was elected successor to Hulãgu by the Mongol princes and generals in Iran. His election was subsequently confirmed by a decree of his overlord, Qubilãy Qããn. Fi g. 12 Rostam Shooti ng an A rrow i n Esf andi ãr's Eye ( GB 21) The emphasis of the section heading is on the arrow striking Esfandiãr's eye rather than the demise of the prince. It refers to a similar incident involving Nuqãy son of Tãtãr, an ambitious Juchid prince who had marched south from Darband. Abãqã sent his brother Yoshmut, to confront him. In the ensuing battle, an arrow struck Nuqãy in the eye.59 Nuqãy however, survived and became a king maker within the Golden Horde. He was finally killed by the khãn Tuqtã (686--89/1287--89) of the Golden Horde, and his wife and son came to Ghãzãn to seek help.60 Fi g. 13 K ay - K hosrow i n hi s Pal ace of à zargoshasb ( T K S H 21 53, f ol . 55a) A series of Shãhnãmé illustration fragments from the Jalãyerid period in Istanbul are directly related to the illustration program of this manuscript and in two cases fit illustration empty slots foreseen by Grabar and Blair in their reconstruction of this manuscript (ff i gs. 30 and 45). 45 The present painting does not correspond to a precise slot but seems to belong to a large gap between folios 51 and 111, which according to Grabar and Blair must have included several illustrations. Although untitled, its subject has been recently identified by A.S. Melikian-Chirvani as Kay-Khosrow who sits in the palace he built on the ruins of the mountain-top castle of Bahman that he had wrested from the divs (demoniac creatures); next to the palace, Kay-Khosrow erects the temple of Ãzargoshasb, the most prestigious fire temple in Ãzarbãyjãn.61 This identification is explained within a lengthy article on the elaborate Shãhnãmé verses that appear on the ceramic tiles from a palace built by Abãqã Khãn in Ãzarbãyjãn on the ruins of the fire temple of Ãzargoshasb, on a mountain-top presently known as Takht-e Soleymãn and called Soghurloq by the Mongols. The kufic 58. Mostowfi (1960), 590. See also Allsen (1979), 41--42. 59. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:744. Nuqãy's own kingdom stretched from the Don river, across Ukraine, to the mouth of Danube. The tribes under his command became known as the Nuqãy (Nogai) Horde. He initiated attacks on Transylvania and Poland; Saunders (1971), 159--63. 60. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:921. 61. Melikian-Chirvani (1991), 94--98. 15 inscription on---the left panel of---the window frame depicted in this painting contains the opening verse of the Shãhnãmé, and as the only instance of Shãhnãmé verses appearing in these illustrations, it may be that the painter included them in recognition of the actual existence of Shãhnãmé verses on the tile-work of Takht-e Soleymãn, for which MelikianChirvani provides numerous examples.62 Mostowfi recounts that: "in the province of Anjerud there is a hamlet (qasabé) situated on a mound (poshté) that the Mongols refer to it as Soghurloq; the Kayãnid Kay-Khosrow had built it. In the hamlet stands a great palace, and in the center of the palace's courtyard there is a big pond (fed by a spring), almost like a lake whose bottom sailors cannot reach ... the Mongol Abãqã Khãn rebuilt that palace." 63 The Takht-e Soleymãn palace thus provided a natural association between Abãqã and the legend of Kay-Khosrow. What remains unclear is the precise meaning of the armors presented to the ruler, usually symbolizing victory over a dispossessed adversary. If the armors are signs of war spoils presented to the il-khãn---depicted sitting in his palace---they should have come from a campaign in which Abãqã himself did not participate. It may allude to the spoils recovered by prince Arghun from a renegade Chaghatãyid amir, Ãqbeg, who had sacked Bokhãrã in (670/1272) and massacred its inhabitants. Arghun stationed in Khorãsãn, captured Ãqbeg and sent him to Abãqã.64 1.6. I llustration pertaining to Tegudãr (r.680-(r.680-- 83/1282-83/1282-- 84) Upon Abãqã's death, his brother Ahmad Tegudãr (Hulãgu's seventh son), was elected il-khãn over Abãqã's son, Arghun. 62. Melikian-Chirvani observes similar modifications of the "standard" Shãhnãmé verses on the tiles as well as the text of `Alã'oddin-e Jovayni's Tãrikh-e Jahãngoshã, and concludes on Jovayni's participation in the construction project of the palace. His analysis is based on the standards set by the Mohl and Bertels editions of the Shãhnãmé. But other versions existed as well. For example the word shãrestãn in a verse of one of the tiles, is picked by him as a Jovayni -like modification of shahr-e `elm in the Mohls and Bertels editions (MelikianChirvani (1991), 93--94), while Khaleghi -Motlagh's recent thorough edition of the Shãhnãmé recognizes the verse with shãrestãn as authentic; Ferdowsi (1988), 1:10. Another argument is based on a poem by Zol -feqãr-e Shirvãni eulogizing the ascent to the throne of the Muslim il-khãn Ahmad Tegudãr. Melikian-Chirvani believes the poem to say that the world was rejuvenated when the king rallied to Islam through the intervention of Jovayni; Melikian-Chirvani (1991), 127. His interpretation rests on the wrong meaning of the word tarbiat in the verse: ¬›ò xZžd ÌŠ£• ÍÅ…®† ®• £… He translates it as "education" while in fourteenth century literature it usually meant protection and favors (see for instance Samarqandi (1993), 101, or Shabãnkãréi (1984), 203 and 271), and confounds the subject with the direct object of the sentence. The poem implies that once again the ilkhãn "bestowed protection and favors on the sãheb-e divãn (Jovayni)," with no implication whatsoever for the involvement of Jovayni in Tegudãr's conversion to Islam. 63. Melikian-Chirvani (1991), 72, quoted from the Nozhatol -qolub of Mostowfi. 64. Ãqbeg persuaded Abãqã that Bokhãrã served as launching base for Chaghatãyid raids against Il -Khãnid territories and therefore should be destroyed. He was caught by Arghun when about to flee with the loot; Rashidoddin (1976), 2:766--67. 16 Fi g. 14 Sal m and T ur K i l l i ng I raj ( GB 6) Fratricide within the house of Changiz was forbidden by the yãsã, and conviction of Mongol princes required convening a special military tribunal.65 Thus, Tegudãr's summary execution of his own brother, Qunqurtãy, constituted one of Arghun's main objections to his uncle's rule. When Tegudãr was finally defeated, Arghun ordered his execution in reprisal for the death of Qunqurtãy.66 This illustration, included within the Fereydun chapter in which the legendary emperor is mostly identified as Hulãgu, evokes the killing of Hulãgu's son, Qunqurtãy, by analogy to the murder of Fereydun's younger son, Iraj, at the hands of his brothers, Salm and Tur. 1.7. I llustrations pertaining to Arghun (r.683-(r.683-- 90/1284-90/1284-- 91) Imprisoned in Tegudãr’s royal camp and facing execution, Arghun was saved by the ambitious Mongol general Buqã who switched allegiance to the young prince and defeated Tegudãr. Buqã’s own era of power came to an abrupt end when his plot to replace the il-khãn with another Changizid prince was uncovered by Arghun. Buqã was executed and his wealth confiscated. His demise allowed for the rise to prominence of the Jewish vizier Sa`doddowlé whose influence and power grew as Arghun, surrounded by Buddhist monks (bakhshis) and preoccupied with alchemy and magic potions, increasingly entrusted the affairs of the state to him. Sa`doddowlé in turn, fell victim to the rebellion of a group of Mongol generals who killed him as Arghun was agonizing in his deathbed. Fi g. 15 * N ushi rvãn Eati ng the Food Brought by the Sons of M ahbod ( GB 56) Nushirvãn’s trusted vizier, Mahbod, attracts the jealousy of the chamberlain, Zorvãn.67 In complicity with an evil sorcerer, Zorvãn manages to poison the food that the sons of Mahbod exclusively serve Nushirvãn. Zorvãn warns the king to have the food first tested by the two youths. They die instantly and the king orders Mahbod beheaded. This story, which involves sorcery, poisoned food, a vizier with his two sons, and exclusive access to the king, is used to illustrate events leading to Arghun's death. Arghun encountered a bakhshi from "India" 68 who claimed to have gained longevity through use of 65. For examples of Changizid princes trials (yarghu) conducted under Mungkã Qããn, see Allsen (1979), 25--27. 66. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:800. 67. The chamberlain Zorvãn, named after the ancient Iranian deity, is misspelled in later manuscripts as Zurãn. In the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, the letter spelling is correct but the vowel accent on (z) suggests an incorrect reading as Zarvãn. 68. The bakhshi that is referred to as "Indian" by Rashidoddin is probably Tibetan, since the Tibetan Buddhist monks, reputed to have magical and supernatural powers, became influential at the court of Arghun's overlord, Qubilãy. Qubilãy even presided over---and actively participated in---a debate between the Buddhists and the 17 a special potion. Arghun asked for same and the bakhshi began to administer a mixture containing "sulfur and mercury." After eighth months, the il-khãn secluded himself in the fortress of Tabriz for a period of forty days during which time, the only people allowed to visit him were the vizier Sa`doddowlé, his two subordinates, the generals Orduqiã and Quchãn, and the bakhshis. As Arghun's health deteriorated various explanations were advanced, including sorcery that was blamed on a harem lady, Tughãchãq (Tughãnjuq) Khãtun, daughter of Ahmad Tegudãr's wife, Ilqotlogh Khãtun. She was tortured and drowned, along with some other women of the harem.69 While relying on the poisoning plot of the Shãhnãmé, this illustration mostly depicts the events described in the Jãme`ottavãrikh. The two men standing to the right are dressed as Mongol generals and represent the counterparts of Mahbod's two sons: the one standing guard near the door is Quchãn, the commander of the Tabriz fortress,70 and the one to the right is his superior Orduqiã. Ferdowsi's story includes a housemaid who set the table for Nushirvãn, but the lady depicted next to the king is crowned, and of high rank. She may represent Tughãchãq, engaging in "sorcery", while the women over the doorway are the "accomplices" drowned with her. Fi g. 16 T he M obads I nterrogati ng Z ãl ( GB 12) To put Zãl to test, king Manuchehr summons the mobads, the Zoroastrian priests, who ask Zãl to solve several riddles. This story is to underline Rashidoddin’s eagerness to engage into analytical and argumentative debates. Book four of section one of part one of Rashidoddin's Jame`ottasãnif (Compendium of works), named Latã’efol-haqãyeq (Subtle truths), is devoted to the compilation of philosophical and religious arguments developed by the vizier in reply to various questions submitted to him. On one occasion, a bakhshi in the retinue of Arghun, tried to test Rashidoddin before the il-khãn. He asked Rashidoddin "whether the chicken came from the egg or the egg came from the chicken?" Rashidoddin boasted in his account that, although he had never been questioned on this problem before, he readily developed a comprehensive argument likening the problem to that of the creation of men (and other animal species), despite the fact that "his interlocutor (the bakhshi) was Taoists at the end of which he declared the latters to be the losers. The most prominent of the Tibetan Buddhist monks was Phags-pa lama who, in religious ceremonies, would sit higher than Qubilãy himself. He was the author of a "universal" script promoted by Qubilãy to become the alphabet of official Mongol correspondences and seals; see Rossabi (1988), 40-42 and 155--60. 69. Elements of this story are scattered through various sections of the Jãme`ottavãrikh; see Rashidoddin (1976), 2:783, 821, 823--24. Tughãchãq was daughter of Ilqotlogh daughter of Kinshu son of Jumaghur son of Hulãgu, Banãkati (1969), 412 and 438. 70. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:821. 18 incapable of understanding such arguments." 71 The mobad is obviously equated here with the bakhshi, and Zãl with Rashidoddin; the young boy on the left might be a representation of one of Rashidoddin's sons accompanying him to the court, perhaps Ghiãsoddin Mohammad. Fi g. 17 * M ehrãn Setãd Sel ecti ng a Chi nese Pri ncess ( GB 58 ) To forge a stronger relationship between China and Iran, the khãqãn of China asks Nushirvãn to marry one of his daughters. In compliance, Nushirvãn sends his vizier to select and bring back the bride. The story is a perfect match for a delegation sent by Arghun to Khãn-bãligh (Beijing) seeking a new bride for the il-khãn "in lieu of (be-jã-ye)" the deceased Bologhãn Khãtun-e Bozorg (d.686/1286), Abãqã's favorite wife, remarried to Arghun. Princess Kukãjin was sent back with the delegation that returned circa 693/1293, after Arghun's death. The reigning il-khãn, Gaykhãtu, allowed her to be wed to Ghãzãn who assigned her the prestigious Yurt-e Bozorg, the camp quarters that once belonged to Doquz Khãtun, Hulãgu's wife.72 Marco Polo who accompanied the delegation back to the Il-Khãnid court gives a more detailed account. Qubilãy received Arghun's delegation headed by three of his "barons": Oulatai (Ulãdãy), Apusca (Abishqã) and Coja (Khãjé). "Then he summoned a lady called Cocachin, who was of the lineage of the Queen Bolgana, and was seventeen years old and most beautiful and charming. He said to the three barons that this was the lady whom they sought. They replied that they were content." The delegation first tried to return by land, but because of a war raging among Changizid princes of central Asia, it had to return to Beijing. Some three years after leaving Tabriz, they embarked on a perilous sea journey with the Polos back to Iran.73 Most of the delegation died en route, including Ulãdãy and Abishqã. Khãjé was the only envoy to return, and thus the only one mentioned in the account of Rashidoddin. Since Khãjé is mostly used as an honorific title for highranking Persian administrators, Mehrãn Setãd who portrays him in this illustration wears the turban of Persian administrators and not the attire of Mongol warlords. 71. Rashidoddin (1976) LH, 36--38. 72. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:869. Kukãjin was related to Bolghãn Khãtun; both were from the Bãyãut tribe; ibid., 1:138. 73. Polo (1931), 15, 18. For the correct name spellings and dates see Pelliot (1959), 1:44, 393-94 and, 2:798. It took almost seven years to "replace" Bologhãn Khãtun with another "Chinese" princess. 19 1.8. I llustration pertaining to Gaykhãtu (r.690-(r.690-- 94/1291-94/1291-- 95) Because of his feeble nature, reputation for largess and constant pursuit of worldly pleasures, Gaykhãtu was elected il-khãn by Mongol warlords who wished to dominate the affairs of the empire. Fi g. 18 T he Rei gn of Z av, Son of T ahmãsb, W as Fi ve Y ears ( GB 14) As the main argument supporting their theory for dating the manuscript to the reign of Arpã Kãun, Grabar and Blair surmised that the depiction of Zav, a minor king who was enthroned for lack of any other descendant of Fereydun, paralleled the appointment of Arpã as il-khãn by Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad.74 Their reasoning does not take into account the section heading incorporated at the top of the illustration which limits Zav's reign to five years and augured a short reign for the khãjé's candidate (see also 3.1). A more likely alternative is that Zav personified Gaykhãtu whose years of reign come very close to his. Gaykhãtu reigned a month and half short of four years. But if the four months between the demise of Arghun and the enthronement of Gaykhãtu are taken into account, his death would have occurred in the fifth year of his reign.75 The two amirs depicted on each side of the throne represent the two most prominent princes or generals who, according to Mongol customs, would take the new khãn by the hands and place him on the throne; they have their belts and sword hanging from their shoulders and neck as a sign of allegiance to the new ruler.76 The kneeling prince who is offering a bowl of wine to the ruler symbolizes the Mongol practice of kãsé-giri (bowl-offering) by which Changizid princes would honor one another. The Persian Muslim administrators and artists in charge of manuscript production, seemingly preferred to avoid references to Mongol wine drinking, especially in respect to Ghãzãn and Uljãytu who had both converted to Islam. The depiction of bowl-offering within this enthronement scene, to the exclusion of all others, is probably in reference to Gaykhãtu's notorious habits in debauchery and wine drinking.77 74. Grabar & Blair (1980), 48 and 51. 75. As stated in The Reign of Garshãsb Son of Zav was Nine Years, Zav and Garshãsb's reigns are the subject of much confusion in early history texts. Mas`udi (d.345/956) for instance states that some put Zav's reign at three years, and some at more; Mas`udi (1962), 1:201. 76. They are named as Amir Chupãn and Amir Sevinch for the enthronement of Abu-Sa`id, Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 122; and prince Qunqurtãy and Shiktur Noyãn on the occasion of Ahmad Tegudãr's accession to the throne, Rashidoddin (1976), 2:785. Referring to Ogdãy's enthronement, Rashidoddin states that Chaghatãy took his right hand and Tuloy his left hand (ibid., 1:453), while Jovayni states that Ogdãy's right hand was held by Chaghatãy and his left hand by his uncle, Utgin (Utjekin); Jovayni (1912), 147. 77. Mostowfi (1960), 600; Boyle (1975), 374. 20 1.9. I llustration pertaining to Bãydu (r.694/1295) Arghun’s strong-willed son, Ghãzãn, was by-passed a second time by the Mongol generals who had first brought Gaykhãtu to power and then in, a shift of allegiance, caused his downfall and elected prince Bãydu son of Taraghãy son of Hulãgu, as il-khãn. Fi g. 19 BahrãmBahrãm- e Bahrãmi ãn Enthroned ( GB 45) As in the previous case, the section heading above the illustration designates the ilkhãn with a similar length of reign. It reads "the reign of Bahrãm-e Bahrãmiãn was four months" and corresponds to the very short reign of Gaykhãtu's successor, Bãydu, in the year 694/1295. Although Bãydu's length of reign is not specified in the Jãme`ottavãrikh, it is framed by the death of Gaykhãtu in the month of Jomãdã I (April) and his own death in the month of Ziqa`dé (September) of the same year. It was most fortuitous that the few lines of Shãhnãmé text devoted to a minor Sãsãnian king, Bahrãm III (r.293),78 provided a spot for the---equally minor---il-khãn Bãydu, in this manuscript. 1.10. I llustrations pertaining to Ghãzãn (r.694-(r.694-- 703/1295-703/1295-1304) Ghãzãn vanquished Bãydu with the help of his Muslim general Amir Nowruz, who advised him to accept the Muslim religion. Two years later, Ghãzãn had to quell a rebellion fostered by Amir Nowruz and his relatives. Fi g. 20 * Bahrãm Stayi ng i n the Farmer's H ouse as the Farmer's W i f e M i l ked the Cow ( GB 50) The very strange and elaborate title of this illustration is encountered in no other Shãhnãmé manuscript. It pertains to the story of Bahrãm-e Gur harbored by a peasant woman who, unaware of his real identity, complains about the injustices committed by the king's retinue. Angered by her remarks, Bahrãm vows to himself to act harsher in order to dissuade further criticism. The next morning, when the cow's milk dries up, the woman interprets it for her husband as a sign of the king becoming unjust. Bahrãm hears the conversation, repents, and the milk flows again. The above story is used to illustrate an early incident in the life of Ghãzãn. Rashidoddin recounts that Ghãzãn had a wet-nurse, Moghãlchin, wife of Isheng the Khitan. Mongol customs forbade wet-nurses of Changizid princes to have intercourse with 78. Sa`ãlabi also gives Bahrãm III's reign as four months; Sa`ãlabi (1989), 324. Bahrãm III was son of Bahrãm II son of Bahrãm I, thus his name Bahrãm-e Bahrãmiãn (i.e. Bahrãm son of Bahrãms). 21 their husbands fearing "contamination" of their milk. But Isheng slept with his wife, the young Ghãzãn contracted diarrhea from her milk, and Moghãlchin was replaced.79 The milking scene refers to the fostering of Ghãzãn by Moghãlchin, while the peasant approaching his wife alludes to Isheng's intercourse with his wife, termed as nazdiki by Rashidoddin, literally meaning "getting close." In both stories, the process of providing milk to the prince is momentarily disrupted. Fi g. 21 BahrãmBahrãm- e Gur H unti ng Onagers ( GB 51) Abãqã was so fond of his grandson Ghãzãn, that he took the custody of the three year old prince away from his father and gave it to his own wife, Bologhãn Khãtun-e Bozorg. Five years later, Arghun came to visit Ghãzãn at the camp of Abãqã and took him along for a hunt. Ghãzãn showed his prowess with bow and arrow by hunting his first deer at the very young age of eight. Festivities celebrating the event lasted for three days.80 Highly admired by Rashidoddin, Ghãzãn's skills in hunting, riding and hawking provided an easy ground for Ghãzãn's identification with Bahrãm-e Gur whose various talents are similarly praised in the Shãhnãmé. Fi g. 22 Bahman M eeti ng Z ãl ( GB 18 and T K S H 2153,f ol . 8a) Esfandiãr, wishing to avoid war, sends his son, Bahman, to persuade Rostam to make peace and pay homage to his father, King Goshtãsb. Bahman is met and embraced by Rostam's father Zãl. This illustration alludes to two similar incidents, both involving Ghãzãn. The first one occurs when Arghun, pursued by Ahmad Tegudãr into Khorãsãn, sends his son Ghãzãn to ask for peace. Ghãzãn enters Tegudãr's camp near Semnãn (Rabi` I 683/June 1284) and is embraced by his uncle who "perceived in him the Divine Glory." 81 The second involves Ghãzãn as contender against Bãydu. After a tentative compromise on the division of the kingdom between the two (Rajab 694/ June 1295), Bãydu sent his son, Qebchãq, inviting Ghãzãn to visit him, lest "those of far and near think that there is no amity between us." 82 In both instances a son is sent to seek peace. Since Qebchãq was inviting Ghãzãn to visit his father, the second event seems to be a better match for the Shãhnãmé story. Also, Uljãytu had joined his brother's camp prior to the arrival of Qebchãq, and the long-eared ass depicted on the top left with reins in the hands of an attendant, may be a device to 79. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:843. 80. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:846. 81. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:794 and 848. 82. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:891. 22 designate him as the prince standing in front of it, since, before his accession to the throne, Uljãytu was constantly referred to by Rashidoddin as the "Kharbandé (ass-herd) prince." 83 Uljãytu was only three years old in the first incident and could not have accompanied Ghãzãn. On the other hand, according to the consistent iconography of this manuscript a prince with a golden crown represents a future king. Thus, the golden crown of Bahman may designate Ghãzãn and not Qebchãq. The Jalãyerid interpretation of the same theme (ff i g. 22a), 22a which depicts less people and omits Uljãytu, seems to favor the first event. But in the case of this Shãhnãmé manuscript, references to both events may have been deliberately squeezed into the same illustration. Fi g. 23 A l exander A rri vi ng at the T al ki ng T ree ( GB 38) At the time of Amir Nowruz' rebellion, Ghãzãn camped in open air near the city of Kermãnshãh, on a mountain slope before a large tree. At night, while apprehensive about Nowruz, Ghãzãn perceived "heavenly signs of success and joy." Passing nearby some six years later (c.702/1302), Ghãzãn decided to go on a pilgrimage to the spot with the tree, "accompanied by all his wives and generals." He wept and remembered his pledges and wishes, and the subsequent victory and success; as per his pledge he performed the Muslim prayer twice and prostrated himself before the Lord begging for continued success. "And then, all those present, hung ornaments from the tree which became like a shrine, and the generals danced to the tune of the accompanying musicians." 84 The story of Alexander's visit to the talking tree was used to illustrate Ghãzãn's pilgrimage to the tree near Kermãnshãh, in which the human and animal heads represent substitutes for ornaments hung by Ghãzãn's retinue. Pilgrimage to a tree seems to be a recurring theme in Mongol tradition. In continuation of the same episode, Amir Pulãd Ching-Sãng, who was an authority on Mongol history and present at the ceremony, recounted that in a campaign against the Merkits, Changiz' great uncle Qutolé, dismounted by a tree and vowed to the Eternal Heaven that if victorious "I shall turn this tree into a shrine and dress it in colorful garments." After victory, he returned to the tree and dressed it as vowed, and danced around the tree followed by his army, "until the earth sank by one gaz." 85 Another tree story is associated with Changiz himself. Out on a hunt, Changiz saw a lone tree with a very 83. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:890. 84. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:950--51. 85. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:950--51. The name of Changiz' uncle is misread in some editions of the Jãme`ottavãrikh as Qubilãy Qããn, as pointed out by Pelliot; Pelliot (1959), 2:630. A gaz measures approximately 0.5 meter. 23 appealing shape. He slept under it and joy filled his heart. He told his companions to mark the spot, for it was worthy of becoming his burying place; and at his death, the princes and generals who remembered his wishes buried him by that tree.86 Fi g. 24 Pi cture of N ushi rvãn the Just ( GB 54) The only heading of the manuscript to be written in decorative kufic script, the title of this illustration names Nushirvãn the Just, the very symbol of a just king in Persian literature. Kãshãni who systematically used the epithet "just" for Ghãzãn, explained that each il-khãn was known for a distinctive trait (that reflected on the behavior of his subjects): Hulãgu was a world-conqueror and world-emperor interested in philosophy and sciences, Abãqã favored agriculture and constructions, Arghun was bent on magic potions and alchemy, Gaykhãtu indulged in feasts and debauchery, and the "time of Ghãzãn the Just was marked by reform, wisdom, justice, charity and donations." 87 Other chroniclers such as Shirãzi and Shabãnkãréi also use the epithet just for Ghãzãn.88 Ghãzãn is portrayed here as Nushirvãn the Just, with a solar disk symbol of his Divine Glory behind his head, glancing at a young prince on his right that may be Uljãytu. Fi g. 25 * BahrãmBahrãm- e Gur T al ki ng to N arsi ( GB 52) Struck by the odd choice of this Shãhnãmé episode for illustration, Grabar and Blair had correctly surmised that it alluded to Ghãzãn as Bahrãm, and Uljãytu as Narsi (both appointed governors of Khorãsãn by their respective brothers). The Il-Khãnid state was constantly threatened on its north-west borders by the Golden Horde, and on its north-east frontiers by the Chaghatãyids. The Il-Khãnids assumed the defense of the western borders from the capital city of Tabriz or Soltãniyyé. The defense of the eastern frontiers was the responsibility of the governor of Khorãsãn, the second most important position in the Il-Khãnid state, traditionally assigned to the crown prince. Thus Arghun, Ghãzãn, Uljãytu and Abu-Sa`id were all governors of that province prior to their ascent to the throne. This episode of the Shãhnãmé is a short, and usually untitled, passage following Bahrãm's victory over the khãqãn of China, in which Bahrãm addressing Narsi declares "take (its) crown and seal-ring; I gave you Khorãsãn, make it prosperous." It may allude to Uljãytu's appointment as viceroy (qã'em-maqãm) to Khorãsãn in the year 695/1296 in the aftermath of the defeat of Amir Nowruz.89 However, the focus of the illustration is the 86. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:387. For a discussion on Changiz' burial site see Pelliot (1959), 330--53. 87. Kãshãni (1969), 107. 88. Shirãzi (1959), 505, and Shabãnkãréi (1984), 267. 89. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:925--26. 24 interaction between the two brothers: Ghãzãn is offering Uljãytu a handkerchief that appears as a scepter-like symbol of kingship in the hand of the monarch in most other enthronement scenes of this manuscript, especially those depicting Uljãytu (ff i gs. 34 and 35), 35 and in similar scenes depicting contemporary or later Islamic rulers (see f i g. 25a). 25a 90 Perhaps, it translates into image Rashidoddin's assertion that Uljãytu "inherited the throne through his prior designation as crown prince (berãh-e velãyat-`ahdi)," and was meant to bolster a belated assertion at the end of volume one of the Jãme`ottavãrikh that, on his death bed, Ghãzãn "reiterated Uljãytu's designation as crown prince that he had proclaimed five years earlier and reconfirmed on various occasions ever since." 91 Rashidoddin seems to imply that such proclamation was done on the occasion of Uljãytu's visit to his brother in Ujãn between 25th of Sha`bãn 698 (28th of May 1298) and early Zihajjé 698 (September 1298), when the two brothers participated in a quriltãy (a term that designates a conference on important matters), but the passage pertaining to this encounter---recorded some five years earlier, while Ghãzãn was still alive---omits mention of such important proclamation.92 Trying to blur the issue, Rashidoddin used less precise terms in another passage by stating that the designation of Uljãytu as crown prince was proclaimed "some five or six years earlier." 93 Adding to the confusion, Kãshãni attributed the proclamation to four years earlier, rather than five and Shirãzi claimed that it was done "three or four years earlier." 94 Another historian, Fakhroddin-e Banãkati, writing at a slightly later date (717/1317), and despite his generally close following of Rashidoddin's Jãme`ottavãrikh, stated that Ghãzãn chose Uljjãytu as his successor in 703/1303 without any reference to earlier proclamations.95 At the time of the quriltãy, Ghãzãn had a son, Ãlju (697--99/1297-1300),96 and was perhaps hopeful of having more; there were no compelling reasons to designate his brother as successor at such early stage of his life, especially in consideration of the succession problems that this designation would entail for his own progeny. Sideways transfers of kingship in the Il-Khãnid dynasty had been short lived and/or contested (e.g. Tegudãr, Gaykhãtu, Bãydu), and kingship eventually reverted to the main line after each such transfer. Thus, at Ghãzãn's death, Uljãytu's position was vulnerable and 90. See note 98 infra. 91. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:962. 92. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:937. 93. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:2. 94. Kãshãni (1969), 13; Shirãzi (1959), 457. Kãshãni and Shirãzi were perhaps trying to rectify Rashidoddin's mistake by situating the proclamation after the death of Ghãzãn's infant son Ãlju. 95. Banãkati (1969), 470. 96. Rashidoddin gives a precise date for the death of Ãlju: third of Zihajjé of 699 (Rashidoddin (1976), 2:943) while Banãkati gives an imprecise date of 700 (Banãkati, Tãrikh-e Banãkati, 451). 25 pretenders such as Ãlãfarang son of Gaykhãtu, championed by Amir Harqadãq, had to be eliminated before his assumption of power.97 Rashidoddin's contention of an earlier proclamation was probably a fabrication destined to strengthen Uljãytu's succession vis-àvis other contenders. Ghãzãn and Uljãytu are both depicted here with a crown and a solar disk---symbol of their Divine Glory (see 4.1.3)---behind their head. The painting composition emphasizes the legitimacy of Uljãytu as a ruler in his own right but also by inheritance from Ghãzãn through the gesture of transfer of the insignia of kingship. That the handkerchief symbolized an insignia of kingship is confirmed by Shirazi's account that on his death bed, Uljãytu "wrote a testament nominating the prince of the world Abu-Sa`id as his successor" and then "tucked his two dazzling ear-rings with his shining signet-ring and the succession testament in the special handkerchief (dastãrché-ye khãs), and gave it to the just commander Isanqotlogh" to arrange for the transfer of kingship to Abu-Sa`id.98 Not surprisingly, a similar composition is used for a similar purpose in Mughal times: to emphasize Jahãngir's right to rule, Jahãngir (r.1014--37/1605--27) and his father Akbar are both depicted with a solar disk, but instead of the handkerchief, Akbar is giving a sarpich (turban aigrette) to his successor (ff i g. 25b). 25b Fi g. 26 T he Bri Bri ngi ng of Esf andi ãr's Bi er ( GB 22) Prior to their conversion to Islam, Il-Khãnid rulers were buried in a secret place. In contrast, Ghãzãn and Uljãytu who both accepted the Muslim faith, built personal mausoleums in the tradition of Persian Islamic rulers. Thus, the funeral procession of these 97. Shirãzi (1959), 461--63. According to Mostowfi, on his death-bed, Ghãzãn recognized that the princely cousins Kharbandé (Uljãytu) and Ãlãfarang were both worthy of the throne; but Kharbandé, slightly more so; Mostowfi (1405), 707. ¬œZXydZgò z®• x£‰ p£… fd ç˜ ®¿˜ z yë˜ z ͪ† fZzZ¯• àÀÀ… }d®› ß¾› fd ¬À¥±• ç˜ yë˜ z ͪ¥… ¬Ž ®†fZzZ¯• v£º¥œZ ãžZ dfZd zf zd gZ x£¿• Z¬‹¬˜Xx£Á‰ xÂÀ˜Z jfdZ®… ÕÅ… f£˜ ãž Z ®Å…¬† \•ZfzZ ä˜ ¬œZXydZ¯ÁŽ zd }£º…Z ⪆ g ®™d¿• ‚dZ¯¿“ ¬À¥±• ç˜ àœ®•êò z d®™ ‚¬À…®‹ ÂŒ yZ®… xÂÀ˜Z y¬À…®‹ gZ®•Z®• v£±…fz ®À• gZ Í•Z ®¥Á› â• ä˜ £Žd£ˆ ãžgZ Õň f¬ˆ jdÂ… ç˜ ÕžÂ‹ ¬Á“Xùz xÂÀ˜Z wd®˜ Zfz A previous attempt to place Ãlãfarang on the Il -Khãnid throne had failed in the last year of Ghãzãn's reign; Ãlãfarang was pardoned by Ghãzãn but the main instigator, a certain dervish known as Pir Ya`qub was executed along with some of his followers; Rashidoddin (1976), 2:958--59. Normally, Ãlãfarang would have been killed along with the rest but it seems that in his wisdom, Ghãzãn perceived the necessity to have a back-up crownprince for Uljãytu as no other adult Hulãguid princes had survived, and the remaining two were as much threatened by excessive wine drinking as their ill-fated predecessors. Ironically, by sparing Ãlãfarang’s life, Ghãzãn reinforced his claim to the throne. 98. Shirãzi (1959), 617: £… z d®˜ xz®Å… j™ gZ ///Õ‹fd¬–®• ‚fZŽ™ zd ®• z/// ¬Å·•Â…Z ü£“ ‚dZgXy£Žd£ˆ ¬Á“ Ížêz ®… }Â¥©› ÍŽÂœ 難œ ÍNÅ•z 26 two il-khãns only could be illustrated in this Shãhnãmé manuscript. Of the two, Uljãytu died in Soltãniyyé where his mausoleum was located, but Ghãzãn died near Ghazvin and his bier was transported to his mausoleum in Tabriz. Rashidoddin recounts that his bier "was mounted on a special carriage, and accompanied by the (imperial) ladies and generals, the procession headed for Tabriz, and from cities and villages along the way, men and women, bareheaded and barefooted, clad in craggy mourning gowns (palãs), came out crying and grieving." 99 To illustrate this mourning procession, the death of Esfandiãr which occurs in Zãbolestãn, provides a suitable match since Rostam organizes a sumptuous procession for the return of the prince's body to Iran. 1.11. I llustrations pertaining to Uljãytu (r.703-(r.703-- 17/1304-17/1304-- 17) According to Kãshãni, Uljãytu got word that the Chaghatãyid khãn Duã (r.690-706/1291--1306) and his generals ridiculed him "for being unable to subdue the enclave of Gilãn, situated in the midst of his empire and measuring less than thirty farsangs in perimeter, and yet wishing to conquer Syria and Egypt." 100 Enraged by these remarks, Uljãytu first demanded the Gilãnis to surrender. They refused, and the furious il-khãn unleashed a four-pronged attack: Amir Chupãn, from Ardabil marching towards Ãstãrã, the commander in chief Amir Qotloghshãh, from Khalkhãl towards Fuman, Amir Toghãn and Í·ždz ፕ ®… £† d®§• Zf Û¾¥ºœ±žZ vd£“ z®±‹ , 䥱… k£‹ éŒf£¥•d fd ¬Á“ Ížêz מ¹† z ㎜¬ÅŽf‹ ↣‹ dg£• Zf ¬Å·•Â…Z ͪ… v£Áœ ]f£Š z ͪ† z _£† ]fZz The handkerchief as a scepter-like symbol of kingship is depicted in Turkaman courtly scenes (e.g. portrait of Soltãn Ya`qub in Topkapu Saray Museum, H2153, fol. 91r, reproduced in Khonji (1992), pl. 1) and Mamluk enthronement scenes (see enthroned ruler in a 734/1334 Maqãmãt manuscript in Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, AF9, fol. 1r; Ettinghausen (1962), 148), and Ottoman imperial portraits, especially that of Mohammad the Conqueror (Topkapu Saray, H2153, fol. 10r; see for instance Zygulsky (1993), 126--32). In consideration of the handkerchief appearing in such a wide spectrum of portraits of Islamic rulers, the suggestion of a Byzantine influence (idem) seems unwarranted, and an Iranian or Islamic one more probable (for the usage of handkerchief in the early Islamic period see Rosenthal (1971), 63--109 - I am indebted to Tom Lentz for providing me with a copy of this article). The preceding considerations offer a clue to the identity of the enthroned prince and princess in the frontispiece of the Munesol -ahrãr manuscript dated 741/1341 (Kuwait, Dãr al-Ãthãr al-Islãmiyya, LNS 9 MS); see Swietochowski et al. (1994), 8. Since the princess is holding a folded handkerchief and not the prince, she is probably Sãti Beyg, Abu Sa`id's full sister who, after her brother's death, was married to successive Il -Khãnid pretenders to the throne, to bolster their claims of legitimacy. She was married briefly to Arpã Kãun whose reign lasted less than six months. She was subsequently elevated to the throne in early 739/1338 by the Chupãnid Shaykh Hasan-e Kuchak and was due to marry Toghãn-Teymur but finally married another Shaykh Hasan candidate, the Hulãguid prince Soleymãn, in late 739/1339. Thus the prince next to her in the frontispiece is her consort in 1341, Soleymãn. This is corroborated by the prominence of an illustrated poem in the manuscript naming Soleymãnshãh who "owns crown and throne" and before whom "stand in obedience; Human and Harpy, demon and fairy;" ibid., 26-27. With coins struck in her name, Sãti Beyg was worthy of being depicted with the scepter-like handkerchief of kingship, despite the fact that Soleymãn was the nominal il-khãn. 99. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:3 and 2:963. 100. Kãshãni (1969), 55. One farsang is approximately 6 kilometers. 27 Amir Mo'men, from Ghazvin towards Kelãrdasht, and finally Uljãytu himself, directly towards Lãhijãn.101 Fi g. 27 K i ng K ayd of I ndi a T el l i ng hi s D ream to M ehrãn ( GB 29) King Kayd of Hend (India) is foretold by the sage Mehrãn about Alexander's impending invasion of India. Mehrãn advises the king not to resist Alexander and capitulate to him. Amir Toghãn and Amir Mo'men who attacked from Ghazvin, first encountered a local ruler by the name of Hendushãh (literally meaning Indian King), who readily surrendered to Uljãytu's generals and was sent to the il-khãn's court.102 The analogy between this illustration and the Gilãn episode is based on the name of the ruler interpreted as a king of India, and his quick submission to the forces of the conqueror. In the process, Uljãytu is elevated to the rank of the world-conqueror Alexander and his conquest of Gilãn equated with the conquest of India. Fi g. 28 K ay - K ãvus and hi s Pal adi ns K i l l i ng the D i vs of M ãzandarãn ( GB 16) 103 Despite the stern admonitions of Zãl, the vain and greedy Kay-Kãvus foolishly attacks Mãzandarãn for plunder, only to be captured by its inhabitants, the divs. The story is very similar to the adventures of Amir Qotloghshãh in Gilãn (adjacent to Mãzandarãn) who was forewarned about the difficulties of troop movement in densely wooded and mountainous areas. At first, he obtained the surrender of the Gilãnis, but out of greed he continued his plunder and massacre. The beleaguered Gilãnis retreated in the mountain, laid a trap for the Mongol troops, and managed to annihilate the pursuing army, and kill Amir Qotloghshãh.104 Noteworthy in Kãshãni's account of these campaigns is the use of singularly harsh adjectives to describe the Gilãnis. Gilãn and its inhabitants are named as the "jungle of ferocious beasts and valley of demons," as if the author wished to create a tighter correlation between the Gilãnis and the divs of the Shãhnãmé story.105 101. Kãshãni (1969), 61-71; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 70. 102. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 73. Mostowfi gives a detailed list of local Gilãni rulers referred to as amiras, the most imporant of which was Amira Dobãj, the ruler of Fuman, to whom Qotboddin-e Shirãzi dedicaed his famous Dorratol -tãj le-Ghorratel-Dobãj treatise in 705/1306, shortly before Uljãytu’s Gilãn campaigns; Mostowfi (1405), 713v. His account also sets aside the notion of amira being a woman’s epithet, and confirms Amira Dobãj as a ruler of masculin gender. 103. This illustration was destroyed in 1937 and no title is visible in existing photographs. 104. Kãshãni (1969), 67-68; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 71--72; Hãfez-e Abru's version of the amir's death differs from Kãshãni's: Qotloghshãh was first captured, and killed later on in reprisal for the death of Amir Nowruz. 105. Kãshãni (1969), 63. 28 Fi g. 29 A l exander Battl i ng the Fur of I ndi a; Pi cture of the I ron H orses and Sol di ers ( GB 30) To counter the fur of India who lines up numerous elephants against him, Alexander devises an iron cavalry spreading fire through their lances and the iron horses' nostrils. Once again, Kãshãni's uncommon descriptive sentences provides a correspondence between the explanatory second part of the title (Picture of the Iron Horses and Soldiers), and the tale of Uljãytu's campaign of Gilãn. He recounts how Uljãytu ordered his generals to set fire to the forests of Lãhijãn and clean the "earth from their filthy, idiotic and backward attitude." Then, numerous troops "clad in steel, similar to Indian braves submerged in steel" descended upon them, "saws hanging from their belt, and flint stones in their pouches to ignite their portable burners, in order to set a fire that would turn the Gilãnis into black smoke." 106 It is unlikely that Mongols wore heavy metal armors for themselves and their horses, in a difficult terrain such as the densely wooded mountains of Gilãn. Kãshãni seems to have deliberately structured his description to fit this story.107 In particular the sole purpose for likening the steel clad troops to Indian braves (savãrem-e hendi)108 is to connect Alexander's theater of operations to Uljãytu's (see also 3.2.2); Indian soldiers were otherwise never cited as symbols of bravery in Persian literature. Fi g. 30 * T he M arri age of Fereydun's Sons ( T K S, H 2153, f ol .118a) Based on a count of insufficient verses to fill one complete folio, Grabar and Blair had predicted the existence of an illustration on a theoretical folio 9v of the original manuscript.109 This Topkapu Saray painting seems to be a Jalãyerid interpretation of the Grabar and Blair anticipated illustration on folio 9v of this grand Shãhnãmé manuscript. Fereydun wishes to marry his sons to the three daughters of the king of Yemen. The three sons are sent to Yemen. After putting them to test, the king concedes his daughters to the princes of the house of Fereydun and builds a special sitting deck for the occasion. The story evokes the simultaneous engagement of the two elder sons of Uljãytu 106. Kãshãni (1969), 63. The poorly edited text of the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu is scrambled in this section and a non- deciphered word is read as (‚¬Àœ£›) to complete the meaning of the sentence. 107. Despite a detailed account of the Gilãn campaigns (Mostowfi (1405), 712v-717r), Mostowfi’s verses neither allude to setting the woods on fire nor do they compare the Mongol troups to Indian braves. 108. The word savãrem, plural of sãrem (sharp, brave) is an expression that Kãshãni might have borrowed from Rashidoddin's writings, see 3.2.2. 109. Grabar & Blair (1980), 184. 29 on the same day (Sunday the 14th of Jomãdã II) in the year 704/1304: Bastãm with UljãyQotlogh, daughter of Ghãzãn, and Bãyazid with the great granddaughter of Tudãy Khãtun and Abãqã.110 As in the Fereydun story, the couples were of royal descent. By marrying Ghãzãn's only surviving child to his elder son, Uljãytu wished to consolidate his position, as well as that of his successor, as heir to Ghãzãn's legacy. After Bastãm's premature death, Uljãy-Qotlogh was remarried to Abu-Sa`id.111 This painting thus symbolizes the fusion of the houses of Ghãzãn and Uljãytu. Fi g. 31 A l exander Bui l di ng the I ron Rampart ( GB 37) For protection against the beastly creatures of Gog and Magog, Alexander erects a rampart constructed with bricks made of an amalgam of iron and copper, sprinkled with sulfur. Uljãytu is usually credited with the construction of the citadel of Soltãniyyé in the pastures of Qonqor-Ulong, even though some preliminary works were initiated by Arghun and Ghãzãn.112 According to Kãshãni, in Moharram 705/August 1305, Uljãytu visited "the constructions in Qonqor-Ulong, since he was very enthusiastic (mohavvas), excited, and absorbed in its construction and master planning." 113 His two elder sons, Bastãm and Bãyazid, then eight and five years old respectively,114 are depicted accompanying their father. Alexander is portrayed with a solar disk, symbol of Uljãytu's Divine Glory. Hãfez-e Abru related that the citadel walls were made of cut stones,115 allowing for close comparison with Alexander's rampart. The wide variety of workers, from different races and with different attires, reflects the substantial resources available to the Il-Khãnid court, a sample of which is shown in a letter addressed by Rashidoddin to his son Jalãloddin, governor of Anatolia. The vizier mentioned that for the construction of a garden near the 110. Kãshãni (1969), 42. 111. Uljãy-Qotlogh (b.696/1297) was engaged to Bastãm in 703/1303, during Ghãzãn's last year of reign; Rashidoddin (1976), 2:956--57. According to Samarqandi, after Bastãm's death she was married to Abu-Sa`id at the time of the prince's departure for Khorãsãn; Samarqandi (1993), 54. But this may have been a formal engagement only, with the official marriage ceremony to come at a later date. Fasihi sets the second marriage of Uljãy-Qotlogh at the beginning of 717/1317 and prior to Abu-Sa`id's ascension to the throne in the month of Safar (2nd month of the lunar year); Fasihi (1960), 26. Shirãzi seems to indicate that the marriage ceremony was organized after Abu-Sa`id's enthronement; Shirãzi (1959), 619. Banãkati who wrote the most contemporary account indicates that Abu-Sa`id married his cousin prior to his enthronement which he situates on the 23rd of Rabi` II, 717/5th of July 1317; Banãkati (1969), 478. 112. Shirãzi (1959), 477; Rashidoddin (1957), 3:229; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 67. The most explicit reference to Arghun being the initiator of Soltãniyyé’s construction is provided by Mostowfi; Mostowfi (1405), 710r. 113. Kãshãni (1969), 45. 114. Kãshãni (1969), 87; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 120. Abu-Sa`id was only one year old and the other sons, Abol Khayr, Teyfur and Soleymãnshãh, were not yet born. 115. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 68; also Mostowfi (1405), 710. Mostowfi indicates that the width of the rampart was such that four horsemen could ride side by side; idem. 30 Rab`-e Rashidi (the Rashidi quarters), he was employing some 80 slave-couples from Georgia, Africa, Abyssinia and Qarav (Qairouan?), each group assigned to specific quarters, and needed twenty more couples from Anatolia (Rum).116 Fi g. 32 D ãrãb Sl eepi ng i n the V aul t ( GB 26) Jealous of her infant son Dãrãb, who according to the wishes of the late king Bahman should have succeed him, Queen Homãy puts the baby in an ark and sets him loose on the Euphrates. Recovered and raised by a launderer and his wife, Dãrãb joins the Queen's army. One day, in the midst of a thunderstorm, he takes refuge under a ruined vault. The commander of the Queen's army, Rashnavãd, passes by and hears a mysterious voice addressing the crumbling ruins: "Beware, O ruined vault, mind this king of Iran who, without companion or spouse, is asleep under thee." Rashnavãd sends his men to investigate the ruins and bring back any person therein. The vault collapses as Dãrãb is brought out of the ruins. The above story is a parable for an incident involving Uljãytu's son, Teyfur (b.705/1305), and one of several instances of clairvoyance attributed to Uljãytu. At the outset of the Gilãn campaigns (706/1306), the imperial household was sent away, except for Uljãytu's wife, Iltormish Khãtun (d.708/1308) who was ill. When she rejoined the rest of the household, she was informed that the previous night, fire broke out at the royal encampment. Prince Teyfur's cradle was saved but he had suffered ten burns. Iltormish decided not to reveal the incident to the il-khãn. Unexpectedly, an envoy arrived with letters from Uljãytu, recounting that a fortnight ago, "by divine revelation" the il-khãn had augured a calamity for his sons. Iltormish was to give offerings to the needy so that the Exalted Lord would spare their sons Bastãm, Bãyazid an Teyfur. Verifying the timing, "it was clear that the writing of the letter coincided with the fire in the encampments." 117 In this parable, Rashnavãd's hearing of the mysterious voice is equated with Uljãytu's clairvoyance, prince Dãrãb's escape from the crumbling vault is correlated with prince Teyfur's rescue from fire, and Dãrãb's ark is perhaps meant to allude to Teyfur's cradle.118 Fi g. 33 Fereydun Goi ng to I raj 's Pal ace and M ourni ng ( GB 8) Fereydun carries the head of his youngest son Iraj to his garden and, unable to withstand the sight of a pavilion that was once filled with joy, burns it down. In this 116. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 64. 117. Kãshãni (1969), 236--37. 118. Teyfur died shortly after (perhaps as result of the burns) and was possibly buried in the Kãshãné funerary tower in Bastãm; Adle (1984). 31 illustration, the two main elements of the Fereydun story are separated into two distinct scenes: at the top, Fereydun is mourning the death of Iraj, while down in the garden, two children carrying torch-like wood sticks, are supposedly setting the palace on fire. The first scene seems to allude to one of the numerous tragedies that Uljãytu faced as five of his six sons died at a young age.119 The wrapping of Iraj's head in a diaper-like cloth might indicate an infant son, most probably Abol-khayr whose mother was also a full sister to Abu-Sa`id's mother Hãjji Khãtun. The depiction of the mourning women is unwarranted by the Shãhnãmé story; the two closest to Fereydun may represent Uljãytu's wives, Hãjji Khãtun and her sister, both granddaughters of Hulãgu.120 The second scene seems to portray the two elder brothers of Abu-Sa`id, Bastãm and Bãyazid (the same two that appear in fig. 31), 31 engaged in the pursuit of a terrified cat (down left corner, glancing back at them), perhaps for the purpose of setting it on fire. This type of mischievous action by Abu-Sa`id's brothers, although unrecorded in contemporary chronicles, must have been vividly remembered by those involved in this Shãhnãmé project. Fi g. 34 * N ushi rvãn Rewardi ng the Y oung Bozorgmehr ( GB 55) This illustration is situated at the junction of two stories of the Shãhnãmé. At the top is the story of the vizier Bozorgmehr who is rewarded with purses, each filled with ten thousand silver coins. It is followed by the story of another vizier, Mahbod, who had two sons (see also narration for f i g. 15). 15 The illustration draws on both stories to portray Tãjoddin `Ali-Shãh (d.724/1324), the only vizier to die by natural death in Il-Khãnid services. The pointers to his identity are the two young noblemen carrying the purses. They portray `Ali-Shãh's two sons who for a short while after his death, replaced him in the vizierate.121 Although Abu-Sa`id was very found of him and visited him on his deathbed, this illustration refers to a fifty thousand dinãr reward that Uljãytu---portrayed with a solar disk and the scepter-like handkerchief---bestowed on him in Tabriz, in 715/1315, after he was once again "confirmed as vizier." 122 119. Grabar and Blair's suggestion that the depiction of Iraj's head brought to his father parodies the beheading of Teymurtãsh (Grabar & Blair (1980), 50) is hereby rejected since his father, Amir Chupãn, had been executed some eight months earlier (Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 178 and 183). 120. The father of the two sisters is named as Chechak, son of Sul ãmish son of Tangiz-e Gurkãn by Rashidoddin (Rashidoddin (1976), 1:79; 2:683) and incorrectly written as Zahhãk in the poorly edited biography of Uljãytu (Kãshãni (1969), 7). Fasihi considers Hãjji Khãtun as daughter of Sulãmish (Fasihi (1960), 23). All three sources name the sisters' mother as Tudãkãj, daughter of Hulãgu, who was first married to Tangiz (hence the epithet gurkãn, son in law to the house of Changiz), then to his grandson, Chechak. 121. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 162. After several clashes between the two brothers, they were arrested and had to buy back their freedom "with all the wealth accumulated over the years by their father and his relatives," Idem. 122. Kãshãni (1969), 177. 32 Fi g. 35 T he V i zi er Pl eadi ng hi s Case wi th A rdashi r ( GB 44) Upon discovery of the poisoning scheme plotted by the queen (see entry for f i g. 49), 49 Ardashir orders his vizier to put her to death. But the queen confides that she is pregnant with Ardashir's child, and fearing that Ardashir may have no other heir, the vizier hides her in his own house. To avert future suspicions, he has himself castrated and stores away the severed parts in a small round box at the treasury, sealed that very day. Years later, when Ardashir is preoccupied with the lack of heir, the vizier begs for clemency for the secret that he was to reveal, and produces the box from the treasury as proof of his sincerity. The title of this painting as well as its composition, takes the emphasis away from the core of the story and shifts it to the encounter of the vizier with the king, in which the ruler is presented with evidence of the vizier's sincerity. It seems to point to an episode involving Tãjoddin `Ali-Shãh who, as a young bureaucrat and protégé of Amir Hosayn Jalãyer, had caught the eye of Uljãytu. The vizier Sa`doddin-e Sãvaji felt threatened by the new-comer, and appointed him superintendent of the Ferdows imperial textile mills in Baghdãd, where, much to the chagrin of Sãvaji, he established an efficient management. When Uljãytu visited Baghdãd, Sãvaji sent two inspectors to bring out `Ali-Shãh's shortcomings, but the latter was able to present his case to the ruler and offered some magnificent presents "never seen nor imagined before," thus wining the confidence and support of the il-khãn.123 As in other depictions of Uljãytu, the il-khãn is distinguished by the solar disk behind his head; and `Ali-Shãh has the same features as in the previous illustration. Fi g. 36 * K hosrow W ri ti ng to the K hãqãn ( GB 57) The khãqãn of China proposes an alliance to Nushirvãn so that "the two most powerful countries on earth" would be at peace with each other. But in between is Hebtãl, the ruler of the Hephtalites (White Huns), who feels that such an alliance would be detrimental to his country. He undertakes to sabotage the alliance between the two rulers by intercepting their envoys and confiscating the royal gifts. Despite Hebtãl's maneuvers, the alliance is established when Nushirvãn accepts to marry the khãqãn of China's daughter (see f i g. 17). 17 Based on central Asian geopolitics from Sãsãnian times, this Shãhnãmé story was bound to be repeated as long as there were two powerful countries, Iran and China, 123. Kãshãni (1969), 121--22. Kãshãni speaks only of robes, but Khãndamir gives a detailed list of presents including a crown with a 24 carat ruby and a hat heavily studded with precious stones, Khãndamir (1974), 3:193; the same presents are enumerated by Shirãzi but in an unclear context ; Shirãzi (1959), 541. 33 framing central Asia. Nevertheless, it is astounding to see the story, with its very details, being re-enacted in Mongol times. Under the title "The Reasons for Fear and Enmity Between Isanbuqã and the Clan of Chaghatãy with the Qããn and the Soltãn," Kãshãni recounts that the Chaghatãyid Isanbuqã (r.709--18/1309--18) had captured the qããn Buyãntu’s (Jeng Tsung, r.1311-20) envoy, Abishqã, who revealed the qããn's secret message to Uljãytu: to eliminate the common enemy (the Chaghatãyids), "you must attack from the west and we attack from the east." Isanbuqã, furious, intercepted the qããn's embassies. First, Toqteymur Ching-Sãng who was accompanying a princess "picked by the qããn himself, and riding with a train of fifteen hundred mules," then `Alã’oddin and envoys carrying tigers, falcons and other gifts, and later on, an embassy of eighty people sent by Uljãytu.124 Fi g. 37 T he Pi cture of the Bi er of A l exander ( GB 39) Alexander's death is mourned here as the death of Uljãytu, the Il-Khãnid ruler who is mostly identified with him in the Shãhnãmé. As previously mentioned, Uljãytu died in Soltãniyyé and therefore his bier was directly deposited in the mausoleum he had built there. The scene represents the Soltãniyyé setting rather than the plain of Alexandria where according to the Shãhnãmé, Alexander's coffin was placed, and conforms to the description given by two of the chroniclers. Kãshãni recounted that in sign of grief " the saddened ladies of the harem, generals, nobles, friends and companions as well as ordinary people undid their hair, tore their collars and clothes, and bloodied their forehead," 125 and Hãfez-e Abru added that the mourners were clad in blue or black robes.126 1.12. I llustrations pertaining to AbuAbu- Sa`id (r.717-(r.717-- 736/1317-736/1317-35) On his deathbed, Uljãytu entrusted his only surviving son, the twelve year old AbuSa`id, to his general amir Chupãn who became de facto regent of the empire. Chupãn's mistreatment of Amir Qurmishi and a few other amirs, led to a rebellion that was also embraced by the powerful Amir Irinjin, father in law of Abu-Sa`id and Uljãytu's maternal uncle. As Mostowfi insinuated it was a confrontation along tribal affiliations; Irinjin and Qurmishi were both Keraits and apprehensive about the increasing power of the Soldus 124. Kãshãni (1969), 200--08. Buyãntu’s Buddhic name was Ayurbarvadã and his Yuan dynastic name was Jeng Tsung. 125. Kãshãni (1969), 223. 126. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 119. 34 Chupãnids.127 The young Abu-Sa`id sided with Chupãn and marched against the rebels (719/1319). The next five episodes illustrate various events pertaining to the triumph of AbuSa`id (mainly portrayed as the Sãsãnian king Ardashir) over his rebellious general Irinjin (portrayed as Ardavãn, the last of the Parthian kings). Fi g. 38 K i l l i ng of the Fur i n the H ands of A l exander ( GB 31) The ensuing battle on the 24th of Rabi` II 719 (12th of August 1319), was fought passionately by Amir Irinjin followed by his wife, princess Konjak, who "wielding a sword, rushed like a brave, killing a few enemies." 128 The rebels followed suit and came close to victory if not for Abu-Sa`id who set an example by personally charging the enemy. His bravery was much praised by his panegyrists and won him the title Bahãdor (valiant) Khãn. Abu-Sa`id's bravery not withstanding, the chroniclers note that the defeat of the rebels was mainly due to an unforeseen factor: a powerful wind that blew the dust into the enemy's eyes.129 A similar unforeseen element results in the victory of Alexander over the fur of India: the thundering noise of a storm from behind the Indian army causes the fur to turn his head, and "as the dusty wind blew, Alexander struck his mighty opponent with his sharp sword." The dusty wind, prominently depicted in this illustration, is the common link between the two stories and a sign of divine intervention for the hero of both episodes. Fi g. 39 Gol nãr Comi ng to A rdashi r's Pi l l ow and Sl eepi ng by hi s Si de ( GB 40) Amir Irinjin's daughter was Qotloghshãh Khãtun, Uljãytu's chief wife who according to Mongol customs was subsequently taken by Uljãytu's son and successor AbuSa`id. As the il-khãn's chief wife, she sat at the Yurt-e Bozorg, the encampment of her 127. Mostowfi (1960), 614. Irinjin, was the brother of Uruk Khãtun mother of Uljãytu, and son of Sãrijé, brother of Doquz Khãtun, from the Kerait tribe, and great grandson of Ong Khãn; Rashidoddin (1976), 1:91 (Kãshãni wrongly considers him from the Nãymãn tribe; Kãshãni (1969), 8). Mostowfi also accused Irinjin of harboring the wish “to restore the paramount status of the House of Ong Khãn” and “proclaim himself emperor of Iran,” (Mostowfi (1405), 728) : £Åœ Xb®• ãÅ¡ò yg£† âÀ˜ y£Žd£ˆ wÂŽ xZ®žZ fd , wfò®… £Å¿Å˜ ç±… wfò f¬œZ f£¼… y£¿… 眣‹XàœzZ 鿪† ®• 128. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 149. For the etymology of the name Konjak see Pelliot (1949) HO, 95. 129. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 149; Samarqandi (1993), 76. For the Abu-Sa`id era, these two sources rely on the versified Zafarnãmé of Mostowfi; Hãfez-e Abru even quotes---without credit---the following two verses of Mostowfi i n his own account (Mostowfi (1405), 728): f£ž®ÁŽ ã¿Žd bf ®… d¯… fÂŽ ã²™ ã¿Žd xò gZ ¬›ò®… f£±•Â˜ xZg Í•£‹®… d£… 缞 f˜ t£‹ xògZ ¬À¥²™ ç˜ ç¥¹™Â† A wind rose from the mountain side, striking the king’s enemy into the face As if blinded by that dust, the mighty enemy lost its fighting fervor. 35 great-aunt, the famous Doquz Khãtun.130 At the death of Uljãytu "she was impatiently awaiting Abu-Sa`id," 131 whom Ebn-e Battuta praised as "the most handsome of God's creations." 132 To protect her status at the Yurt-e Bozorg, she must have approached the young and handsome Abu-Sa`id by her own initiative. As a king's favorite consort who marries another a king, Qotloghshãh Khãtun is equated here with Golnãr, King Ardavãn's favorite concubine who ran away with King Ardashir. Facing a conflict that pitted her father against her husband, Qotloghshãh Khãtun interceded twice with Abu-Sa`id to try a peaceful settlement; each time, Irinjin refused the il-khãn's proposals and responded with increased belligerence. As a result, she not only lost her father, mother and brother (see below), but also the trust of the il-khãn, who gave her away to one of his generals, Amir Pulãdqiã.133 Fi g. 40 A rdashi r Battl i ng ( Bahman son of ) A rdavãn ( GB 41) Since the beginning of the rebellion, Irinjin's son, Shaykh-`Ali, had remained with the il-khãn, even though he had tried to eliminate Chupãn's son, Dameshq Khãjé. When negotiations with the rebels failed, Abu-Sa`id had Shaykh-`Ali decapitated and taunted the enemy by brandishing his head at the tip of a lance.134 The large letters in the heading at the top of this illustration reads "Ardashir Battling Ardavãn" but the surrounding story is about Ardavãn's son, Bahman, who was sent by his father to capture Ardashir. The insertion of the additional words "Bahman son of" in regular black letters before the name of "Ardashir" in the heading, rectifies it to remind the reader of the minor engagement of Ardashir (alias Abu-Sa`id) with Bahman (alias Shaykh`Ali) within the context of the major conflict between Ardashir and Ardavãn (alias Irinjin). Fi g. 41 A rdavãn Captured by A rdashi r ( GB 42) Ardavãn musters his troops and marches against Ardashir. After forty days of continued battle, Ardavãn is captured and brought before Ardashir who orders his execution. Similarly, Irinjin was captured at the village of Kãghaz-kanãn (near present day 130. Doquz' yurt was given to the il-khãn's chief wives, including Kukãjin and Kerãmun, successive wives of Ghãzãn. 131. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 121. At one point Qotloghshãh Khãtun was accused by Amir Chupãn to have an affair with amir Toqmãq, a former companion (inãq) of Uljãytu. Toqmãq was briefly imprisoned, then released and became aide-de-camp (nãyeb) to Amir Chupãn (Mostowfi (1960), 612). He subsequently switched sides and joined the Irinjin rebellion and was hung with the rest of the rebellious generals; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 145-46. 132. Ebn-e Battuta (1979), 2:116. Kãshãni also praises Abu-Sa`id's handsome features, Kãshãni (1969), 44. 133. Shirãzi (1959), 646; Tabrizi (1398), 121v, Samarqandi (1993), 86. 134. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 146-49. Irinjin’s son Shaykh-`Ali is not to be confounded with Amir Shaykh-`Ali who was Abu-Sa`id’s personal falcon-bearer (qushji), Mostowfi (1405), 728. 36 Zanjãn) and brought before Abu-Sa`id who had him executed.135 The similarity between the two stories is enhanced by the fact that like Abu-Sa`id, Ardashir had married the daughter of his enemy, Ardavãn. Fi g. 42 Pi cture of M ãni H angi ng f rom a T ree ( GB 46 and T K S, H 2153, f ol .113a) The hanging of the prophet Mãni alludes to the execution of the rebel generals. Amir Irinjin and two of his followers, Toqmãq and Isanbuqã, were captured and taken with Abu-Sa`id to Soltãniyyé to be hung.136 This sentence seems to be unique in the fact that the whole body of the rebels was to hang outside Soltãniyyé. In most other cases, the enemies of the il-khãn were decapitated, and their heads hung from the gates of the capital.137 The main instigator of the rebellion, Amir Qurmishi,138 was able to escape, but was captured soon after by Amir Sutãy and sent to Soltãniyyé where he shared the fate of his comrades. Since two bodies are only depicted, each in a different position, the illustration seems to put the emphasis on the two main culprits, Amir Irinjin and Amir Qurmishi, and not on Toqmãq and Isanbuqã. Thus the body on the ground may represent the earlier victim, Irinjin, while the one hanging from the tree is that of Qurmishi, and the riders on the left allude to Sutãy's troops who escorted the prisoner to Soltãniyyé. The contemporary chronicler Shirãzi recounted that a fire was set underneath some of the hung rebels; Ahmad-e Tabrizi and Hãfez-e Abru further specify that Irinjin was among them.139 By depicting the il-khãn on the left and the fire under the victims, a Jalãyerid illustration of the same episode (ff i g. 42a) 42a conforms to the version adopted by Hãfez-e Abru, a historian whose period of activity overlaps with the Jalãyerids. Fi g. 43 BahrãmBahrãm- e Gur H unti ng wi th à zãdé ( GB 47) Irinjin's wife, Konjak (mother of Qotloghshãh Khãtun), who had valiantly fought alongside her husband, attracted Abu-Sa`id’s wrath; according to Shirãzi who treats her as "that doggish hound (sag sirat-e sag-sãr)," she was "stripped of her clothes, stoned and trampled (to death) by riding animals and livestock." 140 Abu-Sa`id's vicious treatment of the 135. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 150. 136. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 150. 137. Heads of Dameshq Khãjé and Teymurtãsh were hung by the gates of Soltãniyyé, Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 170 and 183; similar was the fate of the pseudo prophet Musã, see Kãshãni (1969), 77. 138. Qurmishi was the son of `Ali Inãq (Alinãq), Rashidoddin (1976), 1:95. 139. Shirãzi (1959), 645; Tabrizi (1398), 121v; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 150; also Mostowfi (1405), 728. 140. Shirãzi (1959), 645. Konjak was the daughter of Il -Khãn Ahmad Tegudãr. Considering the incident described under Nushirvan eating the food Brought by the Sons of Mahbod (ff i g. 15) 15 involving another relative of Ahmad, in conjunction with Konjak's actions here, there must have been considerable animosity between the 37 Changizid princess Konjak was apparently too appalling for the contemporary poet and historian Mostowfi who preferred to modify his account and state that she was killed in battle.141 As Hillenbrand first suggested,142 there is an obvious similarity between Konjak's death and that of Ãzãdé, Bahrãm-e Gur's favorite harpist who was also trampled to death. Out on a hunt, Ãzãdé challenges Bahrãm to show his prowess in marksmanship by changing a female deer into a male, a buck into a doe, and to shoot a deer through the ear and foot at the same time. When Bahrãm achieves all three through the skillful use of his bow and arrows, Ãzãdé taunts him by saying that only the devil has such skills. Furious, Bahrãm pushes her off his camel and tramples her to death. Fi g. 44 * A f rãsi ãb K i l l i ng N owzar ( GB 13) Prince Afrãsiãb son of the Turãnian ruler Pashang, raids Iran and defeats the tyrannical king Nowzar who is beheaded in reprisal for the death of the Turãnian braves. In the wake of his conflict with the qããn Buyãntu and Uljãytu (see entry for f i g. 34), 34 the Chaghatãyid khãn Isanbuqã (son of Duã son of Borãq son of Isan-Duã son of Muatukãn son of Chaghatãy) decided to reclaim Khorãsãn that he considered as extension of the Chaghatãyid hereditary domain (ulus). A large army headed by his own brother Kebek (Köpek) and another Chaghatãyid prince, Yesaur (son of Urk-Teymur son of Buqã-Teymur son of Buri son of Muatukãn son of Chaghatãy),143 raided the Khorãsãnian territory as far as Tus, but was recalled when the qããn's troop attacked the main Chaghatãyid base (yurt). Yesaur though, preferred to remain in Khorãsãn and settle in the pastures of Shãburqãn (Shãpurgãn) near Balkh, and obtained Uljãytu's permission to do so. Kebek, who accused Yesaur of sabotaging their Khorãsãnian campaign and leniency towards fellow Muslims, sought revenge. After a first unsuccessful attempt, he was joined by a thirty thousand large army sent by Isanbuqã and attacked Yesaur once again, but had to retreat when Uljãytu, upon the recommendation of Abu-Sa`id, sent a contingent headed by amir Bektut to repel the Chaghatãyids in the year 715/1315.144 However, after Uljãytu's house of Ahmad and that of Arghun, from the time the latter had Ahmad killed. Mostowfi pretends that Konjak’s actions brought shame to the House of Ahmad, Mostowfi (1405), 728: àÀÀ… ¬Ž v¬G… ¬¿ŠZ w£œ xZgz àÀ¨… ߨÀ˜ ydZ¯ÁŽ Ͳ™ 䤆 141. Mostowfi (1405), 728; relying perhaps on Mostowfi, the usually accurate Hãfez-e Abru also claimed that Konjak perished in battle, Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 150. 142. Oxford conference of May 28th, 1994 entitled "The Court of the Il -Khãns 1290-1340, The Cultural and Intellectual Milieu." 143. Yesaur was the father of Qazãn father of Sarãy-Malek Khãnum, Teymur's chief wife. 144. Kãshãni (1969), 209-18. Fasihi records these events under the year 715/1315, Fasihi (1960), 24; it is dated 714/1314 in Shirãzi (1959), 611-13. Amir Bektut son of Ulãdãy, had been appointed commander of the military 38 death, Bektut joined Yesaur in a conspiracy to kill the Khorãsãn commander, Amir Yasãvul, and despite a renewed pledge of allegiance to Abu-Sa`id, Yesaur, together with his new ally, invaded Khorãsãn and raided Mãzandarãn. Entangled in the Irinjin-Qurmishi uprising, Abu-Sa`id dispatched a limited force commanded by Amir Hosayn Jalãyer, that nevertheless provoked the gradual withdrawal of Yesaur and Bektut. But by 720/1320, after the quelling of the Irinjin rebellion, the il-khãn was able to mobilize a larger force against Yesaur. Meanwhile, Isanbuqã had died and was succeeded by Yesaur's archenemy, Kebek, who sent his son Iljigedãy to capture the renegade Chaghatãyid prince. Caught in between the impending attack of the Il-Khãnid forces and the menacing Chaghatãyid army, Yesaur's generals were easily persuaded to switch sides. Bektut was killed and Yesaur escaped along with his wives and sons, followed by Iljigedãy who caught up with him within three days, and had him decapitated on the spot.145 Once the Chaghatãyids are equated with the Turãnians who constantly attacked the eastern frontiers of the Iranian empire, the Yesaur episode becomes a near perfect match for the Nowzar story of the Shãhnãmé for which, Afrãsiãb son of Pashang is easily identifiable with Iljigedãy son of Kebek; in both stories, the two protagonists are distant cousins. Yesaur is perceived as the Iranian king Nowzar because unlike his Chaghatãyid enemies he is a Muslim and resided west of the Oxus, the traditional boundary between Iran and Turãn. He was as tyrannical as Nowzar, and like Nowzar, he escaped before being captured by his enemy.146 The figures on the left of the illustration have no counterparts in the Shãhnãmé story and depict Yesaur's household of which, the most prominently displayed was his "dearest and most beloved wife" who had insisted on accompanying him on dangerous campaigns.147 Fi g. 45 D aqi qi K i l l ed by hi s Sl ave ( T K S, H 2153, f ol . 112a) In the inevitable power struggle ensuing Uljãytu's death, Rashidoddin became the prime target of the amirs, and administrators such as his arch-rival Tãjoddin `Ali-Shãh, who strove to dismantle Rashidoddin's financial empire. The vizier was accused of poisoning contingent accompanying prince Bastãm to Khorãsãn at the time of Uljãytu's accession to the throne; Shirãzi (1959), 466. 145. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 151--59. 146. Yesaur is almost adopted as an Iranian king by later historians such as Fasihi, who---writing from a fifteenth century Herãti point of view---qualifies the Khorãsãni territories bequeathed by Uljãytu to him as Iranzamin, Iranian empire; Fasihi (1960), 24; see also discussion in 3.2.2. Writing in Teymurid time, Fasihi might have had a desire to improve the status of Yesaur who was the grandfather of Teymur's chief wife. 147. Kãshãni (1969), 209. Kãshãni gives a physical description of Yesaur: "handsome, tall, with a large and slightly bulging forehead ... and a squinting eye;" ibid., 220. Since most of those depicted in this manuscript have squinting eyes, it is difficult to single out Yesaur on the basis of Kãshãni's descriptions alone. 39 Uljãytu and upon the testimony of two phony witnesses, the young Abu-Sa`id was persuaded to order the execution of Rashidoddin (718/1318). Although no extant painting of this Shãhnãmé refers to the execution of Rashidoddin, a Jalãyerid version has survived and relates to a predicted missing illustration by Grabar and Blair on folio 3v of this manuscript.148 The association between Daqiqi's death and that of Rashidoddin is provided by the fact that the poet Daqiqi was the first to have started the versification of the Shãhnãmé but his untimely death "left the book unfinished;" 149 it was subsequently continued and completed by Ferdowsi. This may allude to the unfinished status of Rashidoddin's Jãme`ottavãrikh in respect to the Uljãytu section (see also entry for f i g. 50). 50 Further clues to the identity of the vizier are provided by the depiction of a cupboard filled with books and apothecaries' porcelain containers that Rashidoddin--who was a trained physician---had commissioned from China for a hospital that he had built in the Rashidi Quarters, including "one thousand elaborately designed jars (khomré) for syrups," bearing his epithets and inscribed with the syrup name.150 Chinese porcelain jars were luxurious and expensive items that no author but the immensely rich Rashidoddin could afford. Fi g. 46 Z ãl Cl i mbi ng to Rudãbé ( GB 9) Rashidoddin's death entailed a vast change of power in which Amir Chupãn's sons and grandsons supplanted those of Rashidoddin as governors of major provinces. Chupãn himself was more inclined to remain amirol-omarã (commander in chief) and defend the IlKhãnid empire against the Chaghatãyid and Golden Horde threats in the north-west and north-east, leaving the functions of regency to his third son, Dameshq Khãjé, who resided at the imperial camp of Abu-Sa`id and acted "not only as amir and vizier, but as soltãn and pãdshãh." 151 Dameshq's arrogance so annoyed Abu-Sa`id that he even requested Amir Chupãn to replace him with one of his other sons, Jalãv Khãn (Abu-Sa`id's own cousin) or Mahmud; to no avail.152 Abu-Sa`id's ill-feeling towards Dameshq and his father was compounded by his passionate love for Chupãn's daughter, Baghdãd Khãtun, who was married to the il-khãn's cousin, Amir Hasan Jalãyer. Mongol customs required the amir to divorce his wife for the sake of the il-khãn, but Chupãn, hoping that the young ruler's passion would subside, sent away his daughter and son-in-law. Abu-Sa`id harbored an increasing grudge against the Chupãnids and patiently plotted their downfall. The news that 148 Grabar & Blair (1980), 184. 149. Ferdowsi (1988), 13. 150. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 214. Rashidoddin had also ordered lidded boxes for drug mixtures from China, idem. 151. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 168. 152. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 165. 40 Dameshq had an affair with Qonqonãy Khãtun (a concubine of his father who resided in the fortress of Soltãniyyé), presented an opportunity to strike at Dameshq when he next visited his mistress.153 Abu-Sa`id's troops surrounded the fortress forcing Dameshq to flee; he was captured and put to sword by Abu-Sa`id's trusted lieutenant, Mesr Khãjé, on the 6th of Shavvãl 727 (25th of August 1327), and his head was hung from the gates of Soltãniyyé.154 Zãl's climb of the fortress wall to see Rudãbé, parodies Dameshq's visits to Qonqonãy Khãtun at the fortress of Soltãniyyé. Fi g. 47 Z ãl A pproachi ng Shãh M anuchehr ( GB 11) Fearing amir Chupãn's reprisal, Abu-Sa`id decided to immediately launch a campaign against the Chupãnids. He set out from Soltãniyyé at the head of an important army while imperial decrees were sent out to the generals announcing the death of Dameshq and ordering execution of all remaining Chupãnids. Amir Chupãn had no choice but to confront Abu-Sa`id. Marching from Khorãsãn, he stopped in Semnãn to visit the venerated Sufi shaykh `Alã'oddowlé-ye Semnãni (659--736/1261--1336), and implored the shaykh to intercede with Abu-Sa`id to deliver to him the killers of his son so that war could be averted. The shaykh accepted the mission and went to Abu-Sa`id who much honored his visit but refused his requests.155 The painting here illustrates Zãl's visit to King Manuchehr, imploring him to abandon his decision to make war with Mehrãb, father of his beloved Rudãbé. Zãl's unusual attire depicted as one of a cleric rather than an amir, is alluding to `Alã'oddowlé's visit to Abu-Sa`id. In both cases, the purpose of the visit is to avert a war initiated by a love affair with a warlord's daughter. While a century later, Hãfez-e Abru, conforming to the Teymurid tradition of veneration of Sufi shaykhs, emphasized Abu-Sa`id's courteous treatment of `Alã'oddowlé by stating that the il-khãn "rose before him, and sat him close to himself while he knelt before the shaykh," 156 the depiction here not only conforms to Ferdowsi's narration in which Zãl "kissed the ground before the king" but most probably to the actual encounter of the shaykh and the il-khãn. For, `Alã'oddowlé was the scion of a wealthy Semnãni family with a long tradition of serving the Il-Khãnids and prone to behave like a courtier. `Alã'oddowlé himself joined the services of Arghun at the age of 153. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 169. Ebn-e Battuta states that another wife of Uljãytu, Donyã Khãtun (daughter of Soltãn Najmoddin of Mãrdin), had warned Abu-Sa`id about Dameshq's affairs with the ladies of the imperial harem and pointed out that Dameshq's arrogance was such that he had even made a pass at her; Ebn-e Battuta (1979), 2:118. 154. Samarqandi (1993), 99. Mesr Khãjé son of Mohammad-e Udãji had accompanied the crown-prince AbuSa`id to Khorãsãn; Shirãzi (1959), 614. 155. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 174--75. 156. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 174--75. 41 fifteen, but quit some ten years later to pursue the path of the Sufi. However, his wealth and religious stature made further contact with the il-khãns inevitable, albeit not always on friendly terms.157 He was finally reconciled with Uljãytu in 705/1305.158 Amir Chupãn's choice of `Alã'oddowlé to plead his case with the il-khãn, may have been influenced by a previously successful intervention of the shaykh---on behalf of Malek Ghiãsoddin-e Kart--with Uljãytu in 714/1314.159 Fi g. 48 Pi cture of Rostam and Z avãré's Bi ers ( GB 24) Despite several oaths of allegiance to amir Chupãn, most of his generals switched sides as they approached the imperial army. Chupãn was forced to flee and took refuge with "his trusted friend," the Kart ruler of Herãt, Malek Ghiãsoddin. But enticed with the promise of the hand of Chupãn's wife, princess Kordujin, along with the revenues of her ancestral fiefdom of Fãrs, the malek carried out Abu-Sa`id's orders to kill the Chupãnids; first, Chupãn was executed and then his young son Jalãv Khãn. Meanwhile, Abu-Sa`id obtained the divorce of Baghdãd Khãtun from her husband and married her immediately after the required religious waiting period, `edda. With her influence growing over the ilkhãn, Baghdãd Khãtun was able to cancel the promised marriage of Kordujin to Malek Ghiãsoddin, and order the biers of her father and brother to be brought from Herãt for burial in Medina according to the last wishes of Amir Chupãn. The il-khãn himself contributed the sum of forty thousand dinãrs towards the procession.160 As Grabar and Blair had surmised, the depiction of the procession of the two biers of Rostam and his son Zavãré was probably meant to evoke those of Amir Chupãn and his son, en route to Medina.161 Rostam and Amir Chupãn (who was often likened to Rostam by contemporary chronicles)162 had both valiantly defended the Iranian empire against its enemies, and had finally perished in an eastern province by the treachery of a trusted person. 157. Arghun and Uljãytu disapproved `Alã'oddowlé's connection to the Baghdãd circle of Sufis; Van Ess (1985), 774--77. 158. Fasihi (1960), 14. 159. Fasihi (1960), 23. 160. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 178--79. 161. Grabar & Blair (1980), 50. 162. See for instance Shirãzi (1959), 639-40, where Chupãn is repeatedly referred to as Rostam-e ãkhar-e zamãn (a latter-day Rostam). 42 Fi g. 49 T he Pi cture of A rdashi r wi th hi s W i f e ( khãtun) T hrowi ng down the Poi son Cup ( GB 43) In continuation of the story of Ardashir, this Shãhnãmé painting illustrates the story of Ardavãn's daughter who, upon instigation of her exiled brother, attempts to poison her husband Ardashir. When the cup of poisoned sweet drink slips out of Ardashir's hands, she so trembles that the king becomes suspicious and has the spilled drink tested by fowls. They die instantaneously and the plot is revealed. The most unusual aspect of this illustration is the use of the word khãtun in its title to designate Ardashir's wife. Khãtun is a Turkish word designating the Mongol ruler's main wives (as opposed to qomãy for concubines), that does not appear in the Shãhnãmé text nor in any earlier section headings. Its inclusion here is to draw attention to a poison plot involving one of the khãtuns. A candidate is of course Baghdãd Khãtun who was murdered (Rabi II 736/June 1336) by the order of Abu-Sa`id's successor, Arpã Kãun, on the charges of poisoning her husband some two weeks earlier.163 Ebn-e Battuta relates that the alleged motivation was Baghdãd's jealousy aroused by the il-khãns new passion towards Delshãd Khãtun (Dameshq's daughter and Baghdãd's own niece).164 However, it is highly unlikely that the Shãhnãmé project continued after Abu-Sa`id's death and that such plot could be superimposed on a Shãhnãmé episode in which the king survives the poisoning attempt. Perhaps it relates to a prior incident in 732/1332 when Baghdãd Khãtun was accused of having a secret correspondence with her former husband, Amir Hasan Jalãyer, and plotting to kill Abu-Sa`id.165 The nature of the plot is not well documented, but since poisoning---true or alleged---seemed to be the standard way for eliminating the ilkhãns, one may surmise that similar accusations were made against the khãtun in the year 1332.166 1.13. The enigma Fi g. 5 0 A l exander Enthroned ( GB 28) Two headings are incorporated in this illustration: the first announces "Beginning of the Story" a title often encountered at the beginning of some stories of the Shãhnãmé, the second explains that the illustration represents the "Enthronement of Alexander." Neither of 163. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 190--91. 164. Ebn-e Battuta (1979), 2:122--23. 165. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 186. 166. After further investigation Baghdãd Khãtun was exonerated and regained her former status with the il-khãn; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 186. Another possibility is a plot by Qotloghshãh Khãtun at the time of her father's rebellion. 43 these titles reveal any clues to the identity of the enthroned Mongol ruler. That identity is perhaps implied in a preceding title that announces that "Alexander's reign was fourteen years." 167 It almost corresponds to the length of reign of Uljãytu who died on the Friday 29th of Ramazãn 716,168 fourteen days before the beginning of his fourteenth year of reign, if the period from Ghãzãn's death (11 Shavvãl 703) to his official enthronement in Zihajjé 703 is included in his legitimate reign period. Uljãytu is depicted again with the solar disk, and holds the handkerchief passed on to him by Ghãzãn (ff i g. 25). 25 The incorporation of the first title into this painting is quite odd and an aberration in the general composition of the manuscript. To avoid this anomaly, the illustration could have been lowered or conceived smaller and away from the top heading. At first one is tempted to see it as a pointer to the founder of the dynasty, Changiz, or to Abu-Sa`id because of whom the manuscript was referred to as Abu-Sa`idnãmé. Both possibilities are to be rejected: 1- Changiz ruled more than fourteen years and was not surrounded by turbaned Muslim administrators on his enthronement in 1206; 2- it was improper to consider any limitation to the length of rule of Abu-Sa`id and, the two amirs holding their belts and swords by the throne and depicted as generic attendants, cannot allude to Amir Chupãn and Amir Sevinch who sat the young ruler on the throne.169 The reason for their non specific depiction may be that the scene represents Uljãytu's enthronement, and no such two amirs were reported for that occasion. That the identification of Uljãytu with Alexander was a deliberate decision in the organization scheme of this manuscript is also supported by the high number of other illustrations in the Alexander cycle that pertain to Uljãytu's reign. It was a decision based on Rashidoddin's efforts to elevate Uljãytu to the rank of the world conqueror Alexander the Great (see 3.2.1) and Shirãzi's chronicles echoing those efforts when calling Uljãytu, The Second Zol-qarnayn (Zol-qarnayn being a pseudonym of Alexander).170 Still, the meaning of the first title needs to be deciphered. Is it possible that the project began---or was conceived---during Uljãytu's reign but mainly produced under Abu-Sa`id, in the same way that the great Shãh Tahmãsb Shãhnãmé was initiated by Shãh Esmã`il but was 167. Besides the Shãhnãmé, early Persian and Arabic history texts agree that the reign of Alexander was fourteen years, see for instance Sa`ãlabi (1989), 278 or Minovi (1975), 48. 168. Shirãzi (1959), 617. Kãshãni situates the death of Uljãytu on the 27th of Ramazãn, Kãshãni (1969), 222. Hãfez-e Abru, relying once again on the Zafarnãmé (Mostowfi (1405), 722r), puts it at three days later (shab-e ghoré-ye shavvãl) which, according to Persian parlance, corresponds to the night of the 30th of Ramazãn; Hãfeze Abru (1971), 119. Shabãnkãréi pegs Uljãytu's death to the month of Ramazãn without specifying the day; Shabãnkãréi (1984), 272. 169. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 122. 170. Shirãzi (1959), 484. 44 dedicated to his son Tahmãsb who patronized the project for some fifteen years after him? In such case, should one consider that the manuscript that Daqiqi left "unfinished" (see Daqiqi Killed by his Slave)) alludes to this Shãhnãmé, as brainchild of Rashidoddin? Perhaps. Further research may reinforce or disprove this supposition, but given the precise use of headings as indicators throughout the manuscript, it should be considered as a distinct possibility. In either case, Uljãytu's limited reign of less than fourteen years projected by this illustration, the picture of his bier (ff i g. 37), 37 as well as paintings pertaining to Abu-Sa`id are proofs that most paintings were done after his death and under Abu-Sa`id. Part I I The calligraphic evidence 2.1. Calligraphy tradition The calligrapher-chronicler Dust-Mohammad, who wrote in 952/1545 an account of "Past and Present Artists" in the preface to an album prepared for the Safavid prince Bahrãm Mirzã (Topkapu Saray H.2154) described the beginning of illustrated manuscript production at the Persian royal library-ateliers in the following terms: Then (after the Sãsanian period), the custom of watercolor painting became established in the lands of Cathay and the Franks until sharp-penned Mercury wrote the edict of rule in the name of Soltãn Abu-Sa`id (son of)171 Khodãybandé. Master Ahmad (son of) Musã, who was his own father's pupil, lifted the veil from the face of depiction, and the style of depiction that now prevails was invented by him. Among the works he contributed to during the reign of the aforementioned emperor, it is well known that an Abu-Sa`idnãmé, a Kalilé-o Demné and a Me`rãjnamé, calligraphed by Mowlãna `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi, and a Tãrikh-e Changizi in beautiful script by an unknown hand were in the library of the late emperor, Soltãn-Hosayn Mirzã.172 171. It is necessary to read the Persian ezãfé (-e, son of) between the name Abu-Sa`id and the epithet Khodãybandé which referred to Abu-Sa`id's father and was added to distinguish him from his Teymurid namesake. Same is true for the reading of Ahmad(-e) Musã in the next sentence of the Persian text. 172. Bayãni (1966), 1:197. The Tãrikh-e Changizi remains a mystery. A versified history of Changiz and his successors, 18'000 verses long and written in the name of Il -Khãn Abu-Sa`id by one Ahmad-e Tabrizi, is referred by its author as Shahanshãhnãmé---although the only extant copy (Tabrizi (1398)) is inscribed with the name 45 So little information is available on the activities of Persian royal library-ateliers that Dust-Mohammad's unique account of the manuscripts copied by `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi some two hundred years earlier cannot be verified with any other source, and yet it is deemed to be valuable for the following reasons: 1- Dust-Mohammad was a renowned calligrapher who taught calligraphy to the royal Safavid household and remained the head of Shãh Tahmãsb's library-atelier after the shãh's dismissal of most other artists;173 and, as the longtime head of the royal libraryatelier, he was the inheritor of a body of information related to royal manuscripts and major calligraphic works that very few people had access to; 2- calligraphers proudly traced their style back to earlier masters and according to Dust-Mohammad the line of tutelage of Khorãsãni calligraphers---of which he was one--went back to Sayrafi;174 specimens---and copies---of calligraphy along with related informations were transmitted from one generation of calligraphers to the other and such chain of transmission was usually reliable; 3- a few of Dust-Mohammad's fellow artists at the Safavid royal library-atelier had been trained at the Herãt library-atelier of Soltãn-Hosayn Mirzã (r.873--912/1469--1506), where the three manuscripts reportedly copied by Sayrafi were last seen.175 Noteworthy in this account is how Dust-Mohammad treats these manuscripts as well known and famous, almost as milestones. Indeed they were milestones, for besides the novelty of fine illustrations, the mere fact that in the early fourteenth century, a reputed calligrapher such as `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi had been commissioned to copy secular works constituted a major shift in the practice of manuscript production at the Persian courts. Changiznãmé---and a 75'000 verses long history of the Islamic lands, Iran and the Mongols, composed by Hamdollãh-e Mostowfi (Mostowfi (1405)) is entitled Zafarnãmé. It is unlikely that Abu-Sa`id would have commissioned a new history of the Mongols in prose (as the word "Tãrikh" might suggest). What is referred by Dust-Mohammad as Tãrikh-e Changizi, may be a copy of the first volume of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, in the same way that another illustrated copy of that volume prepared for the Mughal emperor Akbar is labeled as Ketãb-e Changiznãmé, see Marek & Knizkova (1963), 29. 173. The calligrapher Dust-Mohammad taught calligraphy to Princess Soltãnom, Shãh Tahmãsb's sister; Budãq (1576), 110a. Despite possible errors in his attribution of paintings in the Bahrãm Mirzã album (see for instance Soudavar (1992), 95) his comments on calligraphy carry weight since Dust-Mohammad was a calligrapher and not a painter. His namesake, the painter Dust-Mohammad, was contemporaneously in the services of Tahmãsb. For a discussion on the two Dust-Mohammads, see ibid., 258--59. 174. Bayãni (1966), 1:194. Another calligrapher chronicler, Sayyed Ahmad-e Mashhadi who wrote an introduction to the Amir Ghayb Beyg album (Topkapu Saray H.2161) in 973/1565 spells out the line of tutelage of the Khorãsãni calligraphers: 1- `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi, 2- Hãjji Mohammad-e Band-gir, 3- Mo`inoddin-e Tabrizi, 4- Shamsoddin-e Qottãbi, 5- Ja`far-e Tabrizi and `Abdollãh-e Tabbãkh whose styles were followed by all subsequent Herãti masters; ibid., 50. 175. The following artists can be named among those who joined the Safavid royal library-atelier in Tabriz: the celebrated painter Behzãd who was also well trained in calligraphy (see Soudavar (1992), 98--100), and Qãsem son of `Ali (ibid., 176) and possibly the painter Dust-Mohammad. 46 Calligraphy had been developed in the Islamic world to adorn the word of God, the Qorãn, and at the Persian courts, where orthodoxy prevailed, elaborate calligraphy was restricted to the copying of Qorãns or religious and Arabic texts.176 The script used for Persian manuscripts was the regular scriptorium script, a quick-hand naskh, legible but hardly elaborate. This was the script used for example in the sumptuous 1217 Florence Shãhnãmé (ff i g. 51), 51 177 and the circa 1310 copies of the Jãme`ottavãrikh (ff i g. 52), 52 which continued at the Injuid court of Shirãz for the production of the illustrated 1341 Shãhnãmé (ff i g. 53) 53 commissioned by the vizier Qavãmoddin Hasan (d. 1353). The uninspired calligraphy of these important manuscripts cannot be attributed to a lack of talented calligraphers, for some of the most magnificent Qorãns ever produced were contemporaneously copied for the Il-Khãnids and the Injuids,178 but rather to the absence of a tradition of calligraphic elegance associated with Persian literary texts. By the time of Uljãytu (Soltãn Mohmmad-e Khodãbandé), this situation was bound to change as the process of Persianization of the IlKhãnids was fully under way and, under the influence of the Yuan court of China, calligraphy and the fine arts were gradually being taught to prominent Il-Khãnid princes. According to the chronicler Kãshãni, Uljãytu "had had instructions in fine arts and his royal curriculum (farhang-e shãhãné) included the learning of Mongol (i.e. Uyghur) and Persian scripts." 179 But more important was the royal curriculum of his son Abu-Sa`id whose interest in calligraphy and Persian poetry shifted the emphasis of the royal library-atelier to the production of Persian literary manuscripts. As a child, Abu-Sa`id had been tutored by Sayyed Sharafoddin, a calligrapher from Shirãz, and "was so zealous in the practice of calligraphy that within a short while, his style matured and a slate written in his noble handwriting was presented to Soltãn Uljãytu who out of joy, sent it (to be admired) at the various ordus (camp quarters of Il-Khãnid wives and princesses) and houses of noblemen." 180 The contemporary historian, Shabãnkãréi, praised his "excellent" Persian and Uyghur calligraphy,181 and a later one considered him a 176. It is interesting to note that Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate, was much bolder than the Persian courts in the use of painting as well as elaborate calligraphy for secular manuscripts such as the 1237 Maqãmãt of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (Ms. Arabe 5847), see for instance Ettinghausen (1962), 118--19. 177. Biblioteca Nationale Centrale di Firenze (Ms. Cl. 111.24 [GF 3]). Even the initial pages of the Abu-Mansuri introduction to this Shãhnãmé manuscript---although written in gold---are in a mediocre sols script; for reproductions see Ferdowsi (1990), fols.2v--3r. 178. For the high calligraphy standard of the Uljãytu Qorãns see James (1988), 76--131. For a 1344 Qorãn made for Tãshi -Khãtun the mother of Shãh Shaykh Abu-Es'hãq-e Inju see ibid., 168 179. Kãshãni (1969), 17. 180. Samarqandi (1993), 55; Khãndamir (1974), 3:197. 181. Shabãnkãréi (1984), 286. Shãbãnkãréi's information is usually nonspecific and seem to be based on hear-say; he does not appear to have been part of the imperial chancery nor have reliable witnesses. But his remarks about Abu-Sa`id's calligraphy talents tie in well with information provided by other sources, such as Samarqandi (see 47 pupil of `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi.182 His interest in calligraphy was shared by his vizier, Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad (d.736/1336), son of the celebrated Rashidoddin.183 Ghiãsoddin, who had been a pupil of Sayyed Haydar-e Gondé-nevis, Sayrafi's calligraphy master,184 pursued his own interest in calligraphy by commissioning a treatise on calligraphic canons from one Abdorrahim b. Mohammad-e Shirãzi.185 The choice of `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi to copy a major work for Abu-Sa`id was therefore a natural one: a native of the capital city of Tabriz, he was the most esteemed calligrapher of his age and shared common calligraphy tutelage with the il-khãn and his vizier. Sayrafi's high status at the Il-Khãnid court is also confirmed by the fact that he designed "unsurpassed" calligraphic panels for monuments erected in Tabriz by both the regent Amir Chupãn and his powerful son Dameshq-Khãjé, Abu-Sa`id's nemesis.186 Thus, as a first step towards the identification of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, it is necessary to investigate Sayrafi's participation in the production of this grand Shãhnãmé manuscript. 2.2. The calligraphers Dividing the extant folios of the manuscript into two categories: the "regular" and the "altered" pages, Grabar and Blair recognized only one type of script for each of the two categories. A closer look however, reveals six different hands: they shall be referred to as A, B, C, D, E and F. Pages copied by A, B, and C are deemed to be original (regular) because each group includes original illustrations; they are made of tightly pressed cloth or linen fibres in a felt-like pattern. Pages by D and E lack original paintings and are copied on a similar, although not identical, type of paper, with “laid lines” visible when held against light; they were probably inserted at a slightly later date. Calligrapher F’s note 180 supra). More generally, he seems to be better informed about matters related to chancery practices--and calligraphy may be argued to be of this category. 182. Schimmel quotes an eighteenth-century Ottoman source, Tohfatol -khattãtin by Mostaqimzãdé; Schimmel (1984), 182. 183. Since Il -Khãnid viziers were mostly chosen for their tax collection abilities, calligraphic skills was not their forte. Judging by a specimen in his endowment deed to the Rab`-e Rashidi, Rashidoddin's handwriting was of average quality; see Rashidoddin (1977) VR, (24). According to Shabãnkãréi, Tãjoddin `Ali-Shãh "didn't have a handwriting becoming a vizier;" he is silent on the skills of the vizier Sa`doddin-e Sãvaji, but praises his scribe Mobarakshãh's "Mongolian" (i.e. Uyghur) and "Turkish" calligraphy (probabl y meaning the official Il -Khãnid chancery language that was a Persian heavily studded with Turkish words); Shabãnkãréi (1984), 271. The second generation administrators though, had a better chance to obtain calligraphy training; for instance, Nasiroddin-e Tusi’s younger son, Fakhroddin Ahmad, was a pupil of the celebrated master calligrapher Ebn-e Bavvãb (see Modarres-e Razavi (1991), 73), and Rashidoddin’s son, Ghiãsoddin Mohammad, was a pupil of Sayyed Haydar. 184. Budãq (1576), 107a; Bayãni (1966), 1:50 and 194; Qomi (1973), 22--24. 185. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, (34). 186. Budãq (1576), 107a. 48 handwriting appears on a single text page and some margins. Throughout the manuscript, the text is in naskh and, with the exception of f i g. 24, 24 the headings are in sols. Blair has suggested that the original manuscript was conceived in two volumes with the first ending on folio 142r.187 This suggestion is strengthened by a similar division of the 1217 Florence manuscript in two volumes,188 and the distribution of labor amongst the different calligraphers of this Shãhnãmé as presented in tabl e 2. 2 Sayrafi Calligrapher A ending yã with vertical double-dot reversed ending yã , double dots sols type rã , , middle hã T abl e 1. 1 Comparison of Sayrafi's characteristics extracted from the colophon and fol. 24 of a Qorãn dated 720/1321 in the Astãn-e Qods-e Razavi (..) with those of calligrapher A volume1 alef-maddé, inserted reworks A B C D E 1-28----142r 142v-190 195-234 dispersed 111-115 Calligrapher pages volume 2 ò sokun yãquti- -- connection 187. Blair (1986), 127. 188. Piemontese (1980), xv, xv 48 and 66. 49 kãf T abl e 2. 2 Stylistic comparison between the first five calligraphers 2.2.1. Cal l i grapher A He is the calligrapher of the first fifteen of extant illustrated pages, as compiled by Grabar and Blair according to the Shãhnãmé sequential order, and his work extends from the beginning of the manuscript to folio 28; it may have originally continued until folio 142r, a page that is also attributable to him.189 He is identifiable as `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi, and probably the author of the entire first volume of the original manuscript. Although the basic canons of naskh had been laid out by previous mastercalligraphers such as Ebn-e Moqlé (272-328/885--940) and Yãqut (d.circa 696/1296), thirteenth-century calligraphers experimented with new refinements that established a distinctive style for each. `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi's style was marked by his activity in panel calligraphy and expertise in sols for which, to create a harmonious script, the juxtaposition of letters was as important as the shape of the letters. In this quest for harmony, dots came into play: the three dots of (j) were flattened to a horizontal lineup, and the double-dots of (\) or (r) were set vertically, when confronted with shortage of space. Other contemporary calligraphers such as Ahmad-e Sohravardi, occasionally used this device in mohaqqaq and sols, but `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi used it profusely in sols, extending the practice into naskh, in situations avoided by others: the vertical double-dot adorned the ending (\) where shortage of space was not an issue, the single dot of ( …) was lined up with those of the following ( ž), and peculiarly, the ending yã was marked with a double-dot in a variety of positions and configurations---under, over, horizontal and vertical; double-dots and triple-dots were split in most cases and configured as a grouping of unconnected individual dots. This extensive play with dots is Sayrafi's most recognizable characteristic. It is a time consuming process by which the calligrapher must each time decide the spacing and the configuration of dots in relation to available space and dots from adjacent letters, an example being the three dots under the sin of the word (¬À¥•Z‹) configured symmetrically to the dots of its tã and nun (see below). The regular training of a calligrapher to this date involves a standard set of--connected---dots for the alphabet, and in a craft where repetition is the key to mastery, regular craftsmen do not venture in radical departures from standard procedures, and accomplished masters rarely do so. Sayrafi's play with dots was never canonized in calligraphy, and generations of his followers down to `Abdollãh-e Tabbãkh-e Heravi at the 189. Folio 142 is kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. It combines two split pages with two different hands: A on the recto and B on the verso; see Blair (1986), 127 and pl. XIX B. 50 court of Soltãn Hosayn Mirzã, imitated his style and occasionally used the vertical double dot but shunned the extensive play with dots in other instances. For comparison purposes, calligraphy characteristics of a manuscript of Qorãn (ff i g. 55) copied in naskh by `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi in 720/1320, are matched against sections of calligraphy attributable to calligrapher A.190 Although both are in naskh, stylistic differences are to be expected, for one is in Qorãnic naskh and the other in literary naskh. Sayrafi’s Qorãnic naskh followed well established---and slightly rigid---visual patterns intended to project the majesty and power of the word of God. Literary naskh had different requirements. Firstly, the columnar division of space, with its numerous ending words, necessitated a different compression of script. Secondly, the Persian literary script had much less diacritical signs. Thirdly, there was a natural tendency to harmonize the script with poetical intonations of Persian literature. It is in fact the latter tendency that very soon led to the gradual transformation of naskh into nasta`liq, the script that would become the prime vehicle of Persian literature.191 Yet, despite such different requirements, the play with dots and similarities in letter shapes such as (z) and the frequently reversed ending yã are readily recognizable (tabl tabl e 1) . The encircled dots in the sols colophon of the Qorãn (ff i g. 54) 54 display Sayrafi’s extensive play with dots which becomes more accentuated in the Shãhnãmé (ff i g. 56); 56 probably to compensate for the lack of elaborate Qorãnic diacritical markings in the Persian script. The exclusive use of the (ò) for the long (a)---at the beginning of word---by calligrapher A (in contrast to the more liberal use of this sign by calligraphers B-C-E), in combination with his careful and correct use of diacritical marks suggests a sophisticated command over the Persian language. This corroborates A’s identification with `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi whose elegant prose in his treatise on the canons of calligraphy bears testimony to his affinity with both Persian literature and writing conventions.192 He is also the only 190. Sayrafi’s penchant for dot plays can be verified in his extant works in sols such as the exquisite mohaqqaq Qorãn in the Chester Beatty Library, 1468 (see for instance Fazãeli (1977), 203, or James (1988), 241). Naskh Qorãns bearing a signature of Sayrafi are more problematic and sometimes unreliable. Such is the case for instance of a Qorãn in the Nur Collection (James (1992), 112-13) which should probably be classified as 15th century. Also doubtful is E.H. 49 of the Topkapu Saray Museum (as reproduced in Atil (1987), 55), penned in a weak rayhãni-naskh script, with a gold ink colophon uncharacteristically written in the same script as the sura headings. Qorãn no.178 of the Turk ve Islam Museum in Istanbul however, reliably signed by Sayrafi and dated 744/1343, displays similar characteristics as the Mashhad copy (I am indebted to D. Roxburgh for lending me his slides of this Qorãn as well as calligraphy specimens of Sayrafi from album B. 411 of the Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul). 191. Soudavar (1992), 21 (with notes 14--15), 37. 192. For the complete text of Sayrafi’s treatise see Mãyel Heravi (1994), 128-36; for extracts see Fazãeli (1977), 297. 51 calligrapher of this manuscript to use the old-fashioned and typically Persian, dotted dãl, unfamiliar to those solely trained in Qorãnic styles of calligraphy. Other characteristics of calligrapher A are: • a compact and controlled curve for his yãquti connections,193 (see tabl e 2); 2 • an occasional three dots under the sin configured as an upright pyramid; • numerous use of a graceful v-shaped middle hã (Á); • frequent use of a sols-type (f) especially in a (®•) and (®˜) combination; • and a sols-type (dZ) ligature. One should also note that sols type letters and ligatures are more curved than their regular naskh counterparts; and, like the play with dots, they require a higher dexterity in execution that considerably reduces calligraphy speed, and thus seldom appear in other calligraphers' naskh works. 2.2.2. Cal l i grapher B Calligrapher B's work starts at folio 142v (the beginning page of the second volume of the original manuscript) and continues up to folio 190v. His general style is slightly irregular and more linear than A, with less emphasis on letter configuration and less marking of diacritical signs. The maddé sign of (ò) is not only longer and more prominent than A's, but is also used to mark the long vowel (a) in the middle (rather than the beginning) of words (e.g. homãy, bãlãy), contrary to the rules of Persian calligraphy and a reminiscent of B’s training in Qorãnic calligraphy. The (z) tail curls up markedly and the ligature of the v-shaped middle hã (Á) follows the left branch down before splitting away. The yãquti connection is moderately used. A noticeable difference with A, is a slanted crescent for the sokun (unvowelled consonant)---instead of the conventional round sign--not to be confounded with the inverted crescent sign used to mark phonetically connected unvowelled consonants, mostly (i) and (f) (for example, the tã, of the word ast would be marked with the slanted crescent, and the sin, with the inverted crescent; see tabl e 2 ). 2.2.3. Cal l i grapher C His style first appears on folio 195v and continues on the remaining pages of the manuscript. It is less dense, vertically shorter and more linear than the previous two. He uses the maddé in similar circumstances as B although with a more curved shape. The yãquti connection---traced with an ascending curve---is prominently applied. He uses the round sign of the sokun as calligrapher A. 193. The term refers to a curved connection of the letters (g (1977), 225--27. 52 ,f ,e ,d) with an end hã. instituted by Yãqut; Fazãeli 2.2.4. Cal l i grapher D His style is weaker than all the others. It is hurried and careless, and recognizable by the doubling of the ascendants of the attached (d) and sometimes the (ß), and a minuscule kãf sign about to be pierced by the kãf's ascendant. Diacritical signs are minimally used and the letter (i) is occasionally marked by three dots underneath. Pages of his work are scattered throughout the manuscript and do not include any original painting but comprise special-layout pages with voided areas (see for instance f i g. 57). 57 Grabar and Blair who consider calligraphers D and E as one, and author of all the special-layout pages ("checkered" pages), situate him in twentieth century Paris;194 but as argued in appendix 2, calligrapher D is most probably a Jalãyerid artist who reorganized sections of the manuscript where new images were inserted or deleted, or rearranged pages of the manuscript with unfilled illustration spots. 2.2.5. Cal l i grapher E He has a consistent and elegant style, mostly recognizable by the use of some elaborate and peculiar diacritical signs: ( ) to mark the long vowel u after a phonetically connected unvowelled consonant. He uses an elegant minuscule kãf sign ( , kãf-e khafifé) instead of the slanted arm of the actual kãf at the beginning, and occasionally in the middle, of words. Three dots are sometimes placed under (i) and a hamzé sign over the alef. Calligrapher E's work is enigmatic. Unlike calligrapher D's, his pages are not scattered throughout the manuscript but appear as a batch that comprised folios 111r to 115v, all belonging to the second part of the first volume of the original manuscript. Stylistically, the odd and frequent application of the maddé to mark the long vowel (a) in the middle of words such as xó…óÅ… ,yòf , suggests these pages to be the work of an early calligrapher, working at a time when the norms of diacritical signs for Persian texts were not yet standardized. The writing of words such as xò®ž~ and yóŽ look so awkward that it is hard to attribute them to a calligrapher working later than the end of fourteenth century. Pending further evidence, calligrapher E was probably a Jalãyerid scribe who for some unknown reason rewrote a whole section of volume one, perhaps an entire quire of 8 folios.195 2.2.6. Cal l i grapher F Folio 20 of the manuscript (presently at the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin) is different than all other pages of the manuscript in two noticeable ways: it lacks ruled margins, and there is reportedly an 1839 watermark on the text area (whereas the 194. Grabar & Blair (1980), 12. 195. The replaced quire may be quire 15 of the manuscript comprising folios 110 through 117; Blair (1986), 131. 53 watermark of other pages only appear on the margin paper), inferring a nineteenth century origin.196 Its later provenance is also attested by a stylistically mature naskh calligraphy, typical of the Qãjãr period (1779--1924), in which the dagger alef is repeatedly used to mark the long a in the middle of a word (see tabl e 2). 2 Moreover, the page pointers--written at the bottom of the 1839 marked margin papers---are by the same hand. Calligrapher F is therefore from the Qãjãr era. 2.3. The AbuAbu- Sa`idnãmé What transpires from the above is that in addition to the painters, at least three highstanding calligraphers of the Il-Khãnid royal library-atelier (ketãbkhãné), including Sayrafi, were originally mobilized for the production of this grand manuscript; and, because of the unprecedented means gathered for its creation, the manuscript was bound to influence the activities of the following generations of library-ateliers. Therefore, important clues to its identity may reside in its repercussions in the library-ateliers of the Teymurids and Jalãyerids. Inspired at inception by the imperial academies of China, the royal library-atelier that was originally instituted for the production of the great Il-Khãnid historical work, the Jãme`ottavãrikh, became an important symbol of kingship and legitimacy in post Il-Khãnid Iran.197 The Jalãyerids (736--835/1336--1432) who succeeded the Il-Khãnids after a series of skirmishes with rival contenders, lacked the full legitimacy to rule in a domain where the yãsã, the socio-political canon of Changiz---which required the ruler to be of Changizid male descent---was still much honored amongst the Turco-Mongol power-elite. Ruling initially in the name of Changizid puppets, the Jalãyerids eventually ascended to the vacant throne of the Il-Khãnids by clinging to a semi-legitimacy inherited through descent from Oljatãy, daughter of the Il-Khãn Arghun.198 But to gain acceptance as successor to il-khãns they had to act like il-khãns: following in the footsteps of Abu-Sa`id, the Jalãyerids reactivated the Il-Khãnid library-atelier and pursued the production of illustrated literary manuscripts by commissioning copies of the Kalilé-o Demné and the Shãhnãmé, fragments 196. A page incorrectly published as folio 20 in Grabar & Blair (1980), 9, should be corrected as folio 145. I am indebted to Sheila Blair who provided me with a photocopy of the real folio 20 and reiterated to me an affirmation by the former curator of the Chester Beatty Library, David James, that its watermark is on the text area. 197. The term library-atelier (ketãbkhãné) is used in this study with the same meaning as in Teymurid and Safavid chronicles, that is the atelier where calligraphers, painters and other artists were gathered to create sumptuously illustrated manuscripts. For the imperial library-atelier as a significant symbol of kingship, especially when the legitimacy of the ruler is contested (in both Iran and China), see Soudavar (1993). 198. See Soudavar (1992), 55 and 58. 54 of which have survived in the albums of Istanbul libraries.199 Strangely, despite a second reference of Dust-Mohammad to the Abu-Sa`idnãmé that the Jalãyerid Soltãn Ahmad (r.784--813/1382--1410) "drew a scene in black ink" in it, no traces of an original AbuSa`idnãmé manuscript or text remain.200 Teymur (r.771--807/1370--1405) whose dynasty succeeded the Jalãyerids, suffered from a more acute problem of legitimacy: with no Changizid blood in his veins he remained an amir ruling in the name of Changizid puppets, despite territorial conquests that rivaled those of Changiz.201 His own panegyrist, Nezãmoddin-e Shãmi, would proudly boast that Teymur "reinstated the Chaghatãyids on the throne of Iran and Turãn, and revived the traditions set by Changiz and his successors." 202 Teymur was too busy with his conquests to revive the royal library-atelier. That task fell to his son Shãhrokh (r.81250/1405-47) in whose time the full spectrum of the Il-Khãnid library activities was duplicated in the Teymurid capital of Herãt. A Me`rãjnãmé (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Suppl. Turc 190), two Kalilé-o Demnés (Topkapu Saray Library, Istanbul, R1022 and H362), and a complete Jãme`ottavãrikh (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Suppl. Persan 1113) as well as replacement volumes for incomplete sets, were produced in the libraryateliers of Shãhrokh and his son Bãysonghor (1397-1434), in addition to various history texts commissioned to the historian Hãfez-e Abru emulating the Jãme`ottavãrikh.203 In the same vein, the most sumptuous manuscript produced in Shãhrokhid Herãt, the famous Bãysonghor Shãhnãmé (Golestãn Palace Library, Tehran, no. 716), was meant to emulate the most sumptuous of the Il-Khãnid productions, the very Shãhnãmé of this study. Considering the importance of the Shãhnãmé production in subsequent royal ateliers, it is odd that Dust-Mohammad does not list one amongst the works copied for Abu-Sa`id nor refer to this grand Il-Khãnid Shãhnãmé in which we have detected the participation of Sayrafi, the most important master-calligrapher in his line of tutelage. Conversely, like the Akbarnãmé written and illustrated for the Mughal emperor Akbar (r.963--1014/1556-1605), the name Abu-Sa`idnãmé indicates that its content should relate to the events of the reign of Abu-Sa`id, and perhaps of the reign of his Mongol predecessors. Had there been 199. Pages from these manuscripts are scattered in albums (H2153, H2160) of the Topkapu Saray and album (F1422) of the University Library, Istanbul; see for instance, Gray (1977), 35--42; Atasoy (1970), pls. 1--14. 200. Bayãni (1966), 1:197. 201. See Soudavar (1992), 57--67. 202. Shãmi (1984), 12. 203. For illustrations of the first three manuscripts see Gray (1977), 81--84; and Gray (1979), 97--100, 149, 157-161, 167, 287, 289. For a discussion on replacement volumes of the Jãme`ottavãrikh as well as the history works commissioned to Hãfez-e Abru, see Soudavar (1992), 64--65. One should also note that the establishment of an observatory in Samarqand by Shãhrokh’s son, Ologh Beyg, and the compilation of a new astronomical manual, the Zij-e Gurkãni, was emulating the earlier activities of the Il -Khãnid astronomers gathered at Marãghé. 55 an original illustrated manuscript of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, different than the Shãhnãmé and related to the exploits of Abu-Sa`id, surely the Jalãyerids or the Teymurids would have commissioned an illustrated copy, in the same way that numerous copies of Teymur's exploits, the Zafarnãmé, were illustrated in Safavid times;204 and Bãysonghor who was keen on duplicating manuscripts of Soltãn Ahmad's library,205 would have ordered a copy of the manuscript that Soltãn Ahmad so cherished as to personally add a painting to it. But no such manuscript is known to exist. The logical inference of the above arguments is that "Abu-Sa`idnãmé" was a pun name for this particular manuscript of the Shãhnãmé, where the name of the actual king, Abu-Sa`id, was a substitute for shãh (king). Whether this Il-Khãnid manuscript was originally named Abu-Sa`idnãmé or later became known as such is not clear, even though a cryptic sentence in the preciously ornate style of the contemporary chronicler Shirãzi may include a veiled reference to it.206 These speculations notwithstanding, the analysis of the illustrations in Part I justifies the appropriateness of the name Abu-Sa`idnãmé for a manuscript in which illustrations refer to Abu-Sa`id and his ancestors, and puns and double-meanings are tightly interwoven in its composition. Dust-Mohammad's account is only an added confirmation for what the internal evidence of the manuscript reveals. Part I I I Organization 3.1. The patron Grabar and Blair's study concludes that the "Demotte" Shãhnãmé was prepared by the initiative of the vizier Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad during the reign of Arpã Kãun 204. Two other works pertaining to the exploits of Changiz and his successors down to Abu-Sa`id, the Zafarnãmé and the Shahanshãhnãmé, although originally unillustrated, were copied in Teymurid Herãt, Mostowfi (1405) and Tabrizi (1398); the latter even adorned with a few illustrations. 205. According to Dust-Mohammad, Bãysonghor ordered his artists to duplicate works of the Soltãn Ahmad atelier in "the same format and size and with the same scenes;" Bayãni (1966), 1:198. 206. The words az sa`ãdat-nãmé-ye Bu-Sa`idi (from Abu-Sa`id's book of good fortunes) in the following sentence in Shirãzi (1959), 646: /// ͹™ z ¬›ò d£ž Ýžê v£Š rZ¬³› ®… }¬Å·•Â… 難œ \d£·• gZ Ý…£• v£• é–z¬³› Zf |®´©šZXq£N•z ‚¬À… v£©ÀžZ fd may also be read as az sa`ãdat-e nãmé-ye Bu-Sa`idi (by the good omen of Abu-Sa`id's "book" )---which may allude to the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. 56 (r.Dec. 5, 1335/May 15, 1336), the Changizid prince that the khãjé had championed to succeed Abu-Sa`id.207 Abu-Sa`id had died without an heir.208 The khãjé's scheme to place Arpã Kãun on the throne was contested from the outset by Abu-Sa`id's imperial household and leading amirs. Arpã was defeated and killed in less than six months. In between, the ilkhãn and his vizier had embarked on a major campaign to repel the attacks of the khãn Ozbeg of the Qebchãq.209 Arpã's short and tumultuous reign could hardly allow for a production of this magnitude. Besides the logistical problems of copying some 60,000 verses of this grand Shãhnãmé, the planning and execution of the illustrations---at a time when no established prototypes existed---was most time consuming. Even more so if the illustrations were to reflect imperial events. One can imagine the slow process by which the subject and composition of each illustration had to be submitted for the approval of the vizier, or the monarch himself, with alterations proposed at each stage, and if Arpã was the patron he would have certainly rejected the derogatory portraying of his ancestor Arigh Bokã in f i g. 4. 4 Moreover, a complicated work such as this Shãhnãmé is created during periods of security and peace rather than transition and turmoil. Irrespective of the logistical problems, the intended recipient must have had the sophistication and aptitude to appreciate the intricacies of this manuscript. Arpã's literary interests are not known and chances are that---like most other Mongol princes---he had none.210 On the other hand, Abu-Sa`id was well versed in Persian poetry and composed poems of his own.211 At the end of one of his ghazals he wrote: Í•Z dZ¬¸… }Z• fd üd }zgfò ä˜ çÀÅ… x£‰ ݲ›d £† üd ®³¿… £Å… "Come to the Egypt of my heart to see the Damascus of my soul, For my heart yearns for the sweet air of Baghdad," 212 in which Baghdad also refers to his beloved Baghdãd Khãtun daughter of amir Chupãn, Damascus (Dameshq) to her brother Dameshq Khãjé, and Egypt (Mesr) to Mesr Khãjé, his trusted lieutenant who eventually decapitated Dameshq. Such disposition for puns makes Abu-Sa`id a worthy recipient of a manuscript studded with double and triple-meanings. 207. Grabar & Blair (1980), 48; Blair (1986), 126. Arpã's Mongolian name was Arpã Ke'ün. The second part was transliterated in Persian as Kãun to avoid misreading as kun (derrière). This transliteration was probably adopted by chancery officials after Arpã's accession to the throne. In earlier texts ke'ün was transliterated as (x˜); see for instance (x˜f¿ņ) and (x˜®Å‰Â…) in Kãshãni (1969), 176. 208. Abu-Sa`id's wife, Delshãd Khãtun, was pregnant at his death but gave birth to a girl; Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 195--96. 209. Hãfez-e Abru (1971), 191--92. 210. Shabãnkãréi related that Arpã upheld Mongol customs and avoided Persians (tãzik natavãnesti did); Shabãnkãréi (1984), 294. 211. Ghani (1942), 20. 212. Ghani (1942), 20. For the complete poem see Shabãnkãréi (1984), 286. 57 No less sophisticated was his vizier Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad who entertained men of knowledge and men of pen along with artists and musicians (ahl-e tarab).213 He was a littérateur and connoisseur who revived the Rab`-e Rashidi built by his father, and patronized poets such as Salmãn-e Sãvaji, Owhadi-ye Marãghéi, `Obayd-e Zãkãni and Khãju-ye Kermãni, theologians such as Qãzi `Azododdin-e Iji and Qotboddin-e Rãzi, and historians such as Hamdollãh-e Mostowfi. The range and quantity of books dedicated to the vizier were staggering; by one account he was presented with 200 works on the occasion of the Persian New Year.214 But unlike his father, who wrote original treatises on divers subjects such as theology, history, medicine and even gemology, Ghiãsoddin is not known for any discourses or other writings. As a professional administrator who was appointed superintendent of Khorãsãn under Rashidoddin's tenure as vizier, he became the pliant executive who survived the onslaught on his family and later on, ungrudgingly, joined the services of the very il-khãn who had ordered his father killed.215 One can only speculate that such person was characterized by a gentle and accommodating attitude that would neither contradict his ruler nor push him toward novelties and untested projects, while his father Rashidoddin, following in the footsteps of his former master, the reformer il-khãn Ghãzãn, was more likely to propose such novel project. But even if Rashidoddin initiated the project (as perhaps suggested by (ff i gs. 50 and 45), 45 Ghiãsoddin was the perfect executive to develop the sophisticated imagery of this manuscript, and maintain the young and learned Abu-Sa`id's enthusiasm in the project by constantly presenting new discoveries and possibilities. To the young Abu-Sa`id, educated and infused with Persian culture, the marriage of Mongol history with the Shãhnãmé constituted a natural sequel to the Jãme`ottavãrikh project initiated by Ghãzãn. 3.2. The sources The Abu-Sa`idnãmé was an ambitious project that required careful planning and organization. The first task was to match episodes of the Shãhnãmé with events of Mongol rule and the second was to devise a composition to illustrate both. There was a natural tendency to try to identify each of the Mongol rulers with a particular hero of the 213. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, (33), where the editor Dãnesh-pajuh quotes Ebn-e Favati. The tradition of the vizier entertaining an intellectual "salon" finds its continuation in the majleses organized by the viziers Majdoddin Mohammad and `Abdollãh-e Morvãrid at the Teymurid court of Soltãn Hosayn Bãyqarã; Subtelny (1984), 14447, and Vãsefi (1970), 523-28, and 963-65. 214. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, (33--35). 215. Samarqandi says that upon designation as vizier, Ghiãsoddin not only refrained from harming "those who had previously plotted against the Rashidi family" but even "bestowed them with favors and rewards;" Samarqandi (1993), 101. 58 Shãhnãmé. Thus, Hulãgu was mainly portrayed as Fereydun, Ghãzãn mainly as Bahrãm, and Uljãytu mainly as Alexander. However, such identifications could not remain exclusive and whenever a suitable match between a Shãhnãmé story and Mongol history was found, it took precedence over the scheme of identifying rulers with particular Shãhnãmé heroes. A suitable match could be a whole story, a section, or even a simple sentence, and to find them, chronicles and historical texts had to be studied and interpreted. 3.2.1. Rashi doddi n's works The primary source for Mongol history was obviously volume I of the extensive Jãme`ottavãrikh. Rashidoddin boasted that the il-khãn himself sanctioned this volume (which covered events of Mongol history from the time of Changiz until Uljãytu's reign) as "all true and correct," and that "nobody had ever written a more truthful, factual and precise history." 216 A substantial number of the illustrations directly relate to events encountered in volume I. Other volumes provided additional clues as exemplified by Fereydun Leading Zahhãk to Mount Damãvand (ff i g. 8) 8 which is based on the History of the Esmã`ilis chapter included in volume II. The Jãme`ottavãrikh was part of the eleven book compendium of Rashidoddin, referred to as Jãme`ottasãnif-e Rashidi, a master copy of which was placed at the Rab`-e Rashidi.217 As per the endowment document of the Rab`, Rashidoddin instructed the trustee to have seven of his books copied each year and, after verification against the original text and certification by the trustee, "sent to all cities of Islam, in Arabic to Arab cities and in Persian to Persian cities, beginning with the most important cities." 218 Therefore, in view of its status as a master reference source, the compendium as a whole must have been consulted in search of matching events with Shãhnãmé episodes. The Mobads Interrogating Zãl (ff i g. 16) 16 for example, is related to an event recounted in "book IV of section 1 of part I" of the compendium. 216. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:11. 217. The compendium's composition evolved overtime and the name Jãme`ottasãnif-e Rashidi now relates to the eleven books enumerated at the beginning of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, Rashidoddin (1976), 1:(88--90); see also next note. 218. Rashidoddin (1977) VR, 239. The concept of distribution of copies made at the Rab` was initially formulated by Rashidoddin in his first draft of the endowment document of the Rab` prepared in 709/1309, in respect to two basic religious texts, the Qorãn and the Jãme`ol -usul; ibid., 133. In an addendum drafted in 713/1313 he added nine books of his own writings for copying and distribution, at the same time omitting four books of translated Chinese and Mongol works on medicine, plants, government, etc., from the eleven books of the Jãme`ottasãnif-e Rashidi , while adding two other books of his; ibid., 237. Shirãzi mentioned that in early 712/1312, Rashidoddin presented ten volumes (mojallad) of his works to the il-khãn; Shirãzi (1959), 538. 59 3.2.2. K ãshãni and the "cl osi ng addendum" of the Jãme` ottavãri kh The Jãme`ottavãrikh was conceived by Rashidoddin as an ongoing project. A special section heading was incorporated at the end of each chapter for additional information to be added by later historians, as they would become available. An example of such later addition is provided by the ending section of the Arghun chapter for which certain manuscripts show a later added text while others are devoid of it.219 In the same vein, in the initial outline of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, Rashidoddin had allocated part one of volume II to the complete chronicles of Uljãytu's reign to be inserted at a later stage; the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu by Kãshãni, seems to have been initially compiled for this purpose. In its introduction Kãshãni boasted that his text was the "closing addendum" (tamimé va zamimé) to the Jãme`ottavãrikh.220 Curiously, it is a mix of two different styles: a concise reporting of yearly events in the style of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, interjected with lengthy accounts of events that do not seem to merit such elaboration. The latter accounts though, become meaningful in conjunction with the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. The story of the Chaghatãyid clan recounted under the heading "The Reasons for Fear and Enmity Between Isanbuqã and the Clan of Chaghatãy with the Qããn and the Soltãn," is the basis for understanding Khosrow Writing to the Khãqãn (ff i g. 36), 36 as well as the prelude to the story of Yesaur (ff i g. 44). 44 It is the lengthiest and most elaborate section of the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu, and its 21 pages (out of a total 241 text pages) are squeezed into the events of the year 716/1316, the last year of Uljãytu's reign. This lengthy section on the Chaghatãyids dwarfs that year's---and any other year's---account of Uljãytu's exploits and deeds, and makes redundant the story of Yesaur's crossing of the Oxus, briefly mentioned in the normal reporting of the events of the year 713/1313.221 One must also note that the account of Isanbuqã's capture of the qããn and Uljãytu embassies (see Afrãsiãb Killing Nowzar, f i g. 44), 44 the most important event of that section, should have normally been reported in the year 713/1313 and not in 716/1316.222 Similarly, the odd wording of some superfluous sentences in the lengthy account of Uljãytu's Gilãn campaign provide a key to the relevance of Kay Kãvus and his 219. Rashidoddin (1957), 3:229. The heading of the last section of the Arghun chapter reads: "Section Three from the Story of Arghun, Pertaining to his Noble Traits and Behavior and his Words of Wisdom, and his Orders and Edicts and the Story of the Events of his Time not Mentioned in the Previous Two Sections and Reported by Different Individuals." 220. Kãshãni (1969), 5. 221. Kãshãni (1969), 164. 222. Although the section heading is in the name of Isanbuqã and it is inserted amongst the events of the year 716/1316, the only date pertaining to that year is "Saturday 18th of Sha`bãn 716" for Yesaur's battle in Transoxiana (Kãshãni (1969), 217), which is then negated by the mention of a second date (ibid., 218), supposedly later but written as "Rajab of 716," which is a month earlier. 60 Paladins Killing the Demons of Mãzandarãn (ff i g. 28). 28 Perhaps the most convincing proof for later insertions and modifications is a passage included under the events of the year 711/1311, that pertains to Tãjoddin `Ali-Shãh's rise to the vizierate. Oddly, Kãshãni speaks of Uljãytu in the past tense: "in the days of Soltãn Mohammad" (be chãgh-e dowlate Soltãn Mohammad); even though in most other sections he refers to Uljãytu as a living monarch, wishing him a long lasting rule. This indicates that the passage was inserted after the il-khãn's death, most probably to suit the inclusion of f i g. 35 in the Shãhnãmé project.223 Following the style of the Jãme`ottavãrikh, the basic chronological reporting style of the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu is written for Persian speaking Turco-Mongols in simple prose with an abundance of Turco-Mongol words. By contrast, the second style is monshiãné (literary style of the royal secretariat), using multiple synonyms to achieve an elaborately rhythmic prose, in which the meaning was usually sacrificed for the form. In his second style, Kãshãni is clearly copying Rashidoddin's monshiãné style, the style of his official---as well as private---correspondences as compiled by one Shamsoddin Mohammad-e Abarquhi, in a compendium entitled Savãnehol-afkãr-e Rashidi. This material was not gathered for the sake of preservation of historical documents, but for use by scribes and administrators as a stylistic manual; and Kãshãni used Rashidoddin's writings to that effect.224 An example is the Gilãn campaign account in which most of the elaborate imagery is derived from three of Rashidoddin's letters to his sons.225 In particular Rashidoddin's sentence savãrem-e sahãm-e khun-pãsh (sharp and blood-spilling arrows),226 seems to have been the inspiration for connecting Uljãytu's attack on Gilãn to Alexander Battling the Fur of Hind; Picture of the Iron Horses and Soldiers (ff i g. 29). 29 In his sentence that compared the troops clad in steel 223. Kãshãni (1969), 121. 224. While the authenticity of Rashidoddin’s letters has been contested by some and accepted by others (Rashidoddin (1979) SA, (46--65)), and may still be challenged in a forthcoming publication by a prominent British scholar, it is very difficult to find a rational incentive for a hypothetical forger to create such documents, and to acknowledge the existence of a writer who could so admirably imitate Rashidoddin’s solid prose and refer to such a variety of subjects that only Rashidoddin’s vast knowledge permitted. On the other hand, correspondences of prominent viziers were often compiled and cherished by scribes and administrators as stylistic manuals, an example being the At-tavassol elat-tarassol (Manual for correspondences) comprising the correspondences of Bahã'oddin-e Baghdãdi, the vizier of the Khãrazmshãh `Alã'oddin Takesh (r.567-96/11721200); see Baghdãdi (1936). These manuals were regularly copied and perhaps even modified to suit the scribe’s needs and taste. Therefore, it seems that the discrepancies encountered in Rashidoddin’s letters with other historical sources may be ascribed to scribal errors and modifications rather than forgeries. 225. Compare page 63 of Kãshãni (1969), with pages 123, 131, and 241 of Rashidoddin (1979) SA. It should be noted that while Rashidoddin’s incorporation of Qorãnic quotations in his prose was in a fluent style, Kãshãni’s adoption of same formulae was incongruent and less successful. Such is the case for Rashidoddin’s use of verse (Qorãn 54:8) : “like scattered locusts” ®²¥À› dZ®‰ âÁœ£˜, ibid., 131, when describing enemy troops, but quoted by Kãshãni for imperial troops! Kãshãni (1969), 63. 226. Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 123. 61 to Indian braves (savãrem-e hendi), Kãshãni transformed the blood-spilling arrows into flame-thrower spears while opting for a second meaning of the very odd word savãrem (“braves” instead of “sharp”), and adding the adjective hendi, for the sole purpose of connecting it to Alexander's battle in India (hend); Indian soldiers were previously never considered as symbols of bravery in Persian literature. Finally, Kãshãni's often discredited allegation, that he wrote the Jãme`ottavãrikh but Rashidoddin presented it---in the year 706/1306---to the il-khãn as his own, may only be justified insofar as he was probably among the team that the vizier had gathered to keep a record of Uljãytu's reign in continuation of the Jãme`ottavãrikh project. The published text of the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu may be based on a personal version kept by Kãshãni, or one modified after the death of Ghiãsoddin, that incorporated isolated allegations against Rashidoddin while the rest of the text was respectful towards the vizier.227 According to the preceding arguments, it appears that the present version of the Tãrikh-e Uljãytu was initially conceived as the chronicles of Uljãytu's reign for the Jãme`ottavãrikh, but was modified twice by one of its initial co-authors, Kãshãni: once, in conjunction with the Abu-Sa`idnãmé project, and once again, after the demise of Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad. Whether an official version was ever adjoined to the Jãme`ottavãrikh master copy at the Rab` is not known; the fact is that later historians did not know about it, or did not recognize it as part of the Jãme`ottavãrikh. Thus, Hãfez-e Abru who was commissioned a century later by Shãhrokh to write the continuation (zeyl) to the first volume of the great Il-Khãnid historical work, started his account with events of the reign of Uljãytu. 3.2.3. M ongol sources and subsequent rei nterpretati ons The story of Qubilãy and Arigh Bokã (discussed under f i g. 4), 4 neither recorded by Rashidoddin nor by Kãshãni, further demonstrates the broad array of sources consulted 227. Kãshãni (1969), 54 (under the events of year 706/1306): y£Žd£ˆ }Zf ®… dzd®› xZdÂÁ‰ Í•d ä… , dÂ… yf£«Å… ãžZ ÜÅÀ³† z ÜŚƆ ä˜ ÒžfZz¥šZXÚ›£‰ [£¥˜ ãNž¬šZX¬ÅŽf ä‰Z‹ xZ®žZ fÂ¥•d xò \£“£¹†fZ ožf z \£˜f¬¥±› v³©› gZ v£• ®• z ¬¥±… o£Å• z äžd z të›Z gZ v£› x£›Â† y£¨Àˆ xò ‚¯ž £‰ z d®˜ ä•®“ dZ¬œ xò ÜÀ³› z ܚț ä… wfd ßž ÜÅÀ³¥… y¬“z d‰z £… z ¬•®Å› }z ä… ô¹• z ô¹“ ¬ºœ x£›Â† ͱŅ “The vizier of Iran, Khãjé Rashidoddin, offered to the emperor the book of Jãme`ottavãrikh that I had authored, through the complicity of forsaken Jews, and obtained a fifty tumãns reward in property and farm-land that generate a yearly revenue of twenty thousand tumãns in cash for him; but didn’t give a penny to its author (i.e. Kãshãni) as promised.” Kãshãni repeated the same claim at the end of his book (for a corrected version see Mortazavi (1991), 501--504). They are both in contadiction with another assertion that Rashidoddin's revenues from the reward for the Jãme`ottavãrikh was "eight tumãns, every year" (Kãshãni (1969), 196), and indicative of a later hasty insertion without consideration for prior writings. The claim that Rashidoddin appropriated for himself the fruit of Kãshãni's labor, along with accusations of favoritism towards Jews, was obviously inserted after the death of both Rashidoddin and his son: it was the typical reaction of a petty bureaucrat trying to emerge from the shadow of his former master struck by misfortune. 62 for this project. The story is referred to by the later historian Khandamir, and also Mirkhãnd who acknowledges taking it from Hãfez-e Abru. Despite Rashidoddin's boast of factual correctness, his version of Juchi's birth in the Jãme`ottavãrikh which recognizes him as Changiz' first son, is different from the one preserved in the Secret History of the Mongols, and alluded to in Fereydun Questions his Mother About his Origins (ff i g. 2). 2 Also, Khandamir and Mirkhãnd’s accounts differ with Rashidoddin’s and convey that Juchi's brothers, Chaghatãy and Ogdãy, scolded him for his "dubious birth." 228 Juchi's illegitimate birth was not only glossed over by Rashidoddin in deference to the early alliance of the houses of Juchi and Tuloy, but also to avoid tarnishing the image of Changiz himself. Juchi's illegitimate birth ultimately tarnished the image of the Mongol dynasty as a whole. What may have been an acceptable incident in the context of harsh nomadic life reflected by the Secret History of the Mongols, was detrimental to the prestige of the Mongol ruling family in the urban capitals of their empire. What Rashidoddin did not dare refer to in the historic Jãme`ottavãrikh, no official Jalãyerid or Teymurid historian would have ventured to reinterpret. The Changizid legacy was still much revered under these sucessor dynasties, and the authority and sanction of a powerful Changizid prince was necessary for any reinterpretation. Abu-Sa`id had resuscitated this sensitive issue in the midst of an inter family dispute, and his approval of f i g. 2, 2 probably provided the required sanction for later historians' veiled references to this Changizid disgrace. Considering the above discrepancies between the Jãme`ottavãrikh and subsequent historical works, one wonders if some synopsis was not prepared to accompany this Shãhnãmé, providing explanations for the illustrations, and used by later historians as an additional source on Mongol history. 3.3. The production team The production team was probably placed under the supervision of Ghiãsoddin Mohammad who had served Abu-Sa`id when crown-prince in Khorãsãn, and continued to serve him after his enthronement. According to Shirãzi, Ghiãsoddin was vizier (makhdume jahãniãn va dastur-e jahãn-bãn) in 718/1318,229 and although he may have been 228. Khãndamir (1974), 74. Mostowfi who alluded to Chaghatãy and Ogdãy’s animosity towards Juchi, omitted any reference to his dubious birth (Mostowfi (1405), 551): £•z Ýž®‘ yd²™ x£²œ£Å› £¹• z r¬• ÍŽZd ù† £… çŽÂ† ¼œ 祲½œ ¯™®• 䥱‹ }¬… zZ x£‰ }£¥¸‰ gZ z xò£–g “Tushi (Juchi) and Tuloy's friendship was wholehearted; as loyalty paved the way in between; But, his soul was wounded by Qããn (Ogdãy) and Chaghatãy, and never recovered” 229. Shirãzi (1959), 608. 63 temporarily removed from office after his father's execution, he rejoined the il-khãn's services at a date probably earlier than his formal appointment as vizier in 727/1327.230 Abu-Sa`id himself must have had an active role, approving each composition and providing details about unrecorded anecdotes of his life. His mood shifts conditioned topic selections. The continued belligerence of Juchi's descendant, Ozbeg, prompted reference to Juchi's illegitimate birth in Fereydun Questions his Mother About his Origins. While Baghdãd Khãtun was the favorite wife, Amir Chupãn was evoked with deference (ff i g. 48). 48 Eventually, when her own niece, Delshãd Khãtun, became the favorite, Baghdãd Khãtun's reaction was exposed in The Picture of Ardashir with his Wife throwing Down the Cup of Poison (ff i g. 49) . These were all sensitive issues necessitating the il-khãn's sanction for inclusion in the manuscript. Considering the vast array of sources that needed to be consulted, the selection process of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé illustrations was certainly conducted by a team of learned historians and chroniclers, well versed in the stories of the Shãhnãmé. Foremost among them was Kãshãni who seems to have modified the Uljãytu chronicles---or added to it---to accommodate the project. Another possible candidate was Hamdollãh-e Mostowfi, the author of a versified historical work entitled Zafarnãmé (Book of victories), 75'000 verses long and modeled after the Shãhnãmé, of which, the last 30’000 pertained to the history of the Mongols down to Abu-Sa`id's time. In its opening section, he complained that most Shãhnãmés that he had seen contained inaccuracies perpetuated by scribal errors, and were 10’000 verses short of the 60’000 that Ferdowsi claimed to have composed.231 He had spent six years to gather a “complete and corrected version” of the Shãhnãmé---a copy of which is presumably written on the margins of the Zafarnãmé manuscript of the British Library.232 An administrator with close ties to Ghiãsoddin, and involved in the compilation of a “complete and corrected” version of the Shãhnãmé, as well as versification of the 230. As superintendent of Khorãsãn, Ghiãsoddin might have developed a special relationship with Abu-Sa`id when the young prince was appointed governor of that province. Natanzi stated that "since in his (Abu-Sa`id's) youth, Ghiãsoddin Mohammad, son of the great vizier Rashidoddin, had rendered praiseworthy services, he (now) rewarded him with the vizierate; Natanzi (1957), 156. Mostowfi recounted that after the demise of DameshqKhãjé (d.727/1327), the vizierate was initially shared between Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad and `Alã'oddin Mohammad, but six months later Ghiãsoddin became sole vizier and `Alã'oddin was granted the function of estifã' (tax collection); Mostowfi (1960), 620--21. But Ebn-e Battuta who saw Ghiãsoddin Mohammad in the presence of Abu-Sa`id and Dameshq-Khãjé sometime after Rajab 727/May 1327, presumed Ghiãsoddin to be a vizier at that time; Ebn-e Battuta (1979), 2:116. It is probable that Ghiãsoddin had entered the services of AbuSa`id at an early stage, perhaps with the approval of Dameshq, and was performing most of the vizierate functions while formal title and final power resided with Dameshq. 231. Mostowfi (1405), 6: f£¿²Å… zfd 䥕f Øžª† ÂŒ ®…g z ®ž g 䛣œ xò f£˜ y¬Ž 232. Mostowfi (1405). 64 f£™gzf gZ 䥲™ 䤆 ã¼Åšz ®±…®• x£™¬À±žÂœ ÂÁ• g history of the Mongols down to Abu-Sa`id’s time, Mostowfi was most probably a participant in the project.233 His involvement though, may have been mostly with the Shãhnãmé text, and perhaps intermittently with the process of illustration selection: his account of princess Konjak’s death differs with that portrayed in f i g. 43 and eliminates him as the person who conceived this particular illustration, on the other hand, his verses on the “dusty wind” that led Abu-Sa`id to victory (ff i g. 38) , seem to provide the only contemporary reference to this divine intervention. 3.4. The original scope Grabar and Blair's speculation on the original number of illustrations, based on extrapolation of the ratio of known illustrations to known pages of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé,234 is not justifiable, as the illustration program was not for the purpose of creating an attractive and evenly illustrated manuscript but one with a political message. Furthermore, despite the two Jalãyerid miniatures that fit into Grabar and Blair's projected illustration spots, insufficient numbers of verses between two extant pages cannot always be interpreted as unfilled illustration space since the decision to insert an illustration after the completion of the calligraphy of a section, would have left extra verses that needed to be transferred to an additional page with much void on it. That void was then spread over a few rewritten pages, perhaps with illuminations filling some of the empty spaces.235 This consideration may explain why there are two sets of page numbers: one scratched and one valid (see f i g. 57); 57 the smaller number had to be scratched and replaced when new additions were made to the manuscript. This may also partially explain the existence of the “checkered” pages (other possibilities are explored in appendix 2) and undermines the hypothesis that less than a pageful of verses indicates a lost painting. Thus, the possible numbers of Shãhnãmé stories suitable for double representation is the only valid criteria for the assessment of the original scope of illustration, however intangible such criteria may be. The 61 AbuSa`idnãmé episodes enumerated in appendix 1 (58 from the original manuscript and 3 additional Jalãyerids) represent a tremendous intellectual effort to match the Shãhnãmé with Mongol history. The original total number was probably not much higher. 233. Had Demotte not discarded the text pages of the Il -Khãnid Shãhnãmé, its comparison with the Mostowfi version, copied on the margins of British Library 807/1405 Zafarnãmé manuscript might have revealed a more positive indication of Mostowfi’s participation in the project. 234. From a first estimate of 120 in 1980 (Grabar & Blair (1980), 12), Blair increased her estimate of total number of original illustrations to 190 in 1986; Blair (1986), 127. 235. Some later Shãhnãmé manuscripts display "checkered" layout pages, often with interlinear illuminated motifs. Small illuminated sections from incomplete manuscripts were often removed for insertion into album pages, further mutilating the manuscript. 65 3.5. The project time span No dated colophon of this manuscript has survived and the illustrations do not incorporate any dates. Stylistic studies of illustrated manuscripts of the fourteenth century are difficult because securely dated manuscripts are few and mostly of provincial production. As the 1341 Injuid Shãhnãmé for the vizier Ghavãmoddin Hasan (see f i g. 53) 53 may suggest, the calligraphy and painting styles of such an important center as Shirãz was rather crude, and lagged much behind the Il-Khãnid productions of Tabriz; and therefore unsuitable for dating purposes. In terms of imperial productions, the Shãhnãmé fragments of the Topkapu Saray album H2153 have generally been attributed to the Jalãyerid period.236 Since they are stylistically less advanced than the magnificent 798/1396 Divãn of Khãju-ye Kermãni of the British Library (Add. 18113), a dating of 1360-1390 seems plausible; at the same time they are more accomplished than the paintings of this grand Il-Khãnid manuscript and thus push its dating towards the first half of the fourteenth century. On the early side, the dating is framed by the 714/1314 Nur Collection Jãme`ottavãrikh (ff i g. 52), 52 whose illustrations are drawn in a style much less developed than the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, and with a limited range of pigments. No other group of fragments or manuscripts offer much help for the dating of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, including a 755/1354 Garshãsbnãmé (Topkapu Saray, H. 674), rightly recognized as provincial by B. Gray.237 A more accurate dating can only rest on the internal evidence of the manuscript as well as historical considerations. As previously discussed, such an elaborate manuscript requires years of preparation and execution, in an atmosphere of stability and continuity, and a logistical support only available to an imperial ruler. Such considerations alone qualifies Abu-Sa`id as its inevitable patron; he is the only high powered ruler to enjoy a long and stable reign in the 40 years period following the death of Uljãytu. The analysis of the illustration themes in Part I above, also lead to the same conclusion, and the unfinished status of paintings such as f i g. 9, 9 and illustrations pertaining to the last years of Abu-Sa`id (such as f i g. 49) 49 suggest that the manuscript was in production until the very last days of his reign. What is more difficult to determine is the starting date. If Rashidoddin actually conceived the project, as may be suggested by the enigmatic paintings f i gs. 50 and 45, 45 it may have started under Uljãytu and continued until Abu-Sa`id's death, perhaps with some periods of interruption. A painting from the Edinburgh Jãme`ottavãrikh, Rostam Killing Shaghãd (ff i g. 58)---very 58 similar in composition to this Shãhnãmé’s f i g. 4---can 4 perhaps 236. See for instance Gray (1979), 93--102.; Grube (1978), 22--47. 237. Gray (1979), 93--102, Grube (1978), 18--19. 66 reinforce this hypothesis. In this painting, Rostam wears a Chinese style tunic, slightly different than the robes in the Yuan dynastic portraits and seemingly fashionable at the IlKhãnid court (ff i gs. 4a,b). 4a,b 238 However, Rostam’s helmet, lying on the ground next to him, is a strictly Chinese helmet apparently not found in any other Il-Khãnid painting as per the extensive costume survey of E. Schroeder.239 Rostam has a Chinese-style braided ponytail and furthermore, he wears an unusually long twisted horizontal mustache that seems to recall Qubilãy’s in f i g. 4a, or even more so Ogdãy’s in f i g. 4c, 4c a portrait that was perhaps mistakenly understood by the artist to represent Qubilãy.. 240 As in the Shãhnãmé, Rostam wears his traditional tiger skin tunic in another illustration of the Edinburgh manuscript.241 And, as in the Shãhnãmé, it seems that these details were deliberately incorporated into Rostam’s death scene in order to portray him as Qubilãy. One may then surmise that the idea of a potential parallelism between the Shãhnãmé and Mongol history was already present in Rashidoddin’s atelier at the time of the Jãme`ottavãrikh production circa 1314. A final argument for an earlier conception of the Il-Khãnid project is the aim of Mostowfi’s Shãhnãmé “correction and completion” effort; an arduous task that was unlikely to have originated for love of Ferdowsi alone and without appropriate patronage. By his own words, Mostowfi had spent fifteen years to compile the Zafarnãmé which was terminated in the year 735/135, while at the very beginning of this same work, he indicated that his Shãhnãmé related activities had lasted six years, somehow insinuating that the former begun only after the completion of the latter.242 It follows that his Shãhnãmé undertaking must have begun circa 714/1314, coinciding with our above suggested date for the initial development of the idea of dual representation of Shãhnãmé and Mongol history themes. While a corrected text befitted a manuscript to be produced for the imperial library, the extra effort to expand the text was not customary. If Mostowfi undertook to “complete” regular Shãhnãmé texts by adding some 10,000 verses, it was probably to increase the chances for matching the Iranian epic with Mongol history. Such may be the case for the Garshãsb verses---recognized nowadays as non-original---which provided an extra oppotunity for illustration (see entry and notes for Fig.11). Therefore in both date and 238. The robes in the Yuan dynastic portraits are stark white with long sleeves while the Edinburgh tunic of Rostam is slighlty colored, with short sleeves. 239. Schroeder (1939), 120--21. 240. A possible source of confusion may be that all of the dynastic portraits 0f the Mongols were labeled as those of qããns, and for the Il -Khãnid painters of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, Qubilãy, with his lasting thirty four years of reign, was The qããn. 241. Talbot Rice & Gray (1976), 54. 242. Mostowfi (1405), 6 and 736. 67 purpose, Mostowfi’s efforts seem to support the contention that the great Il-Khãnid Shãhnãmé project begun towards the end of Uljãytu’s reign. A 22 year production time span would compare favorably with that of the Shãh Tahmãsb Shãhnãmé running over a 20 to 30 year period.243 Although the miniatures of the Safavid work are highly elaborate and three to four times more numerous than those of this manuscript, one should bear in mind that the Safavids disposed of dozens of trained artists while the only one mentioned by Dust-Mohammad for this manuscript is Ahmad son of Musã---qualified as the initiator of Persian miniature painting; not many other artists were available at such an early stage of Persian painting development.244 Moreover, composition, pigment preparation and painting execution were still at an experimental stage, and not geared for a rapid production schedule. Unless further considerations can narrow this time span, a prudent approach would be to situate the project over the 1314-36 period, with possible interruptions after the demise of Rashidoddin.245 Part I V Purpose and concepts 4.1. Legitimacy and Persian traditions The aim of the Il-Khãnid vizier, be it Rashidoddin or Ghiãsoddin, in the creation of this work was to support the emperor as conqueror in a foreign land, and to create an aura of legitimacy that would address both Turco-Mongol and Persian constituencies. Facing similar problems after the Arab invasion of the seventh century, panegyrists of Persian dynasties who ruled as vassals to the caliph had devised a double lineage, from Arab nobility as well as Shãhnãmé heroes, for their rulers. Tãherids (r.205--259/822--77) were claimed to descend from the hero Rostam, while Buyids (r.322--447/934--1055) from the 243. Budãq (1576), 331; Soudavar (1992), 200. 244. Talbot Rice recognizes 6 different hands in the production of the Edinburgh Jãmé`ottavãrikh, Talbot Rice & Gray (1976), 6--8. The works of these six masters show little aquaintance with coloration and pigment painting, and it is not clear how many of them could make the transition from the limited color scheme of the Edinburgh manuscript to the more elaborate painting requirements of the Abu-Sa`id projects. 245. It is interesting to note that by his own account, Mostwofi spent the years 720-35/1320-1335 to compile his Zafarnãmé; a period that completely overlaps our presumed production period of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé; Mostowfi (1405), 736r. 68 Sãsãnian Bahrãm-e Gur.246 The Il-Khãnid vizier's solution was even more clever: he projected the history of the Mongol dynasty onto the Shãhnãmé, by carefully matching historical events with illustrations, as if the Mongol rule was foretold by the Iranian epic history. The artifice was not dissimilar with later attempts to justify the victories of the Aqqoyunlu Uzun Hasan (r.857--82/1453--78) as foretold by the Qorãn.247 The Shãhnãmé also served the vizier as a "mirror for princes," inculcating the ilkhãn with virtues attributed to Persian legendary kings, and providing valuable arguments for the self-preservation of the vizier against the constant harassment of the Turco-Mongol amirs. A few verses quoted at an opportune time, would remind the il-khãn of the indispensable nature of the Persian administration alongside the military elite: ®À• zd ®• ¬Àž ‰ }zf ßž ä… f£˜ Í•¬ž¬ˆ Ô˜ ®• IfZzZ¯• ãÅ›g dd®™ [ÂŽò ®ˆ ®•Z®• fzXä²Åˆ £… ä˜ ¬ž £¤œ ç•£§• fZdg®™ 缞 z gfzf£˜ 缞 ãžZ f£˜ xò ¬žÂ‰ xò f£˜ ãžZ ÂŒ Soldier and bureaucrat (pishévar) should not attempt each other's crafts. One is laborer, the other wields the mace; the labor worthy of each is obvious. When one attempts the labor of the other, the world is filled with strife.248 The creation of illustrated manuscripts for political purposes is not unique to Mongol times; subsequent statesmen, such as Amir `Ali-Shir Navãi (844--906/1441--1501) and the vizier Mirzã Salmãn (d. 991/1583), as well as the Safavid prince Sãm Mirzã (923-69/1517--1562), commissioned manuscripts---with double-meaning illustrations---to convey their loyalty to the king and expose their enemies.249 But none compare in scope and complexity to the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. Not only its individual images were designed to convey specific messages, but general themes of the Shãhnãmé such as World Emperor, Division of the World Empire and the Divine Glory, were exploited to buttress Mongol legitimacy. These were themes that conformed to Mongol history and traditions, and provided a common ground between Mongol and Iranian epic history with a potential to be utilized as soon as the new masters' command of Persian literature permitted. 4.1.1. W orl d Emperor Changiz was a world conqueror who founded a world empire. His successors were called qããns or Great Khãns. According to Mongol hierarchy, the qããn was the world 246. Bosworth (1977), 54--57. 247. Uzun Hasan’s name and victory dates were equated through abjad numerical conversions with Qorãnic words; Woods (1976), 115--16. 248. Ferdowsi (1988), 1:83; (translation by W. Thackston). 249. Soudavar (1992). pp.101-109 and 227--35. 69 emperor and other Mongol princes ruled as vassals to him. The il-khãns, whose very name meant "subservient khãns" (i.e. subservient to the qããn Qubilãy),250 acknowledged the qããn's suzerainty by striking his name on their coinage. For instance, coins minted in Shirãz emphasized the qããn's supreme status with the addition of the explanatory epithet pãdshãhe `ãlam, world emperor (ff i g. 59). 59 251 The supremacy of the qããn as world emperor was therefore reflected in the writings of early Persian Il-Khãnid administrators such as the celebrated statesman, theologian and astronomer, Nasiroddin-e Tusi (597--673/1201-1274). In the opening sentence of his astronomical work, the Zij-e Il-Khãni, Nasiroddin wrote: "Almighty god gave power to Chingiz-Khan and entrusted to him the kingship of the whole face of the earth." 252 He then continued to name each of Changiz' successors, followed by the refrain "they sat on the throne of the whole world." 253 In the introduction to a treatise that mostly dealt with minerals and gems, the Tansukhnãmé-ye Il-Khãni, Nasiroddin once again explained the relationship between Mungkã Qããn and his brother Hulãgu: after exalting Almighty God who gave the "Emperor of the face of the Earth" the whole world "from the rise of the sun until the dawn of the sun," he lauded the qããn for his "most wise decision to assign to his brother, Pãdshãh-e Jahãn (Hulãgu), may God perpetuate his majesty and spread his justice, (the territories) west of the Oxus, as far as it may go." 254 While the qããns could readily be identified with the Shãhnãmé’s multiple world emperors, the il-khãns’ initial subordinate status vis-à-vis the qããn did not allow for such identification. The last of the Mongol Great Khãns, Qubilãy Qããn, died in 1294 and his successors wielded very little power over the Il-Khãnids. Meanwhile, the accession of Ghãzãn as an Islamic ruler created a new era in which the vizier Rashidoddin envisioned the Il-Khãnid state as the center of the Islamic world.255 Ghãzãn was referred to as pãdshãhe Islam, emperor of Islam, with an ever-growing string of epithets.256 Yet Ghãzãn's 250. For the etymology of the word il-khãn see Mostaert & Cleaves (1952), 454. 251. Soudavar (1992), 32. 252. Boyle (1977), 245. 253. Boyle (1977), 246--47. 254. Tusi (1969), (39). 255. Rashidoddin's vision of the Il -Khãnid state is for instance reflected in a letter to his nephew Khãjé Ma`ruf in which he defines it as comprising the "Country of Iran" extending from the Oxus to Anatolia, the coasts of the Sind sea, all of Egypt, Armenia and Syria; Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 25. In another letter addressed to Sadroddin Mohammad Torké, the domains of the Muslim rulers of Syria, Yemen and India are all qualified as soyurghãls, hereditary tax-exempt fiefdoms bequeathed by the Mongols! ibid., 211. 256. Pãdshãh-e Islam was previously used to address the Saljuq Soltãn Sanjar (by Ghazzãli) and the khãrazmshãh Atsez, see Ghazzãli (1954), 21, Vatvãt (1992); it replaced previous epithets such as malek-e Islam and soltãn-e Islam; see Soudavar (1992), 52. 70 allegiance to Mongol traditions imposed a lid on administrative flattery: the title qããn remained the prerogative of the khãn in China and not to be used for the il-khãn. By the time of Uljãytu, an influenceable and indecisive person who underwent numerous changes of faith, Rashidoddin was able to further expand the il-khãn's titles to include the epithet qããn,257 and to posthumously use it for Ghãzãn and his father Arghun, as well as Uljãytu.258 When Nasiroddin-e Tusi used the term pãdshãh-e jahãn (world emperor) for Hulãgu, he had added a sentence defining jahãn mainly as the Iranian territories, in order to distinguish the il-khãn's "world" from the qããn's; but under Uljãytu, Rashidoddin could refer to his Il-Khãnid masters as pãdshãh-e `ãlam and pãdshãh-e jahãn, without any attempt to limit their "worlds" and avoid encroachment on the qããn's prerogatives.259 Uljãytu was more permissive than his brother Ghãzãn, in allowing Rashidoddin to pursue his goal to shift the center of the world empire to the Il-Khãnid state, and identifying the Il-Khãnids as the legitimate inheritors of the Persian-Islamic empire. Taking his lead from Rashidoddin, Kãshãni described the Persian empire (Iranzamin) as the "central linking element of continents, and the synopsis of the face of the earth." 260 The concept of the Persian empire's centrality implicitly negated Yuan tutelage of the il-khãn and elevated him to the status of world emperor. Accordingly, Uljãytu's official red Chinese seal (ãl-tamghã) named him as "august emperor," on par with the Yuan emperor, and no more as vassal.261 This new vision of the Persian empire---and world order---paved the way for the il-khãns to be recognized as world emperors and world conquerors alongside the qããns, and facilitated the projection of Mongol history onto the Shãhnãmé. Two stories of the Shãhnãmé were crucial to exploit the concept of World Emperor: the story of Alexander the Great and the story of Fereydun, both world emperors. Together they comprise 19 of the 58 extant miniatures, a very high percentage compared to any other illustrated Shãhnãmé.262 The story of Alexander the Great is that of a world conqueror who, despite the burning of Persepolis, became a Persianized hero much praised in the 257. See for instance Rashidoddin (1976), 1:2. 258. See for instance Rashidoddin (1976) LH, 36 and 243. 259. Rashidoddin (1976) LH, 243. The same practice was continued by Uljãytu's biographer, Kãshãni, who added epithets such as soltãn-e jahãn and soltãn-e `ãlam, all meaning world emperor; Kãshãni (1969), 99. 260. Í•Z ãÅ›g }zf é•ë‹ z âÅš£–Z 鵕Zz z ä´Å… ä˜ ãÅ›gXxZ®žZ /// Kãshãni (1969), 3. 261. Comparing the Chinese legends of Il -Khãnid red seals, Mostaert and Cleaves observe that Ghãzãn was referred to as wang (prince, king), a term that did not negate his status of vassal to the qããn, but Uljãytu was named as huang ti (august emperor), a term that the qããn wouldn't have used in a seal destined for one of his vassals. They therefore conclude that the seal must have been carved in Iran; Mostaert & Cleaves (1952), 485. 262. The ratio is between 0.02 and 0.08 for fourteenth century "Small Shãhnãmé" manuscripts (see Simpson (1979), 351-403) and less than 0.10 for typical Shãhnãmés of the fifteenth and sixteenth century, see Soudavar (1992), 71 and 245. 71 Shãhnãmé. In the Abu-Sa`idnãmé his image is first equated with that of Changiz (ff i g. 1), 1 whom Rashidoddin calls Jahãn-setãn (World Conqueror),263 and then extended to the three pãdshãh-e jahãn, Ghãzãn, Uljãytu and Abu-Sa`id (ff i gs. 23, 29, 31, 37, 38). 38 In particular, Uljãytu's conquest of Gilãn is emphasized in three illustrations of the Alexander cycle (ff i gs. 27 - - 29) 29 in order to elevate him to the rank of world conqueror, in accordance with Rashidoddin's vision of the il-khãn as "the founder of the principles of expansionism and the center of the circuit of world conquest." 264 In the story of the world emperor Fereydun who achieved world dominion by vanquishing the Arab usurper and tyrant Zahhãk, there is an attempt to portray the Mongols as saviors who "delivered" Iran from the caliphate, and the harassment of the "heretic" Esmã`ilis (ff i gs. 66- - 9 ) in conformity with the Mongol historians’ use of the term estekhlãs for Mongol conquests. 4.2.2. D i vi si on of the W orl d Empi re Fereydun divided his world empire among his three sons Salm, Tur and Iraj--similar to the division of Changiz' empire among his four sons. Iraj was given the "choice" land of Iran, while Salm received the western kingdom of Rum and Tur the eastern kingdom named after him, Turãn. Salm and Tur, jealous of their brother, murdered Iraj. Thus began the long conflicts between Iran and its neighbors, a reflection of Iran's historical warfare on its two frontiers. In particular, the conflict between Iran and Turãn alluded to the inroads of Turco-Mongol invaders from across the Oxus river; if Mongols were recognized as Turãnians, they were no longer foreign conquerors but distant cousins.265 And if Changiz' world empire was equated with Fereydun's, territorial battles became a Changizid inter-family disputes, and Mongol princes could legitimately rule on either side of the Oxus. An admirable example is Afrãsiãb Killing Nowzar (ff i g. 44) 44 which illustrates the capture of the Chaghatãyid prince Yesaur, temporarily settled in Iran, by another Chaghatãyid prince, Iljigedãy, son of the khãn of Transoxiana. The latter is equated with Iran's archenemy, Afrãsiãb great grandson of Tur, while the former with Nowzar king of Iran, and grandson of Iraj. The juxtaposition of the two stories is possible because of the 263. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:2. 264. Rashidoddin (1976), 1:2. The sentence appears in the introduction to the Jãme`ottavãrikh, probably written in 706/1306, the year of the Gilãn campaigns and the year that Kãshãni claims that the Jãme`ottavãrikh (i.e., volume one) was presented to Uljãytu; Kãshãni (1969), 54. Uljãytu is lauded again by Rashidoddin as hazrat-e keshvar-goshãi, His Highness the Conqueror, in a letter addressed to one of his nephews at a date that should be probably read as 709 (the printed date of 690 is obviously wrong and due to scribal error), Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 23--25. 265. For earlier attempts to identify Turks with Turãnians see Yarshater (1985). 72 common descent of the feuding princes. So effective were these interpretations that the historian Khandamir (880--942/1475--1535), writing some two centuries later, fully accepted the Iranization of Yesaur by referring to him as the valiant Khosrow, the very epithet of Sãsãnian kings.266 4.2.3. D i vi ne Gl ory Within the Persian political context, the most important aspect of a ruler's legitimacy was the perception that he possessed the Farr-e Izadi, the Divine Glory. Those who possessed the Divine Glory were to rule and to be obeyed.267 Derived from ancient Iranian mythological symbolism, the concept of the Divine Glory had been revived in the Islamic era as an integral component of the Philosophy of Illumination developed by the philosopher Shahãboddin Yahyã-ye Sohravardi (549--587/1154--91). But, since AbuHãmed Mohammad-e Ghazzãli's (450--505/1058--1111) strong refutation of philosophy and philosophers in late eleventh century, Islamic theology had been dominated by the dogmatic Ash`arite doctrine which he had championed, and became hostile towards new philosophical concepts. Proponents of unorthodox ideas were virulently attacked and in the case of Sohravardi, he was branded as heretic (zandiq) and executed by the order of Salãhoddin-e `Ayyubi (Saladin, r.564--589/1169--93).268 For a while after Sohravardi, Islamic theology, and political philosophy which was based and dependent on the latter, remained impervious to the concepts of the Philosophy of Illumination; viziers, administrators and courtly panegyrists did not dare refer to a “heretical” doctrine269 The climate of religious tolerance that was instituted under the Mongols relaxed Ash`arite orthodoxy, and philosophical studies were reintroduced in the curriculum of the Baghdad schools of theology such as the Nezãmiyyé and the Mostansariyyé. This new climate is perhaps best exemplified by a manuscript of the Commentaries to Sohravardi's Book of Intimations (Sharh-e Talvihãt) by Ebn-e Kamuné (d.683/1285), copied in the year 704/1304; commentaries that were formulated by the Jewish philosopher Ebn-e Kamuné, on the works of the "heretic" Sohravardi, and copied at the bastion of Ash`arite orthodoxy, the Nezãmiyyé of Baghdad---times had obviously much changed since Ghazzãli last taught 266. Khãndamir (1974), 3:201, where Yesaur's name is mis-spelled as Misiyur. 267. For a discussion of the Divine Glory and its relevance to the attitude of Persian administrators toward foreign conquerors see Soudavar (1992), 410--16. 268. Ziai (1992), 336--44. 269. Philosophy in general, became so vilified that the typically conformist and provincial Persian administrator and historian Shabãnkãréi (active 14th century) would rank philosophers as apostates, along with "iconoclasts, heretics and Qarmatians;" Shabãnkãréi (1984), 125. 73 at the Nezãmiyyé! 270 The same religious climate had allowed the physician, astronomer, mathematician and philosopher Qotboddin-e Shirãzi (634-710/1236-1310) to write one of the two main commentaries in Arabic to Sohravardi's Philosophy of Illumination; it was completed in 694/1295 and dedicated to the vizier Jamãloddin-e Dastjerdãni (d.696/1296), Rashidoddin's predecessor.271 Qotboddin was a disciple of Nasiroddin-e Tusi at Marãghé, and was held in high respect by il-khãns and viziers alike, including Rashidoddin who maintained correspondence with him on travels as far away as India.272 His writings, as well as those of his disciples, introduced the notion of Divine Glory in Il-Khãnid chronicles.273 Rashidoddin and Kãshãni both referred to the Divine Glory of their patrons in their writings. Rashidoddin, asserting his patron's predestined kingship, wrote that when the il-khãn Ahmad Tegudãr met the young prince Ghãzãn he "perceived the Divine Glory in him." 274 Kãshãni used similar terms to characterize Uljãytu, "Divine Glory radiated from 270. Manuscript 934 of the Malek Library, Tehran; see Afshãr & Dãnesh-pajuh (1973), 1:391 (I am indebted to H. Ziai for pointing this manuscript to me). The erudite scholar Ebn-e Kamuné had also written in 679/1280 a comparative study of Jewish, Christian and Muslim doctrines entitled Tanqihol -abhãs lel-melallel-salãs (Examination of the Inquiries into Three Faiths) which naturally attracted criticism from members of all Three Faiths, and culminated in a demonstration in front of the Mostansariyyé in 1284, demanding his punishment; Perlmann (1971), 839. For another example of increased activity in the domain of philosophy at the religious schools of Baghdad see for instance a copy of Nasiroddin-e Tusi's Commentary on Avicenna's Al-Eshãrãt vatTanbihãt copied in 692/1292 at the Mostansariyyé (Sotheby's sale catalog dated 26th of April 1982, lot 136). The colophon of another copy seemingly dated 678/1279 and produced at the Nezãmiyyé (Sotheby's sale catalog dated 27th of April 1994, lot 55) has been tampered with: it was originally dated 778 and probably copied at the Mostansariyyé. 271. In the endless cycles of fortune and death for Il -Khãnid viziers, Dastjerdãni fell victim (695/1296) to the intrigues of the ever conniving vizier Sadroddin Ahmad-e Khãledi -ye Zanjãni who was himself killed two years later by the order of Ghãzãn and replaced with Rashidoddin; see for instance Mostowfi (1960), 603--04. 272. Numerous anecdotes about Qotboddin's wits attest his close association with Uljãytu's inner circle including his favorite wife Qotlogshãh Khãtun and his companion Amir Toqmãq; Eqbãl-e Ãshtiãni (1971), 295--296 (see also note 131 supra). For his correspondence with Rashidoddin see Rashidoddin (1979) SA, 146--48. There were at times perhaps some jealousy and ill-will in between the vizier and Qotboddin, see for instance Walbridge (1992), 351, also Walbridge (1983), 27-28. He was receiving an annual stippend of 30'000 derhams (subsequently reduced to 12'000) from the Il -Khãnid treasury during Ghãzãn; ibid., 31--32. Qotboddin had been sent as ambassador to the Mamluk court of Egypt by Ahmad Tegudãr to announce his enthronement as a Muslim ilkhãn, Rashidoddin (1976), 2:788. He had met Arghun in 680/1281 and explained a map of coastal Anatolia to him and his explanations much pleased the il-khãn; ibid., 2:822. In a later added story to the Jãme`ottavãrikh, Arghun is said to have confided with Qotboddin about his reasons for continuing funding of alchemy research even though some of “the researchers were charlatans;” Rashidoddin (1959), 3:229. 273. Another Qotboddin, Qotboddin Mohammad-e Rãzi who was a disciple of Qotboddin-e Shirãzi, might have been instrumental in propagating the concepts of the Philosophy of Illumination within the Il -Khãnid administrative circle in charge of the Shãhnãmé project, paving the way for interpreting the solar disk as a symbol of the king's Divine Glory. Qotboddin-e Rãzi's close association with the vizier Ghiãsoddin Mohammad is attested by his dedication of two of his important works to the vizier in 728/1327 and 729/1328; see Dãneshpajuh’s introduction to Rashidoddin (1979) SA, (34--35). It is to be noted that prior to the two Qotboddins, Ebn-e Kamuné had dedicated his Resãlatol -lom`a (Treatise on Radiance) to the vizier Shamsoddin Mohammad-e Jovayni, a work that judging by its title and opening sentence, had probably a strong Sohravardian tint; Modarresi-ye Razavi (1966), 266. 274. Rashidoddin (1976), 2:848. 74 his blessed face," 275 and claimed that his victories emanated from the "power of the Divine Light that was bestowed on him by God Almighty." 276 It is perhaps no mere coincidence that the only two rulers depicted with a solar disk in the Abu-Sa`idnãmé are the two ilkhãns with textual references to their Divine Glory, namely Ghãzãn and Uljãytu (figs. 20,, 21, 24, 25, 31, 35, 36, 50). 50 277 The Philosophy of Illumination proposed a cosmogony in which God the Creator was conceived as a point of light from which emanated rays that bestowed the Divine Glory to its recipients. The Divine Glory was thus light in essence and needed to be represented by a light symbol: the solar disk---placed behind the head---was adopted as a reflection of the ruler’s Divine Glory. The Philosophy of Illumination had an irresistible appeal for the formulation of a new legitimacy concept of rulership in the Islamic lands in the post-caliphate era, and would surface each time legitimacy was sought and an atmosphere of religious tolerance prevailed. Its attraction as a political theory stemmed from the unrestricted possibility of light-rays bestowing rulers of new dynasties with divine confirmation and authority, without sanction from a caliph or any other religious authority.278 The Mughal court of India, under the rule of the emperor Akbar, provides another example of recourse to the Philosophy of Illumination for political legitimacy. For Akbar, like his Teymurid predecessors, was in want of legitimacy.279 He favored religious tolerance and, like Uljãytu who presided over religious debates amongst Muslim Shãfe`i, Hanafi and Shi`ite scholars, Akbar held discussions with Muslim scholars as well as Buddhists and Jesuits; and it was in India, and during Akbar’s reign, that the only Persian commentary on the Philosophy of Illumination was written (1008/1600).280 His vizier and confidant Abol-fazl, justified Akbar's authority in pure Sohravardian terms,281 and visualized the king's Divine Glory as a light symbol: "the sunburst (shamsé) [that adorns] the royal throne is the Divine Glory itself." 282 And thus the Divine Glory---depicted as a 275. Kãshãni (1969), 24. 276. Kãshãni (1969), 19. 277. It seems that the solar disk is omitted in illustrations that offer multiple interpretations. Such is the case for f i g. 22 in which Alexander represents Ghãzãn, Changiz and Qutolé. 278. The unrestricted nature of the light-rays in the Philosophy of Illumination undermined one of Ghazzãli's most important conditions for the designation of a Muslim leader, the nasab-e Qoraysh (having a Qoraysh lineage), see for instance Laouste (1970), 247. 279. Soudavar (1992), 410. 280. The Persian commentary on the Philosophy of Illumination is entitled Anvãriyyé (World of rays); Heravi (1979). 281. Soudavar (1992), 410 and 415. 282. `Allãmi (1985), 1:2--3. 75 radiating disk---was adopted once again as a symbol of the ruler’s legitimacy in a political atmosphere similar to the one prevailing under the Il-Khãnids (see f i g. 25b). 25b Iconographically, the solar disk almost vanished from Persian painting after the completion of this Il-Khãnid Shãhnãmé only to reemerge under the Mughals of India. In between, no political figure was enlightened or strong enough to withstand the pressure of the orthodox religious establishment against a symbol potentially associated with a "heretical" doctrine.283 For lack of textual reference to Abu-Sa`id's Divine Glory, he was not depicted with a solar disk. However, the unexpected "dusty wind" that turned defeat into victory for AbuSa`id in f i g. 38, 38 may be considered as a sign of divine assistance and confirmation, similar in effect to the Divine Glory. The multiple varieties of divine confirmations in the Shãhnãmé related to Mongol traditions of nomadic beliefs by which military victories, as well as in extremis escapes from death or defeat, were interpreted as signs of divine favor and protection,284 and thus provided further compatibility between the Iranian epic and Mongol history. 4.3. Legitimacy of the house of Uljãytu Like the later Zafarnãmé of Sharafoddin-e Yazdi (c.1425), which not only sought to establish Teymur's right to rule according to Islamic legitimizing principles but also supported the paramount position of the house of Shãhrokh among Teymur's descendants, the Abu-Sa`idnãmé focused on the legitimacy of the house of Uljãytu within the general context of Mongol legitimacy. Alexander Coming out of the Land of Darkness (ff i g. 1) 1 283. The solar disk which entered Buddhist iconography through its passage in the eastern Iranian world, may have been originally conceived as the Buddha's Divine Glory (even though the symbol itself was probably adopted from Mithraic iconography), but lost any such connotation after its comeback to Iran via Central Asia following the Saljuq invasions. It became a frequently used ornamental device to give a better definition of human heads (not necessarily of rulers) depicted on ceramics, metalworks and even manuscripts. But once associated with the concept of Divine Glory as developed in the Philosophy of Illumination, it was prone to be branded as "heretical" and discarded as a kingly symbol. Such may also be the fate of “sun faces” introduced in the coinage of Ghãzãn an Uljãytu, and abandoned afterwards; see Mitchener (1977), 252--53. It may be noted that in his Meshkãtol -anvãr treatise, the theologian Ghazzãli endeavored to reveal the "secrets of Divine lights;" see for instance Mokri (1982), 110--38. Also, Ghazzãli, or perhaps a pseudo Ghazzãli (since the editor, Homãi, casts serious doubts on the authenticity of the section pertaining to the Divine Glory, (Ghazzãli (1988), (27--35)), recognized the Divine Glory as an attribute of kingship (ibid, 81), but failed to interpret the Divine Glory of kings as a reflection of Divine lights. It was the Sohravardian concept of Divine Glory bestowed by light-rays emanating from God and empowering its recipient with a right to rule, without the necessity of additional confirmation by a caliph or other religious authorities, that allowed representation of the ruler's authority as a light symbol. 284. Saunders (1971), 20; Kahn (1984), 62. Allsen has pointed out that for the Mongols, in extremis escape from defeat or death was a more important sign of heavenly favor than outright victory (personal communication). It is interesting to note that the ancient form of the concept of Divine Glory, farnah or xvarnah, has been viewed as a "pan-Iranian legacy associated with an archaic and essentially tribal ideology," and its propagation sometimes attributed to the Scythian invasions (Gnoli (1990)); if true, it would explain the similarity of the Persian and Mongol concepts of divine confirmation through a common tribal origin from the steppes of Central Asia. 76 stressed the noble descent of Uljãytu's mother; Bahrãm-e Gur Talking to Narsi (ff i g. 25) 25 emphasized the legitimate transfer of kingship from Ghãzãn to Uljãytu; and The Marriage of Fereydun's sons (ff i g. 30) 30 conveyed the consolidation of this transfer by depicting the fusion of the houses of Ghãzãn and Uljãytu, through marriage of Ghãzãn's only surviving child with Uljãytu’s son. Part V The Legacy 5.1. 5.1. The project consequences The use of historians and poets along with talented calligraphers and painters for the creation of this manuscript reveal the importance of the enterprise, and its effective status as successor to the Jãme`ottavãrikh project, in the Abu-Sa`id era. The high status of this project was perhaps the main justification for conferring the name Abu-Sa`idnãmé on this special version of Ferdowsi's versified epic rather than an original work on the exploits of Abu-Sa`id such as Mostowfi’s monumental Zafarnãmé, an impressive work that is almost equivalent to a versified Jãme`ottavãrikh and rivals in many ways the Shãhnãmé of Ferdowsi.285 As a manuscript with political overtones, the Abu-Sa`idnãmé was surely designed to propagate its political message among the power elite. Throughout the long process of research and production, courtiers must have been aware of this imperial enterprise and the important resources allocated to it; and vassals may have wanted to duplicate it at their own court. The frequent visits of the Injuid Mahmud Shãh (d.736/1336) and his son Mas`ud Shãh (d.743/1344), to the Il-Khãnid court might explain the sudden interest in Shãhnãmé production at the Inju court after 1330.* Of the series of four "small Shãhnãmés", generally considered as the earliest illustrated Shãhnãmé manuscripts, the "Gutman" Shãhnãmé 285. Mostowfi explains that since he thought Rashidoddin’s Jãme`ottavãrikh deserved a better presentation, he undertook to versify the vizier’s work (Mostowfi (1405), 735 : w£À… jd®˜ ÒžfZ† Ú›£¨… ãžgf }ZfXä… ÕœZd }f£Å… f£½œz àœ®… ç•z®“X£¤žg ÂŒ d¿œ Õ¥±¼Ž Õ•£¤š }¬… f¯… ®·Ž ®·Ž ãžZ w¬ÅŽÂ§… w£¿† x£•£Ž v£Š ®¥•d ¬Ž ÂŒ ãÅÀŒ wd®˜ ⶜ Zf ®¦œ xò ã› fZ¬›£œ ®¥•d 㞯™ xò dÂ… ÂŒ d¤œ ÕÀ±Š df‹fd 䛣‰ ùz ®…g wd®˜ Õœz®Å… 䛣‰ ãžZ ã› * Four Shãhnãmé manuscripts are generally attributed to the Inju period; for a brief discussion see Simpson (1979), 7-13. 77 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1974.290) has been recently argued to be of a circa 1341 production.286 There is a strong possibility that the other three "small Shãhnãmés," previously dated to circa 1300, can be dated to circa 1330 through calligraphic considerations alone. The sudden outburst of illustrated Shãhnãmé production in the Il-Khãnid and post Il-Khãnid era, in a land where no such courtly tradition existed before, could only be sparked by the example of a major imperial undertaking, namely the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. 5.2. The Jalãyerid interpretations Several fragments of Shãhnãmé scenes included in an album (Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul H.2153) that was probably assembled for the Aq-qoyunlu Soltãn Ya`qub (r.883-896/1478-90), have compositions that strongly relate to the illustrations of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. Stylistically they seem to belong to the early Jalãyerid period, probably from the reign of Shaykh Oveys (r.757--76/1356--74). Two of them (H2153, fols. 8a, 113a) depict identical stories of the Shãhnãmé (ff i gs. 22 - 22a, 42 - 42a), 42a three others (H2153, fols. 55a, 112a, 118a) can be interpreted as representations of Mongol history (ff i gs. 13, 30, 45), 45 the remainder (H2153, fols. 22b, 28b, 134a) display similar painting characteristics and were probably produced concurrently.287 Although f i gs. 22a and 42a are inspired by their Abu-Sa`idnãmé counterparts (ff i gs. 22, 42), 42 their composition has been purposefully altered: in the first, the triple representation of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé has been reduced to two, and in the second, additional details such as the fire under the victims provide a more accurate version of the historical event. Since the width of these illustrations (approx. 28cm) are very similar to the Abu-Sa`idnãmé paintings, they were either produced as improvements to replace the original version,288 or they were painted for a new version of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé of similar size. In either case, they were produced in full recognition of their Mongol historical symbolism, perhaps with modified compositions to suit the Jalãyerid claims of dynastic legitimacy. In the same vein, Jalãyerids might have eliminated illustrations insulting to their lineage and replaced it with text pages; this may yet be another explanation for the “checkered” pages devised by the later calligraphers D and E. There is also a third possibility, that in an exercise to match the wits of the IlKhãnid team of the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, the Jalãyerids found additional similarities between the 286. Swietochowski et al. (1994), 77. 287. For illustrations see Atasoy (1970), pls. 1--8. 288. A well known example of "improvement" on an early manuscript is the repainting of the Shãh Tahmãsb Khamsé of Nezãmi by the order of Shãh Soleymãn; see for instance Soudavar (1992), 374. 78 Shãhnãmé stories and Mongol history, and inserted them in the original version of the manuscript or in a new version; the black ink drawing of Soltãn Ahmad Jalãyer cited by Dust-Mohammad may have been added in one such occasion. Conclusion Throughout centuries of political upheavals and domination by foreign conquerors, the cast of Persian viziers and administrators was able to maintain the continuity of Persian traditions by judiciously incorporating the cultural ethos of their new masters into existing traditions, and impressing upon the power elite the synthesis formed by the merger of the old and new. Essential to such a scheme were the abundant themes offered by the monumental versified Persian epic, the Shãhnãmé. Heroic and magical themes, hunting and battle tales, all suited the Mongol taste and were eventually translated into illustrations for the grand Il-Khãnid Shãhnãmé manuscript, that, following DustMohammad, may be referred to as the Abu-Sa`idnãmé. Intended for the enjoyment of a sophisticated patron, the Abu-Sa`idnãmé constituted a political manifesto in support of the legitimacy of the Mongols, as well as self-justification for the vizier Khãjé Ghiãsoddin Mohammad---and/or perhaps his father Rashidoddin---to serve a foreign conqueror. Most importantly, the production of this impressive Shãhnãmé firmly established the tradition of illustrated manuscript production at the Persian royal libraries, eventually resulting in the creation of a unique mode of artistic expression, namely, Persian miniature painting. 79 APPENDI X 1 Manuscript Reconstruction and Illustration Program folio G & B or cal suppo F i g # TKS* ligr rt** . 3 5 6 7 7 9 10 11 12 12 15 17 19 20 22 22 25 26 26 27 28 32 36 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 ? H2153, f112a 1 2 3 4 H2153, f118a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A A A A A A A A A A A F A A A A A D D 16 42 112 42 36 114 (28) Illustration title ruler 43 Daqiqi Killed by his Slave Abu-Sa`id 6 2 7 8 30 Zahhãk Enthroned Fereydun Asking About his Lineage Fereydun Capturing Zahhãk Fereydun Leading Zahhãk to Mount Damãvand The Marriage of Fereydun's Sons Hulãgu Juchi Hulãgu Hulãgu Uljãytu 10 33 Fereydun Testing his Sons Salm and Tur Killing Iraj Fereydun Preparing to Greet Iraj and Seeing his Coffin Fereydun Going to Iraj's Palace and Mourning Tegudãr Hulãgu Uljãytu 46 Zãl Climbing to Rudãbé Sindokht Becoming aware of Rudãbé's Actions Abu-Sa`id 47 16 44 18 11 Zãl Approaching Shãh Manuchehr The Mobads Interrogating Zãl Afrãsiãb Killing Nowzar The Reign of Zav, Son of Tahmãsb, Was Five Years The Reign of Garshãsb Son of Zav Was Nine Years Abu-Sa`id Arghun Abu-Sa`id Gaykhãtu Hulãgu 28 Kay-Kãvus and his Paladins Killing the Divs of Mãzandarãn Uljãytu 13 Kay-Khosrow in the Palace of Ãzargoshasb Abãqã D D D D D D D D D D H2153, f55a 80 folio G & B or cal suppo F i g # TKS* ligr rt** 111 112 113 114 115 142r 142v 143 144 145 149 149 150 152 153 155 155 156 158 159 163 164 165 167 17 18 20 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 E E E E E A B B B D B B D B B B B B B B D B B B 168 171 172 172 173 174 174 175 175 178 179 180 181 181 184 31 32 33 34 40 41 42 43 B B B B D B B B B B D B B B B 184 190 195 197 44 45 46 47 B B C C 35 36 37 38 39 22 (27) (35) (30) (41) 12 26 4 48 50 29 38 5 150 (111) 1 31 23 37 45 39 40 41 49 46 35 (33) Esfandiãr Approaching Goshtãsb Bahman Meeting Zãl ruler Ghãzãn Rostam and Esfandiãr Testing Each Other Esfandiãr's sons Being Killed by Rostam's Brother and Sons 32 9 (115) 179 Illustration title 42 43 Rostam Shooting an Arrow in Esfandiãr's Eye The Bringing of Esfandiãr's Bier Rostam Slaying Shaghãd Picture of Rostam and Zavãré's Biers Farãmarz Pursuing the Kãbolis Dãrãb Sleeping in the Vault Rashnavãd Battling the Rumis Abãqã Ghãzãn Qubilãy Abu-Sa`id Alexander Enthroned King Kayd of India Telling his Dream to Mehrãn Alexander Battling the Fur of India; Picture of the Iron Horses and Soldiers Killing of the Fur of India in the Hands of Alexander Alexander Reaches the City of Brahmans Alexander Fights the Habash monster Alexander and his Warriors Fighting a Dragon Uljãytu Uljãytu Uljãytu Alexander Arriving at the Mountain of Esrãfil Alexander Coming out of the Land of Darkness Alexander Building the Iron Rampart Alexander Arriving at the Talking Tree The Picture of the Bier of Alexander Golnãr Coming to Ardashir's Pillow and Sleeping by his Side Ardashir Battling (Bahman son of) Ardavãn Ardavãn Captured by Ardashir The Picture of Ardashir with his Wife Throwing down the Poison Cup The Vizier Pleading his Case with Ardashir Bahrãm-e Bahramiãn Enthroned Picture of Mãni Hanging from a Tree Bahrãm-e Gur Hunting with Ãzãdé 81 Uljãytu Hulãgu Abu-Sa`id Teymur Qããn Changiz Uljãytu Ghãzãn Uljãytu Abu-Sa`id Abu-Sa`id Abu-Sa`id Abu-Sa`id Uljãytu Bãydu Abu-Sa`id Abu-Sa`id folio G & B or cal suppo F i g # TKS* ligr rt ** . 204 208 209 210 48 51 49 50 C C C C 212 214 229 230 231 233 234 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 C C C C C C C 3 20 25 24 34 15 36 17 Illustration title Bahrãm-e Gur in the Treasury of Jamshid Bahrãm-e Gur Hunting Onagers Bahrãm-e Gur Killing a Dragon Bahrãm Staying in the Farmer's House as the Farmer's Wife Milked the Cow Bahrãm-e Gur Talking to Narsi Bahrãm-e Gur Killing a Wolf and Cutting off its Head Picture of Nushirvãn the Just Nushirvãn Rewarding the Young Bozorgmehr Nushirvãn Eating the Food Brought by the Sons of Mahbod Khosrow Writing to the Khãqãn Mehrãn Setãd Selecting a Chinese Princess ruler Ogdãy Ghãzãn Ghãzãn Ghãzãn Ghãzãn Uljãytu Arghun Uljãytu Arghun * This column either displays the GB number---corresponding to Grabar & Blair (1980) illustration numbering or the TKS number which provides the references of the album page at the Topkapu Saray Museum. * * This column provides the folio number of a support page on which a split and trimmed illustration has been pasted. If in parenthesis, the number refers to a folio glued on the reverse side of the illustration page. 82 APPENDI X 2 Reworks of the manuscript Trying to explain the pastiche aspect of the support pages for illustrations that were split, Grabar and Blair conclude that the copying of the support page and the pasting of the painting, were of recent make and done for Demotte in Paris.289 By relying on the evidence of an 1839 Russian watermark on the margin papers and one reportedly on the text area of one of the special-layout pages (folio 20, Chester Beatty Library, Dublin),290 Blair further concludes that all these pages were commissioned by Demotte to either transform illustrated pages into bifolios or substitute as back support for folios---with miniatures on both sides--that were split in two.291 These conclusions raise more questions than they tend to answer. Where would Demotte find an accomplished calligraphers, let alone three (D, E and F), in early twentieth century Paris, as well as eighty year old Russian paper? Why would he commission new pages when he had a stack of non-sellable text pages of manuscript?292 Couldn't he simply paste the split miniatures on available text pages from this manuscript, or others in his possession, as he had used the borders of a seventeenth century Farhang-e Jahãngiri manuscript for his stock of Mughal paintings?293 Even if he had commissioned the pages to be copied from original ones,294 why couldn't he use the right text for the illustrations instead of texts that belonged to completely different sections? If the purpose of creating a "checkered" bifolio was simply to have an attractive and sellable support for the split illustration, why would the copier write the folio number once, then cross it out and add a second number (see f i g. g. 57). 57 A more plausible explanation for the 1839 watermark is that the manuscript was remargined and rebound in Iran, for Nãseroddin Shãh Qãjãr(r.1264--1313/1848--96) who once owned it, as attested by a 19th century photo plate by A. Sevrugin, now in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, showing the bound manuscript at his court.295 Nãseroddin Shãh was a refined patron with skills in both calligraphy and painting. He is known to have 289. Grabar & Blair (1980), 12. 290. Blair (1986), 129. Blair discovered the Russian origin of the paper at a later stage (personal communication). 291. Blair (1986), 130. 292. Precious texts, sometimes with elaborate margins, were deemed to have no commercial value and simply discarded by Demotte; see for instance Soudavar (1992), 275. 293. Falk (1976), 171. 294. Blair (1986), 129. 295. Blair (1986), 128 and personal communication from M.S. Simpson. 83 acquired and regrouped many scattered works from Nãder Shãh's Indian booty (1739) such as the Golshan Album (Golestãn Palace Library in Tehran, Nos. 1663-64) which he acquired in 1263/1847, prior to his accession to the throne.296 At that time, Russia was Iran's main supplier of manufactured goods, and the use of an 1839-marked Russian paper for Nãseroddin as crown-prince in Tabriz is more likely than for Demotte in twentieth century Paris. Grabar and Blair claimed that no text existed underneath the pasted illustrations. Their claim seems to have been based on the fact that text could not be detected when the pages were held against light. It eventually led to a far fetched theory by which Demotte or an "arranger" in twentieth century Paris, had given his calligrapher model pages from another section of the manuscript, on which he had "simply crossed out a block in the center, in the same size as the miniatures to be pasted on" and instructed him to copy them "exactly, leaving blank the crossed-out area!" 297 It is hard to find any material incentive for the Parisian dealer to engage in such an elaborate scheme. Moreover, the calligraphy of the support pages were not designed to stop at the imaginary crossed-out blocks: in numerous cases, a word---or even a letter---is truncated at the edge of the pasted miniatures. A study undertaken at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston showed that the total thickness of the paper where a painting was pasted on a support page, was not much different than the rest of the page, and cuts around the contour of illustrations had not only truncated the letters on the face of the support page but had slit the page all the way through the back; in other words the page had been thinned out, and a layer had been dug out, to create an insertion frame for the miniature to be pasted in, as if it originally belonged there.298 This observation may explain the reason for the selection of the “laid” paper pages (by calligraphers D and E) for support of the split miniatures: they were easier to layer-out than the original pages that got so mutilated when their double illustrations were split apart. The Boston pages revealed that the 1839 watermark was on the margin paper and not the text area which has a substantially older paper with much signs of abrasion and aging of the ink. Furthermore, upon examination of a photocopy of folio 20, it was clear that this page was substantially different from other special-layout pages by not having intercolumnar border lines and more importantly, because of different calligraphy by the hand of the Qãjãr period calligrapher F. Thus, pages by D and E, no longer associated with 296. The shãh's handwriting in the album reads: "This album belongs to Nãseroddin (son of) Mohammad Shãh, the warrior of holy wars, may God eternalize his kingdom and his rule, by the will of God, during Jomãdã 2:1263;" Ãtãbãy (1974), 10. 297. Grabar & Blair (1980), 8. 298. I am much indebted to Julia Bailey of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston who, along with the museum's paper conservator, Jacki Elgar, kindly agreed to reexamine their museum’s Shãhnãmé pages for this study. 84 an 1839 watermark, may now be considered---on the basis of calligraphy style and paper appearance---as old as fourteenth century. Bearing in mind Dust-Mohammad’s comments on Soltãn Ahmad Jalãyer’s insertion of a drawing in the Abu-Sa`idnãmé, as well as numerous Jalãyerid paintings that fit into this manuscript, it may be that calligrapher D and E were involved in a major reorganization of the manuscript in Jalãyerid times. The checkered pages may have then be added for a number of reasons: 1- elimination of paintings considered as offending to the Jalãyerids 2- unfinished pages originally marked for illustration by the Il-Khãnid atelier, 3- insertion of newly found matches between the Shãhnãmé and Mongol history suiting Jalãyerid aspirations. In all these cases, less than a page-full amount of verses would have remained prompting the adoption of a checkered format to give the manuscript a finished look. Since pages by D and E have slightly different paper textures, they may correspond to two phases of Jalãyerid reworks, one associated with the first set of numbers inscribed on the pages and the other with the second set of numbers; one perhaps performed under Shaykh Oveys and the other, under his son, Soltãn Ahmad Jalãyer. In conclusion, it seems that the manuscript was altered several times since its creation in early fourteenth century, some perhaps, not long after the abrupt cancellation of the project at Abu-Sa`id’s death. A more precise chronology of alterations/restorations may only be established by a scientific analysis of the paper and ink used in each phase of rework. 85 BI BL I OGRA PH Y A dl e ( 1984) Adle, Ch., Recherches Archéologique en Iran sur le Kumes Médiéval, in Académie des Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus, Paris, 1984, 271--83. A f shãr & D ãneshãnesh- paj uh ( 1973) Afshãr I., and Dãnesh-pajuh, M., ed. Fehrest-e Ketãbhã-ye Khatti-ye Ketãbkhãnéye Melli-ye Malek,, Tehran, 1352/1973. ` A l l ãmi ( 1985) `Allãmi, Abolfazl-e, Ã'in-e Akbari, ed. H. Blochmann, reprint, Osnabruck, 1985. A l l sen ( 1979) Allsen, T., Politics of Mongol Imperialism: Centralization and Resource Mobilization in the Reign of the Grand Qan Mongke, 1251-59, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota, 1979; UMI reprint. à tãbãy ( 1974) Ãtãbãy, B., Fehrest-e Moraqa`ãt-e Khatti-ye Ketãbkhãné-ye Saltanati, Tehran, 1353/1974. A tasoy ( 1970) Atasoy, N., Four Istanbul Albums and some Fragments from Fourteenth-century Shah-namehs, Ars Orientalis, vi i i , 1970, 19--48. A ti l ( 1987) Atil, E., The Age of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, New York, 1987. Baghdãdi ( 1936) Baghdãdi, Bahã'oddin Mohammad b. Mo'ayyad-e, At-tavassol elat-tarassol, ed. A. Bahmanyãr, Tehran, 1315/1936. Banãkati ( 1969) Banãkati, Fakhroddin Abu-Soleymãn Dãvud, Tãrikh-e Banãkati, ed. J. Sho`ãr, Tehran, 1348/1969. Bayãni ( 1966) Bayãni, M., Ahvãl-o Ãsãr-e Khoshnevisãn, 4 vols., Tehran, 1345/1966. 86 Bl ai r ( 1986) Blair, S., On the Track of the 'Demotte' Shãhnãma Manuscript, Varia Turcica VIII, Actes du Colloques d'Istanbul 26-29 Mai 1986, Les Manuscripts du Moyen Orient, Paris/Istanbul. Bosworth ( 1977) Bosworth, C., The Heritage of Rulership in Islamic Iran, in The medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, London 1977. Boyl e ( 1975) Boyle, J. Dynastic and Political History of the Ilkhans, Cambridge History of Iran, v, Cambridge, 1975. Boyl e ( 1977) Boyle, J., The Longer Introduction to the "Zij-i-Ilkhani" of Nasir-ad-din Tusi, in The Mongol World Empire, London, 1977 - Variorum reprints. Budãq ( 1576) Budãq-e Monshi-ye Qazvini, Javãherol-akhbãr, manuscript copied in 1576, State Public Library, St. Petersburg, Dorn 288,. Cl eaves ( 1982) Cleaves, F., The Secret History of the Mongols, Cambridge, 1982, Cort and Stuart ( 1993) Cort, L.A., and Stuart, J., Joined Colors, Decoration and Meaning in Chinese Pocelain, Washington, D.C., 1993. D af tari ( 1991) Daftari, F., The Ismã`ilis, Their history and Doctrines, Cambridge, 1991. D oerf er ( 1963) Doerfer, Turkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neuerpersischen, 4vols, Wiesbaden, 1963. EbnEbn- e A si r ( 1985) Ebn-e Asir, `Ezzoddin Abol-Hasan `Ali known as, Akhbãr-e Iran az al-Kãmel-e Ebn-e Asir, transl. M.E. Bãstãni-ye Pãrizi, Tehran 1364/1985. 87 EbnEbn- e Battuta ( 1979) Ebn-e Battuta, Voyages d'Ibn Battuta, Texte Arabe Accompagné d'une Traduction, tr. by C. Defermery and B.R. Sanguinetti, 4 vols, Paris, 1979. Eqbãl - e à shti ãni ( 1971) Eqbãl-e Ãshtiãni, A., Majmu`é-ye Maqãlãt, ed. M. Dabir-siãqi, Tehran, 1350/1971. Etti nghausen ( 1962) Ettinghausen, R., La Peinture Arabe, Geneva 1962. Fal k ( 1976) Falk, T., Rothschild Collection of Mughal Miniatures, in “Persian and Mughal Art”, London, 1976. Fasi hi ( 1960) Fasihi-ye Khãfi, Mojmal-e Fasihi, ed. M. Farrokh, Mashhad, Iran, 1339/1960. Fazãel i ( 1977) Fazãeli, H. Ta`lim-e khatt, Tehran, 2536/1977. Ferdowsi ( 1988) Ferdowsi, Abol-qãsem, Shãhnãmé, ed. Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh, i , New York, 1988. Ferdowsi ( 1990) Ferdowsi, Abol-qãsem, Shãhnãmé-ye Ferdowsi, Photoprint from the 1217 Florence Manuscript, Tehran, 1369/1990. Gardi zi ( 1989) Gardizi, Abu-Sa`id `Abdol-hayy b. Zahhãk b. Mahmud, Tãrikh-e Gardizi (Zaynolakhbãr), ed. `A. Habibi, Tehran, 1363/1989. Ghani ( 1942) Ghani, G. Bahs dar ãsãr-o afkãr-o ahvãl-e Hãfez, Tehran, 1321/1942. Ghazzãl i ( 1988) Ghazzãli, Abu-Hãmed Mohammad-e, Nasihatol-moluk, ed. J. Homãi, Tehran, 1367/1988 - 4th edition. Ghazzãl i ( 1954) Ghazzãli, Abu-hãmed Mohammad-e, Fazã'elol-anãm men rasa'el-e hojjatol-Eslãm, ed. A. Eqbãl, Tehran, 1333/1954. 88 Gnol i ( 1990) Gnoli, G., On Old Persian Farnah in "Acta Iranica" vol. XVI, Leiden, 1990, pp.85-87. Gol chi n ( 1968) Gochin-e Ma`ãni, A., Rãhnemã-ye Ganiné-ye Qorãn, Mashhad, 1347/1968. Grabar & Bl ai r ( 1980) Grabar, O. and Blair, S., Epic Images and Contemporary History, The Illustrations of the Great Mongol Shahnama, Chicago, 1980. Gray ( 1977) Gray, B., La Peinture Persane, Geneva, 1977. Gray ( 1979) Gray, B., ed. The Arts of the Book in Central Asia, 14th-16th Century (Paris, 1979. Grube ( 1978) Grube, E., Persian Painting in the Fourteenth Century: A Research Report, in Annali - Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 38, fasc. 4, Napoli, 1978. H ãf ez - e A bru ( 1971) Hãfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e Jãme`ottavãrikh-e Rashidi, Tehran 1350/1971. H eravi ( 1979) Heravi, Mohammad-sharif Nezãmoddin Ahmad, Anvãriyyé, ed. H. Ziai, Tehran, 1358/1979. James ( 1988) James, D., Qurãns of the Mamluks,, New York,1988. James ( 1992) James, D., The Master Scribes, Oxford, 1992. Jovayni ( 1912) Jovayni, `Atãmalek-e, The Tãrikh-i-Jahãn-gushã, ed. M. Ghazvini, 3 vols, London, 1912. 89 K ahn ( 1984) Kahn, P., adaptation by, The Secret History of the Mongols, The Origin of Chingis Khan, San Francisco, 1984. K ãshãni ( 1969) Kãshãni, Abol-qãsem `Abdollãh b. Mohammad, Tãrikh-e Uljãytu, ed. M. Hambali, Tehran, 1348/1969. K hal eghi - M otl agh ( 1988) Khaleghi-Motlagh, J., Babr-e Bayãn: Varieties of Invulnerability in Iran Nameh, vi , no. 2 Washington, 1988, 200--27. K hãndami r ( 1974) Khãndamir, Ghiãsoddin b. Homãm known as, Habibossiyar, ed. M. Dabir-Siyãqi, Tehran, 1353/1974. K honj i ( 1992) Khonji, Fazlollãh b. Ruzbehãn, Tãrikh-i `Ãlam-ãrã-yi Amini, ed. J. Woods, London, 1992. L aouste ( 1970) Laouste, H., La Politique de Gazãli , Paris, 1970. M arek & K ni zkova ( 1963) Marek J. and Knizkova, H., The Jenghiz Khan Miniatures from the Court of Akbar the Great, tr. O. Kuthanova, London, 1963. M as` udi ( 1962) Mas`udi, Abol-hasan `Ali b. Hosayn, Les Prairies d'Or, transl. C. Pellat, 3 vols, Paris, 1962. M ãyel H eravi ( 1994) Mãyel Heravi, N., Resãlé-ye ãdãb-e khatt-e `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi, in "Mirãs-e Jãvidãn", Tehran, 1372/1994, No.4, pp.128--36. M el i ki anan- Chi rvani ( 1991) Melikian-Chirvani, Le Livre des Rois, Miroir du Destin II, Takht-e Soleymãn et la Symbolique du Shãh-Nãme, in Studia Iranica, xx, fasc.1, Paris, 1991. 90 M i tchener ( 1977) Mitchener, M., Oriental Coins and Their Values, The world of Islam, London, 1977. M i novi ( 1975) Minovi, M., ed., Nãmé-ye Tansar,, Tehran, 1354/1975. M odarresodarres- e Razavi ( 1991) Modarres-e Razavi, M., Ahvãl-o Ãsãr-e Nasiroddin-e Tusi, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1370/1991. M okri ( 1982) Mokri, M. La Lumière et le Feu dans l'Iran Ancien et leur Demythification en Islam, Leuven, 1982. M organ ( 1986) Morgan, The Mongols, Oxford, 1986. M otazavi ( 1991) Mortazavi, M., Masã’l-e `Asr-e Il-Khãnãn, Tehran, 2nd. ed, 1370/1991. M ostaert & Cl eaves ( 1952) Mostaert A. and Cleaves, F. Trois Documents Mongols des Archives Secrètes du Vatican, in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, xv,, xv, Cambridge, MA, 1952, 485. M ostowf i ( 1405) Mostowfi, Hamdollãh-e, Zafarnãmé, manuscript Or. 2833 of the British Library, copied in 807/1405. M ostowf i ( 1960) Mostowfi, Hamdollãh, Tãrikh-e Gozidé, Tehran, 1339/1960. N atanzi ( 1 957) Natanzi, Mo`inoddin-e, (presumed author) Extraits du Muntakhab al-Tavarikh-i Mu'ini, ed. J. Aubin, Tehran, 1335/1957) N ezãmi ( 1927) Nezãmi-ye `Aruzi-ye Samarqandi, Ahmad b. `Omar, Chahãr Maqãlé, ed. Ghazvini, M., London, 1927. 91 Omi dd- Sal ar ( 1983) Omid-Salar, M. On Babr-e Bayãn in Iran Nameh, i , no. 3, 1983, 447--58. Pel l i ot ( 1949) Pelliot, P., Histoire Secrète des Mongols, Paris, 1949. Pel l i ot ( 1949) H O Pelliot, Notes sur l'Histoire de la Horde d'Or, Paris, 1949. Pel l i ot ( 1959) Pelliot, P., Notes on Marco Polo, Paris, 1959. Perl mann ( 1971) Perlmann, M., Ibn Kammuna, in EI2, Leiden,1971, iii, iii 839. Pi emontese ( 1980) Piemontese, A., Nuova luce su Firdawsi: uno Shãhnãma datato 614H./1217 a Firenze, Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1980, 48 and 66. Pol o ( 1931) Polo, M. The Travels of Marco Polo, transl. by A. Ricci from the text of L.F. Benetto, London, 1931. Qomi ( 1973) Qomi, Qãzi Ahmad, Golestãn-e Honar, ed. A. Soheyli, Tehran, 1352/1973. Rashi doddi n ( 1957) Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Jãme`ottavãrikh, ed. A. Alizãdé, 3 vols, Baku, 1957. Rashi doddi n ( 1976) Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Jãme`ottavãrikh, ed. B. Karimi, 2 vols, Tehran, 2535/1976. Rashi doddi n ( 1976) L H Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Latã'efol-haqã'eq, ed. G. Tãher, Tehran 2535/1976. Rashi doddi n ( 1977) Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Jãme`ottavãrikh, Section on the History of Esmã`ilis, ed. M. Dãnesh-pajuh and M. Modaressi-ye Zanjãni, Tehran, 2536/1977. Rashi doddi n ( 1977) V R Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Vaqfnãmé-ye Rab`-e Rashidi, Tehran, 2536/1977. 92 Rashi doddi n ( 1979) SA Rashidoddin Fazlollãh, Savãnehol-afkãr-e Rashidi, ed. M. Dãnesh-pajuh, Tehran, 1358/1979. Rosen ( 1971) Rosen, V., Les Manuscripts Persans de l'Institut des Langues Orientales, reprint. Amsterdam, 1971) Rosenthal ( 1971) Rosenthal, F., A Note on the Mandil, in "Four Essays on Art and Literature in Islam" ed. by R. Ettinghausen and O. Kurz, Leiden, 1971. Rossabi ( 1988) M. Rossabi, Khubilai Khan, Berkeley, 1988) Rubruck ( 1990) Rubruck, W., The Mission of William of Rubruck, ed. P. Jackson and D. Morgan, London, 1990. Sa` ãl abi ( 1989) Sa`ãlabi-ye Neyshãburi, `Abdol-malek b. Mohammad b. Esmã`il, Tãrikh-e Sa`ãlaby (Ghorar-e akhbãr-e moluk-e fors va siyarehem), transl. M. Fazã'eli, Tehran, 1368/1989, Samarqandi ( 1993) Samarqandi, `Abdorrazãq, Matla`-e Sa`dayn va Majma`-e Barhrayn, ed. A. Navai, Tehran, 1372/1993, Saunders ( 1971) Saunders, History of the Mongol Conquests,, London, 1971. Schi mmel ( 1984) Schimmel, A., Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, New York 1984. Schroeder ( 1939) Schroeder, E., Ahmed Musa and Shams Al-Din: A Review of Fourteenth Century Painitng, in “Ars Islamica” 1939, 113--42. 93 Shabãnkãréi ( 1984) Shabãnkãréi, Mohammad b. `Ali b. Mohammad-e, Majma`ol-ansãb, Tehran, 1363/1984. Shãmi ( 1984) Shãmi, Nezãmoddin, Zafarnãmé, Tehran, 1363/1984,. Shi rãzi ( 1959) Shirãzi, Fazlollãh b. `Abdollãh, Tãrikh-e Vassãfol-hazrat, Tehran 1338/1959. Si mpson ( 1979) Simpson, M., The Earliest Shahnama Manuscripts, New York, 1979. Soudavar ( 1992) Soudavar, A., Art of the Persian Courts, New York, 1992. Soudavar ( 1993) Soudavar, Negãrkhãné-ye Chin: Inspiration for Persian Royal Libraries, in the forthcoming publication of papers for a symposium entitled "Topics in Iranian Art and History" held at UCLA, Jan. 1993. Subtel ny ( 1984) Subtelny, M., Scenes from the Literary Life in Herãt, in "Logos Islamikos: Studia Islamica in Honorem Georgii Michaelis wickens," Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Papers, Toronto, 1984, 144--47. Swi etochowski et al . ( 1994) Swietochowski, M.L., Carboni, S., and Morton, S., Illustrated Poetry and Epic Images, Persian Painting of the 1330s and 1340s,, New York, 1994. T abri zi ( 1398) Tabrizi, Ahmad, Shahanshahnãmé, manuscript copy dated 14th of Rajab 800/1398, British Library O.R. 2780, fols. 42-133. T al bot Ri ce & Gray ( 1976) Talbot Rice, D. and Gray, B., The Illustrations of the “Wold Hstory” of Rashid alDin, Edinburgh, 1976. T usi ( 1969) Tusi, Nasiroddin-e, Tansukhnãmé-ye Il-Khãni, Tehran, 1348/1969. 94 V an Ess ( 1985) Van Ess, J., `Alã'-al-Dowla Semnãni in ”Encyclopaedia Iranica”, 1985, 747--77. V ãsef i ( 1970) Vãsefi, Zaynoddin Mahmud, Badãye`ol-vaqãye`, ed. A. Boldyrev, Tehran, 1349/1970, V atvãt ( 1992) Vatvãt, Rashid-e, Hadãyeqossehr fi daqãyeqeshshe`r, for instance in "Hezãr Sãl Nasr-e Pãrsi" ed. K. Keshãvarz, Tehran, 1371/1992, ii, ii 687--88. W al bri dge ( 1983) Walbridge, The Philosophy of Qutb Al-din Shirazi; A Study in the Integration of Islamic Philosophy, Ph. D. thesis 1983, UMI reprint. W al bri dge ( 1992) Walbridge, J., The Political Thought of Qutb al-Din al-Shirãzi, in "The Political aspects of Islamic Philosophy" ed. C. Butterworth, Cambridge, MA, 1992. W ei dner ( 1982) Weidner, M., Painting and Patronage at the Mongol Court of China 1260-1368, Ph.D. diss. University of Calif. Berkeley, 1982. W oods ( 1976) Woods, J., The Aqqoyunlu: Clan, Confederacy, Empire, Chicago, 1976. Y arshater ( 1985) Yarshater, E., Afrãsiãb in Encyclopaedia Iranica, i , Boston, 1985, p.576. Z i ai ( 1992) Ziai, H., The Source and Nature of Authority: A Study of al-Suhrawardi's Illuminationist Political Doctrine, in "The Political aspects of Islamic Philosophy" ed. C. Butterworth, Cambridge, MA, 1992. Z ygul sky ( 1993) Zygulsky Jr., Z., Ottoman Art in the Service of the Empire, New York, 1993. FI GU RE L I ST Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Alexander Coming out of the Land of Darkness Courtesy, The Keir Collection, Richmond, England. Fereydun Asking About his Lineage, Art and History Trust Collections. 95 Fig. 2a. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 4a Bãbur Kissing the Hand of Shãh Esmã`il I. Signed by `Ali-Qoli Beyg Jebãdãr. Iran, Esfahãn, c. 1665. Art and History Trust. Bahrãm-e Gur in the Treasury of Jamshid. Courtesy of the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 35.24. Rostam Slaying Shaghãd By courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum Portrait of Qubilãy Khãn. China, probably a Ming copy after a Yuan original. Courtesy, National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. Fig. 4b Portrait of Changiz Khãn. China, probably a Ming copy after a Yuan original. Courtesy, National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. Fig. 4c Portrait of Ogdãy. China, probably a Ming copy after a Yuan original. Courtesy, National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. Alexander Reaching the City of the Brahmins. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0105 Zahhãk Enthroned. Courtesy of the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 23.5. Fereydun Capturing Zahhãk Private Collection. Fereydun Leading Zahhãk to Mount Damãvand. Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Rashnavãd Battling the Rumis Courtesy of The Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Bequest of Harvey E. Wetzel, 1919.130. Fereydun Preparing to Greet Iraj and Seeing his Coffin. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0101 The Reign of Garshãsb Son of Zav Was Nine Years Courtesy of Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, 1970-107/1a Rostam Shooting an Arrow in Esfandiãr's Eye Courtesy of The Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Edward Forbes, 1958.288 Kay-Khosrow in the Palace of Ãzargoshasb, Jalãyerid c.1360 Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul, H.2153, f. 55a, after Melikian-Chirvani (1991), pl.13. or, after Atasoy (1970), pl.13 Salm and Tur Killing Iraj. Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin; Pers. MS111. Nushirvãn Eating the Food Brought by the Sons of Mahbod. Courtesy, The Metopolitan Meuseum of Art, New York. Joseph Pullitzer Bequest, 1952 (52.20.2). The Mobads Interrogating Zãl. Denman Waldo Ross Collection. Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 31.436. Mehrãn Setãd Selecting a Chinese Princess Courtesy, Museum of fine Arts, Boston, 22.392. The Reign of Zav, Son of Tahmãsb, Was Five Years. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0107 Bahrã-e Bahrãmiãn Enthroned. Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin; Pers. MS111. Bahrãm Staying in the Farmer's House as the Farmer's Wife Milked the Cow Courtesy of the Department of Rare books and Special collections of the McGill University Libraries, Montreal. Bahrãm-e Gur Hunting Onagers. Courtesy of Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts, Jerome Wheelock Fund, 1935.24. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. 96 Fig. 22. Fig. 22a. Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 25a. Fig. 25b Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29. Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40. Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Fig. 42a. Bahman Meeting Zãl Courtesy of Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, 1970-107/2a Bahman Meeting Zãl, Jalãyerid c.1360 Courtesy, Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul, H.2153, f.8a Alexander Arriving at the Talking Tree. Courtesy of the Free Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 35.23. Picture of Nushirvãn the Just. Courtesy, Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance Fund, 59.330. Bahrãm-e Gur Talking to Narsi; H. Khosrivani collection, Geneva. Shãh Tahmãsb holding a dastãrché in his hand. Detail of The Feast of `Id by Soltãn Mohammad. Iran, Tabriz, c.1527. Art and History Trust Collections. Akbar Giving a Sarpich to Jahãngir, Mughal, c.1640. Art and History Trust Collections. The Bringing of Esfandiãr's Bier. Courtesy, The Metopolitan Meuseum of Art, New York. Joseph Pullitzer Bequest, 1933 (33.70). King Kayd of India Telling his Dream to Mehrãn. Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin; Pers. MS111. Kay-Kãvus and his Paladins Killing the Divs of Mãzandarãn Destroyed in 1937; after Grabar & Blair (1980), pl.16 Alexander Battling the Fur of India; Picture of the Iron Horses and Soldiers Courtesy of The Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Edward Forbes, 1955.167 The Marriage of Fereydun's Sons Jalãyerid c.1360 Courtesy, Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul, H.2153, f.118a Alexander Building the Iron Rampart . Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0104 Dãrãb Sleeping in the Vault. Courtesy of the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 38.78. Fereydun Going to Iraj's Palace and Mourning. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0100 Nushirvãn Rewarding the Young Bozorgmehr. Courtesy of the Free Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 42.2. The Vizier Pleading his Case with Ardashir Courtesy of The Keir Collection, Richmond Khosrow Writing to the Khãqãn Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. The Picture of the Bier of Alexander . Courtesy of the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 38.3 Killing of the Fur of India in the Hands of Alexander Courtesy of The Keir Collection, Richmond Golnãr Coming to Ardashir's Pillow and Sleeping by his Side Courtesy of Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, 1970-107/3a Ardashir Battling (Bahman son of) Ardavãn. Courtesy of the Detroit Institute of Arts, Founders Society Purchase, Edsel B. Ford Fund, 35.54. Ardavãn Captured by Ardashir. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0103 Picture of Mãni Hanging from a Tree. Rezã `Abbãsi Museum, Tehran Picture of Mãni Hanging from a Tree, Jalãyerid c.1360 Courtesy, Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul, H.2153, f.8a 97 Fig. 43. Fig. 44. Fig. 45. Fig. 46. Fig. 47. Fig. 48. Fig. 49. Fig. 50. Fig. 51. Fig. 52. Fig. 53. Fig. 54. Fig. 55. Fig. 56. Fig. 57. Fig. 58. Fig. 59. Bahrãm-e Gur Hunting with Ãzãdé Courtesy of The Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Edward Forbes, 1957.193. Afrãsiãb Killing Nowzar The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri (Purchase: Nelson Trust) 55-103. Daqiqi Killed by his Slave, Jalãyerid c.1360 Courtesy, Topkapu Saray Museum, Istanbul, H.2153, f.112a Zãl Climbing to Rudãbé Private Collection, after Grabar & Blair (1980), pl.7 Zãl Approaching Shãh Manuchehr Courtesy of The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Picture of Rostam and Zavãré's Biers. Helen and Alice colburn Fund and Seth K. Sweeter Fund. Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 22.393. The Picture of Ardashir with his Wife Throwing down the Poison Cup. Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S86.0106 Alexander Enthroned Courtesy of Musées Nationaux, Musée du Louvre, Paris, Inv. 7096 Calligrapghy specimen from the Florence Shãhnãmé. Iran, dated 1217. After Ferdowsi (1991). fol. 6v. Calligrapghy specimen from the Jãme`ottavãrik. Iran, c.1314. Nur Collection, London. Calligrapghy specimen from the 1341 Shãhnãmé. Iran, Injuid. Art and History Trust Collections. Colophone of a Qorãn dated 720/1320, in sols. Signed by `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi. Iran, Il Khãnid. Courtesy of Ãstãn-e Qods-e Razavi Library, Mashhad, no. 279. Page 259 of a Qorãn dated 720/1320, in naskh. Signed by `Abdollãh-e Sayrafi. Iran, Il-Khãnid. Courtesy of Ãstãn-e Qods-e Razavi Library, Mashhad, no. 279. Shãhnãmé. Detail of fol.19, col.1, lines 15--22. Courtesy of Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., S1986.102a Shãhnãmé. Detail of fol.173. Courtesy, Musée d’art et d’ histoire, Geneva, 1971-107/3d. Rostam Killing Shaghãd. Tabriz, c. 1314. Edinburgh. After Talbot Rice & Gray (1976), pl.19. Gold coin of Abash Khãtun recognizing Abãqã as il-khãn and his ovelord the qããn as “world emperor.” Shirãz, 1274. Art and History Collections. 98