Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-bslzr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-03-16T02:26:05.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Messiah Untamed: Notes on the Philology of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article aims to refute a long-standing thesis first put forth by Vladimir Minorsky about how the various copies of the dīvān of Shah Ismāʿīl might reflect shifts and changes in the religious and political landscape of early modern Iran. Contrary to the luminary Russian Orientalist’s claims, it demonstrates and contextualizes the observation that there were several textual traditions and that most of the copies continued to reflect messianism and “extremist” notions of religiosity well into late Ṣafavid times, appealing to a broad audience which was likely made up of Sufi adepts and nomadic Qizilbash, as well as a more refined echelon of courtly connoisseurs, residing in the borderland between the Ottoman lands and Iran. At the same time, it suggests that the main theme of Shah Ismāʿīl’s messianic poetry was sainthood and that in this sense Ṣafavid messianism was not a unique aberration but comparable and connected to such similar ideologies as are known from the Timurid, Ottoman or Mughal context.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 2019

The article focuses on problems related to messianism in Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān as reflected in its manuscript copies. It refutes some of the erroneous common wisdom held about them, and ties this into a broader discourse on patronage given to Turkic poetry in Ṣafavid Iran and the question of Ṣafavid messianism. As I hope to demonstrate, some of our misconceptions are caused not only by the inaccessibility of the material—though that has been greatly remedied lately with the easier accessibility of manuscripts and the recent publication of a critical edition of the Dīvān—but also by the methodological backwardness of much of the scholarship on Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry. In addition, the exclusive emphasis on Shah Ismāʿīl’s messianism as expressed in his poetry has somewhat distorted his reception, in that only some of his pieces are actually of a messianic, eschatological character. I will argue that both his messianic literary output and his more “mainstream,” mystical and courtly love poetry, is part of the cultural milieu under the Ṣafavids that had been in vogue in the broader Persianate world from Anatolia to Iran and Central Asia since the fourteenth century. Trying to go beyond descriptive philology, I will try to historically contextualize the relationship between the individual copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s collection of poetry.

The “Minorsky Thesis”

The messianic poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl, the founder of the Ṣafavid dynasty of Persia, has fascinated the international scholarly community ever since the publication of the luminary Russian Orientalist Vladimir Minorsky’s Reference Minorsky1942 article about his dīvān, which Minorsky finished in September 1941. The timing of the appearance of the article was certainly not accidental. In 1942 both his original homeland, Russia, with its messianic ideology of Marxist-Leninist communism, and his chosen new homeland, Great Britain, were fighting against Germany and its messiah, Adolf Hitler, in a war that reached eschatological proportions, and both countries, together with the US, were occupying Iran. In the article Minorsky virtually spoon-fed scholars interested in Iran and Islam with the extremist notions of the founder of the Ṣafavid dynasty, Shah Ismāʿīl, presenting a sketchy description of the manuscript base he was working with; a short grammatical survey of the language the poet used; the main motifs, religious and non-religious, he gleaned from the poetry; and a handful of poems with their text and translation. The article, which appeared in a distinguished academic journal accessible in every major research library around the globe, has had a phenomenal career, and has ever since formed a highly important part of the common wisdom held in international scholarship about issues such as Islamic messianism in the Iranian and Turkic world, Ṣafavid religiosity and the status of Turkish/Turkic language and literature in the lands of the greater Iranian world in the sixteenth century. A single sentence of this article has had a disproportionately large influence on scholarship, which can serve as a good illustration that Turkic sources of the Ṣafavid period have not been comprehensively dealt with, and therefore a single sentence can generate a whole scholarly discourse, primarily because it is the sole voice addressing the subject for an extended period of time. To be fair, Minorsky does not develop this idea further anywhere else in the article, and gives just a handful of poems and one or two loci to support it. Here is the sentence: “As time wore on, many of the extravagances of the early Ṣafavid period looked too far-fetched and the earlier poems of Shah Isma'il had to be cut out from his dīvān.”Footnote 1 The sentence proposes two hypotheses. On the one hand, it sets up a categorization of Shah Ismāʿīl’s oeuvre along biographical lines. Minorsky implies that Shah Ismāʿīl wrote those of his poems that carried putatively extravagant, heretical notions earlier in his career, while his poems that were on tamer subjects came later. As the Russian scholar does not specify it, it is unclear how he came to this conclusion, but he seems to refer to the dynasty’s gradual turning away from their original ghulāt (“exaggerating”) religious notions and/or to the disillusionment that overcame Shah Ismāʿīl after the defeat he suffered at the battle of Çaldıran in 1514. It is truly possible to break down the oeuvre into expressly religious poetry, poetry more in line with mystical cum love poetry of a more classicized form, and poetry of courtly love, the latter two types, in fact, constituting the majority of the corpus.Footnote 2 Yet claiming that the tame poems were written after Shah Ismāʿīl’s defeat is circular argumentation along such lines as that Shah Ismāʿīl must have been disappointed in his messianic ambitions, so he must have written the tame poems later in his life, which, in turn, shows that he was disappointed. On the other hand, positing that he could not possibly believe in his own messianic mission afterwards and therefore must have written the “tame” poems later is purely conjectural.

An even greater problem with such views is that they consider Ṣafavid messianism as a wild, uncouth, fiery rupture that vanished once the initial heat was gone. While messianism in general and its Ṣafavid version in particular was certainly revolutionary, it was expressed in a space of mutually competing discourses which the Ṣafavids had to accommodate and to which, I argue, they had to adapt their messianistic discourse.Footnote 3 The increasing recent scholarship on the connected history of the so-called gunpowder empires of the early modern era also suggests that Ṣafavid messianism was not some unique, uncontrolled aberration, but actually very similar to and in competition with other messianic discourses that were also used by their political rivals, the Ottomans and the Mughals.Footnote 4

The other related implication of Minorsky’s sentence, i.e. that the Dīvān was later allegedly expurgated of the more extravagant poems, has been elaborated by several scholars. For example, Said Arjomand in his book entitled The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam connects this putative purge to Shah Ṭahmāsp’s reign and his policy of suppressing millenarian extremism amongst his Qizilbash followers—a view that has some resonance with my own findings, as we shall see below.Footnote 5 Hans-Robert Roemer’s reading of Minorsky in his chapter on the Ṣafavids in the Cambridge History of Iran goes even further:

His [i.e. Shah Isma‘īl’s] collection of Turkish poems mentioned above provides an insight into his religious ideas. The Shi‘i character of these verses is unmistakable. But clearly what we have here is not something that can be related to the High Shi‘a as delineated in Shi‘i theology, but rather rabid fanaticism. The worship of ‘Alī expressed here betrays an extremism which cannot be reconciled with the normal Shi‘i doctrine. ‘Alī is named before the Prophet Muhammad and placed on a level with God. In these lines we see perhaps an unrestrained exaggeration of certain Shi‘i ideas which also occur incipiently in Folk Islam. It is also significant that the particularly extreme passages are only to be found in the oldest extant versions of the collection: later manuscripts do not contain them, presumably because they derive from a version expurgated under the influence of Shi‘i theologians. Anyway the creed which Isma'il avowed on coming to power could not have been the Shi’a of the theologians, no matter of what school. Even if he himself, lacking clear religious ideas, envisaged no more than changing from the Sunna to the Shi’a, his poems proclaim very different notions. Nor can they be interpreted as a gradual transition from Folk Islam to the High Shi’a. If one pursues Isma‘īl’s thought to its conclusion and relates it to his political intentions, one realises that he is proclaiming a Shi‘i theocracy with himself at its head as a god-king.Footnote 6

The thesis is clear: the expurgation of the more messianic, self-aggrandizing poems from later copies was concomitant with the shift of Ṣafavid religiosity towards established, “orthodox” forms of Shiism and its parallel waning of the Qizilbash tribal element on the Ṣafavid cultural-political horizon. The alleged purge of later manuscripts of the Dīvān is widely used as a showcase for how early ghulāt “extremist” Shiism gave way to establishment Islam and religious views favored by the emerging Shiite clergy under the Ṣafavids. Minorsky was a formidable scholar, and he is clearly right that, on the one hand, the contents of the individual copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān are different from each other, and, on the other hand, that these differences might reflect cultural, religious or political processes, although, as we shall see, such processes and changes might not be of the kind that the luminary Russian and other scholars in his wake surmised. His views raise several problems; however, before addressing these, it is worthwhile listing first a few examples of how Shah Ismāʿīl, particularly his religious poetry, has been treated in scholarship since Minorsky’s article, highlighting some recent welcome developments.

Shah Ismāʿīl alone gets more scholarly attention from western scholars than all the other Ṣafavid Turkophone authors put together, except perhaps, for Fużūlī, though the bulk of the scholarship on the latter comes from Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan. The reasons for this importance attached to Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān include his prominent historical role and the patronage that produced several elegant manuscripts found today in western libraries and thus accessible to western scholars. His historical role has received increasingly complex treatments, and has departed from the simplistic views of considering him as the founder of the dynasty that resurrected an alleged Persian national ethos towards views that contextualize him in the early modern era of world history as well as the “Age of Confessionalization.”Footnote 7 In Republican Turkish nationalist historiography, he is presented as a representative of so-called folk Islam who on the one hand writes in simple, i.e. non-Ottoman, Turkish, and who, on the other hand, as a shaman surrogate in an allegedly semi-Islamic context, implicitly perpetuates the Turkish national ethos. There are somewhat similar views in Azerbaijani nationalist scholarship, which also emphasize the putative closeness of Shah Ismāʿīl to the nation’s heart.Footnote 8 Such frameworks operate with a rather blurred concept of what folk in this case means. In this regard, it might be helpful to use an insight put forth by Peter Burke in his seminal work on early modern European cultural history, according to which cultural space was shared by two traditions—elite and popular—but its division was asymmetric: the elite participated in popular culture, but commoners did not participate in the elite tradition.Footnote 9

We find a laudably fresh thesis in Kathryn Babayan’s works. She views the Ṣafavids as part of the wave of various other ghulāt movements, who were social revolutionaries and viewed time in a cyclical framework, perpetuating an “Iranian” view of history as opposed to mainstream Islam, which treats history as teleological linearity leading towards the Apocalypse at the end of time. Her presentation of the ghulāt in general and the Ṣafavids in particular seems to be greatly influenced by Norman Cohn’s vision of medieval and early modern (and by implication, modern) messianistic movements as instances of an ever-present revolutionary strand in history; for her, the power of the Ṣafavids was that, contrary to establishment Islam, which removed the eschaton to the end of time, i.e. beyond history, the Ṣafavids’ chiliastic version of the faith brought it near at hand, which lent messianism tremendous social potency.Footnote 10 It would be difficult to deny this, but inasmuch as Cohn’s vision of western messianism has been subject to criticism in European history,Footnote 11 I will try to prove that Babayan’s thesis can also be elaborated on. Another important study is Rıza Yıldırım’s dissertation, which stresses the Turkic tribal origins of the Ṣafavids and views their emergence as part of the larger social conflict between nomad Türkmens and the centralizing Ottoman state. He studies not so much the Ṣafavids per se as the Qizilbash, emphasizing the emergence of the Ṣafavids in the Ottoman context. In a more recent article, he insightfully claims that the ghulāt ethos of the Ṣafavids, and therefore that of Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry, was connected to a Karbalā-centered popular narrative cycle that called for vengeance on Ḥusayn’s blood, intermixing social political and religious aspirations, couched in Shii-Sufi rhetoric.Footnote 12

The most serious studies specifically dedicated to Shah Ismāʿīl and the role of self-glorification and apotheosis in the Dīvān since Minorsky have been written by Amelia Gallagher. Studying the reception of Shah Ismāʿīl among the Bektashis, she suggests, on the one hand, that in later manuscripts of the Dīvān a significant amount of the poet’s self-glorification is present and that this “indicates a higher degree of accommodation of such “heretical” expressions than previously thought.” On the other hand, she comes to the conclusion that later in Ottoman Bektashi circles it was not the text but the interpretative context of the individual poems that changed. Accordingly, the historic personality of Shah Ismāʿīl became separated from Khaṭāyī the poet, and the hero of these poems came to be regarded as the pīr of the order. Also importantly for our purposes here, in a recent article she draws attention to the possibility of reading Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān as literature, i.e. she emphasizes the inherent ambiguity in the tradition of Persianate poetry, which often makes it hard to decide and highly context-dependent whether a certain poem is addressed to God, the sheikh, a royal or noble patron, or the Beloved.Footnote 13 I have approached Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry from the direction of philology and cultural studies, pointing out that our understanding so far has been distorted by positivist philology and by only considering his poetry as written text. I suggested that instead of using the concept of the Urtext, the Dīvān is best to be treated as situated midway between written culture and orality, which can deprive poetic texts of stability and integrity, making it possible for poems to be attributed to different authors and for parts of poems to be modified, omitted, augmented, etc. as needed by the audience or the context. Inasmuch as Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry came from the same popular religious and courtly context that also produced Ottoman poetry, there is thus little to be surprised at in the fact that several of his verses ended up in Ottoman poetic anthologies. In a similar fashion, as suggested by Muhsin Macit, Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān contains pieces that were in fact written by Ottoman poets, due to either Shah Ismāʿīl’s familiarity with their dīvāns or some more indirect affinity between them, such as misattribution. Accordingly, Macit demonstrates that Shah Ismāʿīl imitated and even plagiarized Ottoman poets like Aḥmed Pasha or Şeyhī, and some of his poems were misattributed to Ḥitābī. More broadly, we can claim that Shah Ismāʿīl, his Turkophone court poets as well as their Ottoman colleagues were part of the same Oghuz Turkic poetic tradition that was in vogue in Anatolia and Iran and had both a courtly and a mystic aspect to it.Footnote 14 This literary and linguistic idiom constituted a continuum between Anatolia and Iran, from which the high Ottoman literature started to gradually split from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards, a process that was corollary to the fundamental changes in the Ottoman imperial venture at the time.

The assertion that Shah Ismāʿīl never smiled again after his defeat at the battle of Çaldıran and the entire messianist project was discredited and discarded is problematic if we take into consideration certain analyses made in religious sociology. Accordingly, the disconfirmation of a prophecy or other central tenet in a messianic movement does not usually discredit the ideology itself in the minds of the devotees. Moreover, to overcome the cognitive dissonance deriving from a failure of the movement usually produces an increase in proselyting if there is a conviction, there is commitment to it, the conviction is amenable to unequivocal disconfirmation and there is such an unequivocal disconfirmation, and, finally, if there is social support available subsequent to the disconfirmation.Footnote 15 As to the tenacity of Qizilbash belief in the continued millennial mission of the Ṣafavid house, evidence is scant; further research needs to be done in this respect. We do know, nonetheless, that Ṭahmāsp I himself had to deal with this problem: in 938/1531‒32, he suppressed the supposedly extremist Sarulu tribe, in 1554/55 he punished the heresy of a group of Sufis for calling him Mahdī, and he had another allegedly irreligious (murtadd) Turkmen clan killed or imprisoned in Alamut.Footnote 16 Moreover, arguably, the death of the previous messianic leaders of the Ṣafavid movement before Shah Ismāʿīl, i.e. his grandfather Junayd and his father Ḥaydar, might also have been disconfirmations, which their community of adherents had to and apparently did overcome. Or we might mention the false pretenders claiming to be the by then dead Shah Ismāʿīl II, such as the one that occurred in 988/1580‒81, or the Nuqṭaviyya, which posed a grave danger to the dynasty as a rival messianic movement.Footnote 17 Finally, both Babayan and Andrew Newman’s works demonstrate that messianism and millenarian beliefs continued to recur in Persia down to the latter half of the tenure of the dynasty, even if with increasing frequency the subject of such beliefs were now not necessarily the Ṣafavids.Footnote 18

The great Russian orientalist’s thesis is problematic from a theoretical point of view as well. Accordingly, one might be tempted to question the absoluteness of central power in the early modern state in general and Ṣafavid Persia in particular. Such a framework evidently follows Max Weber about the routinization of charisma and the emergence of the bureaucratic centralized state. This is rightly criticized by Rudi Matthee, who, in the wake of Michael Mann, argues that the strict opposition between the all-powerful central state and society cannot be applied to the Ṣafavid context. On one hand, it is better to speak of a negotiation-based relation between them, where the center applies the carrot just as much as the stick. On the other hand, Matthee also follows Mann in his vision of pre-modern society as a network of multilayered relations headed and navigated by the center, with competition and cooperation from all levels.Footnote 19 He speaks of

a minimalist state masquerading as an absolutist court, highly factionalized, limited in its ability to collect information, dependent on fickle tribal forces for military support, and forced to negotiate with myriad societal groups over political control.Footnote 20 The shah’s power was awe-inspiring and Ṣafavid ideology was a commanding force, but state absolutism was a relative concept and centralization was at best uneven. Like Mughal India, Ṣafavid Iran was a “strange mix of despotism, traditional rights and equally traditional freedoms.”Footnote 21

Hence, there are serious doubts as to the ability of the Ṣafavid establishment to so closely monitor the contents of every individual copy of the Dīvān of Shah Ismāʿīl. Roemer’s vision of Shiite ulema control over poetic manuscript production is also problematic. While the fatvā of al-Karakī to ban the recitation of the Abū Muslimnāma, a heroic prose epic reflecting the messianic ġulāṭ ethos of the Qizilbash, certainly reflects the policies of some of the factions at court, more recent scholarship has shown that for much of the Ṣafavid period the Shiite ulema were only one of the competing status groups and their influence at court became superior only at the end of the dynasty in the early eighteenth century with the establishment of a hierocracy independent of the court. They were in competition, on the one hand, with the Iranian ‘ayān, the clerical notables whose families went back many a generation in the service of various polities ruled by Turkic nomadic aristocracies, and, on the other hand, with the Qizilbash notables, as well as the ġulām elite from the reign of Shah ‘Abbās I onwards.

But the alleged purge of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān on the part of Shiite scholars is also problematic from a philological point of view. A closer look at the manuscripts of the Dīvān that Minorsky had access to, complemented by a study of manuscripts that have been identified since the appearance of his article as well as by completely unstudied manuscripts, reveals that there was probably no purge of the nature Minorsky surmises, or even if there were attempts to “tame” the chiliastic, messianic content of Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry, they were by no means complete, and represent only one of the tendencies of the development of the manuscript copies. Minorsky’s is a greatly teleological thesis, with the more extremist copies at the beginning of the story and the tamed versions at the end of it. However, while the content as well as the codicology of the copies do reflect historical processes, they tell us a much more complex history. Based on new sources as well as revisiting the evidence Minorsky provides, I will try to show that later manuscripts did preserve most of the ġulāt ideas present in the early manuscripts.

The study of Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry has been tremendously facilitated by the publication of a critical edition of the Dīvān, a long overdue desideratum fulfilled by Muhsin Macit in 2017.Footnote 22 In addition to making use of more manuscripts than have hitherto been known, Macit tackles a number of textological problems that shed light on the broader literary context. He chooses as the base text for his edition a copy he found in the Şevket Rado Collection of the Istanbul Research Institute, which was executed in 1038/1628, and which is not only the bulkiest copy of the Dīvān, but also enables him to defocus from the copies (Paris1 and Tashkent) that were used in the earlier attempts of Tourkhan Gandjei and Azizağa Məmmədov at producing critical editions. Gandjei’s edition is the work of a superb philologist, but on the one hand, it is based on a limited textual base, and on the other hand, it is informed by Minorsky’s assertion of the Paris1 copy to be the Urtext of the Dīvān, which, as we shall see, has since turned out to be an error. Məmmədov’s edition was based on more manuscripts but its quality is marred by a number of errors, occasional oversights and cavalier handling of sources.Footnote 23

Another important virtue of Macit’s work is that, greatly expanding and modifying the results of my own research, he comes up with a comprehensive categorization of the available manuscripts of the Dīvān. Relying on this, it is now easier to better situate and contextualize Shah Ismāʿīl’s messianic poetry within his oeuvre at large.

The Manuscripts of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

The following list of the extant manuscripts of the Dīvān is a collation of Macit’s list of the copies he worked with and my own observations.Footnote 24 He gives far more details about the text of the individual copies than is warranted here; his observations are particularly important for our present purposes concerning the contents of the copies and their relationship with each other.

Two of the manuscripts to be dealt with were illuminated and illustrated with miniatures. Moreover, these two have other features that help us date and contextualize them, which somewhat alleviates the difficulty arising from the fact that especially these two copies (i.e., Washington and London1, nos. 17-18 in the following list) are extremely defective. Indeed, it is a serious problem for the scholar studying these copies that several of the extant manuscripts are not intact, which makes assessing their content and drawing definite conclusions difficult. Only in rare cases, when one manuscript is obviously in close relation to another one, is it possible to fill such gaps.

  1. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Supplément turc 1307 (Paris1). An elegant copy with an illuminated title-page (sar-lawḥ), it was executed in 948/1541‒42, and contains 254 ḳaṣīdas and ġazals, 3 masnavīs, 1 murabba‘ and 1 musaddas on 84 folios, the first 24 poems not following the usual alphabetical order.Footnote 25 Minorsky, and in his wake Tourhan Gandjei, considered this the oldest copy of the Dīvān, the latter basing his edition on it.Footnote 26 Script: nasta‘līḳ. The copy is different from the others in terms of not only its content but also its orthography. While most of the others are written in a western Oġuz, “Azeri” idiom, this manuscript has many Eastern Turkic, i.e. Chaghatay features, such as word initial b- in bol-, “to be.” Such a phenomenon is not surprising bearing in mind that the Timurid literary tradition, which espoused Chaghatay Turkic aside from Persian, continued to be greatly revered and emulated under the Ṣafavids, who employed many a scholar, litterateur and artist after the demise of who had formerly served the Timurids in Iran and Central Asia after the latter's demise.

  2. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Supplément turc 995 (Paris2). 64 folios. The copy is undated, but, according to Blochet, it was copied in the early seventeenth century.Footnote 27 Contents: 205 ġazals, 9 rubā‘īs, 2 masnavīs (one of which is the Naṣīḥatnāme), as well as a ghazal and a few couplets in Persian. Script: nasta‘līḳ. It ends in two Persian ghazals.

  3. British Library, London Or. 3880 (London2).Footnote 28 Another luxury copy of 83 folios (31.75 cm X 15.cm; 12 lines, 7 cm per page), which is undated, though Rieu thinks it is from the sixteenth century. The seals in it belong to later owners from the nineteenth century.Footnote 29 Several folios are missing after 47b as well as after fol. 62b; and there are missing or transferred folios after 69b. Fols. 1b‒8b have the Naṣīḥatnāme, a masnavī, while the Dīvān with 240 poems and fragments can be found on fols. 10b‒83a. 2a is decorated with a beautiful shams, “sun-shaped vignette,” which has the following legend: dīvān-i Sulṭān Khaṭā’ī a‘lá’llāhu maḳāmahu / ash‘ār-i fayż-āsār-i ḥażret-i firdevs-mekānī Abu’l-Muẓaffer Shāh İsmā‘īl Ḥüseynī navvara’llāhu marḳadahu, “The dīvān of Sultan Khaṭā’ī, may God elevate his position / the emanation-like poems of Abu’l-Muẓaffar Shāh Ismāʿīl the Ḥusaynid, whose place is in Paradise, may God illuminate his shrine,” which is reiterated in shikasta in the upper part of the folio as well as on 10a. The designation Sulṭān Khaṭā’ī is noteworthy and will be elaborated on further below. The dedication refers to Shah Ismāʿīl as already deceased, which gives 1524 as the terminus post quem for the copy date. Script: nasta‘līḳ. Some of the folios are mixed up, some of them are missing.

  4. Ardabil (Ardabil). The manuscript was owned by Minorsky, who presented it to what is today the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St. Petersburg (B 4544). Measures: 70 fols., 20.5 × 15, 14.5 × 8 cm; 12 lines per page. Contents: 223 ġazals, 9 tuyuġs and the Nasīḥatnāme. It is dated 17 Rabī‘ II 1245/16 October 1829, but was copied by one Murtażāḳulı from a manuscript which bears the seal of Shah ‘Abbas I and which was presented to the Ardabil sanctuary in 1022/1613. In preparing his edition, Gandjei also consulted this copy but decided to omit its variants from the critical apparatus, because, as he puts it, its variants more or less agree with those of London2 and Paris2.Footnote 30

  5. Vatican, Turco 221 (Vatican).Footnote 31 An undated, defective copy of 32 fols. with missing beginning and end. The volume has been misbound; 27a should follow 31b. Contents: 178 ḳaṣīda-ġazals, 1 musaddas; script: nasta‘līḳ.

  6. Tashkent (Tashkent). Al-Biruni Institute of Oriental Studies, 1412. An elegant copy of 85 fols., measuring 14.5 × 23.5 cm with text on fols. 2b‒84a. Məmmədov thought it to be the oldest copy of the Dīvān and therefore he based his edition on it. It was copied in 942/1535‒36 in a fine nasta‘līḳ by Shah Maḥmūd al-Nishābūrī (d. 972/1564‒65?), a prominent calligrapher, most probably in Tabrīz, during the reign of Shah Ṭahmāsp. Shah Maḥmūd had been in the service of the Ṣafavids since the time of Shah Ismāʿīl, collaborating with such masters as Bihzād.Footnote 32 The manuscript bears no dedication, so we do not know if it was commissioned by Ṭahmāsp himself or some member of the Qizilbash aristocracy at court. Fols. 1b‒2a are gilded but left blank, possibly for miniatures the execution of which, however, did not materialize. On the margins down to fol. 72a can be found the text of Shah Ismāʿīl’s two narrative poems, the Dihnāma and the Naṣīḥatnāma.Footnote 33

  7. Qom, Kitābkhāna-yi Āyat Allāh Burūjirdī, 2009 (Qom).Footnote 34 A copy of 110 folios measuring 25 × 15 cm, executed probably in the eighteenth century. According to a note on 109b, it was sold on 11 Ramażān 1118/31 January 1768, which gives us the terminus ante quem for its copy date.Footnote 35 Not only its textual variants but also the distribution of the individual lines and poems on the pages are extremely similar to those found in the Gulistān copy, which suggests that they are very close to each other in the paper trail.Footnote 36

  8. Mazar-i Sharif, Bakhtar Museum (Institute of Manuscripts named after Muhammad Fuzuli, Baku, microfilm 234). Incomplete copy, 174 poems. According to Məmmədov, the binding of the manuscript indicates that it was executed by Mīr ‘Alī Tabrīzī, but the Azeri scholar thinks it was put there later and that the manuscript was in fact copied by the most famous calligrapher of the early seventeenth century, Mīr ‘Imād.Footnote 37 The main reason for his doubt about the copyist being Mīr ‘Alī Tabrīzī is that it puts Mīr ‘Alī Tabrīzī’s active years in the early sixteenth century. However, I only know of a calligrapher Mīrzā ‘Alī Tabrīzī, the son of Sulṭān Muḥammad Tabrīzī, who worked in the library of Shah Ṭahmāsp. This makes him a perfect candidate for being the copyist of the manuscript and could date the manuscript to the mid-sixteenth century.Footnote 38 Macit uses a microfilm of the copy, and tentatively agrees with Məmmədov’s identification of the calligrapher.

  9. Majlis Library, 4096, Tehran (Tehran2). Comprised of 69 fols. on Isfahan paper, this is an undated, defective copy, its beginning and end missing. Script: nasta‘līḳ. The headings and the pennames are gilded. Contents: 219 ghazal-ḳaṣīdas and 9 tuyughs.Footnote 39

  10. Gulistān Palace Library, 2194, Tehran (Gulistān). Even if some folios are missing, this is a large copy in terms of volume with 332 poetic pieces on 113 fols.Footnote 40 The copyist is Nūr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abū Turāb-i Iṣfahānī (d. 1104/1693‒94), scion of a family of noteworthy calligraphers, who spent some of his early career on the staff of the royal library of Shah ‘Abbās I.Footnote 41 According to the colophon, he had a royal commission (ḥasb al-amr al-a‘lá “on the sublime command”) and executed the manuscript in the royal library of Shah Sulaymān (1666‒94) in 1088/1677‒78.Footnote 42

  11. Āyat Allāh Gulpāyagānī Library, Qom (Gulpāyagānī), 5/141. 65 fols. (21 × 15 cm). No date or copyist. There are some mistakes in this copy: e.g. 15b does not continue from 15a, but the last two verses of a poem (ey ṣabā bu ‘āşıḳ-ı dilkhastadan ol yāre var …) on 14b‒15a, and another poem (göreli zülfüngi ey meh başıma yüz sevdā düşer …) from 15a are also repeated on 15b; 38b is followed by the wrong folio or there is/are a folio/folios missing between 38b and 39a. The text of the legend of the possessorial seals on fols. 10, 57 and 60 (yā ‘azīz allāh 1284) dates the copy prior to 1867‒68.Footnote 43

  12. Millet Library, Ali Emiri Mnz. 131, Istanbul (I). An undated, probably relatively recent copy from Bektashi circles. 33 fols. Its material is incorporated in Ergun’s edition, and Məmmədov also used it.Footnote 44 It contains a lot of material unknown from the copies commissioned under Ṣafavid aegis.

  13. Tehran University, Central Library, 5160. According to the colophon on 75a, it was copied on 23 Muḥarram 1260/13 February 1844 in Tehran by Rıżā Ḳulı and Valī Ḳulı for one Sayyid Ḥāji Baba-yi Kirmānī. 86 folios of nasta‘līḳ, Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān followed by his Naṣīḥatnāme stopping on 75a. Folios 75b‒78b contain verses by Nesīmī, Köroġlu, Fuẓūlī, Mīrzā Ismāʿīl Afshār, Ḳaṣṣāb and Mīr-i Marāġa’ī in Persian and Turkish. The copy was used by the editors of a popular edition mentioned above.Footnote 45

  14. National Museum and Library, Tehran, 3705, microfilm no. 25. 76 fols. with some missing after 30a. This copy, written in a fine nasta‘līḳ, has the seal of the Ardabil Shrine Foundation with the date 1022/1613‒14, which means it was presented to or acquired by the Foundation at that time.Footnote 46 Length: 76 fols. According to the colophon (75b), the copyist was ‘Ayshī (d. 980/1572‒73), who is probably identical to ‘Ayshī b. ‘Ishratī. He came from Herat but spent most of his career working in Mashhad at the court atelier of Sultan Ibrāhīm Mīrzā (d. 983/1575‒76), participating in the creation of the celebrated “Freer Jāmī,” and completing the section assigned to him in 968/1537‒38.Footnote 47 The copy bears the title Dīvān-i Sulṭān Khaṭā’ī.

  15. Sulṭān Ḳurrā’ī Library, private collection, Tabriz. Catalog number unknown. Copyist: Yārī Haravī (d. 980/1572‒73); copy date: 954/1547‒48. Unfortunately, I have not been able to access it. However, from the report and the photo of a folio illustrating it, it is clearly a finely executed copy which starts with the Naṣīḥatnāme. Nor did Muhsin Macit have access to it for his critical edition; therefore, he had to rely on information gleaned from the notes of two Iranian editions that claim to have used it.Footnote 48 The patron who commissioned the manuscript was one Muḥammad Khan; he is most probably identical to Muḥammad Khan b. Sharaf al-Dīn Takkalū (d. 1557), who, fiercely loyal to Shah Ṭahmāsp, was the governor of Herat from 1536 to 964/1557 and tutor (lala) to Muḥammad Mīrzā, Ṭahmāsp’s eldest son, the future Shah Muḥammad Khudābanda (r. 1578‒87).Footnote 49 The commission of the copy should probably be viewed in the context of an urban reconstruction program during the governorship of the latter, which was coupled by an influx of poets, litterateurs, artists and calligraphers, including the historian Amīr Maḥmūd b. Khwāndamīr and the painter Aḳa Ḥasan.Footnote 50

  16. Mīrzā Ismāʿīl Shāfi‘ī, personal possession. Copy date: 969/1561‒62. Unfortunately, I have not had access to this copy, and the article about it says but little about its contents.Footnote 51

The earliest copies. There are three defective copies with their beginnings and ends missing which, however, all date from the time when Shah Ismāʿīl was still alive. Two of them, Washington and London1, are illuminated manuscripts, decorated with exquisite miniatures.

  • 17. Sackler Gallery, Vever Collection, S1986.60, Washington, DC (Washington). Measures: 50 fols, 21 × 14 cm.Footnote 52 A superbly executed, beautifully illustrated copy with miniatures, which is unfortunately defective. However, internal clues show that the copy must have been made when Shah Ismāʿīl was still alive. On one hand, the headings introducing the poems contain blessings for him: khallada’l-lāhu mulkahu wa salṭanatahu, “May God perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignty!”; on the other hand, a frieze in the miniature on 27b refers to Shah Ismāʿīl as the reigning sultan:

    Banī al-salṭana al-sulṭān al-a‘ẓam wa al-khāḳān al-a‘dal al-akram mawlā mulūk al-‘arab wa al-‘ajam mushayyid qawā’id al-‘adl wa al-iḥsān bāsiṭ bisāṭ al-amn wa’l-amān Abū al-Muẓaffar Ṣāh Ismāʿīl Bahādur Khān.

    Founder of the sultanate, the greatest sultan and most just, noblest emperor, liegelord of the kings of the Arabs and Persians, layer of the foundation of justice and beneficence, spreader of the carpet of safety and security, Abū al-Muẓaffar Shah Ismāʿīl Bahādur Khan.Footnote 53

  • 18. British Library, Or. 11388, London (London1). Another superbly executed but regrettably defective copy of 19 folios, measuring 6 by 10 inches (15.24 × 25.4 cm). The golden and blue headings introducing each of the poems refer to Shah Ismāʿīl as the reigning shah, which suggests that the manuscript was executed during his lifetime or perhaps copied from such a manuscript shortly after his death.Footnote 54 Nora Titley claims that the miniatures are close to the Tabriz style of painting.Footnote 55 Be that as it may, the first miniature might not come from the same atelier as the rest, since their style is remarkably different. Bound together with it is the last page from a different manuscript, which features a vignette from 1141/1728‒29, perhaps the date when the surviving folios of the copy were put together.

  • 19. Majlis Library, 4077, Tehran (Tehran1). Similar to London1 and Washington, the golden ‘unvāns (‘headings) in it, such as wa la-hu lā zāla lisānuhu al-balīġ al-bayān mawrid al-ḥaḳā’iḳ al-‘irfān (“May his eloquently speaking tongue never come to an end about the realities of Gnostic knowledge”), or la-hu zīda dawlatuhu wa shawkatuhu wa salṭanatuhu (“May his polity, majesty and sovereignty increase”), suggest that the manuscript was executed during Shah Ismāʿīl’s lifetime or was copied from one shortly after his demise. A very defective copy, in fact a fragment of merely 11 folios, the last of which is actually taken from a manuscript of Jāmī’s Tuḥfat al-aḥrār. The manuscript must have been put together in the nineteenth century. The binding is Qajar; all the framing blue and red lines are new. There is also a new miniature in it, perhaps later than even the Qajar period, trying to imitate very late sixteenth- or seventeenth-century Ṣafavid style. There must have been a ragged copy of the Khaṭāyī Dīvān and a leaf with a poem by Jāmī in a loose state, which were bound together. Hence, the miniature has nothing to do with the actual leaves and does not affect their dating. On the other hand, the leaves of both the Khaṭāyī and the Jāmī poems seem genuine. The illumination may be genuine but not of great quality. The binding may have been done during the Qajar period or even at a later date but using a loose Qajar binding.Footnote 56

Anthologies. This type of material can only be mentioned briefly, mainly because it has been very superficially studied, and because of the vast quantity of such manuscripts. A study of Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry as reflected in the popular anthologies is, nonetheless, an important research topic for future scholars.

  • 20. Mnz. 631, Millet Library, Istanbul.Footnote 57 The manuscript is undated, but a possessorial notice that refers to the enthronement of Selim III with the date 1203/1789 gives us the terminus post quem for its copy date. All the poets whose poetry it gives samples of are from the sixteenth century.

  • 21. Divan-i Şah Hatayi, Berlin, Ms. Orient. Fol. 209, fols. 423a‒456a, 34 ghazals. In fact, this is not a full copy but a selection as part of an anthology of Persian and Turkish poetry. It was compiled in 1077/1666 by one Dāvūd Beg, who claims to have had the Turkic poems of his anthology copied by one Mawlānā Ibrāhīm Ḳazvīnī, and the Persian pieces by one Mawlānā Murād ‘Alī Tījānī or Tījī.Footnote 58

Copies first seriously studied in the first critical edition by Muhsin Macit.

  • 22. Tashkent, Academy of Sciences, Al-Biruni Institute of Oriental Studies, 1340/1412 (Tashkent1). Copied by Mulla Muḥammad Ya‘ḳūb in 1325/1907‒8 on the order of the ruler of Khiva, Muḥammad Raḥīm Bahādur Khan (r. 1864‒1910).Footnote 59

  • 23. Egyptian National Archives, Cairo, Turkish manuscripts, 49 [MF54810].Footnote 60 A defective copy calligraphed by Sulṭān ‘Alī Mashhadī (1476‒1544), who had served at the court of the Timurid Sultan Ḥusayn Bayḳara, before entering the service of Sām Mīrzā, likely while the latter was governor of Herat (between 1522 and 1544). According to Macit, its orthography was greatly influenced by Chaghatay Turkic.

  • 24. Istanbul Research Institute, Istanbul, Şevket Rado Collection, 51. Copied in 1038/1628, 107 fols. With fifteen poems unique to it, this is the bulkiest copy of the Dīvān.Footnote 61

  • 25. Tabriz Central Library, 1251 (TZ). Copied in 1237/1822.Footnote 62

  • 26. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Atatürk Kitaplığı Osman Ergin Yazmaları 226/2.Footnote 63

Minorsky’s Evidence

Now we can turn to the evidence Minorsky provides and discuss it in light of comparing it with the accessible extant copies of the Dīvān. As we might recall, he considered Paris1 as the oldest copy, comparing it to Paris2, London2 and Ardabil, though he knew of other copies, which, however, he could not consult. Table 1 shows the occurrence of the seventeen “Minorsky poems” in the available manuscripts, marked with an asterisk. This is complemented by a list of the distribution of thirty-five other messianic poems in the extant copies. The selection of the latter is admittedly somewhat subjective on my part, because—as we shall see further below—on the one hand, some of Shah Ismāʿīl’s “mainstream” Sufi religious poems in general have the potential to be read in a messianic sense and, on the other hand, the barrier between courtly love poetry and mystical poetry is often blurred. Nonetheless, the conclusions would not really change even if we included further poems in the list. The poems selected on top of Minorsky’s evidence can be characterized by ġulāt motifs, heavy emphasis on eschatology, and importance given to the Ṣafavids and Shah Ismāʿīl as political and eschatological actors. Excluded from Table 1 are Tashkent1, which is a twentieth-century copy of the sixteenth-century Tashkent manuscript; the Ali Emiri and Osman Ergi copies, which most certainly come from an Anatolian Bektashi context and constitute a textual tradition very different from the ones originating in Ṣafavid circles; and the Sulṭān Ḳurrā’ī copy, which neither Muhsin Macit, the editor of the text, nor I have had direct access to.

Table 1. Distribution of messianic poems in the known copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

Table 2 is essentially a summary of Table 1. It provides the number of the “Minorsky poems” in each copy, that of the other messianic poems, and their sum.

Table 2. Number of messianic poems in the known copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

In order to better demonstrate the relationship between the individual copies of the Dīvān and to see the position of messianic poems in them, Figure 1, based on Muhsin Macit’s analysis, shows how the copies can be grouped. Unfortunately, in most cases it is difficult to see direct relationship between the individual manuscripts and establish that one was copied from the other. Based on the available evidence, what Macit has been able to ascertain is that certain copies are closer to each other than to others and constitute groups of texts coming from identical textual traditions, as it is not possible at this point to provide an exact stemma describing to the relationship between the majority of the copies.Footnote 64 Straight lines represent direct relationship between individual copies, dotted lines represent indirect, likely affiliation.

Figure 1. Relationship between copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s divan, based on Macit’s edition of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān.

Accordingly, there are the following textual groups, which I name after the most prominent manuscript in them: the “Tashkent Group” (Tashkent and Tashkent1), the “Paris Group” (Paris1 and Tabriz), the “Nuclear Group” (London2, Paris2, Tehran National Museum, Tehran2, and Tehran University), the “Şevket Rado Group” (Şevket Rado, which is affiliated with Mazar-i Sharif, the latter likely being one of the antecedents of Gulpāyagānī), the “Gulistān Group” (Gulistān and Qom), which is affiliated with the “Paris Group” and the Sulṭān Ḳurrā’ī copy. In addition to these, there are solo copies, i.e. ones that cannot be connected to any of these groups. As demonstrated by Macit about the three extant copies executed during the lifetime of Shah Ismāʿīl, the Washington and Tehran1 copies both seem to come from different paper trails, as does the third such copy, London1. It is difficult to connect these copies to the ones coming after them, because all of them are defective. None of them contains poems that are unique to them. A similar difficulty do we encounter with the later defective copies, i.e. with the Cairo copy from the first half of the sixteenth century or the undated Vatican copy.

How can we account for these different groups of manuscripts and their messianic content? According to the table, it seems that the number of the messianic “Minorsky poems” is smaller in the “Tashkent group,” which comes from the time of Ṭahmāsp. The case is similar to the group called nuclear (çekirdek) by Macit, which comprises late sixteenth-century copies, such as London2, Paris2, Tehran National Museum and Tehran2, as well as their late affiliate, the Tehran University copy from the nineteenth century; and in the group comprised of the Mazar-i Sharif copy, either from the sixteenth or the early seventeenth century, and its descendant, the Şevket Rado copy, and their late affiliate, the Gulpāyagānī copy. On the other hand, the Gulistān copy and its copy, the Qom copy, contain merely 3‒4 fewer of the “Minorsky poems” than Paris1. According to Macit, the copyist Abū Turāb had access to several previous copies, including the Sulṭān Ḳurrā’ī copy, and he clearly knew the manuscript tradition to which Paris1 belonged.

In addition, if we add to this equation the additional messianic poems that I have identified, we can see that only the Tashkent group has significantly fewer such poems (twelve as opposed to twenty-nine in Paris1), and the “Nuclear Group” has approximately the same or slightly fewer (between twenty and twenty-six), while the “Gulistān Group” has far more, forty-two! The irony with this is that only the Tashkent group suits the Minorsky thesis relatively well, i.e. two manuscripts—Tashkent and Tabriz—that Minorsky himself was not even aware of, while the other textual groups do not quite fit the bill.

As can also be seen in Macit, there were diverse textual traditions from the time we first encounter the Dīvān; copies with differing contents were already floating around during the reign of Shah Ismāʿīl. The Tashkent copy produced in 1535 might reflect a more mainstream and less messianic discourse and is perhaps in line with Ṭahmāsp’s assertion of his authority at his court and the end of the Qizilbash interregnum, marked by the execution of Ḥusayn Khan Shāmlū in 1533 and appointing a Persian, Qadi Jahān Ḳazvīnī to the post of vakīl.

The “Nuclear Group” of manuscripts, i.e. London2, Paris2, Tehran National Library, Tehran 2, as well as their nineteenth-century descendant, the Tehran University copy, constitutes a different tradition. These were all likely produced between the mid-sixteenth through the early seventeenth century. Their messianic content is somewhere between Tashkent and Paris1, which neither confirms nor refutes the “Minorsky thesis.” For twenty years until 1596, i.e. eight years into the reign of Shah ‘Abbās, the Qizilbash continued to wield great influence and be dominant, particularly after the death of Ṭahmāsp in 1576.

It is more difficult to politically contextualize the group comprised of, according to Macit, the Mazar-i Sharif copy, likely executed in the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century, the Şevket Rado copy, and their descendant, the Gulpāyagānī copy from the nineteenth century. It is certainly interesting that the Şevket Rado copy from 1038/1628, i.e. the penultimate year of ‘Abbās I, who greatly marginalized the Qizilbash, is the bulkiest of all the extant copies, with fifteen poems unique to it. One should not forget that the relative marginalization of the Qizilbash did not mean their disappearance or the extinction of Turkic as a literary idiom from Ṣafavid Iran. On the contrary, Turkic continued to retain its importance for the Ṣafavids in their competition with the Ottomans. It is enough to refer to Ayfer Karakaya-Stump’s abovementioned findings about the dynasty and their Anatolian disciples, whose relationship continued into the seventeenth century; or a summary of Twelver Shiite theology written in Turkic in the 1620s for a Crimean prince, Shāhin Girāy, who took refuge at the court of ‘Abbās.Footnote 65 The cultivation of the image of Shah Ismāʿīl in the form of producing extensive copies of his Dīvān might have been part of such a geopolitical competition.

Perhaps the most interesting group is the “Gulistān Group.” As we can see further below, such an exquisite, finely executed copy can very well correspond to the historical context of heightened interest in the early days of the dynasty. Why would the Gulistān copy from 1688 have so many of the messianic poems of the founder of the dynasty?

Another cause for surprise is that if we add up the occurrences of the “Minorskian” poems in the copies other than Paris1, we find that except for one, all the messianic poems of the Paris1 copy can be found in them, and there is only one that can only be found in the Paris1 and Şevket Rado copies. Now let us look at the first poem, which is exclusive to the Paris manuscript and cannot be found even in the other groups.

1. Allāh allāh ding ġāzīler

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

ḳarşu gelüñ secde ḳılung

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

2. uçmaġda ṭūṭī ḳuşıyam

aġır leşker erbaşıyam

men ṣūfīler yoldaşıyam

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

3. ne yerde ekersen biterem

hande çaġırsan yeterem

ṣūfīler elin dutaram

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

4. Manṣūr ile dārda idim

Khalīl ile nārda idim

Mūsá ile Ṭūrda idim

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

5. Esrā’adan beri gelüng

nevrūz edüng şāha yetüng

Hey ġāzīler secde ḳıluñ

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

6. ḳırmızı tāclu boz atlu

aġır leşkeri heybetlü

Yūsif peyġamber ṣıfatlu

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

7. Khaṭāyī’em al atluyam

sözi şekkerden datluyam

Murtażá ‘Alī ẕātluyam

ġāzīler diyen şāh menem

Ghazis, say, “God!” I am the shah calling upon you,

Come before me, prostrate yourselves, I am the shah calling upon you.

I am a parrot in heaven, I am the commander of a mighty army,

I am companion to the Sufis, I am the shah calling upon you.

Wherever you plow me, I grow, wherever you call me, I go there,

I hold the Sufis by the hand, I am the shah calling upon you.

I was on the gibbet with Manṣūr and with Abraham in the fire,

I was with Moses on Sinai, I am the shah calling upon you.

Come from the eve, celebrate the New Year, join the King.

O ghazis, prostrate yourselves. I am the shah calling upon you.

I wear a red crown, my charger is grey,

I (lead a) mighty army. I am the shah who is calling you Joseph-like ghazis.

I am Khata'i, my charger is sorrel; my words are sweeter than sugar,

I have the essence of Murtaḍā ‘Alī. I am the shah calling upon you.Footnote 66

The shah in the refrain refers to the author, Shah Ismāʿīl, and it is also a common epithet of ‘Alī. Presenting himself as a manifestation of ‘Alī, the poet calls upon his adepts to prostrate themselves before him, invoking prayer, which in mainstream Islam is due only to God. He is both a parrot, i.e. a transmitter of divine guidance, as well as military commander and Sufi master. Strophe 3 is a reference to the twelfth-century Arab mystic philosopher Ibn ‘Arabī’s notion of vaḥdat al-vujūd, “the unity of being,” according to which the world is an emanation of God and every being is His manifestation. Strophe 4 implicitly identifies the speaker with God, referring to Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj (d. 922), an emblematic figure of antinomian Islam. Al-Ḥallāj was executed for statements that were considered heretic, the most famous of which is anā’l-ḥaḳḳ “I am God,” a motto of unio mystica in Islamic mystical thought. According to the Koran (21:68‒9), Abraham was to be burnt on a pyre for smashing idols, but God rescued him from the fire; and God revealed his power to Moses, when He destroyed Mt. Sinai. In an eschatological sense, Shah Ismāʿīl’s reign is the beginning of the reign of the Messiah, the Mahdī, who has been in occultation and is now coming at the end of time. Implicitly, the sharia is therefore to be suspended, because God reveals himself in Khaṭā’ī; the coming of the New Year in strophe 5 marks perhaps the beginning of this new dispensation.Footnote 67 In the next strophe we encounter Shah Ismāʿīl’s red-capped Turkmen followers, the Qizilbash, who are likened to Joseph, the manifestation of God’s beauty—and, implicitly, His power—in Islamic lore. In the end, the poet announces his identity with ‘Alī, which has a concrete reference in that the Ṣafavids presented themselves as Sayyids, descendants of Muhammad through ‘Alī and Mūsá al-Kāẓim, the seventh Imam; however, the image of the advent of an Alid descendant is definitely part of the eschatological message of the poem, too.

The fact that this highly messianic poem can only be found in Paris1 would support Minorsky’s thesis, even if there is only one such instance. On closer examination, however, one can see that, in contrast to all the other poems in the divan, this piece is not a ghazal, i.e. a short poem in couplets that follows the Arabo-Persian metrical system of the arūż, but a koşma, a folk-Turkish genre, which has a strophic structure and a syllabic meter. (I have broken the lines accordingly, although, as is usual, in the manuscript it looks as if it were made up of couplets.) Since all the other messianic poems, which follow the prestigious arūż system, can be found in the manuscripts that were produced after the Paris1 copy, most likely it was not at all the messianic content of the poem that made, for example, even Abū Turāb in 1688 exclude it from the Gulistān copy, which he penned, but its versification, considered substandard.Footnote 68

We can also look at a ghazal from Minorsky’s list which occurs in but one manuscript other than Paris1, the Şevket Rado copy:Footnote 69

1. ey menüm çokh sevdügüm ‘ālemde sulṭāndur bugün

yār eger ḳabūl eder cānumnı ḳurbāndur bugün

2. ey ādem sen ‘āḳıl iseng dünyāya verme göngül

dünyāya veren göngül bu yolda nā-dāndur bugün

3. ‘Alī’yi ḥaḳḳ bilmeyenler kāfir-i muṭlaḳ olur

dīni yokh īmānı yokh ol nā-müsülmāndur bugün

4. bir göngül avlar iseng yüzüngge varmış kimidür

bir göngül yıkhar iseng yüz Mekke vīrāndur bugün

5. ey Khaṭāyī cān ġanīmetdür özini tanı gör

dangla gün olacaḳuz cān tende mihmāndur bugün

1. O, my Beloved is the sultan of the world today,

If the friend accepts my heart, it will be sacrificed today.

2. O, man, if you are smart, do not give your heart to the world,

He who gives the world his heart today is but a fool on the path today.

3. Those who do not acknowledge ‘Alī as the Truth, are absolute idolators,

Today they have neither religion nor faith, and they are no Muslims.

4. If you hit a heart, it will amount to a hundred,

If you destroy a heart, a hundred Meccas will be ruined today.

5. O, Khaṭāyī, the heart is a prey, know yourself,

We will die tomorrow, our soul is but a guest in the body.

The only verse that can be considered as belonging to a ġulāt ethos is number 3. In an excommunicative zeal, the poet declares that those who do not acknowledge ‘Alī’s divinity are not Muslims. If taken together with verse 1, where the Beloved is declared sultan in the world, the message of uniting spiritual and political authority under a Shii banner is clear.

If we recall, Minorsky claims that even if a poem was not purged from the later copies, its text was altered to reflect the new religiosity of the dynasty. For example, the variant of the next poem as contained in Paris1 is also different from the one in later manuscripts:

yaḳīn bil kim khudā’īdür Khaṭāyī

Muḥammed Muṣṭafā’īdür Khaṭāyī

Ṣafī nesli Cüneyd-i Ḥayder oġlı

‘Alīyy-i Murtażá’īdür Khaṭāyī

Ḥasan ‘ışḳında meydāna giriptür

Ḥüseyn-i Kerbelāyīdür Khaṭāyī

‘Alī Zeynü’l-‘İbād Bāḳir ü Ca‘fer

Kāẓim Mūsá Rıżāyīdür Khaṭāyī

Muḥammed Taḳīdür ‘Alī Naḳī hem

Ḥasan ‘Asker liḳāyīdür Khaṭāyī

Muḥammed-i Mehdī ṣāḥib zamānung

ḳapusında gedāyīdür Khaṭāyī

Menüm adum velī Şāh İsma‘īldür

Khaṭāyīdür Khaṭāyīdür Khaṭāyī Footnote 70

Here is Minorsky’s translation:

Know for certain that Khata'i is of divine nature, that he is related to Muhammad Mustafa;

He is issued from Safi, he is the scion of Junayd [and] Haydar, he is related to ‘Ali Murtaḍā.

For the love of Ḥasan he has entered the arena, (for) he is related to Husayn of Kerbela.

[He possesses the qualities of the other Imams.]

He is like a beggar at the gate of Mahdī, Master of the Time.

My name is Valī Shah Isma‘īl; my surname is Khaṭāyī.Footnote 71

The poem can be found not only in Paris1 but also in the “Nuclear Group” (Paris2, London2, Tehran2 and Tehran University) and the “Gulistān Group” (Gulistān and Qom), as well the early copy London1 and the Vatican copy. Drawing attention to the last verse, Minorsky suggests that it was also tampered with by ideologically minded later copyists. Paris1 has velī Shah Isma‘īl, the poet identifying with ‘Alī, one of whose commonly known titles is velī Allāh “guardian of God” but also posing as a Sufi saint. The later manuscripts, as pointed out by Minorsky, give the following variation of this line:

Velī-kin adıyla Şāh İsma‘īldür

Takhalluṣı Khaṭāyīdür Khaṭāyī

Yet in name he is Şāh Isma‘īl,

His penname is Khaṭāyī.

Minorsky argues that the ambiguity of velī Shah İsma‘īl, which can mean either “but Shah Isma‘īl” or “Shah Isma‘īl the Saint,” was intentionally lifted from the later copies. One must accept that he is right that the ambiguity and the identification of Shah Ismāʿīl as an ‘Alid is stronger in Paris1. Of course, velī is an extremely loaded term in Shiism, where it designates someone who holds sanctified power and is therefore the sole human source of religious authority. However, I would argue that an equally “heretical” verse in the poem is the first one, where the speaker claims to be of divine nature, which, notably, is present in all the manuscripts. If later manuscripts were indeed affected by censorship, would it not have been logical to alter the first verse as well?Footnote 72 Further, the “Gulistān Group” also has a ghazal with a similar last verse:

velī kim ism ile Şāh İsma‘īldür

Khaṭāyīdür ‘Alīning çākeridür

The saint/But he whose name is Shah Ismail

is Khaṭāyī, slave to ‘Alī.

Play with the ambiguity of the word velī, if indeed this is an ambiguity, is apparently not alien to later manuscripts, either.

The next poem also has a strong self-aggrandizing tone. Here it is as it can be found in Paris1:

ezelden şāh bizim sulṭānımızdur

pīrimiz mürşīdimiz cānumızdur

şāh adın deyüpen girdük bu yola

ḥüseynī’üz bu gün devrānumızdur

biz imām ḳulları’uz ṣādıḳāne

şehīdluḳ ġāzīluḳ nişānumızdur

yolımız incedür inceden ince

bu yol baş başvermege erkānumızdur

Khatāyī’em ezelden sırr-ı Ḥayder

Munı ḥaḳḳ bilmeyen bīgānemizdür

From Pre-Eternity the Shah is our Sultan,

our pīr and murshid, our soul.

Having pronounced the name of the Shah we have walked along

this path. We are Ḥusaynī, to-day is our period.

We are slaves of the Imams, in all sincerity.

Our token is to be martyrs and ghazis.

Our path is narrow, narrower than anything.

This time our fundamental rule is to give our heads away.

I am Khaṭāyī. From Pre-Eternity I am the Mystery of Haydar.

He who does not recognize this as Divine Truth (Ḥaḳḳ) is a stranger to us.Footnote 73

Amy Gallagher suggests that the difference between the last line as it appears in Paris1 and as it appears in the other known manuscripts is also an example of later copyists’ efforts to rid the Dīvān of notions of Shah Ismāʿīl’s divinity,Footnote 74 such as the last verse, which appears, for example, in Tehran2 as follows:

Mevālīdür Khaṭāyī sırr-ı Ḥayder

Şāhı ḥaḳḳ bilmeyen düşmānımuzdur

Khaṭāyī is protector of the Mystery of Ḥayder

He who does not recognize the shah as Divine Truth is our enemy.

Gallagher thinks that while Paris1 presents the poet’s apotheosis, in the other manuscripts we find shah, which she thinks is more fluid. But is not the presentation of a different ġulāt idea, namely, the deification of ‘Alī, also implying that the poet himself is ‘Alī/God?

However, all the other poems in Minorsky can be found in either of the manuscripts he or Məmmədov were working with, or in Tehran2, and especially Gulistān and Qom. I have not found any other major textual variety that would make the versions in later copies less ecstatic or messianic. Here is the next poem:

1. menem ki bu zamāna şimdi geldüm

revān oldum revāna şimdi geldüm

2. ‘āşıḳım mest ü ḥayrān şāha çun men

muḥibbem khānadāna şimdi geldüm

3. şāha müştāḳ idim ġāyette bi’llāh

şükr kim āsitāna şimdi geldüm

4. Yezīd ü müşriküng kökin keserem

Çırāġa yana yana şimdi geldüm

5. Ezelden gelmişem şāh emri ilen

Saġınmagil cihāna şimdi geldüm

6. muḥibbim on iki şāha ezelden

velīkin bu dükkāna şimdi geldüm

7. Süleymān khātemi Mūsá ‘aṣāsı

‘āleme Nūh ṭūfāna şimdi geldüm

8. Muḥammed mu‘cizi şāh Ẕu’l-Fıḳārı

Elümdedür nişāna şimdi geldüm

9. khavāric aṣlını ḳoyman cihāna

Khaṭāyī’em bürhāna Footnote 75 şimdi geldüm

1. It is I who have come now for this epoch (var. “to this world”).

I have set myself in motion and have entered a soul (manifested myself in a soul?).

2. I am intoxicated with love for the Shah and dazzled by him.

As a lover I have come to (my) family (home).

3. By God, I was sorely longing for the Shah! Thanks to God, I have

now come to the sanctuary.

4. I shall uproot Yazid and the heretics, a-burning I have come to

the source of light.

5. By the Shah’s command I had come in Pre-Eternity. Do not be

troubled, (for) now I have come (again).

6. From Pre-Eternity I am in love with the “Twelve Shahs” (Imams)

but now I have come to this shop (i.e. this mundane world).

7. (Like ?) Solomon's ring and the staff of Moses I have come to

the world, as Noah (during) the Flood.

8. Muhammad’s miracles, the Shah’s (sword) Dhul-Fiqar are signs

in my hand. Here I have come.

9. I shall exterminate outsiders from the world. I am Khata'i,

I have come to serve as a proof (of Truth).Footnote 76

All the other manuscripts have a similar text, except that the version in Tehran2 is two verses shorter.

The following poem can be found in Paris1 and the “Gulistān Group” in slightly different versions:

1. ‘aynu’llāhım ‘aynullāhım ‘aynullāh

gel imdi ḥaḳḳı gör ey kūr-i gümrāh

2. Menem fā‘il-i muṭlaḳ ki derler

Menüm ḥükmimdedür khurşīd ile māh

3. Vücūdum beyt-i allāhdur yaḳīn bil

Sücūdum sangadur şām u seḥergāh

4. yaḳīn bil ehl-i iḳrārung yanında

yer ü gök cümle ḥaḳtur olma gümrāh

5. velāyet bāġınung bir mīvesidür

khaçan uza onı her dest-i kūtāh

6. dilersen ḥaḳḳı ḥaḳḳa vāṣil etmek

erişti fī maḳām-i mīm allāh

7. ‘ulūḳı pāk öze seyrān edür ki

Khaṭāyī uġradı bir gence nāgāh Footnote 77

Here is a modified version of Minorsky’s translation:

1. I am God’s eye (or “God Himself”!); come now, o blind man

gone astray, to behold Truth (God).

2. I am that Absolute Doer of whom they speak.

Sun and Moon are in my power.

3. My being is God’s House, know it for certain. Prostration before

me is incumbent on thee, in the morn and even.

4. Know for certain, that with the People of Recognition

Heaven and Earth are all Truth. Do not stray!

5. The garden of Sanctity has produced a (or one) fruit.

How can it be plucked by a short-handed one?

6. If you wish to join Truth to Truth,

(here is) God who has reached the stage of Mīm.

7. The one of pure connections goes back to his own person.

Suddenly Khata'i has come by a treasure.

Both Minorsky and Gallagher argue that this poem is unique to Paris1, but in fact it is also contained in the copies of the “Gulistān Group” with almost the same text, except for two differences in the last verses 6‒7:Footnote 78

dilersen ḥaḳḳı ḥaḳḳa vāṣil olgil

eriştir fī’l-maḳāmi lī ma‘ allāh

Ulūfet [?] Footnote 79 bāġını seyrān ederken

Khaṭāyī uġradı bir gence nāgāh

If you want the Truth, unite with the Truth,

Convey [yourself] to the station of “I have [time] with God.”

Walking in the garden of ?,

Suddenly Khaṭāyī has come by a treasure.

The meaning of these two variants is problematic and awaits further research. Nevertheless, it seems clear that verse 6 in Paris1 refers either to God’s revealing Himself in the letter mīm, which perhaps refers to Muḥammad, or to one of the mysterious letters in the Koran, while the version in the “Gulistān Group” invokes the moment of the mystic’s union with God. However, these are minor changes and the most expressly messianic verses carrying ġulāt notions are the same in both manuscript groups.

The problem of versification leads us to another group of manuscripts. This is a topic that cannot be dealt with extensively here because of the vastness of primary sources hitherto neglected and the elementariness of research on the topic. These mecmū‘as, “private anthologies,” belong primarily to Anatolian Alevi-Bektashi communities, which, though Ottoman subjects, shared much of the Shiite leanings and ġulāt ideology of the Ṣafavids and continued to consider themselves their spiritual followers, as suggested by Ayfer Karakaya-Stump.Footnote 80 One such manuscript is Millet Library Mnz. 631, mentioned above. Even the outlook of these manuscripts reveals that we should not seek a rich patron behind them but a simple Bektashi dervish intent on collecting poetry from the major poets whose poems he could use in Bektashi rituals. This copy differs from the Ṣafavid-sponsored manuscript tradition, because it is full of syllabic and strophic poems, similar to the one I adduced previously. Interestingly, in the Bektashi tradition there were several poets writing under the poetic pen-name Khaṭāyī, i.e. Shah Ismāʿīl’s pen-name. Or they used pen-names that referenced Shah Ismāʿīl’s nom de plume, such as Shah Khaṭāyī, Dervish Khaṭāyī, Can Khaṭāyī, Derdimend Khaṭāyī, Pir Khaṭāyī, Sultan Khaṭāyīor Shah Khaṭāyī.Footnote 81 These poets, whose oeuvre forms an important part of Alevi rituals, used the same imagery and produced both genres of high culture, ġazals, ḳaṣīdas, masnavīs, murabba‘s, etc., and low-register koşmas and nefes, varsaġıs, etc., a feature understood by scholars as an intentional appeal to the Qizilbash followers. According to Amy Gallagher, these poems are different from the ones preserved in the Ṣafavid-sponsored copies; Khaṭāyī features no more as the historical figure claiming to be the incarnation of the divine but as the sheikh of the order who has attained mystical union with God.Footnote 82 It seems, therefore, that the two manuscript traditions, i.e. the Ṣafavid-sponsored Shah Ismāʿīl copies and the Alevi Bektashi popular anthologies, bifurcated at some point in history. To date, Shah Ismāʿīl “Khaṭāyī” and the pseudo-Khaṭāyīs form an essential part of Alevi-Bektashi rituals. The story of this bifurcation is not entirely clear, especially because recent research by Ayfer Karakaya-Stump reveals that many of the Bektashi groups continued to have contacts with the Ṣafavid shahs into the seventeenth century. She also suggests that “[T]he Qizilbash movement should be conceived as a union of various mystical formations and antinomian dervish groups which flourished in Anatolia from the late medieval period.”Footnote 83 I have demonstrated elsewhere how some poems by Nesīmī, the greatest Ḥurūfī poet, were plagiarized by Shah Ismāʿīl or misattributed by the copyists of his Dīvān, and vice versa, when Shah Ismāʿīl poems were presented as though they had been written by Nesīmī, a phenomenon that, I suggest, can best be understood against the background of a larger popular Sufi context that carried features of both oral and literary culture. While this is all true, one might also use the designation in the vignette in the Paris2 copy, which refers to Sultan Khaṭāyī, or certain of the poems in Dīvān copies with the same appellation. Would it not be possible that at least some of these poems might come from the Ṣafavid “propaganda machine” or the court itself?

Audience and Ambiguity

And now we can come back to the Minorsky thesis and critique it from a literary point of view. Already the great Muslim thinker of the twelfth century, al-Ġazālī (d. 1111), who harmonized Sufism with mainstream Islam, touches on the issue of the so-called shaṭḥiyāt, which are

broad, extravagant claims (made) in passionate love of God Most High, in the union that is independent of outward actions, so that some go to the extent of claiming unification, rending of the veil, contemplative vision (of God) and oral conversation (with God). Then they say, “We were told such-and-such, and we said such-and-such. In this way they resemble al-Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj, who was crucified for uttering the words of this kind, and they quote his saying, ‘I am the Truth’.”Footnote 84

al-Ġazālī maintains that such exclamations are dangerous for the ignorant but they are therefore permissible for the initiated. Moreover, Minorsky forgets about an essential feature of the Persianate ghazal, ambiguity, which had been classicized from the twelfth century on and by Shah Ismāʿīl’s time formed part of the poetic convention. As has already been emphasized in Amelia Gallagher’s article mentioned above, in the classical ghazal the language of love poetry, the courtly setting and the language of mystical intoxication are inextricably intertwined.Footnote 85 The reader often does not know whether what they are reading is the depiction of a wine gathering with dancing boys and musicians or an ecstatic gathering of Sufis. Accordingly, the poems cited above can also be interpreted as elaborations of the idea of vaḥdat al-vujūd, “the unity of being,” which was an acceptable part of religious discourse as well as poetry. Many of the messianic poems of Shah Ismāʿīl could therefore easily avoid the putative censorship of later, pious readers. It is probable that the copies of the Dīvān that were commissioned by those members of the dynasty, such as Ṭahmāsp I or ‘Abbās I, who at one point or another actively suppressed millenarian groups, could have been subjected to closer scrutiny and possible censorship. However, the space of ambiguity in which literary texts operated left the copyists of the Dīvān with a considerable amount of freedom.

The question of audience can take us back to the Persian sources about the religiosity of the early Ṣafavids and Shah Ismāʿīl. A well-known account can be found in the staunchly Sunni Fażlullāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī’s Tārīkh-i ‘ālamārā-yi amīnī, written in 1480, in which he criticizes in vitriolic language the heretical ideas of Shah Ismāʿīl, his grandfather Junayd and father Ḥaydar.Footnote 86 This is in stark contrast with the accounts found in the court historians of the next generation, Khwāndmīr (d. 1535‒36) or Ḥasan Beg Rūmlū (d. 1539‒40), who are virtually silent about the “heretical” leanings of the founder of the dynasty. We should also mention Amīnī Haravī’s Futūḥāt-i shāhī from 1521, which, as analyzed by Ali Anooshahr, presents the Ṣafavids’ rise to power not as a revolution but as a carefully planned political and military campaign.Footnote 87 The reason for such a balanced image might be that these historians belonged to the Tajik segment of the Ṣafavid elite. To them, the ġulāt ideas of the early Ṣafavids and Shah Ismāʿīl were alien and embarrassing, something they felt it was best to keep silent about.Footnote 88 That this was a conscious attitude on the part of important segments of the Ṣafavid elite can be illustrated by the example of Sām Mīrzā (d. 974/1566‒67). The learned prince, Shah Ismāʿīl’s second son, composed a biographical dictionary of poets entitled Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī in imitation of the great Timurid litterateurs, Mīr ‘Alī Şīr Navā’ī’s Majālis al-Nafā’is and Dawlatshāh’s Tazkirat al-shu‘arā. Remarkably, in his work Sām Mīrzā does not quote from the Turkic poetry of his own father, Shah Ismāʿīl I, but quotes instead a few Persian verses from him and only mentions that Shah Ismāʿīl used the pen-name Khaṭā’ī in both his Persian and his Turkic poems.Footnote 89 Perhaps this was due to some personal predilection on the part of Sām Mīrzā for Persians, as evidenced, for example, by his entry on a certain Yūsuf Beg of the Çāvuşlū branch of the Ustājlū tribe: “Although he is a Turk, he has humane manners,” and “nowadays there are few Turks and even Tajiks like him.”Footnote 90 But more important than Sām Mīrzā’s personal preferences, the omission and suppression of the ġulāt discourse was very much in line with the official Ṣafavid stance under Shah Ṭahmāsp, who, as has already been noted, tried to eliminate the ġulāt tendencies of the Qizilbash, or at least tried to establish a court profile along the lines of Iranian kingship. As is well known, this policy became fully developed under Shah ‘Abbās I (1588‒1629), who as part of his centralizing efforts tried to weaken the Qizilbash emirs and destroy messianic groups and tendencies that they and other discontented groups could have relied on.

Related to the issue of the “Tajik” audience and courtly context of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān is the question of the miniatures illustrating two of the manuscript copies, London1 and Washington. If we look at the illustrations we see that they do not pertain to the poems with religious themes, let alone the poems with a fervently messianic content. All of them depict more conventional scenes, such as the hunt, court scenes, a dervish, or birds. The single exception is a mace appearing in two miniatures in the Washington copy, and in one in the London1 copy, which bears the well-known Shiite formula written on it: lā fatā illá ‘Alī lā sayfa illá Ẕū al-fiḳār, “There is no warrior but ‘Alī, there is no sword but Ẕū al-fiḳār (‘Alī’s sword).” The mace is carried by a figure who might be a tabarrā’ī, ‘disavower’ or ‘dissociater,’ i.e. a public curser of the first three caliphs. The tabarrā’ī was a group officially in charge of enforcing adherence to the official Twelver Shiite crede by monitoring the public cursing of the first three caliphs and by spying on the population.Footnote 91 Of course, these are defective copies and may have had miniatures depicting themes that are perhaps more eschatological. However, the lack of such topics in the miniatures might also have to do with the question of audience. The painters who made the period so famous for book illustration, Bihzād, Mīr Muṣavvir, Sulṭān Muḥammad, etc., all came from an urban Persian background. In fact, before the ascent of Shah Ismāʿīl to the throne and his forced conversion of his domains to Shiism they had likely been at least nominally Sunnis themselves, serving Sunni patrons. For such masters the depiction of eschatological topics, let alone illustrating such heretic ideas as, for example, the divinity of the ruler, would probably have been inappropriate. Moreover, only a relatively small portion of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān is made up of eschatological, messianic poems. Most of them are conventional ghazals, with a setting of courtly love and mystical overtones. The illustrators had plenty of poems of a more conventional character to look to.

Therefore it seems that the poetry in the Dīvān was addressed to diverse segments of the Ṣafavid venture. Its intended audience included mainly but not at all exclusively the Turkophone Qizilbash and Anatolian adepts of the Ṣafavid movement with whom the messianic message could resonate especially well, as well as connoisseurs of a broad courtly culture with mystical leanings. Its language and style was therefore very familiar on both sides of the Ottoman‒Ṣafavid borderland.

Connections of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān with Persian Literature

We must not think, however, that the chiliastic tone in poetry was in any way peculiar to the Ṣafavid period. We find it, for example, in perhaps the greatest Persian mystical poet, Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (604‒72/1207‒73), who used the motif of the Day of Judgment in a number of his ghazals as a highly elaborate conceit for depicting the gathering of mystics or the mystical experience of union with God.Footnote 92 Further, we find a similar strategy in a Persian ghazal by the noted Ṣafavid dā‘ī or propagandist, Ḳāsim-i Anvār (757‒837/1356‒1433), too:

Moses reached the light of manifestation on Mount Sinai,

the divine favor of union with the beloved reached him abreast.

The people of the world are happy, and it is time for happiness,

for the Messiah of the End of Time has reached the world.

We are content and our heart is happy and merry,

An abundance of virtues from the companion of the world has reached the world.

Adam is a secret of God, while Iblīs was blind,

Everyone who beheld the secret reached the secret treasure.

Thank God that the secret that beings seek with their soul

reached us for free.

Unexpectedly, we dropped by the tavern

when the attraction of the beloved reached our heart.

Everyone with ears and a heart heard Ḳāsimī,

the fame of whose union [with the Beloved] has reached the world.Footnote 93

Although addressed to the Qizilbash Turkmen community of adepts and thus written entirely in Turkic, the Dīvān of Shah Ismāʿīl, as has been astutely observed by Michael Glünz, can also be connected to the Persian poetic production of other ġulāt religious movements, notably the Nūrbakhshiyya and the Ni‘matullāhiyya.Footnote 94 In particular, some features of both Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Asīrī Lāhījī and Shah Ni‘matullāh Valī’s poetry, such as simplicity of meter and syntax, the high frequency of repetition, the emphatically homiletic style appropriate for a dervish community, and the unbound ecstatic tone revealing the mystical experience, are also highly characteristic of the style in Shah Ismāʿīl’s religious poems.Footnote 95 The connection is not at all surprising; all three of these movements came from the post-Mongol socio-religious fermentation and espoused a chiliastic, mystical form of Shiism at some point during their career, and there was even personal acquaintance between Shah Ismāʿīl and Lāhijī. The Ṣafavids clearly saw all other messianic movements as rivals; as argued by Shahzad Bashir, the Nūrbakkhshiyya ended as an independent intellectual movement a couple of decades after the Ṣafavid takeover, and the Ni‘matullāhīs could only survive because they had by then shed their independent messianic agenda.Footnote 96

Rediscovery of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān in the Seventeenth Century

There is a surprising turn in this story in the second half of the seventeenth century, for which we have to return to the “Gulistān Group” of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān and try to find a contemporary context for it. As we might recall, the manuscripts of this group were almost as large as the Şevket Rado copy, and their messianic content exceeded even that of the Paris1 copy.

In the late seventeenth century there were several popular prose romances or popular histories about Shah Ismāʿīl, bearing the title ‘Ālamārā-yi Ṣafavī, Jahāngushā-yi khāḳān and ‘Ālamārā-yi Shah Ismāʿīl. One of them was for a long time known to scholarship as a source contemporary with Shah Ismāʿīl; it is Andrew Morton who clarified that it belonged to the late seventeenth century along with the other similar prose romances.Footnote 97 In a recent paper based on these late seventeenth-century popular romances and Ṣafavid political advice literature, Sholeh Quinn has found that there was a discourse claiming that Shah Ismāʿīl fulfilled some hadith and prophecies.Footnote 98 Moreover, in an article, Amy Gallagher studies a copy of a late seventeenth-century official hagiography entitled the Silsilat al-Ṣafaviyya, which contains four poems by Shah Ismāʿīl. Though these poems do not contain Shah Ismāʿīl’s claims to divine incarnation, which, as we have seen, can well be read in a metaphorical sense anyway, they do contain ġulāt elements. To Gallagher this suggests that there might have been an Ardabil-based millenarian strand well into late Ṣafavid times.Footnote 99 To Quinn and Gallagher’s claims we can add that the existence of such a complete, finely executed and embellished, extensive copy of Shah Ismāʿīl as the Gulistān manuscript, commissioned and produced in Isfahan, the Ṣafavid capital, may well tie in with the possibility of a millenarian discourse in late Ṣafavid times or at least a milieu of heightened interest in the early days of the dynasty. It might also be relevant in this regard to refer to the anthology preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, which contains Persian and Turkic poetry, including a selection from Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān, copied only a month after Shah Sulaymān’s first enthronement (as Shah Ṣafī II) on 12 Jumādā I 1077/10 November 1666 and dedicated to him.

Indeed, as Said Arjomand has argued, Ṣafavid ideology tried to preserve the “Mahdistic tenet.” He adduces the Takmilat al-akhbār, a world chronicle written by ‘Abdī Beg Shīrāzī (921‒88/1515‒65), who reserves a key place for the Ṣafavid monarch as a sayyid in the grand chiliastic scheme of history:

The office of the Sovereignty of the world after the Prophet is reserved for the Commander of the Faithful (‘Alī), and after Him, this exalted office belongs to the Twelve Imams; and anyone else who interferes in this matter is a tyrant. As the Ruler of the Age [sulṭān-e zamān] [and] the Lord of Command [ṣāhib-e amr] … is absent, it is right and necessary that a person from the exalted dynasty of ‘Alī and Fāṭima, who is competent for this task, should give currency to the Commandment[s] of the Imam of the Age among God’s worshippers.Footnote 100

In other words, the Ṣafavid ruler, by virtue of his sacred descent from ‘Alī, is a placeholder for the Mahdī until the latter’s Parousia at the end of time, and as such, he unites political and spiritual authority. Although at variance with what Shiite theological doctors would have preferred them to say, the Ṣafavid rulers seem to have continued to profess millenarian charisma, albeit in a modified version, perhaps to the very end of the tenure of the dynasty.

The same attitude to the dynasty’s chiliastic charisma, i.e. one that considers the Ṣafavids as precursors to the advent of the Mahdī, can be seen in a ḳaṣīda written by Ṣādiḳī Beg (ca. 1533‒1610), the prominent painter and poet of Qizilbash origins.Footnote 101 The poem starts out with the Mahdī depicted as the Beloved; after the transitory couplet to be cited below, however, it turns into praise of Shah ‘Abbās I, whose persona as the Beloved apparently metamorphoses into being depicted as the Mahdī; or at least, this playfulness is certainly there: “He is the guiding Mahdī, the just king whose justice / Issues a fatwā [even] to Anūshirvān to suppress injustice.”Footnote 102

Aside from this single couplet, I have found no other traces in Ṣādiḳī’s oeuvre that could be related to the “Mahdistic tenet.” We cannot date the poem with precision; it could originally have been written for Ṭahmāsp or Ismāʿīl II, too, and then refashioned later into a panegyric for ‘Abbās. What seems probable, however, is that the language of Messianism continued to inform certain registers of literary discourse well into the seventeenth century. This is also borne out by the following couplet in a panegyric ḳaṣīda written for ‘Abbās II (1052‒77/1642‒66) by Ṣā’ib (b. Tabriz, ca. 1000‒86/1592‒1676), the most prominent representative of the so-called Indian style in Ṣafavid Persia: “May the times of his fortunate reign [dawlat-ash], through God’s graces, / Extend to the reign of the Mahdī, the Lord of the Time!”Footnote 103

This is not unlike how Muḥtasham-i Kāshānī (d. 996/1587‒88) extols ‘Abbās in a panegyric: “May the sun make its rays every day into a broom / For the blessed chamberlain who spreads carpet on the path of the Lord of the Time.”Footnote 104

Of course, one can argue that there is a huge difference between claiming to be the godhead or an incarnation thereof, as Shah Ismāʿīl did, and claiming to be the placeholder or precursor of the last imam. However, the fact that the dynasty itself maintained an aura of eschatological significance and that messianic movements repeatedly occurred during its tenure, suggests that there was a niche for the continuation of messianic discourse in various segments of cultural life, including literature.

Conversion, Orality and Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

The textological conundrum of the individual manuscripts of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān is far from being solved. However, I have been trying to show that Minorsky’s thesis, which claims that the extreme, “heretical” views present in the old Paris copy were purged from later manuscripts, is an oversimplification. It would not be surprising if this thesis were grounded in the discourse of the Urtext, which posits that the work of philology is to go back to the author’s original version. There certainly are theoretical arguments against such a positivist approach, but the Dīvān of Shah Ismāʿīl and its different versions seem to resist such treatments particularly easily. We know for certain that the Dīvān was used in Ṣafavid propaganda efforts. It may well be that already during Shah Ismāʿīl’s lifetime there were many textual variations circulating. The mostly very simple language of the poetry and the great variability of the texts suggests a context on the cusp between orality and the written form.

The oral nature of this poetry is confirmed by the following account. It is from a certain Ġarībī, a poet of Anatolian origins who ended up in the service of Shah Ismāʿīl and Ṭahmāsp, producing a divan of poetry and prose pieces. One of the latter is a biographical dictionary of Anatolian poets, whom the author presents as heavily Alid or Shiite, in true fashion of confessional ambiguity. His account of Shah Ismāʿīl contains the following passage:

Although the matchless dīvān penned and produced by the perfect guide [mürşid-i kāmil] and most perfect one, that is, Sulṭān Shah Ismāʿīl Bahādur Khān, sultan son of sultan—May God illuminate his proof and perpetuate his noble sons on the throne of his guidance—and although this divan has become mystical chant [ẕikr] and prayer on the tongues of the people of God’s unity as well as men of mystical states, and although by informing them of the mysteries of certain faith, those poems, which are the refuge of divine truth, and his (i.e. Shah Ismāʿīl’s) trustees, who are lovers of the threshold of the Shah, have led to the Path of God many people (who had been led) astray, for the sake of bliss, at this point I have referred to that matchless divan and copied the following dear poem, which makes the sight of the eyes and the heart happy and fills it with light again.Footnote 105

From this account we learn that the poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl was part of Ṣafavid rituals and that it was used for proselytization. This context was very likely such that shifts and modifications occurred easily in the text of the poems that were chanted. The poem was an open text that was modified, completed, shortened as the moment demanded. This is confirmed by the fact that several poems have variants that clearly did not come from the later copyists and had already been known in several different variations early on. Indeed, as I demonstrate elsewhere, Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry was on the margin between literary and oral culture; in other words, although it was written down, features of orality continued to inform it, making the text of the poems highly flexible and malleable.Footnote 106

The non-literate nature of this poetry is extremely significant. As can be seen in the case of misattributed poems of Nesīmī and Shah Ismāʿīl, such non-literate aspects of poetry were the function of its communal, homiletic nature. Included in the communal rites of Qizilbah/Alevi-Bektashi communities, such poems provided and continue to provide today a space for members of the congregation to encounter the divine and reenact, in a way, their own conversion.Footnote 107 Therefore, just as much as such conversion narratives as the Oġuznāma, a well-known popular narrative about the origins of the Türkmen, articulate “notions of sacred origins, in particular the notions of sacred communal origins that typically provide the basis for assertions of communal integrity and legitimacy,”Footnote 108 the religious poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl as well as the pseudo-Khaṭāyīs and other poets in Qizilbash/Alevi-Bektashi communities were symbolic reenactments of the conversion and creation of these communities. In a highly insightful recent article referred to above, Rıza Yıldırım suggests that the ġulāṭ ethos of the Qizilbash found expression in Anatolian Karbala-oriented narrative traditions that centered on the mission to avenge the blood of the first and most important martyr of Shiism, Ḥusayn, who was massacred along with his family and followers at Karbala in 680 CE, marking the beginning date of Shiism’s eternal struggle against oppression. Ṣafavid propaganda in general and Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry in particular, sought to tie in with this ethos, which conceived of its social and political struggle as a reenactment of the struggle against Yazīd and the Umayyads who had murdered Ḥusayn.Footnote 109

Conclusion

It is certainly questionable how much control the dynasty or Shiite clerical circles had over the production of manuscripts. Even if they had and even if certain copies, such as the Washington manuscript, were associated with the court, the purge against “heretical,” messianic ideas was far from complete even in the case of the manuscripts Minorsky had access to. More importantly, I would argue that there may well have been several textological traditions that produced copies with mutually different content. There was a constant flow of interest on the part of the Ṣafavid dynasty and the Qizilbash elite in the poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl, and on several occasions they ordered copies from highly skilled and prestigious calligraphers.

Of course, all this is not to say that Ṣafavid ġulāt religiosity was the same as the establishment Islam represented by Shiite clerics after Shah Ismāʿīl. Kathryn Babayan documented well their crackdown on the public performance of such apocalyptic texts as the Abū Muslimnāma.Footnote 110 There was an attempt on the part of certain circles in the Ṣafavid elite to establish the mainstream Shiite credentials of the regime. Aside from the ban on the public performance of the Abū Muslimnāma, or the rewriting of the official Ṣafavid hagiography, the Ṣafwat al-ṣafā, commissioned by Shah Ṭahmāsp, also points in that direction. It has been argued that the Ṣafavids originally started out as a Sunni order and only under Junayd did they convert to Shiism. To remedy this blemish on the pedigree of the dynasty, Ṭahmāsp ordered new copies of the Ṣafwat al-ṣafā that presented the Ṣafavids as Shiis from the beginning, although, as more recently suggested by Ayşe Baltacıoğlu-Brammer in a conference presentation, it is also possible to interpret such contrasting images of the Ṣafavids in the framework of confessional ambiguity, which characterized the post-Mongol period in the Persianate world; and we can also refer to Kazuo Morimoto, who demonstrates that a Shiite genealogy for the Ṣafavids was already available before their rise to power.Footnote 111 Such a context would perhaps make the Minorsky thesis feasible, were it not for the several caveats listed above, such as the ambiguous context of mysticism and poetry or the fact that even those later copies that Minorsky worked with had some of the “heretical” poetry. Andrew Newman rightly argues that the Ṣafavid venture was multifaceted, seeking to appeal to a broad social and cultural segment of society. In this discourse, the poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl was only one of the many voices. It was probably important only at certain times and only to a certain audience, but that audience, the Qizilbash Turkmen, continued to be there long after the early days of the dynasty. We could also adduce Colin Mitchell, who most succinctly argues for the heterogeneity of Ṣafavid political and religious discourse as follows:

[It] is difficult to see the “formational” reigns of Ismā`il (1501–24), Ṭahmāsp (1524–76), and `Abbās (1589–1629) through an exclusive lens of Persian Twelver Shìism, which in turn allowed for the formation of a national identity. This is not to deny the centrality of Twelver Shìism to the Safavid imperial project but simply to point out that there was a panoply of important religious, ethnic, and political constituencies in play during the sixteenth century. Indeed, the underlying premise of this present work is that Safavid ideological pretensions in the sixteenth century were reflections of this unparalleled heterogeneity, and that this malleability allowed them to survive the transition from parochial mystical movement to political empire and emerge as a viable, premodern Islamic state. During this period, the Safavid shahs relied on an impressively variegated range of legitimization, which included `Alid messianic rhetoric (to mobilize their zealot nomadic adherents); Turco-Mongol symbols and apocryphal legends (to accentuate martial traditions and a sense of loyalty to Steppe); legalistic and orthopraxic aspects of Twelver Shìite doctrine; ancient, pre-Islamic Iranian notions of divine kingship and statecraft; and, lastly, a vigorous commitment to citing Abrahamic Prophetic history.Footnote 112

It seems the development of the manuscripts of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān is far more complex than a mere reflection of the Ṣafavids’ shift in the direction of a more “orthodox” form of Shiism. The religious image the early Ṣafavids projected is often depicted in the literature as fervent messianic zeal. And there is certainly a truth to this if we read the tremendous amount of violence that took place during the extirpation of the Aqqoyunlu and the conversion of Persia to Shiism. This vision, however, does not take into account that messianism found itself in a contested space immediately after the Ṣafavid takeover. The Ṣafavids had to appease an elite only a segment of which was made up of their Qizilbash followers, while they had to present a different discourse to the Tajik segment. To illustrate the latter, we can adduce that part of Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry where he presents himself using imagery that harks back to the Shāhnāma. However, the millenarian discourse as present in Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān was also in the vein of the time-honored traditions of Persianate poetry with its penchant for ambiguity, and it also fitted the tradition that tolerated religious ecstasy in the appropriate context. Moreover, in the late seventeenth century there seems to be a reinvigorated interest in Shah Ismāʿīl, which can be interpreted both as a nostalgic looking back on the beginnings of the dynasty and a possible interest in its original messianic message. The different copies of the Dīvān reveal that messianism as a literary-cum-religious-cum-political discourse never disappeared from its textual tradition but continued to be a possible discourse that could be applied in appropriate circumstances.

But then what happened? How and to what extent do the copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān reflect historical processes? According to the evidence yielded by the manuscripts, there were several textual traditions at the same time with possible nodes of intersection. The majority of the Dīvān was made up of poems that were written in the love/courtly/mystic “mainstream” genre, i.e. a conventional voice of Persianate poetry, which also formed an important part of the cultural image the Ṣafavids wanted to project and which belonged to the Persianate ethos of the traditions of Turkic poetry as inherited from previous Turko-Persian dynasties, the Timurids and the Aqquyunlu, and which was also part of the Ṣafavids’ competition with the Ottomans, Mughals, and Uzbeks.

Broadly speaking, the main contention of the Ṣafavids was sainthood with valāya sacralizing it. Claiming to be the valī meant special charisma and the power to interpret the Revelation instead of the Sunni legal establishment. Such a framework of sacral kingship was not at all unique; messianism was not an uncontrolled outflow of social and religious energy but a religio-political discourse shared by contemporaries of the Ṣafavids, notably the Ottomans and the Mughals. Shah Ismāʿīl’s poetry was squarely within this discourse, and while the dynasty later diversified its ideological portfolio, their sacralized image was retained. As we have seen, only one strand among the various textual traditions of Dīvān copies, i.e. the “Tashkent Group,” could be argued to reflect Minorsky’s thesis, perhaps reflecting political struggles at the court, and even that only to a certain extent. At the same time, other textual groups continued to feature Shah Ismāʿīl’s messianism and even accentuate it, as is the case with the “Gulistān Group.” In such a context and with the help of the aforesaid ambiguity inherent in Persianate poetic discourse, there was no need to completely censor or purge copies of the Dīvān. These manuscripts could continue to carry the Ṣafavids’ claim of “sanctified power,” in addition to other discourses, such as Persian kingship or Twelver Shiite law.

Footnotes

1 Minorsky, “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1009a.

2 Thackston, “The Diwan of Khata’i”; Karamustafa, “Esmā‘īl I Safawī. ii. His Poetry.”

3 For the view of the Ṣafavid as a more integrative, accommodating venture, see Newman, Safavid Iran.

4 As the literature on Islamic messianism is increasing, here are just a handful of key treatments regarding the early modern period: Fleischer, “The Lawgiver as Messiah”; Fleischer, “A Mediterranean Apocalypse”; Subrahmanyam, “Connected Histories”; Bashir, Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions; Melvin-Koushki, “The Quest for a Universal Science”; Moin, The Millenial Sovereign.

5 Arjomand, The Shadow of God, 110.

6 Roemer, “The Ṣafavid Period,” 198 (emphasis added). See also Gandjeï, “Ismā‘īl I: His Poetry”; Arjomand, The Shadow of God, 110.

7 Krstic, Contested Conversions, 12‒15, 41, 76, 81, 106‒7.

8 Caferoğlu, “Die Azerbaidschanische Literatur”; Caferoğlu, “Ādharī (Azerī)”; Köprülü, “Âzeri”; Rüstemova, “Azeri (Doğu Sahası)”; Kərimov, XVII. əsr Azərbaycan lirikası, 5.

9 Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, 23‒30; for similar observations on medieval Islam, cf. Shoshan, “High Culture and Popular Culture in Medieval Islam”; quoted also in Dedes, Battalname, 46, n. 125.

10 Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs; Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium; idem. Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come.

11 See a review article: Barnes, “Varieties of Apocalyptic Experience in Reformation Europe.”

12 Yıldırım, “Turkomans Between Two World Empires”; Yıldırım, “In the Name of Hosayn’s Blood.”

13 Gallagher, “The Fallible Master of Perfection,” 118; Gallagher, “The Apocalypse of Ecstasy.”

14 Csirkés, “Messianic Oeuvres in Interaction”; Macit, “Şah İsmail Ahmet Paşa”; Şah İsmail, Hatâyî Dîvânı, 37‒44 (henceforth Macit).

15 Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter, When Prophecy Fails, 4, 28, 216.

16 Arjomand, The Shadow of God, 111‒12; Aubin, “La politique religieuse des Safavides,” 239; Memoirs of Shah Tahmasp, 16‒17. The continuation of messianism among the Qizilbash has also been noted by Newman, Safavid Iran, 59.

17 Savory, “A Curious Episode in Safavid History”; Babayan, “The Safavid Synthesis.”

18 Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs; Newman, Safavid Iran. Of course, one might have to tread cautiously and not consider every social unrest as caused by religious messianism; see Abisaab, “Peasant Uprisings in Astarabad.”

19 Matthee, Persia in Crisis, 2.

20 Matthee here references Tapper, Frontier Nomads of Iran, 10.

21 Matthee, Persia in Crisis, 6, quoting Das Gupta, The World of the Indian Merchant, 194. For the question, see also Mitchell, “Provincial Chancelleries and Local Lines of Authority.”

22 Macit, Hatâyî Dîvânı.

23 Gandjei, Il Canzoniere di Sāh Ismā’īl Hata’ī; Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl Xatai əsərləri.

24 Macit, 81‒115.

25 Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits turcs, vol. 2, 229; Macit, 104.

26 Gandjeï, Il Canzoniere di Shāh Ismā‘īl Haṭā’ī.

27 Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits turcs, vol. 2, 122‒3.

28 Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts, 205‒6.

29 There is a seal in a heading on fol. 18a with the legend “amān allāh 1258” (1842‒43); on fol. 83a there is a colophon with the name of the copyist completely scratched out, and another seal with the legend “‘abdu-hu Muḥammad Bāḳir al-Ḥusaynī 1223” (1808‒9). The manuscript was acquired by Sidney Churchill, Esq., secretary of the British Legation at the court in Tehran in 1885‒87 (Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts, ix.), who also acted as an official agent of the British Museum in Iran from 1883 to 1895 (Rogers, “Great Britain xi. Persian Art Collections in Britain”). The inside of the back cover has his possessorial note with the date 9 October 1889. There are further possessorial notes which are, however, not dated. Fol. 81a bears two Arabic couplets written in şikasta script on the left margin, not quite related to the main text. I am indebted to Prof. István Ormos of Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, for helping me decipher the couplets.

30 Dmitrieva, Opisanie tyurkskikh rukopisei, 66‒7. Unfortunately, I have had no access to this copy.

31 Rossi, Elenco dei manoscritti turchi, 193.

32 The colophon can be found on fol. 84a. On Shah Maḥmūd al-Nişābūrī, see Sām Mīrzā, Taẕkira-yi Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī, 133; Minorsky, Calligraphers and Painters, 134‒8; Akin, Muṣṭafá Alī’s Epic Deeds of Artists, 108, 120, 135n. 126, 139, 222‒3, 228, 229, 466; Bayānī, Aḥvāl u āsār-i khvushnivīsān, vol. 1, 295‒307. He is best known for scribing in 946/1539 one of Ṭahmāsp’s most celebrated manuscript commissions, a Niẓāmī Khamsa (British Library, Or. 2265; cf. Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts, vol. 3, 1072‒3). As another sign of Shah Maḥmūd’s tremendous prestige as a calligrapher is the legend related by Muṣtafá ‘Ālī, according to which before the battle of Çaldıran Shah ‘Ismā‘īl hid Shah Maḥmūd and Bihzād in a cavern for fear of their lives in case something should befall him, and after suffering a defeat in the battle his first thing to do was to rush to his two protégé artists and check if they were safe (Akin, Muṣṭafá Alī’s Epic Deeds of Artists, 223; for an analysis of the legend, see Akimushkin, “Legenda of khudozhnike Behzade i kalligrafe Mahmude”). In addition, Shah Maḥmūd participated in such prominent projects as the so-called “Freer Jāmī”; see Simpson, Sultan Ibrahim Mirza’s Haft Awrang, 254‒69.

33 Fol. 1a bears three possessorial seals, one with the text allāhum ṣal ‘alá Muḥammad wa āl Muḥammad, the other with the name Mahdī. There is also text on the first folio, which, however, has been scratched out.

34 Ustādī, Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Masjid-i A‘ẓam-i Qum, 185. I am grateful to ‘Imād al-Dīn Shaykh al-Ḥukamā’ī for helping me obtain a copy.

35 Huwa’llāhu ta‘ālá do tūmān u şişṣad / bi-tārīkh-i davāzdahum-i şahr-i Ramażān ibtiyā‘ şud bi-mablaġ-i do tūmān şişṣad dīnār-i tabrīzī „May God be exalted! Bought on the date 11 in the month of Ramażān 1181 for 2 tomans and 600 tabrizi dinars.”

36 The manuscript was used in a popular edition which gives no textual notes. Cavanşir and Necef, Şah İsmail Hatâ’î Külliyatı, 158.

37 Məmmədov, Şah İsmail Xatai, introduction, 44; Macit, 99‒101.

38 Minorsky, Calligraphers and Painters, 180‒1, 186. Məmmədov’s rejection of Mīr ‘Alī Tabrīzī as the copyist and espousal of Mīr ‘Imād is based, on one hand, on aesthetic arguments, Məmmədov claiming to have compared some of Mīr ‘Imād’s calligraphies to this manuscript and to have found them similar. On the other hand, he found in an eighteenth-century cönk, „private anthology,” a copy of a popular romance on Shah Ismā‘īl and Tājlū Begum which had been copied from a copy executed by Mīr ‘Imād. These arguments are, however, non-conclusive. On Mīrzā ‘Alī Tabrīzī, see Minorsky, Calligraphers and Painters, 153‒4; Bayānī, Aḥvāl u āsār-i khvushnivīsān, vol. 1, 545‒6.

39 Macit, 108‒9.

40 Ātābeg, Fihrist-i dīvānhā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Salṭanatī; Macit, 101‒3. Some of the folios are misbound, which results in occasional differences between the folio numbers I provide from those found in the footnotes of Macit’s edition.

41 Bayānī, Aḥvāl u āsār-i khvushnivīsān, vol. 3, 948 (# 1469).

42 Gulistān fol. 113a.

43 Aydın, İran Kütüphaneleri Türkçe Yazmalar Kataloğu, 110.

44 Ergun, Hatâyî Divanı; Macit, 112‒13.

45 Macit, 112. Cavanşir and Necef, Şah İsmail Hatâ’î Külliyatı, 158. The manuscript contains a Shah Khaṭāyī poem on the margin of fol. 50b.

46 See the Aghabozorg online manuscript database: http://www.aghabozorg.ir/showbookdetail.aspx?bookid=147214. I thank ‘Imād al-Dīn Shaykh al-Ḥukamā’ī of Tehran University for his good offices in obtaining a copy of this manuscript.

47 Simpson, Sultan Ibrahim Mirza’s Haft Awrang, 294‒7. According to Ḳāżī Aḥmad, he was an opium eater and wrote good verse (Minorsky, Calligraphers and Painters, 153‒4). See also: Bayānī, Aḥvāl u āsār-i khwushnivīsān, vol. 1, 545‒6. The divan was followed by the Naṣīḥatnāma (68b‒75b).

48 Bayānī, Aḥvāl u āsār-i khwuşnivīsān, vol. 2, 965‒6; Thackston, “The Diwan of Khata’i,” 61, n. 9. The copy can be found in the collection of Ja‘far Sulṭān al-Ḳurrā’ī (d. 1407/1989). See Sulṭān al-Ḳurrā’ī, “Mu‘arrafī-yi nuskha-yi khaṭṭī”; Macit, 90‒94. The two Iranian editions claiming to have used the Ḳurrā’ī copy are the following: Ismā‘īlzāda, Şāh Ismā‘īl Ṣafavī kulliyātı; Ḥusaynī, Dīvān-i Shāh Ismā‘īl Ṣafavī.

49 Sümer, Safevî Devletinin Kuruluşu, 90‒91. On the Takkalū family, see Szuppe, “Kinship Ties.” Muḥammad Khan b. Şaraf al-Dīn Takkalū’s prominence is signified by the fact that before taking up the Herat governorship, he had been governor of Qazvin (1527‒29) and Baghdad (1527‒34).

50 Mitchell, The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran, 160.

51 Ayyūbiyān, “Dīvān-i Khaṭā’ī.”

52 Thackston, “The Diwan of Khata’i.” I thank Massumeh Farhad, chief curator and curator of Islamic Art at the Freer Gallery of Art/Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, for giving me access to this copy.

53 Thackston, “The Diwan of Khata’i,” 39.

54 Gandjei, “A Note on and Illustrated Ms of Shāh Ismā‘īl.” The manuscript was first described by Barnett (“An Illustrated Dīvān of ‘Khaṭā’ī’”), whose introduction was adopted for the entry on the manuscript in the handlist available in the reading rooms of the British Library.

55 Titley, Miniatures from Turkish Manuscripts, 46.

56 Lale Uluç, personal communication, for which I am very grateful to her. See also Macit, 84‒5.

57 I am greatly indebted to my friend Christopher Markiewicz of Birmingham University for helping me get a copy of this manuscript.

58 Pertsch, Verzeichniss der persischen Handschriften, 63.

59 Macit, 87‒8. I have had no access to this copy.

60 Macit, 88‒90. I have had no access to this copy.

61 Macit, 95‒6. He reproduces the copy in a facsimile appendixed to his edition.

62 Macit, 105. I have had no access to this copy.

63 Köksal, “Şah İsmail Hatâyî’nin”; Köksal, “Hatâyî’nin Yayınlanmış Divanlarında Bulunmayan Şiirleri”; Macit, 113‒14. In addition to these manuscripts, Macit lists a copy contained in Mehmed Fuat Köprülü’s personal library and referred to in Ergun, Hatâyî Divanı, 19, which, however, has not yet surfaced. I have had no acess to this copy.

64 Macit, 179‒83.

65 Ferenc Csirkés, “How to convert a Crimean Khan? A Theological Treatise in Turkic from Safavid Iran.” Workshop on (Re)Thinking Ottoman Sunnitization, c. 1450‒1700, Central European University, Budapest, 24‒27 August 2017.

66 Paris1, fol. 15b; Macit, 136‒9; Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl, 379‒80; Gandjei Il Canzoniere, #20, 22.

67 Spring can have eschatological connotations in Persian literature. For example, Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī uses it. See Csirkés, “Mystical Love as the Day of Judgment.”

68 Ḵoşma: a popular Turkish genre of poetry, characterized by a strophic structure, syllabic or accented syllabic rhythm with caesura, and a rhyme scheme of abcbor abab (Kowalski, “Koshma”). The varsaġı is similar; it is also strophic with lines of 8 or 11 syllables (Köprülü, Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavıflar, 210, n. 96). As Muhsin Macit’s objective is to reconstruct what he considers to be the complete oeuvre of Shah Ismā‘īl, he excludes the poem from the edition, although he does discuss the problem of syllabic poems attributed to him (Macit, 136‒9).

69 Macit, #311, 476‒7.

70 Minorsky “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1032a; Gandjei, Il Canzoniere, #24, 24‒5; Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl, 531.

71 Minorsy, “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1043a; Macit, #418, 556.

72 Macit #150, 368-69.

73 Minorsky “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1044a, except the last verse, the translation of which is taken from Gallagher, 121. Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl, 134‒5; Gandjei, Il Canzoniere, #103, 71; Macit, #52, 295.

74 Gallagher, 120‒1.

75 Uncertain reading.

76 Minorsky, “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1036a; Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl, 364‒5; Macit, #265, 446.

77 Minorsky, “The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I,” 1037a; Məmmədov, Şah İsmayıl, 475‒6; Gandjei, Il Canzoniere, #207, 129; Macit, #363, 518.

78 In fact, in Gulistān the order of the verses is slightly different and these are verses 5 and 7.

79 Uncertain reading.

80 Karakaya-Stump, “Subjects of the Sultan.”

81 It is remarkable and goes against the abovementioned theory of bifurcation that London2 gives Sulṭān Khaṭāyī as the author of the Dīvān. Were some of the poems found only in Anatolian mecmuas written by Shah Ismā‘īl? Did at least some of these collections go back to Shah Ismā‘īl or the Ṣafavid propaganda machine? At this point it is difficult to give a final answer. The differentiation, however, between the Ṣafavid and Bektashi copies on the grounds of the presence or lack of syllabic poetry in the copies, seems plausible enough, and is also followed by Muhsin Macit in his edition.

82 Gallagher, “The Fallible Master of Perfection.”

83 Karakaya-Stump, “Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah,” 34‒5.

84 Quoted in Ernst, Words of Ecstasy in Sufism, 14. Gallagher, “The Fallible Master of Perfection,” 123 also discusses the significance of shaṭḥiyāt in relation to Shah Ismā‘īl.

85 Gallagher, “The Apocalypse of Ecstasy.”

86 Faḍlullāh b. Rūzbihān Khunji-Iṣfahānī, Tārīkh-i ʻālam-ārā-yi amīnī, 261‒307.

87 Anooshahr, “The Rise of the Safavids.”

88 Of the aforesaid historians, Ḥasan Beg Rūmlū hailed from the Rūmlū tribe, but his intellectual make-up was more akin to the Tajik element than the Qizilbash, as he was groomed at Ṭahmāsp’s court. On him, see Quinn, “Ḥasan Beg Rumlu.” On the elites trained at Ṭahmāsp’s court, see Khafipour, “The Foundation of the Safavid State.”

89 Sām Mīrzā, Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī, 11. On the silence of Ṣafavid chroniclers over the messianic aspirations of their masters, see Gallagher, “Shah Ismaʿil’s Poetry,” 895‒6. For Shah Ismā‘īl’s Persian poetry, see Macit, 587‒94.

90 Sām Mīrzā, Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī, 344‒5.

91 Stanfield-Johnson.

92 Csirkés, “Mystical Love as the Day of Judgment.”

93 Ḳāsim al-Anvār. Kulliyāt, 163. On his life, see Browne, History of Persian Literature, 473‒87; Savory, “Ḳāsim-i Anwār”; Savory, “A 15th-Century Safavid Propagandist.”

94 Glünz, “Poetic Tradition and Social Change.”

95 Asīrī Lāhījī, Dīvān; Shah Ni‘matullāh Valī. Dīvān.

96 Bashir, Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions, 191‒2.

97 Morton, “The Date and Attribution of the Ross Anonymous.” For a revival of interest in Shah Ismā‘īl in the late seventeenth century, see also Wood, “The Tarikh-i Jahanara in the Chester Beatty Library.” For a translation of one version of these popular romances, see Wood, The Adventures of Shah Esma'il.

98 Professor Quinn presented her results at the Ninth Biannual Conference of the International Society for Iranian Studies (ISIS), now renamed Association for Iranian Studies (AIS), 1‒4 August 2012 in Istanbul. I thank her for sharing her as yet unpublished paper with me.

99 Gallagher, “Shah Ismaʿil’s Poetry.

100 ‘Abdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, 33‒4; Arjomand, The Shadow of God, 181‒2. On the author, see Storey-Bregel, vol. 1, 405‒6; Dabīrsīāqī and Fragner, “‘Abdī Šīrāzī.”

101 On him, see Csirkés, “Chaghatay Oration, Ottoman Eloquence,” 155‒285; Welch, Artists for the Shah, 41‒99.

102 Mahdī-yi hādī-yi ‘ādil ān şahī ki ‘adl-i ū / fatvā-yi ẓulm-i jawr bi-Nūşirvān dihad (Ṣādiḳī, Kulliyāt, no. 3616, fol. 19a. Anushirwan or Khusraw I was a Sasanian king (r. 531‒79) and the epitome of social justice in Islamic lore.

103 az ‘ināyāt-i ilāhī rūzgār-i dawlat-ash / muttaṣal gardad bi-‘ahd-i mahdi-yi ṣāḥib zamān (Ṣā’ib, Dīvān-i Ṣā’ib Tabrīzī, ḳaṣīda #18, vol. 6, 3582.).

104 The poem cannot be found in Dīvān-i Mawlānā Muḥtasham Kāshānī, edited by Mihr ʻAlī Gurgānī, but in the less standard edition published by the Markaz-i Taḥḳīḳāt-i Rāyāna-yi Ḳā’imiyya-yi Iṣfahān Ḳaṣīda # 63, 635, which is in turn based on a manuscript copy housed at the National Library in Tehran (Sāzmān-i Asnād va Kitābkhāna-yi Millī-yi Jumhūrī-yi Islāmī-yi Īrān, 16786).

105 Babacan, Tezkire-i Mecâlis-i Şu‘arâ-yı Rum, 62‒3. Ġarībī and his biographical dictionary is the subject of Zeynep Altok’s doctoral dissertation in the making at Boğaziçi University.

106 Csirkés, “Messianic Oeuvres in Interaction.” On the oral and performative nature of Persian poetry, see Lewis, “Reading, Writing and Recitation.”

107 Of course, conversion does not always have to mean conversion from paganism or Christianity to Islam; it can also happen between two different strands of Islam, the importance and frequency of which in Islamic history has recently been emphasized by Richard Bulliet (Bulliet, “Conversion to Islam”).

108 DeWeese, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde, 491.

109 Yıldırım, “In the Name of Hosayn’s Blood.”

110 Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs, chapter 5, 121‒60.

111 Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, “Origins of the Safavids”; Morimoto, “The Earliest cAlid Genealogy for the Safavids.”

112 Mitchell, The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran, 5.

References

‘Abdī Beg, Shīrāzī. Takmilat al-akhbār: tārīkh-i ṣafaviyya az āġāz tā 978-i hijrī ḳamarī. Ed. Navāyī, ‘Abd al-Ḥusayn. Tehran: Nay, 1369.Google Scholar
Abisaab, Rula.Peasant Uprisings in Astarabad: The Siyāh Pūshān (Wearers of Black), the Sayyids, and the Safavid State.” Iranian Studies 49, no. 3 (2016):471–92. doi: 10.1080/00210862.2015.1004836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akimushkin, O[leg] F[edorovich]. “Legenda of khudozhnike Behzade i kalligrafe Mahmude.” In Srednevekovyi Iran: kul’tura, istoriya, filologiya, 59–63. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2004.Google Scholar
Akin, Esra.Muṣṭafá Alī's Epic Deeds of Artists: A Critical Edition of the Earliest Ottoman Text about the Calligraphers and Painters of the Islamic World. Leiden: Brill, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anooshahr, Ali.The Rise of the Safavids According to Their Old Veterans: Amini Haravi’s Futuhat-e Shahi.” Iranian Studies 48, no. 2 (2015):249–67. doi: 10.1080/00210862.2013.870839Google Scholar
Arjomand, Said Amir.The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam. Religion, Political Order and Societal Change in Shi‘ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Lāhījī, Asīrī, Muḥammad, Shams al-Dīn. Dīvān-i ash‘ār va rasā’il-i Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Asīrī Lāhījī. Ed. Zanjānī, Barāt. Tehran: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, Tehran Branch: Tehran University, 1978.Google Scholar
Ātābeg, Badrī. Fihrist-i dīvānhā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Salṭanatī. Tehran: Chāpkhāna-yi Zībā, 2535 [1976].Google Scholar
Aubin, Jean.La politique religieuse des Safavides.” In Le Shi‘isme imamate, 235–44. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1970.Google Scholar
Aydın, Şadi.İran Kütüphaneleri Türkçe Yazmalar Kataloğu. Istanbul: Tımaş Yayınları, 2008.Google Scholar
Ayyūbiyān, ‘Ubayd Allāh. “Dīvān-i Khaṭā’ī.” Majalla-yi Dānishkada-yi Adabiyāt va ‘Ulūm-i Insānī (Dānishgāh-i Iṣfahān) 1, no. 1 (1343/1964):289–309.Google Scholar
Babacan, İsrafil.Tezkire-i Mecâlis-i Şu‘arâ-yı Rum. Garîbî tezkiresi. Ankara: Vizyon Yayınevi, 2010.Google Scholar
Babayan, Kathryn.The Safavid Synthesis: From Qizilbash Islam to Imamite Shi‘ism.” Iranian Studies 27, no. 1‒4 (1994):135–61. doi: 10.1080/00210869408701824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babayan, Kathryn.Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran. Cambridge, MA: Distributed for the Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard University by Harvard University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, Ayşe.Origins of the Safavids: Sectarian Rupture vs. Continuity.” The Eighth Biennial Convention of the Association for the Study of Persianate Societies (ASPS), Tbilisi, Georgia, March 15‒18, 2018.Google Scholar
Barnes, Robin B.Varieties of Apocalyptic Experience in Reformation Europe.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 33, no. 2 (Autumn 2002):261–74. doi: 10.1162/00221950260208706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, L.D.An Illustrated Dīvān of ‘Khaṭā’ī.” The British Museum Quarterly 8, no. 1 (July 1933):13. doi: 10.2307/4421516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bashir, Shahzad.Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions: the Nūrbakhshīya between Medieval and Modern Islam. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Bashir, Shahzad.Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions: the Nūrbakhshīya between Medieval and Modern Islam. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Bayānī, Mahdī. Aḥvāl u āsār-i khvushnivīsān. 2 vols. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī, 1363/1985.Google Scholar
Blochet, E.Catalogue des manuscrits turcs. 2 vols. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1932‒33.Google Scholar
Browne, Edward G.A History of Persian Literature under the Tartar Dominion (A.D. 1265‒1502). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.Google Scholar
Bulliet, Richard.Conversion to Islam.” In The New Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 3, The Eastern Islamic Lands, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Morgan, David O. and Reid, Anthony, 529–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Burke, Peter.Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1978.Google Scholar
Caferoğlu, Ahmet.Ādharī (Azerī).” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1986, 192–4.Google Scholar
Caferoğlu, Ahmet.Die Azerbaidschanische Literatur.” In Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta . Vol. 2, 635–99. Ed. Bazin, Louiset al.Wiesbaden: Aquis Mattiacis & Francis Steiner, 1964.Google Scholar
Cavanşir, Babek, and Necef, Ekber N., eds. Şah İsmail Hatâ’î Külliyatı. Türkçe Divanı, Nasihat-name, Tuyuğlar, Koşmalar, Geraylılar, Varsağılar ve Bayatılar. Istanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları 2006.Google Scholar
Cohn, Norman.The Pursuit of the Millennium: revolutionary millenarians and mystical anarchists of the Middle Ages. Rev. and expanded ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Cohn, Norman.Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Csirkés, Ferenc.‘Chaghatay Oration, Ottoman Eloquence, Qizilbash Rhetoric’: Turkic Literature in Ṣafavid Persia.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2016.Google Scholar
Csirkés, Ferenc.Messianic Oeuvres in Interaction: Misattributed Poems by Shah Ismail and Nesimi.” Journal of Persianate Studies 8 (2015):155–94. doi: 10.1163/18747167-12341288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csirkés, Ferenc.Mystical Love as the Day of Judgment. Eschatology in Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī’s Dīvān-i kabīr.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 64, no. 3 (2011):305–24. doi: 10.1556/AOrient.64.2011.3.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabīrsīāqī, Muḥammad, and Fragner, Bert. “‘Abdī Šīrāzī.” Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. I, fasc. 2, 209–10.Google Scholar
Das Gupta, Ashin.The World of the Indian Merchant, 1500‒1800: Collected Essays of Ashin Das Gupta. Comp. Uma Das Gupta. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Dedes, Yorgos.Battalname: Introduction, English Translation, Turkish Transcription, Commentary and Facsimile. [Cambridge, MA:]Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1996.Google Scholar
DeWeese, Devin A.Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Dīvān-i Ṣā’ib-i Tabrīzī. Ed. Muḥammad Ḳahramān. 8 vols. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī va Farhangī, 1364 (1985).Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, L.V.Opisanie tyurkskikh rukopiseĭ Instituta vostokovedeniya. III. Poeziya. Poeziya i kommentarii k poėticheskim sochineniyam, poėtika. Moskva: Nauka, 1980.Google Scholar
Ergun, Sadeddin Nüzhet.Hatâyî Divanı: Şah İsmail Safevî Edebî Hayatı ve Nefesleri. İstanbul, Maarif Kitaphanesi, 1946.Google Scholar
Ernst, Carl W.Words of Ecstasy in Sufism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Rūzbihān Khunji-Iṣfahānī, Faḍlullāh b.. Tārīkh-i ʻālam-ārā-yi amīnī = Persia in A.D. 1478‒1490. Turkmenica 12. Abridged English trans. Minorsky, Vladimir; Persian text ed. Woods, John E.. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1992.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon, Riecken, Henry W., and Schachter, Stanley. When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. New York: Harper & Row, [1956 ].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Cornell H.A Mediterranean Apocalypse: Prophecies of Empire in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 61 (2018):18–90. doi: 10.1163/15685209-12341443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Cornell H.The Lawgiver as Messiah. The making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleyman.” In: Soliman le Magnifique et son temps, Actes du Colloque de Paris Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, 7‒10 mars 1990, ed. Veinstein, Gilles, 159–77. Paris: Documentation française, 1992.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Amelia.The Fallible Master of Perfection: Shah Ismail in the Alevi-Bektashi Tradition.” PhD diss, McGill University, 2004.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Amelia.Shah Ismaʿil’s Poetry in the Silsilat al-Nasab-i Safawiyya.” Iranian Studies 44, no. 6 (November 2011):895–911. doi: 10.1080/00210862.2011.570527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Amelia.The Apocalypse of Ecstasy: The Poetry of Shah Ismāʿīl Revisited.” Iranian Studies 51, no. 3 (2018):361–97. doi: 10.1080/00210862.2017.1401862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandjei, Tourkhan.A Note on and Illustrated Ms of Shāh Ismāʿīl.” Turcica 18 (1986):159–64. doi: 10.2143/TURC.18.0.2014287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandjeï, Tourkhan.Ismāʿīl I. His Poetry.” Encyclopaedia of Islam2.Google Scholar
Gandjeï, Tourkhan.Il Canzoniere di Shāh Ismāʿīl Haṭā’ī. Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, 1959.Google Scholar
Glünz, Michael.Poetic Tradition and Social Change: The Persian Qasida in Post-Mongol Iran.” In Qasida Poetry in Islamic Asia and Africa, ed. Sperl, Stefan and Schackle, Christopher, vol. 1, 192–3. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999.Google Scholar
Ḥusaynī, Mīr Ṣāliḥ. Dīvān-i Şāh Ismāʿīl Ṣafavī. Tabriz: Hamvaṭan, 1380/2002.Google Scholar
Ismāʿīlzāda, Rasūl.Şāh Ismāʿīl Ṣafavī kulliyātı. Tehran: al-Hudā, 1382/2004.Google Scholar
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer.Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah: Formation and Transformation of the Kizilbash/Alevi Communities in Ottoman Anatolia.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 2008.Google Scholar
Karamustafa, Ahmet T.Esmā‘īl I Safawī. ii. His poetry.” Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 8, Fasc. 6, 635–6.Google Scholar
al-Anvār, Ḳāsim. Kulliyāt, ed. Nafīsī, Sa‘īd. Tehran: Kitābkhāna-yi Sanā’ī, 1337/1959.Google Scholar
Kərimov, Paşa.XVII. əsr Azərbaycan lirikası. Baku: Nurlan, 2008.Google Scholar
Khafipour, Hani.The Foundation of the Safavid State: Fealty, Patronage, and Ideals of Authority (1501‒1576).” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2013.Google Scholar
Köksal, Mehmet Fatih.Hatâyî’nin Yayınlanmış Divanlarında Bulunmayan Şiirleri.” Alevilik Araştırmaları Dergisi 3 (2012):39–83.Google Scholar
Köksal, Mehmet Fatih.Şah İsmail Hatâyî’nin Şiirlerinde Kullandığı Vezinler Meselesi.” Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırmaları Dergisi 59 (Autumn 2011):169–88.Google Scholar
Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad.Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavıflar. Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Bakanlığı, 1966.Google Scholar
Köprülü, Mehmet Fuat.Âzeri.” İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. I, 1943, 118–51.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T.Koshma.” Encyclopaedia of Islam2.Google Scholar
Krstic, Tijana.Contested Conversions: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Lewis, Franklin D.Reading, Writing and Recitation: Sana’i and the Origins of the Persian Ghazal.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995.Google Scholar
Macit, Muhsin.Şah İsmail Ahmet Paşa Divanı'nı Okudu mu?Bilig 80 (Kış 2017):265–78.Google Scholar
Macit, Muhsin.Hatâyî Dîvânı: (inceleme-tenkitli metin-tıpkıbasım). Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017.Google Scholar
Matthee, Rudi.Persia in Crisis. Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan. London: I.B. Tauris, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melvin-Koushki, Matthew.The Quest for a Universal Science: The Occult Philosophy of Ṣā’in al-Dīn Turka Iṣfahānī (1369‒1432) and Intellectual Millenarianism in Early Timurid Iran.” PhD diss., Yale University, 2012.Google Scholar
Məmmədov, Azizağa.Şah İsmayıl Xatai əsərləri. 2 vols. Bakı: Azərbaycan SSR Elmlər Akademiyası, 1966.Google Scholar
Memoirs of Shah Tahmasp. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1912.Google Scholar
Minorsky, Vladimir.The Poetry of Shāh Ismāʿīl I.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 10, no. 4 (1942), 1006a1053a. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X00090182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minorsky, Vladimir.Calligraphers and Painters. A Treatise by Qādī Aḥmad, Son of Mīr-Munshī, circa A.H. 1015/A.D. 1606. Washington, DC: n.p., 1959.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Colin P.The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric. London: Tauris Academic Studies; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Colin P.Provincial Chancelleries and Local Lines of Authority in Sixteenth-century Safavid Iran.” Oriente Moderno, n.s. 27 (2008):483–507. doi: 10.1163/22138617-08802014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moin, Azfar A.The Millenial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Kazuo.The Earliest cAlid Genealogy for the Safavids: New Evidence for the Pre-dynastic Claim to Sayyid Status.” Iranian Studies 43, no. 4 (2010):447–69. doi: 10.1080/00210862.2010.495561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, A.H.The Date and Attribution of the Ross Anonymous. Notes on a Persian History of Shah Ismaʿil I.” In Pembroke Papers I, ed. Melville, Charles, 179–212. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Centre of Middle Eastern Studies, 1990.Google Scholar
Newman, Andrew J.Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. London: I.B. Tauris; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertsch, Wilhelm.Verzeichniss der persischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Berlin: A. Asher, 1888.Google Scholar
Quinn, Sholeh.Ḥasan Beg Rumlu.” Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. XII, Fasc. 1, 31–2.Google Scholar
Rieu, Charles.Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum. 3 vols. [London]: Trustees of the British Museum, 1879.Google Scholar
Rieu, Charles.Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1888.Google Scholar
Roemer, Hans Robert.The Ṣafavid Period.” Chap. 5 in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. Michael.Great Britain xi. Persian Art Collections in Britain.” Encyclopaedia Iraica.Google Scholar
Rossi, Ettore.Elenco dei manoscritti turchi della Biblioteca vaticana: vaticani, barberiniani, borgiani, rossiani, chigiani. Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1953.Google Scholar
Rüstemova, Azade.Azeri (Doğu Sahası).” In Türk Dünyası Ortak Edebiyatı. Vol. 6, ed. Tural, Sadıket al., 405–541. Ankara: Diyanet Vakfı, 1998.Google Scholar
Ṣādiḳī. Kulliyāt. Ms. Tabriz: Kitābkhāna-yi Millī, no. 3616.Google Scholar
İsmail, Şah. Hatâyî Dîvânı: (inceleme-tenkitli metin-tıpkıbasım). Ed. Macit, Muhsin. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017.Google Scholar
Ṣā'ib. Dīvān-i Ṣā'ib Tabrīzī. Ed. Qahramān, Muḥammad. 6 vols. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ʻIlmī va Farhangī, 1985.Google Scholar
Ṣafavī, Sām Mīrzā. Taẕkira-yi Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī. Ed. Farrukh, Rukn al-Dīn Humāyūn. Tehran: ‘Ilmī, 196?.Google Scholar
Savory, Roger M.A 15th-century Safavid Propagandist at Herat.” In Semi-Centennial Volume of the Middle Western Branch of the American Oriental Society, 189–97. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Savory, Roger M.A Curious Episode in Safavid History.” In Iran and Islam: In Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky, ed. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, 461–73. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Savory, Roger M.Ḳāsim-i Anwār.” Encyclopaedia of Islam2.Google Scholar
Valī, Shah Ni‘matullāh. Dīvān. Ed. Nafīsī, Sa‘īd. Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Intishārāt-i Nigāh, 1375/1996.Google Scholar
Shoshan, Boaz.High Culture and Popular Culture in Medieval Islam.” Studia Islamica 73 (1991):67–107. doi: 10.2307/1595956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Marianna Shreve.Sultan Ibrahim Mirza’s Haft Awrang: A princely manuscript from sixteenth-century Iran. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanfield-Johnson, Rosemary.The Tabarra’iyyan and the Early Safavids.” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (2004):47–71. doi: 10.1080/0021086042000232938Google Scholar
Storey, Charles Ambrose.Persidskaya Literatura: Bio-bibliografichevskiy obzor. Rev. and trans. Bregel, Yu.E.. 3 vols. Moscow: Central Department of Oriental Literature, 1972.Google Scholar
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay.Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia.” Modern Asian Studies 31 (1997):735–62. doi: 10.1017/S0026749X00017133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulṭān al-Ḳurrā’ī, Muḥammad Amīn.Mu‘arrafī-yi nuskha-yi khaṭṭī-yi munḥaṣar bi fard-i kulliyāt-i Shāh Ismāʿīl-i Ṣafavī ‘Khaṭāyī’ mawjūd dar kitābkhāna-yi ‘allāma Ja‘far Sulṭān al-Ḳurrā’ī.” Payām-i Bahāristān, dawra-yi duvvum 9, no. 28 (1395sh/2016):47–59.Google Scholar
Sümer, Faruk.Safevî Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü. Ankara: Güven Matbaası, 1976.Google Scholar
Szuppe, Maria, “Kinship Ties between the Safavids and the Qizilbash Amirs in Late-Sixteenth Century Iran: A Case Study of the Political Career of Members of the Sharaf al-Din Oghlu Tekelu Family.” In Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, ed. Charles Melville, 79–104. Pembroke Persian Papers 4. London: I.B. Tauris; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Tapper, Richard.Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the Shahsevan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thackston, Wheeler M.The Diwan of Khata’i: Pictures for the Poetry of Shah Ismai’il I.” Asian Art 1, no. 4 (Fall 1988):54–60.Google Scholar
Titley, Norah M.Miniatures from Turkish Manuscripts: A Catalogue and Subject Index of Paintings in the British Library and British Museum. London: The British Museum, 1981.Google Scholar
Ustādī, Riżā. Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Masjid-i A‘ẓam-i Qum: 3955 nuskha. Qum: Kitābkhāna-yi Masjid-i A‘ẓam-i Qum, 1365/1986.Google Scholar
Welch, Anthony.Artists for the Shah: Late Sixteenth Century Painting at the Imperial Court of Iran. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Wood, Barry D.The Tarikh-i Jahanara in the Chester Beatty Library: an illustrated manuscript of the ‘Anonymous Histories of Shah Isma'il’.” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (2004):89–107. doi: 10.1080/0021086042000232956Google Scholar
Wood, Barry.The Adventures of Shah Esma'il: A Seventeenth-Century Persian Popular Romance. Leiden: Brill, 2019.Google Scholar
Yıldırım, Rıza.Turkomans Between Two World Empires: The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity In Anatolia (1447‒1514).” PhD diss, Bilkent University, 2008.Google Scholar
Yıldırım, Rıza.In the Name of Hosayn’s Blood: The Memory of Karbala as Ideological Stimulus to the Safavid Revolution.” Journal of Persianate Studies 8, no. 2 (2015), 127–54. doi: 10.1163/18747167-12341289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Distribution of messianic poems in the known copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

Figure 1

Table 2. Number of messianic poems in the known copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān

Figure 2

Figure 1. Relationship between copies of Shah Ismāʿīl’s divan, based on Macit’s edition of Shah Ismāʿīl’s Dīvān.