ای نام تو بهترین سرآغاز

بی نام تو نامه کی کنم باز

…

یادگاری کز آدمی‌زاد است

سخن است آن دگر همه باد است

Politicization of the background of Nizami Ganjavi: Attempted de-Iranization of a historical Iranian figure by the USSR

By Dr. Ali Doostzadeh

(alidoostzadeh “AT”yahoo.com)

تقدیم به یاد ولادمیر مینورسکی و نوروز علی محمداف

(In memory of Vladimir Minorsky and Nowruzali Mohammadzadeh)

Special thanks go to Shahrbaraz http://shahrbaraz.blogspot.com for proof-reading and adding useful comments. This article is dedicated to the memory of Novruzali Mammadov and Vladimir Minorsky.

Note 1: The article believes that Nizami Ganjavi despite his Iranic background, culture and contribution to Iranian civilization, and being a product of this civilization is a universal figure. He is also equally a part of the heritage of Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and modern republic of Azerbaijan. These are people that are either Iranian or have been greatly affected by Iranian civilization although at his own time, the concept of nation-state did not exist for any particular modern country to claim Nizami Ganjavi. People of Iranic backgrounds and inheritors of Persian language, civilization and culture have the duty to present this universal figure to the world and keep his language alive. At the same time, this great figure has been politically manipulated by some ethno-minded scholars and USSR ethno-engineers. The article discusses this issue at length where USSR tried (and failed) to detach this great Iranian figure from Iranian civilization.

Note 2: the PDF version of this article reads much better and can be downloaded from here:

http://sites.google.com/site/rakhshesh/articles-related-to-iranian-history

(look for PersianPoetNezamiGanjeiPoliticizationByUSSR.pdf)

http://www.archive.org/details/PoliticizationOfTheBackgroundOfNizamiGanjaviAttemptedDe-iranizationOf

(look for PDF file)

http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-turanism/

(look for .pdf file)

To Cite:

Doostzadeh, Ali. “Politicization of the background of Nizami Ganjavi: Attempted de-Iranization of a historical Iranian figure by the USSR", June 2008 (Updated 2009).

URL: http://sites.google.com/site/rakhshesh/articles-related-to-iranian-history

The article should also be somewhere in www.archive.org

The goal of this article is to examine the ethnic roots and cultural association of Nezami Ganjavi, one of the greatest Persian poets. It is of course well known that Nezami is a universal figure, but there are two reasons to examine his ethnic and cultural associations. The first reason is that it helps us understand his work better. We provide exposition of rare sources (such as Nozhat al-Majales) which are crucial for the study of the 12^th century region of Arran and Sherwan. The other reason to write this article, as explained later in this paper (under the section: politicization of Nizami USSR and its remnants today), is the politicization surrounding Nezami Ganjavi’s ethnic and cultural background by the USSR for the purpose of nation building. Through objective analysis based on Nezami Ganjavi’s work and other primary sources, we analyze the ethnic root and cultural background of Nezami Ganjavi.

The politicization discussion centers on the following points. Despite the fact that Nizami Ganjavi being a Persian poet and all of his poetry is in Persian, is he a cultural icon from the Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization? What is his ethnic background and does it play role in assigning to which civilization he belongs?

ای برادر تو همه اندیشه ای

مابقی تو استخوان و ریشه ای

And does this question matter at all, given Nizami’s usage of Persian as his cultural vehicle and hence his contribution to Persian culture, language and civilization? Given the fact that Nizami Ganjavi’s poem cannot be translated without losing its multi-layered symbolic meaning and fine details, and given the fact that there is no “pure ethnicity” in the modern Middle East and Caucasia, and given the fact that ethnic divisions were not as prominent as they are today, does the question even matter? The belief of this author is that the Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi belongs to all humanity equally. At the same time, Nizami and his legacy are part of the same culture that he was influenced by and expanded upon. That is other great poets before him, including Ferdowsi, Asadi Tusi, Fakhr ad-in Asad Gorgani and Sanai were his predecessors. Those who speak, read and write Persian, and understand verses of Nizami’s poetry, are those that keep the heritage of Nizami alive today and have a special responsibility to pass down the cultural heritage of great Persian poets like Ferdowsi, Sanai, Nizami, Attar and many others. For example, Pushkin who is the most popular literary figure of Russians is a Russian poet and has served the Russian language and followed the Russian literary tradition. His ethnicity from his father’s side was partially Ethiopian but nevertheless he is part of Russian culture and civilization. We shall get back to this issue in the conclusion of this essay. Thus the question of ethnicity is secondary relative to that of the culture/civilization which a poet arises from and contributes towards. Especially in the middle ages when the concept of nation-state did not exist and one has to concentrate on ethnicity and culture which defines ethnicity.

Despite this simple fact that ethnicity of most 12^th century figures (and most people do not know their say 20^th ancestor!) cannot be 100% known, we will look into the details of Nizami’s background and we will provide criticism for invalid interpretations, recent forgeries of non-existent verses and the politicization of Nizami by the USSR in order to materialize Stalin’s unfulfilled wish that “Nizami must not be surrendered to Iranian/Persian literature”! Ultimately, Nizami is part and parcel of Persian-Iranian literature and culture, since he lives through this language, all his thoughts are in this language and he is popular due the masterpieces in this language. The question of whether he belongs to Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization is simply answered by anyone who can read his untranslatable work in its original language. The issue of his ethnicity has no bearing on this fact. Yet, we will look at this issue in detail and show that there is nothing to support a Turkic ethnicity for Nizami where-as the corpus of Nizami’s work and other historical and cultural reasons show an Iranic background. That is the issue of claiming Turkic father line for Nizami lacks any solid proof and is used today ethno-nationalists from the republic of Azerbaijan to detach Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization.

It is clearly evident that in terms of cultural orientation, cultural background, legacy, myth, folklore and language, Nizami Ganjavi is part of Iranian civilization and a prominent of Persian cultural history. Thus attempted political annexation of Nizami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization and attribution of Nizami Ganjavi towards Turkic civilization will simply bear no fruit in the long run (since he does not even have a single verse in any other language than Persian) and is a futile political effort which was taken up by USSR for nation-building process and is continued today for unscientific reasons of ethnic nationalism. Nizami Ganjavi survives through more than 30000+ Persian verses and his background is well known to be at least half Iranic and we will show in this article that it was full Iranic. There is nothing to support a Turkic background for Nizami Ganjavi’s father, who Nizami was orphaned from in an early age and was raised by his Kurdish maternal uncle Khwaja Umar.

The reader of course is free to make their own conclusion, but this does not change the simple fact that Nizami inherited the Persian heritage by previous Iranian poets, composed in the Persian language through Iranian culture, is alive through the Persian language, Iranian folklore, mythology and culture and finally it is the Persian speakers of the world who can read him in his own language and appreciate his untranslatable poetry (he is arguably one of the hardest poets to translate because of the multi-layered meaning of many verses, play with language and extensive use of symbolism/imagery pertinent to Persian language and culture). At the same time, we do not deny his shared heritage among countries that have been influenced heavily by Iranian culture and are inheritors of Iranian civilizations and culture. Thus besides highlighting the politicization by the USSR and Stalin, the article will expose many forgeries and invalid arguments to detach Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian background, language and culture.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Basic Nomenclature on ethnic names used in this writing. 6

On the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani 7

What did the USSR mean by Azerbaijani?. 18

Politicization of Nizami by the USSR and its Remnants Today. 19

Two important and recent articles on Politicization of Nezami by Alexandar Otarovich Tamazshvilli 40

Article 1 of Tamazashvilli: From the History of Study of Nezami-ye Ganjavi in the USSR: Around the Anniversary – E.E. Bertels, J.V. Stalin, and others”. 42

Article 2 of Tamazshvilli: Afterword: (Iranology in Russia and Iranologists) 70

Recent Politicization of the Figure of Nizami Ganjavi 77

Nizami’s Mother 90

Nizami and his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar 94

Nizami’s Father 94

Dynasties before and during the era of Nizami 97

Pre-Islamic Iranic dynasties of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan. 97

Post-Islamic period, the Iranian Intermezzo before the Seljuqids. 100

Seljuqid Empire and subsequent local Atabak dynasties. 110

Regional Iranian culture in Arran/Sherwan and Azerbaijan. 122

Arran/Sherwan and Nezami’s designation of Iran/Persia for his land. 122

Iranic languages and people of Azerbaijan. 138

Language of Tabriz as a special case. 143

Maragheh. 149

Another look at the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan 149

Qatran Tabrizi, rise of Persian-Dari poetry and what a few modern scholars have called “Azerbaijani school”of Persian poetry. 161

What did Nezami call his own style?. 168

Persian poetry images and symbols: Turk, Hindu, Rum, Zang/Habash. 169

Which Turks are described in Persian Poetry?. 206

Unsound arguments made during the USSR era about the ethnicity of Nizami 211

False argument: A false verse created in 1980. 211

Incorrect argument: Nizami uses “Turkish words” so “he must be Turkish”. 214

Incorrect argument: Nizami Praises Seljuq Turks (or Turks) so he was half Turkic 221

Invalid Argument: Nizami wanted to write Turkish but he was forced to write in Persian! 238

The false statement from Stalin. 238

No evidence of Turkic literature in the Caucasus and historical invalidity of the argument due to Shirvanshah not being Persian and not Turkic rulers. 239

Example of politically minded writer today. 246

Criticial editions of the verses in question. 250

Translation and explanation of the introduction of Layli and Majnoon. 257

Misinterpretation of a verse in Haft Paykar 310

Incorrect argument: Nizami and his research into Dari-Persian and Arabic literature means that he was a Turk. 329

Incorrect argument: Nizami praises Alexander, so “he must have been a Turk” 334

Invalid arguments about Idioms, Dedicatees, Eldiguzids, Sunni and Shi’i and other invalid arguments. 338

Alleged Claim of Turkish Idioms. 338

Eldiguzids-Feudal lords (Atabekan) of Azerbaijan. 343

Invalid arguments: Dedicatees of Nezami were Turks so Nezami was a Turk! 349

Invalid Argument: Court poetry and official language was in Persian and that is why Nezami wrote in Persian to get paid. 350

Sunni and Shi’i! 353

Conclusion of invalid arguments. 354

Nizami’s Iranian Background, Culture and Contribution to the Persian Language, Culture and Civilization. 355

Iranian background and some statements from scholars. 356

Nezami’s reference to himself as the Persian Dehqan. 359

Nizami’s reference to his wife and another proof of non-Turkic background for Nizami 363

Other Indicators of Nizami Ganjavi’s Father line. 369

Lack of Turkish names unlike Turkish dynasties and groups. 369

Urban background. 369

Shafiite Madhab. 370

Qom theory. 375

Intermarriage was rare between Western Iranians and Turks due to both religious and ethnic factors. 379

Nizami Ganjavi’s Culture. 381

Viewpoints of Navai and a perspective upon culture. 382

Nizami and the inheritance of Ferdowsi’s throne. 387

Cultural Content of the works of Nizami Ganjavi 394

Nizami Ganjavi’s attachment to Iran. 406

Conclusion. 407

Bibliography. 410

Appendix A: Modern scholastic sources. 415

Corrected information. 428

Appendix B: Response to two arguments with regards to the population of Turks in Caucasus. 431

Do “Turkish” soldiers in Baghdad during the early Abbasid period have anything to do with Caucasus and Azerbaijan. 431

Akbar Kitab al-Tijan: The Arab folklore Kitab al-Tijan and fight between mythical Yemenese Kings and Turanians/Turks in Azerbaijan has no historical validity. On the background of Turanians. 435

Appendix C: Some important neglected sources in the study of Nezami Ganjavi 459

Appendix D: On the etymology of the name Axsartan. 460

Basic Nomenclature on ethnic names used in this writing

In this article we use the term Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, Iranic, Qipchaq, Oghuz and Turkic. It is important to have a clear definition with this regard.

Kurdish: Speaker of the dialects and languages considered Kurdish which is the NW Iranian language family.

Persian: Is a native speaker of various Iranian dialects. This includes Pahlavi dialects as

well as NW Iranic languages identified as Fahlaviyyat and Azari during the middle ages and also the Parsi-Dari. The term Persian usually is not as a single linguistic term rather it denotes a speaker of variety any of the Iranic dialects who have pre-Islamic Sassanid heritage and Iranian mythology as exemplified by the Shahnameh. We will make a distinction when we speak of the Dari form of Persian (itself according to scholars the Khorasani dialect of Middle Persian) rather than what Qatran Tabrizi, Al-Masudi, Biruni and Nezami have called Persian (Parsi), which is the general definition.

Iranic: Means a native speaker of the Iranic languages. This term encompasses both Persian and Kurdish and various other Iranian speakers including Soghdians, Scythians, Medes and etc. In general it encompasses the totality of Iranian civilization and languages as well those with Iranian heritages.

Oghuz: Speaker of Oghuz dialects, mainly the western Turkic languages.

Qipchaq: Speakers of Qipchaq or similar eastern Turkic languages.

Turkic: Like Iranic, it denotes the speakers of Turkic languages. In Persian literature, the Mongols have also been considered as Turks since the bulk of the troops and tribes of the Mongol federation were of Turkic rather than Mongolic origin. Also the term Tatar has been used in this fashion. Thus Turkic encompasses the totality of various Turkic cultures, language and civilizations and the Altaic people. It should be noted that however in early Islamic era, non-Altaic speakers such as Soghdians, Alans and Avesta Turanians etc. have also been lumped with Turks in some sources due to geographical reasons. See Appendix B and C of this article for some observations with this regard.

Arabic: Native Arab speaker.

Armenian: Native Armenian speaker.

Georgian/Caucasian: Speaker of one of the languages that has been loosely classified as Caucasian languages by linguists of today.

On the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani

The name Azerbaijan is a Persian word and goes back to the Persian Satrap of Media, Atropates.

Professor Vladimir Minorsky writes:

“Called in Middle Persian Aturpatakan, older new-Persian Adharbadhagan, Adharbayagan, at present Azarbaydj̲an, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Adhorbayg̲han, the province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander’s invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muqaffa, in Yaqūt, i, 172, and al-Maqdisi, 375: Adharbadh b. Biwarasf).

(Minorsky, V. “Adharbaydjan (Azarbaydjan) .”Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online.)

Professor K. Shippmann states:

“In the Achaemenid period Azerbaijan was part of the satrapy of Media. When the Achaemenid Empire collapsed, Atropates, the Persian satrap of Media, made himself independent in the northwest of this region in 321 B.C. Thereafter Greek and Latin writers named the territory Media Atropatene or, less frequently, Media Minor (e.g. Strabo 11.13.1; Justin 23.4.13). The Middle Persian form of the name was (early) Aturpatakan, (later) Adurbadgan) whence the New Persian Adarbayjan”

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Azerbaijan: Pre-Islamic History”, K. Shippmann).

The word Azari/Azeri has been used in the early Islamic period for a Persian related Iranian dialect. Naturally the name of the dialect was derived from the name of the region itself. We will make mention of this Iranic dialect later in the article.

But it is important to note that the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani has been used no earlier than the late 19^th century or the early 20^th century to designate Turkic speaking Shi’i Muslims(Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, “Turko-Tatars”)(Roy, Oliver. “The new Central Asia: The Creation of Nations”) and was really accepted as a self-designation around 1930.

The origin of Turkic speaking Azeris has been described as:

1) Iranic

2) Turkic

3) Symbiosis of Iranic and Turkic

4) Symbiosis of Iranic, Turkish and Caucasian peoples

According to the multi-volume book “History of the East” (“Transcaucasia in XI-XV centuries” in Rostislav Borisovich Rybakov (editor), History of the East. 6 volumes. v. 2. “East during the Middle Ages: Chapter V., 2002. – ISBN 5-02-017711-3. http://gumilevica.kulichki.com/HE2/he2510.htm )

The formation of a distinct Turkic speaking groups who speak the language called “Azerbaijani-Turkic”(note in Iran it is called Torki and the pre-fix “Azerbaijani” to Turkic is also recent) language occurred between 15^th-16^th century.

"Современная наука относит завершение сложения турецкой народности к концу XV в. Очевидно, так же следует датировать и сложение азербайджанского этноса"

Translation:

"Modern science considers the completion of addition of the Turkish nation by the end of XV century. Obviously, the same should be dated and addition of the Azerbaijani ethnic group. "

The book also states that:

“

В XIV-XV вв. с началом формирования азербайджанского тюрко-язычного этноса возникает и его культура. Первоначально она не имела своих стабильных центров (вспомним, что один из ее ранних представителей, Несими, погиб в Сирии), и ее довольно трудно для данного времени отделить от османской (турецкой) культуры. Даже этническая граница между турками и азербайджанцами установилась только в XVI в., да и тогда она еще окончательно не определилась. Тем не менее в XV в. формируются два центра азербайджанской культуры - Южный Азербайджан и Карабах (равнинный). Окончательно они сложились уже позже, в XVI-XVIII вв.

Говоря о возникновении азербайджанской культуры именно в XIV-XV вв., следует иметь в виду прежде всего литературу и другие части культуры, органически связанные с языком. Что касается материальной культуры, то она оставалась традиционной и после тюркизации местного населения. Впрочем, наличие мощного пласта иранцев, принявших участие в формировании азербайджанского этноса, наложило свой отпечаток прежде всего на лексику азербайджанского языка, в котором огромное число иранских и арабских слов. Последние вошли и в азербайджанский, и в турецкий язык главным образом через иранское посредство.”

Translation:

“

In the XIV-XV cc., as the Azerbaijani Turkic-language ethnos was beginning to form, arose its culture, as well. At first it had no stable centers of its own (recall that one of its early representatives, Nesimi, met his death in Syria) and it is rather difficult at that time to separate from the Osman (Turkish) culture. Even the ethnic boundary between the Turks and the Azerbaijanis stabilized only in the XVI c., and even then it was not quite defined yet. Nevertheless, in the XV c., two centers of the Azerbaijani culture are forming: the South Azerbaijan and (lowland) Karabakh. They took final shape later, in the XVI-XVIII cc.

Speaking of the Azerbaijan culture originating at that time, in the XIV-XV cc., one must bear in mind, first of all, literature and other parts of culture organically connected with the language. As for the material culture, it remained traditional even after the Turkicization of the local population. However, the presence of a massive layer of Iranians that took part in the formation of the Azerbaijani ethnos, have imposed its imprint, primarily on the lexicon of the Azerbaijani language which contains a great number of Iranian and Arabic words. The latter entered both the Azerbaijani and the Turkish language mainly through the Iranian intermediary. Having become independent, the Azerbaijani culture retained close connections with the Iranian and Arab cultures. They were reinforced by common religion and common cultural-historical traditions.”

Thus neither the ethnonym nor ethnic group nor language by the name Azerbaijani-Turk has been recorded in the 12^th century. Since this ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani was not in use during the time of Nizami to refer to any dialect and group of Turkic speaking people, then it is not used in this work. Also one cannot necessarily talk of an Azerbaijani Turkic group in the 12^th century as noted by the sources above (we will show Azerbaijan was far from Turkified by the 12^th century using primary sources). The fact remains that the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani was not in use at the time of Nezami, although Azerbaijanis have a thick layer of Iranian culture as well. Thus to say Nezami was an Azerbaijani poet does not correspond to any historical fact, since the term Azerbaijani was not used for an ethnic group (it was a geographical location of NW Iran) and the Azerbaijani Turkic ethnic group was not formed back then. He did not write in Azerbaijani-Turkish language (no one from 1140-1209 has written in that language from the Caucasus) and neither was the ethnic designation Azerbaijani used during or before his time. The formation/ethno genesis of ethnic Azerbaijanis as a symbiosis and blending of Iranic, Turkic and Caucasian elements comes in a much later. Also the land of Nezami Ganjavi, where he might have been born (most likely Ganja according to modern scholars and a minority of manuscripts have said Qom in central Persia or some scholars have said his ancestry from his father-side was in Tafresh), was really called Arran rather than Azerbaijan by most historical/geographical sources at that time. Indeed Nizami uses Arran, Armenia and Azarabadegan (Azerbaijan) and the majority of historical sources have differentiated between these three lands at the time of Nezami Ganjavi.

Some might make a counter-argument that they want to use the term Oghuz Turk or Turkic in general instead of Azeri. In their opinions, modern Azerbaijanis are Oghuz Turks (also called Tatars by Russians). The difference between eastern Turkic (Qipchaq) and Western Turkic Oghuz had become significant at the time of Nizami. Thus they might even reduce it to Western Turkic. In any case, “Turk” is a very generic term as an ethnic indicator: Would it have suggested “Azeri Turkish” in Nezami’s day, or was there even yet such a language branched out from the common Oghuz? Definitely not - most likely it would suggest the Seljuq tribesmen, whom I believe were Oghuz, but around the same time, it could also refer to Khatai Turkic, or Uighur, Chaghatay, Turkoman, Mongol (Mongols and Turks being used interchangeably in Persian literature around the time of the Mongol invasion), Kipchaks, Chinese, and Tibetans(being identified with Turks in some Islamic literature like Qabusnama), Iranic Sogdians (they have been identified with Turks in some Arabic literature due to being neighbors of Turks) etc.? We have no exact data from those days, but we may assume that the various Turkic speakers, to the extent that they held a shared sense of identity, would do so on the basis of a similar language and nomadic lifestyles although tribal identifications would overtake any sort of shared cultural identity between these groups.

Here are what some scholars and authorities state on the ethno genesis of modern Azerbaijanis. Some have stated that an Azerbaijani ethnic group was formed by the XIII centuries, however more specialized sources put it around the Safavid era XVI. We believe the fact that Safina Tabrizi and Nozhat al-Majales (to be discussed later) show major urban centers of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan to have been Iranic even in the Ilkhanid era are an elegant proof that the latter date of XVI is when Azerbaijan and Eastern Transcaucasia was decisively Turkified.

Professor Richard Frye states:

The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region

(Frye, Richard Nelson, “Peoples of Iran”, in Encyclopedia Iranica).

For example Professor Tadsuez Swietchowski states:

What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries B.C.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries B.C.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. According to the most widely accepted etymology, the name “Azerbaijan”is derived from Atropates, the name of a Persian satrap of the late fourth century B.C. Another theory traces the origin of the name to the Persian word azar (“fire”‘) - hence Azerbaijan, “the Land of Fire”, because of Zoroastrian temples, with their fires fueled by plentiful supplies of oil.

Azerbaijan maintained its national character after its conquest by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century A.D. and its subsequent conversion to Islam. At this time it became a province in the early Muslim empire. Only in the 11th century, when Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty entered the country, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant number of Turkic inhabitants. The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia. After the Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Azerbaijan became a part of the empire of Hulagu and his successors, the Il-Khans. In the 15th century it passed under the rule of the Turkmens who founded the rival Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Aq Qoyunlu (White Sheep) confederations. Concurrently, the native Azerbaijani state of the Shirvan-Shahs flourished.

(Swietochowski, Tadeusz. “AZERBAIJAN, REPUBLIC OF”,., Vol. 3, Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 02-28-1996)

“The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name “Turkmen”for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they “Turkised”the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.”

(Olivier Roy. “The new Central Asia”, I.B. Tauris, 2007. Pg 7)

Although, we do not believe the Oghuz nomads were Shi’ites when they entered Iran, rather they were Hanafis. They turned to Shi’ism probably due to the Ilkhanid atmosphere where Shi’ism was supported by some Ilkhanid rulers like Sultan Khodabanda. A further testament to this fact is that there is not Turkic Shi’ites in Central Asia and thus the adoption of Shi’ism by Turkic speaking tribes occurred in Anatolia and Persia.

Professor Peter Golden has written one the most comprehensive book on Turkic people called An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz, 1992). Professor Golden confirms that the Medes were Iranians and Iranian languages like Talyshi/Tati speakers being assimilated into Turkish speakers. Considering the Turkic penetration in Caucasian Azerbaijan and the Turkification of large parts of North Western Persia, Professor Golden states in pg 386 of his book:

Turkic penetration probably began in the Hunnic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol (Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan (Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

It should be noted that Professor Golden on pg 12 of the same book states:

“Turkic population of today shows extraordinary physical diversity, certainly much greater than that of any group of Altaic language. The original Turkish physical type, if we can really posit such, for it should be borne in mind that this mobile population was intermixing with its neighbors at a very stage, was probably of the Mongloid type(in all likelihood in its South Siberian variant). With may deduce this from the fact that populations in previously Europoid areas of Iranian speech begin to show Mongoloid influences coincidental with the appearances of Turkic people. The physical transformation of these Turkicizing peoples, however, illustrated by the population of Uzbekistan, Karakalpakia and especially the Turkic population of Iran and Turkey itself. To add to the complexity of this process, the Turkic populations that moved to Central Asia were themselves already mixed. In general, then, the further east, the more Mongloid the Turkic population is; the further west, the more Europoid”

We shall affirm this fact by showing the description of Turks in classical Persian literature in another section. Indeed, this physical description, as described by countless poets including Nizami was Mongloid rather than Caucasoid and this point to the Turkification of the mainly Caucasoid-featured population by the Mongolid-featured Altaic groups.

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:

“Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined. The few researches undertaken (Planhol, 1960) demonstrate the indisputable predominance of Iranian tradition in agricultural techniques (irrigation, rotation systems, terraced cultivation) and in several settlement traits (winter troglodytism of people and livestock, evident in the widespread underground stables). The large villages of Iranian peasants in the irrigated valleys have worked as points for crystallization of the newcomers even in the course of linguistic transformation; these places have preserved their sites and transmitted their knowledge. The toponyms, with more than half of the place names of Iranian origin in some areas, such as the Sahand, a huge volcanic massif south of Tabriz, or the Qara Dagh, near the border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness to this continuity. The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants.”

(X. Planhol, Encyclopedia Iranica, “Iran: Lands of Iran”)

Professor Gernot Windfuhr in the article: Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes, in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. On pg 468, he writes:

One may add that the overlay of a strong superstate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialect.

It is important to note that the Oghuz Turks who Turkified Azerbaijan linguistically were not themselves pure Turks according to Mahmud Kasghari. Although without a doubt Turkic speaking, Turkology expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):

“... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kashghari’s idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ...”

N. Light further explains:

“... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ...”

The actual Arabic statement of Kashghari is follows:

«الغزیة لما اختلطت بلفرس نسیت کثیراً من لغت الترک و استعملت الفارسیه مکانها ج.ا، شماره 73)

Translation:

The Ghuzz due having mixed with Persians (Iranians/Fars) have forgotten many Turkic words and use Persian words instead.

Taymas, Abdullah Battal. “Divan Lagait – Turk Tercumesi”, Turkiyat Mecmuasi, Cilt (XI), Istanbul. 1954, pg. 76”

There are others opinions but we believe that a symbiosis between Iranian and Turkic elements (where the Oghuz nomads themselves before entering Azerbaijan and the Caucasia had already assimilated some Iranian nomads in Central Asia) formed the ethnicity of modern Azerbaijanis in the Caucasus and Iran, although the number of Turkmen nomads who entered Azerbaijan and Caucasia was small relative to the original population. The Turkmens of Iran and Turkmenistan, all of them nomads till the last century, also speak an Oghuz dialect which has been described as more archaic than that of the Turkish of NW Iran, Caucasia and Anatolia. There are probably many similarities between them and the Oghuz nomads who entered Azerbaijan during the Seljuq prelude and Turkmens of Iran and Turkmenistan.

Since the term Azeri/Azerbaijani as an ethnic term for the speakers of Turkic languages in Iran and Caucasia was adopted in the late 19^th century(possibly some Russian works might have used Azerbaijani-Tatar and shortened it to Azerbaijani) or early 20^th , we will not use it in this article. If some feel the identification of Azerbaijani Turk with Oghuz Turks because of linguistic reason, then we have used the term Oghuz Turks and Turkic in this article. Because the terms Oghuz and Turk are historical term that had been in use since at least 10^th century. On the other hand, the ethnic name Azeri/Azerbaijani Turkic was not accepted until the 1920s or 1930s by its speakers and the overwhelming reference to ”Azerbaijani” without any suffix is geographical in the period before the adoption of this name for ethnic identification.

As noted by Oliver Roy:

“The concept of Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. Up until that point Azerbaijan had been a purely geographical area. Before 1924, the Russians called Azeri Tatars "Turk" or "Muslims".(Roy, Oliver. “The new Central Asia: The Creation of Nations”).

According to Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski: "Azerbaijani" was coined in the 1930s to refer to the inhabitants of the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan.(Azerbaijan Seven Years of Conflict Nagorno-Karabagh – Human Rights Watch / Helsinki– December 1994 by Human Rights Watch).

Overall then, the term Azeri/Azerbaijani was overwhelmingly and primarily used as a geographical area before 1930 and also designates inhabitants of the newly formed state of Azerbaijan regardless of their ethnicity (Talysh, Tat, Azeris, Lezgins, Kurds, Armenians). So words like “Azerbaijan poet” or “Azerbaijani poet” might have been used a geographical designation for some poets of the area by scholars, but they did not have any sort of ethnic meaning and were purely geographical. Just like Khorasani poets or Khwarizmi Poet or Esfahani Poet or Shirazi poet..and etc is geographical. Some authors also distinguish between “Azerbaijani” and “Azeri”. “Azerbaijani” means citizen of the republic of Azerbaijan or from the land of Azerbaijan where-as “Azeri” means the native speaker of Azeri Turkic.

In any event, we shall show from Nizami and the writing of other Persian poets, the physical features of Turk are clearly described as Mongloid and do not resemble those of the Caucasoid Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turkic speakers This alongside recent genetic evidence indicates that a language replacement via elite dominance is a likely explanation of the Turkification of Anatolia, Caucasia and Iranian Azerbaijan. Nizami does use Iranians, Parsi/’Ajam(Persian) ,Kurd(Kurd), Taazi(Arab), Turk(Oghuz, Qipchaq, Khatai..), Alan and Rus (the Viking Rus) and etc. So we will use the terminology used during his time and this is the correct historiography that diligent historians of that era utilize. We should note that term ‘Ajam was originally used by Arabs for Iranians but slowly this term became accepted and even Iranian nationalist poets like Ferdowsi and Asadi Tusi have used it in a positive manner and Nezami who was influenced by these two poets has also used it interchangeably with Parsi. Also Khaqani’s title was the Persian Hessān al-‘Ajam (the Persian Hessan, Hessan being a very famous Arab poet before Islam and Khaqani is the Persian version of him by this title).

It should be noted that Nezami has specifically himself mentioned the area where he lived as part of the “Persian realm” which is a cultural and geographical term. The reader can also see the section: Regional Iranian Culture and Nezami’s designation of Iran/Persian for his land of this article for further usage of these terms.

Usage of Azerbaijani to describe Nezami based on geography is also not valid at Nizami’s time (although he was born in the territory that is called Azerbaijan today), since the territory around Ganja usually was primarily called Arran rather than Azerbaijan in medieval history. Thus we should mention that some Western sources and possibly other sources have used the term Azerbaijani or Azerbaijan poet (not ethnic sense since such a name was not adopted until the 1930s and before 1930s its primarily and overwhelming usage was geographic) for Nezami as a geographical designation, but this is not historically valid as Nizami himself uses the terms Aran, Arman and Azarabadegaan. Also Nezami has praised three different rulers as rulers of Iran/Persian and Persian lands, and this shows that not only culture but the land was considered part of the geographical/cultural region of Persia/Iran.

An example of erroneously using this term and anachronism is for example given by this quote by a noted scholar:"In the fifteenth century a native Azeri state of Shirvanshahs flourished north of the Araxes." (Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University, 1995, p. 2.)

Yet the Shirvanshah called their territory Shirwan, not Azerbaijan. Also the Shirwanshah were not ethnically Turkic, but were a mixture of Iranians and Arabs and culturally they were Persians. And also “Azeri” denotes the native Turkic speaker where-as Azerbaijani would at least have geographical meaning.

This sort of wrong and anachronistic application of geographical name has unfortunately occurred many times and has been used for various poets and scientific figures.

An inquirer asked one academic writer who used this term:

In the book “Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-century Iran” on page 65 you wrote “The renowned Azerbaijani poet, Nizami of…”.
What do you mean with “Azerbaijani poet Nizami”? Ethnic, cultural, geographical or other characteristic?

The Author of the book who used the term responded back:

geographical. The whole subject of nationalities is fraught with controversy since in mediaeval times nation-states did not exist people could not so easily be labeled. Often people were defined by their city, e.g. Samarqandi, Balkhi, though often by the region, Rumi. Nizami has been claimed by the modern state of Azerbaijan though he continues to be considered a Persian poet and for the student seeking further information Azerbaijan could be a starting point for their research. You should not read too much into such labels. George Lane

Despite this, we should note that Ganja at that time was part of Arran and the area was not called Azerbaijan. So indeed this is a wrong and anachronistic application of the geographical conventions. At the same time, it illustrates that by this convention, is being used as a modern geographical location(Azeri, Azerbaijani) and not necessarily culture, ethnicity, language and heritage.

Also as the author who responded back noted, the concept of nation-state did not exist back then. This is an important point which some people have not unfortunately grasped. So for example to speak of Iranian or Turkic or Azeri or Arab or Armenian or Georgian citizenship or nationality(based on citizenship rather than culture/ethnicity) at that era does not make sense since the ethnicity of the ruler had no implication on the citizenship (e.g. Seljuqs controlled Iran but overwhelming majority of the inhabitants were neither Turks or Seljuqians and no one identified their identity through a state).

So for example the Buyids were an “Iranian State”(meaning an Iranic-speaking ruling elite controlled a state) but they controlled areas (such as Iraq) that had a substantial non-Iranian population. Those non-Iranian population will not be considered Iranians ethnically or culturally just because the Buyids were Iranian rulers(which some might call “Iranian State”). The same is true with Seljuqs or the semi-autonomous Atabeks who had established a state with Turkic ruling elite, but their main population was non-Turkic and so the identity of their inhabitants should not be erroneously described as the citizenship/nationality(based on state not ethnicity/language)/nation-state concepts that did not exist at that time.

As per the term Azari, there was an ancient Azari-Fahlavi language or group of dialects spoken in Iranian-Azerbaijan (Atrapatakan) (remnants of it being the Tati in Iran), but this was an Iranic language. We shall touch upon this later. Scientifically, one cannot impose a different space and time upon medieval historical settings. So at the time of Nizami Ganjavi, the term Azerbaijani did not denote a subset of Turkic speakers. At his time, the overwhelming majority of the sources have referred to the area of Ganja as part of Arran. For example, to say, Homer was Turkish because he was born in the land of Turkey does not seem correct. Certainly the people of Turkey should be proud of him that such a great figure has come from their land, but to assign him the modern majority ethnicity Turkish of Turkey does not make sense since such a term even did not exist nor is attested during the time of Homer. This author is of the opinion of Professor Xavier Planhol:

Thus just like ancient Egyptians spoke ancient Egyptian, but modern Egyptians speak Arabic, it does not mean that ancient Egyptians are not connected to modern Egyptians. Same with modern Turks of Anatolia who also share in the pre-Turkic Greek civilization. Although it should be mentioned that there are Iranian speakers in some of these countries although many of them have become Turcophones gradually in the last several hundred years and rapidly in last century. The difference with Iranian cultural items that are claimed by modern Turkic speaking countries (Biruni, Rudaki, and Avicenna in Uzbekistan; Nizami, Zoroaster, Zoroastrianism, Bahmanyar.. in the Republic of Azerbaijan; and Abu Said Abul Khair in Turkmenistan) is that there are also countries that speak Iranian languages and Persian in particular, thus they rightfully also claim to be inheritors of these Iranian cultural items, since the culture has continued. Especially for such a poet as Nizami Ganjavi, who only wrote in Persian and contributed to the Persian culture and language, expanded Persian myths and legends and finally came from an Iranian background. In the end, these countries (both Iranian speaking and Turkic speaking) have a shared heritage due to the fact that some of these Turkic countries had a linguistic shift from Iranian languages to Turkish languages due to migration of Turkic nomads and the Turkification of some of the lands. The question of whether Nizami belongs to Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization is something we will discuss in this article. We also note that modern nationalism especially that of pan-Turkism which has also influenced Caucasia, was a reactionary movement spawning out of the decay and disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Thus that secular identity created by it today (which is based on ethno-nationalism as seen in modern Turkey and republic of Azerbaijan) in our opinion is radically different than the identities of the Caucasia and Ottoman Empire prior to this period. For a clear picture of identity of the Caucasus in the 12^th century, one can look at the book Nozhat al-Majales which we shall discuss later in this article.

What did the USSR mean by Azerbaijani?

Since the ethnonym Azerbaijani for an ethnic group was new, the USSR era did not provide a clear definition. For example some considered Azerbaijanis to be Medes, others as Turks and others as Caucasian Albanians. Then there was theories combining some or all of these. This is another reason why calling Nezami Ganjavi as “Azerbaijani” in the politicized USSR sources lacks clarity. Do they mean Medes(and the descendant of Iranic Medes like Talysh, Kurds?), or Caucasian Albanians or Turks and etc.

For example Bolukbashi mentions:

“During the Stalin era, Azeri historians were forced to link Azeri history to Persian Medes, whose appearance in Iran and the southern Caucasus dates back to the ninth century BC. In the post-Stalin era, this theory gave away to one which linked the Azeris’ origin to the Atropathenes and Caucasian Albania. By the early 1970s, however, the Turkic role in Azeri history had begun to be admitted, so that until the Gorbachev era the Azerbaijani historiography based Azeri identity on a combination of the Medes, the Atropathenes, the Albanians and the Turkic settlers, a formula which helped prevent the emergence of an all-Turkic historiography”

(Susha Bolukbashi, ‘Nation building in Azerbaijan: The Soviet Legacy and the Impact of the Karabakh Conflict’ in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)

Arya Wasserman notes:

“The growing interest in the nationalities problem and the rising influence of the ideology of Turkism revived the old controversy over the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people, that is between adherents of the concept of the decisive Turkic role and supporters of the pro-Iranian theory. In the mid 1970s, the republican authorities headed by the First Secretary Heydar Aliev had resolved the debate by ruling in favour of the Iranian concept. Now, for the first time monographs dedicated of this problem were published. The purely scientific problem of ethnogenesis became a regular theme in newspapers. The authors of some articles used this discussion to express their opposition to the policy of Turkicization. Politicians also intervened in the dispute. The President’s adviser on nationalities, Idaiat Orujev, supported the concept according to which Azerbaijan was the homeland of Oguz Turks, which obviously meant that he was inclined to accept the theory of the Turkic origins of the Azerbaijani people.

Opponents of the proto-Turkic conceptions of ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people insist that the Kurds, Talysh, Lakhij and other Persian-speaking peoples are ethnic Azerbaijanis, who had a part from ancient times in the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people, and that all of them share the same Caspian racial type, to which no other Turkic-speaking peoples, not even the Turks themselves, belong to”

(Aryeh Wasserman, “A Year of Rule by the Popular Front of Azerbaijan” in Yaacov Roi, “Muslim Eurasia”, Routeldge, 1995. pp 150-152.)

Thus the usage of “Azerbaijani” as an ethnic term was recent and doing the USSR era, the term did not necessarily mean Turcophone people. Now, today the designation “Azeri” and “Azerbaijani” are further confused because Azerbaijani has been used as a geographical term since 1918 for all inhabitants of Eastern Southern Caucasus (corresponding to the modern republic of Azerbaijan) where as “Azeri” denotes the Oghuz Azerbaijani-Turkic speaker of that area. But for the USSR, it seems to have meant a combination of Turks, Iranians and Caucasian Albanians who became Turcophones. Prior to that, the term was mainly geographical and it could be possible some authors after 1918 have referred to Nezami as an Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian poet noting that he lived most if not all of his life in Ganja. However, such an ethnic formation had not yet occurred during the time of Nezami Ganjavi as noted. Thus the article will not use anachronistic terms and will stick with terms such as Persian, Iranic, Turkic, Oghuz, Kurds and etc.

Politicization of Nizami by the USSR and its Remnants Today

The reason to write this article is due to the fact that the USSR politicized and even distorted the character of Nizami Ganjavi for the purpose of nation building. Remnant of that period still can be seen in some modern post-USSR texts. The USSR tried to detach Nizami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization and use him for nation building. In this section we show many of political manipulations surrounding the figure of Nizami Ganjavi. We will evaluate the merit of the arguments of the USSR era in a later section and show its invalidity. So in this section, we prove that politicization of the figure of Nizami Ganjavi and the USSR’s efforts to detach him from Persian and Iranian culture and appropriate him to an ethnic and cultural Turkic label. (Something we believe lacks any evidence when one actually reads Nizami’s works and considers the cultural background of his work). For example, in recent years, false verses that are not in any edition or manuscripts of the works of Nizami have found their way on the internet and are quoted extensively by nationalistic sites.

One of these false verses is as follows:

پدر بر پدر مر مرا ترک بود

به فرزانگی هر یکی گرگ بود

Translation:

“Father upon father of mine were all Turks,

In wisdom each one of them was a wolf”!

The problems with the above verse is that not only it is not found in any extant manuscript of Nizami Ganjavi’s work, but also the words “Tork/Turk” do not rhyme with the words “Gorg/Gurg”(Wolf). For more on the history of the falsification of this verse which was traced back to 1980 in Azerbaijan SSR see:

جلال متینی، «سندی معتبر بودن بر در ترک بودن نظامی گنجوی!»، ایرانشناسی، سال 4, 1371.

Matini, J. “A solid proof on the Turkic roots of Nizami Ganjavi?!”, Iranshenasi, Volume 4, 1371 (1992-1993).

Other times, poetry from Turkic language poets are ascribed to Nizami Ganjavi. Since Nizami Ganjavi wrote all his works in Persian, this has led to some nationalist pan-Turkist groups making such unfounded claims. For example, a news report appeared where two pan-Turkist nationalists have claimed that they have found the Divan of Nizami Ganjavi in Turkish.

Here is a link for such a news item:

http://www.apa.az/en/news.php?id=28178

Nizami Ganjavi’s divan in Turkish published in Iran

[08 Jun 2007 13:17]

Divan of Nizami Ganjavi in Turkish was found in Khedivial library of Egypt, poet and researcher Sadiyar Eloglu told the APA exclusively.

Eloglu said that he is analyzing Nizami Ganjavi’s divan in Turkish. He added that the divan was found by Iranian researcher of Azerbaijani origin Seid Nefisi 40 years ago in Khedivial library but for some reasons the scientist did not analyze the book.

Poetess from Maraga Fekhri Vahizeden living in Egypt found the divan two years ago and sent a copy of it to Sadiyar Eloglu. The scientist has been analyzing the work for two years. He said that the claims denying the works’belonging to Nizami Ganjavi were not proved.

“Historical points and personalities noted in the works were Nizami Ganjavi’s contemporaries,”he said. He noted that 213 couplets in the divan were proved to be written by Nizami Ganjavi.

Eloglu has already published these poems in Iran. /APA/

This Turkish Diwan was found to be from a poet named Nizami Qunavi (d. 1469 or 1473) from the Ottoman Empire and it is written in the Ottoman Turkish language.

محمدعلی کریمزاده تبریزی، «دیوان ترکی نظامی گنجوی!»، ایرانشناسی، سال هفدهم، شماره-ی سوم، 1384.

See:

Tabrizi, Mohammad Ali Karim Zadeh. “The (supposed) Turkish Diwan of Nizami Ganjavi!”, Iranshenasi, Seventeenth year, Volume 3, 2005.

Two important and recent articles on Politicization of Nezami by Alexandar Otarovich Tamazshvilli

Alexander Otarovich Tamazshvilli worked as one of the scholar in the Russian institute of Oriental studies in St. Petersburg until his retirement. He has written two important articles on the politicization of Nezami and USSR views on the Persian culture heritage. This author through a friend that spoke Russian as good as a native speaker had a chance to ask him several questions through the phone. We obtained his phone number through the Russian institute of Oriental Studies and unfortunately he did not use email.

Question: Your two articles on politicization of Nezami are very important. Can they be translated?

Answer: Yes of course.

Question: Do you have an e-mail?

Answer: No I do not use e-mail but I can give you my address for further questions.

Question: Do you think Nezami was Iranian or Azerbaijani Turkic? Because in your article you mention that the overwhelming orientalist scholars consider him Persian, yet you mention that the USSR results could have been reached later, but they came during his 800^th anniversary?

Answer: I am not a scholar Nezami or ancient history of the East. Rather I study the politicization and USSR politics. So I have no position on the ethnicity or cultural attribution of Nezami.

Question: Do you think that the republic of Azerbaijan will reconsider its position on Nezami?

Answer: No. Nezami is a very important figure for Azerbaijani nation building. Thus the view that he is an Azerbaijani will remain there for the foreseeable future.

Anyhow, despite Dr. Tamazshvilli not taking a position himself (which is reasonable since he did not consider himself an expert), he has two articles which reveal how Nezami was politicized and used for nation building. We should recall though that in the USSR era especially 1940-1970’s, the term “Azerbaijani” was not equivalent to Turkic rather it meant primarily a synthesis of Iranian (Medes) and Caucasian Albanians. Indeed the USSR Great Soviet Encyclopedia mentions the Avesta as the oldest form of Azerbaijani literature, where the Avesta is in an Iranian language and the correct term would be Iranian literature.

Dr. Tamazshvilli wrote two important articles and here we provide translations of both articles where it concerns politicization of Nezami. Dr. Tamazshivilli himself though took no position on the actual background of Nezami in our interview and said he is not an expert in ancient history or Persian literature.

Article 1:

Tamazshvilli A.O. “From the History of Study of Nezami-ye Ganjavi in the USSR:

Around the Anniversary – E.E. Bertels, J.V. Stalin, and others” in “Unknown pages of domestic oriental studies"( Editors: Naumlin VV, Romanova NG, Smilyanskaya IM), The Russian Academy of Sciences. Oriental studies institute. 2004.

Article 2:

Tamazshvilli, A.O. Posleslovie (Afterword). Iranistika v Rossii i iranisty (Iranology in Russia and Iranologists). Moscow, 2001 Russian Citation: Тамазишвили А. О. Послесловие [к публикации доклада Б. Н. Заходера «Е. Э. Бертельс»]. — Иранистика в России и иранисты. М., 2001.

However the articles of Tamazshvilli speak for themselves. They clearly show that the USSR scholarship was concerned about nation building. Indeed scholars such as E.E. Bertels were affected by political decisions.

Article 1 of Tamazashvilli: From the History of Study of Nezami-ye Ganjavi in the USSR: Around the Anniversary – E.E. Bertels, J.V. Stalin, and others”

One of the most glaring and remarkable cultural and socio-political events of the USSR in the autumn of 1940 was supposed to have been the 800^th anniversary of the poet and thinker, Nezami-ye Ganjavi. The war pushed the festivities six years back until the autumn of 1947.

This long (from 1937 to 1947) anniversary campaign, in which many scholars – Orientalists, literary people, and politicians – took part, gave good results. In the boundary of 1930s and 1940s, its active participant, E.E. Bertels said, “real scholarly study of Nezami can only be done in our time.”[1] He himself concluded that “Only twenty years ago all the literature on Nezami in Russian language was based on few articles mostly of bibliographic character. The 800^th anniversary of the Great Azerbaijani thinker and poet in all the corners of our Homeland has basically changed this situation.”[2] Main, revolutionary result of this campaign for our native scholarship became attributing Nezami as an Azerbaijani poet, and his works as achievements of the Azerbaijani literature, while in the realm of the world Oriental Studies (and prior to this in the Soviet as well), the viewpoint of him as a representative of Persian literature.

……

Political content of the Soviet Nezami-studies was left out of the view of the historians of the native scholarship, including the biographers of E.E. Bertels. Moreover, the question of nationality of Nezami and his works, other than scholarly aspects, had clear political aspects; and a scholarly based answer to this question is an important political meaning which was based on the creation of the Azerbaijani SSR.[3] Therefore, from beginning to the end of Nezami’s 800^th anniversary campaign, scholarship and politics went hand-in-hand, supporting and directing each other; but it seems that politics still had a more important role. This was stipulated by a number of objective and subjective reasons.

Nezami deserved an anniversary in any case, which seemed to have an evident benefit to scholarship. There was a precedent as well – in 1934, the 1000^th birth anniversary of the classic of Persian literature, Ferdowsi, was held in the USSR. However, having the anniversary of Nezami, while presenting him with the same qualities, would not have been objectively expedient.

The second half of the 1930s became a period of national literary anniversaries.: In 1937, 750^th anniversary of Shota Rustaveli’s poem, “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”; in 1938, 750^th anniversary of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”; in 1939, 1000^th anniversary of the Armenian epic, “David of Sasun.” These anniversaries were held in the Azerbaijani SSR as well. If Azerbaijan would not propose a similar anniversary, both from chronological as well as cultural perspective, it could have been an argument for beliefs (and not only from a narrow-minded level) about historically formed backwardness of the Azerbaijanis and their national culture in comparison to the Persians, Georgians, and Armenians. This is supported by a reference to Nezami and his works during the anniversary campaign and the controversy on the development level of Azerbaijan in the 12^th century; but later on this.

“Celebrating the 800^th anniversary of the birth of Nezami is a huge achievement of our people in the area of cultural buildup,” was said in Azerbaijan.[4]

The loud anniversary of an Azerbaijani poet of the middle ages was, for the current situation, vital in the interests of the policy of harmonizing international relations in the South Caucasus, which was being held by the Soviet government and the ACP(b) (All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks)).

The First Secretary of the CC CP(b) (Central Committee of the Communist Party (bolsheviks)) of the Azerbaijani SSR of those years, M.D. Baqerov, had very strong anti-Iranian feelings, and undoubtedly was a patriot of Azerbaijan, although a one who could get carried away.[5] It is enough to say that in the Resolution of the 14^th Convention of the CP(b) of the Azerbaijani SSR, which was accepted due to Baqerov’s speech, demanded “foundational improvements in the teaching of the Azeri language, while clearing it out of Arabisms, Farsisms, Ottomanisms, etc.”[6] Baqerov tried to attentively follow the study of history and culture of the peoples of Caucasus and South Caucasus, and actively struggled against situations that seemed wrong and ideologically fallacious to him. One such situation surely was the statement that Nezami is a Persian poet. Mostly, due to M.D. Baqerov, the anniversary was very successful.

It must be admitted that Baqerov was left in a difficult situation, when the problem of a literary anniversary appeared for Azerbaijan. The question of Nezami, as it was put in the Republic, in the 1930s, was a question that did not only concern, or was in the level, of the Republic. His decision was outside of the competency of the leadership of the Azerbaijani SSR. The attempt to reconsider the nationality of Nezami and his works in the interests of Azerbaijan, could have been viewed by the official Moscow as demonstration of nationalist tendencies – an attempt to “better” the past of the Azerbaijani people, strengthen the authority of the Republic in the determent of the historical truth.

How definitely and harshly the political leadership of the USSR struggled with the displays of nationalism, as well as nationalists, was perfectly known. Objections from scholars could be expected as well, primarily from the Leningrad specialists, who created the trend for the Soviet literary Orientalism. However, it worked; and the “transfer” of Nezami as an Azerbaijani poet was done in a very well thought manner, fast, persistently, but properly, and overall, even elegantly. But everything started with a scandal.

It was planned that in 1938, there would be a decade of the Azerbaijani art in Moscow, for which the Republic had decided to prepare an “Anthology of Azerbaijani Poetry” in Russian. The first version of the anthology, which was supposed to present “the greatest masters – the creators of the Azerbaijani poetry,” the inclusion of Nezami’s poetry was not considered. This was the case in May, 1937.[7] But already on August 1, the press reported that the two-year work on translating poetry for the Anthology is over, and the Russian reader can become acquainted with the monumental poetry of Nezami. “At some point, the dirty hand of the enemies of the people was placed on the Anthology […] they did everything so that the Anthology looked perhaps more skinny and decrepit,” reported the newspaper.[8] But there are not enough bases to argue that the decision to include the poetry of Nezami was based purely on the political basis. Argument for this decision could have been the view of the Soviet Orientalist, Yu.N. Marr on Nezami. In one of his works, he had stated that as soon as he started researching Rustaveli, Khaqani, and Nezami, and their epochs, he right away was convinced that “the epoch and authors are in a disgracefully neglected situation.”[9] Back in 1929, Yu.N. Marr asserted that “Nezami is its own for Caucasus, especially for the ethnic group that has kept the Persian tradition in its literature until recently, i.e. for Azerbaijan, where the Ganjian poet is more respected than in Persia.”[10] Of course, “its own for Azerbaijan” is not the same as “Azerbaijani,” but in the middle of 1937, Marr who had died in 1935, was the only Soviet Orientalist on whose research could the proponents of the view of Nezami as an Azerbaijani poet lean. It must be noted that luck was on their side as a whole, and especially because it was Yuriy Marr in Particular who spoke of Nezami. His scholarly reputation in the eyes of the political leadership of the country must have been somehow connected with the reputation of his father – Academician N.Ya. Marr, whose name was very authoritative in those years in the Soviet scholarship, as well as in the Party circles. The rays of father’s popularity fell on the son too.

They did not fail to tie the name of N.Ya. Marr with the Nezami-studies in Azerbaijan: “Special merit in the revision of the scholarly understanding of Nezami is owed to the Azerbaijani scholars, Academician N.Ya. Marr, Professor Yu.N. Marr, and others. They hold the merit of revising the Bourgeoisie Oriental scholarship, which has distorted the image of the Azerbaijani poet…”[11] This reference to Marr appeared more for political reasons, because there were no direct statements of the scholar that Nezami is an Azerbaijani poet.

The Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Azerbaijani Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR started working on the study and the preparation of publication of the works of Nezami Ganjavi, who from 1937 was confidently referred to as the great classic of the Azerbaijani literature.[12] In the published materials in Azerbaijan in the second half of 1937, where Nezami is mentioned, his name and works are often closely tied to the name and works of Shota Rustaveli. Showing the speech by an Azerbaijani literary in a ceremonial plenum of the Baku Municipal Soviet of Deputies of the Workers for the 750^th anniversary of the poem, “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin” of is a good example. “Comrade Merza Ebrahimov names the classics of the Azerbaijani literature – Nezami and Khaqani – that lived and created in the epoch of Rustaveli, who were struggling for the same high ideals and aspirations, which were geniusly sang by the great Shota, and which were realized only in our Stalin epoch.”[13] The name of Rustaveli here helps give the basic idea about the consonance of the works and ideas of Nezami with the ideas of the Stalin epoch more tacitly, and consequently some ideas of Stalin himself. The support of Moscow is extremely important in the Azerbaijani decision of the Nezami question.

Next year of 1938 became the year when the USSR once and for all ended the “negligence” of Nezami. The Decade of Azerbaijani Arts was passing with great success in Moscow from 5^th to the 15^th of April of 1938. In Baku, the “Azerneshr” publishing published 700 remembrance copies of the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry,” where there were Nezami Ganjavi’s poems translated by Konstantin Simonov. The editor of the anthology was only one – V. Lugovskiy. It is logical to conclude that the other two – Samed Vurgun and S. Shamilov – were removed in 1937 as those who were not able to work, but it is presumed that the reason was not only this. According to some sources the anthology had a second editor as well – Merza Ebrahimov (Esmail Merza Azhdar-Zadeh), who was already the Head of the Department for Arts Affairs under the Soviet People’s Committee [Ministry ] of the Azerbaijani SSR, but his name was not in the book either.[14] The reason that the name of high ranking officials disappeared from the list of editors of the anthology was probably because the work was supposed to look as a result of the initiative and work of only creative intelligentsia of Azerbaijan and Russia. Moreover, the work done only by (only on the surface) non-Azerbaijani poets is harder to consider a nationalist view of Nezami. The anonymous foreword to the Anthology says, “Among the Azerbaijani poets of the 12^th century, Nezami is highly regarded,” but this assertion is not backed by anything.[15]

The publication of this anthology was a crafty tactical move to make a decision about Nezami’s situation. Undoubtedly, this book was being given to the members of the government of the USSR and the leadership of the ACP(b), who showed lively interest in the Decade of the Azerbaijani Art, among whom was Stalin. If anything in the contents of the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry” (for example, assertion on the national belongingness of Nezami) would bring about objection and politicized criticism “from above,” the fault for the publishing of a flawed book would remain on the leadership of the Azerbaijani SSR; however, there were no proofs that their views on Nezami were reflected in the book.

However, exposing these views with full manifest, as with the authors of the foreword in the Anthology, would not be too hard. But, evidently, there were no questions or objections to the contents of the Anthology. In any way, the first edition of the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry” had a strange fate. It is unlikely that the Anthology remained practically unknown to the literary people and scholars; however, for some reason people did not talk much about it. The short essay, “Nezami Ganjavi,” which was part of the foreword in the book, is not mentioned in the work of Rostam Aliev, “Nezami: A Short Bibliographic Reference” (Baku, 1982) either.

On the day of the opening of the Decade, Pravda [“The Truth” – official Communist Party of the USSR Publication] had an editorial, “The Art of the Azerbaijani People.” It stated, “Back in the age of the feudal lawlessness, the Azerbaijani people gave birth to the greatest artists. The names of Nezami, Khaqani, Fuzuli of Baghdad are on par with the Persian poets Saadi and Hafez. Nezami, Khaqani, and Fuzuli were flaming patriots of their people who were serving the foreign newcomers, only under pressure.”[16] The meaning of the article is hard to overstate for the “repatriation” of Nezami to Azerbaijan. This was a proof that the official Moscow agreed with the decision made in the Azerbaijani SSR on Nezami.

On the next day, April 6, 1938, “The Baku Worker” republished the article from Pravda (which strengthened its meaning for the Republic). From this moment on, the official Baku every time would demonstrate that gave up the initiative to Moscow, and the course of the 800^th Anniversary of Nezami is coming from Moscow.

On April 18, 1938, Pravda came out with “The Triumph of the Azerbaijani Art.” “But despite all the prohibitions and persecutions, in defiance of victimizations, the heroic Azerbaijani people would bring out those who expressed their rebellious, courageous, and angry spirits. Back in the age of the feudal lawlessness, the Azerbaijani people gave birth to such greatest artists as Nezami, Khaqani, Fuzuli. They were flaming patriots of their people, the champions of freedom and independence of their country.” This was a better reference of Nezami by Pravda.[17] It seems that the poet no longer served the foreign newcomers.

In the preparations of this material, it should be assumed, the Azerbaijani side took part with the leadership of Baqerov and Ebrahimov, who were part of the delegation to Moscow of Azerbaijan to the Decade of the Azerbaijani Art. Only Baqerov could coordinate the publication of these articles in different instances.

But whoever has written them, they reflected the official viewpoint of the CC ACP(b); this was the meaning of the writings of Pravda. Only a select few Orientalists could contend the viewpoints, but they did not do it, maybe because the question of Nezami was quite contesting even before Pravda’s publication. Here we can refer to the interpretations of Yu.N. Marr and A.N. Boldyrev.[18] In the end of the 1940s, Bertels asserted that “Back in 1938, it was evident to me that groundlessly ascribing the whole of great, colossal Persian literature to Iran is not only wrong, but the largest mistake. The Persian language was used by many people, which was the mother tongue of a completely different system.”[19] It is quite possible that the reason for Bertels’ review of his former views on Nezami, whom he considered a Persian poet only in 1935-1936, was the publication in Pravda.

A viewpoint was said in our scholarly literature that “E.E. Bertels publicly called Nezami an Azerbaijani poet earlier than anyone.”[20] However, as the deeper research of the question showed, the conclusion that Nezami is an Azerbaijani poet, was done by the scholars, literary people, and politicians of Azerbaijan without much concern for the view of their Russian colleagues, and before E.E. Bertels.

On May 9, 1938, another “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry,” which was under the edition of the same V. Lugovskiy and Samed Vurgun, was given to print to the Moscow State Publishing House of the Artistic Literature. It also had the foreword, “The Poetry of the Azerbaijani People”, which showed the authors – Azerbaijani literary people and scholars, G. Arasly, M. Aref, and M. Rafili. Evidently, it was mentioned before the Decade of the Azerbaijani Art in Moscow – “A mass publication of the Anthology is being published in Moscow.”[21]

The initiators of the review of national belongingness of Nezami were ready for good and bad luck.

The textual closeness of the two texts, one of which was published in Baku and the other in Moscow, of the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry,” shows that the group of writers was the same or almost the same. The Moscow version of the Anthology was signed only two days left to a year later – May 7, 1937 – and the reason is not known.

The initiators of the campaign for the 800^th Anniversary of Nezami waited a long time for the scholarly circles of Leningrad and Moscow to make a clear statement on the poet.

On May 8, 1938, the Council of the People’s Commissars [The Council of Ministers ] of the USSR, which was looking over the working plan of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, decided not to approve the plan and return it for further deliberation to the Academy of Sciences.[22]

On May 17, 1938, there was a state banquet for the workers of the Highest School. Stalin made a small speech, rather a toast at the banquet, where he said, “For the flourishing of sciences, those sciences, the people of which, while understanding the power and meaning of the scientific traditions and using them for the interests of sciences, still do not want to be slaves of these traditions; which has courage, resolution to break the old traditions, norms and arrangements when they become old, when they become breaks for movement forward; and the one that can create new traditions, new norms, new arrangements.”[23] All of this could be used for the study of Nezami.

On July 25, 1938, the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR once again gave a negative vote to the working plan of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.[24] The Presidium, while reviewing already the third version of the plan, on September 11, 1938, mentioned that “The scholarly councils of the institutes did not mobilize the whole collective of the workers for the struggle to fulfill the sayings of Comrade Stalin to develop and strengthen progressive sciences.” They proposed that the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR enter the preparation of a scientific monograph on the “life and works of the great Azerbaijani poet, Nezami.”[25] This meant the official recognition of Nezami Ganjavi as an Azerbaijani poet, as well as the Academy of Sciences as whole, and the Institute of the Oriental Studies. The question of national belongingness of Nezami seemed decided completely. Pravda “canonized” the view of Nezami as a poet – a patriot of Azerbaijan, who was not spiritually broken with the most difficult situations. In the XIV Convention of the CP(b) of the Azerbaijani SSR, M.D. Baqerov referred to the 12^th century as the “golden age of the Azerbaijani literature,” because “the great epic poet Nezami Ganjavi and no less gifted, beloved people’s poet of Azerbaijan, Khaqani, lived” at this age.[26] This assessment was received in the Republic as a canonizing assessment, and in that very year one could read about the “epoch of Nezami, which has come into history as the “Golden Age of the Azerbaijani culture.”[27] “This is how the Secretary of the CC of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, Comrade M.D. Baqerov defined it,” was reported to the so-called “wide reader” of the USSR.[28] And for him, it was certainly authoritative.

Both the political circles, as well as the scholars of Azerbaijan were fully aware that the best results in the works on the legacy of Nezami – a work that by its nature related to the classical Oriental philology – could be achieved only through cooperation with the specialists from the Oriental centers of Russia, primarily Leningrad. The Republic acknowledged that the “Institute of History, Language, and Literature is still the most weak part of the AzBAS [Azerbaijani Branch of the Academy of Sciences ].”[29] At the same time, in Russian Orientalism there already appeared a good tradition, even school of helping the peoples of the USSR in their national and cultural building. The press had a report: “The leaders of the organization of Azerbaijan are attracting to the preparation of the Anniversary (Nezami – A.T.) the Institute of Oriental Studies of the AS of the USSR, scholars, artists, and poets.”[30]

E.E. Bertels took the most active part in this process, and it is an interesting, mostly a model fragment of the history of the Soviet Orientalism. The political situations played an important role in the biography of E.E. Bertels. Maybe the most difficult ones and the most unique were connected to his works on Nezami.

There were achievements in 1938, but the Anniversary Campaign for the 800^th Anniversary of Nezami as a whole was not going as dynamically, as its initiators wanted, and required constant control and stimulation. This is not strange either. With all due respect and interest towards Nezami, the problem of his anniversary in the period of 1938-1941 objectively could not be considered as a primary problem. Moreover, on February 3, 1939, Pravda published an article by E.E. Bertels, “Genius Azerbaijani Poet, Nezami.”[31] Getting published by own initiative in Pravda, especially not long before the XVIII Convention of the ACP(b) was obviously very difficult. Therefore, it can be assumed that the article was ordered. This was E.E. Bertels’ first public statement to the whole country, where he called Nezami an Azerbaijani poet. Almost ten years later, Bertels stated: “To ascertain ethnic belongingness of every author worthy of attention, and then reclassify them by different literatures; well such a task, firstly, would be impossible to implement, because we do not have the data on the ethnic belongingness of old writers, and will likely never have them. Secondly, methodologically it would have been faulty to the most extreme. Consequently, we would be building literature based on blood, based on race. We do not need to mention that we cannot and will not build literature in such a fashion; I in any case will not; if somebody else wants to, please, it is his personal business.”[32] However, in his 1939 article, Bertels did not bring any proof that Nezami is an Azerbaijani poet, other than the fact that the Poet was born and lived in Ganja (future Kirovabad). This is one of the riddles of the Scholar: he, for some reasons, decided to recede from his original scholarly views in the 1930s, or they changed at the end of the 1940s?

E.E. Bertels’ article in Pravda surely was an important stage in the formation of the Soviet Nezami studies. Academician and literalist, I.K. Luppov said: “If half a year ago, a “cellar” on Nezami was found in Pravda, if in the Soviet Union, an organ of the Party put a “cellar” on Nezami, it means that every conscious inhabitant of the Soviet Union must know who Nezami is. It is an indication to all the directorate organizations, to all the instances of the Republican, County, District scale, and here the Academy of Sciences must say its word in this work, while not violating its high scholarly dignity.”[33]

However, the view on Nezami in the publications of Pravda, could be reviewed, and accepted as wrong. Many people who were declared “enemies of the people” were published in different times in Pravda and many wrong viewpoints had appeared in its pages. A good chance interfered into the situation, possibly a very well organized one.

On April 3, 1939, Pravda published the material “On the Results of the XVIII Convention of the ACP(b). The speech by Comrade M. Bazhan in the meeting of the intelligentsia of Kiev on April 2, 1939.” The Ukrainian poet, Mikol Bazhan informed about the meeting between J.V. Stalin with writers, Alexander Fadeev and Peter Pavlenko. “Comrade Stalin especially attentively asked, was interested, and even checked the knowledge of these Comrades about the phenomena and names of the Tajik, Kyrgyz, Kalmyk, Lak people’s literature, whose literature unfortunately, even today is not fully known to the Soviet reader. Comrade Stalin spoke of the Azerbaijani poet, Nezami, quoted his works to destroy the viewpoint by his own words that this great poet of our brotherly Azerbaijani people, should be given to the Iranian literature, just because he has written most of his works in the Iranian language. Nezami, in his poems himself asserts that he was compelled to resort to the Iranian language, because he is not allowed to address his own people in his native tongue. This very place did Comrade Stalin quote with the genius swing of his thought and erudition, while including everything remarkable that has been created by the history of mankind.”[34]

Although Stalin’s viewpoint was promulgated literally through the third person, certainly it was told correctly, and the conversation with Stalin in fact did take place. Nobody would even think of coming up with something from Stalin’s mouth. After M. Bazhan’s speech was published, E.E. Bertels’ article on Nezami became of secondary importance. A logical question arises: why did Stalin remember of Nezami, especially during the political situation of 1939? It must be taken into account that Stalin loved poetry and understood it, and he loved Baku. However, even without these factors, he perfectly understood the political meaning of the anniversary of Nezami – the Azerbaijani poet.

Bazhan’s report was met with enthusiasm in Baku. On April 10, 1939, the Meeting of the Intelligentsia of the city adopted the poem for J.V. Stalin. The authors of the poem were Samed Vurgun, Rasul Reza, and Soleiman Rostam, while the translators to Russian were P. Panchenko, I. Oratovskiy, and V. Gurvich. On April 16, 1939, this message was published in Pravda. It has the following lines:

Vladeli nashym Nizami, pevtsa pokhitiv chuzhaki,

No gnezda, svitye pevtsom v serdtsakh preznatsel’nykh krepky

Ty nam vernul ego stikhi, ego velich’e vozvratil

Bessmertnym slovom ty o nem stranitsy mira ozaril[35]

|[They] Possessed our Nezami, the singer| stolen| [the] aliens|

|You| to us| returned his poems, his greatness [you] returned

|With immortal word| you about him| the pages of the world| [you] brightened

On the next day, “The Baku Worker” republished the Russian version referring to Pravda. But interestingly the Azerbaijani original was not published until April 17, 1939.[36]

The official Baku underlined that all the events on Nezami’s anniversary which have a political aspect are done through the initiative of Moscow, and by Moscow’s approval.

The new interest, which was shown by Stalin on Nezami, gave a new impulse for the further development of the anniversary campaign. In Azerbaijan, Committee for Preparation and Carrying-out of the 800^th Birth Anniversary of Nezami Ganjavi under the Council of the People’s Commissars (CPS) of the AzSSR, which started its work in May of 1939. Its membership included all three authors of the Address to Stalin, as well as E.E. Bertels, I.A. Orbeli, Merza Ebrahimov, M.D. Baqerov, who was formally an ordinary member of the Anniversary Committee and others.[37] However, the activities of the Committee were naturally under the control of Baqerov.

After the viewpoint of Stalin on the issue of Nezami was published, the affair of publishing the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry” in Moscow made a progress, and hardly is it an accident. In the autumn of 1939, it came out in 15,000 copies. Poetess A. Adalis, wrote a very benevolent review, which has nonetheless strange and difficult to explain positions. The review say that such an anthology is coming out for the “first time in the history of world literature,” and “a clear word is said about the belongingness to the Azerbaijani people of a number of world classics in this book.”[38] The full impression that Adalis did not know anything about the Anthology, published in 1938 in Baku, in which, by the way, a fragment from “Kor-oglu” epoch, translated by her took place.

In the foreword of the Moscow Anthology, and the assertion that Nezami Ganjavi is the great Azerbaijani poet-romantic, leans on a selection of arguments. There is a reference on Yu.N. Marr’s saying, who is referred to as the best Soviet Iranologist, an excellent expert on Nezami and Khaqani, and a reference to Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR “in its special decision on the anniversary of Nezami firmly and decisively accepted in Nezami a great Azerbaijani poet.”[39] Here the Azerbaijani authors pretended that everything that is happening around Nezami has been started by the initiative and scholarly viewpoints from Russia. However, local proofs of belongingness of Nezami’s works to the Azerbaijani literature were promoted. “Lively pages of history appear in the works of Nezami. Fantasy, fabulous imagination interweave with the true pictures of life of the Azerbaijani people. The attack of the Rus’ to Barda, a fable story about a Russian Tsarevna (Princess), beauty Shirin and Tsaritsa (Queen) Shamira, the Amazons, battles described in different poems of Nezami – all of this is historically and geographically connected with Azerbaijan and the Caucasian middle age world.

“Is it necessary after this to proof after this the right of the Azerbaijani people to consider the works of Nezami as its own! Inability and reactionary works of traditional attachment of Nezami to the Iranian literature by the Bourgeoisie Orientalists is evident. Artificial, forced distortion of the history of world poetry, not understanding the role of the Farsi language and the Iranian tradition in the history of the Azerbaijani culture, denial of centuries-long history, of high and rich culture and the literature of the Azerbaijani people by the Bourgeoisie Orientalism; all of this brings to the denial of the large historical truth, and strong creative powers of the people.” [40] The supporters of the new viewpoint on Nezami saw political enemies in their opponents, and were not going to be sentimental with them.

Baku also declared that the Azerbaijani people “honors the memory of its great poet for 800 years,”[41] and the clear insufficient level of knowledge of Nezami’s works was explained in the following manner: “Base agents of fascism, Bourgeoisie nationalists, super power chauvinists did everything possible to hide from the Azerbaijani people the heritage of its great son – Poet Nezami.”[42] Such formulations also clearly did not allow the wish to discuss – whose poet is Nezami.

M.D. Baqerov in every possible way propagated the version that the return of Nezami and his works to Azerbaijan is namely due to Stalin. In December of 1939, in the meeting of the Party activists of the city of Baku, dedicated to the 60^th birthday of J.V. Stalin, Baqerov made a speech, where he quoted Mikola Bazhan, and added: “This saying of Stalin, which is full of wisdom, teaches us how our relation should be to our past cultural heritage.”[43]

In 1939, a volume of BSE came out where E.E. Bertels in his article on Nezami refers to him as a great Azerbaijani poet.[44] This in a way formalized the review process by our Orientalists of the national belongingness of Nezami Ganjavi.

Undoubtedly, Bertels was well aware of Mikol Bazhan’s speech and the details of the future scholarly-political campaign, and at the time he did not see a principal fault in some politicization of some works on eastern literature.

We will bring, out of necessity, a quote from currently forgotten article by E.E. Bertels, which talks about the hero of Nezami’s “Eskandarnameh”:

The wise man travelled for a long time. He was in the south, in the west, and the east, but could not find happiness anywhere. Finally, his travels brought him to the north. If we tried to draw his travels on a map, then this place would be approximately in Siberia. And there Eskandar finally found what he was looking for. He met people who did not know rich or poor; who did not know depression or oppression; who did not know kings or tyrants. In this open society where powers are not spent on struggle, everything is directed towards improvement and fixing of life.

There people were able to get rid of illnesses, and prolong the happy life of people. Everything flowers there; everything makes the eye happy; this is the reign of everlasting peace and everlasting happiness. After he fond this amazing country, Eskandar exclaims that if he knew about its existence earlier, he would not waste time on his travels, and would make its lifestyle a law.

Perhaps to the bourgeoisie researchers this country seemed a “scholastic imagination.” We, Soviet readers of Nezami, look at this from a completely different viewpoint. We know this country; we are lucky to live in this country and know which way one should go in order to achieve such happiness.

It also excites the Soviet reader that the greater Azerbaijani thinker of the 12^th century, put this country in the geographic location, where his great dream was in fact realized. Let us note that all of Nezami’s works end here; that all of his works were to get to this culminating period … And now, in the country where socialism became victorious, a country that does not know the fear of historical truth, Soviet scholars take onto themselves an honorable task to give to the peoples of their country the treasures that were denied to them for centuries.[45]

What would a word of thanks to Stalin for his help to scholarship mean as oppose to the abovementioned words of political loyalty?! Bertels, according to a number of his publications, was very respectful of J.V. Stalin, however, in any of his Russian-language works of this era on Nezami, does he mention that the poet has been returned to Azerbaijan by Stalin, and hence there are no words of thanks to Stalin. It is possible that this has been mentioned in any of Bertels’ small newspaper notes, probably in the Azeri language, however the possibility is very slim.

Actually, in Moscow and in Leningrad – the largest cultural and scholarly centers – as of 1939, there is a widely accepted practice: not to mention the role of Stalin in the decision of national belongingness of Nezami Ganjavi in the press. It is not evident whose initiative this was – the government or the scholars and the literary circles. This, as a rule, was extended to the Azerbaijani authors in the Russian publications.

The story that Stalin returned Nezami to Azerbaijan is not mentioned in the Moscow edition of the “Anthology of the Azerbaijani Poetry,” although the Decade of the Azerbaijani Arts of April of 1938 is mentioned. In 1939, for occasion of the 60^th birth anniversary of Stalin, Samed Vurgun published an article in the Literaturnaya Gazeta (Lietrary Gazette), named “Pride of People.” He has written there that “Comrade Stalin loves the Azerbaijani popular proverbs and uses them in an appropriate situation. Comrade Stalin lived in Azerbaijan back in his young age. More than thirty years have passed since, but he has not forgotten the Azerbaijani proverbs”[46]; but not a word about Stalin returning the poetry and greatness of Nezami to Azerbaijan.

In 1940, there was the 20^th anniversary of the Soviet rule in Azerbaijan. In all the festivities a single message to J.V. Stalin was accepted. In it Nezami was quoted; there were words about the everyday patriotic Stalinist care, which has warmed the Azerbaijani people; that Stalin is well aware of the history of this people; but there was not a word about Stalin returning Nezami to it.[47]

15-20 May, 1940, Moscow held the Decade of Azerbaijani Literature. One of its participants has written about the trip to Moscow: “We are headed by the greatest representative of the world literature, a genius poet of Azerbaijan, the ever living Nezami … He threw the heavy chains of tyrants and oppressors, from himself, who were forcing him to write in a strange language, and came back to his beloved land. Nezami is going to Moscow, he is going to thank Stalin, who returned him to his native Azeerbaijani people.”[48] During the Decade, Samed Vurgun, made a speech in the Lenin Military-Political Academy, and gave a new accent to the theme of “repatriation” of Nezami. “Foul enemies of the people, nationalists-Musavatists, Pan-Turks, and other traitors wanted to take away Nezami from their own people, just because he wrote most of his works in the Iranian language. But the great genius of the workers, our father and leader, Comrade Stalin, returned to the Azerbaijani people their greatest poet.”[49] Well, Stalin really did fight Pan-Turkism very strongly.

In 1940, in Baku, the book of E.E. Bertels, “The Great Azerbaijani Poet, Nezami: Epoch, Life, Works,” where Stalin was not mentioned. Although the version of Stalin’s great role in returning Nezami to Azerbaijani people, started to dominate in Azerbaijan, none of Bertels’ works published there, Stalin was not mentioned by editors; although they could, especially if Baqerov would demand.

In 1941, the book of Mikael Rafili came out in Moscow, which practically had the same name, “Nizami Ganjavi: Epoch, Life, and Works.” Its author, at the end referred to Stalin’s saying about the poet as “the greatest stage in the development of scholarship on Nezami.”[50] Hence it seems logical that the book opened with the corresponding quote from M. Bazhan’s speech.

Was it an exchange of experiences or correction of someone’s (E.E. Bertels’?) political mistake? The idea of opening the book with reference to Stalin’s words might not have been Rafili’s. He was Responsible Secretary of the Anniversary Committee of Nezami under the CPC (Council of People’s Commissars) of the Azerbaijani SSR, but in his publications on Nezami, (primarily before the war) often did not mention Stalin at all.

Under the accompaniment of the politicized anniversary ballyhoo, the translating scholarly-research and publishing work became more active, which was important both politically and culturally. According to E.E. Bertels, already by 1948, by the hard work of Soviet scholars, a new field in scholarship was started – Nezamiology – whose works, written in the past decades “are much better than what Western Europe could write in one and a half centuries.”[51]

The war did not stop the process of creating the Soviet Nezamiology. In autumn of 1941, the 800^th anniversary of Nezami was even celebrated in Leningrad. “On October 17,” retells Piotrovskiy, “there was a meeting dedicated to Nezami in Hermitage, to which many of its participants, including two of its speakers came straight from the front. The bomb shelters of the Hermitage were prepared in such a way that, in case of necessity, the meeting could be continued there.”[52] The first speaker was the director of the Hermitage, Academician J.A. Orbeli, “he delivered a fiery speech, which warmed hearts.”[53] Then the gathered ones listened to the speeches by A.N. Boldyrev, G.V. Ptitsyn, M.M. D’yakonov, and Poet V.A. Rozhdenstvenskiy read out his translations of Nezami.[54]

In this way, Nezami’s anniversary was held according to plan, and with most possible dignity. It was possible not to continue the 800^th anniversary campaign for the Poet after this. However, Baku disagreed.

In 1944, the abovementioned book of M.D. Baqerov was published. Victory in the war already near; and one could build definite plans for the peaceful post-war life, and remember the Nezami celebrations that were cut off by war.

In May of 1945, Baku built the Nezami Museum. “Just starting the peaceful built-up, the workers of Azerbaijan honored the memory of their immortal countryman.”[55] The visitors of the Museum in the Hall “Nezami and Our Epoch” could see “The words of Comrade Stalin about Nezami as a great Azerbaijani poet, who was compelled to resort to the Iranian language, because he was not allowed to address his people in the native language, with golden letters were placed on the wall”[56] Izvestiya reported on it, but the Baku Worker for some reason did not pay attention to this. In 1946, Baku published Baqerov’s book in the second edition. Whatever the reasons, this was another reminder about the Nezami problem; about the uncelebrated anniversary of the Poet in the Republic. The question about why this anniversary was not held in 1945, 1946, but only in 1947, is still not answered. Nevertheless, E.E. Bertels, most likely because of the circumstances, said that the date of birth of Nezami “cannot be considered firmly fixed” and “there are basis to believe that he was born a few years later, or in 1147.”[57]

Victory in the Great Patriotic War strengthened the feeling of national identity and national pride of the peoples of the USSR. In such a atmosphere, in summer-autumn of 1947, a limited discussion on the circumstances of Nezami’s life and works, and the level of cultural development during the Shirvan-Shahs. Without getting to the details of the discussion, that such an argument appeared: “The Azerbaijani people – according to Comrade Skosyrev – were almost all illiterate, destitute, and without rights. They were under the foreign domination of Shirvan-Shahs, and their national culture was trampled upon. The question arises that on what basis were the works of Nezami born then? Is it possible that a people almost fully illiterate and destitute, according to Comrade Skosyrev, could create Nezami? Why did Skosyrev need these black colors towards the Azerbaijani literature of the 12^th century?”[58] And this underlined that the Nezami anniversary was needed for Azerbaijan as a political measure as well.

Article 2 of Tamazshvilli: Afterword: (Iranology in Russia and Iranologists)

The life and the work of Evgeni Eduardovich Bertels have not been studied, as yet, as fully as they deserve, both by virtue of their own outstanding character, and as a reflection of the peculiarities of the formation and the development of oriental studies in the USSR. Therefore it is objectively necessary to enter any materials that tell us something new about E. E. Bertels into scholarly circulation. This applies to the text of B. N. Zakhoder's speech, published now, which is dominated by the motif of the immense significance of Bertels's work in the development of research in the area of oriental philology, and the scholar's contribution to the cause of acquainting broad masses of readers with the literary heritage of the East. But among those, probably not numerous, readers who are well acquainted with the biography and the creative output of E. E. Bertels, the first impression might be that they are facing a text of rather ordinary anniversary celebration speech, for all its vividness and elegance, a speech not violating the canons of its genre and, moreover, containing little that is new. There would be grounds to be satisfied with such an estimate. But feeling the atmosphere in which the speech was made, getting a notion of the reasons why it became what it was, realizing what it says about the relations between E. E. Bertels and B. N. Zakhoder, and what is its significance for the characterization of them both – in short, understanding this speech in full, is only possible by implementing the recommendation – or the demand – of another well-known orientalist, E. M. Zhukov: “We are obligated to translate everything, through to the end, into the language of politics”. That was said precisely in connection with the discussion of the works of E. E. Bertels, in the process of the academic-political campaign of struggle against bourgeois cosmopolitanism in Soviet oriental studies that developed in the late forties. That campaign was conducted mainly “in the language of politics”, as also was (though to a lesser degree) another campaign that took place simultaneously: for a Marxist treatment of the history of literatures of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Both campaigns have remained in the history of the nation's oriental studies as very ambiguous phenomena. In their course, E. E. Bertels was subjected to harsh, politicized criticism.

It is logical that the events of both academic-political campaigns are only mentioned by B. N. Zakhoder in passing, as intensive and fruitful discussions; nevertheless, they have largely determined the content and the goals of his speech. Even though Zakhoder is evidently well-informed, yet in many details he is imprecise, sometimes deliberately so. He could not fail to know that the most criticized work of E. E. Bertels was his recent, 1949, article, “Persian-language literature in the Central Asia” ². The author said in it: “By the Persian literature we shall, from now on, understand all the literary works written in the so-called 'neo-Persian' language, irrespective of their authors' ethnic identity and of the geographical point where these works emerged.” ³ It was around this statement that the passions mainly flared.

It all began with the appearance of A. A. Fadeev, the General Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers, on the podium of the XII Plenum of the SSW (December 15-20, 1948). ⁴ The problems discussed at the plenum became the topic of an article in “Culture and Life” [“Kultura i zhizn”] , the newspaper of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Its author, the writer K. M. Simonov, asserted, following Fadeev: “Theories still have circulation among our orientalists, according to which the history of the literature of the peoples of Central Asia, beginning almost as far off as the middle of the past century, should be considered as some unified history. These scholars, under the guise of “historical objectivity”, turn over to Persians, to Persian literature, a whole series of outstanding writers and major literary phenomena, undoubtedly belonging to the history of the literatures of the peoples of the Soviet Central Asian republics. This question was raised especially sharply ... in connection with the history of the Tajik literature. These and a whole series of other errors, present in works of historians of literature in the republics and of orientalists in Moscow and Leningrad require analysis and severe criticism and correction.” ⁵Both Fadeev and Simonov were speaking about, among others, E. E. Bertels.

In the Moscow group of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IOS AS), where Bertels was working in the late 40s, a discussion took place, at an open Party meeting, over a report by the Institute's deputy director A. K. Borovkov “For a Marxist-Leninist history of the literatures of Central Asia and the Caucasus” (the discussion was held on February 7, 10, and 24, 1949). On April 4-6, an extended combined meeting was held of the academic council of the Pacific Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the Bureau of the Moscow Group of IOS AS, discussing the report of the Pacific Institute director E. M. Zhukov: “On the struggle against bourgeois cosmopolitanism in oriental studies.” During both meetings, colleagues blamed E. E. Bertels for deviating from Marxism, for reflecting in his works the objectivist errors and the cosmopolitan views characteristic of bourgeois oriental studies. It would be a stretch to assert that the criticism pursued the goal of “extirpating” Bertels from oriental studies. But he, too, was the target of calls to expose to the bottom and discard the “regional cosmopolitan theories of 'classical Persian literature'” and to “smash to the end the miserable bunch of rootless cosmopolitans, poisoning with their toxic breath the atmosphere of creative surge in our country.”

In the discussion over Borovkov's report, Bertels admitted: “I must say candidly that those papers which I wrote on the issues of Persian literature, in no way I want to claim that this was remotely similar, not only to Marxism, but even to anything approaching it.” ⁶ But at the same time he was in no hurry (and that, too, was well known to B. N. Zakhoder) to agree unreservedly with the criticism of his views. “To find out the ethnic identity of every author worth notice, and then classify them over the various literatures – but such a task would be, first of all, impossible to perform, because we have no data on the ethnic identity of old writers, and, probably, we will never have them; and, secondly, that would be methodologically vicious to the extreme. We would, then, be constructing literature by blood, by race. It hardly needs saying that we cannot and shall not be constructing literature in such a way, I won't, at least – if someone else wants to do it, let him, that is his private affair” Bertels said in the same statement, and he added: “How to draw the dividing line between the Persian and the Tajik literatures, I, frankly, do not know. If we take the position that a writer must necessarily be assigned to the place where he was born and where he acted for the greatest part of his life, then that principle will lead us nowhere.”

A. K. Borovkov called E. E. Bertels's statement unsatisfactory and non-self-critical, because the latter “did not say that the criticism of his views is just” and “repeated those usual assertions that he had made even before.”⁸

In the same discussion, B. N. Zakhoder, first making the reservation that he was not a specialist in literary history, agreed with A. A. Fadeev that “cosmopolitanism has, undoubtedly, influenced many theses of the Academy of Sciences corresponding member E. E. Bertels” “as a result of the uncritical acceptance by him of the erroneous theories of the pre-revolutionary literary historian A. N. Veselovski.”⁹ Besides that, Zakhoder did not criticize Bertels, but also did not defend him, though in 1949 it would have been been both timely and appropriate to give the characteristic of Bertels expressed by him later, at the anniversary celebration: as a Soviet scholar “who has not stopped in his development, did not ossify in the traditions imbibed before, but kept growing and developing together with the growth and development of our science.” Such behavior of B. N. Zakhoder is explainable, of course, not by his cowardice etc. (in the same discussion he unreservedly defended the Academician I. Yu. Krachkovski) but by his views concerning the issue, by his social-political position. They predetermined the evaluation by B. N. Zakhoder of the discussion and the criticism that was expressed in it.

With the further development of the campaign of struggle against bourgeois cosmopolitanism in oriental studies (and not only in them), E. M. Zhukov accused E. E. Bertels in his report: “By spreading the legend about a unity of different peoples' literatures on the sole ground that the writers and the poets of these peoples wrote in the same literary language – though they expressed different thoughts, different views, different feelings and traditions – by contributing to that legend, Evgeni Eduardovich is obviously aiding the spread of the newest bourgeois-nationalist conceptions about an imaginary superiority of Iran's culture to the cultures of other countries adjacent to Iran, in particular when speaking about the Soviet socialist republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia.”¹⁰ The conversation in the language of politics about the scholarly work of E. E. Bertels was heating up.

Bertels answered: “I must say that I love the peoples of Central Asia dearly, and will never let anyone abuse them. In Central Asia, they know that very well.” At the same time, he admitted, and made an attempt to explain, his mistake. “This criticism is, for the most part, fair. The article gave an occasion, and had to give an occasion, for seeing the relation between literatures of Near and Middle East as different from what it really is. [...] But it was already clear to me in 1938 that a wholesale assigning to Iran of all the immense, colossal, Persian literature – that this is not only wrong, but is a major mistake. So, one had to either look for a solution to this problem, or to discard this term altogether. And the whole issue is that I did not discard that old term, but tried to fill it with new content. And that is where this collision occurred. I was departing from an assumption that has been accepted in Tajikistan by public opinion through all these years – namely the assumption of commonality of the Tajik heritage with the Iranian – for the centuries X through XV.” ¹¹

But these explanations were not, apparently, accepted by many. Criticism directed at Bertels sounded also from the side of Avdiev, the Egyptologist: “His main theoretical and even, partially, political mistake is that he covered with one traditional and conventional term 'Persian literature' the literary output of different peoples of Western Asia, including the great literary heritage of the Azerbaijan people and the peoples of Central Asia, which have created through a number of centuries grandiose monuments of their fully original cultural creativity.

Repeating in this way the statements of bourgeois scholars, and by this artificially impoverishing the great cultural heritage of the peoples of Soviet East, E. E. Bertels, anti-historically, artificially and quite incorrectly, constructed an ethnically abstract Oriental cosmos, devoid of substantial internal unity, in which Persians, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Tajiks and other peoples of Western Asia somehow merge. Such a point of view and its promotion in academic literature undoubtedly contribute to reactionary pan-Iranism, and do significant damage to, on one hand, development of Soviet Oriental studies and, on the other hand, development of national cultures of the peoples of the Soviet East.”¹²

Such a criticism required adoption of radical measures, and the topic “History of the Persian literature”, developed by E. E. Bertels, was excluded from the research plan of IOS AS. He was instructed to concentrate, temporarily, on dictionary work.

In 1950, critical campaigns in Soviet oriental studies continued. In the article by I. S. Braginsky “On the wayside from urgent issues: on the collections 'Soviet Oriental Studies' [Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie] V (1948) and VI (1949) ” the same work of E. E. Bertels was qualified as fundamentally erroneous due to the author's underestimation of the creative potential of the Tajik people. Braginsky drew a general conclusion that was categorical and severe: “The editorial board cultivates a backward, apolitical, and essentially unscientific, direction in oriental studies.”¹³

On November 2, 1950, I. S. Braginsky's article was discussed in the Moscow group of IOS AS. The main speaker, V. I. Avdiev, repeated, in fact, word for word what he had said almost a year earlier about E. E. Bertels and his works, including his aid to the reactionary pan-Iranism.

And again, B. N. Zakhoder did not contradict Avdiev's point of view.

The editorial board of “Soviet Oriental Studies” reacted to the criticism. The seventh issue of the collection, scheduled to appear in 1950, was to open with the article of A. K. Borovkov, “The current tasks of Soviet oriental studies”. It asserted that such an understanding of the history of literatures' development as Bertels's “inevitably leads to national nihilism, to denial of the richness of the literary heritage of the peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus, to denial of the originality of their artistic creativity.”¹⁴ The collection was already set up, but 1950 was pregnant with new shocks and changes in Soviet oriental studies. The discussion in “Pravda” on the linguistic issues erupted, triggering the campaign against “Marrism” - and the leadership of IOS AS (its director was Academician V. V. Struve) correctly realized that the beginning of the new academic-political campaign, objectively more limited in scale, was in essence also the beginning of the folding down of the preceding campaign. It was decided not to publish Borovkov's article, replacing it with I. V. Stalin's works on the issues of linguistics. In the end, the seventh issue of “Soviet Oriental Studies” did not appear at all; but all the same the criticism of Bertels and others in print did not cease with that. After the transfer of IOS AS from Leningrad to Moscow (in August 1950) its new director S. P. Tolstov published an article, “For progressive Soviet oriental studies”, now quite forgotten even by historians of science, but at the time, of course, well-known to all who worked at the Institute. This was the third criticism of Bertels on the pages of “Culture and Life” in less than two years (quite an “achievement” in its way), where an image was being formed of him as a scholar who is not transforming his erroneous, and politically harmful, views. And the estimates given in this paper's issues, irrespective of the person of their author, were perceived by many as a reflection of the opinion of the Party's leading organs.

Bertels anniversary celebrations were held in a situation when the topic of his (true or imaginary) mistakes that had been discussed for about two years, was not yet closed. In preparing his speech Zakhoder had to take into account the consideration that, even though new acute issues, which were also being discussed “in the language of politics”, have significantly displaced the previous ones, there was no occasion to completely discount the latter. Therefore Zakhoder did touch on the issue of Bertels's mistakes, but, as was quite natural, softened and smoothed it to the maximum. The mention of the anniversary hero's passion for butterflies was an elegant and effective ploy: the butterfly wings might help freshen a tense or too-official atmosphere, should it congeal at the meeting.

Zakhoder, naturally, remained a non-specialist in the history of literature; and his speech was, in essence, counteracting the residual influence of the critical campaigns, which had subsided, but not died out. Whether Zakhoder expected his speech to have a wider resonance, is unknown. It is also unknown whether he was following in full the criticism of Bertels that was also sounding in the republics. But, counter to many of the critics' assertions, Zakhoder says the direct opposite about Bertels. The example with the evaluation of Bertels's work by Academician Bartold may be a coincidence, but this coincidence is significant.

At the time when, in Uzbekistan, the estimates of Alisher Navoi in the works of E. E. Bertels are being criticized, Zakhoder is speaking of Bertels 's struggle for clearing the image of Navoi, etc.

In 1949, an accusation was voiced against E. E. Bertels that some of his theoretical constructs and conclusions lead “first of all, to the tearing away the peoples of the East from Russia, to introducing hostility between the Russian people and oriental peoples.” ¹⁶And Zakhoder emphasizes that the activity of Bertels as a translator has “enriched our culture, contributed in every way to mutual cultural understanding between the Russian people and the peoples of the East.” E. E. Bertels is reproached for underestimating the originality of the Tajik literature – and Zakhoder declares that “with great hope and interest, our public is awaiting the appearance of the fundamental work, by the anniversary's hero, on the history of the Tajik literature.”

Bertels is directly listed among those who “give away” writers representative of the peoples of the Soviet East, to Persia, to Iran; Zakhoder specifically underscores the anniversary hero's merit in “repatriating” to Azerbaijan the poet Nizami Ganjavi. One could probably find other, more striking, examples of the anniversary hero's powers of observation – but Zakhoder preferred to recall the participation of Bertels in the 800 years celebration of Nizami. It is easy to notice that the question of Bertels's contribution to the study of Nizami is especially important for Zakhoder. This is understandable: in this area, Bertels has the most indisputable, under any circumstances, academic and political merits. The article in “Pravda” where Nizami was called an Azerbaijani poet, and not a Persian one, as he had been considered before, is among them. ¹⁷ Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet; this treatment of him will be now unchangeable in Soviet oriental studies, independently of Bertels's will, but thanks to him, whatever his subsequent mistakes. However, even here not everything was smooth and unruffled. The Nizami studies, while one of the most successful and fruitful directions of E. E. Bertels's research, were also the most politicized.

On April 3, 1939, “Pravda” published the material: “On the results of the XVIII Congress of the VKP(b). Report of Comrade M. Bazhan to the meeting of intelligentsia of the city of Kiev, April 2 1939.” There, the Ukrainian poet Mikola Bazhan told about the meeting of I. V. Stalin with the writers Konstantin Fedin and Pyotr Pavlenko. “Comrade Stalin spoke of the Azerbaijani poet Nizami, quoted his work, to demolish, with the words of the poet, the unfounded claim that this poet must, allegedly, be given to the Iranian literature just because most of his poems he wrote in the Iranian language. Nizami asserted himself in his poems that he is forced to have recourse to the Iranian language because he is not permitted to address his people in his native language. Comrade Stalin quoted just this piece, embracing with a sweep of his genius all the outstanding achievements created by the history of humanity”

On April 10, 1939, a meeting of Baku intelligentsia voted a verse address to I. V. Stalin ¹⁸. It was published by “Pravda” on April 16, 1939. It included the words: “The aliens had held our Nizami, having appropriated the singer, /But the nests that the singer has built in grateful hearts, are strong;/ You gave back his verse to us, you have returned his greatness./ With an immortal word about him you have lighted up the world's pages. By 1947, the point of view that it was Stalin who first “returned” Nizami to Azerbaijan was dominant, at any rate, among Azerbaijani scholars. The participants of the celebratory meeting in Baku honoring Nizami's anniversary, adopted with great enthusiasm, as Bertels wrote, the text of greetings to Stalin containing the same lines about Nizami. Thus, the priority of Stalin in ascribing Nizami to the literature of Azerbaijan seemed to be recognized by Bertels himself. And the criticism by himself of his own mistakes, as it was d one in 1949 after the speech of E. M. Zhukov, gave a formal ground to reproach Bertels (as V. I. Avdiev in fact did) for an attempt to revise an already established view of Nizami Ganjavi as an Azerbaijani poet, a view shared by I. V. Stalin.

V.I. Avdiev also said this about Bertels: “Having admitted that his theoretical mistakes are due to the heavy burden of bourgeois science's old traditions, Bertels, undoubtedly, has made a significant step forward which gives him an opportunity to start on the way towards rectifying these mistakes, which is possible only by effectively mastering the basics of dialectic and historical materialism.”²⁰ In conditions when any pronouncement by Stalin was declared by many to be a contribution of genius, both into dialectical and historical materialism, it would have been obviously profitable for E. E. Bertels's reputation to play in this respect on the coincidence of his and Stalin's views on Nizami. But neither Bertels, nor Zakhoder do this... As we see there are no mentions of Stalin in Zakhoder's speech – on the contrary, he, quite rightly, emphasizes that Bertels called Nizami an Azerbaijani poet before anyone else.

The speech of B. N. Zakhoder became the basis of the first, in two years, positive publications about E. E. Bertels, though in one of them it was said anyway that he, “having once ascribed Nizami to the number of Persian poets, succeeded in overcoming this mistake, which had been uncritically borrowed from bourgeois orientalism.” ²¹ Obviously, in publications, too, it would have been very profitable for Bertels to refer to I. V. Stalin's point of view, but here, too, it was not done.

This is an additional proof that those who did not want, to refer necessarily to Stalin, in or out of context, in academic statements or publications, - did not do it.

The knowledge of all the above allows to conjecture the reason why it was Zakhoder who became the main speaker at E. E. Bertels's anniversary in December 1950. ²² After all, something of the same kind could have been said by some of the anniversary hero's colleagues – literary historians. Many could have found sincere, kind words about him, could have recalled E. E. Bertels's services to knowledge. But to Zakhoder it was also an opportunity to cancel, in some measure, his moral debt, to say about Bertels what he had not said before, in conditions that were, of course, more difficult. Such a version is not at all excluded – but if so, has Zakhoder succeeded in compensating for what was omitted before?

Notes

1. The archive fund of the Moscow group of IOS AS

2. Soviet oriental studies, volume V, Moscow-Leningrad, p. 199-228.

3. Ibid. p. 200

4. For a new advance of the Soviet literature. (Debate over the reports of A. Siras, I. Muijniek, and S. Mukanov, and co-reports of K. Simonov, A. Surkov, and B. Gorbatov) // Literaturnaya Gazeta, Dec 12, 1948, #102

5. K. Simonov, Some issues of the development of the literatures of peoples of the USSR, (On the results of the Plenum of the Union of Soviet Writers). Kultura I Zhizn, Jan. 11 1949, #1.

6. The archive fund of the Moscow group of IOS AS

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Kultura I Zhizn, Jan. 11 1950, #1.

14. The archive fund of IOS AS

15. Kultura I Zhizn, Aug. 11 1950, #22.

16. The archive fund of the Moscow group of IOS AS

17. E. Bertels. The genius poet of Azerbaijan, Nizami// Pravda, Feb.3,1939, #33.

18. Samed Vurgun, Rasul Rza, Suleiman Rustam, A letter of Baku intelligentsia to Comrade Stalin.// Literaturnyi Azerbaijan, Baku, 1939, #4, p. 3-12

19. See: E. E. Bertels, The Nizami anniversary in Azerbaijan // Vestnik AN SSSR, 1947, #12, p. 96.

20. The archive fund of the Moscow group of IOS AS

21. Celebration of the Corresponding Member of AS of the USSR Professor E. E. Bertels: in connection with sixty years' birthday and thirty years of scholarly work in oriental studies// Brief notices of IOS AS USSR, Issue 1, Moscow, 1951, p. 63.

22. On November 17, 1950, by the order # 95 at IOS AS, an anniversary commission has been formed in the Institute, to celebrate sixty years of E. E. Bertels. The commission's chairman was the institute's director S. P. Tolstov, among its members were I. S. Braginsky, B. N. Zakhoder and others.

The introductory remarks at “the celebration meeting in honor of E.E. Bertels were made by S. P. Tolstov, the address of greetings from IOS AS USSR was read by V. I. Avdiev, and today it may seem somewhat strange in the eyes of some people. E. E. Bertels himself, to judge by some of his remarks, perceived objective criticism, even if very harsh, as a necessary element of scholarly work. All the same, it would be rash to assert anything about the influence of the criticism on his relations with his colleagues in the period under consideration.

Recent Politicization of the Figure of Nizami Ganjavi

Thus we saw that during the USSR era, the heritage of Nezami Ganjavi became politicized. He was attributed to a non-existent identity (Azerbaijani-Turkic) during his own time and it was falsely he claimed that he was forced to write in Persian. Even Stalin got involved and E.E. Bertels himself who said that it is impossible to discuss the ethnicity of 12^th centuries figure was politically pressured and recognized Stalin’s decision. Indeed, later on when he wanted to express a differing opinion about the integrity of Persian literature but again was forced to take back his opinion due to political pressure. Overall, we can see that attribution of Nezami Ganjavi as an “Azerbaijani” (which was defined by the USSR as Medes, Caucasian Albanians or etc.) was political in nature. However in order to justify this political maneuver, some false arguments (like Nezami was forced to write in an Iranian language) were coined. These false arguments are dealt with in another section of this article.

After the breakup of the USSR, independent Muslim republics emerged and one of them was the Republic of Azerbaijan. Small minority of the opposition and elite in that country (including the People’s Front) strongly identified with pan-Turkism at one hand and also continued upon the policy of weakening cultural ties with Iran by not mentioning or minimizing their fraternal relationship with the wider Iranian world.

The USSR historiography legacy has been continued by some of the elite elements in the Republic of Azerbaijan after the fall of the USSR. According to Professor Bert G. Fragner:

“In the case of Azerbaijan, there is another irrational assault on sober treatment of history to be witnessed: its denomination. The borders of historical Azerbaijan crossed the Araxes to the north only in the case of the territory of Nakhichevan . Prior to 1918, even Lenkoran and Astara were perceived as belonging not to Azerbaijan proper but to Talysh, an area closely linked to the Caspian territory of Gilan. Since antiquity, Azerbaijan has been considered as the region centered around Tabriz, Ardabil, Maragheh, Orumiyeh and Zanjan in today’s (and also in historical) Iran. The homonym republic consists of a number of political areas traditionally called Arran, Shirvan, Sheki, Ganjeh and so on. They never belonged to historical Azerbaijan, which dates back to post-Achaemenid, Alexandrian ‘Media Atropatene’. Azerbaijan gained extreme importance under (and after) the Mongol Ilkhanids of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when it was regarded as the heartland of Iran.

Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as ‘Southern Azerbaijan’, with demands for liberation and, eventually, for ‘re’-unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direction, as in 1945-46 etc. The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union.

(Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia’ in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)

According to Professor Douglass Blum:

“Finally, Azerbaijan presents a somewhat more ambiguous picture. It boasts a well-established official national identity associated with claims of a unique heritage based on an improbable blend of Turkism, Zoroastrianism, moderate Islam, and its historical function as ‘bridge’between Asia and Europe along the Silk Road. At the same time there remain strong local allegiances and ethnic distinctions, including submerged tensions between Azeris, Russians, and also Lezgins and Talysh (besides Armenians), as well as stubborn religious cleavages (roughly two thirds of the Islamic population is Shi’ite one third Sunni). This persistence of parochialism is hardly surprising inasmuch as there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites, who were significantly affected by Russification and are still generally lukewarm in their expressions of pan-Turkism. Perhaps the most powerful source of social cohesion and stale legitimacy is the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, which has at least generated some degree of collective identity as victim of Armenian aggression perhaps a slender reed on which to construct a national identity conducive to developmental state building in the future”.

(Douglass Blum, “Contested National Identities and Weak State Structures In Eurasia”(in Sean Kay, S. Victor Papacosma, James Sperling, Limiting Institutions: The Challenge of Eurasian Security Governance, Manchester University Press, 2003.)

Here are examples of some news reports from a Republic of Azerbaijan news site on Nizami Ganjavi. (All accessed in Dec, 2007 and the URL given on the bottom of each picture)

Another news article claims:

Which translates to(roughly done with google translator):

http://www.day.az/news/society/44452.html ( March 22, 2006)

Эксклюзивное интервью Day.Az с членом Союза писателей Азербайджана, известным публицистом Эльчином Гасановым. Day.Az exclusive interview with a member of the Writers' Union of Azerbaijan, a famous writer Elchin Hasanov.

- Эльчин муаллим, как Вы прокомментируете заявления посла Исламской Республики Иран в Азербайджане Афшара Сулеймани о том, что он против того, чтобы называть Шахрияра азербайджанским поэтом, а Низами Гянджеви и вовсе является иранским поэтом и что он, потому что великий поэт, мол не читал свои стихи на азербайджанском языке, а читал их на фарси, и они позднее были переведены на азербайджанский? - Elchin Mualla how would you comment the statements of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Azerbaijan by ambassador Afshar Suleimaniyeh that he objected to calling Shahriyar and Nizami and states they are Iranian poet. They say that they did not write their poems in Azeri language and that they were later translated to Persian?

- Начнем, по порядку, с Шахрияра. - For starters, on Shahriyar. Это, безусловно, азербайджанский поэт. He is of course, Azeri poet. Он был иранским азербайджанцем и писал на азербайджанском языке. He was an Iranian Azeri and wrote in the Azeri language. А вот с Низами все несколько проблематичнее. But with aNizami several problems. К примеру, на него претендуют и таджики, которые заявляют, что он писал на таджикском языке. For example, he is claimed by different groups and Tajiks claim that he wrote in the Tajik language. The same about Iranians and Arabs. Monuments of Nizami are not only in Azerbaijan but also in Iran, Tajikistan and the Arab world. Да, великий поэт жил в Гяндже. Yes, the great poet lived in Ganja. Но достаточно ли этого для того, чтобы весь мир признал Низами азербайджанцем? But is this to the whole world recognized Nizami Azerbaijanis? На мой взгляд, нет. In my opinion, no.

- А кого, на Ваш взгляд, можно назвать истинно азербайджанским писателем и поэтом? - Who, in your opinion, can be called truly Azerbaijani writers and poets?

- Это – Хагани, Вазех, Ширази, Сабир. - It - Khagani, Vazeh, Shirazi, Sabir. С признанием их азербайджанцами у нас проблем нет. With the recognition of Azerbaijanis, we do not have problems. Но в то же время мы также считаем азербайджанцем и Физули. But at the same time, we also believe in Fizuli. Но это также трудно доказать. But it is also difficult to prove. Ведь, он жил в Сирии, никогда не был в Азербайджане и писал не на азербайджанском, а на арабском языке. After all, he lived in Syria, has never been in Azerbaijan, and also wrote Arabic.

Поймите, я не говорю, что Низами или Физули не являются азербайджанцами, но это еще нужно доказать всему миру. Understand, I am not saying that Nizami, Fizuli are not tAzerbaijanis, but it remains to be proved to the world. А для этого нам нужно для этого, прежде всего, построить правильную линию пропаганды. And for that we need to do this, first of all, to build a proper line of propaganda. Пока она на очень низком уровне. While it is very low.

В этом смысле, нам нужно не стесняться учиться у армян. In this sense, we should not hesitate to learn from the Armenians. Посмотрите, как умело они распустили информацию о том, что Рамиль Сафаров убил спящего армянина. See how well they dissolved the information that Ramil Safarov killed Armenian sleep. На самом деле «спящий армянин» это – миф. In fact, «sleeping Armenian» that - a myth. Но в него успело поверить очень много людей в мире. But he managed to believe so many people in the world. Также и нам нужно работать над тем, чтобы во всем мире поверили в то, что Низами и Физули – азербайджанцы. Also, we need to work to make the world believe that Nizami and Fizuli - Azeris.

And finally here is a report from an Azeri Ambassador in Europe:

Thus the above news reports from the Republic of Azerbaijan takes an issue with calling Nizami Ganjavi an Iranian. Indeed an ethnic Iranian Talysh editor who believes that Nizami Ganjavi and Babak Khorramdin were Talysh (perhaps the merit of the argument being that the old Azari language and Kurdish and Talysh are all of the same root and at that time mutually intelligible NW Iranian languages and the Pahlavi idioms as shown in Nozhat al-Majales are closely related to Talysh language as well) is accused of a grave crime for disagreeing about the background of Nizami Ganjavi (although the article does not make it clear this was the reason or something else that the Talyshi editor was jailed, nevertheless why should an arrest of a person have to do with Nizami Ganjavi who lived 850+ years ago?). The whole situation is easily solvable if some elites in the country also attest to their shared heritage with the wider Iranian world.

Yet all scholars agree that Nizami was at least half Iranic ethnically and he wrote all his work in Persian. He also praised his rulers as rulers of Persia/Iran which means that to him, the land he was living in was the Persia/Iran. Furthermore, as will be shown, there are clear arguments for 100% Iranian ethnicity and of course explicit testaments to his Persian heritage.

Nizami Ganjavi is known by his Persian epic poetry. The Iranian world and Persian speaking world has many great poets and the current government of Iran is a pan-Islamic government and in terms of nation building, it does not put a serious endeavor like former USSR countries, many of whom have been besieged by ethnic war and thus have a high nationalist fervor both amongst their government elite and some of their people.

Thus some elite sectors refuse to recognize that Nizami Ganjavi, who is part of the Iranian civilization, is also part of the Azerbaijani’s heritage due to the fact that they also have Iranian heritage. Instead, some still believe Nizami Ganjavi was a Turk! who was forced to write in Persian or he used Persian since it was a common tool. We will show both ideas are false and actually not only Nizami wrote in Persian, but he expanded upon Iranian folklore and mythology while nothing is said in his work about Turkic folklore and mythology. His stories were Persian/Iranian and not just the language he used. Thus besides ethnic reasons, the use of the cultural language, Nizami Ganjavi was culturally Iranian as well due to the stories he versified (and the ones he optionally chose like Haft Paykar and Khusraw o Shirin is a testament to this).

A more prudent approach which will not cause contradiction would be to simply accept the obvious fact that Nizami is part of the Persian culture and historic Iranian civilization, and the Republic of Azerbaijan is also one of the inheritors (alongside with Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran) of this Persian culture. However, nationalistic scholars in the republic of Azerbaijan do their best to disassociate Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization and to attribute it to newly forged identity (Azerbaijani-Turkic) which did not exist at that time and is mainly a product of USSR and pan-Turkist theories. The current Iranian government of course does not care too much about this issue since Iran has many historical poets and of course it is a pan-Islamists government rather than a nationalist one. There are pan-Turkist publications in Iran (like the Turkish-Persian journal Varliq) who also claim Avicenna and Biruni as Turkic scholars. They also obviously claim Nizami Ganjavi (and we will respond to their arguments in the section “Misinterpretations of verses by the USSR”). In our opinion, 1000 year from now, if civilization survives, Nizami Ganjavi will still be known by his Persian poetry and Iranian cultural heritage since that reflects the character and content of his work.

Going back to such nationalistic writers who disregard scholarly convention, the word of Dr. Jafarov (in the above news reports) shows ultra-nationalistic fever is very high with regards to Nizami Ganjavi. Note Dr. Jafarov’s unsound assertion:

“It is a fact Nizami Ganjavi praised Macedonian Alexander, who raised [sic. he meant razed] Iran, while other Persian poets showed Alexander as a bloodthirsty killer. If Nizami Ganjavi had been a Persian poet, he would also have shown Alexander as a bloodthirsty killer instead of praising him. It proves that Nizami is a genius Azerbaijani poet. Nizami’s creative works are in the spirit of Azerbaijan-Turk”

What Dr. Jafarov fails to mention is that Nizami Ganjavi says that Alexander followed all of the traditions and customs of the Kiyani kings (Achaemenid kings) with the exception of Zoroastrianism. Without the understanding Persian language and its classical literature (Ferdowsi, Sanai, Qatran, ...) the understanding of the works of Nizami Ganjavi is also impossible. Alexander the Great was also identified with Dhul-Qarnain of the Qur’an and many Persian poets have praised him. He is after all an Islamic figure and Nizami was also a devout Muslim.

For example, Sa’adi the Persian poet also praises Alexander:

ايشان در حكايت آخر از باب اول از كتاب گلستان خود به صراحت گفته كه “اسكندر رومي را گفتند شرق و غرب عالم را به چه گرفتي در حالي كه پادشاهان پيشين را كه مكنت و قدرت بيش از اين بود اينچنين امري مقدر نشد؟
گفتا بعون خداي عزوجل در هر سرزميني كه وارد شدم رعيت آن نيازردم و نام بزرگان آن جز به نيكي ياد نكردم.”

These sorts of statements about Alexander are typical of many Persian poets. This does not make Sa’adi a Turk just for saying something positive about Alexander. Neither Sa’adi praising the local Turkic ruler of the area makes him a Turk.

And according to the Encyclopedia of Islam (Iskandar-Nama):

In the Shahnama, Firdawsi already makes Iskandar an exemplary figure, whom the companionship of Aristotle helps to rise still higher, by the path of wisdom and moderation, in the direction of abstinence and contempt for this world. And Firdwasi laid stress on the defeat of Dārā (the Darius of the Greeks) as something desired by “the rotation of the Heavens”.

At the time of Niẓami, however, Islam is from then onwards well established in Iran, and it is the prophetic and ecumenical aspect of his destiny that the poet makes evident in his hero. As a learned Iranian poet, Niẓami, who demonstrates his eclecticism in the information he gives (he says, “I have taken from everything just what suited me and I have borrowed from recent histories, Christian, Pahlavi and Jewish ... and of them I have made a whole”), locates the story of his hero principally in Iran. He makes him the image of the Iranian “knight”, peace-loving and moderate, courteous and always ready for any noble action. Like all Niẓami's heroes, he conquers the passions of the flesh, and devotes his attention to his undertakings and his friendships. These features appear in the account, which follows ancient tradition, of his conduct towards the women of the family of Darius, in his brotherly attitude on the death of that ruler, in his behaviour towards queen Nushaba (the Kaydaf of Firdawsi, the Kandake of the pseudo-Callisthenes) whom he defends against the Russians. (Abel, A.; Ed(s). "Iskandar Nama." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. (2nd edition online version))

The Encyclopedia Iranica also discusses the difference between Perso-Islamic and Perso-Zoroastrian view on Alexander. Persian historians and poets (including Ferdowsi) according to this Professor Hanaway present Alexander as a just king:

“Two aspects of the story are important in differentiating the versions of the Alexander romance that descend from the Greek through the Syriac from those influenced by Persian oral tradition. The first is the genealogy of Alexander. In the Pseudo-Callisthenes tale, and the Syriac version, Alexander is the son (by an illicit union) of the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebos and Philip of Macedon’s wife Olympias.

In many of the Persian versions, including that of Ferdowsi, Alexander is the son of Darab (Darius II?) and the daughter of Philip of Macedon. The second aspect is the way in which Alexander himself is viewed in the text. In the Persian versions of the story, Alexander is usually identified with Dhu’l-Qarnayn, a prophet mentioned in the Koran 16:84 (see Watt). In the early New Persian commentary on the Koran entitled Tarjoma-ye Tafsir-e Tabari Dul-Qarnayn is mentioned twice in connection with the wall of Gog and Magog (I, p. 196; IV, p. 918). Stories of Alexander/D¨u’l-Qarnayn appear in popular lives of the saints, such as Abu Eshaaq Neyshaburi’Qesas al-Anbiyya (pp. 321-33 and in a chapbook version, Kabul, n. d., pp. 94-101).

Among the historians, Tabari (I, pp. 692-704; tr., IV, pp. 87-95) gives the fullest summary of the tale of Alexander, including the birth story in which Alexander and Dara are half-brothers, the details of which appear in various Persian versions. Neither the historians (Tabari, Masudi, Dinavari, and Hamza Esáfahani) nor Ferdowsi develop the prophetic role of Alexander which the connection with Du’l-Qarnayn suggests, presenting Alexander as a conquering hero and a just king. Nezami Ganjavi develops the prophetic side fully in what is the most extensive surviving version in New Persian”.

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Eskandar Nama”, William L. Hanaway)

We note that in the Shahnameh, Alexander the Great even visits Mecca and in the Shahnameh, he is actually half Iranian. Nizami Ganjavi praises Ferdowsi (who definitely was not a Turk and according to many sources his Shahnameh had a certain anti-Turkish bias) and the Shahnameh had an important role in the Eskandarnama (as well as Haft Paykar and Khusraw o Shirin). Neither Sa’adi nor Ferdowsi were of Azerbaijan-Turk background but they both have praised Alexander who was identified with the Muslim Dhul-Qarnain. We also note that Nizami’s romantic poetry is based on Persian folklore (Haft Paykar, Khusraw o Shirin) and have absolutely nothing to do with Turkic folklore like Dede Qorqod. Finally in the Eskandarnama, Alexander attacks Azarabadegaan (traditional Iranian Azerbaijan) and puts out the fire temples. Yet some of the same elite who deny any Iranian also claim Zoroastrianism is a Turkic religion and Zoroaster was a Turk.

As per the nationalist writer Elchin Hassanov. He is incorrect about Nezami and Shirazi. By Shirazi, he could possibly mean Sa’adi of Shiraz (who is popular in the country Azerbaijan) but he is not Azerbaijani nor does anyone know him as Azerbaijani nor has he written anything in Azerbaijani. Similarly Shahriyar is an Iranian Azeri poet. He was born of Iranian nationality and spoke Azerbaijani as his native language. However, it should be mention that the pan-Turkic claim on Nezami Ganjavi is a falsified allegation that his father was Turkic. While the arguments of pan-Turkists arguments are analyzed in this article and are shown to lack any proof (and are misinterpreted verses seen through highly ethno-nationalistic narrow prisms), we should not that Shahriyar’s full name was Seyyed Muhammad Shahriyar. Thus if one goes by purely father line, rather than cultural contribution, someone like Shahriyar would be an Arab since his father line (a Seyyed) goes back to Prophet of Islam (PBUH). Thus if a poet is to be classified by their father line (we will discuss Nezami’s later), then Shahriyar is an Arab poet. If they are supposed to be by their output, then obviously Shahriyar who wrote 90% of his work in Persian, will be a Persian poet. However, Shahriyar is classified as an Iranian Azeri poet (which we believe is correct) because of his culture milieu. He hailed from an Iranian Azeri cultural background. However at the time of Nezami Ganjavi, the cultural milieu of Arran and Sherwan was Persian as will be shown by works such as Nozhat al-Majales and others. For example at least 24 Persian poets have been mentioned in the Nozhat al-Majales which is from Nezami’s era and all being from Ganja.

Also there was no Azerbaijani-Turkic language, culture, identity at that time of Nezami. Also the comments about “manipulation” and using methods of “Armenians” in order to prove to the world that Nezami was “Azeri” shows that the world does not at this time buy such a claim. The Azerbaijani republic ambassador also confirms this claim as he clearly states: “Most of Europe considers Nezami a Persian poet”. In actuality, it is all European scholars outside of USSR, since they recognize that one cannot misplace time and history and assign non-existent identities during the time of Nezami to Nezami.

Of course if Iran’s government does not do anything, and ordinary Iranians remain aloof, and some scholars are paid (we bring such an example later), then obviously falsehood will creep into mainstream Western scholarship.

Indeed there was no ethnicity by the name Azerbaijani-Turkic at that time neither was there an Azerbaijani-Turkic culture or language (it came about through proto-Oghuz mixed with Persian and Arabic vocabulary at least a century after Nezami. All of the work of Nezami is in Persian, his cultural contribution is to the Persian language and his stories are from Persian folklore and culture. As per his ethnicity, it is agreed that he was at least half Kurdish (an Iranic people/group), and we shall show that the ethnicity of his father was Iranian(which is somewhat irrelevant in the case of Nezami since he was raised by his maternal uncle and he was orphaned early from his father), although this issue by itself does not make difference on his cultural characterization as a Persian poet.

Just like Shahriyar or Nasimi’s father line (both Arabic Seyyed) does not change their cultural characterization as “Iranian Azeri poet” and “Turkic poet” respectively. Although with regards to Nasimi, he also has written in Arabic and Persian and thus one should classify him as a “Turkish, Arabic and Persian poet” and we do not know his cultural milieu and native language clearly. Similarly, the founder of Safavid dynasty, Ismail I is hailed as an “Azerbaijani poet” because he has written in Azerbaijani-Turkic (less of his Persian works has survived). However if one goes by father line, all major modern Safavid scholars classify his ancestor as Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who was of Kurdish Shafi’i background. All Safavid chronicles both before 1501 and after 1501 trace the Safavids lineage to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah and in the oldest extant genealogy, he is called Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Kurd of Sanjan and he is called Kurdish directly.

The same issue holds with Pushkin who had Ethiopian father line, but no one challenges his place in Russian literature. With regards to Nezami, he contributed to the Persian language and used Persian cultural stories and thus is rightfully a Persian poet. A poet cannot be translated and thus the masterpiece he has created makes it also belong to the particular language he has used. However irrelevant the issue of his father line may be, we shall also show that all indicators show Nezami’s father line just like his mother line was Iranian. Thus the above news reports show that politicization of Nezami Ganjavi and robbing him of his Persian cultural heritage is actively being pursued for pan-Turanist/ethno-nationalistic reasons and nation building.

A more recent statement from the ministers of foreign affairs of Azerbaijan has a more scientific tone:

a country which embraced Islam in its very early days and which remarkably contributed to enriching the Islamic civilization through its illustrious sons of eminent philosophers, scholars, thinkers, historians and poets like Nizami and Khaquani, Bakhmanyar, Masud Ibn Namdar and many others.

http://www.oic-oci.org/press/English/2007/04/sg-speech-baku.htm

(Accessed September 2007)

We note that Abul Hasan Bahmanyar the son of Marzaban was a Persian Zoroastrian and a student of Avicenna. The name of his uncle, which he devoted one of his works too is: Abu Mansur the son of Bahram the son Khurshid the son of Yazdyar who was also a Zoroastrian. Masud ibn Namdar, as Vladimir Minorsky has clearly stated, was a Kurd. Indeed Masud ibn Namdar himself affirms he was a Kurd. The Persian poet Khaqani has a Christian Iranian or Georgian or Greek mother and an Iranic father. His title was the “Persian Hassan”. Finally, Nizami is the case we study in detail and it is shown that all evidences point to non-Turkic, Iranian father as well as Kurdish mother. Culturally, all that is left from Nizami are his work and he considers himself an inheritor/successor of Ferdowsi. Again it is this author’s opinion that just like ancient Egyptians are connected to modern Egyptians, some of the writers from the Republic of Azerbaijan do not need Turkify Avesta, Zoroastrianism, Bahmanyar and Iranian cultural relics in order to feel a connection with their past. The Iranian ambassador mentioned in the news should also explain that Turkic speaking Azerbaijanis of Caucasus have Iranian heritage (despite massive efforts by both USSR and pan-Turkists to deny and erase this heritage) and while the language of the area has changed, Nezami is part of the Iranian culture heritage of the region and they should also see this heritage as their own as well and not try to retroactively and anachronistically Turkify it.

Nizami’s Mother

Professors Vladimir Minorsky, Jan Rypka, Julia Meysami, Vahid Dastgerdi and other Nezami scholars are unanimous that Nizami’s mother was of a Kurdish (an Iranic speaking group) background.

Vladimir Minorsky writes (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge University Press, 1957. pg 34):

“The author of the collection of documents relating to Arran Mas’ud b. Namdar (c. 1100) claims Kurdish nationality. The mother of the poet Nizami of Ganja was Kurdish (see autobiographical digression in the introduction of Layli wa Majnun). In the 16^th century there was a group of 24 septs of Kurds in Qarabagh, see Sharaf-nama, I, 323. Even now the Kurds of the USSR are chiefly grouped south of Ganja. Many place-names composed with Kurd are found on both banks of the Kur”

Also Vladimir Minorsky writes (G. H. Darab, Makhzan al-Asrar, 1945 (reviewed by Minorsky, BSOAS., 1948, xii/2, 441-5)):

Whether Nizami was born in Qom or in Ganja is not quite clear. The verse (quoted on p. 14): “I am lost as a pearl in the sea of Ganja, yet I am from the Qohestan of the city of Qom “, does not expressly mean that he was born in Qom. On the other hand, Nizami’s mother was of Kurdish origin, and this might point to Ganja where the Kurdish dynasty of Shaddad ruled down to AH. 468; even now Kurds are found to the south of Ganja.

Professor Julia Scott Meysami also states the same:

“His father, who had migrated to Ganja from Qom in north central Iran, may have been a civil servant; his mother was a daughter of a Kurdish chieftain; having lost both parents early in his life, Nizâmî was brought up by an uncle. He was married three times, and in his poems laments the death of each of his wives, as well as proffering advice to his son Muhammad.”

(Nizami Ganjavi, The Haft Paykar: A Medieval Persian Romance. Translated with introduction and notes by Julia Scott Meysami. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.)

We will discuss the Qom theory and his forefather in a later section. For now, this section is concerned with Nizami’s mother.

Jan Rypka (Rypka, Jan. ‘Poets and Prose Writers of the Late Saljuq and Mongol Periods’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 5, The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, ed., Published January 1968. pg 578):

“As the scene of the greatest flowering of the panegyrical qasida, southern Caucasia occupies a prominent place in New Persian literary history. Hakim Jamal al-din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki b. Mu’ayyad Nizami a native of Ganja in Azarbaijan, is an unrivalled master of thoughts and words, a poet whose freshness and vigour all the succeeding centuries have been unable to dull. Little is known of his life, the only source being his own works, which in many cases provided no reliable information. We can only deduce that he was born between 535 and 540 (1140-46) and that his background was urban. Modern Azarbaijan is exceedingly proud of its world famous son and insists that he was not just a native of the region, but that he came from its own Turkic stock. At all events his mother was of Iranian origin, the poet himself calling her Ra’isa and describing her as Kurdish.”

The late Professor Rypka does not get himself involved in the petty argument about the ethnicity of Nizami. He just mentions what is a well known fact that the poet’s mother was of Kurdish background and of Iranian origin. Professor Rypka also uses the term “Modern Azerbaijan” which is a reference to the surge of popularity of Nizami in the Azerbaijan SSR during the Nezami celebration of the USSR. Another point made by Jan Rypka is about the forefathers of Nizami. These are: Nizami the son of Yusuf son of Zaki son of Mua’yyad.

From the above data, we clearly state that the mother of Nizami was a Kurd. This is shown in the following verses of his famous Layli o Majnoon where he alludes to the deceased past ones of his family. He mentions his father Yusuf the son of Zaki the son of Mua’yyad (some have read it as Yusuf the son of Zakkiyeh Mua’yyad), he mentions his Kurdish mother and finally he mentions his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar.

This is given as:

گر مادر من رئیسه کرد

مادر صفتانه پیش من مرد

از لابه‌گری کرا کنم یاد

تا پیش من آردش به فریاد

غم بیشتر از قیاس خورد است

گردابه فزون ز قد مرد است

زان بیشتر است کاس این درد

کانرا به هزار دم توان خورد

با این غم و درد بی‌کناره

داروی فرامشیست چاره

ساقی پی بار گیم ریش است

می ده که ره رحیل پیش است

آن می‌که چو شور در سرآرد

از پای هزار سر برآرد

Furthermore, scholars know his name as Ilyas due to this verse which is also connected with his mother:

مادر که سپند، یار دادم

با درع سپندیار زادم

در خط نظامی ارنهی گام

بینی عدد هزار و یک نام

و الیاس کالف بری زنامش

هم «با»، نود و نه است نامش

زین گونه هزار و یک حصارم

با صد کم یک سلیح دارم

The first couplet clearly shows Nizami identifies with Iranian legends and cultural themes. We will delve fully into this later in this article. But, for example, the first two verses we translate as follows:

My Mother who aided/protected me with Spand,

Gave birth to me with the armor of Spandyar

He means that his mother, who used to burn the incense Spand for him, gave him birth with protected armor of the warrior Spandyar due to this Spand and blessing,.

We note that one reason it is impossible to translate and explain Nizami from Persian to any other language is the way he has interwoven words and symbols of Iranian culture. It is very hard to translate the words Spand and Spandyar. Also the translation will not have the rhythmic nature of the verse. Finally words such as Spand and Spandyar are unfamiliar to those who are not familiar with Iranian civilization. They can be translated to for example Western cultural languages by transforming Spandyar to Achilles the Greek warrior.

It is worth explaining what Esfand and Esfandyar are just to demonstrate this subtle but very important point.

Esfand is Persian word and it goes back to old Iranian languages like Avesta. In Avesta, the word according to linguists means Pure and Holy. In Iranic cultures, Esfand is a seed that was burned as incense in order to keep the evil eye away. Usually mothers and grandmothers burn this seed in order to cast away the evil eye which according to traditions occurs due to envy and jealousy of others. This writer himself recalls many times that his Grandmother has burned this incense for this purpose. Esfand according to Professor Omidsalar was well known among the ancient Indo-Iranians. Dioscorides provides in the 1st century C.E. the earliest description of the plant; he further state:

“The practice of burning esfand seeds to avert the evil eye is widely attested in early classical Persian literature (e.g., Lazard, Premiers poetes II, p. 12; Shahnama, ed. Khaleghi, I, p.337; Farrokhi, p. 106). This practice may have been influenced by the association of esfand with haoma (q.v.), the sacred beverage of Zoroastrian lore (for argument in favor of such identification see Flattery and Schwartz). The continuity of Persian tradition has brought the ancient sacred plant into Islamic sources.”

(Omidsalar, Mahmoud. “Esfand”in Encyclopedia Iranica http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v8f6/v8f615.html)

Esfandyar is a popular hero in Iranian literature and especially in the nationalistic Iranian/Persian epic of Shahnameh. Nizami Ganjavi was well familiar with Ferdowsi and Shahnameh (including the 1000 verses of Daqiqi included by Ferdowsi) and has praised Ferdowsi and has used the Shahnameh as one of his major sources. We shall write more about Ferdowsi/Shahnameh and Nizami’s connection to it in a later section.

[“Esfandyar” in Encyclopedia Iranica by Professor Ehsan Yarshater http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v8f6/v8f616.html]

In the Shahnameh, we read about Esfandyar and his battle against Turks (in the Shahnameh, the ancient Iranian tribes of Tur/Turanians were taken in different places to be the same as Turks due to similar geographical designations). Esfandyar fights on the behalf of Iran against the Turanian (also identified as Turks during the time of the Shahnameh) Arjasp.

Here is one comment from Esfandyar from the story of the Shahnameh:

بخندید روشن‌دل اسفندیار

بدو گفت کای ترک ناسازگار

ببینی تو فردا که با نره‌شیر

چگونه شوم من به جنگش دلیر

Again we read from Esfandyar:

سر شاه ترکان از آن دیدگاه

بینداخت باید به پیش سپاه

Again about Esfandyar after his battle with Turks:

ز ترکان چینی فراوان نماند

وگر ماند کس نام ایشان نخواند

Esfandyar is a major hero in the Shahnameh who saves Iran from the invader Turks (although again it should be stressed that the Turanians mentioned in the Avesta were not Turks but were identified as Turks in the Shahnameh period due to similar geographical location and this is discussed in Appendix C). Throughout the Panj-Ganj of Nizami, we do not see one instance of heroes from Turkic (whether Oghuz or Qipchaq or Uyghur) mythology. From the evidence so far, Nizami Ganjavi’s praise of Esfandyar who has made some comments against Turks in the Shahnameh is an indication that he was not Turkic or at least he was totally immersed in Iranian culture such that he did not really recognize himself as a Turk. No one that knows the Shahnameh well and considers himself a Turkic nationalist would be relating himself to Esfandyar. We shall get back to this issue when we discuss Nizami’s father and culture.

Nizami and his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar

Nizami writes about the passing away of his maternal uncle (khaal in Persian means maternal uncle and is used in Kurdish and this is another hint at Nezami’s background since he uses this family term with regards to his maternal uncle) Khwaja Umar:

گر خواجه عمر که خال من بود

خالی شدنش وبال من بود

از تلخ گواری نواله‌ام

درنای گلو شکست ناله‌ام

می‌ترسم از این کبود زنجیر

کافغان کنم او شود گلوگیر

ساقی ز خم شراب خانه

پیش آرمیی چو نار دانه

آن می که محیط بخش کشتست

همشیره شیره بهشتست

It is well known fact that Nizami was orphaned at an early age. According to Jerome Clinton and Kamran Talatoff:

“His father, Yusuf and mother, Rai’sa, died while he was still relatively young, but maternal uncle, Umar, assumed responsibility for him”.

(Talatoff K., Clinton J.W. “The Poetry of Nizami Ganjavi: Knowledge, Love, and Rhetortics”, NY, 2001.)

Thus if the above assertion of the authors are correct (Jan Rypka and Julia Meysami also states he was orphaned as an early age and so do other biographers of Nizami), then Nizami Ganjavi was raised by his Kurdish maternal uncle. The verse about his father also points to the fact that he was orphaned early. Thus, even assuming the argument that his father was not Kurdish, he did not know his father well and was raised by a Kurdish maternal uncle. We shall show later that it was the case that Iranians usually married Iranians (like most people at that time), Shafi’ites usually married Shafi’ites (like most people at that time) and thus it is hard to imagine that unless Nezami’s mother was a servant (which she was not given the fact that the maternal uncle takes care of Nezami and some have stated that Nezami’s mother was of an important Kurdish clan due to the name Ra’isa being a title of a high women), his father would also be Iranian. We will delve into the issue of Nezami’s father later since Nezami does not explicitly pronounce the background of his father as he does with his mother.

Nizami’s Father

According to Jan Rypka, the background of Nizami Ganjavi was Urban. This would make sense given the fact that Nizami Ganjavi’s writing is a product of sedentary culture rather than one of nomadic culture. We have little information on Nizami Ganjavi’s father and all that is left is given in the following verses:

گر شد پدرم به نسبت جد

یوسف پسر زکی مؤید

As Jan Rypka pointed out and most scholars concur with him, the father of Nizami Ganjavi was named Yusuf. His grandfather is named Zaki and finally his great grandfather is named Mu’ayyad.

This is all the information that Nizami Ganjavi has left for us on his father. Although it is not a whole lot of information, it can still provide us with a few clues.

First all the names are Arabic. This suggests that Nizami Ganjavi’s father line was Muslim for at least three generations before Nizami Ganjavi. The second pointer is that there is no tribal designation in the name. That is when we consider the names/designations of Seljuqs, Ghaznavids, Ghezelbash Safavid tribes or even Turkic poets like Fizuli (reputedly from the Bayyat tribe for example which was an Oghuz tribe although some authors have mentioned Kurdish (see Kurds in Encyclopedia of Islam 2^nd edition)), we see tribal names from the father-side. This corroborates with the evidence that Nizami Ganjavi was urban. Finally, since Nizami Ganjavi was orphaned early and lost his father, we can perhaps surmise that his father was at least 40 years old when Nizami Ganjavi was born. Thus we may assume that 1140 A.D. (approximately when Nizami Ganjavi was born), 1100 A.D. (when Yusuf was born), 1075 A.D. (when Zaki was born) and finally 1050 A.D. (when Mu’ayyad) was born. Noting the fact that there is an absence of tribal designation with regards to Nizami, we can perhaps assume that Nizami Ganjavi’s father’s family went back to Ganja (assuming it was originally from Ganja which again there is nothing to confirm this) to at least 1050 A.D. On the other hand, some manuscripts of Iqbal Nama (although not all of them) claim that Nizami Ganjavi’s family goes back to the village of Ta, near Tafresh in Qom in Central Iran today. And other authors have made such a claim based on other verses outside of that one. We will look at this point later. For now, we can see that there is no evidence from the above verse that Nizami Ganjavi was Turkic. Indeed the Urban setting, the Muslim names, the lack of tribal designation points to non-nomadic cultures of Iranians before the Seljuq domination of Ganja in 1075 A.D. Before the Seljuq domination of Ganja, the area of Ganja was controlled by the Shaddadid Kurdish dynasty and it was their capital. We will briefly go over this point later in the article.

Either way, Nizami Ganjavi has not left us explicit statement about the ethnicity of his father as he has done with his mother. The point also is not important with regards to Nezami’s culture as he was raised by his Kurdish mother’s family and all of his works are in Persian. But the evidence points overwhelmingly to Iranic ethnicity and a clear Iranic culture as we will show later. Less likely, but possible is another local Muslim group (possibly Christian converts generations ago or even Arab migrants) origin who were Iranicized. Thus we will have to look at other indirect evidence to see if we can find anything conclusive about Nizami Ganjavi’s father’s background. This is the area where many misinterpretations have taken place during the USSR era. The worst interpretation which is often repeated is that Nizami wanted to write the Layli o Majnoon in Turkish but was forced to write in Persian. This invalid claim will be discussed in its own section.

We note that some have even gone further and (as mentioned already) recently falsified the verse in 1980 about his father:

پدر بر پدر مر مرا ترک بود
به فرزانگی هر یکی گرگ بود

The above verse, like much false information on Nizami Ganjavi, can be easily found in different nationalist websites although it was falsified in 1980. Its basic rhyme of Gurg/Gorg (Wolf) and Turk/Tork show its invalidity and the lack of knowledge of the nationalist person who forged it. Some nationalist groups have used this falsified verse in their article to claim that Nizami Ganjavi was of Turkic stock. Supposedly the Grey Wolf or Wolf is seen as wise creature in Turkic mythology. If that is the case, then one should look at actual and authentic verses of Nizami Ganjavi about Wolves which gives a totally opposite picture.

Here are some verses about Wolves by Nizami Ganjavi which depict wolves as stupid, vile character and bloodsucking creature! There is nothing about the wisdom (Farzanegi) of the Wolf in his poems. The wolf is considered a vile, savage and stupid creature whose stupidity makes him inferior to a fox. The wolf is also compared with evil people. For example:

از آن بر گرگ روبه راست شاهی
که روبه دام بیند گرگ ماهی.
یا:

به وقت زندگی رنجور حالیم

که با گرگان وحشی در جوالیم

یا:
پیامت بزرگست و نامت بزرگ
نهفته مکن شیر در چرم گرگ.

یا:
روباه ز گرگ بهره زان برد
کین رای بزرگ دارد آن خرد.
یا:
مردمانی بدند و بد گهرند
یوسفانی ز گرگ و سگ بترند.
یا:
پیامت بزرگست و نامت بزرگ
نهفته مکن شیر در چرم گرگ.

یا:

مردماني بدند و بد گوهرند
يوسفاني ز گرگ و سگ بترند
گرگ را گرگ بند بايد کرد
رقص روباه چند بايد کرد
خاکياني که زاده ز ميند
ددگاني به صورت آدميند

ددگان بر وفا نظر ننهند

حکم را جز تیغ سر ننهند

خوانده باشی ز درس غمزدگان

که سیاوش چه دید از ددگان

یا:

سوم موبد چنان زد داستان
که با گرگي گله راند شبانی
ربايد گوسفندي گرگ خونخوار
در آويزد شبان با او به پيکار
کشد گرگ از يکي سو تا تواند
ز ديگر سو شبان تا وارهاند
چو گرگ افزون بود در چاره سازی
شبان را کرد بايد خرقه بازی

Thus it is extremely unfortunate that someone in 1980 falsified such a verse. Unfortunately the above false verse as well as Turkish poems not belonging to Nizami Ganjavi are attributed to Nizami on the Internet and many susceptible readers will get false information if they use “Google” or other tools.

Dynasties before and during the era of Nizami

Pre-Islamic Iranic dynasties of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan

Northern Iranian peoples such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans began to appear in the northern Caucasus in the 1st millennium, B.C.E. The Persians and Medes who settled in Iran could have come in large numbers through the Caucasus. But the first complete control of the Caucasus by an Iranic dynasty was that of the Achaemenids (although it is possible that the Medes expanded towards some portions of Caucasus but the evidence on the Median Empire is usually slim). Caucasia was under the control of the Achaemenid dynasty until the conquest of Alexander the Great. Afterwards, it came under the control of the Iranian Parthian dynasty. The Parthian influence in Caucasus can be ascertained by the large number of Iranic loan-words in classical Armenian (Grabar). Also the Parthian language is considered by some linguists as a predecessor (or to have greatly influenced) Baluchi, Kurdish, Zazaki and some other Iranic languages.

Perhaps the greatest pre-Islamic dynasty that had tremendous influence in the area was the Sassanids. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi wrote three of his five jewels about ancient Persia (the Eskandar-nama being Persianized/Islamicized version of the story of Alexandar). But the two Sassanid works of Nizami Ganjavi, the Haft Paykar and Khusraw o Shirin are considered his most important masterpieces. Both of these works have to do with Sassanid Kings. We shall see in the section on Qatran Tabrizi, that the Sassanids were praised widely by local poets. Also as will be noted, the Shirwanshah dynasty claimed descent from the Sassanids as did later Turkic dynasties that conquered Persia and became Persianate in culture and kingship.

Major cities and areas with Iranic names like Darband, Ganja, Sharwan, Beylekan (Paydaaregaan), Piruzpad (Armenian Partaw probably Islamicized to Barda’) testify to the Iranian influence of the area. During the Sassanid era, large number of Iranians also settled in Caucasia and the Sassanids built walls and forts to protect the Caucasus from northern invaders.

We will here quote several scholars with regards to the Sassanid era.

According to Encyclopedia Iranica (Albania):

All along the Caspian coast the Sasanians built powerful defense works, enclosing the space between the mountain and the sea and designed essentially to bar the way to invaders from the north. Firstly, north of the Apsheron peninsula, the two parallel walls of Barmak rise up, 220 meters apart; these are known from the Armenian Geography of Pseudo-Moses (ed. Patkanian, St. Petersburg, 1877, pp. 30-31) by the name of Xorsbēm (cf. Trever, Ocherki, pp. 274ff.). Next are the walls of Šervan (or Šabran), remarkable for their 30 km length

(cf. Pakhomov, “Krupneĭshie pamyatniki sasanidskogo stroitel’stva v Zakavkaz’e,”Problemy istorii material’noĭ kul’tury, 1933/9-10, pp. 41-43 and fig.; Trever, Ocherki, pp. 269-71).

To the north of Samur a third line of defense works could be the wall referred to as Afzūt-Kavad in the Armenian Geography (p. 31) and thus have been built by Kavad (cf. Trever, Ocherki, pp. 271-72). The most celebrated of these fortifications are those of Darband, which shut off the pass of Čor (2-3 km between the mountain and the sea).

The contribution of the Sassanians to the defense of this pass (mentioned in classical sources from the 1st century A.D.) covered a considerable area. Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi (History 2.11, tr. p. 83) speaks of “magnificent walls built at great expense by the kings of Persia.”Yazdegerd II undertook the construction of a mighty wall of unbaked brick mixed with straw which extended from the sea to the slopes of Darband

(cf. A. A. Kudryavtsev, “O datirovke pervykh sasanidskikh ukrepleniĭ v Derbente,”Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1979/2, pp. 243ff.).

Kosrow II Anōširavan—and perhaps his father Kavad I before him—set himself to reinforce the existing works with a solid wall of stone provided with iron gates (on Darband, cf. Geiger and Kuhn, Grundr. Ir. Phil. II, pp. 535-36; Barthold, EI¹ I, pp. 940-45; Trever, Ocherki, pp. 274ff.). Twenty inscriptions dated 700, are found on the northern wall (cf. Pakhomov in Izvestiya obshchestva obsledovaniya i izucheniya Azerbaĭdzhana 8/5, 1929, pp. 3-22; H. S. Nyberg, ibid., pp. 23ff.; Trever, Ocherki, pp. 346-53). If this date is related to the Seleucid era, it should correspond to A.D. 386 (G. Gropp, “Die Derbent-Inschriften und das Adur Gušnasp,”Monumentum H. S. Nyberg I, Acta Iranica 4, Tehran and Liège, 1975, pp. 317ff.); but there are other, later datings (Trever, Ocherki, pp. 350ff.; Gropp, “Derbent-Inschriften,”p. 317, n. 4; V. G. Lukonin in Kudryavtsev, “O datirovke,”pp. 256-57).”

(Albania in Encyclopedia Iranica, M.L. Chaumont)

A more detailed article on the influence of Parthians and Sassanids is beyond the scope of this article. The reader is referred to Lang, David M. (1983), “Iran, Armenia and Georgia”, in Yarshater, Ehsan, Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1, London: Cambridge UP, pp. 505-537 for a short survey.

Also available here:

Iran, Armenia and Georgia

Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3, David M. Lang

Not only were Iranian settlements established during the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid era (and most of the Armenian dynasties had Iranian ancestry), but in the words of Professor Lang, cultural influences of Iran were also profound:

In other cultural spheres also, there was much mutual enrichment arising from contacts between Iran and the Caucasian nations during the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian eras. One has only to think of the perpetuation of the ancient Iranian gosdn or minstrel in the Armenian gusans (Georgian, mgosani), who have continued to delight popular audiences right up to modern times, composing both music and poetic text as they went along. As early as the 5^th century, the Armenian Catholicos St John (Hovhannes) Mandakuni composed a treatise, “On the Theatre and the Gusans”, a copy of which may be seen in the Matenadaran or National Manuscript Library in Erevan. Political relations between Iran and her Caucasian neighbours may not always have been cordial, but there is no doubt of the depth and extent of reciprocal influences in many spheres of art, literature and religion, as well as in social and political organization.”

It should be noted that occasional Iranic and Altaic nomads including the Khazars penetrated the Caucasus, but this does not equate to settlement in the area by the nomads. Much like for example the Bulgars had penetrated Thrace,Greece or etc. For example the Viking Rus penetrated in Barda’and Shirwan around 1000 years ago, but they did not have permanent settlements.

Post-Islamic period, the Iranian Intermezzo before the Seljuqids

In this section we list some of the Iranian dynasties of the era when Nizami’s great grandfather Mua’yyad lived. We also mention the dynasties who patronized Khurasani (Dari-Persian) poetry including Shaddadids, Rawwadids and Shirwanshahs. Iranian dynasties predominated in what is known as the “Iranian Intermezzo”, a period after the Arab conquest which ended with Seljuq conquest. The study of these Iranian and Iranicized dynasties is important since they promoted Khurasani Persian (Dari-Persian) poets and were patrons of Iranian culture.

Vladimir Minorsky in one of his seminal works “Studies of Caucasian History” writes:

THE IRANIAN INTERMEZZO

It is still insufficiently realised that the so-called Persian Renaissance in Khorasan had a momentous sequel in Central and Western Persia and in Armenia. By the beginning of the 10th century a great Iranian movement came from the Caspian provinces. At the head of the hosts of Gilan and Daylam, a new set of rulers ousted the Arabs from their last positions held in Iran, and round this new power a fringe of other small principalities was created in the farther west of the Iranian territories.

Even when the Arabs adopted the system of indirect control of Armenia through the agency of the Bagratid princes (A.D. 806-1045) to the east of this autonomous area they retained the system of direct rule in Azarbayjan and Arran. To some extent this policy was dictated by the great rebellion of Babak (201-23/816-37) in the eastern part of Azarbayjan. Babak was captured and executed but there remained a number of important problems, political, social and national, as between the Arab conquerors and the local populations, such as the Armenians.

The grip of the Abbasids was gradually weakening as shown by the centrifugal developments in the family of the last energetic rulers appointed from Baghdad, the Sajids.1 Muhammad b. Devdad (276-88/889-91) and especially Yusuf b. Devdad (appointed in 296/908) were powerful rulers and a formidable check on Armenia. However, soon after 299/911 Yusuf showed signs of disobedience. He revolted openly in 305/917. In June 919 he was captured by the Caliphs troops and for three years remained in disgrace. He was re-instated in 310/923 but this time (down to 313/925) his attention was absorbed by affairs in Central Persia (Rayy, Hamadan). In 314/926-7 he received an assignment against the Qarmatians and on 7 December 927 lost his life fighting these dissenters. Practically the beginning of a new era in Azarbayjan can be dated from Yusuf’s disgrace. The stage vacated by the Arabs was occupied by local Iranian elements, the Daylamites and the Kurds.

The rise of the DAYLAMITE Highlanders, inhabitants of the small and poor area above Gilan, reminds one of the expansion of the Northmen in Europe. In point of fact the Daylamites had an old dynasty of kings (“the family of JUSTAN”) who ruled on the Shahrud, i.e., on the river which flows from the East and joins the Safid-rud near Manjil. The MUSAFIRIDS, or Kangarids, whose centre was Tarom were linked by marriage ties with the Justanids but were a family apart. It must not be forgotten that the more important Daylamite princes, the BUYIDS were upstarts who, with a crowd of other adventurers from Gilan and Daylam, appeared on the stage towards 308/ 920.2 By 323/935 the sons of the Daylamite Buya were masters of Isfahan and Rayy. On 17 January 946 Baghdad was theirs, and for a century the orthodox caliphs became puppets in the hands of these heterodox usurpers.

The rise of the Buyids did not directly affect the northwestern corner of Iran. Apart from a few expeditions into eastern Azarbayjan, the Buyids did not interfere with the affairs of this region. But the impulse given by them resulted in the rise of a number of local Iranian dynasties, partly Daylamite and partly Kurdish, both in Azarbayjan and in the adjoining regions of Transcaucasia and Armenia.

Thanks to the publication of Miskawayh’s excellent Tajarib al-Umam we now know much better the events in the lands between the Buyids’territories and Armenia, i.e., in the area under our consideration.

The original sedentary population of Azarbayjan consisted of a mass of peasants and at the time of the Arab conquest was comprised under the semi-contemptuous term of uluj (“non-Arabs”)—somewhat similar to the raya (*ri’aya) of the Ottoman Empire. The only arms of this peaceful rustic population were slings, see Tabari, III, 1379-89. They spoke a number of dialects (Adhari, Talishi) of which even now there remain some islets surviving amidst the Turkish speaking population.

It was this basic population on which Babak leaned in his revolt against the caliphate. After the collapse of the Arabs and their Turkish generals, the same population came under the sway of the warlike Iranian clans and families. Despite their languages belonging to the common Iranian stock, the new masters, DAYLAMITES and KURDS, differed among themselves to a considerable extent. The Daylamites belonged to a particular blend of Caspian tribes, spoke a Caspian dialect, were attached to the Shia, were recognisable by their hirsute appearance and fought on foot, their arms being javelins (zhupiri) and huge shields. The basic haunts of the Kurds lay to the south of Armenia. They spoke a more isolated Iranian language, they professed the Sunna (or the Kharijite doctrine) and they were horsemen. At a very early date the Kurds penetrated into Western Azarbayjan and even crossed the Araxes (see below, p. 123). There seems to have been a feeling that the Kurds, more permanently established in Azarbayjan, protected it against the later invaders from the Caspian provinces.

After the fall of the Sajids their former general DAYSAM ibn IBRAHIM struggled for supremacy in Azarbayjan during some eighteen years (327-45/938-56) with interruptions. He was a Kharijite born of an Arab father and a Kurdish mother, and his fighting force consisted chiefly of Kurds.

Daysam’s first opponent was LASHKARI b. MARDI, a native of Gilan supported by his countryman and former master, the Ziyarid Vushmagir (“the Quail-catcher”). His conquest of Azarbayjan in 326/937 was a short-lived episode (LA., VIII, 261). Much more important was the expansion of the MUSAFIRIDS. As already mentioned, this Daylamite house, whose home was in Tarom, south of Ardabil, was independent both of the Justanids and of the Buyids; its main operational axis was in the northerly and westerly directions, Under Marzuban b. Muhammad b. Musafir, surnamed Sallar (330-46/941-57) the Musafirids expanded not only over the whole of Azarbayjan and up the Araxes valley, but even into the eastern part of Transcaucasia (Arran, Sharvan) and up to the Caucasian range. Both the Armenian royal houses, the Bagratids and the Artsruni were their tributaries.

When after Marzuban’s death (346/957) quarrels arose among his successors, the dominions of the Musafirids shrunk to the area near their original home in Tarom, while new masters appeared in Western Azarbayjan, namely the family of RAWWAD. Its eponym, Rawwad, was an Arab of the Azd tribe first mentioned towards 200/815 as a semi-independent ruler of Tabriz. After nearly two centuries of new occupations and invasions, we hear again of the masters of Tabriz and Maragha bearing Iranian names (Vahsudan, Mamlan, Ahmadil) but considered as descendants of a Rawwad. I have little doubt that these new rulers were scions of the same old family although this time their family name, al-Rawwadi, is sometimes followed by a further qualification al-Kurdi. Kasravi thought it preferable to distinguish between the old Arab Rawwadi and the later Iranian Rawwadi, and occasionally I make use of this suggestion. It would be only too natural for the Arabs stranded in Azarbayjan to have intermarried with local elements so that the term al-Rawwadi al-Azdi lost all practical meaning and had to be replaced by al-Rawwddi al-Kurdi.

There are numerous examples of similar denationalisation among the chiefs of Kurdish tribes. Between the two spells of Rawwadi domination in Tabriz lies a period (struggles with Babak, Sajid rule) when we hear nothing of the family’s presence in that fief. Then suddenly in the list of Marzuban’s tributaries (A.D. 955) we find an Abul-Hayja b. Rawwad as lord of Ahar and Varzuqan. In this case “Rawwad”is not necessarily the father’s name, but more probably only the designation of the family. The two points mentioned by I. Hauqal lie north-east of Tabriz. The identity of the earlier and later Rawwadis appears also from the fact that, according to Ya’qubi’s History, p. 446-7, Yazid al-Muhallabi, the governor of Azarbayjan on behalf of Abu-Jaafar (754-75) allotted to Rawwad b. al-Muthanna al-Azdi a fief stretching from Tabriz down to al-Badhdh (later Babak’s stronghold). The possessions of the later Rawwadis (Tabriz-Ahar) lay precisely along this line.

Very unfortunately, the History of Azarbayjan, written by one of the family, Abul-Hayja al-Rawwadi is now lost. It would have been useful to fill the gap between 369/979, the year in which Miskawayh ends, and 420/1029, when Ibn al-Athir takes up the thread of events in Azarbayjan.

While the Rawwadis were controlling Azarbayjan, another Kurdish dynasty issued from a SHADDAD sprang up in the part of Marzuban’s dominions which lay to the north of the Araxes. We have spoken of the Shaddadids in great detail and at this place we need only stress for memory the fact of their domination in Dvin and their close association with the Ayyubids. We shall have further occasion to explain how the roots of Saladin’s family go back to the Iranian intermezzo.

Similarly in another seminal work titled “A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries”, Minorsky provides a description of the Iranian dynasties that controlled the area of the Ganja before the Seljuqids. Furthermore, Minorsky describes various Iranian tribes including Kurds and Daylamites who controlled the region after the Arab conquest of the region.

The Albanians

Our oldest information on Eastern Transcaucasia is based on the reports of the writers who accompanied Pompey on his expedition in 66 B.C. In Greek and Latin, the alluvial plain of the lower Kur and Araxes extending between Iveria (Georgia) and the Caspian sea was called Albania. The Armenian equivalent of this name is Alvank* or Ran, in Syriac Arran (pseudo-Zacharia Rhetor, XII, ch. 7)—from which the Islamic sources derived their al-Ran, or Arran.

According to Strabo, XI, 4, I-8, the soil of Albania was fertile and produced every kind of fruit, but the Albanians were inclined to the shepherd’s life and hunting. The inhabitants were unusually handsome and tall, frank in their dealings and not mercenary. They could equip 60,000 infantrymen and 22,000 horsemen. The Albanians had twenty-six languages and formed several federations under their kings but “now one king rules all the tribes”. The western neighbours of the Albanians were the Iberians (Iberia being the ancient name of Georgia) and the Armenians. Caspia (probably the region near Baylaqan) also belonged to Albania.

According to Ptolemy, V, 11, Albania comprised not only the above-mentioned territories of Transcaucasia but extended north-east to comprise the whole of the region now called Daghestan along the Caspian coast.

One must bear in mind the distinction between the areas occupied by the tribes of Albanian origin and the territories actually controlled by the Albanian kings. The Armenians considerably curtailed the Albanian territories to the south of the Kur and Armenicised them. Only after the division of Armenia between Greece and Persia in 387 did the provinces of Uti and Artsakh (lying south of the Kur) fall again to the lot of the Albanian ruler. The earlier capital of Albania seems to have lain north of this river, whereas the later capital Perozapat (Partav, Barda’a) was built by the Albanian Vach’e only under the Sasanian king Peroz (457-84).

In the words of Marquart, Eranshahr, 117, Albania was essentially a non-Aryan country (“eminent unarisches Land”). In the fifth century A.D. one of the languages of Albania (that of the Gargars near Partav) was reduced to writing by the Armenian clergy who had converted the Albanians to Christianity in its Armenian form. According to Moses of Khoren, III, ch. 54, this Albanian language was “guttural, rude, barbaric and generally uncouth”. The forgotten alphabet, the table of which was found by the Georgian Prof. Shanidze in 1938, consisted of fifty-two characters reflecting the wealth of Albanian phonetics. The Arab geographers of the tenth century still refer to the “Raman”language as spoken in Barda’a. At present, the language of the Udi, surviving in two villages of Shakki, is considered as the last offshoot of Albanian. Living as they did on open plains, the Albanians were accessible to the penetration of their neighbors and, at an early date, lived in a state of dependence on the Persian Empire and the Armenians. In 359 the Albanian king Urnayr took part in the siege of Amid by the Sasanian Shapur II. In 461 the rebel king Vach’e lost his throne and the country was apparently taken over by the direct Persian administration. Even under the Sasanians Sharvan, Layzan and other principalities of the northern bank of the Kur were completely separated from Arran. Towards the end of the sixth century a new dynasty, issued from a Mihran sprang up in Arran and was soon converted to Christianity.

Though the names of the kings are recorded in the local history of Moses Kalankatvats’i, III, ch. 19 and 22, the facts about them are fragmentary and confused. We must await the publication of the new translation by C. Dowsett. Albania suffered particularly from the invasions from Northern Caucasus, first of the “Huns”and then of the Khazars (see below p. 105).

Arran surrendered by capitulation to Salman b. Rabra al-Bahili in the days of ‘Othman, see Baladhuri, 203, but the presence of the Arab amirs did not do away with the feudal rights of the local princes. The fact that the Mihranid Varaz-Trdat, who died in A.D. 705, paid yearly tribute simultaneously to the Khazars, the Arabs and the Greeks (Moses Kal., III, ch. 12), shows how uncertain the situation remained on the eve of the eighth century. The authority of the “kings”of Arran was restricted to local affairs and was mainly reduced to the southern bank of the Kur. We know, for example, that when Sa’id b. Salim (*Salm) was appointed to Armenia by Harun al-Rashid (ci Ya’qubi, II, 518), the town of Shamakhiya was founded by Shamakh b. Shuja whom Baladhuri, 210, calls “king (malik) of Sharvan”. Consequently Sharvan on the northern bank remained outside the administrative purview of Arran.

The revolt of Babak (210-22/816-37) greatly disorganised the Arab administration, and, under the cover thereof, a significant change took place in Arran. The last Mihranid Varaz-Trdat II was murdered in A.D. 822. His title Eranshahik was picked up by the prince of Shakki Sahl b. Sunbat. In 853 many Armenian and Albanian princes were deported to Mesopotamia and this secured a firmer basis for the domination of the new Islamic dynasties. After the liquidation of the Sajids (circa 317/929) the system of direct, appointments by the caliph collapsed and gave way to the hereditary domination of Muslim houses: the (Hashimids of Darband, Musafirids of Azarbayjan, Yazidids of Sharvan and Shaddadids of Ganja).

b. Iranian penetration

As we have seen, the original population of Arran belonged to a special group unrelated to any of its great neighbours. However, the Persians penetrated into this region at a very early date in connection with the need to defend the northern frontier of the Iranian empire. Possibly already under the Achaemenids some measures were taken to protect the Caucasian passes against the invaders, but the memory of the fortification of the most important of them, Darband (in Armenian Ch’or, in Arabic al-Sul, but usually al-Bab) and of a series of “gates’* (i.e. fortified passes), is traditionally connected with the names of the Sasanian kings Kavat (in Arabic: Qubadh b. Firuz, A.D. 488-531) and his famous son Khusrau (Chosroes, Kisra) Anushirvan (A.D. 531-79). A brief account of these works will be found on p. 86. Apart from such feats of military engineering, the Sasanians strove to reinforce their northern frontier by organising vassal principalities of local tribes and by settling in its neighbourhood large numbers of their subjects, chiefly from the Caspian provinces. The titles Tabarsaran-shah, Khursan-shah, Vardan-shah, “the Lord of the Throne”(sarir), etc., found in Muslim historians (cf. Baladhuri, 207), refer to the first class of indigenous vassals, though even in this case some tribal names may have in view not the aboriginal inhabitants but the aristocracy of outsiders superimposed upon them. It is curious that the grandfather of Mardavij (the founder of the Ziyarid dynasty and a native of Gilan) bore the name (title?) of Vardan-shah, which points to the existence of a Vardan tribe or family.

The presence of Iranian settlers in Transcaucasia, and especially in the proximity of the passes, must have played an important role in absorbing and pushing back the aboriginal inhabitants. Such names as Sharvan, Layzan, Baylaqan, etc., suggest that the Iranian immigration proceeded chiefly from Gilan and other regions on the southern coast of the Caspian. In fact even in Roman times the presence of Daylamite mercenaries is attested as far as Pegamum in Asia Minor, and in the tenth century A.D. Daylam (i.e. the hilly part of Gilan, lacking fertility) became the prodigious reservoir of man-power from which the greater part of Persia and a considerable part of Mesopotamia, including Baghdad, were conquered.

The most obvious of the Gilanian names in the region interesting us is Layzan, now Lahlj, which is definitely connected with the homonymous Lahijan in Gilan, see Hudud al’Alam, p. 407.1 Similarly Baylaqan (probably *Bel-akan) is to be linked up with Baylaman in Gilan (Bel-man “home of the Bel-s”), see Muqaddasi, 372-3, etc. Sharvan itself (“place of the Shar-s”, Gurji-van, Kurdi-van in the same neighbourhood) must belong to the same series. Ibn Khurdadhbih, 118, and Ibn al-Faqih, 303, refer to a town in the district of Ruyan (between Gilan and Tabaristan, see E.I) called al-Shirriz, which may have been the metropolis of the contingent transplanted to Sharvan. According to Tabari III, 1014, Lariz and Shirriz, which his grandfather conquered, belonged to Daylam.

c. Christian elements and influences

Of great importance in the life of the area under our consideration were the Armenians who after 190 B.C. incorporated the territory of Siunik’(also called Sisakan) 5 and other districts in the highlands near Lake Sevan, and played a conspicuous part in the affairs of the region lying between the Kur and the Araxes, and even north of the Kur (in Shakki). After A.D. 387 these provinces were lost by the Armenians, but we have seen that the conversion of the Albanians to Christianity and the endowing of the Albanians with an alphabet were the work of the Armenians. Armenian settlers and cultural elements contributed to the further absorption of the Albanian nation. The Albanian and Armenian nobility freely intermarried, with the result that there appeared a mixed class of Albano-Armenian aristocracy. The later Armenian kingdoms of Ani and Vaspurakan had little influence in Eastern Transcaucasia1 but the petty Armenian rulers of Siunik* and Artsakh (south of Barda’a) played a considerable role in the affairs of Albania.

The other Christian neighbours of Albania, the Georgians, had to a large extent succeeded in preserving their statehood, but their attempts at expansion were noticeable chiefly along the northerly line Kakhetia-Shakki. This latter territory (Shakki), situated to the north of the Kur, had a dynasty of its own, which in the ninth century played some role in the affairs of Arran, see below, p. 83.

The Georgians professed Byzantine Christianity and consequently were opposed to the Armeno-Albanian Monophysitism. Attempts to introduce the Greek (Chalcedonian) creed in Albania met with opposition. When the wife of Varaz-Trdat (d. in 715), with the help of the bishop of Gardaman, took steps in that direction, the Monophysite clergy rose against them and even invoked the help of the caliph *Abd al-Malik (d. in 86/705).2 On the other hand, politically the Greek Empire had much to attract the Albanians, hard pressed as they were by their non-Christian neighbours. Though at the time of the arrival of Emperor Heraclios in 624 the Albanian prince did not join him, for fear of the Persians (cf. Moses Kalan., II, ch. 11), local historians on several occasions record - the close relations of the Albanians with the Byzantine empire to which they even paid tribute.

d. Northern invaders

The question of the ancient invasions into Eastern Transcaucasia from the North cannot be adequately treated in this place. We know that the Alans and other Caucasian highlanders were an essential part of the forces at the disposal of the Armenian Arshakid Sanesan who carved out for himself a kingdom north of the Kur in the neighbourhood of the Caspian (in the region later called Masqat) and opposed his brother (or relative) King Khosrov II of Armenia (316-25).

The most important invaders from the northern Caucasus were the Khazars, a people probably belonging to a particular group of Turks, and at all events including a considerable number of other Turkish tribes. During Heraclius’s struggle with Khusrau Parviz of Persia the Khazars acted as the allies of the Byzantine emperor, and in 626 Heraclius met Ziebel (Silzibul?), the nephew of the Khaqan, under the walls of the besieged Tiflis. The Byzantines did not expand their dominions in Transcaucasia which remained at the mercy of the Khazars till the arrival of the Arabs. Baladhuri, 194, who confirms this situation, speaks particularly of Qabala (east of Shakki) as belonging, or being occupied, by the Khazars (wa hiya Khazar). Some peaceful Khazars were brought to Shamkur in 240/854, see Baladhuri, 203. A party of Khazars was settled by Marwan b. Muhammad between the Samur and Shabaran. The devastating Khazar inroads under the caliphs Hisham {circa 112/730) and Harun al-Rashid in 183/799, see Tabari, II/3, 1530 and III, 648, must have also increased the number of Khazars in Transcaucasia.

[We are far from having exhausted the list of northern invasions in Transcaucasia which must have left settlements in various parts of the country. In their rush towards Armenia and Asia Minor the Cimmerians may have left traces of their infiltrations. About the middle of the seventh century B.C. they were followed by the Scythians (Saka), one of whose centres must have been the province EaKaorpty) (Strabo, XI.8.4-5), irregularly called in Arranian Shaka-shen (the first sh may have been influenced by the following -shen, or by the aberrant Armenian pronunciation (Adonts). The most curious perhaps was the arrival in the middle of the seventh century A.D. of a group of Hungarians who became settled west of Ganja near Shamkhor (Shamkur), see below p. 164, n. 6.] [Note Minorsky is talking about the Sabartians or Armenian Sawardiya].

e. The Arabs

The facts concerning the Muslim occupation of Transcaucasia will be dealt with in the commentary on our text and here we can add only a few general remarks.

Islamic geographers use the term al-Ran (*Arran) somewhat conventionally. A detailed definition of its territory is found in Muqaddasi, 374, who describes it as an “island”between the Caspian Sea and the rivers Araxes and Kur, but among its towns mentions both Tiflis and al-Bab, as well as the towns of Sharvan. Ibn-Hauqal, 251, uses the term “the two Arrans”apparently for the northern and the southern banks of the Kur. In practice, during the period which specially interests us (circa A.D. 950-1050), three main territories were clearly distinguished: Arran to the south of the Kur, Sharvan to the north of this river, and al-Bab, i.e. the town of Darband and its dependencies. On the lesser and intermediate areas see below PP. 77. 83.

Partav (of which Arabic Bardhaca, later Barda’a and Barda* is only a popular etymology, “a pack-saddle of an ass”) was occupied in the days of Othman by capitulation. Although the local princes retained their lands, Bardafa, the capital of Arran, became the spearhead and the centre of the Arab administration. Arab geographers praise its site, its extensive gardens and its abundance of various fruits.

Among the titles which the Sasanian Ardashir conferred on local rulers Ibn Khurdadhbih, 17, quotes Shiriyan-shah or Shiran-shah, which is probably a magnified honorific of the Sharvan-shah. The ruler bearing this title submitted to Salman b. Rabi’a in the caliphate of Othman, Baladhuri, 209. The building of the important centre Shamakhiya (Shamakhi) is attributed by the same author to al-Shamakh b. Shuja* (see above p. 13).

The earliest Muslim reference to a native of al-Bab is found under the year 15/636: a certain dihqan of al-Bab called Shahriyar, whose corpulence (“like a camel”) struck the imagination of the Arabs, commanded a detachment of the Sasanian army and was killed in single combat with an Arab at Kutha, near al-Mada’in, see Tabari I, 2421-2. When the Arabs reached al-Bab (in the year. 22/643) its governor on behalf of Yazdajird III was Shahr-Baraz - a relative of his famous namesake who conquered Jerusalem in 614 and for a few months ascended the throne of the Chosroes. This governor submitted to Suraqa b. ‘Amr.

After the conquest, al-Bab became the base of Arab operations against their great north-eastern enemy, the Khazars, who thwarted their plans of expansion into Eastern Europe.2 Many famous Umayyad generals, such as Maslama b. Abd al-Malik and the future caliph Marwan b. Muhammad, won their laurels on the Khazar front, and a considerable number of Arab warriors and settlers were introduced into Eastern Transcaucasia and especially into Darband, just as Khazar prisoners and settlers appeared in Transcaucasia (see above p. 17).

With the advent of the Abbasids, the grip of the caliphs on the Caucasian frontier gradually weakened and our source dates the decay from the time of al-Mutawakkil (232-47/847-61). In 238/852 the expedition of Bugha al-Kabir sent by the caliph liquidated the amir of Tiflis, Ishaq b. Isma’il (of Umayyad parentage), who entertained close relations with his non-Muslim neighbours and whose wife was a daughter of the ruler of al-Sarir.2 After Ishaq’s death, Bugha attacked Ishaq’s allies (the Sanar mountaineers) who inflicted a heavy defeat upon him. However, in the following years (852-5) Bugha dealt severely with the Armenian and Albanian princes, many of whom, with their families, were deported to Mesopotamia. Though, on the whole, his campaigns were tactically successful, the local life was thoroughly disorganised, and when the caliph’s attention was absorbed by the war with the Byzantines, the central government’s hold on Transcaucasia loosened. The foundation (or restoration) of Ganja by the Yazidid Muhammad, in 245/859, was the first symptom of the self-determination of a local governor. A parallel development in al-Bab was the advent to power of the Hashimids in 255/869. Under the Sajids, and especially under Yusuf ibn Abil-Saj (288-315/901-28), an attempt was made to resume the tradition of energetic policy in Armenia and Transcaucasia, but with Yusuf s death the Yazidids and the Hashimids restored their de facto independence.

In the beginning of the tenth century the great movement of Iranian tribes (Daylamites and Kurds) withdrew from the caliph’s control the whole of the western half of Iran. The Daylamite Musafirids who seized Azarbayjan successfully extended their rule into Transcaucasia up to al-Bab but only for a short time. In 360/970 the Kurdish Shaddadids ousted the Musafirids from Arran, and thus Eastern Transcaucasia became divided into three autonomous Muslim principalities:

The Arab Hashimids (of the Sulaym tribe) of al-Bab, who became strongly mixed with local Daghestanian influences and interests;

The Arab Yazidids (of the Shayban tribe) of Sharvan, who gradually became integrated in the local Iranian tradition;

The Kurdish Shaddadids of Arran.

For this period of local awakening, which forms a kind of interlude between the Arab dominion and the Turkish conquest, our History of al-Bab is a source of outstanding importance.

The three dynasties of Shaddadids, Rawwadids and Shirwanshahs deserve a closer examination. All three dynasties where either Iranian or Iranicized and controlled the areas of Azerbaijan, Ganja in Arran and Shirwan before the Seljuq incursion and subsequent gradual Turkification of the region. The Shirwanshah maintained control of Shirwan even after the Seljuq invasion. Sometimes, they were vassal kingdoms and other times they ruled virtually as independent ruler. The duration of this dynasty was the longest or one of the longest in the Islamic World. Also assuming Nizami Ganjavi’s ancestors were from the region of Ganja, then his ancestry through his great grandfather Mu’ayyad goes back to this pre-Seljuqid era.

The Rawwadids who patronized Persian poets such as Qatran Tabrizi were in the 10^th century accounted as Kurdish. But in reality, according to many experts (Minorsky, Bosworth), the family was probably of Arabic origin, from the Yemeni tribe of Yazd, but became Iranicized with such Kurdish names “Mamlan” and “Ahmadil” being characteristic Kurdish versions of the familiar Arabic names “Muhammad” and “Ahmad”. The Rawwadids rulers between a period of early fourth century to approximately 951-1071 A.D. when the Seljuqs gained control of Azerbaijan. Their center was Tabriz and a good deal of information about them is actually derived from the Diwan of the Persian poet Qatran Tabrizi. Prior to their submission in 1054 to Seljuq rule, and the subsequent Seljuq control of Azerbaijan in 1071, an important Oghuz Turkmen incursion from the Ghaznavid realm occurred around 1020-1030. The details of this incursion are given in Ibn Athir, the Diwan of Qatran Tabrizi and Ahmad Kasravi’s “Shahryaran Gomnam”. Later in this article,. we shall look at how Qatran Tabrizi viewed this event. But Wahsudan b. Mamlan with the help of Kurdish neighbors and allies was successful in coping with this incursion and were able to get rid of the chiefs of the Ghuzz tribes and driving off the invaders from Azerbaijan and the Caucasus. So in short the Rawwadids lost control of Azerbaijan until Alp Arsalan returned from his Anatolian campaigns and deposed Mamlan II. B. Wahsudan. But one later member of the family is known as Ahmadil of Maragha, and his name was perpetuated in the twelfth by a line of his Turkish Ghulams (servants), called after him the Ahmadilis (historians have called this dynasty the Atabekan-e-Maragha (feudal-lords of Maragha)).

The Shaddadids were another Kurdish dynasty who ruled Arran and eastern Armenia. In particular, they ruled Ganja up to the year 1075 A.D. when the Seljuq commander Sawtigin took control of the area. Qatran Tabrizi was also a court poet of the Shaddadids and in particular has praised the ruler Ali Lashkari among others. The Shaddadids submitted to the Seljuq Toghril Beg when he first appeared in the Transcaucasia region, but in 1075 A.D., Alp Arsalan’s general Sawtigin invaded Arran and forced Fadlun to yield his ancestral territory (including Ganja). Ganja was the main capital of Shaddadids and the Kurdish ancestry of Nizami Ganjavi might possibly be due to the Kurdish settlements in and around Ganja. A line of Shaddadis did survive in Ani, capital of the Armenian Bagratids and ruled from 1072 to 1174.

The Shirwanshahs were a dynasty of mixed Arab and Iranian origin that were thoroughly Persian in culture and language at the time of Nizami Ganjavi. They claimed Sassanid descendant and are also called Kisranids (meaning related to Kisra=Sassanids). According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the title of Shirwanshah might well go back to Sassanid times. The father line of these Shahs goes all the way back to Yazid b. Mazyad al-Shayabani, governor of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Arran, Sharwan and Darband under the Abbasids. Well before the 10^th century, these Shahs were profoundly Iranicized and in fact claimed descent from Bahram Gur. They are praised for their Sassanid ancestry by Nizami Ganjavi and Khaqani Shirwani. Nizami Ganjavi devoted his Layli o Majnoon to the Shirwanshah Akhsitan the son of Manuchehr (whose name according to Minorsky could possibly be Ossetic). The Shirwanshahs not only survived the Seljuq invasion, but they also survived the subsequent Khwarazmian, Mongol, and Turkmen invasions and their rule ended around 1607 A.D. during the Safavid era. They are well known for their patronization of Persian culture and language. The introduction of Layli o Majnoon was misinterpreted during the USSR era in order to claim Turkic descent for Nizami Ganjavi. We shall address this issue in a later section. As will be touched upon later, Nizami Ganjavi entrusted his son to the son of Akhsitan.

Overall, the Iranian nomadic incursions (Scythians, Cimmerians...) and the subsequent Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids and the subsequent Musafarids, Shaddadid and Shirwanshahs brought strong Iranicization to the region of Arran(and Shirwan) and many Iranian toponyms for the major cities of the region, as well as fire temples, also attest to this fact.

Also many local Iranian dynasties like the Mihranid and various Armenian dynasties were of Iranian(Parthian/Middle Persian speaking) origin. The name Ganja, which could date back to the Sassanid era (See “Ganja” in Encyclopedia Iranica by C.E. Bosworth) and other Iranian names (Darband, Piruzpat, Sharwan...) are testament to these settlements. A testament to the Sassanid influence is given by the fact that Nizami Ganjavi chose the two most important work of his (Haft Paykar and Khusraw o Shirin) based on his own free will. Besides Nizami Ganjavi, Khaqani Shirwani and Qatran Tabrizi, as well many other poets from the region have praised the Sassanid dynasty, which shows its lasting influence on the region’s culture, despite its demise 500 year prior to Khaqani and Nezami. We shall mention this briefly when we discuss Qatran Tabrizi.

Seljuqid Empire and subsequent local Atabak dynasties

The rise of the Seljuq Empire had a significant social and political effect in the Islamic world and beyond. We will briefly touch upon the most salient aspects of this empire. For more detailed information, the reader is referred to Encyclopedia of Islam (Saldjukids) and Cambridge history of Iran.

According to Professor Ehsan Yarshater (“Iran” in Encyclopedia Iranica):

A Turkic nomadic people called Oghuz (Ghozz in Arabic and Persian sources) began to penetrate into the regions south of Oxus during the early Ghaznavid period. Their settlement in Khorasan led to confrontation with the Ghaznavid Masud, who could not stop their advance. They were led by the brothers Tögrel, Čaghri, and Yinal, the grandsons of Saljuq, whose clan had assumed the leadership of the incomers.

Tögrel, an able general, who proclaimed himself Sultan in 1038, began a systematic conquest of the various provinces of Persia and Transoxiana, wrenching Chorasmia from its Ghaznavid governor and securing the submission of the Ziyrids in Gorgan. The Saljuqids, who had championed the cause of Sunnite Islam, thereby ingratiating themselves with the orthodox Muslims, were able to defeat the Deylamite Kakuyids, capturing Ray, Qazvin, and Hamadan, and bringing down the Kurdish rulers of the Jebal and advancing as far west as Holwan and Kanaqayn. A series of back and forth battles with the Buyids and rulers of Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia ensued; and, although the Saljuqids occasionally suffered reverses, in the end their ambition, tenacity, and ruthlessness secured for them all of Persia and Caucasus. By the time Tögrel triumphantly entered Baghdad on 18 December 1055, he was the master of nearly all of the lands of Sasanian Iran. He had his title of Sultan confirmed by the caliph, and he now became the caliph’s protector, freeing the caliphate from the bond of Shiite Buyids.

After nearly 200 years since the rise of the Saffarids in 861, this was the first time that all of Persia and its dependencies came under a single and powerful rule which did not dissipate and disband after a single generation. Tögrel (1040-63) was followed by his nephew Alp Arslan (q.v.; 1063-73). He was a warrior king. In his lifetime the realm of the Saljuqids was extended from the Jaxartes in the east to the shores of the Black Sea in the west. He captured Kottalan in the upper Oxus valley, conquered Abkhazia, and made Georgia a tributary, and he secured Tokharestan and Čaghanian in the east. In 1069 he crowned his triumphs with his defeat of the eastern Roman emperor, Romanos Diogenes, by sheer bravery and skillful planning; after extracting a huge tribute of 1,500,000 dinars he signed a peace treaty with the emperor for 50 years. This victory ended the influence of Byzantine emperors in Armenia and the rest of Caucasus and Azerbaijan, and spread the fame of the Saljuqid king in the Muslim world.

Alp Arslan was succeeded by his son Malekšah (1073-92). Both were capable rulers who were served by the illustrious vizier Nezam-al-molk (d. 1092). Their rule brought peace and prosperity to a country torn for more than two centuries by the ravages of military claimants of different stripes. Military commands remained in the hands of the Turkish generals, while administration was carried out by Persians, a pattern that continued for many centuries. Under Malekšah the Saljuqid power was honored, through a number of successful campaigns, as far north as Kashgar and Khotan in eastern Central Asia, and as far west as Syria, Anatolia, and even the Yemen, with the caliph in Baghdad subservient to the wishes of the great Saljuqid sultans.

The ascent of the Saljuqids also put an end to a period which Minorsky has called “the Persian intermezzo”(see Minorsky, 1932, p. 21), when Iranian dynasties, consisting mainly of the Saffarids, the Samanids, the Ziyarids, the Buyids, the Kakuyids, and the Bavandids of Tabarestan and Gilan, ruled most of Iran. By all accounts, weary of the miseries and devastations of never-ending conflicts and wars, Persians seemed to have sighed with relief and to have welcomed the stability of the Saljuqid rule, all the more so since the Saljuqids mitigated the effect of their foreignness, quickly adopting the Persian culture and court customs and procedures and leaving the civil administration in the hand of Persian personnel, headed by such capable and learned viziers as ‘Amid-al-Molk Kondori and Nezam-al-Molk.

After Malekšah’s death, however, internal strife began to set in, and the Turkish tribal chiefs’tendencies to claim a share of the power, and the practice of the Saljuqid sultans to appoint the tutors (atabaks) of their children as provincial governors, who often became enamored of their power and independence, tended to create multiple power centers. Several Saljuqid lines gradually developed, including the Saljuqids of Kerman (1048-1188) and the Saljuqids of Rum in Anatolia (1081-1307); the latter survived the great Saljuqs by more than a century and were instrumental in spreading the Persian culture and language in Anatolia prior to the Ottoman conquest of the region.

The establishment of the Turkish Seljuq Empire in Persia and Iraq reversed the political march of Shi’ism and the removal of the Buyyid dynasty reinvigorated the Sunnite World. The Seljuqs were Sunnis of Hanafi rite who replaced the existing powers in Persia including the Ghaznawids and Shi’i Daylamite dynasties of northern and western Persia. C.E. Bosworth brings an interesting praise of the Seljuqs by their Persian historian, Rawandi:

“Saljuqs achieved some prestige in the eyes of the Orthodox by overthrowing Shi’i Buyid rule in Western Iran. Sunni writers even came to give an ideological justification for the Turks’political and military domination of the Middle East. The Iranian historian of the Saljuqs, Rawandi, dedicated his Rahat al-Sudur to one of the Saljuq Sultans of Rum, Ghiyath al-Din Kay Khusraw, and speaks of a hatif, a hidden, supernatural voice, which spoke from the Ka’ba in Mecca to the Imam Abu Hanifa and promised him that as long as the sword remained in the hands of the Turks, his faith (that of the Hanafi law school, which was followed par excellence by Turks) would not perish. Rawandi himself adds the pious doxology, “Praise be to God, He is exalted, that the defenders of Islam are mighty and that the followers of the Hanafi rite are happy and In the lands of the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines and Russians, the sword is in the hand of the Turks, and fear of their sword is firmly implanted in all hearts!”

(C.E. Bosworth, “The rise of Saljuqs”, Cambridge History of Iran).

Indeed religious loyalties were for the most part much stronger than ethnic affinities during these centuries and the Seljuqs were welcomed by many Iranian Sunnis.

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam:

“The Seljuqs were soon able to overrun Khorasan and then to sweep into the remainder of Persia. We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large; for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi , ed. Ghani and Fayyad, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khorasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10).

...

The sultans never conceived of themselves as despotic rulers over a monolithic empire, rulers in the Perso-Islamic tradition of the power state as it had developed, for instance, under the early Ghaznawids [q.v.]. They had risen to power as the successful military leaders of bands of their fellow-Oghuz tribesmen, and at the outset depended solely on these tribal elements. The position of the Saldjuk sultans was thus fundamentally different from their predecessors in the East, both from the Samanids, with their aristocratic Iranian background but a military dependence on professional, largely slave Turkish, troops, and from the Ghaznawids, themselves of slave origin and dependent on a purely professional, salaried standing army; likewise, their opponents in the West, the Buyids and Fatimids, had come to depend upon professional, multi-ethnic armies. The sultans did not prove to be wholly exempt from the pressures arising out of the ethos of power in the Middle East at this time; they endeavoured to increase their own authority and to some extent to marginalise the Turkmen tribal elements, yet these last remained strong within the empire, and on occasions, powerful enough to aspire, through their favoured candidates for the supreme office of sultan, to a controlling influence in the state.

…

The threat of economic dislocation to the agricultural prosperity of Persia was alleviated by the deflection of the Turkmens and their herds westwards, against the Christian princes of the Caucasus and Anatolia and against the Fatimites and their allies in Syria, and Alp Arsalan attached such importance to these projects that he fought in Georgia and Armenia personally.

…

Whilst many of the Turkmen elements percolating into northern Persia all through the Seljuq period passed on towards Anatolia, others became part of the increasing nomadic and transhumant population of Persia and central Arab lands, and this process became accelerated in the time of succeeding invaders, the Khwarizmshahs and Mongols, through the movement of the Turco-Mongol people.

(“Saljuqids”in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2007).

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam:

“Culturally, the constituting of the Seljuq Empire marked a further step in the dethronement of Arabic from being the sole lingua franca of educated and polite society in the Middle East. Coming as they did through a Transoxania which was still substantially Iranian and into Persia proper, the Seljuqs with no high-level Turkish cultural or literary heritage of their own – took over that of Persia, so that the Persian language became the administration and culture in their land of Persia and Anatolia. The Persian culture of the Rum Seljuqs was particularly splendid, and it was only gradually that Turkish emerged there as a parallel language in the field of government and adab; the Persian imprint in Ottoman civilization was to remain strong until the 19^th century.”

(“Saljuqids”in the Encyclopedia of Islam).

Rene Grousset states: "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace"

(Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164)

It is noteworthy that the Persian culture of the Seljuqid era was not that of the culture of their Turcoman troops but rather the culture of native population of the lands they conquered as well as the high culture of the court. The Seljuqs relied upon Iranian Viziers including the famous Nizam al-Mulk to run the everyday affairs. They also lacked a high culture of their own and in reality had no alternative except to adopt Persian culture as part of their own culture. The Seljuq were also major patrons of Persian culture. Many of their ministers and viziers were Persian. The most famous of these viziers was Nizam al-Mulk, whose influence was so pervasive that a later historian like Ibn al-Athir calls his thirty years of office as the government of Nizamiyya.

Mehmad Fuad Koprulu also speaks about the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Iranian influence on Turks and the Seljuqs of Rum:

“On Pre-Islamic influence, one must mention Soghdians who influenced Eastern Turks greatly. Because of their geographical location, the Turks were in continuous contact with China and Iran from very ancient times. The early Chinese chronicles, which are reliable and comprehensive, show the relationship of the Turks with China fairly clearly. The early relationship of the Turks with Iran, however, only enters the light of history - leaving aside the legends in the Shahname — at the time of the last Sasanid rulers. After the Turks had lived under the influence of these two civilizations for centuries, Iran, which had accepted Islam, gradually brought them into its sphere of influence. Even during the development of the Uighur civilization, which was the {Turkish civilization} most strongly influenced by China, the attraction of the Turks to Iranian civilization, which had proven its worth in art, language, and thought, was virtually unavoidable, especially after it was invigorated with a new religion.

Even before it drew the Turks into its sphere of influence, Iranian civilization had had, in fact, a major effect on Islam. With respect to the concept of government and the organization of the state, the Abbasids were attached not to the traditions of the Khulafa al-Rashidun {the first four caliphs} but to the mentality of the Sasanid rulers. After Khurasan and Transoxiana passed into the hands of native Iranian — and subsequently highly Iranized Turkish — dynasties with only nominal allegiance to the Abbasids, the former Iranian spirit, which the Islamic onslaught was not able to destroy despite its ruthlessness, again revealed itself. In the fourth/tenth century, Persian language and literature began to grow and develop in an Islamic form. This Perso-Islamic literature was influenced, to a large extent, by the literature of the conquerors. Not only were a great many words brought into the language via the new religion, but new verse forms, a new metrical system, and new stylistic norms were also adopted in great measure from the Arabs.

Indeed, almost nothing remained of the old Iranian syllabic metrical system, the old verse forms, or the old ideas about literature. Still, the Iranians, as heirs of an ancient civilization, were able to express their own personality in their literature despite this enormous Arab influence. They adopted from the ‘arud meters only those that suited their taste. They created or, perhaps, revived the ruba’i form {of verse}. They also introduced novelties in the qasida form {of verse}, which can be considered an old and well known product of Arabic literature, and in the ghazal {lyric “love song”}. Above all, by reanimating {their own} ancient mythology, they launched an “epic cycle”that was completely foreign to Arabic literature.

These developments were on such a scale that the fifth/eleventh century witnessed the formation of a new Persian literature in all its glory.

The Turks adopted a great many elements of Islam not directly from the Arabs, but via the Iranians. Islamic civilization came to the Turks by way of Transoxiana from Khurasan, the cultural center of Iran. Indeed, some of the great cities of Transoxiana were spiritually far more Iranian than Turkish. Also, the Iranians were no strangers to the Turks, for they had known each other well before the appearance of Islam.

For all these reasons, it was the Iranians who guided the Turks into the sphere of Islamic civilization. This fact, naturally, was to have a profound influence on the development of Turkish literature over the centuries. Thus, we can assert that by the fifth/eleventh century at least, Turko-Islamic works had begun to be written in Turkistan and that they were subject to Perso-Islamic influence. If Iranian influence had made an impact so quickly and vigorously in an eastern region like Kashghar, which was a center of the old Uighur civilization and had been under continuous and strong Chinese influence, then naturally this influence must have been felt on a much wider scale in regions further to the west and closer to the cities of Khurasan.

But unfortunately, ruinous invasions, wars, and a thousand other things over the centuries have destroyed the products of those early periods and virtually nothing remains in our possession. Let me state clearly here, however, that such Turkish works that imitated Persian forms and were written under the influence of Persian literature in Muslim centers were not widespread among the masses. They were only circulated among the learned who received a Muslim education in the madrasas {these colleges of Islamic law began to spread in the fifth/eleventh century}.

….

{As they emigrated to the west,} the Oghuz Turks who settled in Anatolia came into contact with Arab and Muslim Persian civilization and then, in the new region to which they had come, encountered remnants of ancient and non-Muslim civilizations. In the large and old cities of Anatolia, which were gradually Turkified, the Turks not only encountered earlier Byzantine and Armenian works of art and architecture, but also, as a result of living side by side with Christians, naturally participated in a cultural exchange with them. The nomadic Turks {i.e. Turkmen}, who maintained a tribal existence and clung to the way of life they had led for centuries, remained impervious to all such influences. Those who settled in the large cities, however, unavoidably fell under these alien influences.

At the same time, among the city people, those whose lives and livelihoods were refined and elevated usually had extensive madrasa educations and harbored a profound and genuine infatuation with Arab and Persian learning and literature. Thus, they cultivated a somewhat contemptuous indifference to this Christian civilization, which they regarded as materially and morally inferior to Islamic civilization. As a result, the influence of this non-Muslim civilization on the Turks was chiefly visible, and then only partially, in those arts, such as architecture, in which the external and material elements are more obvious. The main result of this influence was that life in general assumed a more worldly quality.

If we wish to sketch, in broad outline, the civilization created by the Seljuks of Anatolia, we must recognize that the local, i.e. non-Muslim, element was fairly insignificant compared to the Turkish and Arab-Persian elements, and that the Persian element was paramount/The Seljuk rulers, to be sure, who were in contact with not only Muslim Persian civilization, but also with the Arab civilizations in al-Jazira and Syria - indeed, with all Muslim peoples as far as India — also had connections with {various} Byzantine courts. Some of these rulers, like the great ‘Ala’al-Din Kai-Qubad I himself, who married Byzantine princesses and thus strengthened relations with their neighbors to the west, lived for many years in Byzantium and became very familiar with the customs and ceremonial at the Byzantine court. Still, this close contact with the ancient Greco-Roman and Christian traditions only resulted in their adoption of a policy of tolerance toward art, aesthetic life, painting, music, independent thought - in short, toward those things that were frowned upon by the narrow and piously ascetic views {of their subjects}. The contact of the common people with the Greeks and Armenians had basically the same result.

{Before coming to Anatolia,} the Turks had been in contact with many nations and had long shown their ability to synthesize the artistic elements that they had adopted from these nations. When they settled in Anatolia, they encountered peoples with whom they had not yet been in contact and immediately established relations with them as well. Ala al-Din Kai-Qubad I established ties with the Genoese and, especially, the Venetians at the ports of Sinop and Antalya, which belonged to him, and granted them commercial and legal concessions.’’Meanwhile, the Mongol invasion, which caused a great number of scholars and artisans to flee from Turkistan, Iran, and Khwarazm and settle within the Empire of the Seljuks of Anatolia, resulted in a reinforcing of Persian influence on the Anatolian Turks. Indeed, despite all claims to the contrary, there is no question that Persian influence was paramount among the Seljuks of Anatolia. This is clearly revealed by the fact that the sultans who ascended the throne after Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw I assumed titles taken from ancient Persian mythology, like Kai-Khusraw, Kai-Ka us, and Kai-Qubad; and that. Ala’al-Din Kai-Qubad I had some passages from the Shahname inscribed on the walls of Konya and Sivas. When we take into consideration domestic life in the Konya courts and the sincerity of the favor and attachment of the rulers to Persian poets and Persian literature, then this fact {i.e. the importance of Persian influence} is undeniable. With regard to the private lives of the rulers, their amusements, and palace ceremonial, the most definite influence was also that of Iran, mixed with the early Turkish traditions, and not that of Byzantium. (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu , Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149)

According to Hodgson:

“The rise of Persian (the language) had more than purely literary consequence: it served to carry a new overall cultural orientation within Islamdom. Henceforth while Arabic held its own as the primary language of the religious disciplines and even, largely, of natural science and philosophy, Persian became, in an increasingly part of Islamdom, the language of polite culture; it even invaded the realm of scholarship with increasing effects. It was to form the chief model of the rise of still other languages. Gradually a third ‘‘classical’’tongue emerged, Turkish, whose literature was based on Persian tradition.”

(Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, Volume 2: The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods (Venture of Islam, Chicago, 1974) page 293.)

E. J. W. Gibb, author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series. Gibb classifies Ottoman poetry between the Old School, from the fourteenth century to about the middle of the nineteenth, during which time Persian influence was dominant; and the Modern School, which came into being as a result of the Western impact. According to him in the introduction (Volume I):

The Turks very early appropriated the entire Persian literary system down to its minute detail, and that in the same unquestioning and wholehearted fashion in which they had already accepted Islam.

The Seljuqs had, in the words of the same author:

Attained a very considerable degree of culture, thanks entirely to Persian tutorage. About the middle of the eleventh century they [that is, the Saljuqs] had overrun Persia, when, as so often happened, the Barbarian conquerors adopted the culture of their civilized subjects. Rapidly the Seljuq Turks pushed their conquest westward, ever carrying with them Persian culture ...

So, when some hundred and fifty years later Sulayman’s son [the leader of the Ottomans] . . . penetrated into Asia Minor, they [the Ottomans] found that although Seljuq Turkish was the everyday speech of the people, Persian was the language of the court, while Persian literature and Persian culture reigned supreme. It is to the Seljuqs, with whom they were thus fused, that the Ottomans, strictly so called, owe their literary education; this therefore was of necessity Persian as the Seljuqs knew no other.

The Turks were not content with learning from the Persians how to express thought; they went to them to learn what to think and in what way to think. In practical matters, in the affairs of everyday life and in the business of government, they preferred their own ideas; but in the sphere of science and literature they went to school with the Persian, intent not merely on acquiring his method, but on entering into his spirit, thinking his thought and feeling his feelings. And in this school they continued so long as there was a master to teach them; for the step thus taken at the outset developed into a practice; it became the rule with the Turkish poets to look ever Persia-ward for guidance and to follow whatever fashion might prevail there. Thus it comes about that for centuries Ottoman poetry continued to reflect as in a glass the several phases through which that of Persia passed....

So the first Ottoman poets, and their successors through many a generation, strove with all their strength to write what is little else than Persian poetry in Turkish words. But such was not consciously their aim; of national feeling in poetry they dreamed not; poetry was to them one and indivisible, the language in which it was written merely an unimportant accident.”

C.E. Bosworth mentions:

While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuq Rulers (Qubad, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for every days speech at this time). The process of Persianization accelerated in the thirteenth century with the presence in Konya of two of the most distinguished refugees fleeing before the Mongols, Baha al-din Walad and his son Mawlana Jalal al-din Rumi, whose Mathnawi, composed in Konya, constitutes one of the crowning glories of classical Persian literature.

(“Turkish expansion towards the west”, in UNESCO History Of Humanity, Volume IV: From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century, UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, 2000.).

The overall political and cultural climate of the Seljuqs is succinctly summarized.

“The entry of the Seljuqs and their nomadic followers began a long process of profound social, economic and ethnic changes to the ‘northern tier’of the Middle East, namely the zone of lands extending from Afghanistan in the east through Persia and Kurdistan to Anatolia in the west; these changes included certain increase in pastoralisation and a definitely increased degree of Turkicisation. Within the Seljuq lands there remained significant number of Turkish nomads, largely unassimilated t settle life and resentful of central control, and especially, of taxation. The problem of integrating such elements into the fabric of state was never solved by the Seljuq sultans; where Sanjar’s reign ended disastrously in an uprising of Oghuz tribesmen whose interest had, they felt, been neglected by the central administration, the Oghuz captured the Sultan, and, on his death soon afterwards, Khorasan slipped definitely from Seljuq control. The last Seljuq sultan in the west, Toghril III, struggled to free himself from control by the Eldiguzid Atabegs, but unwisely provoked a war with the powerful and ambitious Khwarazm Shah Tekish and was killed in 1194. Only in central Anatolia did a Seljuq line, that of the sultans of rum with the capital at Konya, survive for a further century or so.”

(C.E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties).

Thus the Seljuqs were one of the reasons of the gradual Turkification that was brought upon in the region. Although the Seljuq elites and Sultan had Persian culture, the Turkomen nomads who were the backbone of their army was not Persianized at that time.

The number of these nomads as shown by the Encyclopedia of Islam was not large and many of the Turkmen followers found new pasture land through the conquest of the former Christian lands of Armenia, Georgia and Anatolia. Much larger number of nomads appeared during the Mongol era.

Thus the actual number of nomadic Turks that came to the region with the Seljuqs were small and this is clearly seen in the book of Nozhat al-Majales were the everyday Muslim urban culture was Persian/Iranian and there is absolutely no hint of any Turkish culture in the region. The Turkish dynasties themselves like Seljuqs, Eldiguzids, Ahmadilis became Persianized and we do not see trace of any Turkish culture from their courts as well. However, after the Khwarzmian empire and the Mongol conquest (the majority of whose elements were Turkic and also their movement pushed opposing Turkic tribes westwards), larger number of Turkic elements were also pushed from Central Asia towards Anatolia, Persia and the Caucasus. When it comes to the plans, there could have been a significant Turkic element by the end of the Seljuqid era, however these had to compete with the already established Iranian tribal elements.

Still the major urban centers were not affected since the cultural of the Turkmen nomads was not compatible with the urban culture whose major elements were Iranian in Persia and cities like Ganja, Darband and Tabriz. Thus we see for example during the Ilkhanid era, Tabriz which was a major city had its own Iranian language as recorded in the Safinaye Tabrizi and it is called “Zaban-e-Tabrizi”. The cultural language was also Persian which was related to the Tabrizi dialect. In Maragha, we saw that Hamdullah Mustawafi clearly shows that the language was Fahlavi. In the Caucasus, the Nozhat al-Majales which is from 1250 or so again shows that Iranic culture was prevalent.

The migratory Turkmen tribes should not be confused with more advanced urban Turkic cultures like those of Kashghar or Uighyurs who were influenced by Soghdians. We already brought the example of Tabriz, where historical sources use the term “Zaban-e-Tabrizi” for the Persian dialect that was predominant there, even during the Ilkhanid era. Also according to Diakonov (1994) as mentioned:

“There were slight problems with Nizami - first of all he was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages”.

Thus Nizami’s urban background in this author’s opinion clearly again establishes a non-Turkic father line. For example Nizami Ganjavi explicitly mentions the nomadic lifestyle of Turks:

چو ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج

به ترکی داده رختم را به تاراج

(خسرو و شیرین)

ترک سمن خیمه به صحرا زده

ماهچه خیمه به صحرا زده

(مخزن الاسرار)

Additionally we note there is no tribal designation (Seljuq, Bayat, Oghuz, Bayandur...) in the names of his forefathers. While Persian culture was not the culture of the nomadic Turkmen supporters of the Seljuqs, but it was the main culture of the courts, viziers, sedentary towns of the empire. Linguistically this makes sense, since the major ethnic component of Greater Persia including Central Asia and the Caucasia (Nezami addressing his different patrons as Kings of Persia) were Iranian and Iranian ministers had a large say in the Seljuq government. Later in this article, we shall delve into these points in more detail.

During the era when Nizami was born, Seljuq power was actually declining and new local dynasties called Atabegs were former who effectively held major power and were under nominal Seljuq control. Atabegs were originally commanders who were trusted as tutors for young Seljuk princes. But later on, they grew powerful enough to become virtually independent of the Seljuq Sultan and were sometimes the driving force in Seljuq politics. Two of these dynasties who actually commissioned Nizami Ganjavi to write two of his most important epics were the rival dynasties of Eldiguzids and Ahmadilis. Later on historians would also refer to them as Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan and Atabakan-e-Maragheh. Interestingly enough, they allowed Nezami Ganjavi to choose the topic (unlike the quest by Shirwanshahs which wanted the story of Leyli o Majnoon) and Nezami voluntarily chose the Sassanid stories of Khusraw o Shirin and Haft Paykar.

The Eldiguzid were an Atabeg (feudal-lord) dynasty of Qipchaq Turkic origin who controlled most Azerbaijan, Arran and the northern Jibal during the second half of the 12^th century. At this time, the Seljuq sultanate of Persia and Iraq was in full decay and unable to prevent the expansion of the virtually independent dynasties. Eldiguz was in control of Ganja, which the contemporary Kurdish Muslim historian Ibn Athir (1160-1233) has called “The mother city of Arran”. During the reign of the Seljuqid ruler Arsalan, the Eldiguizds were the power behind the throne and controlled the great Seljuqid Empire. Their territories stretched from the south as far as Isfahan, in the west to Akhlat and in the north to Sharwan (controlled by the Sharwan) and Georgian dynasties. In their last phase of the Eldiguzids, their power decayed and they were once more local rulers in Azerbaijan and east Transcaucasia, and by 1225, they were incorporated into the Khwarazm Shah Empire.

“The historical significance of these Atabegs thus lies in their firm control over most of north-west Persia during the later Seljuq period and also in their role in Transcaucasia as champions of Islam against the resurgent Bagratid Georgian kings”.

(C.E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties).

The Encyclopedia Iranica has an overview of the Eldiguzids under the entry “Atabakan-i Azerbaijan”(a name used by historians to distinguish different Atabek kingdoms based on regions) states:

ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀZARBĀYJĀN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arrān and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atābaks”(atābakān-e azam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arrān and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Jalāl-al-dīn Khārazmšāh in 622/1225.

Literature, learning, and architecture. All of the Ildegozids were patrons of literature and learning, even though the later ones were apparently more drunken than devout. They were patrons of many of the well-known poets of the period and were closely associated with some of them. Mojīr-al-dīn Baylaqānī seems to have been closer to Īldegoz and Mohammad whereas Athīr-al-dīn Akhsīkatī was nearer to Qezel Arslān (Dīvān-e Athīr, introd. Homāyūn Farrokh, pp. 75-77; Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., p. 208). Zahīr-al-dīn Fāryābī is especially associated with Abū Bakr (Dīvān, introd. Bīneš, pp. 86-92). Šaraf-al-dīn Šafarva Esfahānī may have belonged to Mohammad’s entourage (Awfī, Lobāb, p. 615). Other poets connected with the family are: Emādī Šahrīārī (Awfī, p. 724; Shafā, Adabīyāt II, p. 745); Jamāl-al-dīn Mohammad Abd-al-Razzāq Esfahānī (Shafā, II, p. 732); Rokn-al-dīn Davīdār (Shafā, III/1, p. 347); Athīr-al-dīn Awmānī (Shafā, III/1, p. 395); Qewāmī Moarrezī, Yūsof Fożūlī (Dawlatšāh, ed. Browne, p. 117); Jamāl Ašharī (Awfī, p. 406); Jamāl oǰandī (Ebn Esfandīār, II, p. 152). Khāqānī wrote poems in praise of Qezel Arslān (Dīvān, introd. Abbāsī, p. 26) and also wrote a long letter to that atābak (Monšaāt, pp. 148-63). Nezāmī Ganjavī certainly dedicated his Khosrow o Šīrīn to members of the family, first to Mohammad, then to Qezel Arslān, along with Sultan Toghrel, according to Shafā (II, p. 803). As far as Nezāmī’s Eqbāl-nāma is concerned, there is a difference of opinion (Nafīsī, Nezāmī, pp. 115-16; Minorsky, “Caucasica II,”pp. 872-74; Shafā, II, pp. 704-06) as to whether or not it was dedicated to an Ildegozid. It does seem to be true that the only meeting Nezāmī had with any ruler was with Qezel Arslān (Nafīsī, Nezāmī, pp. 86-93). Uzbek’s vizier, Abu’l-Qāsem Hārūn (q.v.) was a well-known patron of learning in Tabrīz.

(Luther, K. “Atabkan-e-Adarbayjan: Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan”, Encyclopedia Iranica).

We should note that the court culture of the Eldiguzids was also Persian and culturally, they were not different than the Persianized Seljuqid elite. The urban centers and culture was Iranian at the time as shown clearly by books such as Nozhat al-Majales.

We should also note that Nezami Ganjavi was not a court poet and was not attached to any particular dynasty. Thus Nezami was more like Ferdowsi, who was not a court poet and unlike Khaqani or Onsori who were court poets. For example, he devotes works to rival dynasties of Ildiguzids including the Shirwanshahs and Ahmadilis. He also sent his son to the court of the Sherwanshahs and entrusts his son to them.

Another dynasty which commissioned one of Nizami Ganjavi’s works (the Haft Paykar) was the Ahmadilis. The Ahmadilis which historians have also called “Atabakan-Maragheh” were rulers of Maragheh and Ru’in Diz (Ruin Duzh=Persian for Brass Fort compare with Esfandyar’s title “Ruyin Tan”(invulnerable body)) in Iranian Azerbaijan. The dynasty ruled early in Maragheh in the 12^th century and maintained themselves against the much more powerful neighbors like Eldiguzid Atabegs. Aq Sunqur Ahmadili, the founder of this dynasty, was presumably a freeman of Ahmadil, a Kurdish noble possibly related to the Rawwadids. Ala’al-din Korp Arsalan, who the Haft Paykar was commissioned by (the story itself being chosen by Nizami Ganjavi) is said to have ruled between 1175-1188.

The fact that Nizami Ganjavi was commissioned by at least three rival dynasties (Shirwanshah, Eldiguzid and Ahmadilis) is a testament to his fame. We should note the court culture of all these dynasties(whatever their ethnic origin) was Persian and one cannot claim these dynasties had a non-Iranian identity. Since the court itself brought Iranianization of these dynasties as the administrators, officials and poets who gathered there were natives of the region whose urban cultural language was Persian. Also the Viziers of majority of the Persianized Turkic dynasties who ruled Iran, Caucasus and even sometimes India were of Iranian origin. At the same time, Nizami Ganjavi was aloof from politics and was not a court poet. This allowed him to remain on friendly terms with rival dynasties that actually attacked each other’s territories. The Encyclopedia of Islam entry on him states:

“Usually, there is more precise biographical information about the Persian court poets, but Nizami was not a court poet; he feared loss of integrity in this role and craved primarily for the freedom of artistic creation. His five masterpieces are known collectively as the Khamsa, Quintet, or the Pandj Gandj, the Five Treasures. The five epic poems represent a total of close to 30,000 couplets and they constitute a breakthrough in Persian literature. Nizami was a master in the genre of the romantic epic.”

(Nizami Ganjavi, “Encyclopedia of Islam”by Chelkowski, P).

Regional Iranian culture in Arran/Sherwan and Azerbaijan

Arran/Sherwan and Nezami’s designation of Iran/Persia for his land

Overall, a brief survey of all these dynasties (Rawwadids, Shaddadids, Shirwanshah, Seljuqids, Eldiguzids and Ahmadilis) is important. The Rawwadids, Shirwanshah and Shaddadids were some of the early patrons of Persian-Dari poetry in the area and the Shirwanshah ruled the area of Shirwan during the time of Nizami Ganjavi. Taking Tabriz as an example, and also the statement of Diakonov about Ganja, Ganja transitioned from Iranic rule to that of Persianate Turkic dynasties but it did not lose its Iranic character at once and overnight. The general Muslim culture of Arran and Sherwan during the era of Nezami Ganjavi is reflected perfectly in its totality in the book Nozhat al-Majales. This book provides the best evidence of the culture of the region today and unless a time-machine is created, it is the best resource available to scholar to assess the urban culture of the population.

The Persianate Turkic dynasties although of nomadic origin were nevertheless soon establishing their thrones and ruled in what C.E. Bosworth has called Perso-Islamic manner. Their courtly life was in Persian and they upheld Persian culture and standards in governing their major cities. This was because the bulk of the Muslim population was Iranian and culturally Persian was the chief language. This might have alienated them from their Turkomen followers as it was the case for the Seljuqid Sultan Sanjar. Yet many Iranian Sunnis supported the Seljuqids in order to weaken the rise of Shi’ism under the Buyid dynasty. They also supported the Seljuqid rule, since it brought a sense of stability and unity which did not exist prior.

Ganja, which was called the mother city of Arran, was the capital of the Shaddadids (assuming Nizami’s great ancestor was from them). We already touched upon Nizami’s Kurdish mother and his Kurdish uncle who raised him. Later on Ganja passed to the Seljuqs and Eldiguzids before the Khwarazmid and Mongol invasion. There is no evidence of the process of Turkification of Ganja at the time of Nizami (as the Oghuz nomads were not urban and the book Nozhat al-Majales shows the culture of everyday urban people was Persian). Also looking at Tabriz (a city under the Ildiguzids) as an example (which had an Iranic language after Mongol invasion as exemplified in the Safinayeh Tabriz), it is clear (as mentioned by Diakonov) that Ganja was an Iranic speaking city, at least before the Mongols and Ilkhanid era. Note cities, even when they accept migrants, usually have some capacity to absorb the migrants and mould them into the culture of the city. According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:

“Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible.”

(X.D. Planhol, LANDS OF IRAN in Encyclopedia Iranica)

Even during the Mongol era, Hamdullah Mostowfi in his Nozhat al-Qolub mentions that the city of Abhar (near modern Zanjan) has migrants from everywhere, “but their language is of not yet unified, but it will be most likely be a modified Persian”.

We note that travelers before the time of Nizami Ganjavi maintain Persian (not necessarily Khorasanian Persian) was the major binding language and was a common language of the area. The influx of Turkish nomads from the Seljuqs and the much larger influx during the Mongol/Khwarazmid movement were some of the phases of history in which Turkification of Arran was gradually started. Indeed on the eve of the Mongol invasion, large numbers of Turkomen tribes are mentioned in the Caucasia by Nasavi, the Khwarazmian historian. It is not known if these were pushed by the waves of Mongols attacking Central Asia or had come gradually during the Seljuq era. But they were recent nomads and their ancestry does not go back to the Shaddadid era. Their culture was also not urban and we do not have any cities with Turkic names at that time while Ganja, Darband, Barda’, Baku and etc. are all Iranic names.

Thus the subsequent Khwarazmian/Mongol push was instrumental for the gradual Turkicization of the region of Arran(which in many maps also includes Shirwan). However, just taking into account the Seljuq/Eldiguzid era before Khwarzmian empire, the Oghuz nomads only settled in grazing lands and not cities and even most nomads of Arran and Sherwan were probably Kurdish and other Iranian/Caucasian types. The culture of urban Muslim people and city dwellers was firmly Iranian as shown by the Nozhat al-Majales and its everyday idiom.

As noted, the Safinaye Tabriz shows a Persianate-Iranian culture in the city of Tabriz (a city which was also under the Ildiguzids like Ganja) during the Mongol era. This, despite the fact that the Mongol army itself was overwhelmingly composed of Turkic tribes. The urban life of the major cities of the area was not compatible with the nomadic culture of the Turkomen tribes and the Muslim cities had Perso-Islamic culture. In Iranian Azerbaijan for example, according to the Encyclopedia Iranica, the deciding factor for Turkification was the Safavid period:

But the decisive period no doubt occurred in the Safavid period with the adoption of Shi’ism as the state religion of Iran, while the Ottoman state remained faithful to Sunnism. Soon Shi’ite propaganda among the tribes located outside of the urban centers of orthodoxy, prompted the Anatolian nomad tribes to return to Iran. This migration began in 1500 when Shah Esmail assembled the Qezelbash tribes in the region of Erzincan. The attraction made itself felt as far as the region of Antalya, whence came the Tekelu, who were to play an important role in Iran, in mass along with 15,000 camels. Nomads undoubtedly constituted the majority of the movement, though it also affected semi-nomads and even peasants. At the end of the 11th/16th century, Shah Abbas I’s organization of the great confederation of the shahseven precipitated the massive entry of Turks into Azerbaijan, and the area became definitively Turkish in this period, with the exception of some isolated Tati-speaking communities. (Azerbaijan in Encyclopedia Iranica)

This would also hold true for the Caucasus in our opinion. Specially the Sherwan regions which were under the Sherwanshah until the Safavid era. Also the Turkmen nomads for many generations lived a nomadic lifestyle. Even after disassociation from the nomadic lifestyle, the next step would be part migration and part settlement in villages.

Afterwards, it would be full settlement in farming villages and finally migration from villages to major cities. All these steps come through many generations and not instantly. One reason for example the Atabeg dynasties of Fars, Yazd, Syria and etc. were not able to Turkify their respective area (although large number of nomadic Turkic Qashqai tribes live in Fars today, but this nomadic component in Fars was after the Seljuqid rule) is due to the fact these areas did not provide a widely available pasture land and thus they were absorbed into the local Iranian population. Let us bring some of the primary sources and review some of them again:

Estakhri of 10^th century also states:

“In Azerbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.”

Original Arabic:

و لسان اذربيجان و ارمينيه و الران الفارسيه و العربيه غير ان اھل دبيل و حواليھا یتکلمون بالارمنيه، و نواحی بردعه لسانھم ارانيه

(Estakhari, Abu Eshaq Ebrahim. Masalek va Mamalek. Bonyad Moqufat Dr. Afshar, Tehran, 1371 (1992-1993))

Al-Muqaddasi (d. late 4th/10th cent.) considers Azerbaijan and Arran as part of the 8th division of lands. He states:

“The languages of the 8th division is Iranian (al-’ajamyya). It is partly Dari and partly convoluted (monqaleq) and all of them are named Persian”

(Al-Moqaddasi, Shams ad-Din Abu Abdallah Muhammad ibn Ahmad, Ahsan al-Taqasi fi Ma’rifa al-Aqalim, Translated by Ali Naqi Vizieri, Volume One, First Edition, Mu’alifan and Mutarjiman Publishers, Iran, 1981, pg 377.)

المقدسي، شمس‌الدين ابوعبدالله محمدبن احمد، احسن التقاسيم في معرفه الاقاليم، ترجمه دكتر علينقي وزيري، جلد 1، چاپ اول، انتشارات مؤلفان و مترجمان ايران، 1361، ص 377.

Al-Muqaddasi also writes on the general region of Armenia, Arran and Azerbaijan and states:

“They have big beards, their speech is not attractive. In Arminya they speak Armenian, in al-Ran, Ranian (Aranian); Their Persian is understandable, and is close to Khurasanian (Dari Persian) in sound”

(Al-Muqaddasi, ‘The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions’, a translation of his Ahsan al-Taqasim fi Ma’rifat al-Aqalim by B.A. Collins, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Garnet Publishing Limited,1994. pg 334).

Thus from Muqaddasi we can see that a regional Persian language was spoken in the area and cross referencing with Estakhri, we can conjecture that this was the main language of the muslim population, specially in the urban areas.

According to C. E. Bosworth:

“North of the Aras, the distinct, presumably Iranian, speech of Arran long survived, called by Ebn Hawqal al-Raniya”

(Azerbaijan: Islamic History to 1941, Encyclopedia Iranica).

Although we do not have any manuscripts of al-Raniya to really judge the nature of this dialect (Was it was a dialect of Parthian or Iranian languages, or was it a Caucasian language or non-standard dialect of Armenian?), nearby the Kur river, in the town of Barda’in Arran:

“The fertile rural environs produced much fruit (with a particularly noted variety of figs), nuts, and also the dyestuff madder (rūnās), which was exported as far as India. In the Kor and other nearby rivers, the sturgeon (sormāhī from Persian šūrmāhī, salt fish) and other tasty fish were caught; and there was extensive production of textiles, including silks (see Ebn Hawqal, pp. 337-39, 347, 349, tr. Kramers, II, pp. 330-32, 340, 342; Maqdesī, [Moqaddasī], p. 375; Hodūd al-Aālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 143-44, secs. 36.21, 36.30; R. B. Serjeant, Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the Mongol Conquest, Beirut, 1972, p. 69)”

(Barda, Encyclopedia Iranica, Bosworth).

The word sormāhī which Prof. Bosworth derives from Shurmahi in Persian could actually be red fish (sor/suhr being the Pahlavi for red which in modern Persian is Surkh). Al-Muqaddasi translates the “Monday” to Yam al-Ithnayn which in Persian and Iranian dialects is Doshanbeh (the second day). An important point to mention is that Ganja like many other pre-Seljuq toponyms has an Iranian name, which naturally reflects the fact that it was founded by Iranian settlers (C.E. Bosworth, “Ganja”, Encyclopedia Iranica). One should also mention the native Iranian (Parthian/Persian) dynasty which ruled over the area of Arran up to at least the 8^th century.

Al-Mas’udi the Arab Historian States:

“The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.”

Source:

Al Mas’udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8.

Thus Masu’di testifies to the Iranian presence in the Caucasus and Azerbaijan during the 10^th century and even names a local Iranian dialect called Azari and says Persian peoples in Arran, Armenia and Darband and Bayleqan spoke Persian languages.

This Iranian culture was strong in the region and perhaps even grew during the Seljuqs and Ilkhanids. It is only with the Safavids that probably the traditional Sufi-Shafi’ite oriented Persian culture faded away.

Probably the best example to show the extent of Iranian culture and population in Arran and Shirawn is through the book Nozhat al-Majalis. There are 114 poets in Persian just from this book in the area of Azerbaijan, Arran, and Shirwan.

1ـ ابوعلا شاپور، 2ـ ابوالفضل تبريزي، 3ـ ابوالقاسم، 4ـ قاضي ابوالمجد، 5ـ اسدي، 6ـ اسمعيل فارسي، 7ـ اطلسي، 8ـ بختيار شرواني، 9ـ بدر تفليسي، 10ـ بدرالدين محمود، 11ـ بديع بيلقاني، 12ـ برهان گنجه‌اي، 13ـ بهاء شرواني، 14ـ پسر خطيب گنجه، 15ـ پسر سله گنجه، 16ـ پسر قاضي دربند، 17ـ تاج خلاطي، 18ـ تاج زنگاني، 19ـ تاج صالح، 20ـ تفليسي شرواني، 21ـ جلال خواري، 22ـ جلالي، 23ـ جمال جويي، 24ـ جمال خليل شرواني، 25ـ جمال حاجي شرواني، 26ـ جمال عصفوري، 27ـ جمال عمر، 28ـ جمال گنجه‌اي، 29ـ جهان گشته، 30ـ حديثي، 31ـ شيخ حسين سقا، 32ـ حسين هزارمرد، 33ـ حميد تبريزي، 34ـ حميد شرواني، 35ـ حميد گنجه‌اي، 36ـ خاقاني شرواني، 37ـ دختر حکيم گاو، 38ـ دختر خطيب گنجه، 39ـ دختر سالار، 40ـ دختر ستي، 41ـ رشيد بيلقاتي، 42ـ رشيد شرواني، 43ـ رشيد گنجه‌اي، 44ـ حسين گنجه‌اي، 45ـ رضيه گنجه‌اي، 46ـ رفيع بکراني ابهري، 47ـ رکن خويي، 48ـ زاهد، 49ـ زکي اکاف (پالاندوز)، 50ـ زکي مراغه اي، 51ـ سجاسي، 52ـ سعد صفار، 53ـ سعد گنجه‌اي، 54ـ سعيد شرواني، 55ـ سيد شيراني، 56ـ سيف تفليسي، 57ـ شرف شفروه، 58ـ شرف صالح بيلقاني، 59ـ شرف مراغي، 60ـ شرف‌الدين مرتضي، 61ـ شروانشاه، 62ـ شمس‌الدين اسعدگنجه‌اي، 63ـ شمس اقطع بيلقاني، 64ـ شمس الياس گنجه‌اي، 65ـ شمس اهري، 66ـ شمس تبريزي (به غير از شمس تبريزي معروف است)، 67ـ شمس عمر گنجه، 68ـ شهاب کاغذي، 69ـ شهاب گنجه‌اي، 70ـ صاين مراغي، 71ـ صدر زنگاني، 72ـ صفي بيلقاني، 73ـ صفي شرواني، 74ـ طهير خونجي، 75ـ ظهير شفروه، 76ـ ظهرالدين مراغه‌اي، 77ـ عبدالعزيز گنجه‌اي، 78ـ عثمان مراغه‌اي، 79ـ عز ابوالبقا، 80ـ عرشرواني، 81ـ عزيز شرواني، 82ـ عزيز کمال، 83ـ عماد شرواني، 84ـ عياني گنجه‌اي، 85ـ فخرالدين ابوبکر ابهري، 86ـ فخر گنجه‌اي، 87ـ فخر مراغه‌اي، 88ـ فخر نقاش، 89ـ فلکي شرواني، 90ـ قاضي، 91ـ قاضي تفليس، 92ـ قطب اهري، 93ـ قطب عتيقي تبريزي، 94ـ قوامي گنجه‌اي، 95ـ کمال ابن‌العزيز، 96ـ کمال ابوعمر ابهري، 97ـ کمال تفليسي، 98ـ لطيف تفليسي، 99ـ مجير بيلقاني، 100ـ محمد طبيب اردبيلي، 101ـ مختصر گنجه‌اي، 102ـ مظفر تبريزي، 103ـ مقرب باکويي، 104ـ مهذب‌الدين دبيرشرواني، 105ـ مهستي گنجه‌اي، 106ـ موفق سراج، 107ـ نجم سيمگر، 108ـ نجم گنجه‌اي، 109ـ نجيب گنجه‌اي، 110ـ نصير گنجه‌اي، 111ـ نظامي گنجه‌اي، 112ـ نفيس شرواني، 113ـ يحيي تبريزي. 114-جمال خلیل شیروانی

We note none of these poets have a Turkish name. In the introduction, we read that the quatrains by these Persian poets were song in the Khanaqah (Sufi Houses), Bazars, Streets (Kucheh) and thus Persian was the common and everyday language of Muslims in Arran and Shirwan at the time. Some of these poets are women who did not usually receive education but their Persian poetry proves the expanse and spread of the Persian language during that time. The book was written between 1225 to 1290 and the only manuscript is from Istanbul dated to the early 14^th century. The book is a complete mirror of the culture of Arran and Shirwan at that time.

(Jamal Khalil Shirvani, Nozhat al-Majles, Edited by Mohammad Amin Riyahi, Tehran, 1987)

Here we have also included the full article from Iranica which shows the common Persian language and heritage of the region before its linguistic Turkification. Some excerpts which we have bolded illustrate the full extent of Iranian culture at the time:

NOZHAT AL-MAJĀLES, an anthology of some 4,000 quatrains (robāʿi; a total of 4,139 quatrains, 54 of which have been repeated in the text) by some 300 poets of the 5th to 7th/11th-13th centuries, compiled around the middle of the 7th/13th century by the Persian poet Jamāl-al-Din Ḵalil Šarvāni. The book is arranged by subject in 17 chapters (bābs) divided into 96 different sections (namaṭ). The anthology also includes 179 quatrains and an ode (qaṣida) of 50 distiches written by the author himself, who is also credited with one lyric (ḡazal) in Moḥammad Jājarmi's Moʾnes al-aḥrār.

As stated in Jamāl-al-Din's own ode at the end of the book, he compiled his anthology in the name of ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Šarvānšāh Fariborz III (r. 1225-51), son of Goštāsb and dedicated it to him. It has reached us in a unique manuscript copied by Esmāʿil b. Esfandiār b. Moḥammad b. Esfandiār Abhari on 25 Šawwāl 731/31 July 1331, and is presently bound together in one volume with the divān of Faḵr-al-Din ‘Eraqi at the Süleymaniye Library in Turkey (no.1667) among Wali-al-Din Jār-Allāh's collection. This manuscript embraces some 77 leaves (fols. 41a-118a), each page having 27 lines. The first few leaves of the book, which had probably embodied a preface in prose, have been lost. Fritz Meier (p. 117) and Christian Rempis (1935, p. 179) have erroneously taken Esmāʿil b. Esfandiār, the copyist, to be the author of the book.

The manuscript of Nozhat al-majāles was first described by Hellmut Ritter (pp. 223-33). Three years later, in 1935, Rempis extracted and published the quatrains of Omar Khayyam (Ḵayyām) recorded in the anthology, and in 1963 Fritz Meier performed the same task for Mahasti's quatrains. The first Persian scholar to use this anthology was Moḥammad-ʿAli Forugi, who obtained a copy of the manuscript and incorporated 31 quatrains of Khayyam found there in his edition of the Robāʿiyāt-e Ḵayyām (pp. 35-44). Saʿid Nafisi (pp. 176-77) wrote on the Nozhat al-majāles and extracted the names of the unknown poets of Arrān and Šarvān who were mentioned in the anthology. Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh, in his article describing this anthology, rearranged the list of names extracted by Nafisi according to the names of the poets' hometowns and also gave the list of the subject matter in each section of the book (pp. 573-81).

Nozhat al-majāles belongs to an era when quatrains were very popular and formed substantial sections in the divāns of major poets of the time such as Anwari, ʿAṭṭār, Sanāʾi, Ḵāqāni, Rumi, and Kamāl-al-Din Esmāʿil. Sadid-al-Din Moḥammad ‘Awfi (d. ca. 1232-33) remarked in his biographical anthology Lobāb al-albāb, that many poets wrote only quatrains. At about 1192, approximately a hundred years before the compilation of Nozhat al-majāles, a similar anthology of quatrains entitled Majmaʿ al-robāʿiyāt had been compiled in Ankara by Abu Ḥanifa ʿAbd-al-Karim b. Abi Bakr, an incomplete copy of which is now at the library of Ḥālat Afandi (Ateş, pp. 94-133). Jajarmi also devoted the twenty-eighth chapter of his Moʾnes al-aḥrār (comp. 1340) to robāʿis, comprising 470 quatrains. In another recently discovered anthology, entitled Safina-ye Tabriz, a major part called “Ḵolāṣat al-ašʿār fi'l-robāʿiyāt” contains 498 quatrains arranged in 50 sections (bāb). Most of them, however, are selected from Nozhat al-majāles and in a number of cases offer a more reliable reading (Afšār, pp. 535-38).

Nozhat al-majāles is a very valuable source for identifying the authors of many quatrains which had been wrongly attributed to major poets or whose authors had not been identified at all. For example, eighty quatrains published in Badiʿ-al-Zamān Foruzānfar's edition of Rumi's Divān-e Šams are now proven to belong to other poets, due to their inclusion in this anthology. The same is true about nine quatrains attributed to Hafez in some old manuscripts of his divān.

Another significant merit of Nozhat al-majāles is that it contains the quatrains of a number of poets whose collected works are no longer extant. For instance, the thirty-three quatrains by Khayyam and the sixty quatrains by Mahasti found in this anthology are among the oldest and most reliable collections of their works. Nozhat al-majāles also comprises many quatrains by such scholars and mystics as Avicenna, Aḥmad Ghazali, Majd-al-Din Baḡdādi, and Ahmad-e Jām, who had never been recognized as poets, and such poets and writers as Neẓāmi Ganjavi, Asadi Tusi, Faḵr-al-Din Asʿad Gorgani, and ʿOnṣor-al-Maʿāli Kaykāvus, who had been known only by their major works and hardly any poems had been ascribed to them; as well as quatrains by a number of rulers and statesmen, including the Saljuk sultan Ṭoḡrol, Atsïz Ḵʷārazmšāh, Fariborz Šarvānšāh, Šams-al-Din Moḥammad Jovayni, Malek Zawzan, Solaymānšāh of Iva, Amir Kāmyār, and ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Kabud-jāma.

The most significant merit of Nozhat al-majāles, as regards the history of Persian literature, is that it embraces the works of some 115 poets from the northwestern Iran (Arrān, Šarvān, Azerbaijan; including 24 poets from Ganja alone), where, due to the change of language, the heritage of Persian literature in that region has almost entirely vanished. The fact that numerous quatrains of some poets (e.g. Amir Šams-al-Din Asʿad of Ganja, ʿAziz Šarvāni, Šams Sojāsi, Amir Najib-al-Din ʿOmar of Ganja, Badr Teflisi, Kamāl Marāḡi, Šaraf Ṣāleḥ Baylaqāni, Borhān Ganjaʾi, Elyās Ganjaʾi, Baḵtiār Šarvāni) are mentioned together like a series tends to suggest the author was in possession of their collected works. Nozhat al-mājales is thus a mirror of the social conditions at the time, reflecting the full spread of Persian language and the culture of Iran throughout that region, clearly evidenced by the common use of spoken idioms in poems as well as the professions of the some of the poets (see below). The influence of the northwestern Pahlavi language, for example, which had been the spoken dialect of the region, is clearly observed in the poems contained in this anthology.

It is noteworthy, however, that in the period under discussion, the Caucasus region was entertaining a unique mixture of ethnic cultures. Ḵāqāni's mother was a Nestorian Christian, Mojir Baylqāni's mother was an Armenian, and Neẓāmi's mother was a Kurd. Their works reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of the region. Ḥobayš b. Ebrāhim Teflisi paraded his knowledge of different languages by mentioning the name of the drugs in his medical dictionary, Taqwim al-adwia in several languages, including Persian, Arabic, Syriac, and Byzantine Greek. This blending of cultures certainly left its mark on the works of the poets of the region, resulting in the creation of a large number of new concepts and terms, the examples of which can be noticed in the poems of Ḵāqāni and Neẓāmi, as well as in dictionaries.

In contrast to poets from other parts of Persia, who mostly belonged to higher echelons of society such as scholars, bureaucrats, and secretaries, a good number of poets in the northwestern areas rose from among the common people with working class backgrounds, and they frequently used colloquial expressions in their poetry. They are referred to as water carrier (saqqāʾ), sparrow dealer (ʿoṣfori), saddler (sarrāj), bodyguard (jāndār), oculist (kaḥḥāl), blanket maker (leḥāfi), etc., which illustrates the overall use of Persian in that region. Chapter eleven of the anthology contains interesting details about the everyday life of the common people, their clothing, the cosmetics used by women, the games people played and their usual recreational practices such as pigeon fancying (kabutar-bāzi; p. 444), even-or-odd game (ṭaq yā joft bāzi; p. 446), exercising with a sledgehammer (potk zadan; p. 443), and archery (tir-andāzi; p. 444). There are also descriptions of the various kinds of musical instruments such as daf (tambourine; see DAF[F] and DĀYERA), ney (reed pipe), and čang (harp), besides details of how these instruments were held by the performers (pp. 150-63). One even finds in this anthology details of people's everyday living practices such as using a pumice (sang-e pā) to scrub the sole of their feet and gel-e saršur to wash their hair (pp. 440-41).

Nozhat al-majāles suffers from certain structural shortcomings. The overriding concern of the author has been to arrange the quatrains strictly according to their contents, therefore paying little heed to the names of the poets of the verses. This has occasionally led to the attribution of a particular quatrain to two different persons. The scribe has not been very careful in doing his work either. He has apparently transcribed all of the available poetry first and then added the names of their poets so haphazardly that the name of a poet is sometimes mentioned either further down or further up than the place where his quatrains are located. Some of the errors and oversights have been identified in the edited version, and, following the publication of the text, Sayyed ʿAli Mir-Afżali pointed out a number of other errors missed by the editor (see bibliography).

Bibliography:

Iraj Afšār, “Nosḵa bargardān-e safina-ye Tabriz,” Nāma-ye bahārestān 6, 2002, pp. 535-38.

A. Ateş, “Hicri VI-VIII (XIV) asırlarda anadolu'da farsça eserler,” Türkiyat mecmuası 7-8, 1945, pp. 13-94.

Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh, Fehrest-e microfilmhā-ye ketāb-ḵāna-ye markazi-e Dānešgāh-e Tehrān, 1969, p. 42.

Idem, “Nozhat al-majāles-e Jamāl-al-Din Ḵalil Šarvāni,” Rāhnemā-ye ketāb 15/7-9, 1972, pp. 569-84.

Jamāl-al-Din Ḵalil Šarvāni, Nozhat al-majāles, ed. Moḥammad Amin Riāḥi, Tehran, 2nd ed. Tehran, 1996.

ʿOmar Ḵayyām (Omar Khayyam), Robāʿiyāt-e Ḵayyām, ed. Moḥammad-ʿAli Foruḡi and Qāsem Ḡani, Tehran, 1942, editors' Intr., p. 35.

Jalāl Matini, “Nozhat al-majāles: taʾlif-e Jamāl-al-Din Ḵalil Šarvāni,” Irān-šenāsi/Iranshenasi 1/3, 1989, pp. 574-82.

Fritz Meier, Die schön Mahsati: Ein beitrage zur geschichte des persischen vierzeilers I, Wiesbaden, 1963, pp. XII, 412.

Sayyed ʿAli Mirafżali, “Barresi-e Nozhat-al-majāles,” Maʿāref 14/1-2, 1977, pp. 90-147.

Idem, “Moqāyesa-ye robāʿiyāt-e do majmuʿa-ye kohan,” Našr-e dāneš 8, no. 40, 2004, pp. 36-42.

Abu'l-Majd Moḥammad b. Maḥmud Tabrizi, Safina-ye Tabriz, facsimile ed., Tehran, 2002. Saʿid Nafisi, Nażm o naṯr, pp. 176-77.

Christian Herrnhold Rempis, ʿOmar Chajjām und seine Vierzeiler, Tübingen and New York, 1935.

Idem, Neue beiträge zur Chajjam-forschung, Sammlung orientalistischer Arbeiten 17 Leipzig, 1943.

Hellmut Ritter, “Nachdichtungen persischer poesie,” in T. Menzel, ed., Festschrift Georg Jacob zum siebsiegsten Geburstag..., Leipzig, 1932.

Aḥmad Soheyli Ḵᵛānsāri, Robāʿiyat-e Ḥakima Mahasti dabir, Tehran, 1992. Parviz Varjāvand, Irān wa Qafqāz, Arrān wa Šarvān, Tehran, 1999, pp. 203-66.

(Moḥammad Amin Riāḥi)

December 15, 2008

(Mohammad Amin Riahi, “Nozhat al-Majales” in Encyclopedia Iranica)

Thus books like Nozhat al-Majales show that the people in the Arran and Sherwan region spoke regional Iranian dialects and were fully part of the Persian cultural milieu. Such a book as Nozhat al-Majales does not exist from the area in Turkish because at that time. This is because the urban dwellers of major cities were Persian culturally and spoke Iranian dialects. Thus the book is a decisive proof about the culture of the area and ends any speculation by politicized authors.

As shown by the Nozhat al-Majales, we note that not only court poets, but everyday people who have various trades and works, women, and etc. have left us a glimpse of the prevalent Iranian culture of the area at one time. Every day words like “Sang-pa” and “Gel-e-Sarshur” shows that Persian and Iranian languages were the native language of Ganja (where 24 poets are mentioned in this book alone which by itself is sufficient since politicized authors cannot even demonstrate a single Turkish verse from any author from that era) and urban Islamic areas of Arran and Sherwan. As noted by the major scholar of this work (Shaadravan Mohammad Amin Riahi, a native of Khoy in Iran): “Nozhat al-mājales is thus a mirror of the social conditions at the time, reflecting the full spread of Persian language and the culture of Iran throughout that region, clearly evidenced by the common use of spoken idioms in poems as well as the professions of the some of the poets (see below). The influence of the northwestern Pahlavi language, for example, which had been the spoken dialect of the region, is clearly observed in the poems contained in this anthology.”

It is obvious that if there was a sophisticated urban Turkic culture in the region at the time (beyond the nomadic Oghuz tribes who were arriving), then one would have an equivalent work as the Nozhat al-Majales in Turkish. Thus the important of Nozhat al-Majales for the study of the region’s history as well as the study of some of the more uncommon symbols of poetry used from the areas of Sherwan and Arran cannot be underestimated.

Even according to Russian sources(“Caucasus in IV-XI centuries” in Rostislav Borisovich Rybakov (editor), History of the East. 6 volumes. v. 2. “East during the Middle Ages: Chapter V., 2002. – ISBN 5-02-017711-3. http://www.kulichki.com/~gumilev/HE2/he2103.htm)

Пестрое в этническом плане население левобережнoй Албании в это время все больше переходит на персидский язык. Главным образом это относится к городам Арана и Ширвана, как стали в IX-Х вв. именоваться два главные области на территории Азербайджана. Что касается сельского населения, то оно, по-видимому, в основном сохраняло еще долгое время свои старые языки, родственные современным дагестанским, прежде всего лезгинскому.

Translation:

The multi-ethnic population of Albania left-bank at this time is increasingly moving to the Persian language. Mainly this applies to cities of Aran and Shirwan, as begin from 9-10 centuries named two main areas in the territory of Azerbaijan. With regard to the rural population, it would seem, mostly retained for a long time, their old languages, related to modern Daghestanian family, especially Lezgin.

And we already mentioned Diakonov:

[http://uni-persona.srcc.msu.su/site/authors/djakonov/posl_gl.htm Дьяконов, Игорь Михайлович. Книга воспоминаний. Издательство "Европейский дом", Санкт-Петербург, 1995., 1995]. - ISBN 5-85733-042-4. cтр. 730-731 [[Igor Diakonov]]. The book of memoirs: ( Nizami) was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages. (russian text: (Низами) был не азербайджанский, а персидский (иранский) поэт, хотя жил он в ныне азербайджанском городе Гяндже, которая, как и большинство здешних городов, имела в Средние века иранское население)..

Late 15^th century Persian poets like Badr Shirwan who has left 12500 Persian lines and 60 Turkish and dozens or so of verses in the peculiar Persian Kenarab dialect show examples of Iranian dialects in the region. For example Badr Sherwani has poetry in the Kenarab Persian dialect.

We should also mention the many Iranic words collects in a medical dictionary by a person from Shirwan. The book Dastur al-Adwiyah written around 1400 A.D. also lists some of these native words for plants in Shirwan, Beylakan, Arran: Shang, Babuneh, Bahmanak, Shirgir, KurKhwarah, Handal, Harzeh, Kabudlah (Beylakani word , standard Persian: Kabudrang), Moshkzad, Kharime, Bistam, Kalal.

(Sadeqi, Ali Ashraf, “New words from the Old Language of Arran, Shirvan and Azerbaijan”(in Persian), Iranian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 17, No 1(33), pp 22-41, 1381/2002). Usually words for native plants and fish (ShurMahi/SorMahi) would be a word from the native language of the region and this shows the wide usage of Iranic dialects in the region at the time. As shown by the Nozhat al-Majales, also words for food, games, music instruments and everyday cultural items, hobbies and jobs are also all in Persian. Thus making it clear that in Arran and Sherwan as mentioned by al-Muqaddesi and other travelers, Persian and Iranic languages were predominant.

Mention should also be made of Kurds, since Nizami’s maternal uncle was Kurdish as well as his mother and possibly his father.

Vladimir Minorsky writes (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge University Press, 1957. pg 34):

Indeed the Kurdish presence goes back to at least Shaddadid times. According to Dr. Sadeqi: “Masudi points to the presence of Kurds in Armenia, Aran, Beylakan and Darband. Ibn Fiqiyeh, when describing the conquest of Arran and Balasagan (a region located for the most part south of the lower course of the rivers Kura and the Aras (Araxes), bordered on the south by Atropatene and on the east by the Caspian Sea.) mentions Salman ibn Rabi’a inviting the Kurds of Balasagan to islam. Baladhuri also mentions the Kurds of Balasagan, Sabalan and Satrudan. Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal also mention the Bab al-Ikrad near Barda’. Baladhuri also mentions the Nahr-e-Akrad (Kurdish river) in Armenia. Shaddadids which ruled over parts of Armenia and Arran were also Kurds”(Sadeqi Ali Ashraf, “The conflict between Persian and Turkish in Arran and Shirvan”, Iranian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 1 (35), pp 1-12, 2003)

The Encyclopedia of Islam also states:

Mas’udi (about 332/943) and Istakhri (340/951) are the first to give systematic information about the Kurds. In the Murudj al-dhahab (iii, 253) Mas’udi enumerates the following tribes: at Dinawar and Hamadhan: Shuhdjan; at Kangawar: Maddj̲urdan; in Adharbaydjan (so the text should be emended): Hadhabani and Sarat (probably Shurat=Khridjis [q.v.]; cf. the story of Daysam below); in Djibal: Shadandjan, Lazba (Lurri?), Madandjan, Mazdanakan, Barisan, Khali(Djalali), Djabarki, Djawani and Mustakan; in Syria: Dababila etc.; at Mawsil and Djudi the Christian Kurds: al-Yaʿḳūbiyya (“Jacobites”) and the Djurkan (Djurughan). To this list, the Tanbīh of the same author (88-91) only adds Bazindjan (c.f. Istakhri, 155), Nashawira, Budhikan and Kikan (at the present day found near Mar’ash), but he gives a list of the places where there were Kurds: the rumūm (zumūm?) of Fars, Kirman, Sidjistan, Khurasan, (Istakhri, 282: a Kurd village in the canton of Asadābād), Iṣfāhān (a section of the Bāzand̲j̲ān tribe and a flourishing town described as Kurd, Yakubi 275; Istakhri, 125), Djibal, notably Mah Kufa, Mah basra, Mah Sabadhan (Masabadhan) and the two Ighars (i.e. Karadj Abi Dulaf and Burdj),Hamadhan, Shahrizur, with its dependencies Darabad and Shamg̲han (Zimkān), Adharbaydjan, Armenia (at Dwin on the Araxes the Kurds lived in houses built of clay and of stone; Muḳaddasi, 277), Arran (one of the gates of Bardha’a was called Bab al-Akrad and Ibn Miskaawayh says that at the invasion of the Rus in 332/942 the local governor had Kurds under his command), Baylakan, Bab al-Abwab (Darband), al-Djazira, Syria and al-Thughur (i.e. the line of fortresses along the Cilician frontier).

(Bois, Th.; Minorsky, V.; Bois, Th.; Bois, Th.; MacKenzie, D.N.; Bois, Th. "Kurds, Kurdistan." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007.)

Also Hamdullah Mostowfi mentions the province of Goshtasfi in the Caucasus in the Ilkhanid era. According to Mostowfi, this Caucasus region the adjoining Caspian Sea spoke Pahlavi close to Jilani (Gilaki) and were followers of Imam Shafi’i. Actual quote:

از کنار آب دریا ولایت گشتاسفی است که گشتاسب بن لهراسپ آن را ساخت و نهری بزرگ از آب کر و ارس بریده‌است و از آن جوی‌ها برداشته و بر آن دیهای فراوان ساخته. حاصلش غله، برنج، اندک پنبه و میوه بود مردمش سفیدچهره‌اند و بر مذهب امام شافعی. زبانشان پهلوی بجیلانی باز بسته‌است. حقوق دیوانیش بر امان سابق پیش از ظهور دولت مغول کمابیش صد تومان این زمان بوده‌است و اکنون صد و هجده هزار و پانصد دینار است و در وجه اقطاعات عساکر که آنرا ساکن اند متفرق باشد

(Mostowfi, Hamdallah. “Nozhat al-Qolub”. Edit by Muhammad Dabir Sayyaqi. Tahuri publishers, 1957.)

Indeed Nezami Ganjavi himself praises the Eldiguzids as the King of the Persian lands which obviously shows that the area was associated with Iranain people and culture:

در آن بخشش که رحمت عام کردند

دو صاحب را محمد نام کردند

یکی ختم نبوت گشته ذاتش

یکی ختم ممالک بر حیاتش

یکی برج عرب را تا ابد ماه

یکی ملک عجم را جاودان شاه

In that day that they bestowed mercy upon all,

Two great ones were given the name Muhammad,

One who’s pure essence was the seal of prophecy,

The other who is the Kingdom’s Seal, in his own days

One whose house/zodiac is moon of the Arabs

The other who is the everlasting Shah of Realm of Persians

In praising the rulers of Shirwan (who sometimes extended their rule beyond Shirwan), Nizami again mentions:

این نامه نغز گفته بهتر

طاووس جوانه جفته بهتر

خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان

شروان چه که شهریار ایران

This book is better to be written

A young peacock is better to have a mate

Specially for a king like the Shah of Shirwan

Not only Shirwan, but the Shahriyar (Prince, Ruler) of all Iran

Nizami Ganjavi calls upon the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH &HP):

سوی عجم ران منشین در عرب

زرده روز اینک و شبدیز شب

ملک برآرای و جهان تازه کن

هردو جهان را پر از آوازه کن

Do not stay in Arabia, come to Persia

Here are the light steeds of night and day

So the area at that time was considered part of the Persian ethnic and cultural region. He has used the term Molk-e-Ajam (Persian realm), ‘Ajam (Persia) and Iran for his land.

According to Bosworth: “But by the 3rd/9th century, the non-Arabs, and above all the Persians, were asserting their social and cultural equality (taswīa) with the Arabs, if not their superiority (tafżīl) over them (a process seen in the literary movement of the Šoʿūbīya). In any case, there was always in some minds a current of admiration for the ʿAǰam as heirs of an ancient, cultured tradition of life. Even the great proponent of the Arab cause, Jāḥeẓ, wrote a Ketāb al-taswīa bayn al-ʿArab wa’l-ʿAǰam. After these controversies had died down, and the Persians had achieved a position of power in the Islamic world comparable to their numbers and capabilities, “ʿAjam” became a simple ethnic and geographical designation”(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Ajam”, Bosworth)

And Khaqani, who was given the title Hessan al-Ajam also uses this term for his homeland and praises one of his patrons as the prid of the Persian land (Molk-e-Ajam):

خواجه و دستور شاه دوار ملک و سپاه

دین عرب را پناه ملک عجم را فخار

“the supporter of the Arab religion (Islam)

The pride of the Persian realm”

and Sa’adi also praises the Atabek Sa’ad ibn Zani ibn Mauwdud as the ruler of Molk-e-Ajam:

وارث ملک عجم اتابک اعظم

سعد ابوبکر سعد زنگی مودود

“The inheritor of the Persian Realm”

The current Turkic Oghuz language spoken in Azerbaijan and Arran has its roots with the Turkoman/Oghuz nomads that arrived in the region during the Seljuq incursions. But this movement was small relative to the bulk of population. However, a large amount of nomads entered the area during the Mongol invasion. But in reality, the steadily replacement of the old Iranian dialects by Turkish takes a turning point around the beginning of the Safavid dynasty’s rule in Persia. Although there are still Tati settlements in Iranian Azerbaijan and Iranian speakers in Arran, which is in the territory of the modern Republic of Azerbaijan. West Azerbaijan region of Iran also was predominantly Kurdish until the Safavid era and even today, Kurds make up between 50 to 70% of its population.

Many Turkic speaking nomads had chosen the green pastures of Azerbaijan, Arran and Shirvan for their settlement during the advent of the Seljuq. However, they only filled in the pasturelands while the farmlands, villages and the cities remained Iranic in language. The linguistic conversion of Azerbaijan had much to do the conversion of the Azeris into Shi’ism, when large number of heterodox Shi’ite Ghezelbash tribes moved from Anatolia, Rum and Syria into the Safavid realm and supported the new dynasty. Even during the Safavid era, Awliya Chelebi of the 17^th century mentions “Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi and Dehqani” among the languages of Naxchivan(Sadeqi Ali Ashraf, “The conflict between Persian and Turkish in Arran and Shirvan”, Iranian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 1 (35), pp 1-12, 2003).

Even up to the 20^th century, there was a large number of Iranic speakers Tats (Persian), Talysh and Kurds in Arran and Shirwan, but the Turkic linguistic elements by the 20^th were predominant and many of these Iranic elements were assimilated into the Azeri-Turkic identity, specially during the USSR era. For example on Tats:

“In the nineteenth century the Tats were settled in large homogeneous groups. The intensive processes of assimilation by the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis cut back the territory and numbers of the Tats. In 1886 they numbered more than 120,000 in Azerbaijan and 3,600 in Daghestan. According to the census of 1926 the number of Tats in Azerbaijan (despite the effect of natural increase) had dropped to 28,500, although there were also 38,300 “Azerbaijanis”with Tat as their native language.”

(World Culture Encyclopedia: “Tats”,

http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Tats-Orientation.html accessed Dec, 2007)

(Natalia G. Volkova “Tats”in Encyclopedia of World Culture, Editor: David Publisher, New York: G.K. Hall, Prentice Hall International, 1991-1996).

Abbas Qoli Agha Bakikhanov, a 19^th century literary figure from the Caucasia mentions in his Golestan Iram large number of Tats in the area around Baku:

There are eight villages in Tabarsaran which are: Jalqan, Rukan, Maqatir, Kamakh, Ridiyan, Homeydi, Mata'i, and Bilhadi. They are in the environs of a city that Anushiravan built near the wall of Darband. Its remains are still there. They speak the Tat language, which is one of the languages of Old Persia. It is clear that they are from the people of Fars and after its destruction they settled in those villages. ..The districts situated between the two cities of Shamakhi and Qodyal, which is now the city of Qobbeh, include Howz, Lahej, and Qoshunlu in Shirvan and Barmak, Sheshpareh and the lower part of Boduq in Qobbeh, and all the country of Baku, except six villages of Turkmen, speak Tat. it becomes apparent from this that they originate from Fars.

(Floor, Willem. and Javadi, Hasan. i(2009), "The Heavenly Rose-Garden: A History of Shirvan & Daghestan by Abbas Qoli Aqa Bakikhanov, Mage Publishers, 2009)

Original Persian:

درصفحه‌ 18 كتاب‌ مذكور آمده‌ است‌: هشت‌ قريه‌ در طبرسران‌ كه‌ جلقان‌ و روكال‌ و مقاطير و كماخ‌ و زيديان‌ و حميدي‌ و مطاعي‌ و بيلحدي‌ باشد، در حوالي‌ شهري‌ كه‌ انوشيروان‌ در محل‌ متصل‌ به‌ دربند تعمير كرده‌ بود و آثار آن‌ هنوز معلوم‌ است‌، زبان‌ تات‌ دارند. ايضا”در صفحه‌ 19 كتاب‌ ياد شده‌ آمده‌ است‌: محالات‌ واقع‌ در ميان‌ بلوكين‌شماخي‌ و قديال‌ كه‌ حالا شهر قبه‌ است‌، مثل‌ حوض‌ و لاهج‌ و قشونلو در شيروان‌ و برمك‌ و شش‌ پاره‌ و پايين‌ بدوق‌ در قبه‌ و تمام‌ مملكت‌ باكو سواي‌ شش‌ قريه‌ ي‌ تراكمه‌، همين‌زبان‌ تات‌ را دارند... قسم‌ قربي‌ مملكت‌ قبه‌ سواي‌ قريه‌ ي‌ خنالق‌ كه‌ رباني‌ عليحده‌ دارد و ناحيه‌ ي‌ سموريه‌ و كوره‌ دو محال‌ طبرسران‌ كه‌ دره‌ و احمدلو مي‌باشند به‌ اصطلاحات‌منطقه‌، زبان‌ مخصوص‌ دارند و اهالي‌ ترك‌ زبان‌ را مغول‌ مي‌نامند.

(Gulistan-i Iram, Baki Khanuf, “Gulistan-i Iram”, matn-i ilmi - intiqadi bi-sayy va ihtimam: Abd al-Karim Ali-zadah [va digaran],Bakku: Idarah-i intisharat-i Ilm, 1970.)

On the Talysh, according to Hema Kotecha:

According to a 1926 census, there were 77,039 Talysh in Azerbaijan SSR. From 1959 to 1989, the Talysh were not included as a separate ethnic group in any census, but rather they were included as part of the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijani’s, although the Talysh speak an Iranian language. In 1999, the Azerbaijani government claimed there were only 76,800 Talysh in Azerbaijan, but this is believed to be an under-representation given the problems with registering as a Talysh. Some claim that the population of the Talysh inhabiting the southern regions of Azerbaijan is 500,000.

(Hema Kotecha, Islamic and Ethnic Identities in Azerbaijan: Emerging trends and tensions, OSCE, Baku, July 2006. http://www.osce.org/documents/ob/2006/08/23087_en.pdf)

We already mentioned Kurds and Minorsky’s statement on Kurds in Ganja during Shaddadid times and even in the south of Ganja during modern times.

Svante Cornell, a writer who researches into the modern Republic of Azerbaijan and is actually accused of pro-Azerbaijani bias also states:

In Azerbaijan, the Azeris presently make up over 90 per cent; Dagestani peoples form over 3 per cent and Russians 2.5 per cent. 6 These figures approximate the official position; however, in reality the size of the Dagestani Lezgin community in Azerbaijan is unknown, officially put at 200,000 but according to Lezgin sources substantially larger. The Kurdish population is also substantial, according to some sources over 10 per cent of the population; in the south there is a substantial community of the Iranian ethnic group, of Talysh, possibly some 200,000 –400,000 people.

(Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus . Richmond, Surrey, , GBR: Curzon Press Limited, 2000.)

It is this author’s opinion, if the subsequent USSR assimilation policies of the last 80-100 years were not upheld in the historical Arran and Shirvan, approximately 20% or more of the modern population of the Republic of Azerbaijan would be speaking an Iranic language. However this deserves it own study and the goal of this article is to examine historical facts without being involved in modern politics.

Iranic languages and people of Azerbaijan

The Turkification of Arran/Ganja has some similarities to that of historical Azerbaijan. Although both places were primarily used in the beginning as a pass to the wider pastures of Anatolia, but they were also Turkified through a long list of Turkic dynasties as well as the fact that they provided some pasture grounds for the Turkic nomads entering via Central Asia. Linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan was a complex and multistage process. Diakonov has already stated that the population of urban centers like Ganja at the time of Nizami Ganjavi was Iranian.

According to Vladimir Minorsky:

“The original sedentary population of Azarbayjan consisted of a mass of peasants and at the time of the Arab conquest was compromised under the semi-contemptuous term of Uluj(“non-Arab”)-somewhat similar to the raya(*ri’aya) of the Ottomon empire. The only arms of this peaceful rustic population were slings; see Tabari, II, 1379-89. They spoke a number of dialects (Adhari (Azari), Talishi) of which even now there remains some islets surviving amidst the Turkish speaking population. It was this basic population on which Babak leaned in his revolt against the caliphate”

(V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge University Press, 1957, pg 112).

The process of Turkification as mentioned was long and complex and there are still remnants of Tati and other Iranian languages in Caucasia and NW Iran. It is worthwhile to give an overview of the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan and some of the historical attestations. Also it is worthwhile to give samples of the ancient language of Azerbaijan. Since Azerbaijan is the closest region to Caucasia, one may assume that the Turkification of Arran took a similar path. Although in Arran, both Caucasian and Iranic elements were present, but the Caucasian elements around Ganja had a Christian culture and the Muslim high culture at the time in and around Ganja was that of Iranian culture and Muslim Iranian dynasties ruled the area before arrival of the Seljuqs.

Ebn al-Moqaffa’(d. 142/759) is quoted by Ibn Al-Nadim in his famous Al-Fihrist that the language of Azerbaijan is Fahlavi and Azerbaijan is part of the region of Fahlah (alongside Esfahan, Rayy, Hamadan and Maah-Nahavand):

ابن نديم در الفهرست مي‌نويسد:

فأما الفهلوية فمنسوب إلى فهله اسم يقع على خمسة بلدان وهي أصفهان والري وهمدان وماه نهاوند وأذربيجان وأما الدرية فلغة مدن المدائن وبها كان يتكلم من بباب الملك وهي منسوبة إلى حاضرة الباب والغالب عليها من لغة أهل خراسان والمشرق و اللغة أهل بلخ وأما الفارسية فتكلم بها الموابدة والعلماء وأشباههم وهي لغة أهل فارس وأما الخوزية فبها كان يتكلم الملوك والأشراف في الخلوة ومواضع اللعب واللذة ومع الحاشية وأما السريانية فكان يتكلم بها أهل السواد والمكاتبة في نوع من اللغة بالسرياني فارسي

(=اما فهلوي منسوب است به فهله كه نام نهاده شده است بر پنج شهر: اصفهان و ري و همدان و ماه نهاوند و آذربايجان. و دري لغت شهرهاي مداين است و درباريان پادشاه بدان زبان سخن مي‌گفتند و منسوب است به مردم دربار و لغت اهل خراسان و مشرق و لغت مردم بلخ بر آن زبان غالب است. اما فارسي كلامي است كه موبدان و علما و مانند ايشان بدان سخن گويند و آن زبان مردم اهل فارس باشد. اما خوزي زباني است كه ملوك و اشراف در خلوت و مواضع لعب و لذت با نديمان و حاشيت خود گفت‌وگو كنند. اما سرياني آن است كه مردم سواد بدان سخن رانند).

Source:

ابن ندیم، محمد بن اسحاق: «فهرست»، ترجمه‌ي رضا تجدد، انتشارات ابن سینا، 1346(

Ibn Nadeem, “Fihrist”, Translated by Reza Tajaddod, Ibn Sina publishers, 1967.

A very similar explanation is given by the medieval historian Hamzeh Isfahani when talking about Sassanid Iran. Hamzeh Isfahani writes in the book Al-Tanbih ‘ala Hoduth al-Tashif that five “tongues”or dialects, were common in Sassanian Iran: Fahlavi, Dari, Farsi (Persian), Khuzi and Soryani. Hamzeh (893-961 A.D.) explains these dialects in the following way:

Fahlavi was a dialect which kings spoke in their assemblies and it is related to Fahleh. This name is used to designate five cities of Iran, Esfahan, Rey, Hamadan, Maah Nahavand, and Azerbaijan. Farsi (Persian) is a dialect which was spoken by the clergy (Zoroastrian) and those who associated with them and is the language of the cities of Fars. Dari is the dialect of the cities of Ctesiphon and was spoken in the kings’/darbariyan/ ‘courts’. The root of its name is related to its use; /darbar/ ‘court* is implied in /dar/. The vocabulary of the natives of Balkh was dominant in this language, which includes the dialects of the eastern peoples. Khuzi is associated with the cities of Khuzistan where kings and dignitaries used it in private conversation and during leisure time, in the bath houses for instance.

(Mehdi Marashi, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Ibex Publishers, Inc, 1994. pg 255)

Ibn Hawqal (d. ca 981) states:

“the language of the people of Azerbaijan and most of the people of Armenia is Iranian (al-faressya), which binds them together, while Arabic is also used among them; among those who speak al-faressya (here he seemingly means Persian, spoken by the elite of the urban population), there are few who do not understand Arabic; and some merchants and landowners are even adept in it”.

(E. Yarshater, “Azeri: Iranian language of Azerbaijan”in Encyclopedia Iranica)

It should be noted that Ibn Hawqal mentions that some areas of Armenia are controlled by Muslims and others by Christians. So unlike what some scholars state, we believe he means Caucasus as those were areas controlled by Christian kingdoms at that time.

Reference: Ibn Hawqal, Surat al-Ardh. Translation and comments by: J. Shoar, Amir Kabir Publishers, Iran. 1981.

Estakhri of 10^th century also states in his

“In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.”

Original Arabic:

(Estakhari, Abu Eshaq Ebrahim. Masalek va Mamalek. Bonyad Moqufat Dr. Afshar, Tehran, 1371 (1992-1993))

Al-Muqaddasi (d. late 4th/10th cent.) considers Azerbaijan and Arran as part of the 8th division of lands. He states:

“The languages of the 8th division is Iranian (al-’ajamyya). It is partly Dari and partly convoluted (monqaleq) and all of them are named Persian”

Al-Muqaddasi also writes on the general region of Armenia, Arran and Azerbaijan and states:

According to C. E. Bosworth:

“North of the Aras, the distinct, presumably Iranian, speech of Arran long survived, called by Ebn Hawqal al-Raniya”

(Azerbaijan: Islamic History to 1941, Encyclopedia Iranica).

Although we do not have any manuscripts of al-Raniya to really judge the nature of this dialect (weather it was a dialect of Parthian or Iranian languages, or was it a Caucasian language or non-standard dialect of Armenian?), nearby the Kur river, in the town of Barda’in Arran:

(Barda, Encyclopedia Iranica, Bosworth).

The word sormāhī which Prof. Bosworth derives from Shurmahi in Persian could actually be red fish (sor/suhr being the Pahlavi for red which in modern Persian is Surkh). Al-Muqaddasi translates the “Monday”to Yam al-Ithnayn which in Persian and Iranian dialects is Doshanbeh (the second day). An important point to mention is that Ganja like many other pre-Seljuq topynoms has an Iranian name, which naturally reflects the fact that it was founded by Iranian settlers (C.E. Bosworth, “Ganja”, Encyclopedia Iranica). One should also mention the native Iranian (Parthian/Persian) dynasty which ruled over the area of Arran up to at least the 8^th century.

Al-Mas’udi the Arab Historian States:

Source:

Al Mas’udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8.

Thus Masu’di testifies to the Iranian presence in the Caucasus and Azerbaijan during the 10^th century and even names a local Iranian dialect called Azari.

Original Arabic from www.alwaraq.net:

فالفرس أمة حد بلادها الجبال من الماهات و غيرها و آذربيجان إلى ما يلي بلاد أرمينية و أران و البيلقان إلى دربند و هو الباب والأبواب و الري و طبرستن و المسقط و الشابران و جرجان و ابرشهر، و هي نيسابور، و هراة و مرو و غير ذلك من بلاد خراسان و سجستان و كرمان و فارس و الأهواز، و ما اتصل بذلك من أرض الأعاجم في هذا الوقت و كل هذه البلاد كانت مملكة واحدة ملكها ملك واحد و لسانها واحد، إلا أنهم كانوا يتباينون في شيء يسير من اللغات و ذلك أن اللغة إنما تكون واحدة بأن تكون حروفها التي تكتب واحدة و تأليف حروفها تأليف واحد، و إن اختلفت بعد ذلك في سائر الأشياء الأخر كالفهلوية و الدرية و الآذرية و غيرها من لغات الفرس.

Ahmad ibn Yaqubi mentions that the

People of Azerbaijan are a mixture of ‘Ajam-i Azari (Ajam is a term that developed to mean Iranian) of Azaris and old Javedanis (followers of Javidan the son of Shahrak who was the leader of Khurramites and succeeded by Babak Khorramdin).

Source:

Yaqubi, Ahmad ibn Abi, Tarikh-i Yaqubi tarjamah-i Muhammad Ibrahim Ayati, Intisharat Bungah-i Tarjomah o Nashr-i Kitab, 1969.

“Zakarrya b. Mohammad Qazvini’s report in Athar al-Bilad, composed in 674/1275, that “no town has escaped being taken over by the Turks except Tabriz”(Beirut ed., 1960, p. 339) one may infer that at least Tabriz had remained aloof from the influence of Turkish until the time”.

(“Azari: The Iranian Language of Azerbaijan”in Encyclopedia Iranica by E. Yarshater http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f2a88b.html])

“From the time of the Mongol invasion, most of whose armies were composed of Turkic tribes, the influence of Turkish increased in the region. On the other hand, the old Iranian dialects remained prevalent in major cities. Hamdallah Mostowafi writing in the 1340s calls the language of Maraqa as “modified Pahlavi”(Pahlavi-ye Mughayyar). Mostowafi calls the language of Zanjan (Pahlavi-ye Raast). The language of Gushtaspi covering the Caspian border region between Gilan to Shirvan is called a Pahlavi language close to the language of Gilan”.

Source:

(“Azari: The Iranian Language of Azerbaijan”in Encyclopedia Iranica by E. Yarshater http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f2a88b.html])

Ahmad ibn Yaqubi mentions that the

(Yaqubi, Ahmad ibn Abi, Tarikh-i Yaqubi tarjamah-i Muhammad Ibrahim Ayati, Intisharat Bungah-i Tarjomah o Nashr-i Kitab, 1969.)

Probably the best proof of Iranian language, culture and heritage of the Muslims of that time are the books of Safinaye Tabriz and Nozhat al-Majales. Both of these will be discussed later and provide a complete mirror of the culture and language of the area.

Language of Tabriz as a special case

The language of Tabriz, being an Iranian language, was not the standard Khurasani Dari. Qatran Tabrizi has an interesting verse mentioning this in a couple:

بلبل به سان مطرب بیدل فراز گل

گه پارسی نوازد، گاهی زند دری

Translation:

The nightingale is on top of the flower like a minstrel who has lost it heart

It bemoans sometimes in Parsi (Persian) and sometimes in Dari (Khurasani Persian)

Source:

رياحي خويي، محمدامين، «ملاحظاتي درباره‌ي زبان كهن آذربايجان»: اطلاعات سياسي - اقتصادي، شماره‌ي 182-181

(Riyahi Khoi, Mohammad Amin. “Molehezati darbaareyeh Zabaan-i Kohan Azerbaijan”(Some comments on the ancient language of Azerbaijan), ‘Itilia’at Siyasi Magazine, volume 181-182)

Also available at:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/26.pdf

There are extant words, phrases and sentences attested in the old Iranic dialect of Tabriz in a variety of books and manuscripts. Here are some examples:

Hamdullah Mostowafi mentions a sentence in the language of Tabriz:

انگور خلوقي بي چه در، درّ سوه اندرين

یک جمله از زبان تبريزيان در نزهةالقلوب حمدالله مستوفی:" تبارزه اگر صاحب حُسني را با لباس ناسزا يابند، گويند “انگور خلوقي بي چه در، درّ سوه اندرين”؛ يعني انگور خلوقي(انگوري مرغوب) است در سبد دريده "pg 98

Translation:

“The Tabrizians if they see a fortunate man in an uncouth clothes say: He is like a fresh grape in a ripped fruit basket.”

Source:

مستوفي، حمدالله: «نزهةالقلوب»، به كوشش محمد دبيرسياقي، انتشارات طهوري، 1336

Mostowafi, Hamdallah. Nozhat al-Qolub. Edit by Muhammad Dabir Sayyaqi. Tahuri Publishing, 1957.

A mulama’poem (meaning ‘colourful’, which is popular in Persian poetry where some verses are in one language and others in another language) from Homam Tabrizi where some verses are in Khorasani (Dari) Persian and others are in the dialect of Tabriz:

بديذم چشم مستت رفتم اژ دست

كوام و آذر دلي كويا بتي مست

دل‌ام خود رفت و مي‌دانم كه روژي

به مهرت هم بشي خوش كيانم اژ دست

به آب زندگي اي خوش عبارت

لوانت لاود جمن ديل و كيان بست

دمي بر عاشق خود مهربان شو

كزي سر مهرورزي كست و ني كست

به عشق‌ات گر همام از جان برآيذ

مواژش كان بوان بمرت وارست

كرم خا و ابري بشم بويني

به بويت خته بام ژاهنام

Source:

انصاف‌پور، غلام‌رضا: “تاريخ تبار و زبان آذربايجان”، انتشارات فكر روز، 1377

Gholam Reza Ensafpur, “Tarikh o Tabar Zaban-i Azarbaijan”(The history and roots of the language of Azarbaijan), Fekr-I Rooz Publishers, 1998 (1377).

Another ghazal from Homam Tabrizi where all the couplets except the last couplet is in Persian, the last couplet reads:

«وهار و ول و ديم يار خوش بي // اوي ياران مه ول بی مه وهاران»

Transliteration:

Wahar o wol o Dim yaar khwash Bi

Awi Yaaraan, mah wul Bi, Mah Wahaaraan

Translation:

The Spring and Flowers and the face of the friend are all pleaseant

But without the friend, there are no flowers or any spring.

Source:

كارنگ، عبدالعلي: «تاتي و هرزني، دو لهجه از زبان باستان آذربايجان»، تبريز، 1333

Karang, Abdul Ali. “Tati, Harzani, two dialects from the ancient language of Azerbaijan”, Tabriz, 1333. 1952.

Another recent discovery by the name of Safina-yi Tabriz has given sentences from native of Tabriz in their peculiar Iranic dialect. A sample expression of from the mystic Baba Faraj Tabrizi in the Safina:

انانک قده‌ي فرجشون فعالم آندره اووارادا چاشمش نه پيف قدم کينستا نه پيف حدوث

Standard Persian (translated by the author of Safina himself):

چندانک فرج را در عالم آورده‌اند چشم او نه بر قدم افتاده است نه بر حدوث

Modern English:

They brought Faraj in this world in such a way that his eye is neither towards pre-eternity nor upon createdness.

Source:

منوچهر مرتضوی، زبان دیرین آذربایجان، بنیاد موقوفات دکتر افشار، 1384.

Mortazavi, Manuchehr. Zaban-e-Dirin Azerbaijan (On the Old language of Azerbaijan). Bonyad Moqufaat Dr. Afshar. 2005(1384).

Indeed the Safina is a bible of the culture of Tabriz which was compiled in the Il-khanid era. It is a clear testament and proof that no trace of Turkic culture, folklore and language was present in Tabriz during the Ilkhanid era.

A sample poem in which the author of the Safina writes “Zaban Tabrizi”(Language of Tabriz):

دَچَان چوچرخ نکویت مو ایر رهشه مهر دورش

چَو ِش دَ کارده شکویت ولَول ودَارد سَر ِ یَوه

پَری بقهر اره میر دون جو پور زون هنرمند

پروکری اَنزوتون منی که آن هزیوه

اکیژ بحتَ ورامرو کی چرخ هانزمَویتی

ژژور منشی چو بخت اهون قدریوه

نه چرخ استه نبوتی نه روزو ورو فوتی

زو ِم چو واش خللیوه زمم حو بورضی ربوه

Sadeqi, Ali Ashraf. “Chand She’r beh Zaban-e Karaji, Tabrizi wa Ghayreh”(Some poems in the language of Karaji and Tabrizi and others), Majalla-ye Zabanshenasi, 9, 1379./2000, pp.14-17. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/zabankarajitabrizi.pdf

A sentence in the dialect of Tabriz (the author calls Zaban-I Tabriz (dialect/language of Tabriz) recorded and also translated by Ibn Bazzaz Ardabili in the Safvat al-Safa:

«علیشاه چو در آمد گستاخ وار شیخ را در کنار گرفت و گفت حاضر باش بزبان تبریزی گو حریفر ژاته یعنی سخن بصرف بگو حریفت رسیده است. در این گفتن دست بر کتف مبارک شیخ زد شیخ را غیرت سر بر کرد»

The sentence “Gu Harif(a/e)r Zhaatah”is mentioned in Tabrizi dialect.

Source:

Rezazadeh, Rahim Malak. “The Azari Dialect”(Guyesh-I Azari), Anjuman Farhang Iran Bastan publishers, 1352(1973).

A sentence in the dialect of Tabriz by Pir Hassan Zehtab Tabrizi addressing the Qara-Qoyunlu ruler Eskandar:

يك جمله از «پير حسن زهتاب تبريزی» خطاب به اسكندر قراقويونلو: «اسكندر! رودم كشتی، رودت كشاد!» (= اسكندر! فرزندم را كشتی. خدا فرزندت را بكشد) (رياحی خویی، ص 31)

“Eskandar! Roodam Koshti, Roodat Koshaad”

(Eskandar! You killed my son, may your son perish”)

Source:

رياحي خويي، محمدامين، «ملاحظاتي درباره‌ي زبان كهن آذربايجان»: اطلاعات سياسي - اقتصادي، شماره‌ي 182-181

Riyahi, Mohammad Amin. “Molahezati darbaareyeh Zabaan-I Kohan Azerbaijan”(Some comments on the ancient language of Azerbaijan), ‘Itilia’at Siyasi Magazine, volume 181-182.

Also Available at:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/26.pdf

The word Rood for son is still used in some Iranian dialects, specially the Larestani dialect and other dialects around Fars.

Four quatrains titled Fahlaviyat from Khwaja Muhammad Kojjani (d. 677/1278-79); born in Kojjan or Korjan, a village near Tabriz, recorded by Abd-al-Qader Maraghi

(Fahlaviyat in Encyclopedia Iranica by Dr. Ahmad Taffazoli, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f2/v9f232.html)

(Dr. A. A. Sadeqi, “Ash’ar-e mahalli-e Jame’al-Alhaann,”Majalla-ye zaban-shenasi 9, 1371./1992, pp. 54-64/ http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/AshrafSadeqiasharmahalimaraqi.pdf

A sample of one of the four quatrains from Khwaja Muhammad Kojjani

همه کیژی نَهَند خُشتی بَخُشتی

بَنا اج چو کَه دستِ گیژی وَنیژه

همه پیغمبران خُو بی و چو کِی

محمدمصطفی کیژی وَنیژه

Two qet’as (poems) quoted by Abd-al-Qader Maraghi in the dialect of Tabriz (d. 838 A.H./1434-35 C.E.; II, p. 142)

(Fahlaviyat in Encyclopedia Iranica by Ahmad Taffazoli, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f2/v9f232.html)

(A. A. Sadeqi, “Ash’ar-e mahalli-e Jame’al-Alhaann,”Majalla-ye zaban-shenasi 9, 1371./1992, pp. 54-64.

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/AshrafSadeqiasharmahalimaraqi.pdf)

رُورُم پَری بجولان

نو کُو بَمَن وُرارده

وی خَد شدیم بدامش

هیزا اَوُو وُرارده

A ghazal and fourteen quatrains under the title of Fahlaviyat by the poet Maghrebi Tabrizi (d. 809/1406-7)

(Fahlaviyat in Encyclopedia Iranica by Dr. Ahmad Taffazoli, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f2/v9f232.html)

(M.-A. Adib Tusi “Fahlavyat-e Magrebi Tabrizi,”NDA Tabriz 8, 1335/1956

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/fahlaviyaatmaghrebitabrizi.pdf)

A text probably by Mama Esmat Tabrizi, a mystical woman-poet of Tabriz (d. 9th/15th cent.), which occurs in a manuscript, preserved in Turkey, concerning the shrines of saints in Tabriz.

Adib Tusi, “Fahlawiyat-e- Mama Esmat wa Kashfi be-zaban Azari estelaah-e raayi yaa shahri”, NDA, Tabriz 8/3, 1335/1957, pp 242-57.

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/fahlaviyaatmamaesmat.pdf

An interesting phrase “Buri Buri”(which in Persian means “Biya Biya”or in English “Come! Come!”) is mentioned by Rumi from the mouth of Shams Tabrizi in this poem:

«ولی ترجیع پنجم در نیایم جز به دستوری

که شمس الدین تبریزی بفرماید مرا بوری

مرا گوید بیا، بوری که من باغم تو زنبوری

که تا خونت عسل گردد که تا مومت شود نوری»

The word “Buri”is mentioned by Hussain Tabrizi Karbalai with regards to the Shaykh Khwajah Abdul-Rahim Azh-Abaadi:

در روضات الجنان، دفتر نخست، ص 115:

«مرقد و مزار...خواجه عبدالرحيم اژابادي...در سرخاب مشخص و معين است...وي تبريزي اند منسوب به کوچۀ اچاباد(اژآباد) که کوچۀ معيني است در تبريز در حوالي درب اعلي...و از او چنين استماع افتاده که حضرت خواجه در اوايل به صنعت بافندگي ابريشم مشعوري مي نموده اند و خالي از جمعيتي و ثروتي نبوده و بسيار اخلاص به درويشان داشته، روزي حضرت بابا مزيد وي را ديده و به نظر حقيقت شناخته که درر معرف الهي در صدف سينه اش مختفي است، گفته: عبدالرحيم بوري بوري يعني بيا بيا، که ديگران را نان از بازار است و تو را از خانه يعني کلام تو از الهامات رباني باشد.»

حافظ حسین کربلائی تبریزی، «روضات الجنان»، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، 1344-1349 1965-1970.

Karbalai Tabrizi, Hussein. “Rawdat al-Jinan va Jannat al-Janan”, Bungah-I Tarjumah o Nashr-i Kitab, 1344-49 (1965-1970), 2 volumes.

This word is also mentioned in the Fahlaviyat of Baba Taher. In the Harzandi Iranic dialect of Harzand in Azerbaijan as well as the Iranic Karingani dialect of Azerbaijan, both recorded in the 20^th century, the two words “Biri”and “Burah”means to “come”and are of the same root.

Source:

كارنگ، عبدالعلي: «تاتي و هرزني، دو لهجه از زبان باستان آذربايجان»، تبريز،چاپخانه-ی شفق، 1333

Karang, Abdul Ali. “Tati o Harzani, Do lahjeh az zabaan-i baastaan-i Azerbaijan”, Shafaq publishers, 1333(1955) (pg 91 and pg 112)

Maragheh

Hamdollah Mostowfi of the 13^th century A.D. mentions the language of Maragheh:

حمدالله مستوفي هم كه در سده‌هاي هفتم و هشتم هجري مي‌زيست، ضمن اشاره به زبان مردم مراغه مي‌نويسد:«زبانشان پهلوي مغير است»

Interestingly enough, the 17th century A.D. Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Chelebi, who visited Safavid Iran, writes: “The majority of the women in Maragheh speak in Pahlavi”.

Source:

رياحي خويي، محمدامين، «ملاحظاتي درباره‌ي زبان كهن آذربايجان»: اطلاعات سياسي - اقتصادي، شماره‌ي 182-181

Riyahi, Mohammad Amin. “Molahezaati darbaareyeh Zabaan-I Kohan Azerbaijan”(Some comments on the ancient language of Azerbaijan), ‘Itilia’at Siyasi Magazine, volume 181-182.

Also available at:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/26.pdf

Maragheh was the Ilkhanid capital and yet the language is called Fahlavi. Similarly Tabriz was an an important city of the Ilkhanids yet we have references to “Zaban-i Tabrizi” in the Safinayeh Tabriz, in the collected songs of AbdulQadir Maraghi and in the Safwat as-Safa. Thus making it explicitly clear that major urban centers like Tabriz and Maragheh were far from being linguistically Turckizied even in the Ilkhanid era. We believe this to be the case in Arran during the Ilkhanid era. As per Sherwan, the area was under the Sherwanshahs and so it was less Turkicized than Arran and Azerbaijan in tha era.

Another look at the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan

There have been two theories with regards to the Turkicization of the Eastern Southern Caucasus (Arran/Sherwan now basically the same as territory of modern republic of Azerbaijan) and Azerbaijan proper (compromising North Western Iran). One theory states that Turkicization was nearly complete at the end of the Seljuq or Mongol era. By nearly complete, I would presume it means that it was in an advanced stage. The other theory mentions that the advance stage occurred during the Safavid era. The Western sources we found about Seljuq/Mongol era (where supposedly Turkicization was in advanced stage) are usually one line and are not written by experts in the area (who would also need to know Persian and Arabic) and of that medieval period.

A third theory which does not concern us (see also the appendix) is in the actual republic of Azerbaijan were ethno-genesis is a highly political and ideological issue. This theory dates the Turkicization back to the Khazar era or even claiming the Caucasian Albanians and Medes had Turkic components. 60+ years of USSR control and subsequent pan-Turkist nationalist writing had combined history and politics to such a degree that it will take time for the local historians to sort out the truth. However we have tried to examine this issue using Western sources.

There seems to be a sort of contradiction or at least lack of clarity from some Western writers . That is they express uncertainty on when this issue occurred and even the same authors sometimes seem to make different statements in different publications and writings.

Unfortunately, as far as we know, there has not been a recent detailed study on the Turkicization of Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan. That is no specialized book (or thesis) has been written on this area. The only substantial work would be that of Kasravi, but Kasravi had no access to Safinaye Tabriz, Nozhat al-Majales, the numerous Fahlaviyyats (Maghrebi, Mama ‘Esmat) and etc. Also he did not have access to many Armenian and Georgian sources that have to light. He had to work with what he had at that time. His main concentration was also on Azerbaijan proper and not Arran/Sherwan.

With regards to some (not all) modern Western sources, there has been some weakness due to lack of detail. Authors have lumped Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan together although Turkicization occurred differently in these areas. For example, in terms of Sherwan, the area was never directly ruled by a Turkic dynasty until the demise of the Sherwanshahs during the Safavid era. Authors have not distinguished between nomadic plains (say the Mughan steppes or steppes in Arran and Azerbaijan) and urban city centers. It takes many generation to give up the nomadic lifestyle, for semi-nomadic lifestyle, to rural settlements and finally to urban settlement. Authors have not looked in detail at the differences of Islamic sects. For example in Western Iran (Azerbaijan) unlike Khorasan, the population was mainly Sunni Shafi’i where-as the Turks that entered the region were overwhelmingly Hanafi.

We believe the following scholars are correct based on the primary evidences we have presented thus far.

According to Xavier Planhol, a well known scholar of historical geography (a branch that studies both history and geography and their interaction) and specialist on cultural history of Islam as well nomadicization of Iran, Central Asia and Turkey:

“This unique aspect of Azerbaijan, the only area to have been almost entirely "Turkicized" within Iranian territory, is the result of a complex, progressive cultural and historical process, in which factors accumulated successively (Sümer; Planhol, 1995, pp. 510 -- 12) The process merits deeper analysis of the extent to which it illustrates the great resilience of the land of Iran. The first phase was the amassing of nomads, initially at the time of the Turkish invasions, following the route of penetration along the piedmont south of the Alborz, facing the Byzantine borders, then those of the Greek empire of Trebizond and Christian Georgia. The Mongol invasion in the 13th century led to an extensive renewal of tribal stock, and the Turkic groups of the region during this period had not yet become stable. In the 15th century, the assimilation of the indigenous Iranian population was far from being completed. The decisive episode, at the beginning of the 16th century, was the adoption of Shi ʿ ite Islam as the religion of the state by the Iran of the Safavids, whereas the Ottoman empire remained faithful to Sunnite orthodoxy. Shi ʿ ite propaganda spread among the nomadic Turkoman tribes of Anatolia, far from urban centers of orthodoxy. These Shi ʿ ite nomads returned en masse along their migratory route back to Safavid Iran. This movement was to extend up to southwest Anatolia, from where the Tekelu, originally from the Lycian peninsula, returned to Iran with 15,000 camels. These nomads returning from Ottoman territory naturally settled en masse in regions near the border, and it was from this period that the definitive "Turkicization" of Azerbaijan dates, along with the establishment of the present-day Azeri-Persian linguistic border-not far from Qazvin, only some 150 kilometers from Tehran. (in the 15 st century assimilation was still far from complete, has been the adoption of a decisive Shiism in the 16 st Century)”

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v13f2/v13f2024i.html

Professor Ehsan Yarshater who has also studed

“The gradual weakening of Āḏarī began with the penetration of the Persian Azerbaijan by speakers of Turkish. The first of these entered the region in the time of Maḥmūd of Ḡazna (Ebn al-Aṯīr [repr.], IX, pp. 383ff.). But it was in the Saljuq period that Turkish tribes began to migrate to Azerbaijan in considerable numbers and settle there (A. Kasravī, Šahrīārān-e gomnām, Tehran, 1335 Š./1956, III, pp. 43ff., And idem, Āḏarī , pp. 18-25). The Turkic population continued to grow under the Ildegozid atabegs of Azerbaijan (531-622/1136-1225), but more particularly under the Mongol il-khans (654-750/1256-1349), the majority of whose soldiery was of Turkic stock and who made Azerbaijan their political center. The almost continuous warfare and turbulence which reigned in Azerbaijan for about 150 years, between the collapse of the Il-khanids and the rise of the Safavids, attracted yet more Turkic military elements to the area. In this period, under the Qara Qoyunlū and Āq Qoyunlū Turkmen (780-874/1378-1469 and 874-908/1469-1502 respectively), Āḏarī lost ground at a faster pace than before, so that even the Safavids, originally an Iranian -speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Ṣafī-al-dīn, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular. Safavid rule (905-1135/1499-1722), which was initially based on the support of Turkish tribes and the continued backing and influence of the Qezelbāš even after the regime had achieved a broader base, helped further the spread of Turkish at the detriment of Āḏarī, which receded and ceased to be used, at least in the major urban centers, and Turkish was gradually recognized as the language of Azerbaijan. Consequently the term Āḏarī, or more commonly Azeri, came to be applied by some Turkish authors and, following them, some Western orientalists, to the Turkish of Azerbaijan (a large migration of Turks in 12 century, then age 13, Adar loses position in 16 th century during the Safavid)”

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f2a88b.html

According to Fridrik Thordarson:

Iranian influence on Caucasian languages. There is general agreement that Iranian languages predominated in Azerbaijan from the 1st millennium b.c. until the advent of the Turks in a.d. the 11th century (see Menges, pp. 41-42; Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 226-28, and VI, pp. 950-52). The process of Turkicization was essentially complete by the beginning of the 16th century, and today Iranian languages are spoken in only a few scattered settlements in the area.

(Fridrick Thordarson, “Caucasus and Iran” in Encyclopedia Iranica)

John Perry:

“We should distinguish two complementary ways in which the advent of the Turks affected the language map of Iran. First, since the Turkish-speaking rulers of most Iranian polities from the Ghaznavids and Seljuks onward were already iranized and patronized Persian literature in their domains, the expansion of Turk-ruled empires served to expand the territorial domain of written Persian into the conquered areas, notably Anatolia and Central and South Asia. Secondly, the influx of massive Turkish-speaking populations (culminating with the rank and file of the Mongol armies) and their settlement in large areas of Iran (particularly in Azerbaijan and the northwest), progressively turkicized local speakers of Persian, Kurdish and other Iranian languages. Although it is mainly the results of this latter process which will be illustrated here, it should be remembered that these developments were contemporaneous and complementary.

2. General Effects of the Safavid Accession

Both these processes peaked with the accession of the Safavid Shah Esma'il in 1501 CE He and his successors were Turkish-speakers, probably descended from turkicized Iranian inhabitants of the northwest marches. While they accepted and promoted written Persian as the established language of bureaucracy and literature, the fact that they and their tribal supporters habitually spoke Turkish in court and camp lent this vernacular an unprecedented prestige.”(John Perry. Iran & the Caucasus, Vol. 5, (2001), pp. 193-200. THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF TURKISH IN RELATION TO PERSIAN OF IRAN)

So it is ironic that the Safavids, themselves of Iranian fatherline but progressively Turkicized had the decisive role in the Turkcization of Azerbaijan.

Professor Peter Golden states:

"Turkic penetration probably began in the Hunnic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol (Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan (Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran . This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors. "(According to the Soviet school turkizatsiya Azerbaijan was completed with Ilhanidah until the mid 14 century, the author takes the point view that it happened later in the Kara-Kuyunlu and Safavid in the 16 st Century) (Peter Golden mentions both theories(An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz, 1992. Pg 386)

We note that Professor Golden states: “The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place” . We have not looked at his other writings with this regard, however his overview is based on Sumer or USSR sources, which both seem to be outdated. We have found the viewpoint of Xavier Planhol, a brilliant scholar of historical-geography and specialist on Muslim culture to be the most up to date. But even Professor. Planhol provides only a paragraph or two (which is understandable for an Encyclopedia).

Professor Clifford Edmonds Bosworth, a giant in the field also states:

During this later medieval period, the gradual Turkicization of Azerbaijan was favored by the Il-khanids’ policy of allotting to their leading commanders land grants (eqṭāʿs, soyurḡāls) (cf. I. P. Petrushevsky, in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 518ff.); by the presence of the khans themselves and their entourages in these favored regions of upland pasture, and then of their Turkman epigoni, beginning with the Jalayerids; and finally, by the incoming of fresh waves of Central Asian nomads accompanying Tīmūr on his campaigns to the west.

C.E. Bosworth, “Azerbaijan: History up to 1941”, Encyclopedia Iranica.

In a detailed (as possible) examination of the Turkicization of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan we must look at primary sources as well secondary sources. It appears there were four stages to this process.

First, the Seljuqs who brought with them influx of Oghuz tribes and settled them in grazing lands. However, these had little effect on the urban centers. The best proof of this is the Nozhat al-Majales, Safinayeh Tabrizi and the description provided by Hamdullah Mutsawafi on major cities such as Goshtasfi province, Tabriz, Abhar, Maragheh and etc. However the rulers themselves were Persianized and upheld Persian culture. Also one cannot expect the nomadic Oghuz tribes to settle down overnight in urban centers after many generations of nomadic lifestyle. Rather the first step from nomadism to semi-nomadism is to establish villages and then from semi-nomadism to rural villages takes many other generations and finally from rural villages to urban centers takes some time itself. Thus in terms of urban centers, as witnessed by Nozhat al-Majales and Safinaye Tabrizi, we can say these nomads had no effects. However on the grazing plains, they were assigned some lands. But bulks of these nomadic tribes were sent off to battle Christians in the Caucasus and Anatolia. Thus Azerbaijan proper was probably the least affected. Note in this period, we consider not only Seljuqs, but the whole area of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan up to the Mongol invasion.

Second, the Mongol invasion and subsequent Ilkhanid dynasty brought a large influx of Turks into Caucasus, Iran and Anatolia. Most of the Mongol army was of Turkic components. However, as noted, the two major cities of the Ilkhanids that is Tabriz and Maragheh held their Iranian culture. The Safinaye Tabrizi explicitly states “Zaban-i Tabrizi” and this Zaban-i Tabrizi is an Iranic dialect as studied by Dr. Ali Ashraf Sadeqi.

A sample poem in which the author of the Safina writes “Zaban Tabrizi”(Language of Tabriz):

دَچَان چوچرخ نکویت مو ایر رهشه مهر دورش

چَو ِش دَ کارده شکویت ولَول ودَارد سَر ِ یَوه

پَری بقهر اره میر دون جو پور زون هنرمند

پروکری اَنزوتون منی که آن هزیوه

اکیژ بحتَ ورامرو کی چرخ هانزمَویتی

ژژور منشی چو بخت اهون قدریوه

نه چرخ استه نبوتی نه روزو ورو فوتی

زو ِم چو واش خللیوه زمم حو بورضی ربوه

We should also mention that an unfortunate error occurred in a recent overview of the book: A.A. Seyed-Gohrab & S. McGlinn, The Treasury of Tabriz The Great Il-Khanid Compendium, Iranian Studies Series, Rozenberg Publishers, 2007.

And it is understandable that the authors were not linguists.

Here are the exchanges:

From: Ali Doostzadeh

To: Seyed, Gohrab A.A.

Subject: Correction on your book

Dear. Dr. Ghoraab,

I have the book you edited Safina Tabrizi and also your book on Nizami Ganjavi: Love, Madness and Mystic longing. Both are excellent books.

I just wanted to make a correction on your article on Safina. Pages 678-679 of the Safina are not about a Turkish dialect (Tabrizi and Gurji)(page 18 of your book), but they are both Iranian dialects that predate the Turkification of Tabriz. For more information, please check these two articles by Dr. Ashraf Saadeghi

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/zabankarajitabrizi.pdf

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/AshrafSadeqiasharmahalimaraqi.pdf

There are Karaji and Tabrizi languages. Both are studied in detail by Dr. Sadeghi

Tashakkor,

Ali Doostzadeh, Ph.D.

Here was the response with this regard.

From: "Seyed, Gohrab A.A.

To: Ali Doostzadeh

Dear Dr. Doostzadeh

I would like to thank you very much for your kind email and your friendly words about my books. I deeply appreciate your constructive critical note and will surely correct this in a second edition of the book.

With kind regards and best wishes,

Asghar Seyed-Ghorab

Dr. A.A. Seyed-Gohrab

Chairman of the Department of Persian Studies

Fellow of the Young Academy of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)

Leiden University

Faculty of Arts

A sentence in the dialect of Tabriz (the author calls Zaban-i Tabriz (dialect/language of Tabriz) recorded and also translated by Ibn Bazzaz Ardabili in the Safvat al-Safa (d. around 1350):

The sentence “Gu Harif(a/e)r Zhaatah”is mentioned in Tabrizi dialect. Zhaateh ژاته is etymologically equivalent to modern Kurdish Haateh هاته which means “come”. Thus is a direct statement about Tabriz not being Turkified yet. Also the quatrains of Shaykh Safi al-Din in the local Iranic dialect of Tabriz and that of his successors are from this era.

In terms of Arran and Sherwan, Sherwan was under the Sherwanshahs and the inhabitants were primarily Tat. However, the plains of Arran had large number of nomadic Turkic and Kurdish tribes. The major urban centers however based on the Nozhat al-Majales were Persian/Iranic speaking. In Maragheh, the capital of the Ilkhanids, the language was Fahlavi as mentioned by Hamdollah Mustafawi. Thus we have direct and primary references with regards to Maragheh and Tabriz. And the Nozhat al-Majales covers a portion of the Mongol era.

Third was the Turkmen era (Aq-Qoyunlu and Qara-Qoyunlu) going from 1378-1501/1502. It seems that Turkic languages progressed during this era. However, we have examples of Fahlaviyyat from Mama ‘Esmat Tabrizi, Pir Zehtab Tabrizi and Abdul Qadir Maraghi. The most interesting is Abdul Qadir Maraghi who records again in the dialect of Tabriz:

Two qet’as (poems) quoted by Abd-al-Qader Maraghi in the dialect of Tabriz (d. 838 A.H./1434-35 C.E.; II, p. 142)

(Fahlaviyat in Encyclopedia Iranica by Ahmad Taffazoli, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f2/v9f232.html)

(A. A. Sadeqi, “Ash’ar-e mahalli-e Jame’al-Alhaann,”Majalla-ye zaban-shenasi 9, 1371./1992, pp. 54-64.

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/AshrafSadeqiasharmahalimaraqi.pdf)

رُورُم پَری بجولان

نو کُو بَمَن وُرارده

وی خَد شدیم بدامش

هیزا اَوُو وُرارده

A ghazal and fourteen quatrains under the title of Fahlaviyat by the poet Maghrebi Tabrizi (d. 809/1406-7)

(Fahlaviyat in Encyclopedia Iranica by Dr. Ahmad Taffazoli, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f2/v9f232.html)

(M.-A. Adib Tusi “Fahlavyat-e Magrebi Tabrizi,”NDA Tabriz 8, 1335/1956

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/fahlaviyaatmaghrebitabrizi.pdf)

In this era, the author does not have much information on Arran proper (primary sources).

Vladimir Minorsky writes (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge University Press, 1957. pg 34):

(Sadeqi, Ali Ashraf, “New words from the Old Language of Arran, Shirvan and Azerbaijan”(in Persian), Iranian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 17, No 1(33), pp 22-41, 1381/2002)

However we propose our theory. First we need to distinguish urban centers from nomadic grazing lands. If there were significant cultural activities in the area according to primary sources in the urban centers, then we need to look at the language of the cultural activities, the culture itself and also notice if there is any trace of Fahlavviyat/Kurdish or other dialects. The Dastur al-Adwiyah which we mentioned is a good start with this regard and it is from 1400 A.D.

Our theory is that the urban centers of Arran (those that had survived the Mongol invasions and were not totally decimated) were like Tabriz. They had Sunni Shafi’i religion with primary Iranian population but they were ruled by Turkmens. Thus Turkicization had advanced possibly in these cities. However, it seems from what Maraghi has called the Tabrizi language and the Dastur al-Adwiyah, and also the Fahlaviyyat of Mama ‘Esmat Tabrizi (a mystic Women who did not have education), the primary language of Arran which is very close to Tabriz was Iranic. It should be noted the daughter of Fazlollah Astarabadi who was born and lived in Tabriz has all her work in Persian as well where-as in Iraq, Nasimi, a Seyyed (descendant of the Prophet Muhammad) wrote in both Persian and Turkic. Thus our first theory is that just like Tabriz, major centers in Arran were not Turkified. However, the plains of Arran were definitely an area of grazing for Iranian (Kurdish) and Turkic nomads. Which group was more is not certain, but the Sharafnama as alluded to by Minorsky mentions 24 septs of Kurds in Qarabagh (roughly equivalent to Arran proper) alone. A contradiction to this theory would be brought if there are primary sources that mention the urban centers and their language and cultural around the 1400 A.D. period. For now, the author is only aware of Dastur al-Adwiyah.

As per Sherwan, the area was under the Sherwanshah. Badr Sherwani has poetry in the Kenar-ab dialect. Also there is a mistake in the Iranica article on Badr Sherwani which was brought to the attention of Iranica authors by this editor. Unfortunately the Azerbaijani writer Rahimov has omitted many verses of Badr Sherwani for political reasons in his edition and he has claimed that Badr’s mother tongue was Turkish. In reality this was not the case as noted in:

Sadeqi, Al Asharf. “The conflict between Persian and Turkish in Arran and Shirvan”(in Persian), Iranian Journal of Linguistics, Vol 18, No (35). Pages 1-12. ISSN 0259-9082

Badr Sherwani clearly states he is not a Turkomen but he knows some Turkish:

لطیف طبعا ترکی دگر همی دانم

نیم از آنکه ندارم ز علم ترکی خبر...

در خط و شعر و تربیت و دانش و ادب

بالله که کم نیم من از این قوم ترکمان..

He also has harsh words against the Turkomens as it seems at that time, there was major battles between the Sherwanshah and the Turkomens:

از جفای ترکمانان خود دلی دارم خراب

زان خرابیها که زیشان شد به ملک و مسکنم

خانه ها در شماخی سوخت دود دربند بین

دود آه آتشین بر من میشود از روزنم

چون ترکمان هر یک .._ بد پیکری

عالی قدی گنبدی سری بز ریش چند گلهبان

فارغ ز علم و معرفت چرکین حدیث و بدلغت

ایشان همه._. صفت من مانده مسکین در میان

Unfortunately Rahimov did not publish “._.” parts of these verses but from the other words we can see Badr Sherwani had disdain for the Turkomans.

After contacting the editor of Iranica and sending him the study by Dr. Sadeghi, this is what Dr. Yarshater stated:

“Very many thanks for your email of November 19 and the attached article by Professor Sadeghi on the languages of Arran and Shervan. I truly appreciate your drawing my attention to the inexcusable error in Rahimov’s short entry. Obviously the author was a Turkish Azarbaijani intent on the glorification of Turkish. We shall remove
the entry from our electronic version and we shall add in the Addenda and Corrigenda of the Volume XV the fact that the entry in the printed version is erroneous and one needs to look at the electronic version for the correct entry.

I was wondering that since you have detected the error, whether you could give us the added assistance of putting together an entry on Badr-e Shirvani, to be published under your own signature, based on Prof. Sadeghi’s article and other articles that you may have come across on the poet? He deserves a longer and more substantial entry. I should greatly appreciate your help.”

Dr. Yarshater at first had the impression I was a scholar of Persian poetry since I introduced him to articles on Badr Sherwani. However as I explained to him, I was not and he is currently in the process of finding someone suitable to rewrite that entry.

According to Dr. Ali Ashraf Sadeqi: “However it seems in Badr’s time, some Iranian dialects, other than Persian i.e. Tati, Talesh and Pahlavi, still prevailed in the area”

What is interesting though about Badr Sherwani is that he knew Persian, a Kenar- Ab Iranic dialect and also Turkic which he had learned. He has less than 100 verses total in these two and the rest of his work (12500 verses or so) are in Persian. The Kenar-ab dialect is the rarest dialect among these and it is in our opinion the native dialect of Badr Sherwani himself. It seems that this period was a period of increasing bi-lingualism but at the same time, Badr points out “I am not one of those that do not know Turkish” which means that a large portion of the Muslim population of the area did not yet know Turkish. Thus when it comes to Sherwan, we can safely assume Iranic dialects were prevalent.

Finally, the Safavid era is a key turning point. The Safavids not only transformed the religious landscape of Azerbaijan (except some Kurdish areas which kept their Shafi’I faith), but they brought large number of nomads to settle in the Azerbaijan. Majority (if not all) of the Ghezelbash supporters of the Safavids were from Anatolia and Syria. The names of these tribes such as Rumlu (from Rum (Anatolia)), Qaramanlu (from Qaraman in Anatolia), Shamlu (from Syria) and etc. also show this. It should be noted that Tabriz for example was mainly a Sunni Shafi’i city before the Safavids. Today in Azerbaijan proper (historical Iranian Azerbaijan), the Sunni Tats, Talysh and Kurds all follow the Shafi’i rite. Turks that entered the area as shall be explained later were mainly followers of Hanafi rite of Islam. Despite this, even in the Safavid era, the 17^th century Ottoman traveler ‘Awliya Chelebi mentions that most of the Women in Maragheh speak Fahlavi. On Naxchivan he also mentions Iranian dialects as among the languages spoken including “Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi and Dehqani”. He also mentions the high class in Tabriz spoke Persian (not just write) which probably means the lower class now started speaking Turkish. It should be noted that Turkicization of Azerbaijan continued in the Safavid and Qajar era, and large pockets of Talyshi/Tati dialects were Turkicized. In terms of Arran and Sherwan, it seems that Talyshi, Tati and Kurdish after the Safavid era increasingly lost space. Specially after the demise of the Sherwanshah in Sherwan.

But even up to the 20^th century, there were a large number of Iranic speakers Tats (Persian), Talysh and Kurds in Arran and Shirwan, but the Turkic linguistic elements by the 20^th were predominant and many of these Iranic elements were assimilated into the Azeri-Turkic identity, especially during the USSR era. For example on Tats:

(World Culture Encyclopedia: “Tats”,

http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Tats-Orientation.html accessed Dec, 2007)

(Natalia G. Volkova “Tats”in Encyclopedia of World Culture, Editor: David Publisher, New York: G.K. Hall, Prentice Hall International, 1991-1996).

Abbas Qoli Agha Bakikhanov, a 19^th century literary figure from the Caucasia mentions in his Golestan Iram large number of Tats in the area around Baku:

(Floor, Willem. and Javadi, Hasan. i(2009), "The Heavenly Rose-Garden: A History of Shirvan & Daghestan by Abbas Qoli Aqa Bakikhanov, Mage Publishers, 2009)

Despite these, we believe that one can decisively state that Turkish became the main language of urban areas in Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan after the Safavid era and not before that era. When exactly this occurred in the Safavid era, it is unknown to us. However taking Tabriz an example, the period of constant Ottoman and Safavid warfare which brought major decline to the fortunate of the city is a possibility. A period of bilingualism is possible in the Turkmen Aq-Qoyunlu and Qara-Qoyunlu era for some urban centers (outside of Sherwan but in Azerbaijan and Arran). However when it comes to the Seljuqs, Atabeks, Khwarizmshahids and Ilkhanids, the major urban centers were predominanetly Iranic as mentioned and the Turkish nomads at that time hand not settled down in the major urban centers in noticeable numbers.

A complete book or a Ph.D. dissertation can be written on this subject because there are many primary materials. This article has probably provided one of the more details look at this process (Turkicization) in Azerbaijan, Sherwan and Arran. However, some authors who are not specialist in the area or authors with nationalistic concerns or authors who do not possess the necessary languages (Persian and Arabic, and also Armenian and Georgian can be helpful), have came up with variety of conclusions. Sometimes even notable scholars have contradicted themselves. And even more, sometimes even myths (see the appendix) have been used to comeup with a totally unrealistic scenario. However, without important sources such as Safinayeh Tabriz, Nozhat al-Majales, Hamdullah Mustawafi, ‘Awliya Chelebi, Badr Sherwani, Rodhat al-Janan, the Fahlaviyyat of Mama ‘Esmat, Maghrebi Tabrizi, Armenian and Georgian sources and etc., a complete study cannot be claimed. Virtually none of the authors we mentioned had available to them the rare manuscripts of Safinayeh Tabriz and Nozhat al-Majales.

Qatran Tabrizi, rise of Persian-Dari poetry and what a few modern scholars have called “Azerbaijani school”of Persian poetry

Qatran Tabrizi is generally regarded as one of the earliest Persian poets of Azerbaijan who composed in Khorasani Persian (Dari-Persian). Although earlier examples of Persian poetry (whether Fahlaviyat (vernacular Iranic dialects) or perhaps Khorasani-Persian) is attested by the historian Tabari. Tabari mentions a governor of Maragheh by the name of Muhammad ibn al-Ba’ith who composed poetry around 829 A.D in Persian.

طبري در تاريخ خود، ذيل وقايع سنه 235 ق / 228 خ، از شخصي به نام “محمد بن البعيث”نام مي‌برد كه با متوسل عباسي به جنگ پرداخته است؛ او مي‌نويسد: “حد ثني انه انشدني بالمراغه جماعه من اشياخها اشعاراً لابن البعيث بالفارسيه و تذكرون ادبه و شجاعه و له اخباراً و احاديث». در عبارت فوق، طبري به صراحت زبان مردم آذربايجان را (در اوايل قرن سوم هجري) فارسي مي‌شمارد.

كسروي نيز با استناد به قول طبري مي‌نويسد: “به نوشته طبري، اين مرد [محمد بن البعيث] شعرها نيز به زبان پارسي يا آذري داشته و ميان آذربايجان معروف بوده است. اگر تا به امروز مي‌ماند، از كهنه‌ترين شعرهاي پارسي به شمار بوده و ارزش شايان در بازار ادبيات داشت»^.

(See: Ahmad Kasravi, Azari ya Zaban Bastan Azerbaijan).

But the earliest extant example of Persian poetry from the area is that of Qatran Tabrizi. It is worth looking into the biography of Qatran Tabrizi, since he is what some authors have mentioned as the initiator of the “Azerbaijani” or “Trans-Caucasian” style of Persian poetry. Also recently, a statement from the Safarnama of Naser Khusraw has been misinterpreted and some sources have claimed that Qatran also wrote in Azeri Turkish. (See for example here: http://literature.aznet.org/literature/qtabrizi/qtabrizi_en.htm, accessed in Dec, 2007.) While the language native to Tabriz, as shown above and clearly stated in the Safinaye Tabrizi, was a peculiar Iranian dialect that was not exactly the Khorasani Persian dialect of Naser Khusraw.

Qatran Tabrizi, who lived at the courts of the Shaddadid and Rawwadid dynasties, was according to Jan Rypka: “The most famous panegyric poet of his time from Azerbayjan.” Qatran was born in Shadiabad (Persian Shaadi+Abaad for Happy Dwelling/Prosperous place) and lived between 1009/1014 to 1072 and died in Ganja. His full name according to an old manuscript attributed to the famous poet Anvari Abivardi (529 Hijra about 60 years after the passing away of Qatran) is Abu Mansur Qatran al-Jili al-Azerbaijani.

The Al-Jili would identify his ancestry from Gilan while he himself was born in Shadiabad. The Dehqan class was the same class of Iranians that Ferdowsi was from and possibly even Nizami Ganjavi (we shall mention this later). Note the verse of Shahnameh:

از ایران و ترک وز تازیان

نژادی پدید آید اندر میان

نه دهقان نه ترک و نه تازی بود

سخنها بکردار بازی بود

Here Dehqan is used for Iranian and at that time, the word Dehqan actually denoted an important class of Iranians.

According to the Encyclopedia Iranica:

The term dehqan was used in the late Sasanian period to designate a class of landed magnates (Mojmal, ed. Bahar, p. 420) considered inferior in rank to Azadan, Bozorgan (qq.v.; Zand i Wahman Yasn 4.7, 4.54), and kadag-xwadayan “householders”(Arda Wiraz-namag 15.10, where dahigan should be read for dadagan). According to some early Islamic sources, the rank of the dehqan in the Sasanian period was also inferior to that of the šahrigan “chief of the small cantons”(Yaqūbi, Tarikh I, p. 203; Masūdi, ed. Pellat, I, sec. 662; Christensen, Iran Sass., p. 140).

…

The Arab conquest (q.v.) of the Sasanian Empire began with sporadic attacks on the lands of the dehqans of the Sawad, the cultivated areas of southern Iraq. After the defeat of the Persian army and the gradual disappearance of the nobles who administered the country, the local gentry, that is, the dehqans, assumed a more important political and social role in their districts, towns, and villages. Some were able to protect their settlements from the conquering armies by surrendering and agreeing to pay the poll tax (jezya).

...

The majority of dehqans favored Persian culture, however, and some were patrons of renowned Persian poets. Rūdaki (p. 458) related that the dehqans gave him money and riding animals. Farrokhi in his youth served a dehqan in Sistan and received an annual pension from him. According to one tradition, Ferdowsi himself was a dehqan (Čahar Maqala, ed. Qazvini, text, pp. 58, 75).

…

Most of the credit for preservation of the stories in the national epic, the Šah-nama; pre-Islamic historical traditions; and the romances of ancient Iran belongs to the dehqans.

(Tafazzoli, Ahmad. “Dehqan”in Encyclopedia Iranica)

Qatran as Zabih Allah Safa in his famous Tarikh-e-Adabiyaat Iran has mention was also from the Dehqan class (as Qatran himself has mentioned):

یکی دهقان بدم شاها شدم شاعر ز نادانی

مرا از شاعری کردن تو گرداندی به دهقانی

Translation:

I was a Dehgan(Noble Iranian class) myself, O King, and became a poet from ignorance

From being a poet, you turned me back to be a Dehgan again

According to Jan Rypka:

“He sings the praise of some thirty patrons. His work has aroused the interest of historians, for in many cases Qatran has perpetuated the names of members of regional dynasties in Azerbayjan and the Caucasia region that would have otherwise fallen in oblivion. His best qasidas were written in his last period, where he expressed gratitude to the prince of Ganja, the Shaddadid Fadlun, for the numerous gifts that were still recollected by the famous Jami (d. 1492). Qatran’s poetry follows in the wake of the poets of Khurasan and makes an unforced use of the rhetorical embellishment. He is even one of the first after Farrukhi to try his hand at the Qasida-I Masnu’i, ‘particular artificial qasida’. When Nasir Khusraw visited Azarbayjan in 1046, Qatran requested to him to explain some of the most difficult passages in the divan of Munjik and Daqiqi that were written in “farsi”, i.e. according Chr. Shaffer, in the Persian of Khurasan, a language that he, as a Western Persian, might not be expected to understand, in contrast to the guest from Khurasan. Kasravi is the opinion that the text of the Safar-nama has here been corrupted because Qatran, though he spoke Iranian Adhari (the old Iranic language of Azerbaijan before the advent of Oghuz Turkish) was fully acquainted with Parsi, as his Divan shows. Qatran’s qasida on the earthquake of Tabriz is regarded as a true masterpiece”

(Jan Rypka, “History of Iranian Literature”. Reidel Publishing Company. 1968).

An important epoch of the history of Iran and Azerbaijan is the Oghuz attack on Western Iran, specially the areas of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan and Caucasia. The terrifying massacres committed by these bands of Oghuz Turks against native Iranians have been documented by different historians.

Bosworth gives an overview of the description of the Kurdish Rawwadid dynasty and the Oguz attack during their reign:

The Rawwadids (latterly the form “Rawad”is commoner in the sources) were another product of the upsurge of the mountain peoples of northern Iran; their domain was Azarbaijan, and particularly Tabriz. Strictly speaking, the Rawwadid family was of Azdi Arab origin, but by the 4th/10th century they were accounted Kurdish. At the opening of the ‘Abbasid period Rawwad b. Muthanna had held a fief which included Tabriz. Over the course of the next two centuries his descendants became thoroughly Kurdicized, and the “Rawwadi Kurds”emerged with Iranian names, although the local poet Qatran (d. c. 465/1072) still praised them for their Arab ancestry. Early in the 4th/10th century the Sajid line of Arab governors in Azarbaijan collapsed, and the region became politically and socially disturbed. A branch of the Musafirids of Tarum first emerged there, but despite Buyid help the Musafirid Ibrahim b. Marzban was deposed in c. 370/ 980-1, probably by the Rawwadid Abul-Haija Husain b, Muhammad (344-78/955-88); certainly it was the Rawwadids who succeeded to all of the Musafirid heritage in Azarbaijan.

The most prominent member of the dynasty in the 5th/nth century was Vahsudan b. Mamlan b. Abol-Haija (1019-54). It was in his reign that the Oghuz invaded Azarbaijan. These were some of the first Turkmen to come westwards, being the so-called ‘Iraqis’, or followers of Arslan Israeli, expelled from Khurasan by Mahmud of Ghazna (see pp. 58 and 40-1). Vahsudan received them favourably in 419/1028, hoping to use them as auxiliaries against his many enemies, such as the Christian Armenians and Georgians and the rival Muslim dynasty of Shaddadids. He even married the daughter of an Oghuz chief, but it still proved impossible to use the anarchic nomads as a reliable military force. In 429/1037 they plundered Maragheh and massacred large numbers of Hadhbani Kurds.Vahsudan allied with his nephew, the chief of the Hadhbanis, Abul-Haija’b. Rahib al-Daula, against the Turkmen; many of them now migrated southwards towards Iraq, and in 432/1040-1. Vahsudan devised a stratagem by which several of the remaining leaders were killed. The rest of the Oghuz in Azarbaijan then fled to the territory of the Hakkari Kurds south-west of Lake Van. Vahsudan’s capital, Tabriz, was destroyed by an earthquake in 434/1042, and fearing that the Saljuqs would take advantage of his resulting weakness, he moved to one of his fortresses; but the city was soon rebuilt, and Nasir-i Khusrau found it populous and flourishing.

(C.E. Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1200) in Camb. Hist. Iran V)

The Persian poet Qatran Tabrizi was alive at that time and has described the unruliness and savageness of the invading Oghuz nomads and the massacres committed by them in Azerbaijan. At the time of Qatran Tabrizi, the inhabitants spoke Persian/Iranian dialects slightly distinct from the Dari Persian dialect of Khorasan. Naser Khosrow, himself from Khorasan mentions the slight dialect differences between the two places. This difference is partially also examined in this article:

جلال متینی، زبان دری و لهجۀ آذری، زبان فارسی در آذربایجان، گردآوری: ایرج افشار، تهران، بنیاد موقوفات دکتر محمود افشار (1371، ج 2، صفحه 405-418).

Matini, Jalal. “Daqiqi, Zaban-i Dari o Lahjeyeh Azari” in Zaban-i Farsi dar Azerbaijan, Gerdavari: Iraj Afshar, Tehran, Bonyaad Moqoofaat Dr. Mahmud Afshar, (1371, volume 2, pg 405-418.

Available here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/daghighizabandariazari.pdf, accessed Dec, 2007.)

The Iranian dialect difference is mentioned by the following verse of Qatran where he contrasts Parsi (Persian)(meaning his own dialect) with Dari-Persian (Persian of Khorasan which through time became the main medium of communication after Islam):

در بيتی از قطران تبریزی هم كه «پارسی» را در برابر دری آورده، پارسی در مورد زبان آذربایجان به كار رفته، در برابر دري خراسان:
بلبل به سان مطرب بيدل فراز گل
گه پارسي نوازد، گاهي زند دری

Translation:

The nightingale is on top of the flower like a minstrel who has lost her heart

It bemoans sometimes in Parsi (Persian) and sometimes in Dari (Khurasani Persian)

Qatran had a very unfavorable view of the Oghuz attack during the Ghaznavid era and has harshly criticized Turks and shows that Turks at the time were foreign in Azerbaijan.

قطران تبريزی نيزدر بسياری از چکامه هايش ترکان را شايسته سرزنش دانسته و انان را سخت نکوهش کرده است . نمونه هايی از ان ابيات در ذيل می ايد:

....

زمانی تازش ايشان به شروان اندرون بودی

زمانـــی حملـــه ايشان بــــه اذربايگــــان انــدر

نبود از تازش ايشان کسی بر چيز خود ايمن

نبود از حمله ايشان کسی بر مال خود سرور (احمد کسروی شهرياران گمنام، 1377، ص۱۶۰)

شده چون خانه زنبور با غم از ترکان

همی خلند به فرمان ما چو زنبورم (همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در يکی از سروده هايش به هنگام ستايش يکی از فرمانروايان بومی اذربايجان عامل عدم پيشرفت کار او را حضور ترکان برشمرده است:

گر نبودی آفت ترکان به گيتی در پديد

بستدی گيتی همه چون خسروان باستان (همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در بدگويی و مذمت ترک تباران چنان سخن گفته که حتی انان را موجب ويرانی ايران زمين برشمرده و اين مفهوم به روشنی از بيت زير که در ستايش اميری از اميران اذربايجان سرايش يافته برمی ايد:

اگر چه داد ايران را بلای ترک ويرانی

شود از عدلش ابادان چون يزدانش کند ياری (همان، ص۱۹۷)

اين شاعر اذربايجانی در يکی ديگر از چکامه هايش که در قالب قصيده سروده است ترکان را خونخوار و جرار و غدار و مکار خوانده است:

کمــــر بستند بهــــر کيــن شه ترکان پيکاری

همـــه يکـرو به خونخواری همه يکدل به جراری

يکی ترکان مسعودی به قصد خيل مسعودان

نهاده تن به کين کاری و دل داده به خونخواری

....

چــه ارزد غـدر با دولت، چه ارزد مکـر با دانش

اگـرچـه کــــار ترکان هست غــداری و مکــاری(همان، ص۱۷۲)

ترا خيلي و رهي‌اي شاه بسيارند من دانم
رهي را كي كم از قلاش و خيلي كمتر از تركان
همشه عزم ايشان بوده بر تاراج بر كشتن
چو باشد عزمشان آنگونه باشد حالشان اينسان

As can be seen by the above verses, the poet Qatran complains intensely about the plundering and destruction brought by the first wave of the nomadic Oghuz Turks who ravaged and plundered Azerbaijan. He calls these nomads Khoonkhaar (blood suckers), bringers of Viran (ruin) to Iran, kin-kaar (workers of hatred), covenant breakers (Ghadar), Makar (Charlatan and deceiver). These Oghuz tribes were too unruly for the Ghaznavids and they were not manageable by the Kurdish rulers of Azerbaijan who initially wanted to use them against their neighboring and rival Christian kingdoms.

At the same time following Khorasani poets, the Turks (Of course the Kazakh/Kyrghyz types of today which were the original Turks) were also seen as the ideal type of beauty by Qatran as in other Persian poets:

ای حور ترک پیکر و ای ترک حوروش

هم زینت بهشتی و هم زیور خزر

یا

شکفته لاله در چمن چو روی ترک ده ساله

نشسته در چمن ژاله چو عکس ماه در پروین

(Qatran Tabrizi, “Divan Hakim Qatran Tabrizi”, corrected and edited by Mohammad Nakhjavani with articles from Badi ol Zaman Foruzanfar, Zabillah Safa, and Hasan Taqizadeh, Qoqnus Publishers, 1983)

Qatran Tabrizi also praises the Sassanids in many of his poems, and uses Persian mythology and symbolism throughout his work. Qatran is an example of the Iranian culture of the region and in praising the Amir Lashkari, we can observe this:

این جهان بودست دایم ملکت ساسانیان

خواست سالارش خدا در ملکت ساسان کند
نیست کس در گوهر ساسانیان چون لشکری

تا پس آن چون نیاکان شاهی ایران کند
همچو افريدون بگيرد ملك عالم سر به سر

و آنگهي تدبير ملك خيل فرزندان كند
روم و گرجستان به فرمان منوچهر آورد

هند و تركستان به زير حكم نوشروان کند
او به تخت ملک ايران برنشيند در سطخر

کهترين فرزند خود را مهتر آران کند
تا همی فرمان داور خاک را ساکن کند

تا همی تقدير يزدان چرخ را گردان کند
ملک او را از زوال ايمن همی گردون کند

جان او را از فنا ایمن همی یزدان کند
شاد بنشيند به کام دل بر ايوان شهی

وز فروغ روی خويش آراسته فرمان کند

Qatran was steeped in his ancient Iranian culture and his use of Shahnameh symbolism is significant and ranks him with Nizami. Dr. Sajad Ayadlu has done a comprehensive study with this regard:

(Ayadlu, Sajad. “Nokhostin Sanad Adabi Ertebaat-i Azerbaijan o Shahnameh, Iranshenasi Magazine, al Year 17, also available here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Persian/shahnamehqatran.pdf,

accessed Dec, 2007.)

And Qatran being himself of the Dehqan class was well of the Iranian folklore, much like his compatriot Ferdowsi who was of the same class.

The importance of Qatran in terms Persian-Dari poetry is the fact that the oldest extant verses of Persian-Dari from the region are from him. Some have also gone further and have said that Qatran started the Persian-Dari poetry in Azerbaijan (at the court of the Rawwadids) and Caucasia (at the court of the Shaddadids). Some scholars have used the term “Azerbaijani school of poetry” or “Azerbaijani style of poetry” or “Trans-Cacausian style of Poetry” or “Arrani style of poetry” to describe the poetry of the region of Azerbaijan and Arran. This term in reality was created by USSR scholars and may possibly even be politically motivated inorder to support local nationalism and nation building. Some scholars have pointed to the great Christian symbols in the poetry of the region, but from this author’s own analysis, the stories and flows of Nizami Ganjavi has a great resemblance with that of Vis o Ramin. Professor. Dick Davis also mentions this point:

The poem (Vis o Ramin) had an immense influence on Nezami, who takes the bases for most of his plots from Ferdowsi but the basis for his rhetoric from Gorgani. This is especially noticeable in his Khusraw o Shirin, which imitates a major scene (that of the lovers arguing in the snow) from Vis o Ramin, as well as being in the same meter (hazaj) as Gorgani's poem. Nezami's concern with astrology also has a precedent in an elaborate astrological description of the night sky in Vis o Ramin. Given Nezami's own paramount influence on the romance tradition, Gorgani can be said to have initiated much of the distinctive rhetoric and poetic atmosphere of this tradition, with the exception of its Sufi preoccupations, which are quite absent from his poem.

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Vis o Ramin”)

It should be noted that unlike the other styles of Persian poetry: Sabk-e- Araqi (this is the Persian central area or Araq-i Ajam), Sabk-i Esfahani or Hindi (Indian style) and Sabk-i-Khurasani (Khurasanian school) which are historical names used by Persian poets, this is a modern nomenclature. Dr. Mohammad Amin Riyahi uses the term Sabk-e-Arrani (Arranian style) since the two greatest poets (Nizami and Khaqani) from the Caucasia were actually from historical Arran (which at times included Sherwan).

We note the term the term “Azerbaijan”is actually an Iranian term, and the ethnic term “Azerbaijani”used for Turkic speakers goes back to the 19^th /20th century. So when these scholars speak about a style, they do not have any ethnic designation in mind. This notion has been misinterpreted by some people in order to assign a Turkic nationality to the Persian literature of the region. The best proof of this misinterpretation is the fact that Qatran Tabrizi was not of Turkic background and the Oghuz nomads who attacked Azerbaijan were foreigners to him. He had a completely Iranian culture and heritage and alludes to himself as part of the Dehqan (which is a class of Iranians at the time).

And Jan Rypka notes about the “Azerbaijan school of Persian poetry”:

The school, which begins with Qatran (d. 1072), formed a well defined group of teachers and pupils of whom two, Khaqani and Nizami, were to exert a lasting development of their respective genre: Khaqani being the greatest exponent of the qasida and Nizami the most brilliant writer of romantic epics”.

The importance of Qatran Tabrizi is also illustrated in the manuscript of Safinayeh Tabrizi where he takes a predominant place among the poets of the region.

What did Nezami call his own style?

There is no doubt that Nezami like Sa’adi, Ferdowsi, Hafez, Naser Khusraw and other great Persian poets had his own lively style. But in general, Persian poetry has been subcategorized by various forms. One of these forms is the Araqi(Iraqi) form where Araq/Iraq/Arak here denotes the Arak-e-Ajam or Persian Iraq consisting of areas of Shiraz, Hamadan, Esfahan. Nezami states:

چرا گشتی درین بیغوله پا بست

چنین نقد عراقی بر کف دست

As Hafez states:

غزلیات عراقیست سرود حافظ

که شنید این ره دلسوز که فریاد کرد

Thus both Nezami and Hafez considered themselves as part of the Iraqi school rather than the Khorasani school. Indeed, the Saqi Nameh of Hafez has been greatly influenced by that of Nezami in his Eskandarnama. So the “Arranian”, “Azerbaijani”, “Trans-Cacausian” style of Nezami is a subset of the same Iraqi style, although these terms were invented in the 20^th century and were not used prior to that. As mentioned, one of the first people to use “Azerbaijani school of poetry” was the policitized author Bertels (see the articles about him in this article) who before 1935 was clear that Nezami was a Persian poet. So it is very possible that name “Azerbaijani school of poetry” is politically motivated although Khaqani, Qatran and Nezami like most poets of the world, were from a particular area and had local influences. So it could just be an unintentional term to denote regional style. Still, we believe “Arranian” or “Khaqani style” is a better term for poets such as Nezami and Khaqani due to the fact that Nezami lived in Arran. We state “Khaqani” style because he was the first to use such symbolic and metaphorical language and had a tremendous effect on Nezami. The high usage of metaphors and symbols is what distinguishes Khaqani/Nezami and thus a “Khaqani” style is also appropriate. But from what Nezami himself states, his style is simply the Iraqi style and the Iraqi style is a historical term used in Persian poetry unlike “Arranian”, “Azerbaijani school of poetry”, “Trans-caucasian school of poetry” and etc. So “Arranian” or “Khaqani style” would indeed be a regional variation of Sabk-e-Iraqi.

Persian poetry images and symbols: Turk, Hindu, Rum, Zang/Habash

چو کرسی نهاد از برچرخ شید

جهان گشت چون روی رومی سپید

(فردوسی)

The words “Turks”(Turks), “Hindus”(Hindus),”Rums”(Greeks, Romans), “Zang/Habash”(Blacks, Ethiopians) are favorite symbols of the earliest Persian poets in forming poetic images. As we shall show, in the context of compare and contrast, as well as in other contexts, these words did not have an ethnic meaning but rather were used to contrast various moods, colors and feelings. It is very important to cross-reference the verses of various poets using such symbolic imagery for a better understanding of their usage in Persian poetry. In other words, just like one cannot study Nizami in depth without studying Sanai, Gorgani, Nozhat al-Majales, Asadi Tusi and of course Ferdowsi, one cannot understand Persian poetry without proper understanding of its symbols and imagery.

It is this imagery, metaphors and symbolic devices of poetry that were misinterpreted by the political atmosphere of the USSR in order to claim that Nizami Ganjavi had nothing to do with his Iranian/Persian heritage and was actually a Turk who was forced to write Persian. Before we study the misinterpretation of Persian poetry in the next chapter by such publications as Varliq and other ethnic-minded scholars, we briefly touch upon this subject. We also study its usage in Persian literature among Attar, Hafez, Khaqani, Nizami, Rumi, Amir Khusraw and Sanai. Poetic symbols in Persian poetry have been studied by various scholars who had a deep understanding of the Persian language and were free in the West to pursue their academic interest. One of these scholars is the later Professor Annemarie Schimmel. We will quote two of her articles here before giving more examples from Persian poetry as well as various Persian poets.

We quote her paper here:

Schimmel, Annemarie. “A Two-Colored Brocade: The Imagery of Persian Poetry”, the imagery of Persian poetry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. (pg 137-144).

Turk and Hindu

“O Venus, from your Hindu-eyes notch the arrow on the bow like a Turk!”

Over the preceding chapters we have observed that Persian poetry is imbued to a certain extent with images that evoke the external interplay of Beauty and Love, or the tension between legalism and love, between intellect and inspired madness. As with Mahmud and Ayaz, we may also discern this tendency in another favorite combination that arose in historical and social reality but served mostly as a poetical image whose original context was soon forgotten: the contrast between Turk and Hindu.’Turks enjoyed an important role as soldiers in the Abbasid Empire beginning in the mid-ninth century, and former military slaves soon rose to become rulers (sultans) in their own right, especially on the eastern fringes of Iran and in their homeland, Transoxania.

Indeed the idea of the Turk as the beloved first emerged, it seems, in the days of Mahmud of Ghazna, whose love for Ayaz of the Oymaq tribe was a model for the delight one could take in one’s love for a Turk. The Turk was considered as beautiful as the moon, even though he might be cruel. Soon the Turkish type of beauty became prominent both in pictures and in poetical descriptions: a round face with narrow eyes and a minute mouth. The most famous expression of an Indo-Persian writer’s infatuation with a “Turk”is Amir Khusrau’s verse:

His tongue is Turkish, and I don’t know Turkish— how nice it would be if his tongue were in my mouth!

Turkish cities in Central Asia, such as Chigil and Taraz, became ciphers for the dwelling place of the beloved, where the lover directs his thoughts. Thus Hafiz asks, using a fitting tajnis:

That Turk with a fairy’s countenance went away from me yesterday — what mistake (khata) did he see, that he took the road to Khata [Cathay]?

As for the Hindu, he is the perfect contrast to the Turk. Like the Greeks, the peoples of Western and Central Asia regarded the Indians as black, and the Arabs were in contact with the dark-skinned inhabitants of southern India well before the advent of Islam. Thus the black Hindus came to be compared to devils, both in travelogues and in mystical visions—where the angles of course resembled Turks. Moreover, India was for the Muslims a country benighted in blackest heathendom:

Light up the candle of monotheism,

Set forth into infidel Hindustan:

says Sana’i. The term Hindu, then, meant in the first place “black,”but also “lowly slave”-- a slave who had to serve and obey the ruling Turkish princes, as the first Muslim dynasties in northern India were indeed Turks.

The beloved’s beauty mark, the black mole, the tresses, the eyes, could all be called “Hindu”because of their blackness, but the term also implied treacherous and faithless behavior. The “infidel tresses of Hindu origin”lurk like highway robbers, or else they stretch across the pale ear like a naked Hindu on a white bed. The Hindu tresses may even open a shop: “Give a life for every hair!”And the small mole may be a Hindu child that plucks roses from the cheek.

Images of this kind show that the apparently negative connotation of the “black”Hindu could be transformed into something quite lovable, and in somewhat later times Katibi Isfahani would give a delightful description of the beloved’s face, ridiculing the narrow-minded theologian who would rather not admit that a Hindu infidel can reach Paradise:

0 ascetic, if you deny that a Hindu finds the way toward Kauthar

And an infidel comes to the eternal garden,

Then look how those tresses and the mole came on his face and his

Ruby mouth: an infidel in the garden of Paradise, a Hindu at the well of

Kauthar!

Hindustan is, then, logically, the country of blackness (and for some poets it was even the veritable Hell, as Khushhal Khan, the Pathan warrior, states).

A late poet, longing for his home in Iran, sighed during his stay in India:

Like a black hair that finally turns white

Draw myself from India to Iran.

And Hazin, in a comparable situation, saw his stay in Hindustan as proof of sad fact that the day of his life had ended in black night.

More famous, however, is Talib-i Amuli’s remark, on his emigration from Iran to India, that now perhaps his bad luck (called in both Persian and Turkish “black fortune”) would finally leave him alone:

Nobody has ever brought a Hindu as gift to Hindustan— therefore leave your “black fortune”in Iran!

The darkness could, however, also gain a positive meaning—was not the Water of Life hidden in darkness? Therefore Molla Shakibi praised the Mughal Khankhanan ‘Abdur Rahim, the greatest benefactor of poets around 1600, with the verse:

Come, cupbearer, give the Water of Life!

Draw it from the Khankhanan’s fountain!

Alexander sought it but found it not,

For it was in India and he hastened into the darkness.

In astrology, Saturn, connected with black, is called “the Hindu of the sky”or else the Hindu doorkeeper, as it was the last planet known to medieval observers. Hence the chapter in Nizami’s Haft Paykar about Saturday, which is ruled, as its name says, by Saturn, takes its comparisons, images, and stories entirely from this sphere of blackness. The Indian princess whom Bahram Gor visits is a gazelle with Turkish—that is, dangerous—eyes, eyes of the kind that are often called “drunken Turks,”and the black tresses on her rosy cheeks resemble fire-worshiping Hindus.

The Muslims had a certain knowledge of the rites of cremation as practiced by the Hindus, and Amir Khusrau in particular, who lived in India, sometimes alludes to the custom of satti, the burning of widows.

Learn from the Hindu how to die of love—

It is not easy to enter the fire while alive.

He also describes sunrise with a related image:

The Hindu Night has died, and the sun

Has kindled the fire to burn that Hindu.

The custom of satti formed on one occasion the topic of a Persian epic, Nau’i’s Suz u gudaz (Burning and Melting), which was composed for Akbar’s son Daniyal and was several times illustrated.

Cross-relations with the fire worship of the Zoroastrians occur now and then (see also chapter 6 above). A typical example, from the late sixteenth century, is by Yolquli Anisi, who tells his beloved:

My heart is a fire temple when I think of you,

And on it is your brand, like a black Hindu who tends the fire.

Such mixture of images is found as early as Nizami’s Haft Paykar.

The Hindu was the slave of the Turkish rulers, and for this reason poets liked the idea that they would lovingly become Hindu slaves if only their Turkish beloved would be kind to them—an idea paradoxically elaborated in Hafiz’s often-quoted Ghazal about the “Turk of Shiraz”(see below).

The word Turk came to designate, in India as in parts of Europe, the Muslim in general, and the positive picture of the moonlike Turkish beloved often also has a tinge of cruelty to it. Poets developed a large stock of metaphors about the pillaging, drunken “Turk”who gallops through the countryside, shooting arrows with his eyelashes to wound his admirers: perhaps he plays polo with the severed head of a victim who enjoys being treated like that, and he plunders (yaghma) every place. Such negative images—without the positive aspect—can be found, for instance, in satires by ‘Ubayd-i Zakani. But when reading these descriptions one must always keep in mind that the beloved in traditional Persian poetry is indeed cruel and does not care for his lover, and that the lover, in turn, seems to relish all the wounds inflicted on him—for the beloved’s cruelty is better than outright indifference.

The mystics too made use of the Turk-Hindu contrast. Rumi saw the whole world as a dark Hindustan that must be destroyed “in Turkish style”so that the soul may finally be freed from material fetters. And Turk and Hindu appear in “the Hindustan of clay and water and the Turkestan that is the spiritual world”.

As Saturn is the “Hindu of the sky,”Mars, the martial planet, is rightly called the “Turk of the sky.”But in the service of the beloved both are lowly slaves, as Bayram Khan, a Turcoman general in Mughal service, sings:

For your castle, old Saturn is the doorkeeper;

For your Hindu curls the Turk of the sky is a Circassian slave!

Much later another poet from India would complain:

From grieving for you I have black fortune and wet eyes—

I own [the whole area of] black [fertile) soil from India to the Oxus!

The contrast of Turk and Hindu was certainly strengthened by the realities of Muslim history at the turn of the first millenium, but the many possible interpretations of both terms made them a favorite for poets throughout the centuries. With these possibilities in mind one gets closer to

the secret of Hafiz’s famous (and often misinterpreted) verse:

If that Turk of Shiraz would take my heart in his hand,

I would give for his Hindu mole Bukhara and Samarqand.

The Shirazi Turk has a black—Hindu—mole, and for this mole, which is traditionally seen as a black slave, the poet is willing to sacrifice the most of beautiful cities of the Turkish empire. Besides this grand exaggeration in which all values seem to be reversed, the verse contains three names of cities (Shiraz, Bukhara, Samarqand), as well as three parts of the body (hand, mole, heart), and furthermore plays on the contrast of giving and taking, so that a whole chain of rhetorical figures is incorporated into these seemingly simple lines which express the poet’s hope for some kindness from his beloved. But the whole beauty of the verse is inevitably lost in translation, especially in translations by those unaware of the delightful wordplay which the poet—effortlessly, as it seems—puts before his readers.

The Turk also appears, though rarely, in other connections. On a few occasions the aggressive riders from the steppes are contrasted with the complacent, urban Tajiks, and sometimes a poet collects a veritable “league of nations”around his friend’s face:

“The Turk of your eye carries away the heart from the Arab and the

Soul from the Persian; the Abyssinian mole on your face makes the Hindu a slave!”

In the eighteenth century Qani’the historian of Sind, considered that Byzantines, Europeans, and Indians were all variously destroyed by his beloved’s face, his down, and his lip—each of which corresponds to a color: white, black, and red.

Besides the Turk and the Hindu one finds the juxtaposition of Rum and Habash-Byzantium and Ethiopia—to allude to white and black, but in this connection the meaningful symbolism that lies behind Turk and Hindu is lacking. The Ethiopian or Negro, Zangi, is usually remembered for his curly hair, as Sa’di says in the Gulistan:

The world is more confused than a Negro’s hair.

A similar combination of the Daylamites—mountain-dwellers near the Caspian Sea—with curly, “broken”hair occurs in early Persian poetry.

From the late sixteenth century onward the role of the Turk as dangerous beloved was taken over at least in part by the Firangs—the “Franks”—that is, the Europeans and in particular the Portuguese, who from 1498 had begun to settle on the southern and western coast of India and had plundered affluent ports, like Thatta in the Indus Delta, most cruelly. They thus could replace the pillaging Turk, and the “European prison”became a new image in Indo-Persian poetry. This prison sometimes seems rather colorful, and the Europeans are generally connected with colors and pictures, for European paintings were brought to Mughal India beginning in the days of emperor Akbar and were copied by indigenous artists with amazing skill: hence the new combinations in color imagery in later poetry. But the Turk and the Hindu still survive in folk poetry, even in lullabies.

Another article by Professor Schimmel also gives remarkable examples of these symbolic images in Persian poetry in addition to supplying the original Persian alongside the English translation.

Annemarie Schimme Turk And Hindu A Literary Symbol

(Schimmel, Annemarie. “Turk and Hindu; a literary symbol”. Acta Iranica, 1, III, 1974, pp.243-248)

A field which is still to be elaborated is the study of Persian symbolic language. Though scholars like Ruckert and Hammer-Purgstall, like Ritter and Rypka and, recently, Bausani in his Storia della letteratura Persiana (Motivi e Forme della poesia Persiana, cf. also his Persia Religiosa) have dealt with several symbols and topoi which are preferably used in Persian poetry — and therefore later on also in Turkish and Urdu poetry — there is still a large field for further investigation into the development of certain symbolic expressions.

We need not mention here the symbols taken from the Quran, starting with the ruz-i alast (روز الست) which is alluded to in poetry so frequently with dush / دوش «yesterday»; or the use of Quran personalities; or the old Iranian tradition which is interwoven in the fabric of lyrical poetry, the most famous example being the Jam-i Jam (جام جم). Others, like the Rose and the Nightingale, gul u bulbul (گل و بلبل) can, in their elementary meaning, be traced very far back in the history of religions, the complaining nightingale being only the poetical transformation of the primitive concept of the soul-bird.

Of special interest are, however, those symbols which stem from a certain historical person or a specific act in history — the classical example is the figure of Mansur — al-Husain ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 922), the martyr mystic who has become, at least since ‘Attar’s time, a central symbol of mystical love, suffering, and, though by wrong interpretation of his cry ana’l-haqq (اناالحق), a representative of the essential unity of being not only in Persian poetry but as well in Turkish literature and even more in Muslim India where his name is well known to the Urdu, Sindhi and Punjabi poets, so that even the simple villagers of the Indus valley remember him in their songs.

Persian poetry has always liked the use of pairs of contrasting symbols, and the literatures under its influence share this predilection. A famous example of this style is Hafiz’s oft-quoted couplet:

اگرآن ترک شیرازی بدست آرد دل ما را

به خال هندویش بخشم سمرقند و بخارا را

«If this Turk from Shiraz would take my heart in his hand,

I would give for his Hindu-mole Samarqand and Bukhara”

with the confrontation of Turk and Hindu. It is interesting to follow the development of this contrast-pair in early Persian poetry.

Hammer-Purgstall has given, in the introduction of his Geschichte der schonen Redekunste Persiens (1818) some explanations of common Persian symbols; here we find f.i. that the eyelashes are the two battle arrays of the Indians; the eye, too, can be called a Hindu since it is black, whereas the beautiful white face is Turkistan; the down (khatt / خط) and the mole (Khal / خال) are likewise compared to India and Hindus — that means, Hindu has, in later time, become synonymous with black; Turk, Turkish is everything white and lovable, (cf. Steingass’dictionary s.v. هندو)

Turks are already mentioned in the poetry of the early Abbasid period — Abu Nuwas compares the bubbles of wine to Turks who shoot their arrows, and this connection of the word Turk with the young, dangerous but attractive hero is common in early Persian poetry too — thus, when Farrukhi addresses his friend

ترکش ای ترک به یک سو فکن و جامهء جنگ...

«Throw the quiver aside, oh Turk, and the dress of war...» The Hindus, on the other hand — mentioned in prophetic traditions as well as the Turks — have been mostly described in Arabic sources of old as blackish, and Hindustan was, at least from the time of Mahmud of Ghazna, the typical battlefield (cf. Asadi, in Shafaq, Tarikh 136 who, however, compares the night still to a negro, Zang, not to a Hindu) for the Muslims who were, in the Ghaznawid period, mostly of Turkish origin. Thus Sanai says in the Hadiqa:

شمع توحید را منور کن

قصد هندوستان کافر کن

Make the candle of tauhid shining,

Turn toward infidel Hindustan.

Sometimes the famous Indian swords are mentioned, and the Muslim knew about the strange customs of Hindu ascetics, who might even burn themselves (thus Naubakhti in the فرق الشیعه) — Biruni’s book on India then enlarged the knowledge of his coreligionists about Indian customs.

The slaves which were brought from India were considered ugly, mean, and blackish — in contrast to the Turkish slaves —, and in a poem by Mukhtar-i Gaznawi (quoted by Fritz Meier in Die schone Mahsati, p. 8) the poet says that he kept well an ugly Hindu slave until he became good so that one could kiss him.

It may be that the famous love story of Sultan Mahmud and Ayaz which has become a symbol in itself may have contributed to the development of the symbol Turk’for the beloved which is very common, it seems, in the Seljukid period. In Mahsati’s poetry (i.e. first quarter of the 12th century) the Turk-i Tir andaz (ترک تیر انداز) or the Turk who uses his club for beating people are common symbols for the friend (cf. Meier No. 5, No. 149, p. 362). At that time the theories of mystical love developed in Iran, theories which are reflected in the work of Ahmad Ghazzall and ‘Ain-ul-qudzat Hamadani.

The fact that here the beloved is not only beautiful but also extremely cruel — so that the lover finds his highest happiness in being wounded or even killed through him — seems to have made the Turk, who was already connected with the qualities of both beauty and cruelty, a fitting symbol of the Divine Beloved — a fact that is expressed verbally by Ruzbihan Baqli (d. 1209) who told that he had seen his Divine Beloved in the shape of a Turk wearing his silken headgear awry (i.e. the kajkuldh / کج کلاه of later Persian poetry). Ritter has drawn the attention of the reader to the fact that Abu Hamid Ghazzall has mentioned in his Mishkat ul-Anwar that Turks at the end of the earth are fond of perfect beauty that they prostrate before things of overwhelming beauty. (Ritter, Meer der Seele 454, Gairdner, mishkdt 92).

By the end of the 12th century, the symbol Hindu for black is used commonly by Nizami: — The Indian princess — described with the famous contrast-pair as

«Gazelle with Turkish (i.e. killing) eyes, from Hindu origin»

آهوی ترک چشم هندو زاد

is that of Saturday which is ruled by Saturn which is poetically called the هندوی باریک بین or هندوی سپهر and has, according to astrological tradition, black colour. But Nizami has also compared the crow to the Indian:

زاغ جز هندوی نسب نباشد

دزدی از هندوان عجب نباشد

« The crow is surely of Hindu origin,

and to steal is not astonishing in Hindus » (HP 112)

And how beautifully has he, as Ritter has pointed out, used this symbolism in his description of the fire in winter:

مجوسی ملتی هندوستانی

چو زردشت آمده در زندخوانی

«A magician from Hindustan, like Zardusht starting with murmuring the zand». (Khosrow o Shirin) or,

آتش افروخته ز صندل و عود

دود گردش چون هندوان بسجود

« The fire lit from sandal and aloe-wood,

the smoke around it is like Hindus in prostration.»

ترکی از نسل رومیان نسبش

قرة العین هندوان لقبش

« A Turk from Byzantine origin,

whose surname is «the object of pleasure to the Hindus»», (cf. Ritter, Bildersprache 12 f.)

In ‘Attars work (d. 1220) we find again a number of allusions to Indian and Turkish subjects — the self-sacrifice of the Hindu ascetic is mentioned in the Ilahiname (6/9), the Hindu is several times shown as a seeker of religious truth (cf. Mantiq ut-tair 31/2, Musibatname 19/4 where he asks «What shall I do with the house without the Lord», i.e. the Kaeba, cf. Meer der Seele 262, 522, 533). Even Mahmud of Ghazna whose destruction of the temple of Somnath has become one of the famous symbols of the victory of faith over infidelity (MT 36/6) is said to have put a little Hindu boy besides him on the throne (A pious Hindu slave is also mentioned IN 176/13). The Hindu in the Ilahiname (79/9) is contrasted with the beautiful princess of China, not with a Turk. The Turk is depicted in ‘Attar’s epic in the usual way — cruel, but also an object of love (Mus. 32/1, 33/8, IN 10/7). The picture is, however, different when we turn to ‘Attar’s divan (ed. by Said Nafisi). Here the term Hindu is almost exclusively used for the meant and obedient slave: the poet often calls himself a Hindu, and tells his beloved that he would like to become «the Hindu of the Hindu of his curling locks (467). Though once he claims to be «not a Hindu-yi badkhu, of bad character, in the service of his beloved but an Abessinian who bears his mark»

در بندگیش نه هندویم بدخو

هستم حبشی که داغ او دارم

He mostly declares himself to be the Hindu slave of the Turkish beloved (465):

ترکتازی کن بتا بر جان و دل

تا ز جان و دل شوم هندوی تو

The classical locus is perhaps in 371:

بوسه چو داد ترک من

هندوی او شدم بجان

«Since my Turk gave me a kiss I became from the bottom of my heart his Hindu...»

The cruelty of the Turkish beloved is alluded to in the lines:

هست ترک و من بجان هندوی او

لاجرم با تیغ در کار آمدست

«He is a Turk and I from the bottom of my heart his Hindu, necessarily he has come to work with his sword.» (129)

Attar uses astrological symbolism in the words (466)

گشت هندوخان لقب برخان چرخ

ترک گردون تا که شد هندوی تو

« Hindukhan became the surname of the Lord of the Heaven

since the Turk of the Heaven (i.e. Mars) became your Hindu(slave)»,

A verse which has probably influenced Maulana Rumi’s verse (Div.V2130)

ترک فلک چاکر شود

آن را که شود هندوی او

«The Turk of the Heaven (i.e. Mars) becomes the servant of Him,

who became His (i.e. the beloved’s) Hindu.»

Though Rumi has sometimes compared black and white, good and bad to Rumis and Abessinians (Div. Y 2428), the contrast-pair Hindu-Turk is completely developed in his poetry — thus when the Prophet says in the Mathnawi (I 2370)

گفته من آئینه ام مصقول دست

ترک و هندو در من آن بیند که هست

«I am the polished mirror, Turk and Hindu see in me that what exists.»

The day is compared to the beautiful Turk with fair face (Div. II 524):

روزی است اندر شب نهان

ترکی میان هندوان

«The day is hidden in the night, a Turk in the midst of Hindus,”

and just as the infidels shout when the Muslim Turks fight them

هندوی شب نعره زنان

کان ترک در خرگاه شد

«the Hindu night is uttering loud cries since the Turk entered the tent (Div. II 252)»

Maulavi Rumi compares, as most profane poets, the curls of the beloved to Hindustan (Div. V 2363) but gives the whole symbolism of Turk and Hindu a more metaphysical sense, since for him this world is the Hindustan of polluted earthly life, and thus he can say in a description of spring that (Div. II 570):

ز ترکستان آن دنیا بنهء ترکان زیبارو

به هندوستان آب و گل به امر شهریار آمد

«The baggage of the nice-looking Turks from the Turkistan of the other world

came to the Hindustan of clay and water by the order of that prince.»

And the comparison of Sanai — the Hindustani Kafir — is carried on further when Rumi says (Div. IV 1876):

هندویک هستی را ترکانه تو یغما کن

«Like a Turk (or in the Turkish way) pillage the little Hindu of existence...»

i.e. kill the natural worldly existence and reach the Turkistan-i ‘adam. It may be interesting to throw a look at the symbolism of a Persian-writing poet who lived in Hindu environment, Amir Khosrau. In his Divan (ed. M. Darwesh, introduction Said Nafisi) the symbol of the turk-i tir andaz is used very often (1416, 1081, 1104, 350, 243), the intoxicated Turk appears likewise (347, 848), the rose-cheeked (308) and coquettish (289), or white faced (1096) Turk are frequently mentioned. The Hindus are mentioned comparatively rarely (cf. 449 the .contrast Turk-Hindu); perhaps the most interesting example of the use of this symbol is the last verse of a Ghazal (186)

هندوان را زنده سوزند این چنین مرده مسوز

بنده خسرو را که ترک است آخر و هندوی تست

«They burn the Hindus alive; do not burn such a dead, (namely) the slave Khusrow who is a Turk, and yet your Hindu».

These few notes which should be elaborated by careful exegesis and collection of material from early Persian poetry show that the couplet in Hafiz’famous ghazal stands in a long literary tradition which reflects also some political and social features of the Islamic Empire in its contact with its neighbours — and the contrast pair Turk-Hindu has always remained popular, be it in the poetry of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, or even in a lullaby from Shiraz, which Zhukovsky noted down in 1886:

There came two Turks from Turkestan

and carried me to Hindustan...

Before summarizing the relevant information provided by Professor Schimmel, we will provide more examples of the usage of the term, Turk, Rum, Hindu, Habash/Zang.

One of the earliest poets who considered Turks to be the ideal type of beauty is actually the Persian poet Ferdowsi:

که ترکان به دیدن پریچهره اند

به جنگ اندرون پاک بی بهره اند

Thus Ferdowsi says that Turks in the view are as beautiful as fairies.

Even before Ferdowsi, one of the first Persian poets (Rudaki) states:

ترک هزاران به پای پیش صف اندر

هر یک چو ماه بر دو هفته درفشان

And we also noted Qatran Tabrizi, who is one if not the first Persian poet from Azerbaijan who composed in Eastern Khorasanian Persian:

ای حور ترک پیکر و ای ترک حوروش

هم زینت بهشتی و هم زیور خزر

یا

شکفته لاله در چمن چو روی ترک ده ساله

نشسته در چمن ژاله چو عکس ماه در پروین

Instead of listing about thousands of uses of Hindu, Turk, Rum, Zang and Habash amongst in Persian poetry, we take examples from the recent excellent book of Professor Rahim Afifi. The author of each of these couplets is given. We note that many times these imageries come together in the sense that all four (Turk, Hindu, Rum, Zang) can be used in a single verse.

Some examples of the symbolic meaning of Hindu as allusion and imagery:

Hindu=From India, Slave, Overseer, Watcher, the blackness of the hair of the beloved.

تیغ تو داند که چیست رمز و اشارت دین

طرفه بود هندویی از عربی ترجمان

(خاقانی)

تا بر در حکم توست کامش

شد هندوی هندوی تو نامش

این هندو ِ هندوَش چه نام است

یعنی حجر تو را غلام است

(خاقانی)

حاجی ما چون ز سفر باز

کرد برآن هندوی خود ترکتاز

(نظامی)

کی توانم گفت هندوی توام

هندوی خاک سگ کوی توام

هندوی با داغ را مفروش تو

حلقهای کن بنده را در گوش تو

(عطار)

شد بر دل من زلفک هندوی تو چیر

بر بودش و در زیر کله رفت دلیر

میگویمت ای دوست بگو با کُلَهَت

تا هندوی دزد را نگیر در زیر

(کمال اسماعیل)

We note Kamal Ismail uses the word Hinduyeh-Dozd or the Hindu Thief. Something used by other Persian poets including Nizami.

هندویت رانده برشاه خاور سپه

لشکر زنگت آورده بر چین حَشَر

(خواجو)

Hindu beh Azar Sookhtan (Burning the Hindu in the fire=symbolically getting rid of darkness and become day/light):

جون قرصهء آتش فشان گردون گرفت اندر دهان

بنمود بیهندوستان هندو به آذر سوخته

(مجیر بیلقانی)

هندوبار=کنایه از دوات

قلم به یُمن یمنیش چه گرم رو مرغی ست

که خط روم بَرَد دم به دم ز هندوبار

(سعدی)

Hinduvash (Hinu-face=like a slave, servant):

شاها سخن غلام من آمد اگر چه هست

هندووشی که قیمت نیکو نیاورد

(مجیر بیلقانی)

Hinduyeh Atash-neshin (The Hindu sitting in fire=A symbol for the hair of the beloved):

زلف تو هندو نژاد، لعل تو کوثر نهاد

هندوی آتش نشین کوثر آتش نشان

(خواجو)

Hinduyeh Aiinehdaar Cheshm (The Hindu holding the mirror for the eye=a symbol for the blackness of the eye):

هندوی آییینهدار چشم=کنایه از مردمک چشمک

رشاشه از سرشک کند شانه از مژه

پیش رخ هندوی آیینهدار چشم

(کمال اسماعیل)

هندوی بدسودا

هندوی حیلهگر، کنایه از کافر و مشرک

Here the unbeneficial Hindu is compared to a trickster and an unbeliever:

هرک چون هندوی بدسودایی است

روز عرضش نوبت رسوایی است

(مولوی)

Hinduyeh-Basar (The Hindu of the eye=the blackness of the eye):

هندوی بصر – کنایه از مردمک چشم

روی تو کز ترک آفتاب دریغ است

در نظر هندوی بصر که پسندد

رویت ای ترک اگر نخواهم دید

زحمت هندوی بصر که پسندد

(عطار)

Hinduyeh Bakr SalKhurdeh (The old pure Hindu=the black rock of Mecca):

هندوی بکر سالخورده- کنایه از حجرالاسواد

هندوی تیغ – شمشیر و تیغ هندی

هندوی تیغت ز حد شرق تا اقصای غرب

چون شه سیارگان در تحت فرمان

(خواجو)

Hinduyeh Charkh (literally the Hindu Wheel=used as an image for Jupiter)

هندوی چرخ – کنایه از ستارهء زخل، کیوان

هندوی چرخ را ز طالع شاه

لقب خاص سعد اکبر باد

(جمال عبدالرزاق)

برآویخت هندوی چرخ از کمر

به هارونی شب جرسهای زر

(نظامی)

Hinduyeh Choobak zan – (The Hindu with the wooden weapon=symbolically means the head servant)

هندوی چوبک زن – کنایه از مهتر پاسبان

برفراز بام قدرت هندوی چوبک زن است

پاسبانه قلعۀ هفتم که خوانندش رحل

(شمس طبسی)

Hinduyeh Chahaar Paareh Zan-(A symbol of a dancing slave, dancer...)

هندوی چارپاره زن

کنایه از بنده و زر خرید، مطرب، رقاص(چهارپاره زنگهای کوچکی است که رقاصان هنگام رقص در انگشتان کنند و آن را به صدا در آورند)

شارک ز تو مطرب چمن گشت

هندوی چهارپاره زن گشت

(خاقانی)

هندوی زلف

کنایه از سیاهی زلف محبوب

دل را ز بند هندوی زلفت خلاص ده

چون رای مدح میر ملایک خصال کرد

(شمس طبسی)

کارم از هندوی زلفش واژگون

روز من شب شد، شبم روز جنون

(شیخ بهائی)

Hinduyeh-Shab (The Hindu of Night=symbol of the darkness of night)

هندوی شب – کنایه از تاریکی شب

خوش خفتهای که هندوی شب پاسبان تست

ای طفل طبع دزد چه گیری به پاسبان

(مجیر بیلقانی)

باز از هندوی شب چون ماه زاد

در سر روزنی نوری فتاد

(مولوی)

مردم چشم شبی تا سحر پاس داشت

گرچه بر ایوان ماست هندوی شب پاسبان

(خواجو)

Hindu-Guy (Literally one that talks Hindu)

آن که به هندی سخن گوید

ز رومی رخ هندو گوی او

شه رومیان گشته هندوی او

(نظامی)

هندوی مه پوش

کنایه از زلف سیاه شب

از چه روی هندوی مه پوش شما در تاب شد

گر به مستی دوشم آمد دوش بر دوش شما

Hinduyeh-Noh-Chashm (The Hindu with nine eyes=a black reed music instrument with nine holes)

آلتی از موسیقی (نی سیاه) که دارای نه سوراخ است.

جنبش ده ترک لرزهدار ز شادی

هندوی نُه چشم را به بانگ در آورد

(خاقانی)

Hinduyeh-Haft-Chashm (the Hindu with seven eyes=another black reed that has 7 holes)

هندوی هفت چشم

آلتی از موسیقی (نی سیاه) که دارای هفت سوراخ است.

همان زاغ گون هندوی هفت چشم

برآورد فریاد بیدرد و خشم

(اسدی طوسی)

Hindu Haftom Pardeh=One of the stars or planets, Jupiter or Saturn

هندوی هفتم پرده

کنایه از ستارهء زحل یا کیوان

ای به رسم از آغاز دوران داشته

طارم قدرِ تو را هندوی هفتم چرخ پاس

(انوری)

هندوی هفتم سرا

هندوی هفتم سرا حارس ایوان توست

ورنه کجا یافتی منزلت برتری

(شمس طبسی)

Hindi (a symbol of sword, dagger)/Hindish

هندی-کنایه از شمشیر

سحرنماست مصریش، مصر گشاست هندیش

مصری کلک مُلک ده، هندی تیغ جان ستان

(مجیر بیلقانی)

چو هندی زنم بر سر ژنده پیل

زند پیلبان جامه در خُم نیل

(نظامی گنجوی)

Hindi Dragon (symbol of sword, dagger)

هندی اژدها

کنایه از شمشیر و تیغ هندی

آفتاب مشتری حکم و سپهر قطب حلم

زیر دست آورده مصری مار و هندی اژدها

Hindi Parand (Indian Silk=another symbol of sword, dagger)

هندی پرند

ز شادروان، به خاک اندر فکندش

ز دستش بستد آن هندی پرندش

(فخرالدین اسعد گرگانی)

هندی کژمژ سخن

گنایه از غلام و بندهای که شکسته و بسته و نادرست سخن گوید.

من ار باشم ارنه سگ آستانت

ز هندی کژمژ سخن در نماند

(خاقانی)

Hindu-Vash (used as in slave)

شاها سخن غلام من آمد اگر چه هست

هندووشی که قیمت نیکو نیاورد

مجیرالدین بیلقانی

Hinduyeh Atash Neshin (used for the hair of beloved)

زلف تو هندو نژاد، لعل تو کوثر نهاد

هندوی آتش نشین کوثر آتش نشان

خاجو کرمانی

Some examples of the symbolic meaning of Turks as allusion and imagery: Tork (symbol of the beloved, loved one, and the Sun)

نام و ننگ و صبر و هوش و عقل و دینم شد حجاب

ترک من بازآ که سلمان ترک هر شش میکند

(سلمان ساوجی)

ترک عاشق کش من مست برون رفت امروز

تا دگر خون که از دیده روان خواهد بود

(حافظ)

جانهای باطن روشنان شب را به دل روشن کنان

هندوی شب نعره زنان کان تُرک در خرگاه شد

(مولوی

Torkkaar/Torkaar (Turkish work-symbol of aggressiveness)

ای روزی دلها رسان جان کسان و ناکسان

ترکاری و یاغی بسان هموار و ناهموار

(مولوی)

Tork-i-Aseman (The Turk of Sky=symbolically the Sun):

بود چون ترک آسمان به جهان

زیر گلنارگون پرند نهان

(امیر خسرو)

Torkan-i Charkh (The Turk of the Wheel = symbol for the moon, sun and the 5 classical planets: mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn)

ترکان چرخ

کنایه از سیارات هفتگانه که عبارتند از عطارد،زهره، ماه، آفتاب، مشتری، مریخ و زحل.

شب که ترکان چرخ کوچ کنند

کاروان حیات برحذر است

(خاقانی)

ترکان خدیو-پادشاه ترکستان

چو ارجاسب بشنید گفتار دیو

فرود آمد از گاه ترکان خدیو

(دقیقی)

ترکان سخن-کنایه از سخن آبدار و نغز

زان عرضه کند به عرضۀ فکر

ترکان سخن ز خرگه فکر

این ترکانند خانهزادش

خاقانی از لقب فتادش

(خاقانی)

Torkan-i-Falak (The Turks of heaven=reference to the classical seven rotating bodies)

ترکان فلک-کنایه از ستارگان هفتگانه

همه ترکان فلک را پس از این

خلق تتماجی ایشان شمرند

(خاقانی)

Tork Ahu Cheshm (The Turk with the eye like that of Gazzelle- symbol of the beloved)

ترک آهو چشم-کنایه از محبوب

من سگت، ای ترک آهو چشم، برقع بازکن

کز برای دیدن روی تو چشمم چار شد

(هلالی)

Tork-e-Aflak (The Turk of Heaven=a symbol of Mars)

ترک افلاک – کنایه از ستارهء مریخ یا بهرام

در جهان از نیابت قهرت

ترک افلاک قهرمان باشد

(سلمان ساوجی)

ترک پریچهره –کنایه از محبوب زیبا روی

(آن ترک پریچهره که مانند فرشتهست

یارب گل پاکش ز چه ترکیب سرشتست)

(اوحدی)

آن ترک پریچهره که دوش از برما رفت

آیا چه خطا دید که از راه خطا رفت

(حافظ)

Torktaaz (Attacker, someone that attacks like Turks)

ترکتاز – حمله کننده

به دستش اندر شمشیر ترکتاز ببین

ندیدی ار تو به یک جای همبر آتش و آب

(معزی)

ای طبع روسیاه سوی هند باز رو

وی عشق ترکتاز سفر سوی جند کن

(مولوی)

عافیت وقتی ارچه قاعده بود

ترکتاز غم تو آن برداشت

(مجیر بیلقانی)

Torktaaz Kardan, Torktaazi Kardan (To attack in a Turkish manner=literally pillage and plunder)

ترکتاز کردن، ترکتازی کردن

کنایه از تاراج کردن

هجوم بردن به ناگاه، تاخت و تاز کردن

باز فکر تو چشم باز کند

موکب روح ترکتاز کند

(اوحدی)

گر از بهر آن کردی این ترکتاز

که چون بندگان پیشت آرم نماز

(نظامی)

ترکتازی کنم و بوسه پیاپی زنمت

تا که گوید که مزن وز تو که دارد بازم

(جمال عبدالرزاق)

طرف کُله شکستهای آشوب خلق شو

دامان فتنه بر زدهای ترکتاز کن

(سلیم)

ترکتازی – کنایه از تاخت آوردن با شتاب و ناگاه.

ماه با این ترکتازی چیست؟ جز هندوی او

خاصه کو چون قیرگون از قیروان آمد پدید

(مجیر بیلقانی)

ترک ترلکپوش – کنایه از محبوب (ترلک، جامهی آستین کوتاه و پیش باز باشد)

ترک خنجر کش لشکر شکن ترلکپوش

بت خورشید بناگوش و مه دزدی نوش

(خواجو)

ترک تندخو – کنایه از محبوب

فکر کفن کنید آن ترک تندخو

تیغی چنان رساند که از استخوان گذشت

(بابافغانی)

ترکجوش- گوشت نیم پخته و کنایه از ناتمام

این ترک جوش آمد ولی ترجیع سیوم میرسد

ای جان پاکی که ز تو جان میپذیرد دهر جسم

ترک جوشش شرح کردم نیم خام

از حکیم غزنوی بشنو تمام

(مولوی)

Tork-Chihreh (Turkish face=symbol of the beloved)

ترکچهره-کنایه از زیبا و زلف

طفلان طبع من به صفت ترک چهرهاند

وین طرفه تر که ارمنیی بودم مادرم

(مجیر بیلقانی)

ترک چینی نگار- کنایه از محبوب

مکن ترکی ای ترک چینی نگار

بیا ساعتی چین در ابرو میار

(نظامی)

ترکِ حصاری-کنایه از خورشید

جو ترک حصاری ز کار اوفتاد

عروس جهان در حصار افتاد

(نظامی)

Tork Del Siyah (The Turk with the black heart=symbolically means the eye of the beloved)

ترک دل سیه-

کنایه از چشم معشوق

دلم ز نرگس ساقی امان نخواست به جان

چرا که شیوۀ آن ترک سیهدل دانست

(حافظ)

ترک رزم آرای گردون-کنایه از مریخ یا بهرام

ترک رزم آرای گردون گردد اریابد مجال

کمترین هندوت را چاکر ز بهر اختیار

(ابن یمین)

Tork-e-Zard-rooy (The Turk with the yellow face=Symbol for the Sun)

ترک زرد روی-کنایه از آفتاب

عزم سبک عنان تو هر دم به مهر گوید

کای ترک زردروی روی چرا تیزتر نرانی

(شمس طبسی)

ترک سپهر-کنایه از آفتاب

تا به نوروزی شود در خرگه تُرک سپهر

قرص گرم از جرم خور بر گوشۀ خوان یافته

(خواجو)

ترک سلطان شکوه (کنایه از آفتاب)

دگر روز کاین ترک سلطان شکوه

ز دریای چین کوه بر زد کوه

(نظامی)

ترک شکار افکن(کنایه از محبوب)

ای ترک شکار افکن، شمشیر مکش برمن

یا آنکه پس از کشتن بربند به فتراکم

(هلالی)

ترک شکر ریز(کنایه از محبوب)

شهید و تشنۀ آن ترک شکرریزم

که نقل مجلسش نقل سیاه خویشتن بودی

(بابافغانی)

Tork-e-Sobh (The morning Tork=the Sun)

ترک صبح

(کنایه از خورشید)

در پای اسب شام کند اطلس شفق

در جیب ترک صبح نهد عنبر صبا

(عطار)

Tork-e-Sahraayeh Aval (The first Tork of the Sahara-a symbol of the moon)

ترک صحرای اول – کنایه از ماه

ترک این صحر ای اول با جلاجلهای نور

گرد ملکت به طریق پاسبانی آمدهست

(سنائی)

Tork Tab’(Turkish natured=symbol of cruelty and harshness)

ترک طبع- کنایه از ستمگر،جورپیشه

با عدل تو دست ترک طبعان

خوشرویی بوستان گرفته

(مجیر بیلقانی)

ترک طناز-کنایه از محبوب

به گاه شرح چشم ترک طناز

همی کن فتنۀ دور قمر باز

بدید آن نقشها را ترک طناز

ز تخت شاه چین تا دیر ابخاز

(عارف اردبیلی)

ترک عقیقل گیسو- کنایه از محبوب.

خانه روشن شد از آن ماه سجنجل سینه

حجره گلش شد از آن ترک عقیقل گیسوی

(اوحدی)

Tork-e-Falak (The Tork of heaven=symbolizing the planet Mars or the Sun)

ترک فلک-کنایه از ستارۀ مریخ با بهرام و نیز آفتاب

گفته با چشمان تو ترک فلک

بندۀ خونریز هندوی شماست

(ابن یمین)

اگر نه ترک فلک پیش او کمر بندد

فلک به جای کُله بر سرش نهد بنطاق

(سلمان ساوجی)

ترک فلک را ببین داغ حبش بر جبین

طرۀ شب را نگر نافۀ چین در شکن

(خواجو)

غلام است ترک فلکه مر تورا

چو بدخواه تو در عرب راه نیست

(طالب آملی)

چون علم افراخت به پنجم رباط

ترک فلک رُفت به سبلت بساط

(امیر خسرو)

Tork-e-Kafar Kish (The Kaffar (unbeliever) Turk-symbol of the beloved)

ترک کافرکیش-کنایه از محبوب

چیست قصد خونِ من آن ترک کافر کیش را

ای مسلمانان نمیدانم گناه خویش را

(وحشی)

ترک کج کلاه-کنایه از محبوب

گر آن بودی که پختم نیکخواه خویشتن بودی

سر در پای ترک کج کلاه خویشتن است

(بابا فغانی)

ترک کمانکش – کنایه از محبوب

ترک کمان کشم به کمین میکشد ولی

ترک هوای عشق گرفتن نمیتوان

(حلاج)

ترک گردون-کنایه از ستارۀ مریخ یا بهرام

ترک گردون که میخرامد کج

مستِ ته جرعۀ سفال من است

(فیضی)

ترک وار – همچون ترک حملهکنان

خیز تا ترک وار در تازیم

هندوان را در آتش تازیم

(نظامی)

ترک و تاز – کنایه از تاراج و غارت و جولان

غافلم از ترک و تاز چراغ صائب از غرور

پیش پای سیل بیزنهار در خوابیم ما

(صائب)

ترکوش-مانند ترک و کنایه از زیبا و و دوست داشتنی

ای جوان ترکوش میر کدامین لشکری

ای خوشا آن کشوری کانجا تو صاحب کشوری

(وحشی)

ترکی آوردن-کنایه از سخت گرفتن-سنگدلی کردن.

اگر تتار غمت خشم و ترکیی آرد

به عشق و صبر کمر بسته چو خرگاهم

(مولوی)

ترکی تاز کردن – کنایه از با شتاب تاختن.

طوطی مرده چنان پرواز کرد

کتآفتاب شرق ترکی تاز کرد (مولوی)

ترکی صفتی- کنایه از بیوفایی و عهدشکنی

ترکی صفتی وفای ما نیست

ترکانه سخن سزای ما نیست

(نظامی)

تُرکی کردن-کنایه از جور و ستم کردن، سخت دلی کردن، کینه ورزی کردن.

مینبینید آن سفیهانی که ترکی کردهاند

همچو چشم تنگ ترکان گور ایشان تنگ و تار

(سنائی)

خون خوری ترکانه کاین از دوستی است

خون مخور، ترکی مکن، تازان مشو

(خاقانی)

مکن ترکی ای میل من سوی تو

که ترُک توام بلکه هندوی تو

(نظامی)

Some examples of the symbolic usage of Rum(Greek) in Persian allusion and imagery: Rum o Zang (Greek and Black=Day and Night)

روم و زنگ-کنایه از شب و روز، روشنی و تاریکی،

سوم روز کاین طاق بازیچه رنگ

برآورد بازیچۀ روم و زنگ

(نظامی گنجوی)

هر زمانی همی رسد مددش

دو سپه روز و شب ز روم و زنگ

(مسعود سعد)

Rumi (Greek=Sun, brightness)

رومی-کنایه از روشنایی، آفتاب

نماید گهی رومی از بیم پشت

گریزان و آن زرد خنجر به مشت

(اسدی طوسی)

رومی پنهان گشت چو دوران حبش رسید

امروز در این لشکر جرار برآمد

(مولوی)

Rumiyaaneh Roo Daashtan (Having the face of a Greek=bright face, light face, beautiful face)

رومیانه رو داشتن-کنایه از سفید چهره، زیبا روی بودن.

رومیانه روی دارد، زنگیانه زلف و خال

چون کمان چاچیان ابروی دارد پر عتیب

(سعدی)

رومی ابیض-کنایه از روز روشن

از روی تو و موی تو دارند نشانی

این رومی ابیض دگر آن شامی اسود

(ابن حسام)

Rumi Bachegan (Greek Kids=tear drops of the eye)

خون گریم وز دو هندوی چشم

رومی بچگان دوان ببینم

(خاقانی)

Rumiyeh Talkh (The bitter Greek=a bitter wine)

رومی تلخ –کنایه از شراب تلخ.

حدیث جامی و شیرین شدن به رومی تلخ

کرامتی است که از پیر جام میگوید

(جامی)

رومی خوی-کنایه از دو رنگ و متلون المزاج.

هوا چون خاک پای و آز خوک پایگاهت شد

خراج از دهر ذمی روی رومی خوی بستانی

(خاقانی)

رومی رخ- کنایه از زیبا روی.

رومی رخی و باد چو بر زلف تو جهد

از مشک ساده شکل چلیپا همی کند.

(ادیب صابر)

رومی ِ روم بودن- کنایه از یکرو و یکرنگ و یکدل و باصفا بودن.

دلت از یاد حق چیزی ندانست

همه میل ِ دلت با چینه دان است

اگر رومی ِ رومی در حقیقت

چرا میل ِ دلت با زنگیان است؟

(قاسم انوار)

رومیزاد، رومیزاده-کنایه از روشن و درخشان

شاه رومی زادۀ خورشید را گوی

برمکش تیغ از میان آفرینش

تیره کرده آسمان به دودۀ شب

چهرۀ اختران رومی زاد

(شمس طبسی)

رومی زن رعنا – کنایه از آفتاب

گرچه زان آیند خاتون عرب را نگرند

در پس آینه رومی زن رعنا بینند

(خاقانی)

رومی سلب – جامۀ رومی

آزاده دلی است بندگی کوش

صوفی صفتی است ششتری پوش

رومی سلبی است لیک محروم

زنگی طربی است لیک با غم

(خاقانی)

رومی و زنگی – کنایه از روزگار، شب و روز سپید و سیاهی.

مگر با من این بیمحابا پلنگ

چو رومی و زنگی نباشد دو رنگ

(نظامی)

بدین دو رومی و زنگی گر اعتبار کنی

ز روم تا در زنگبار بگشاید

(ظهیر فاریابی)

دو قرن رومی و زنگی عنان در پار دُم بسته

به گیرد قبۀ ازرق همی یابند از جولان

(اثیر اخسیتکی)

الا تا روز با شب دو رنگی است

زمانه گاه رومی گاه زنگی است

(امیر خسرو)

رومی و زنگی نمودن جهان-کنایه از روشنی و تیرگی شب و روز.

جهان را نیست کاری جز دو رنگی

گهی رومی نماید گهی زنگی

(نظامی)

رومیوش – مانند رومی و کنایه از صاف و روشن.

بیا ساقی آن می که رومیوش است

به من ده که طبعم چون زنگی خش است

(نظامی)

Some examples of the symbolic usage of Zang/Habash (Blacks/Ethiopians) in Persian poetic allusions and imageries: Habashi (Abyssenian/Black=symbol of blackness, symbol of darkness of the beloved’s hair)

حبشی

کنایه از سیاه رنگ- سیاه چهر-سیاه زلف

یکانیکان حبشی چهره و یمانی اصل

همه بلال معانی همه اویس هنر

(خاقانی)

حبشزلف یمانی رخ زنگیخال

که چو ترکانش تتق رومی خضرا بینند

(خاقانی)

Zangi (Black/ symbol of the darkness and darkness of night)

زنگی – کنایه از سیاهی و تاریکی شب

گهی آید آن زنگی تاخته

ز سیمین سپر نیمی انداخته

(اسدی طوسی)

در عزیمت و هزیمت هر زمان زنگی و روم

این گران کردی رکاب و آن سبک کردی عنان

(سید حسن غزنوی)

زنگیانه-همچو زنگیان – کنایه از سیاه

رومیانه روی دارد زنگیانه زلف و خال

چو کمان چاچیان ابروی دارد پرعتیب

(سعدی)

خاقانی است هندوی آن هندوانه زلف

و آن زنگیانه خال سیاه مدورش

(خاقانی)

زنگی بچگان-کنایه از خال سیاه محبوب

در گلشن بوستان رویش

زنگی بچگان ز ماده زاده

(سعدی)

زنگی بچگان تاک-کنایه از خوشههای انگور سیاه.

انداخته هندوی کدیور

زنگی بچگانِ تاک را سر

سرهای تهی ز طرۀ کاخ

آویخته هم به طرۀ شاخ

(نظامی)

زنگی بچگان زر-کنایه از دانههای انگور سیاه

خونِ زنگی ب&