Literary History of Persia
Yüklə 1,57 Mb.
|
|
[page 65] the rest of his realms being for the moment tranquil, at once marched into Khurásán to meet him, visiting on his way the Shrine of the Imám ‘Alí Riḍá at Mashhad, so sacred in Shí‘a eyes. The decisive battle was fought on Dec. 1 or 2, 1510, at Ṭáhir-ábád near Merv, where, after a stubborn and protracted conflict, the Uzbeks were utterly defeated and Shaybání killed. When his body was found under a heap of slain, Sháh Isma‘íl ordered the limbs to be cut off and distributed to different parts of his kingdom, and the head to be stuffed with straw and sent as a grim gift to the Ottoman Sulṭán Báyazíd II at Constantinople139. The bones of the skull he caused to be mounted in gold and made into a drinking-cup for his own use, and one hand he sent to Áqá Rustam Rúz-afzún, the ruler of Mázandarán, by a special messenger, Darwísh Muḥammad Yasá’úl, who cast the hand on to Rustam’s skirt as he sat amidst his courtiers at Sárí, crying “Thou didst say, ‘My hand on Shaybak Khán’s skirt’ (dast-i-man-ast u dáman-i-Shaybak Khán)140: lo, his hand is now on thy skirt!” So astounded were those present by this audacity that none lifted a hand to stay the messenger’s departure, and Rustam received so great a shock that he soon afterwards sickened and died. Of the drinking-cup the following grim anecdote is told. One of Shaybání’s trusted advisers, Khwája Kamálu’d-Dín Ságharchí, saved his life by professing the Shí‘a faith, and was admitted into the service of Sháh Isma‘íl. One day at a banquet the latter, pointing to the drinking-cup, asked him if he recognized the skull of his late master. “Yes, glory be to God,” replied Kamálu’d-Dín; “and how favoured by fortune was [page 66] he! Nay, fortune still abides with him, so that even now he rests in the hands of so auspicious a being as thyself, who continually drinks the Wine of Delight!” 
Shaybání Khán was sixty-one years of age at the time of his death and had reigned eleven years. He was, as already stated, a fanatical Sunní and had grievously persecuted the Shí‘a in his dominions: now it was the Sunnís who suffered in their turn at the hands of Sháh Isma‘íl. The Uzbek power, in spite of this disaster, was far from being broken, and, though a formal peace was concluded between them and the Persians a few months afterwards, they had an ample revenge at the battle of Ghujduwán, where Bábur and his Persian allies suffered a disastrous defeat and many of their leaders, including Najm-i-Thání, were slain in November, 1512. During the whole of the sixteenth century they were a constant menace to Persia, and accounts of their raids into Khurásán occur with monotonous iteration in the pages of the Persian historians of this period. We must now turn to the far more important relations of Persia with the Ottoman Turks at this period, on which more light is thrown by the State Papers so industriously compiled and edited by Firídún Bey in 982/1574 under the title of Munsha’át-i-Saláṭín (“Correspondence of the Kings”)141 than by [page 67] most of the Persian or Turkish historians. These letters, which passed between successive Ottoman Sulṭáns and neighbouring rulers, as well as between them and their sons, ministers and governors, are sometimes in Turkish and sometimes in Persian or Arabic. Unfortunately many of them are undated. They have hitherto been so little used that no apology is needed for summarizing the contents or indicating the purport of such of them as concern the Ṣafawís down to the death of Sháh Isma‘íl in 930/1523-4, that is, during the reigns of the Ottoman Sulṭáns Báyazíd II (886-918/1481-1512), Salím I (918-926/1512-1520), and the first four years of Sulaymán “the Magnificent” (926-930/1520-1524). (1) From Ya‘qúb Pádisháh of the “White Sheep” dynasty to Sulṭán Báyazíd, announcing the defeat and death of Shaykh Ḥaydar (Sháh Isma‘íl’s father), (p. 309). This letter, in Persian, is undated, but must have been written soon after Shaykh Ḥaydar, who is called the “President of the people of error” (Sar-i-ḥalga-i-arbáb-i-ḍalál), was killed on June 30, 1488. The writer assumes that the news of the destruction of “these misguided rebels, enemies of the Prophetic Dispensation and foes of Church and State” will be welcome to all good Muslims. (2) Sulṭán Báyazíd’s answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (p. 311). Congratulations are offered to Ya‘qúb on the victory of “the Báyandarí142 hosts of salvation” over the “misguided Ḥaydarí faction” (gurúh-i-ḍálla-i-Ḥaydariyya). (3) From Sháh Isma‘íl to Sulṭán Báyazíd II, requesting that his disciples in Asia Minor may not be prevented from visiting him at Ardabíl (p. 345). This letter, undated and in Persian, is important as proving how numerous were the partisans of the Ṣafawís in the Ottoman dominions.
(5) From Sháh Isma‘íl to Sulṭán Báyazíd on the same subject, also in Persian and undated (pp. 346-7). He explains that he has been compelled to enter Ottoman territory to chastise his foes, but intends thereby no unfriendly or disrespectful act towards Báyazíd, and has strictly enjoined his soldiers to respect the persons and property of the inhabitants. (6) Sulṭán Báyazíd’s answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (p. 347). Báyazíd accepts Isma‘íl’s assurances, and has ordered his officials to co-operate with him in a friendly spirit. (7) From Alwand, the Áq-Qoyúnlú ruler of Persia, to Sulṭán Báyazíd, in Persian, except the Arabic prologue, and undated (pp. 351-2). Alwand announces the arrival of Báyazíd’s envoy Maḥmúd Áqá Cháwúsh-báshi with his master’s letter, urging the Báyandarí or Áq-Qoyúnlú family to unite against their common enemy, the “rascally Red-heads” (Awbásh-i-Qizil-básh). Alwand promises to do his best, whether his relations help him or not, provided he can count on material and moral support from Báyazíd. (8) Báyazíd’s answer to the above, also in Persian and undated (pp. 352-3). He commends Alwand’s resolve, and promises help against the “rebellious horde of the Qizil-báshes” (ṭa’ifa-i-bághiya-i-Qizil-báshiyya). (9) From Báyazíd to Ḥájji Rustam Beg the Kurd, in Persian, dated Rabí‘ i, 908/September 1502 (p. 353). He asks for correct information as to the doings of the Qizil-báshes and the result of their struggle with the Áq-Qoyúnlú or Báyandarí princes, to be communicated to his envoy Kaywán Cháwúsh. [page 69] (10) Ḥájji Rustam’s reply to the above, in Persian and undated (pp. 353-4). The writer states that the “religion-rending Qizil-báshes” (Qizil-básh-i-Madhhab-kharásh), having defeated Alwand and Murád of the Áq-Qoyúnlú family, are now seeking an alliance with Egypt against the Ottoman Turks, and are advancing on Mar‘ash and Diyár Bakr. (11) From Sulṭán Báyazíd to Sulṭán Ghúrí of Egypt, in Arabic, dated 910/1504-5 (pp. 354-5). This letter contains an allusion to “the man who has appeared in the Eastern countries and defeated their ruler and overcome their peoples,” which, as appears from the answer, refers to Sháh Isma‘íl, or possibly Sháh-qulí. (12) Answer to the above, in Arabic, undated (pp. 355-6). This letter contains a reference to “the victory of the misguided Qizil-báshí faction in the Eastern countries,” described as a “public calamity which has appeared in those regions.”
“After so many troubles,” says Knolles, “Bajazet gave himself unto a quiet course of life, spending most part of his time in study of Philosophy and conference with learned men; unto which peaceable kind of life he was of his own natural disposition more enclined than to Wars; albeit that the regard of his State and the earnest desire of his Men of War drew him oftentimes even against his Will into the Field. As for the Civil Government of his Kingdom he referred it wholly to his three principal Bassaes, Alis, Achmetes and Jachia145, who at their pleasure disposed of all things. After that he had in this quiet and pleasing kind of life to his great contentment passed over five years, of a little neglected Spark suddainly arose such a Fire in Asia as was hardly after with much blood of his People and danger of that part of his Empire quenched; the reliques whereof yet trouble those superstitious People at this day. Which thing was brought to pass by the crafty device of Chasan Chelife and Schach Culi his Boy (whom some call Teckel Scachoculu and others Techellis)146, two Hypocritical Persians; who flying into those countries and with the counterfeit shew of feigned Holiness having procured to themselves a great name amongst those rude People, with a number of windy headed Followers (filled with the novelty of their new [page 71] Doctrine) raised first such a diversity of opinions about the true successors of their untrue Prophet, and afterwards such a Rebellion amongst the People, as that the one yet remaineth, and the other was not in a good while after without great bloodshed appeased.” There follows a lengthy account of this dangerous rebellion, in which the Turks suffered several severe reverses and lost many notable officers, including the Grand Vezír Khádim ‘Alí Pasha, ere the rebels were dispersed, killed, or driven into Persia. Instead of rewarding or comforting the fugitives, however, Sháh Isma‘íl put many of them to death at Tabríz, because, as Knolles says147, they had plundered a caravan of rich merchants; but, according to the most modern Turkish historian148 in order to clear himself of complicity in the eyes of Báyazíd. Knolles adds that “Techellis himself (i.e. Sháh-qulí), to the terror of others, was burnt alive”; but, according to the Turkish historian, he fell at the same time as ‘Alí Pasha in the battle of Gyuk Cháy, between Síwás and Qayṣariyya, in which statement the Aḥsanu’t-Tawáríkh149 agrees. “Techellis thus put to flight,” continues Knolles, “Jonuses150 caused strait inquisition to be made through all the Cities of the lesser Asia for all such as had professed the Persian Religion; and them whom he found to have borne Arms in the late Rebellion he caused to be put to death with most exquisite torments and the rest to be burnt in their Foreheads with an hot Iron, thereby forever to be known; whom together with the Kinsfolks and Friends of them that were executed or [page 72] fled with Techellis he caused to be transported into Europe and to be dispersed through Macedonia, Epirus and Peleponnesus, for fear lest if Techellis, now fled into the Persian Kingdom, should from thence return with new Forces, they should also again repair unto him and raise a new Rebellion. This was the beginning, course, and ending of one of the most dangerous Rebellions that ever troubled the Turkish Empire; wherein all, or at leastwise the greatest part, of their Dominions in Asia might have been easily surprised by the Persian King, if he would thoroughly have prosecuted the occasion and opportunity then offered.” These events are placed by Knolles in A.D. 1508, but by the Aḥsanu’t-Tawáríkh in 917/1511-12, the year before Báyazíd’s death. It is curious that little or nothing is said by the Persian historians about this massacre of the Shí‘a in Turkey, which von Hammer describes as one of the most dreadful deeds ever perpetrated in the name of Religion, not excepting the cruelties of the Inquisition or the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. That most of the Turkish historians ignore it is less astonishing, since it can hardly be a matter of pride for them. Knolles appears to be mistaken in placing it in the reign of Báyazíd II, for there can hardly have been two such massacres, and one certainly took place in 1514 after the accession of Salím, as witnessed by Nicolo Giustiniani in an account dated October 7 of that year151. The number of victims is placed by Sa‘du’d-Dín, Soláq-záda and ‘Alí Abu’l-Faḍl, the son of Idrís of Bitlís, at 40,000. The particulars given by the last-named writer, quoted by von Hammer in the original Persian verse transliterated into the Roman character, are as follows152: [page 73] 
Von Hammer’s translation, which can hardly be bettered, runs as follows: “Der Sultan wohlbewandert, voll Verstand, Schickt kund’ge Schreiber aus in jedes Land; Aufzeichnen sollen sie nach Stamm und Stammen Die Jünger dieses Volks mit Nahm und Nahmen. Von sieben Jahren bis auf siebzig Jahr Bring’ im Diwan die List’ ein jeder dar. Es waren Vierzigtausend grad enthalten In den Verzeichnissen von Jung und Alten, Die Bringer dieser Listen wurden dann Gesandt an die Statthalter mit Ferman. Wo immer hin die Feder war gekommen, Ward Fuss für Fuss das Schwert zur Hand genommen. Es wurden hingerichtet in dem Land Mehr als die Zahl, die in den Listen stand.” Turning now once more to the Munsha’át of Firídún Bey, we find the following letters belonging to the reign of Sulṭán Salím which bear on his relations with Persia. (13) From Sulṭán Salím to ‘Ubayd Khán the Uzbek, in Persian, dated the end of Muḥarram, A.H. 920 (March 27, 1514), only five months before the Battle of Cháldirán (pp. 374-7). In this long letter, sent by the hand of a certain Muḥammad Bey, Salím denounces “that vile, impure, sinful, slanderous, reprehensible and blood-thirsty [page 74] Ṣúfí-cub” (to wit Sháh Isma‘íl), “at whose hands the people of the Eastern lands are rendered desperate” 
and calls upon ‘Ubayd Khán to do his part in avenging the death of his father Shaybak Khán. (14) Answer to the above, also in Persian, dated the end of Jumáda ii, 920 (August 21, 1514), pp. 377-9. In this letter ‘Ubayd Khán describes how he has already avenged his father and slain “the lesser dog, agent and lieutenant of the greater dog (i.e. Sháh Isma‘íl), who in his quintessential folly had conferred on him the title of Najm-i-Thání153,” and promises to aid the Turkish Sulṭán in extirpating the “inconsiderable remnant” (15) From Sulṭán Salím to Sháh Isma‘íl, in Persian, dated Ṣafar, 920 (April, 1514), pp. 379-381. This letter, written in the most arrogant and offensive tone, calls on Isma‘íl to repent of his heresies and evil practices, especially the cursing of “the two Shaykhs” (Abú Bakr and ‘Umar), and threatens, should he continue obdurate, to invade and wrest from him “the lands which he has usurped by violence.” (16) From Sulṭán Salím to Muḥammad Beg Áq-Qoyúnlú, in Persian, dated the end of Ṣafar, 920 (April 25, 1514), pp. 381-2, congratulating him on the sound Sunní principles of himself and his family and subjects, and inviting his co-operation against the “heretical ‘Red-heads’.” [page 75] (17) Reply to the above, in Persian, dated the end of Rabí‘ ii, 920 (June 23, 1514), p. 382. From this it appears that Salím’s letter was brought by an envoy named Aḥmad Ján, who took back the answer, and that the writer was in great fear that the correspondence might be discovered. (18) Sulṭán Salím’s second letter to Sháh Isma‘íl, in Persian and undated, pp. 382-3. In this letter Salím lays claim to the Caliphate, accuses Sháh Isma‘íl and his family of heresy and immorality, and calls on him to repent and suffer Persia to be annexed to the Ottoman dominions. (19) Sulṭán Salím’s third letter to Isma‘íl, in Turkish, dated the end of Jumáda i, 920 (July 23, 1514) and written from Arzinján, taunting him with his apparent unwillingness to try the fortune of battle. (20) Sháh Isma‘íl’s reply to Sulṭán Salím’s three letters, in Persian and undated (pp. 384-5). This is apparently the letter to which Creasy refers in his History of the Ottoman Turks (ed. 1877, pp. 136-7)) for the writer hints that Salím’s secretary must have written under the influence of bang or opium, and sends a gold casket filled with a special preparation of one or both of these narcotics, sealed with the Royal Seal, by the hand of his messenger Sháh-qulí Ághá. (21) Sulṭán Salím’s fourth letter to Isma‘íl, in Turkish, dated the end of Jumáda ii, 920 (August 21, 1514)) again challenging him to battle.
Sulṭán Salím, greatly elated by his success, immediately despatched the usual bombastic proclamations of victory (fatḥ-náma) to his son Sulaymán, to the Khán of the Crimea, to the Kurdish chieftains, to Sulṭán Murád, the last of the Áq-Qoyúnlú or “White Sheep” dynasty, to Sháh Rustam of Luristán, to the Governor of Adrianople, and others. The texts of these documents are given by Firídún Bey (pp. 386-96), but they are followed (pp. 396-407) by a document of much greater historical value, namely a detailed journal of the movements of the Turkish army from the time they marched out of Adrianople on Muḥarram 3, 920 (March 20, 1514) until they returned to winter at Amásiya at the end of the same year (Nov.-Dec., 1514). They marched in 105 stages from Adrianople to Tabríz by way of Constantinople, Caesarea, Síwás, Arzinján, Cháldirán, Khúy and Marand; thence back to Amásiya in 58 stages, by way of Nakhjuwán, Jisr-i-Júbán, and Bayburt. They erected a pyramid of the skulls of their enemies on the field of battle, handed over to Ja‘far Bey one of Sháh Isma‘íl’s wives who fell into their hands, and massacred Khálid Bey and 150 of his Qizil-básh companions at the village of Sáḥilán the day before they entered Tabríz, in which city, however, they seem to have behaved with [page 77] moderation, as even the Persian historian of Sháh Isma‘íl testifies155. Sulṭán Salím remained there only about a week (Sept. 6-14, 1514), when he departed, taking with him the Tímúrid Prince Badí‘u’z-Zamán, the fugitive son of the late Sulṭán Abu’l-Ghází Ḥusayn ibn Bayqará156, and a number of skilled artisans whom he proposed to settle in his dominions. Within two or three weeks of his departure Sháh Isma‘íl was back in Tabríz. According to Sir John Malcolm157, “the effect of so great a reverse upon the sanguine mind of Isma‘íl was deep and lasting, and though before of a cheerful disposition he was never afterwards seen to smile.” But as a matter of fact the defeat, decisive as it was, had little permanent effect, since the discontent and nostalgia of the Janissaries compelled the Ottoman Sulṭán to withdraw from Persian territory, and, save for the extirpation of the little Dhu’l-Qadar dynasty158 at Kamákh near Arzinján in the spring of A.D. 1515, his martial ardour was fully occupied, until his death in A.D. 1520, with the subjection of Egypt, Syria and Arabia. Sháh Isma‘íl, on his return to Tabríz after the battle of Cháldirán, sent a very polite and apologetic letter159 by the hand of Núru’d-Dín ‘Abdu’l-Wahháb to Sulṭán Salím, who, apparently, vouchsafed no reply, but some months later (end of Rajab, 921 = Sept. 9. 1515) wrote in Turkish a long letter to ‘Ubayd Khán the Uzbek inciting him to persecute the Shí‘a160. [page 78] The documents connected with Sulṭán Salím’s reign fill another 84 pages of Firídún Bey’s compilation161, but, with one notable exception, contain only incidental abusive references to Sháh Isma‘íl. The exception is formed by two poems, one in Persian and the other in Turkish, addressed to Sulṭán Salím by an unpatriotic Persian named Khwája Iṣfahání, probably identical with Khwája Mawláná-yi-Iṣfahání, a fanatical Sunní who attached himself to the Uzbek Shaybak Khán, and whose death is recorded in the Aḥsanu’t-Tawáríkh under the year 927/1521162. The following verses from the Persian poem will suffice to give an idea of its character. 
[page 79] 
“O messenger of auspicious aspect, carry my prayer to the victorious King. Say, ‘O King of all the World, thou art today accredited in valour. Thou didst lay the foundations of Religion in the World; thou didst restore the Holy Law of Muṣṭafá [Muḥammad]. Religion hath been renovated by thy zeal, the World lies under the burden of thy favour. If the realm of the Holy Law is firmly established, it is all through the fortune Yüklə 1,57 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
of the “rascally infidels and heretical ‘Red-heads’” 
