A brief Persian history of the Saljūqs in Iran (1037-1194/428-590) by Zahir al-Din Zahiri Neishapūri (d.1187/582).
The oldest Saljuq dynastic history available today is Zahir al-Din Neishapūri. It is known to historians as Saljūq-nāma and has long been regarded as the fundamental source from which other comparable histories are derived (Cahen, p. 73). It was believed to be irrevocably lost, but Isma’il Afshar discovered an incomplete manuscript of it within the book Tariḵ-e Gozida and a complete copy within Zobdat al-Tawariḵ by Abol Qāsem Kashāni and after comparing them with yet another copy, published Saljūq-nāma in 1953 (Neishapūri, p. 8; Cahen, p. 73; Meisami, 1999, p. 229).
Zahir al-Din was in the service of Sultan Ma’sūd b. Mohammad (1133-52) as the tutor to two Saljūq princes including Mas’ud’s nephew Arsalan b. Tuqrul (1176) (Daniel, 2012, p. 150). He wrote his history after Tuqrul b. Arsalan's accession (1176) and before Atbak Jahn Pahlvan's death (1186) (Rāvandi, pp. 64-65). The author wrote the history of the Saljūqs from the rise of Toqrol I (1037-1063) the founder of the Saljūq dynasty to power until the death of Mo’ez al-Din Arsalān (d. 1176) and the rise of Toqrol III to the throne (1176-1194). In 1203, Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Ebrahim authored the final chapter, which ended with Toqrol III's death, the last Saljuq sultan.
Saljūq-nāma is written in simple and non-rhetorical language. It is a relatively brief text and likely to be “regarded as disappointing” by anyone looking for substantive history information (Morton, p.30). However, since it is the first Persian historical work of the Saljūq era with an analytical view of historical events, as well as the scarcity of historical works under the Saljūqs, the true importance of this book continues to stand (p. Cohen, 289).
Saljūq-nāma includes an introduction and fourteen chapters. A brief, deep introduction provides insight into the viewpoints of the historian of his time. In his brief preface Neishapūri states that in all creation there are four classes of God’s elect: the cherubim, the angels, prophets, religious leaders, and just rulers. Emphasizing the status of ruler in the society, Neishapūri specifies that he should be equipped with Shari'at knowledge, knowledge about the conduct of kings and the accounts and the history of rulers (Neishapūri, pp. 9-10). The first chapter gives a succinct account of the Saljūqs rise to power during the reigns of Mahmūd (999-1030) and Mas’ud (1030-1040), the Ghaznavid Sultans (Neishapūri, pp.12-13; Meisami, 1999, p.231). Each chapter gives a brief account of the Sultans' reign, their moral and physical appearance, measures, and lists of their viziers and other officials (Daniel, p.152).
Saljūq-nāma examines the history of the Saljq Sultans and the roles of Amirs and viziers in the rise and fall of the Saljūq dynasty. It was written in the last years of the Saljūq’s rule, when their golden age had already passed and he looked back at the glory days of the former rulers he had served (Daniel, p. 151). But when he considered the events of past years and his own times, Neishapūri developed a profound analysis of the reasons for the Saljqs' decline. His vivid analytical report of the conflicts among sultans, Amirs, and viziers and his attention to the role of military commanders in the political structure (whom Zahir al-Din refers to as Amirs) distinguish this specific work from other historical sources on the Saljūqs (Jafarian & Kamali, p.44).
Saljūq-nāma provides a detailed account of the status and role of Amirs in raising the Sultans to power; men like Malekshah ibn Mahmūd (1153) (Neishapūri, p. 66) or their role in removing them from the throne such as Solayman ibn Mohammad ibn Malikshah (1160) who was replaced with Sultan Arsalan (1063-1073) (Neishapūri, p. 73). In addition, it provides an account of Amir’s roles in the murder of viziers like Majd al-Mulk Baravostani, the vizier of Barkiaroq (1096-1105) or Fakhr al-Din Kashi, the vizier of Sulayman Shah (r.1160) (Neishapūri, p. 69), and Kamal al-Din Mohammad ibn Hossein the vizier of Sultan Mas’ud ibn Mohhamad ibn Malikshah (r. 1174), the one who was determined to organize the Eqta and financial affairs: “He was completely aware of the affairs, hence, he did not respect Amirs and gave equal pensions to the troops”(Neishapūri, p. 57).
The volume emphasizes the mutual benefit of collaboration between Amirs and viziers. Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk in particular attempted to restrict the exclusive power of the Amirs to become an inclusive one under the Sultan and his vizier's supervision but failed (Neishapūri, p. 29-30, Jafarian & Kamali, p. 47-48). The main obstacle to viziers' success to limit Amir power was the tight unity among Amirs to meet their common objectives (Jafarian & Kamali, p. 49). To increase their power and influence, Amirs united against the Sultan. To be specific, Neishapūri recounts that the conquest of Ray, the capital of the Saljūqs of Jebal and as a consequence the murder of Toqrol III, the last sultan of the Saljūqs, was instigated by Amirs whom Neishapūri refers to as “Omara’e Ma’rūf”(Neishapūri, p.91).
The murder of ‘Amid al-Molk Kondori (d.1156), the vizier of Alp Arsalan inspired by Khwaja Nezam al-Molk, is one of the main chapters of the book. In this chapter, Neishapri differentiates between the divisive measures of the viziers and the well-organized actions of the Amirs. Before his death, Amid al-Molk asked that his message be sent to the newly appointed vizier, Khwaja Nizam al-Molk: “You have introduced an evil innovation (bed’at) and a foul principle of {qa’edat} by killing a vizier” (Neishapūri, p. 24; Meisami, 2012, p. 51).
With this dramatic account, Neishapūri explains that unity among bureaucrats, and particularly viziers, was the guarantee that restricted the exclusive power of Amirs. The full objective was not fulfilled. Neishapūri concludes his account of the murder succinctly, “From that time onward no vizier died a natural death” (Neishapūri, p.24; tr. Meisami, 2012, p.51).
The analytical account of Saljūq-nāma about the Saljūqs from the time of their appearance in Khorasan until their collapse by the Khwārazmshah in Ray ultimately became the main source for the more well-known work by Rāhat al-Sodūr-e Rāvandi (Melville, p.24; Daniel, p.152; Morton, pp. 9-20) and as such is a critical marker in the history of the period and the dynasty.
Maryam Kamali
Bibliography
Claude Cahen “The Historiography of the Seljukid Period”, Historians of the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt, 59-78, London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Elton, M. Daniel, The Rise and Development of Persian Historiography, Melville, Charles, Persian Historiography, (a History of Persian Literature, X), General Editor, Ehsan Yarshater, London, New York: I.B Tauris, 2012.
Maryam Kamali, “Nezā’e Qodrat dar Hokūmat-e Saljūqi be Revāyat-e Saljūqnāma-ye Zahir al-Din Neishāpuri,” Pajūheshha-ye ‘Olūm-e Tārikhi, 2, 2013, pp.39-58.
Julie Scott Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
A.H. Morton, The Saljūqnameh of Zahir al-Din Neishapūri, Warminister: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004.
Mohammad ibn Ali Ravandi, Rāhāt al-Sodūr wa Ayat al-Sorur, ed. Mohammad Eqbal, intro. Badi’ al-Zamān Foruzānfar & Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran: Asatir, 2011.
Zahir al-Din Zahiri Neishapūri, Saljūqnāma, including Zayl-e Saljūqnāma by Abu Hamed Mohammad ibn Ebrahim, ed. Mirza Esma’iel Afshār & Mohammad Ramezāni Kolāla Khwāvar, Tehran: Asatir, 2011.