Muhammad Riza Mirab Agahi, Jami al-vaqiat-i sultani

336 Pages·2.168 MB·Arabic

by  Ташев Н.И.

HISTORY OF CENTRAL ASIA IN MANUSCRIPTS
International Editorial Board:
Bakhram Abdukhalimov
Bakhtiyor Babajanov
Devin DeWeese
Hisao Komatsu
Shahin Mustafayev
Jürgen Paul
ĀGAHĪ MUḤAMMAD RIŻĀ MĪRĀB, JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ.
Edited by Nouryaghdi Tashev. Samarkand-Tashkent: IICAS, 2012.
Text: 269 pages. Introduction (in English and in Russian): 63 pages
ISBN 978-9943-11-089-2
© International Institute for Central Asian Studies
AL-BIRUNI INSTITUTE
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
FOR CENTRAL ASIAN STUDIES
REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
MUḤAMMAD RIŻĀ MĪRĀB ĀGAHĪ
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
Edited
in the original Central Asian Turki
with an Introduction and Notes
by
Nouryaghdi Tashev
Samarkand - Tashkent
2012
INTRODUCTION
The Author
The Qongrats came to power following a lengthy struggle for political mastery between the
major tribes of the Khanate of Khiva in the power vacuum which followed the collapse of the
‘Arabshāhid dynasty (r. 1511 – early 18th century). By 1770, at the latest, when their leader
Muḥammad Amīn Inaq (1175-1205/1762-1791) expelled the occupying Yomut Turkmens from
Khiva, the Qongrats had good reason to regard themselves as masters of the country. In contrast
to their ‘Arabshāhid predecessors, however, the Qongrat tribal chiefs, who bore the title of inaq,
did not boast Chingizid descent: without an inherited claim to supreme authority, they thus
initially adopted the time-honoured expedient of presenting themselves as regents acting on
behalf of khanal puppets descended – or at least supposedly so – from Chingiz Khan. Defying this
tradition, however, in 1804 Eltüzär Inaq (r. as khan in 1219-1221/1804-1806) formally assumed
the khanal title, thus signaling the accession of a new dynasty which was to rule Khorezm up
until the “revolution” of 1920. Such a breach of traditional practice compelled the early Qongrat
khans to embark on both military and ideological campaigns in order to entrench their claims
to authority. They used various legitimizing projects comparable to those undertaken by other
incoming regimes over the course of history, 1 notable among these being artistic patronage. Even
before Eltüzär’s assumption of the khanal title, the Qongrats had used such patronage as a means
of disseminating messages about their claim to rule. One important instance of this practice was
the commissioning of translations into Turki 2 of several works in Persian made in the end of the
18th and the first quarter of the 19th century.
Amongst the earliest such projects were the translations into Turki of three works by a certain
Muḥammad Qāsim b. Mullā Nadr Muḥammad Bukhārī. One of these works was the Abū-Muslim-
nāma, 3 which he translated on the instructions of the prince (amīr-zāda) and future khan Eltüzär
during the reign of Eltüzär’s father Muḥammad ‘Avaż Biy Inaq (1205-1218/1791-1804). 4 In
the preface to his translation, Muḥammad Qāsim Bukhārī relates that, fate having deposited
him alone and without family in Khorezm, for the last 11 years he had been in the service of
the Khivan inaqs. 5 During the reign of ‘Avaż Biy Inaq, he also translated the Bahār-i dānish
of ‘Ināyatallāh Kanbū (d. 1082/1671), 6 at the request of Eltüzär’s brother Muḥammad Qutluq
1 See, for example, Bregel, “Tribal tradition”; Н. Тошев, “Хива хонлари титулатураси,” in: Sharqshunoslik, 15, 2011, pp.
73-85.
2 The term “Turki” is here used to denote a literary language of the Khivan khanate which in the scientific literature is alternatively known
as “(later) Chagatay”, “Old Uzbek”, “Transoxian Turki”, etc. For names of this language and the role of Khorezm in its development,
see Bregel, “The Tawārīkh”; Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 1-2; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. viii, xiii-xiv.
3 MSS. IOSRU-1, nos. 3444 and 7021.
4 The translator maintains that “the translation work started in the year shown above”. The preface refers only to 1205/1790-91,
i.e. date of the death of Muḥammad Amīn Inaq whom, just like his son Muḥammad ‘Avaż Biy Inaq, Muḥammad Qāsim calls
“ruler of Tūrān countries” (farmān-farmā-yi mamālik-i Tūrān-zamīn). Munis dates the death of Muḥammad Amīn Inaq by
1204/1790, though the year of the pig of cyclic calendar, which also was used by him for dating this event, starts with February
1791 and conforms to 1205 Hijrī (see Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 145-146 with footnotes of the translator).
5 MSS. IOSRU-1, no. 3444, ff. 1b-2b; no. 7021, ff. 2a-3b. No name of the translation is mentioned in manuscripts, however,
comparison of data and style of the preface to the translation of the Abū-Muslim-nāma with prefaces to two other translations
of Muḥammad Qāsim makes it possible to claim with certainty that this work also was translated by him.
6 MSS. IOSRU-1, nos. 1300, 1403, 1790, 8188 (СВР, VII, nos. 5356-5359; translation’s client – Muḥammad Qutluq Murād Inaq
is taken for Qutluq Murād Khan (1271-1272/1855-1856); MS. IOM RAS, no. C 673 (Дмитриева, no. 1842; the translator’s
patron is misidentified as a prince of Khoqand).
IV
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
Murād (d. 1239/1824), and – perhaps at a slightly earlier date – he produced a prose translation
of Firdawsī’s Shāh-nāma, 7 on the instructions of Muḥammad Niyāz Bek b. Muḥammad Amīn
Inaq, who pronounced the Shāh-nāma to be the most authoritative (mu‘tabar) of all stories. 8
In the prefaces to all three above-mentioned translations, it is stated that the patron’s motivation
for commissioning these works was a concern to ensure that nobility and Turkic populace alike
should commonly be able to take pleasure from reading these works. In other words, even prior
to the Qongrats’ formal accession to khanal authority, early members of the dynasty ostensibly
took a paternalistic interest in the spiritual needs of the population. 9 Another hidden motive
for the patronage of such translation projects can be seen from the translation into Turki of the
Rawżat al-ṣafā’ (see below).
As is generally known, historiography was to play a special role in legitimizing the power and
immortalizing names of the powers that be. Accordingly, some seven months after acceding the
khanal throne, Eltüzär instructed the young poet and courtier Shīr Muḥammad Munis (Mu’nis,
1192-1244/1778-1829) to produce a chronicle of his reign together with an account of his
“august genealogy”. Munis began work on a chronicle entitled Firdaws al-iqbāl. Upon the death
of Eltüzär, work on the chronicle was halted, recommencing under his brother and successor
Muḥammad Raḥīm I (1221-1240/1806-1825), who ordered Munis to include in it the history
of his own reign. When Munis was working on the description of his patron’s seventh regnal
year, however, Muḥammad Raḥīm I quite unexpectedly ordered him to translate Mīrkhwānd’s
Rawżat al-ṣafā’ into Turki. Observing this order, Munis put the Firdaws al-iqbāl aside, never
to resume work on it, and on 13 Shavvāl 1234/5 August 1819 he began to translate the Rawżat
al-ṣafā’. Following Muḥammad Raḥīm I’s death in 1240/1825, his successor Allāh-Quli Khan
(1240-1258/1825-1842) ordered Munis to continue this translation project, on which the author
was to remain engaged until his own death in the cholera epidemic of 1244/1829. At the time of
his death, Munis had finished the first volume of the work, and a part of the second only. 10
The fact that Muḥammad Raḥīm I and his son and successor Allāh-Quli Khan evidently
set greater store by the translation of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’ than the completion of a prestigious
original work such as the Firdaws al-iqbāl may strike one as surprising. But Munis’ preface to
the translation of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’ helps to explain this curiosity. In Munis’ words, since most
books were written in Persian, only the select few (khāṣṣ) who were proficient in Persian were
able to take delight in reading these works: the Turkic community (atrāk jamā‘asï) and the Turki-
speaking population of Khorezm had no opportunity to enjoy true literature. “Out of kindness
and mercy”, Munis writes, the khan ordered Abu’l-Ma‘ānī Mīrzā Masīḥā to translate Ma‘ārij
7 MSS. IOSRU-1, nos. 1952 and 7019 (СВР, no. 278; СВР-История, nos. 697-698). In the descriptions Muḥammad Amīn Inaq
is confused with Muḥammad Amīn Khan (1262-1271/1846-1855).
8 For translations by Muḥammad Qāsim see also Шарипов, pp. 80, 99, 138 (note however a number of errors in the rendering
of the date and place of translations); Комилов, pp. 58, 60. It is interesting that neither Munis, nor other Khivan authors refer
to any of Muḥammad Qāsim’s translations.
9 As an example of Eltüzär’s supposed paternalistic concern qua khan for the economic wellbeing of his subjects, one might
note the fiscal reform which is attributed to him, whereby the population was freed from excessive tax burdens. Besides, as a
“devout” ruler Eltüzär instructed the whole male population of Khorezm to wear a turban, in accordance with Sunna directives
(Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 27, 389-390; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 11, 183-184, 612, note 634).
10 For details about Munis’ work on the Firdaws al-iqbāl and the translation of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’ see Yu. Bregel’s preface to
the text (Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 6-8, 12-14) and the translation (Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. xix-xx, xxv-xxvii) of the Firdaws
al-iqbāl. The first volume of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’ was finished by Munis within two years. The translation of the second volume
took a somewhat longer time. This was for a variety of reasons, notably among them the fact that the project involved a substantial
element of what we might term ‘textological work’. According to Munis, this resulted from the fact that the Shiites, having
conquered Khorasan, has misappropriated the text of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’ to comply with their beliefs; the text thus needed
extensive correction (Mīrkhwānd-Munis, f. 539a).
V
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
al-nubuvva by Mawlānā Mu‘īn into Turki, 11 and entrusted Munis with translating Mīrkhwānd’s
Rawżat al-ṣafā’. Nor was the translator’s task purely one of rendering text from one language to
another. Munis says that he was also ordered to supplement the work with trustworthy legends
and stories from reliable sources, and to append to his translation an account of the ruling dynasts
from Sulṭān Ḥusayn Mīrzā (873/911/1469-1506) to Muḥammad Raḥīm I inclusive. Muḥammad
Riżā Qoshbegi (d. 1250/1834-35), one of the khan’s high officials, was appointed to assist Munis
in his work, and begun to provide him with books on history. 12
Munis relates that translators generally gave new titles to the texts which they produced;
by way of precedent here, he cites the practice of Mīr ‘Alī Shīr Navā’ī (844-906/1441-1501). 13
Munis confesses that he imitated the authors above and accordingly entitled his translation the
Ḥadīqat al-akhbār fī mafākhir al-akhyār and divided it into an introduction, nine parts – “each of
which may be regarded as a separate book” – and conclusion. For the first six parts of the work,
Munis follows Mīrkhwānd’s original arrangement of material in the Rawżat al-ṣafā’. Thereafter,
however, he makes some amendments. The seventh part is dedicated to the history of the kings of
Iran (in text: “kings of redheads”) and the rulers of Afghans; the eighth part outlines the history
of the Uzbek khans prior to the time of the translation’s composition; and the ninth part deals
with the history of Muḥammad Raḥīm Khan and his ancestors. 14 Through such adaptations of
Mīrkhwānd’s universal history, Munis allowed his early Qongrat patrons to situate their own
dynasty within a canonical narrative of legitimate Islamic rulers.
As noted above, upon the death of Munis both the Firdaws al-iqbāl and the Rawżat al-ṣafā’
remained unfinished. The job of completing both works now fell upon Munis’ nephew and
disciple Muḥammad Riżā, who bore the pen-name of Āgahī.
The few details which we know about Āgahī’s life and activity derive largely from what we find
in his own works. Amongst the other authors to furnish us with important details about Āgahī’s
biography and oeuvre are Munis and such later historians and men of letters as Muḥammad Yūsuf
Bayānī (1858-1923) 15 and Ḥasan Murād Laffasī (1880-1949). 16 Laffasī appears to have drawn
some of his information from oral accounts. A number of modern literary scholars appear also
to have derived material from oral tradition, unfortunately not deeming it necessary to cite the
source of their information. Because of the failure of scholars until now to aggregate and analyse
all of the information which is available to us, there remain in Āgahī’s biography a number of
obscure or controversial episodes: this will repeatedly become clear in what follows.
Muḥammad Riżā was born on Saturday 10 Dhu’l-Qa‘da 1224/December 16, 1809. 17 His father
11 I.e. Mīrzā Masīḥā Bukhārī. In 1233/1818 he was appointed by Muḥammad Raḥīm I as munshī (Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 1007;
Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 458). Quoting his chronograms, Āgahī calls him Dāmullā Mīrzā Masīḥā (Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, ff.
169b, 191a). The fate of the translation is unknown. It is hard to say whether an anonymous translation of the Ma‘ārij al-nubuvva
made in Khiva, was authored by Mīrzā Masīḥā (see, Стори-Брегель, I, p. 568).
12 Mīrkhwānd-Munis, ff. 4b-6b. See also Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 7, note 44; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. xix, note 38.
13 It was no coincidence that Khivan authors frequently wrote about the Timurid epoch, particularly the period of reign of Sulṭān
Ḥusayn Bāyqarā which marked a cultural apogee. There are some ideological, administrative and cultural similarities between
the Timurids and Qongrats. Both dynasties shared a similar concern to legitimate their authority, and the khans of Khiva often
sought to imitate the Timurid example. For discussion of these and other similarities, see Bregel, “The Sarts”, pp. 134-135;
Bregel, “Tribal tradition”, pp. 392-397; A. Erkinov, “Timuride Mannerism in the Literary Context of Khiva under Muhammad
Rahim Khan II (Based on the Anthology Majmu‘a-yi shu‘ara-yi Firuz-Shahi),” in: Bulletin of IICAS, 8, 2008, pp. 58-65.
14 Mīrkhwānd-Munis, ff. 7a-b.
15 On Bayānī and his works see Муниров, Хоразмда тарихнавислик, pp. 52-60; Брегель, Сочинение; Ташев (with further references).
16 On Laffasī and his works see Лаффаси, pp. 116-118; СВР, VII, no. 5320; О. Жалилов, Ҳасанмурод Лаффасий, Тошкент, 1983.
17 Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 645-646; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 297. Conventionally converted into the Gregorian calendar, the
date would appear to have been a Sunday, rather than a Saturday. This is explained, however, by the fact that the Khorezmian
calendar was a day out of sync with calendars elsewhere. For this last point, see Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. xxxix.
VI
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
Er Niyāz Bek was the younger brother (ini) of Shīr Muḥammad Munis. 18 Āgahī thus shared a
common line of ancestry with Munis, running from Amīr ‘Avaż Mīrāb (d. 1215/1800), father of
Munis and grandfather of Āgahī. 19 Munis gives this line of ancestry as follows: ‘Avaż Mīrāb b.
Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb 20 b. Eshim Biy Mīrāb b. Ḥasan-Quli Atalïq b. Oraz Muḥammad Bäkavul
b. Dawlat Biy b. Keray Biy b. Muḥammad Jān Sūfī Biy Yüz. 21
As becomes clear from the genealogy, representatives of this noble family from the tribe of
Yüz 22 had for several generations held the position of mīrāb; this is confirmed by Āgahī himself. 23
Muḥammad Riżā’s own father Er Niyāz Bek however probably never held administrative
office. This emerges both from the lack of external information pertaining to any such position
and from the absence of any administrative titular component in his name. (In the Khanate of
Khiva during the period under discussion, of course, any job title became an integral part of
its holder’s name: 24 the title bek, by contrast, was appended to the names of those members of
tribal aristocracy who held no official assignment. 25) As a result of Er Niyāz Bek’s obscurity,
sources provide no information regarding his biography, including the date and circumstances of
his death. 26 It is clear, however, that Muḥammad Riżā became an orphan in his early years, and
that he was brought up by his uncle Shīr Muḥammad Munis, to whom he frequently describes
himself as a foster child (dastparvarda). 27
We learn about Muḥammad Riżā’s madrasa education from what he tells us himself. 28 In his
prefaces to the dīvān and the Riyāż al-dawla Āgahī relates in detail how from his earliest years
he thirsted for knowledge and aspired to associate with scholars, poets and ascetics. 29 Munis and
18 Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 593, 645; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 271, 297. Though the word ini might mean something other
than “full brother” – see Āgahī, Jāmi‘, ff. 189b, 275a, 287a-b, where Muḥammad Karīm Bek called either younger brother
or cousin (‘amak-zāda), or near relative –, Er Niyāz Bek and Shīr Muḥammad were, to all appearances, native brothers.
Āgahī calls himself a nephew of Munis (Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, pp. 29, 190 (= Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, pp. 36, 236);
Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 893; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 406; Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 149a; Āgahī, Shāhid al-iqbāl, f. 2b).
According to J. Sharipov (Шарипов, p. 107) and F. Ghanikhojayev (OAT, pp. 7, 76), Munis was Āgahī’s maternal uncle (taghasï);
misconstruing Bayānī’s words, Yoldashev (Йўлдошев, p. 267, note 5) calls them cousins.
19 For some reason Yu. Bregel identifies Er Niyāz Bek as son of Eshim Biy Mīrāb (see index to the text and translation of the
Firdaws al-iqbāl).
20 Shīr Muḥammad Munis received the nickname “Bābājān” (“baby”; literally “soul of grandfather” or “dear grandfather”):
see his preface to the translation of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’: Mīrkhwānd-Munis, f. 4a. This was because he was named after his
grandfather. This custom was widespread in Khorezm, reflecting a taboo against the disrespectful invocation of certain persons,
particularly ancestors.
21 Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 354; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 166.
22 The small Yüz tribe was concentrated in no single settlement in Khorezm, and did not play a significant role in the political life
of the region: see e.g. Г.П. Снесарев, “Объяснительная записка к «Карте расселения узбеков на территории Хорезмской
области (конец XIX – начало XX в.)»,” in: Т.А. Жданко, К.Ш. Шаниязов (отв. ред.), Хозяйственно-культурные традиции
народов Средней Азии и Казахстана, Москва, 1975, p. 80. In their respective works, Munis and Āgahī both refer to this tribe
solely in connection with authors and their relatives.
23 Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, p. 36. See also: Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 3-4; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. xv-xvi.
24 Ташев, p. 17.
25 Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 544, note 19. Apparently drawing on oral information, Gh. Karimov and S. Dalimov observe that
Er Niyāz Bek resided in his native village of Qiyat and pursued an agricultural existence (Каримов-Долимов, p. 12).
26 In the preface to his dīvān titled Mu’nis al-‘ushshāq (Khiva, Lithographic edition, 1297/1880, pp. 7-8) compiled, as the poet
puts it (p. 11), at the suggestion of Qutluq Murād Inaq (d. 1239/1824), Munis notes that during the period between 1215/1800
and Eltüzär Khan’s tragic death in 1221/1806 his father, elder and younger brothers all died (cit. Жумаев, p. 21). Given Āgahī’s
birth date, Er Niyāz Bek could not have been the brother who predeceased him. If the second version of Munis’ dīvān was, as
widely agreed (Лаффаси, p. 6; Мунис Хоразмий, p. 5; Жумаев, pp. 11, 14), compiled in 1228/1814, and its dībācha written
the same year, one can conclude that Er Niyāz Bek died after this date. Majidi (p. 8) claims, without adducing any proof, that
Muḥammad Riżā was 3 years old at the time of his father’s death.
27 Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, p. 29 (= Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, p. 36); Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 893; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p.
406; Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 149a; Āgahī, Gulshan-i dawlat, f. 4a.
28 Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, p. 29 (= Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, p. 36).
29 Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, pp. 30-31 (= Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, p. 38); Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 6a.
VII
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
his circle evidently played a major role in shaping Āgahī’s outlook and determining his choice
to become a writer: not for nothing did Āgahī refer to Munis respectfully as his tutor. 30
Following Munis’ death in 1244/1829, there arose a question as to who should succeed him
as mīrāb. Many offices in the Khivan khanate were, as a rule, hereditary and passed from father
to son; if no direct descendants were available, offices devolved laterally to the nearest relatives:
brother, nephew, etc. according to circumstances. The “rule of loyalty and job duration” 31 was
almost always observed, even in cases 1) where officials were imprisoned or executed on charges
of misconduct; 2) when designated successors to office were children, sometimes as young as 11
years old. 32 Having inherited the post from his elder brother Muḥammad Niyāz, Munis appears
to have had no direct descendants in the male line, 33 nor, as already noted above, was he survived
by any of his younger brothers. Consequently, Allāh-Quli Khan conferred the office of mīrāb
upon Muḥammad Riżā Āgahī. 34
Yu. Bregel is one of several scholars to have examined the role and function of the mīrābs in
the Khanate of Khiva. “Since the administrative reforms of Abu’l-Ghāzī Khan” 35, he writes in his
introduction to the edition and translation of the Firdaws al-iqbāl, “there had existed in the khanate
four mīrābs, in accordance with the number of main Uzbek tribal groups (tüpe) in Khorezm. These
officials were included in the khan’s council of 34 ‘amaldārs created by Abu’l-Ghāzī. The mīrābs
had apparently to supervise the irrigation system of the country, its construction, maintenance and
repair…; besides his main duty, the service most often performed was accompanying the khan in
his military campaigns and in royal hunts”. 36 The orientalist A.L.Kun, who in 1873 visited Khiva
with the Russian expedition, and who developed a particular interest in the khanate’s administrative
system, wrote that mīrābs as courtiers had nothing to do with the administration of irrigation. This
opinion was subsequently articulated by P.P. Ivanov, who explored Khivan chronicles and the
archives of the Khivan khans. 37 The view of these latter two men has not met with unquestioning
acceptance, and has indeed been opposed by various historians. 38 But the testimony of various
sources, including works by Munis and Āgahī, lead us to doubt the adequacy of widely accepted
views regarding the duties of the chief mīrābs of Khiva.
What is clear above all is that, like other officials in the khanate, mīrābs held a wide range of
responsibilities. These ranged from the organization of wedding ceremonies to the execution of
30 Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 893, 1063, 1167; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 406, 487; Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, ff. 16b, 40a, 148a.
31 See, for example, Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 1136; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 519; Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 148b; Bayānī, 280a
(یقوقح کیل تمدخلا میدق و قیل هاوختلود).
32 For example, see: Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 547, 698; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 255, 325; Āgahī, Jāmi‘, ff. 135a, 180a, 262a-b; Āgahī,
Gulshan-i dawlat, f. 105b; Āgahī, Shāhid al-iqbāl, ff. 31b-32a; Bayānī, ff. 330b-331a; Йўлдошев, p. 235. Upon the death of Taghay Mīrāb,
commander of the Qaradashlu Turkmen tribe, he was succeeded by his younger son ‘Abd al-Qādir (no age indicated). But the khan then
intervened, and instead appointed somebody else to lead the Qaradashlu. Later on, ‘Abd al-Qādir was dismissed from his post because
of his young age, and another relative was appointed in his place (Āgahī, Jāmi‘, ff. 114b, 180a, 216a). Chroniclers observe that if an office
devolved to a more distant relative, such as a cousin, this was because the retired/deceased party had no surviving sons or brothers.
33 In a verse with which he concludes his afterword to the translation of the first volume of the Rawżat al-ṣafā’, Munis offers
an elegy to his late son (Mīrkhwānd-Munis, f. 532b; cit. Муниров, Мунис, p. 20; Муниров, Хоразмда тарихнавислик, p. 35;
Шарипов, p. 99). The death of his son may also explain why, in the preface to his translation of the second volume of the Rawżat
al-ṣafā’, Munis appends the kunya Abū ‘Abdallāh to his name (Mīrkhwānd-Munis, f. 538b). No other sources appear to make any
mention of Munis’ children. Törä Murād Bek, son of Munis’ brother Muḥammad Niyāz Bek, died in 1215/1800 (Munis-Āgahī,
text, p. 354; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 166).
34 Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 149a.
35 This reform of Abu’l-Ghāzī Khan (1054-1074/1644-1664) was made public solely thanks to the story of Munis (see Munis-
Āgahī, text, p. 135; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 45).
36 Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 6-7; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. xviii-xix.
37 МИТТ, p. 331, note 1; Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 6, note 39; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. xix, note 52 (work by A.L. Kun is not available to me).
38 Гулямов, p. 265; Йўлдошев, p. 267.
VIII
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
diplomatic missions and the management of khanal lands. 39 But as umarā’, mīrābs took part in
military campaigns, commanding units and sometimes entire armies – albeit usually small ones.
Like Munis, 40 Āgahī only occasionally notes the military operations in which he participated; 41 as
Yu. Bregel observes, however, this does not preclude the possibility that Munis – like Āgahī – may
have been involved in further campaigns. 42 Certainly, in the preface to his dīvān Āgahī suggests
that military commitments impinged on his scope for learning: “I was committed to preparing an
outfit for military service (sipāhīgarlïgh)”, he writes, “and I was weighed down by the position
of high-ranking officer (sipāhdārlïgh)”. 43
Such involvement by the mīrābs in military affairs was not unusual in the Khanate of Khiva,
where the responsibilities of offices were rarely specified, and where military and civil functions
frequently blurred: indeed, during this period even such religious positions as that of shaykh al-
islām underwent a process of “militarization”. 44 At the same time, mīrābs seem to have retained
particular responsibility for their prescribed irrigational duties. But they were assisted by a number
of functionaries, ranging from the centurion (yüzbashï) to the chief vizier (mihtar and qoshbegi),
who were entrusted with some of the mīrābs’ former responsibility for building, maintaining and
restoring irrigational provisions. 45 The khan furthermore frequently supervised these operations
himself. 46 On occasion mīrābs continued to perform such work, but they generally did so in
collaboration with officials who had no responsibility for hydrological management. 47 A rare
exception to this picture is found in Munis’ account of how khan Muḥammad Raḥīm I sent
three mīrābs, including Munis himself, to ascertain whether it was necessary to clear the head
of the Khīvanīk canal; the mīrābs did as they were instructed, and joined the khan in Khitay. 48
The unusual deployment here of chief mīrābs may be explained with reference to some of the
conversations which Ia.G. Guliamov conducted in the 1950s with former irrigational workers.
Guliamov’s informants reported that the duties of ‘khanal mīrābs’ – which is to say, chief mīrābs
– were confined to (i) the formal planning of irrigational provisions and (ii) consultation during
the execution of large-scale projects. 49
39 For examples, see: Munis-Āgahī, text, pp. 147, 760; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 52, 351; Āgahī, Gulshan-i dawlat, f. 53a;
Āgahī, Shāhid al-iqbāl, f. 212b; Йўлдошев, p. 268.
40 See: Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 7, note 40; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. xix, note 53.
41 Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, f. 152a; Āgahī, Zubdat al-tavārīkh, ff. 75b, 83a-b, 85b-86a.
42 We know, however, that on at least one subsequent occasion Āgahī was prevented from military action. In the context of one of
his quatrains, he narrates that Raḥīm-Quli Khan rejected his request to allow him to take part in a raid against Qaraköl – a settlement
under Bukharan administration – saying he would do better to pray (Āgahī, Zubdat al-tavārīkh, ff. 136b-137a).
43 Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, p. 30 (The word “shughlï” is misread as “tughlï”); Огаҳий, Асарлар, I, p. 37.
44 In the Khivan khanate, many religious figures (sayyids, khwāja) took part in military operations, although many of them occupied
“civil” posts such as the office qāżī; the position of shaykh al-islām, however, stood by itself. (Incidentally, this equally applies
to naqīb and mutavallī.) Thus, this post was granted to a certain Quṭb al-Dīn Khwāja for his bravery (Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 991;
Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 452), following which he became an active participant in several battles (see indices to the text and
translation of the Firdaws al-iqbāl). The shaykh al-islām was frequently referred to in sources as commander either of the army
or of the separate Turkmen tribe (Āgahī, Riyāż al-dawla, ff. 192a, 213b; Āgahī, Zubdat al-tavārīkh, ff. 16b, 34b, 67b, 101a; Āgahī,
Jāmi‘, f. 99b). In court ceremonial, they took their place to the left of the khan, alongside secular officials (Йўлдошев, p. 254).
It was no mere coincidence that the late Khivan historian Babajan Safarov (ca. 1891-1983; for a discussion of his career see
Н. Тошев, “Муҳаммадюсуф Баёний таржимаи ҳолига оид янги манба,” in: Sharqshunoslik, 14, 2009, pp. 47-56) counts the shaykh
al-islām among secular officials, not spiritual (Bābājān Safarov, Khwārazm tārīkhi, MS. IOSRU-1, no. 10231, p. 12). According
to M.Y. Yoldashev (Йўлдошев, p. 273), shaykh al-islām was the chief spiritual official in charge of regulating religious rituals.
45 See Йўлдошев, pp. 228, 229 and 267. There are numerous other such examples in narrative sources.
46 Гулямов, p. 262; Munis-Āgahī, translation, p. 609, note 607. For retelling of sources see Муниров, Мунис, pp. 113-120;
Муниров, Хоразмда тарихнавислик, pp. 102-111.
47 Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 633; Munis-Āgahī, translation, pp. 288-289. Cf. Гулямов, p. 265, where amongst the 20-plus people
identified as participating in the construction of a dam only two mīrābs are mentioned, namely Munis and Qara Bahādur Mīrāb.
48 Munis-Āgahī, text, p. 760. In turn, Guliamov (Гулямов, p. 265) refers to this information in two places (once, with reference to
Bayānī who in this case retold Munis’ words), following which a misconception may arise due to reiteration of the cases of this sort.
49 Гулямов, p. 266. Ia. G. Guliamov nevertheless acknowledges that chief mīrābs were responsible for these affairs (ibid.).
IX
JĀMI‘ AL-VĀQI‘ĀT-I SULṬĀNĪ
Testifying to the “ethno-political” nature of this office is the fixed number of chief mīrābs: four
“in accordance with the number of main Uzbek tribal groups (tüpe)”. It is also significant that, as
members of the khanal council, the chief mīrābs were to remain in the khan’s presence, particularly
when the khan was traveling, so long as he had not dispatched them to attend to other business. 50
It was evidently important that the mīrāb should remain close to the presence of the khan.
This emerges when we examine Āgahī’s account of his resignation from the post. He resigned on
19 Muḥarram 1268/14 November 1851, just before Muḥammad Amīn Khan (1262-1271/1846-
1855) was due to embark on his next journey. In Āgahī’s words, his “certain disease” prevented
him from accompanying the khan on his trips, so at Āgahī’s request the khan recused him “from
the journey” and replaced him as mīrāb with his cousin (‘amak-zāda) Muḥammad Karīm Bek. 51
This choice of successor was no mere coincidence. In his elegy (marthīya) upon the death of his
disciple Muḥammad Ya’qūb Khwāja 52 in 1287/1870, Āgahī confessed that he had no son. 53 One
can say with some confidence that he had no blood brothers either.
The subsequent course of Āgahī’s life was heavily shaped by a recurrent but unidentified physical
ailment. The nature of Āgahī’s disease remains unclear. Certain researchers believe that Āgahī fell
from a horse and broke his leg, 54 and that the injury subsequently developed into decubital paralysis: 55
but this allegation is to all appearances based purely on oral information, finding no support in the
written record. It is true that Āgahī repeatedly mentions his lameness, but he provides no details
about his disease. 56 Pace the opinion of Gh. Karimov and S. Dalimov, 57 Āgahī’s use of the term
“shakar-lang” suggests that it was lameness alone from which he suffered, not paralysis. More likely
is the view according to which Āgahī suffered from gout (bād). 58 Whatever its origin, however,
this unidentified ailment steadily progressed, and sporadic attacks repeatedly confined Āgahī to
bed. In his prefaces to the translations of the Gulistān and Shāh u gadā made by Āgahī in the early
and later 1860s respectively (see further), the author continued to complain of his poor condition. 59
But Āgahī did not remain unemployed for long. In 1271/1855, a few years after his appointment
as mīrāb in Āgahī’s place, Muḥammad Karīm was killed, together with the recently-acceded
‘Abdallāh Khan (1271/1855), during a punitive expedition against the mutinous Yomuts. 60 By the
terms of an appointment which scholars have widely overlooked, on 2 Rabī‘ I 1272/November
11, 1855, ‘Abdallāh Khan’s successor Qutluq (or Qutlugh) Murād (1271-1272/1855-1856) re-
appointed Āgahī as mīrāb, notwithstanding his illness 61. Neither Āgahī nor other historians and
literary men of the epoch – including above-mentioned Esh Murād al-‘Alavī, author of a history
50 See, for example, Йўлдошев, p. 253.
51 Āgahī, Jāmi‘, f. 189b.
52 Beyond any doubts, this person is identical to Muḥammad Ya‘qūb Khwāja Dīvān who conveyed to Esh Murād Ākhūnd al-
‘Alavī an order of Sayyid Muḥammad Khan (1272-1281/1856-1864) to write the history his reign (ОТР, I, no. 104; Брегель,
Сочинение, pp. 129-130).
53 Āgahī, Shāhid al-iqbāl, f. 216b; Қ. Муниров, “Огаҳийнинг шогирдига атаб ёзган бир марсияси,” in: Sharqshunoslik, 3,
1992, pp. 76-80.
54 Огаҳий, Таъвизул ошиқин, p. 15; Шарипов, p. 109, note, 70; Majidi, p. 10; Kamilov, Dissertation, p. 7. Gh. Karimov and
S. Dalimov even quote the date of this accident – 1845 (see next footnote).
55 Долимов, pp. 107, 111; Каримов-Долимов, pp. 15-16.
56 Āgahī, Gulshan-i dawlat, ff. 208b, 244b. An anthology by Ḥasan Murād Laffasī only said that Āgahī was lame in one leg and
walked with a stick (Лаффаси, p. 10).
57 Каримов-Долимов, pp. 15-16.
58 Долимов, p. 107.
59 MS. IOSRU-1, no. 899, f. 5b (= Огаҳий, Асарлар, VI, p. 89); MS. IOSRU-1, no. 809, f. 152a. Both fragments are quoted by
J. Sharipov (Шарипов, pp. 109, 112).
60 Āgahī, Jāmi‘, f. 275a.
61 Āgahī, Jāmi‘, f. 287a-b.
X