to take possession of the Central-Asian throne, the other consenting to become governor of the vacated Persian province and abandon the cares of the empire at Samarkand. In 1409 Khalil Shah died; and the story goes that Shadu 'l-Mulk stabbed herself and was buried with her royal lover at Rai, one of the towns which his grandfather had partly destroyed.

Shah Rukh, the fourth son of Timur, reigned for thirty-eight years, and appears to have been a brave, generous, and enlightened monarch. He removed his capital from Samarkand to Herat, of which place he rebuilt the citadel, restoring and improving the town. Merv also profited from his attention to its material interests. Sir John Malcolm speaks of the splendour of his court and of his encouragement of science and learning. He sent an embassy to China; and an English version of the travels to India of one of his emissaries, Abd ur-Razzak, is to be found in R. H. Major's India in the Fifteenth Century (London, Hakluyt Society, 1857). As regards his Persian possessions, he had some trouble in the north-west, where the Turkomans of Asia Minor, known as the Kara Kuyun,1 or " Black Sheep," led by Kara Yusuf' and his sons Iskandar and Jahan Shah, had advanced upon Tabriz, the capital of Azerbaijan. On the death of the Shah Rukh in 1446 he was succeeded by his son Ulugh Bey, whose scientific tastes are demonstrated in the astronomical tables bearing his name, quoted by European writers when determining the latitude of places in Persia. He was, moreover, himself a poet and patron of literature, and built a college as well as an observatory at Samarkand. There is no evidence to show that he did much to consolidate his grandfather's conquests south of the Caspian. Ulugh Bey was put to death by his son Abd ul-Latif, who, six months later, was slain by his own soldiers. Babar-not the illustrious founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, but an elder member of the same house-next obtained possession of the sovereign power, and established himself in the government of Khorasan and the neighbouring countries. He died after a short rule, from habitual intemperance. After him Abu Sa'id, grandson of Miran Shah, and once governor of Fars, became a candidate for empire, and allied himself with the Uzbeg Tatars, seized Bokhara, entered Khorasan, and waged war upon the Turkoman tribe aforesaid, which, since the invasion of Azerbaijan, had, under Jahan Shah, overrun Irak, Fars and Kerman, and pillaged Herat. But he was eventually taken prisoner by Uzun Hasan, and killed in 1468.

It is difficult to assign dates to a few events recorded in Persian history for the eighteen years following the death of Abd ulLatif; and, were it not for chance European missions, the same difficulty would be felt in dealing with the period after the death of Abu Sa'id up to the accession of Isma'il Sufi in 1499. Sultan Ahmad, eldest son of Abu Sa'id, reigned in Bokhara; his brother, Omar Sheikh, in Ferghana; but the son of the latter, the great Babar, was driven by the Uzbegs to Kabul and India. More to the purpose is it that Sultan Hosain Mirza, great-grandson of Omar Sheikh, son of Timur, reigned Hosain in Herat from 1487 to 1506. He was a patron of Mirza. learned men, among others of the historians Mirkhond and Khwadamir, and the poets Jami and Hatifi. But at no time could his control have extended over central and western Persia. The nearest approach to a sovereignty in those parts on the death of Abu Sa'id is that of Uzun Hasan, the leader of the Ak Kuyun, or "White Sheep "Turkomans, and conqueror of the "Black Sheep," whose chief, Jahan Shah, he defeated and slew. Between the two tribes there had long been a deadly feud. Both were composed of settlers in Asia Uzun Hasan. Minor, the "Black Sheep" having consolidated their power at Van, the "White" at Diarbekr.

and, a little later, that "Uzun Hasan, after he had made himself master of Persia, turned his arms in the direction of Turkey "; but the reader is left to infer for himself what the real "empire of Hosain Mirza, and what the limit of the "Persia " of Uzun Hasan. The second could not well be included in the first, because the Turkomans were in possession of the greater part of the Persian plateau, while the "sultan" was in Herat, to which Khorasan belonged. It may be assumed that an empire like that acquired by Timur could not long be maintained by his descendants in its integrity.

The Turkish adjective uzun, j, "long," applied to Hasan, the Turkoman monarch of Persia (called also by the Arabs Hasanu 't-Tawil), is precisely the qualifying Persian word j's used in the compound designation of Artaxerxes Longimanus; and Malcolm quotes the statement of a Venetian envoy in evidence that Uzun Hasan was "a tall thin man, of a very open and engaging countenance." This reference, and a further notice in Markham's history, supply the clue to a store of valuable information made available by the publications of the Hakluyt Society. The narratives of Caterino Zeno, Barbaro and Contarini, envoys from Venice to the court of Uzun Hasan, are in this respect especially interesting. Zeno was sent in 1471 to incite this warlike ruler against the Ottoman sultan, and succeeded in his mission. That the result was disastrous to the shah is not surprising, but the war seems to hold a comparatively unimportant place in the annals of Turkey.

Uzun Hasan had married Despina (Gr. Aéorowa), daughter of the emperor of Trebizond, Calo Johannes of the house of the Comneni; and Zeno's wife was niece to this Christian princess. The relationship naturally strengthened the envoy's position at the court, and he was permitted to visit the queen in the name of the republic which he represented. Barbaro and Contarini met at Isfahan in 1474, and there paid their respects to the shah together. Kum and Tauris or Tabriz (then the capital) were also visited by the Italian envoys following in the royal suite; and the incidental notice of these cities, added to Contarini's formal statement that "the extensive country of Ussuncassan [sic] is bounded by the Ottoman Empire and by Caramania," and that Siras (Shiraz) is comprehended in it, proves that at least Azerbaijan, Irak, and the main part of the provinces to the south, inclusive of Fars, were within the dominions of the reigning monarch.

4

There is good reason to suppose that Jahan Shah, the Black Sheep Turkoman, before his defeat by Uzun Hasan, had set up the standard of royalty; and Zeno, at the outset of his travels, calls him " king of Persia "3 in 1450. Chardin alludes to him in the same sense; but Hasan the Long is a far more prominent figure, and has hardly received justice at the hands of the historian. Indeed, his identity seems to have been lost in the various modes of spelling his name adopted by the older chroniclers, who call him indiscriminately Alymbeius, Asembeius, Asembec, Assimbeo, or Ussan Cassano. He is said to have earned the character of a wise and valiant monarch, to have reigned eleven years, to have lived to the age of seventy, and, on his death in 1477 or (according to Krusinski and Zeno) 1478, to have been succeeded on the throne of Persia by his son Ya'qub. This prince, who had slain an elder brother, died by poison (1485), after a reign of seven years. The dose was offered to him by his wife, who had been unfaithful to him and sought to set her paramour on his throne.

Writers differ as to the succession to Ya'qub. Zeno's account is that a son named Allamur (called also, Alamut, Alvante, El-wand and Alwung Bey) was the next king, who, Anarchy. besides Persia, possessed Diarbekr and part of greater Armenia near the Euphrates. On the other hand, Krusinski states that, Ya'qub dying childless, his relative Julaver, one of the grandees of the kingdom, seized the throne, and held possession of it for three years. Baisingar, it is added, succeeded him in 1488 and reigned till 1490, when a young nobleman named Rustan (Rustam?) obtained the sovereign power and exercised it for seven years. This account is confirmed by See also Ramusio's preface. Knolles, Purchas, Zeno.

Angiolello, a traveller who followed his countrymen Barbaro and Contarini to Persia; and from the two authorities combined may be gathered the further narration of the murder of Rustam and usurpation of the throne by a certain Ahmad, whose death, under torture, six months afterwards, made way for Alamut, the young son of Hasan. These discrepancies can be reconciled on reference to yet another record bound up with the narratives of the four Italians aforesaid, and of much the same period. In the Travels of a Merchant in Persia the story of Ya'qub's death is supplemented by the statement that "the great lords, hearing of their king's decease, had quarrels among themselves, so that for five or six years all Persia was in a state of civil war, first one and then another of the nobles becoming sultans. At last a youth named Alamut, aged fourteen years, was raised to the throne, which he held till the succession of Sheikh Isma'il." Who this young man was is not specified; but other writers call Alamut and his brother Murad the sons of Ya'qub, as though the relationship were unquestionable.

Now little is known, save incidentally, of Julaver or Rustam; but Baisingar is the name of a nephew of Omar Sheikh, king of Ferghana and contemporary of Uzun Hasan. There was no doubt much anarchy and confusion in the interval between the death of Ya'qub and the restoration, for two years, of the dynasty of the White Sheep. But the tender age of Alamut would, even in civilized countries, have necessitated a regency; and it may be assumed that he was the next legitimate and more generally recognized sovereign. Markham, in designating this prince the last of his house, states that he was dethroned by the renowned founder of the Safawi dynasty. This event brings us to one of the most interesting periods of Persian history, any account of which must be defective without a prefatory sketch of Isma'il Sufi.

Sheikh

The Sufi or Safawid (Safawi) Dynasty (1499–1736).-Sheikh Saifu 'd-Din Izhak-lineally descended from Musa, the seventh imam-was a resident at Ardebil (Ardabil) southSaifu'd-Din, West of the Caspian, some time during the 14th century. It is said that his reputation for sanctity attracted the attention of Timur, who sought him out in his abode, and was so charmed by the visit that he released, at the holy man's request, a number of captives of Turkish origin, or Georgians, taken in the wars with Bayezid. The act ensured to the Sheikh the constant devotion and gratitude of these men a feeling which was loyally maintained by their descendants for the members of his family in successive generations.

Sheikh Haidar.

His son Sadru'd-Din and grandson Kwaja 'Ali (who visited Mecca and died at Jerusalem) retained the high reputation of their pious predecessor. Junaid, a grandson of the last, married a sister of Uzun Hasan, and by her had a son named Sheikh Haidar, who married his cousin Martha, daughter of Uzun Hasan and Queen Despina. Three sons were the issue of this marriage, Sultan 'Ali, Ibrahim Mirza, and the youngest, Ismail, the date of whose birth is put down as 1480 for reasons which will appear hereafter. So great was the influence of Sheikh Haidar, and so earnestly did he carry out the principles of conduct which had characterized his family for five generations, that his name has become, as it were, inseparable from the dynasty of his son Isma'il; and the term Haidari (leonine) is applied by many persons to indicate generally the Safawids of Persia. The outcome of his teaching was a division of Mahommedanism vitally momentous to the world of Islam. The Persian mind was peculiarly adapted to receive the form of religion prepared for it by the philosophers of Ardebil. The doctrines presented were dreamy and mystic; they rejected the infallibility of human wisdom, and threw suspicion on the order and arrangement of human orthodoxy. There was free scope given for the indulgence of that political imagination which revels in revolution and chafes at prescriptive bondage. As Malcolm remarks, "the very essence of Sufi-ism is poetry."

Those authorities who maintain that Ya'qub Shah left no son to succeed him consider valid the claim to the vacant throne of Sheikh Haidar Sufi, Purchas says that Ya'qub himself, "jealous of the multitude of Aidar's disciples and the greatness of his fame, caused him to be secretly murthered "; but Krusinski attributes the act to Rustam a few years later. Zeno, the anonymous merchant and Angiolello affirm that the devotee was defeated and killed in battle-the first making his conqueror to be Alamut, the second a general of Alamut's, and the third an officer sent by Rustam named Suleiman Bey. Malcolm, following the Zubdatu 't-tawarikh, relates that Sheikh Haidar was vanquished and slain by the governor of Shirvan. The subsequent statement that his son, Sultan 'Ali, was seized, in company with two younger brothers, by Ya'qub, one of the descendants of their grandfather Uzun Hasan, who, jealous of the numerous disciples that resorted to Ardebil, confined them to the hill fort of Istakhr in Fars," seems to indicate a second interpretation of the passage just extracted from Purchas, and that there is confusion of persons and incident somewhere. One of the sons here alluded to was Isma'il, whom Malcolm makes to have been only seven years of age when he fled to Gilan in 1492. Zeno states that he was then thirteen, which is much more probable, and the several data available for reference are in favour of this supposition.

The life of the young Sufi from this period to his assumption of royalty in 1499 was full of stirring adventure; and his career as Ismail I was a brilliant one. According to Isma'il I. Zeno, who seems to have carefully recorded the events of the time, he left his temporary home on an island of Lake Van before he was eighteen, and, passing into Karabakh, between the Aras and Kur, turned in a south-easterly direction into Gilan. Here he was enabled, through the assistance of a friend of his father, to raise a small force with which to take possession of Baku on the Caspian, and thence to march upon Shemakha in Shirvan, a town abandoned to him without a struggle. Hearing, however, that Alamut was advancing to meet him, he was compelled to seek new levies from among the Jengian Christians and others. At the head of 16,000 men, he thoroughly routed his opponents, and, having cleared the way before him, marched straight upon Tabriz, which at once surrendered. He was soon after proclaimed shah of Persia (1499), under the designation which marked the family school of thought.

Alamut had taken refuge at Diarbekr; but his brother Murad, at the head of an army strengthened by Turkish auxiliaries, was still in the field with the object of contesting the paternal crown. Isma'il lost no time in moving against him, and won a new victory on the plains of Tabriz. Murad fled with a small remnant of his soldiers to Diarbekr, the rallying-point of the White Sheep Turkomans. Zeno states that in the following year Ismail entered upon a new campaign in Kurdistan and Asia Minor, but that he returned to Tabriz without accomplishing his object, having been harassed by the tactics of Ala ud-Daula, a beylerbey, or governor in Armenia and parts of Syria. Another writer says that he marched against Murad Khan in Irak-iAjami and Shiraz. This last account is extremely probable, and would show that the young Turkoman had wished to make one grand effort to save Isfahan and Shiraz (with Kazvin and the neighbouring country), these being, after the capital Tabriz, the most important cities of Uzun Hasan's Persia. His men, however, apparently dismayed at the growing prestige of the enemy, did not support him, and he was defeated and probably slain. There is similar evidence of the death of Alamut, who, it is alleged, was treacherously handed over to be killed by the shah's own hands.

Ismail returned again to Tabriz (1501) "and caused great rejoicings to be made on account of his victory." In 1503 he had added to his conquests Bagdad, Mosul and Jezira on the Tigris. The next year he was called to the province of 2 So thinks the editor and annotator of the Italian Travels in Persia, Charles Grey.edu

3 Possibly Kara-dagh, as being the more direct road.

Contest with Shaibani.

Gilan to chastise a refractory ruler. Having accomplished his end, he came back to his capital and remained there in comparative quiet till 1507.1 Malcolm's dates are somewhat at variance with the above, for he infers that Bagdad was subdued in that particular year; but the facts remain. All writers seem to agree that in 1508 the king's attention was drawn to an invasion of Khorasan by Shaibani, or Shahi Beg, the Uzbeg, a descendant of Jenghiz and the most formidable opponent of Babar, from whom he had, seven years before, wrested the city of Samarkand, and whom he had driven from Turkestan to Kabul. Since these exploits he had obtained great successes in Tashkent, Ferghana, Hissar, Kunduz, and Khwarizm (Kharezm), and, at the time referred to, had left Samarkand intent upon mischief south and west of the Oxus, had passed the Murghab, and had reached Sarakhs (Serrakhs). Isma'il encamped on this occasion at Isfahan, and there concentrated the bulk of his army-strengthening his northern (and probably north-eastern) frontier with large bodies of cavalry, but maintaining an attitude of simple watchfulness. In 1510, when Shaibani had invaded Khorasan the second time, and had ravaged the Persian province of Kerman, Shah Isma'il asked for redress, referring to the land encroached on as hereditary "; and Shaibani replied that he did not understand on what was founded the claim " to inherit." Eventually the Persian troops were put in movement, and the Uzbegs, having been divided into small detachments scattered over the country, fell back and retreated to Herat. Their leader repaired to Merv, but Isma'il quickly followed him and enticed him out to battle by taunt and reproach. Shaibani was defeated and fled, but was overtaken in his flight, and put to the sword, together with numerous relatives and companions.

War with Selim.

The next remarkable event in Isma'il's reign is his war with Sultan Selim I. Its origin may be traced to the Ottoman emperor's hatred and persecution of all heretical Moslems in his dominions, and the shah's anger at the fanaticism which had urged him to the slaughter of 40,000 Turks suspected to have thrown off the orthodox Sunnite doctrines. The sultan's army advanced into Azerbaijan and western Persia through Tokat and Erzingan. Isma'il had at this time the greater number of his soldiers employed in his newly-conquered province of Khorasan and was driven to raise new levies in Kurdistan to obtain a sufficient force to resist the invasion. It is asserted by some that his frontier then | extended westward to Sivas, a city situated in a large high plain watered by the Kizil Irmak, and that hence to Khoi, 90 m. west of Tabriz, he followed the approved and often successful tactics of ravaging and retreating, so as to deprive his advancing enemy of supplies. There is good evidence to show that the Turkish janissaries were within an ace of open revolt, and that but for extraordinary firmness in dealing with them they would have abandoned their leader in his intended march upon Tabriz. In fine, at or near Khoi, the frontier-town of Azerbaijan, the battle (1514) was fought between the two rival monarchs, ending in the defeat of the Persians and the triumphant entry of Selim into their capital.

Selim remained at Tabriz no more than eight days. Levying a contribution at that city of a large number of its skilled artisans whom he sent off to Constantinople, he marched thence towards Karabagh with intent to fix his winter quarters in those parts and newly invade Persia in the spring, but the insubordination of his troops rendered necessary his speedy return to Turkey. His expedition, if not very glorious, had not been unproductive of visible fruits. Besides humbling the power of an arrogant enemy, he had conquered and annexed to his dominions the provinces of Diarbekr and Kurdistan.*

From 1514 to 1524, although the hostile feeling between the two countries was very strong, there was no serious nor open warfare. Selim's attention was diverted from Persia to Egypt; Isma'il took advantage of the sultan's death in 1519 to overrun and subdue unfortunate Georgia, as Jahan Shah of the "Black Sheep" had done before him; but Suleiman, who succeeded Selim, was too strong to admit of retaliatory invasion being carried out with impunity at the cost of Turkey.

Isma'il's Character.

In 1524 Isma'il died at Ardebil when on a pilgrimage to the tomb of his father. "The Persians dwell with rapture on his character," writes Sir John Malcolm, for they deem him not only the founder of a great dynasty, but the person to whom that faith in which they glory owes its establishment as a national religion." And he quotes a note handed down by Purchas from a contemporary European traveller which reports of him thus: " His subjects deemed him a saint, and made use of his name in their prayers. Many disdained to wear armour when they fought under Isma'il; and so enthusiastic were his soldiers in their new faith that they used to bare their breasts to their enemies and court death, exclaiming 'Shiah! Shiah!' to mark the holy cause for which they fought.”

Shah

Shah Tahmasp, the eldest of the four sons of Isma'il, succeeded to the throne on the death of his father." The principal occurrences in his reign, placed as nearly as possible in chronological order, were a renewal of war with Tahmasp. the Uzbegs, who had again invaded Khorasan, and the overthrow of their army (1527); the recovery of Bagdad from a Kurdish usurper (1528); the settlement of an internal feud between Kizil-bash tribes (Shamlu and Tukulu), contending for the custody of the royal person, by the slaughter of the more unruly of the disputants (1529); the rescue of Khorasan from a fresh irruption, and of Herat from a besieging army of Uzbegs (1530); a new invasion of the Ottomans, from which Persia was saved rather by the severity of her climate than by the prowess of her warriors (1533); the wresting of Bagdad from Persia by the sultan Suleiman (1534); the king's youngest brother's rebellion

It was about this time that Persia again entered into direct relations with one of the states of western Europe. In 1510 and 1514 Alphonso d'Albuquerque, the governor of Portuguese India, sent envoys to Isma'il, seeking an alliance. In 1515, after occupying Hormuz, he despatched a third embassy under Fernão Gomes de with the Portuguese fleet for an attack upon the Sunnite powersLemos. His object was to utilize the Shi'ite armies in conjunction Egypt and Turkey-which were then at war with Portugal in the East. See, for further details and authorities, K. G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama and his Successors, pp. 108-110 and App. A. (London, 1910).-ED.

Malcolm says 1523, Krusinski 1525; Angiolello heard of his death at Cairo in August 1524. Krusinski adds that he was fortyfive years of age.

2 Knolles, Malcolm, Creasy, Markham, &c. Zeno. Angiolello says that "the Sophi monarch had left for Tauris [Tabriz] in order to assemble more troops.' Krusinski infers Selim came in person much to the same effect, for he notes that and took Tauris from Ismail, but at the noise of his approach was obliged to retreat with precipitation." The battle must thus have been fought and the victory gained when the shah was himself absent. Yet Markham quotes a journal which thus records his feats of prowess: "It was in vain that the brave Shah, with a blow of his sabre, severed a chain with which the Turkish guns were fastened together to resist the shock of the Persian cavalry."

Angiolello calls him "Shiacthemes." As an instance of the absurd transliterating current in France as in England the word Ach-tacon may be mentioned. It is explained in Chardin's text to mean les hôpitaux à Tauris: c'est-à-dire lieux où l'on fait profusion de vivres." Chardin's editor remarks, "La dernière partie de ce mot est méconnaissable, et je ne puis deviner quel mot Persan signifiant profusion a pu donner naissance à la corruption " (Anglice qu'on voit ici." In other words, the first syllable "ach " ash) was understood in its common acceptance for "food 'victuals"; but "tacon was naturally a puzzler. The solution of the whole difficulty is, however, to be found in the Turco-Persian ail di khastah khanah, pronounced by Turks hasia hona, or more vulgarly asta khon and even to a French ear ash-tacon, a hospital, literally a sick-house. This word is undoubtedly current at Tabriz and throughout northern Persia.

44

or

7 The other brothers were Ilkhas, Bahram and Sam Mirza, each having had his particular appanage assigned him.

War with Turkey.

Bayezid, a son of the Turkish emperor, rebelled, and his army was beaten in 1559 by the imperial troops at Konia in Asia Minor. He fled to Persia and took refuge with Shah Tahmasp, who pledged himself to give him a permanent asylum. Suleiman's demand, however, for extradition or execution was too peremptory for refusal, and the prince was delivered up to the messengers sent to take him. Whatever the motive, the act itself was highly appreciated by Suleiman, and became the means of cementing a recently concluded peace between the two monarchs. Perhaps the domestic affliction of the emperor and the anarchy which in his later years had spread in his dominions had, however, more to do with the maintenance of tranquillity than any mere personal feeling. At this time not only was there religious fanaticism at work to stir up the mutual hatred ever existing between Sunni and Shi'ah, but the intrigue of European courts was probably directed towards the maintenance of an hostility which deterred the sultan from aggressive operations north and west of Constantinople. "Tis only the Persian stands between us and ruin" is the reported saying of Busbecq, ambassador at Suleiman's court on the part of Ferdinand of Austria; "the Turk would fain be upon us, but he keeps him back."

In 1561 Anthony Jenkinson arrived in Persia with a letter from Queen Elizabeth to the shah. He was to treat with his majesty of Trafique and Commerce for our English Marchants," but his reception was not encouraging, and led to no result of importance.

Tahmasp died in 1576, after a reign of about fifty-two years. He must have been some sixty-six years of age, having come to the throne at fourteen. Writers describe Tahmasp's him as a robust man, of middle stature, wide-lipped, Death. and of tawny complexion. He was not wanting in soldierly qualities; but his virtues were rather negative than decided. The deceased shah had a numerous progeny, and on his death his fifth son, Haidar Mirza, proclaimed himself king, supported in his pretensions by the Kizil-bash tribe of Ustujulu. Another tribe, the Afshar, insisted on the succession of the fourth son, Isma'il. Had it not been that there were two candidates in the field, the contention would have resembled that which arose shortly after Tahmasp's accession. Finally Ismail, profiting from his brother's weak character and the intrigues set on foot against him, obtained his object, and was brought from a prison to receive the crown.

The reign of Isma'il II. lasted less than two years. He was found dead in the house of a confectioner in Kazvin, having left the world either drunk, drugged or poisoned. Ismail II. No steps were taken to verify the circumstances, for the event itself was a cause of general relief and joy. He was succeeded by his eldest brother, Mahommed Mirza, otherwise Mahommed called Mahommed Khudabanda, whose claim to Khuda- sovereignty had been originally put aside on the banda. ground of physical infirmity. He had the good sense to trust his state affairs almost wholly to an able minister; but he was cowardly enough to deliver up that minister into the hands of his enemies. His kingdom was distracted by intestine divisions and rebellion, and the foe 1 Creasy says that "Suliman led his armies against the Persians in several campaigns (1533, 1534, 1535, 1548, 1553, 1554), during which the Turks often suffered severely through the difficult nature of the countries traversed, as well as through the bravery and activity of the enemy." All the years given were in the reign of Tahmasp I.

2 Purchas.

'Abbas, held possession of Khorasan; on the west the sultan's troops again entered Azerbaijan and took Tabriz. His eldest son, Hamza Mirza, upheld his fortunes to the utmost of his power, reduced the rebel chieftains, and forced the Turks to make peace and retire; but he was stabbed to death by an assassin. On the news of his death reaching Khorasan, | Murshid Kuli Khan, leader of the Ustujulu Kizil-bash, who had made good in fight his claims to the guardianship of 'Abbas, at once conducted the young prince from that province to Kazvin, and occupied the royal city. The object was evident, and in accordance with the popular feeling. 'Abbas, who had been proclaimed king by the nobles at Nishapur some two or three years before this occurrence, may be said to have now undertaken in earnest the cares of sovereignty. His ill-starred father, at no time more than a nominal ruler, was at Shiraz, apparently deserted by soldiers and people. Malcolm infers that he died a natural death, but when3 or where is not stated. Shah 'Abbas the Great commenced his long and glorious reign (1586) by retracing his steps towards Khorasan, which had been reinvaded by the Uzbegs almost imme- 'Abbas the diately after his departure thence with the Kizil-bash Great. chief. They had besieged and taken Herat, killed the governor, plundered the town, and laid waste the surrounding country. 'Abbas advanced to Meshed, but owing to internal troubles he was compelled to return to Kazvin without going farther east. In his absence 'Abd-ul-Munim Khan, the Uzbeg commander, attacked the sacred city, obtained possession of it while the shah lay helplessly ill at Teheran, and allowed his savage soldiers full licence to kill and plunder. The whole kingdom was perplexed, and 'Abbas had much work to restore confidence and tranquillity. But circumstances rendered impossible his immediate renewal of the Khorasan warfare. He was summoned to Shiraz to put down rebellion in Fars; and before he could drive out the Uzbegs, he had to secure himself against Turkish inroads threatening from the west. He had been engaged in a war with Murad III. in Georgia. Peace was concluded between the two sovereigns in 1590; but the terms were unfavourable to Persia, who lost thereby Tabriz and one or more of the Caspian ports. A stipulation was included in the treaty to the effect that Persians were not to curse any longer the first three caliphs, a sort of privilege previously enjoyed by Shi'ites as part and parcel of their religious faith.

In 1597 'Abbas renewed operations against the Uzbegs, and succeeded in recovering from them Herat and Khorasan. Eastward he extended his dominions to Balkh, and in the south his generals made the conquest of Bahrain (Bahrein), on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf, and the territory and islands of the Persian seaboard, inclusive of the mountainous province of Lar. He strengthened his position in Khorasan by planting colonies of Kurdish horsemen on the frontier, or along what is called the "atak " or skirt of the Turkoman mountains north of Persia. In 1601 the war with the Ottoman Empire, which had been partially renewed prior to the death of Sultan Murad in 1595, with little success on the Turkish side, was now entered upon by 'Abbas with more vigour. Taking advantage of the weakness of his ancient enemy in the days of the poor voluptuary Mahommed IH., he began rapidly to recover the provinces which Persia had lost in preceding reigns, and continued to reap his advantages in succeeding campaigns under Ahmed I., until under Othman II. a peace was signed restoring to Persia the boundaries which she had obtained under the first Isma'il. On the other side Kandahar, which Tahmasp's lieutenant had yielded to the Great Mogul, was recovered from that potentate in 1609.

At the age of seventy, after a reign of forty-two years, 'Abbas died at his favourite palace of Farahabad, on the coast of Mazandaran, on the night of the 27th of January 1628. Perhaps the most distinguished of all Persian kings, his fame was not merely local but world-wide. At his court were ambassadors from England, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Holland and India.

3 Krusinski says in 1585.