^{page 65 note 1} ‘The principal offices of the Ṣafawid state during the reign of Isma'īl I (907–30/1501–24)’, BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 91–105Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 2} Tārīkh-i īlchī-yi Niẓāmshāh, BM MS Add. 23, 513, f. 464b [TIN].

^{page 65 note 3} The Aq Qoyunlu used both atabeg and lala to denote guardians of princes of the blood royal; the Ṣafawids adopted both these terms, but in Ṣafawid usage lala is more common.

^{page 65 note 4} TIN, f. 465a.

^{page 65 note 5} Dīw Sulṭān summoned them on the pretext of organizing a campaign against the Özbegs.

^{page 65 note 6} Jawāhir al-akhbār (Leningrad MS Dorn 288), f. 298b [JA].

^{page 65 note 7} They included Chūha Sulṭān Takkalū, wālī of Kalhur, 'Alī Sulṭān Dhu'l-Qadar, governor of Shīrāz, Qarāja Sulṭān Takkalū, the tiyūldār of Hamadān, and Burũn Sulṭān Takkalū, governor of Mashhad (Aḥsan al-tawārīkh, ed. Seddon, , Baroda, 1931, 187–8 [AT]Google Scholar; JA, f. 298b).

^{page 66 note 1} TIN, f. 465a–b.

^{page 66 note 2} Dīw Sulṭān had left the capital because he anticipated opposition from the Ustājlūs.

^{page 66 note 3} AT, 188–9.

^{page 66 note 4} TIN, f. 465b.

^{page 66 note 5} AT, 189.

^{page 66 note 6} JA, f. 298b.

^{page 66 note 7} AT, 189.

^{page 66 note 8} ibid.

^{page 66 note 9} TIN, f. 465b.

^{page 67 note 1} JA, f. 298b–299a.

^{page 67 note 2} AT, 189.

^{page 67 note 3} lit. ‘the piece (muhra) of his destiny was trapped in the shishdar of confusion and turmoil’, a metaphor from backgammon.

^{page 67 note 4} TIN, f. 465b–466a.

^{page 67 note 5} AT, 189.

^{page 67 note 6} TIN, f. 466a. Sharafnāma, ed. Veliaminof-Zernof, , St. Petersburg, 1860–1862, II, 171Google Scholar [Shar.], uses a similar phrase: ulkā-yi ūrā taghyīr dāda.

^{page 67 note 7} AT, 189.

^{page 67 note 8} TIN, f. 466a.

^{page 67 note 9} AT, 191.

^{page 67 note 10} AT, 192–4.

^{page 67 note 11} Sharūr was the site of the vital battle between Alwand Aq Qoyunlu and Shāh Isma'īl I in 906/1500–1.

^{page 67 note 12} AT, 199–200.

^{page 67 note 13} JA, f. 200a.

^{page 68 note 1} TIN, f. 466a.

^{page 68 note 2} TIN, f. 466b states that most of the Ṣafawid governors in Khurasān had left their iqtā's and gone to the Rayy and Khwār district of 'Irāq-i 'Ajam; they included the governors of Nīshāpūr, Sabzawār, Astarābād, and Dāmghān and Bisṭām.

^{page 68 note 3} Shar., II, 172.

^{page 68 note 4} AT, 205.

^{page 68 note 5} Shar., II, 172–3.

^{page 68 note 6} See above.

^{page 68 note 7} Shar., II, 178.

^{page 68 note 8} Shar., I, 418.

^{page 68 note 9} TIN, f. 466b.

^{page 68 note 10} TIN, f. 468b, gives the relative strength of the armies as: Özbegs, more than 100,000, versus at the most 30,000 qizilbāsh; AT, 215, says that the Özbeg army was the largest force to cross the Oxus since the invasion of Changīz (Chingiz) Khān.

^{page 68 note 11} TIN, f. 468b.

^{page 69 note 1} AT, 216–19.

^{page 69 note 2} JA, f. 300b.

^{page 69 note 3} AT, 220.

^{page 69 note 4} TIN, f. 469b.

^{page 69 note 5} AT, 221.

^{page 69 note 6} AT, 221–2.

^{page 69 note 7} TIN, f. 470a.

^{page 69 note 8} AT, 235.

^{page 69 note 9} AT, 235.

^{page 70 note 1} AT, 236. Ulama (Ūlāma), the Takkalū governor of Ādharbāyjān, who was a protégé of Chūha Sulṭān, rebelled when Ḥusayn Khān Shāmlū was appointed amīr al-umarā (TIN, f. 471a); see also AT, 237.

^{page 70 note 2} TIN, f. 471a.

^{page 70 note 3} TIN, f. 471a.

^{page 70 note 4} AT, 189.

^{page 70 note 5} AT, 253. Sām Mīrzā was a younger brother of Ṭahmāsp. The treachery of Sām Mīrzā is alleged by the Sharafnāma, which states that Sām Mīrzā had indicated his allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan Sulaymān I, ‘who had addressed him as a son and had bestowed on him the sovereign power in Persia’ (II, 185).

^{page 70 note 6} TIN, f. 474a.

^{page 70 note 7} AT, 254.

^{page 70 note 8} AT, 496.

^{page 70 note 9} His father 'Abdī Beg Shāmlū had married a sister of Isma'īl I.

^{page 71 note 1} The disaffection of Sām Mīrzā in 940/1533–4, and tho revolt of Alqāṣ Mīrzā a few years later (see my article ‘Alḳāṣ Mīrzā’ in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, I, 406), were instances of princes, governing provinces of the Ṣafawid empire, voluntarily rebelling against the ruling authority. In the dynastic feuds at the end of Ṭahmāsp's reign and after-wards, the princes were frequently the involuntary agents of rebellion. Taken from the ḥaram, or released from imprisonment, by one or other of the rival factions, the princes were used as pawns in the struggle for succession.

^{page 72 note 1} See Savory, R. M., BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 94 ffGoogle Scholar. Ḥusayn Beg Shāmlū was in fact the only Turkoman wakīl of Isma'īl's reign; from 913–14/1508 onwards there was a succession of Persian wakīls.

^{page 72 note 2} cf. BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 94, n. 3Google Scholar. It is worth noting that the qizilbāsh considered the office of lala as one of their prerogatives; no Persian ever held the position of lala.

^{page 72 note 3} AT, 253. Ma'ṣūm Beg Ṣafawī is also referred to as wakīl-i shāh-i dīn-panāh in 967/1559–60: see below.

^{page 72 note 4} See BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 99Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 5} See above.

^{page 73 note 1} Kudūratī, lit. ‘turbidity’ or ‘murkiness’ of water.

^{page 73 note 2} AT, 184.

^{page 73 note 3} TIN, f. 465a.

^{page 73 note 4} AT, 185.

^{page 73 note 5} TIN, f. 465a.

^{page 73 note 6} AT, 189.

^{page 73 note 7} JA, f. 298b.

^{page 73 note 8} AT, 189; cf. ibid., 244, which refers to him as wazīr-i shāh-i dīn-panāh.

^{page 73 note 9} Or Ārūkh; TIN, f. 471a, has Ārūq.

^{page 74 note 1} JA, f. 298b–299a.

^{page 74 note 2} See above, introduction.

^{page 74 note 3} AT, 244; TIN, f. 471a. The latter text states that Aḥmad Beg Nūr Kamāl Iṣfahānī was made wakīl in place of Amīr Ja'far.

^{page 74 note 4} TIN, f. 474a. Professor Minorsky renders muḥaṣṣil by ‘special delegate’ or ‘special collector’ (see Tadhkirat al-mulūk [TM] (translation), 48; (commentary), 125, 177).

^{page 74 note 5} TIN, f. 476a.

^{page 74 note 6} TIN, f. 474a.

^{page 74 note 7} AT, 375; cf. JA, f. 311b–312a, which states that 'Qāḍi Jahān Qazwīnī, who had formerly held the wizārat and wikālat, returned from imprisonment at Rasht and was appointed to the wizārat, and “Kachal” ‘Ināyat Iṣfahānī Khūzānī, who had formerly been the wazīr of Köpek Sulṭān, and who had gone with the Ustājlūs to Rasht and had come back, was wazīr, and Khwāja Mu'īn Yazdī was also styled wazīr (ism-i wizārat dāsht)’.

^{page 74 note 8} AT, 375.

^{page 75 note 1} AT, 274.

^{page 75 note 2} f. 475b–476a.

^{page 75 note 3} JA, f. 313b.

^{page 75 note 4} AT, 375.

^{page 75 note 5} AT, 375–6. According to TIN, f. 479b, he died on 12 Muḥarram 959/9 January 1552. According to JA, f. 324a, he died on 17 Dhu'l-Ḥijja 960/25 November 1553.

^{page 75 note 6} AT, 373–6.

^{page 75 note 7} II, 187.

^{page 75 note 8} AT, 411; cf. ibid., 443.

^{page 75 note 9} AT, 490. Sulṭān Ḥaydar Mīrzā was Ṭahmāsp's third son.

^{page 75 note 10} AT (trans. Seddon, , Baroda 1934), 278Google Scholar, quoting the Silsilat al-nasab, says that he was the grandson of the brother of Sulṭān Ḥaydar.

^{page 75 note 11} AT, 315.

^{page 75 note 12} AT, 357.

^{page 76 note 1} II, 239.

^{page 76 note 2} TIN, f. 480a.

^{page 76 note 3} See TM, index, s.v.

^{page 76 note 4} AT, 458. Marsūm, ‘salary and allowances payable in cash’ (see TM (trans. Minorsky, ) 88, para. 95Google Scholar; 93, para. 127; (commentary) 152, n. 2) is to be distinguished from rusūm, ‘customary levies, perquisites’ (see TM (commentary), 155, n. 2).

^{page 76 note 5} JA, f. 334a–b.

^{page 76 note 6} JA, f. 339b.

^{page 76 note 7} See below.

^{page 77 note 1} See below, section on the ṣadr.

^{page 77 note 2} TM (introduction), 24 ff. See also Lambton, A. K. S., Landlord and peasant in Persia, 108Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 3} See BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 100Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 4} AT, 181. Shar., II, 169, says that Bāyazīd Sulṭān b. Chāyān Sulṭān, succeeded his father as amīr al-umarā after the death of Bāyazīd Sulṭān in 930/1523–4. JA, f. 293b, on the other hand, states ‘and Chāyān Sulṭān died in this year and his place was given to Bāyazīd Sulṭān, and he, too, soon died and Köpek Sulṭän became his successor’.

^{page 77 note 5} AT, 184.

^{page 77 note 6} AT, 185.

^{page 77 note 7} Shar., II, 169. Köpek Sulṭān was the paternal uncle of Bāyazīd Sulṭān b. Chāyān Sulṭān, the former amīr al-umarā.

^{page 77 note 8} AT, 187.

^{page 77 note 9} AT, 188.

^{page 77 note 10} JA, f. 293b.

^{page 78 note 1} JA, f. 297b.

^{page 78 note 2} See introduction.

^{page 78 note 3} AT, 198.

^{page 78 note 4} TIN, f. 466b.

^{page 78 note 5} JA, f. 302b.

^{page 78 note 6} JA, f. 300b.

^{page 78 note 7} AT, 235.

^{page 78 note 8} AT, 236.

^{page 78 note 9} AT, 237.

^{page 78 note 10} AT, 253.

^{page 78 note 11} AT, 238. They were the sons of a sister of Isma'īl.

^{page 78 note 12} AT, 433.

^{page 78 note 13} TIN, f. 471a.

^{page 78 note 14} JA, f. 333a; cf. also AT, 440–1. This Shāh Qulī Sulṭān Ustājlū should not be confused with the homonymous Shāh Qulī Sulṭān Yakān Lala Ustājlū, governor of Harāt from 974/1566–7 until his assassination in 984/1576, and lala of Muḥammad Khudābanda (cf. AT, 430; 485–6).

^{page 79 note 1} See BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 101Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 2} TIN, f. 468b.

^{page 79 note 3} Or Dāra.

^{page 79 note 4} AT, 236.

^{page 79 note 5} Shar., II, 218.

^{page 79 note 6} TM (commentary), 117.

^{page 79 note 7} II, 268.

^{page 79 note 8} See above.

^{page 79 note 9} i.e. Köpek Sulṭān; see above.

^{page 79 note 10} This is an interesting indication of the extent to which the religious institution was already independent of the political institution, to which it was nominally subordinate.

^{page 80 note 1} TIN, f. 465a.

^{page 80 note 2} AT, 398.

^{page 80 note 3} AT (trans.), 282, n.

^{page 80 note 4} TIN, f. 480a.

^{page 80 note 5} TIN, f. 480a.

^{page 80 note 6} AT, 419. TIN, f. 481b, gives the same division of provinces. Amīr Zayn al-Dīn 'Alī had been appointed ṣadr in 963/1555–6.

^{page 80 note 7} JA, f. 329b.

^{page 80 note 8} Chardin (Amsterdam ed.), II, 286.

^{page 80 note 9} TM (Professor Minorsky's translation), 42.

^{page 81 note 1} Lambton, A. K. S., ‘Quis custodiet custodes’, Studia, Islamica, VI, 1956, 135 ff., 142Google Scholar. The mullābāshī was the chief religious official from the time of Shāh Sulṭān Ḥusayn (ascended the throne 1105/1694) onwards.

^{page 81 note 2} TM, 111.

^{page 81 note 3} In 985/1577 Isma'īl II conferred the manṣab-i ṣadārat-i a'lā on Mawlānā Shāh 'Ināyat Allāh, an eminent sayyid of Iṣfahān, and entrusted to him the administration and control of this weighty office (AT, 491–2).

^{page 81 note 4} Lambton, A. K. S., ‘Quis custodiet custodes’, Studia Islamica, VI, 1956, 144Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 5} On the power of the mujtahids during the reign of 'Abbās I, see Browne, E. G., A literary history of Persia, IV, 368–70Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 1} Amīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn was himself dismissed in 938/1531–2 (AT, 244), so Amīr Ni'mat Allāh must have been dismissed either in 936/1529–30 or 937/1530–1.

^{page 82 note 2} Tārīkh-i 'Ālam-ārā-yi 'Abbāsī (lith. ed.), 107 [TAA].

^{page 82 note 3} Appointed 935/1528–9. He was forced to evacuate Baghdād when the Ottomans, under Sulaymān I, advanced on the city in the winter of 941/1534—5.

^{page 82 note 4} AT, 254–5.

^{page 82 note 5} AT, 313.

^{page 82 note 6} AT, 278, states that he was dismissed in A.H. 943, but AT, 282, gives A.H. 944.

^{page 82 note 7} For details, see AT, 282–3.

^{page 83 note 1} AT, 398.

^{page 84 note 1} TAA, II, 252.

^{page 84 note 2} The Aḥsan al-tawārīkh describes four expeditions to Georgia by Ṭahmāsp, the chief of which were those of 947/1540–1, 958/1551, and 961/1553–4. From each of these expeditions Ṭahmāsp brought back captives, mainly women and children. In the campaign of 961/1553—4, the number of captives amounted to 30,000, and on this occasion a number of Georgian nobles (aznāwurān) were taken captive to Persia (AT, 382). It was, however, not only prisoners and the offspring of prisoners who entered the Ṣafawid ranks. 'Alī Qulī Beg, known as Qizil 'Alī Khān, came to the Ṣafawid court as ambassador from the ruler of Georgia, and was enrolled among the muqarrabs and ghulāms of the court, along with his muta'alliqān and khuddām. Although he was closely related to the King of Georgia, and governed certain provinces there, he severed his connexion, and became a servant of the Ṣafawid dynasty, and eventually became governor of Shakkī, a province of Shīrwān (Jāmi'i-Mufīdī, BM MS Or. 210, f. 169a–b).

^{page 84 note 3} TM (introduction), 18, 32 and n. 4, 33.

^{page 85 note 1} TM (introduction), 30.