V. Minorsky: La Domination de Daylamites

(Conference given to the Societé des Etudes Iraniennes [Iranian Studies Society], Paris, 28 May, 1931. 
See now Minorsky, "Daylam" in the Encycl. of Islam, 1962, pp. 189-94)  
 

V. Minorsky

The region of Dailam is perhaps less unknown than its inhabitants; and even before Dailam one has to think of the little canton Dailaman situated in Gilan to the south of the city of Lahidjan, although this district was only a remainder, similar to a colony, of ancient Dailam. As for the Dailamites, their role in the history of Persia began to be drawn with clarity only in quite recent times, due above all to the publication of the work of Ibn Miskawaih, the historian of the Buyid [Buwayhid] dynasty. 

The Persian renaissance, which under the aegis of the Samanids (875-999) was operating at the extreme east of Persia, has eclipsed for generations since the life of western Persia. One certainly cannot ignore the importance of the Buyid dynasty, but its links with the the Dailamite element which with it exited and which constituted its principal appeal, have not been sufficiently put down in evidence. 

Now, this Iranian tribe, which between 928 and 1055 exercised its influence on the vast area spreading out from the Indian Ocean up to the border with Syria, merits our attention fully. In starting from this ethnic base, we seek especially to demonstrate that for more than one hundred years, the Dailamites were the standard-bearers of Iranism in the whole area of Iran situated to the west of the great central desert. 

1. First of all let us talk about the country of the Dailamites. In the tenth century, when the Buyids’ power was at its apogee, the term Dailam designated all the provinces of the southern coast of the Caspian; and the great geographer Muqaddasi (985 A.D.) in his zeal to reform geograpical terminology, understood, under the rubric "Dailam", the totality of the territories around the Caspian. However Dailam properly speaking, this true cradle of the Dailamites, was a mountainous region, [une région montagneuse déterminée] forming a sort of antechamber of Gilan. 

All those from Tehran who are going towards the Caspian have to follow the great gap through which the Sefid-rud [Sefid river], born to the south of the great rampart of the Abburz, which runs down towards the sea. After Qazvin the route climbs the secondary obstacle which separates the Iranian plateau from the basin of the Sefid-rud and then descends towards the picturesque bridge of Menjil, building downstream from the junction of the Sefid-rud with its tributary to the right of the Shah-rud, and upstream from the defile though which their waters freshly rejoin the main network. It is on the front mountain of the Alburz, situated to the south of the main network, but arising through the waters which then find an exit towards the north, where we find the native land of the Dailamites. On the northern slope of the Alburz the same tribes were occupying the mountainous districts between the Sefid-rud and the left bank of the Tchalus river which pours in the sea in the vicinity of 180 kilometers from the mouth of the Sefid-rud. 

Nearby, the flat and marshy part of the coastline was occupied by the Gilanis [les Gil-s] which explains the name of the province of Gilan. 

From the point of view of climate, the elevated country of Dailam has all the advantages, more than Gilan, where the marsh and its malaria, than on the central plateau, with its great annoying dryness. This country, "neither too big, nor too beautiful" (Muqaddasi) having produced a very strong and very numerous race, renowned for its extraordinary courage and its great endurance, and whose representatives had a good looking, commanding appearance [une belle prestance] and handsome beards. An Arab source calls the Dailamites ashqar "a rosy colour". The long and disordered hair of the Dailamites has at all times produced fresh metaphors of the poets. These last mention a black skull cap just as much. 

2. It is difficult to pronounce on the origins of these mountain people [montagnards]. We know that, in the Caspian provinces, they were existing in the antiquity of probably non-Iranian peoples (the Tapur-s, the Amard-s, etc.), who have since disappeared. Perhaps the Dailamites were related to or descended from one of these peoples. The geographer Istakhri, writing in 951, established first of all that the language of the Dailamites is different from that of the Arab, the Persian and the Arranians [the people of Arran, in ancient Iran], and next that in their mountain[s] there was a tribe which speaks a different language from that of the Dailamites and of the Gilanis. The sporadic survival of ancient languages being possible; but it is sure that in the Muslim epoch the majority of the Dailamites were already Iranicised, to judge by their proper names which we know: Makard, Makan, Mafannah, Vehsudan, Mardust, Mardafvidj ("one who attacks men"), Lachkarsitan, Lachkarvarz, Vandadkhurchid, Vuchmgir ("taker [or buyer] of quails") Gorgir ("taker [or buyer] of wild asses") Asfar ("horseman"), Chirasfar, Bilasuvar ("great horseback rider"), Chirzil ("lion heart") (zil = dil in Persian) etc. The toponomy of the Dailamite country (Purdasar "head of the bridge", or purd = pul in Persian) corroborates the impression that the language the Dailamites of the Arab epoch was an Iranian dialect from the north different enough from Persian (Farsi) which is a dialect of the south and first of all of the province of Fars. The Persians must have experienced some difficulty in understanding this patois, as at the present time it is difficult for them to understand the Kurd and, similarly, the Gilani [gilaki] speaker. 

3. Already Polybe in the second century before our era speaks of Delymaïoï and the geographer Ptolemy in the eleventh century after Christ knew their country Delymaïs. 

Their country appears not to have been conquered, at least in a solid manner, by the ancient kings of Persia: Archemenids, Parthians and Sasanids. But the Dailamites enlisted voluntarily as mercenaries and it is as thus that the Byzantines, who were constantly at war with the Persians from the fourth up to the seventh century, mentioned the Dailamite contingents among the Persian troops. The Dailamites also arranged their own account of early expeditions: and the geographer Yaqut (711) indicated the existence to the right of Shahrazur of Dailamistan - which under the ancient kings of Persia had served the purpose of a base of operations when they descended towards the Mesopotamian plain, and of a storehouse for the booty that they brought back from their raids. 

The Dailamites certainly had some princes, for at the time of the Muslim conquest their chief Muta (or Murtha) organised the resistance to the Arabs on the river Vadjrud (between Hamadan and Qazvin), and he must have had a high rank, for the other chiefs of the Caspian provinces were subordinated to him. 

The Dailamites had clan organisation, which depended on the authority of family heads. At least the great scholar al-Biruni reproached the ’Alid [Shi’ia] Nasir al-Utruch (that is to say Hasan al-Utruch, towards 914 [A.D.]) of having decomposed [décomposer] the ancient organisation of Dailam which dated from the legendary King Faridun and of whom the essential element was the katkhuda ("master of the house", pater familias): these appear to be replaced by a system of rebel (brigand) collaboration with the people. 

The religion of the Dailamites was also of a vague character. Zoroastrianism and probably Christianity penetrated, among others, but Mas’udi declares formally that at Dailam there was a people who lived in ignorance of all established religion. The authors record numerous customs among the Dailamites which very much struck them. According to Muqaddasi, they practised strict endogamy, that is to say, always marrying within their own tribe; and one day the author saw with his own eyes a man, sword in his hand, who was pursuing a woman to punish her for having married an outsider. In this the Dailamites distinguished themselves from their neighbours in Gilan, among whom morals were rather lax. Moreover, Dailamite women were the equals of men and by the same right participated in affairs. [On] market days the Dailamites practised fighting before all the village inhabitants. All authors talk of lamentations to which the Dailamites gave way to on their deaths. We shall return to this important point. 

4. Still, at the time of the Sassanids, Qazvin was the great rampart against Dailamites; the Tchalus fortress, to the east of Dailam, also had a considerable importance. The Muslims only had to fortify these dominant points against the turbulent tribe. But "in the mountain of the city of Tchalus and beyond it was living the Dailamite nation which had never professed obedience". 

The numerous expeditions against Dailam did not achieve lasting results. Nevertheless the mountain of the Dailamites was not totally inaccessible from a geographical point of view. It is usually said that the celebrated Hajjaj [Hadjdjadj] had drawn a map of Dailam and showed to the Dailamite chiefs, for the purpose of proving the uselessness of resistance, once the secrets of their country were known. But the Dailamites looked at the map with indifference: "Oh amir [prince]", they said, "the map is incomplete, you cannot see the horsemen [cavaliers] who are guarding the mountain". 

The contemporary history Seyyid Ahmad Kasrawi, [Kasravi] not without some exaggeration of course, remarks concerning the Dailamites: "The Muslims have already penetrated up to Loire in France, while this handful of men is resisting still". 

However Islam infiltrated Dailam by peaceful means. Through fear of ’Abbasid persecutions certain descendants of ’Ali found refuge in Dailam (175/791) where they were received as possible allies against the caliphs of Baghdad. 

Beginning with 250/864 these imams played an important role making Dailam a new centre for resistance, equally hostile to Baghdad and to the dynasties of Khorasan [in north central Iran], who freed themselves from Baghdad, seeking to expand their domination in the Caspian provinces. 

5. To better understand thr role of the Dailamites in the history of Persia, it will be necessary to recall briefly the fate of Iranism since the seventh century of our era. 

The last Iranian success date from the vicinity of 641, when the armies of the Sassanids, already in posession of Yemen, were advancing on Jerusalem, Egypt and Constantinople. 

Towards 628, through a dramatic turn of events, this success was neutralised by the young and valiant emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius, who occupied Azerbaijan and burned down the great temple of fire at Ganzak. King Khosrow [Khosrou] II, deposed by his son Chiroyeh [Chiroyé], was assasinated in his prison. The Mesopotamian rivers having overflowed their banks that year; the flood was followed by a year of terrible epidemics of plague, to which Chiroyeh succumbed. In four years, twelve persons succeeded him on the throne and when the young Yazdagird finally took power, he was too late, for the Arabs - playing the role of the third thief - were at the doors of Persia. Beaten in all the battles, Yazdagird escaped to Marv [Merv] and died there in 651, while his son Firuz sought asylum at the court of China. 

For around two centuries, the name of Persia had to merge with that of the caliphate, and the Persian renaissance was slow and painful. 

The two systems of administration - that of the Umayyad caliphs and that of the ’Abbasids - were very different. 

Under the Umayyads (660-750 [A.D.]), the state was purely Arab and the indigenous [people] only existed to be governed by the Arabs. 

Under the ’Abbasids, who themselves came out of Khorasan, Iranism penetrated into all the administrations and into all domains of cultural life, although the Arab idea found its very convinced defenders among the Persians themselves. These latter were welcomed everywhere, naturally on condition that they consent to march in the imperial way of the caliphate and similarly to use Arabic as the official and literary language! 

However, as if to mitigate for such a system, the territories subject to the caliphs were very large: while to the west all of northern Africa freed itself from Baghdad; to the extreme east, three dynasties of ancient governors of the caliph acquired autonomy successively: 

• the Tahirids (821-873) 

• the Saffarids (867-903) 

• the Samanids (875-999) 

The Samanids were already the real Persian sovereigns and were acquainted with the splendour of their court at Bokhara and their role in the development of Persian literature. 

The dividing up of the caliphate did not stop at Khorasan. More to the east some Samanids themselves set up a second zone of autonomous territories and it is here that the Dailamites dominated, seizing some territories between the Samanids and the caliphate. 

6. In the light of this digression, we are now able to appreciate both the coming of the Dailamites and their real value. 

We have let ourselves drift (towards 800) to the moment when the ’Alids chased by the ’Abbasids were established among them. Gradually the ’Alid propaganda achieved what armies had been unable to achieve - the conversion of the majority of Dailamites to Islam in the form of Zaydite Shi’ism. In their turn, the imams Dailamised themselves and embraced the cause of the local populations. So long as the Dailamites resisted the conversion attempts, their country was considered as a territory of war (dar al-harb), permitting Muslims to organise the hunt for slaves. The ’Alid Hasan ibn ’Ali al-Utruch (302/914) put an end to such practices and destroyed the fortress of Tchalus directed against Dailam. 

To protect the rights of Dailamites on the common pastures that the Tahirid governors wished to appropriate, the ’Alids allied to themselves the local princes (of the Justanid dynasty). From Dailam the imams conducted their flock across the Caspian provinces. This way they habituated the Dailamites to the idea of expansion and made them conscious of their force. Much later, towards 302/914 the ’Alids gave a democratic character to their movement, mustering the population against the Justanid princes and taking themselves to power. After Tabari (III, 2292), the men never had seen a government more just than that of Hasan al-Utruch. 

Sayyid Ahmad Kasrawi could trace the existence of six princes of the Justanid house between the years 804 and 927. Their centre was at Rudbar, on the Sefid-rud, downstream from Menjil,* and people ask whether the fortress in the middle of the river of which one sees still the ruins, does not have some connection with the Justanids. Some obscure offshoots of the family could exercise an ephemeral power right up to [même jusqu’au] the eleventh century, but the future belongs to the new elements. (*See the corrections in notes 6 and 24.) 

7. Still at the time of the Justanids’ reign, the family of the Kangari (Musafirids) who were related to them by marriage, appeared at Chamiran on the Sefid-rud, upstream from Mendjil, to travel around from there towards Azerbaijan and in Transcaucasia as well. 

But the principal effort of the Dailamites was directed towards the south, towards the great and celebrated village of Rey (Rhages) whose ruins, as we know, are situated 7-8 km. to the south of Tehran. 

A series of ancient chiefs, seasoned in the service of the ’Alids now advanced themselves boldly to commence the conquest of western and southern Persia. 

First of all, towards 308 (920) the Dailamite Leili Ibn Nu’man appeared, who seized from Nishapur to Khorasan , but the following year the Samanids sent his head to Baghdad. 

Following [him] came the courageous general of the ’Alids Makan Ibn Kaki, who captured Rey but had to leave to pass into the service of the Sassanids and finally fell in a revolt against his new masters (in 329/941). 

He was replaced at Rey by the savage Asfar Ibn Chiroyeh, who was a native of Larijan and belonged to the Vardadawandan clan. But soon he was put to death by his general Mardavij Ibn Ziyar. 

This latter was the founder of the important dynasty of the Ziyarids which had begun at Rey, at Isfahan and at Ahwaz, finally to be confined in the region of Gurgan, near to Astarabad, where in our days we can see the funeral tower of Ziyarid Qabus. The Ziyarids, descended from the Arghich clan, were originally from Gilan and consequently were not Dailamites in the full sense of the word, for the Gilanis [les Gil] were the cousins of the Dailamites and moreover the Ziyarids were surrounded by the Dailamites. The dynasty of Ziyarids (928-1042) were the first Iranian dynasty who established a stable factor to the west of the Samanids. 

The succession of chiefs with bizarre names who appeared on the scene after 920 is interesting as an indice of the force which boiled up in the very narrow reservoir of Dailam and which must finally come to an end with the most important of the Dailamite dynasties, that of the Buyids. 

8. Its founders were the three brothers: ’Ali (the future Imam al-Daula), Hasan (Rokn al-Daula) and Ahmad (Mo’izz al-Daula). Their father Buya (whence came their surname), belonged to the Chirzil-avand clan and resided in the village of Kiyakalich in Dailam. Much later he invented a fictitious genealogy for him, dating back to the Sassanid king, Bahram Gor. The three brothers were real condottieri [leaders] and had commenced in the service of Makan. This last, when passing into the service of the Samanids, was sent as governor to Kirman, the three brothers very candidly asked for authorisation to leave him, and used to advantage an argument similarly specious: "It is better for yourself", they said, "that we leave you, so as to lighten the budget, and to make this charge fall on the back of someone else". This "someone else", as it happens, was the Ziyarids, the very fortunate rivals of their former master. 

Soon the oldest of the three brothers, ’Ali, enjoyed the appreciation of the Ziyarid Mardavidj who gave him the little governorat of Karaj, 32a from where, in a manner unexpected by himself, he took hold of Isfahan after having defeated the governor. This latter had 4,000 men, whereas ’Ali only had at his disposal merely 700, but the mercenaries of the governor were the Dailamites, compatriots of ’Ali. 

Angry, Mardavij sent against Isfahan his son Vuchmgir. ’Ali withdrew towards the west to Arrajan, but again had the opportunity to carry off a great victory against the governor of the province of Fars who was another directly picked by the caliph. In 322/934 the young Hasan, who was not yet 19 years, occupied Kirman. Because of this, the caliph was only guarding the western border of Persia: Khorasan was dominated by the Saminids, at Rey and Isfahan the Ziyarids, and the south was in the hands of the Buyid brothers. 

But the rein of Mardavij did not last a long time. He was a man of crotchety character and little liked by those close to him. On the eve of his assasination, he celebrated the ancient Zoroastrian festival of Sadhak, which was maintained for a long time by the Muslims. The ceremony consisted of a banquet together with [torch-light] illumination and of embracing. He had prepared a great heap of shrubs, gathering together some naphtha and some pipes to throw them, and made ready two thousand crows and kites who would take off with some small torches attached to their claws. Mardavij wished to make it grand, but when he was examining these preparations he was filled with distaste for the petty effect that this spectacle was producing on the vast plane. He wrapped himself up in the hood of his burnous and and lay down in his tent, turning his back on the guests, who withdrew in the face of such an affront. Still of bad humour, Mardavij carried on about the Turkish grooms, making them attach their horses’ salts to their backs and [then] lead them to the stable, holding them by the halter. The Turks found this insult intolerable and murdered their master in his bath. 

It was in 323/935. The Buyid Hasan, kept as a hostage at the court of Mardavij, yielded to his brother, ’Ali, and taking advantage of the disappearance of their rival, the Buyids were anxious to occupy Isfahan and Rey. In 329/940 Hasan pushed forward to a point close to Tabaristan. 

Elsewhere the expansion of the Buyids towards the west continued. From 326/937 Ahmad descended on Khuzistan, which he held in spite of all the opposition which he encountered. The plans of the Buyids became increasingly ambitious. In the year 328/939 we learn for he first time that the the oldest of the three brothers proposes that they march towards Mesopotamia. But it is the youngest Ahmad who, five times (between 942 and 945) invaded the possessions of the caliph, penetrating each time deeper into Mesopotamia. 

9. In this epoch the caliphate suffered a profound crisis. It is sufficient to enumerate the fortune of some caliphs since the commencement of the fourth/tenth centuries. 

The caliph Muqtadir, reigning since 295/908, accused of having squandered for his simple pleasure seventy million gold dinars, was deposed in 929 by the eunuch Mu’nis. Returning to the throne some days afterwards, he was killed in a revolt by the berber soldiers of the same Mu’nis. 

His successor Qahir (932-4) was a man for whom bigotry covered multiple weaknesses. He had two dignitaries executed, for buying the musicians upon whom he had fixed his choice. In spite of the favours that the mother of his predecessor had done him, he had her suspended by a foot and whipped on her hand, so that she would reveal to him the hiding place where the treasures were held. Two years after, Qahir was deposed by the soldiers, who invaded his palace, and afterwards blinded him in his prison. 

Under his successor Radi (934-40), of all Persia, only some western districts remained with the caliphate. In Baghdad, since 324/936, the power had passed into the hands of Ibn al-Ra’iq, who set up the series of mayors of the palace among whom already in 329/941 we see a Dailamite Gorangej ("hunter of wild asses"). The caliph’s vezirs are nothing but the executors of the military’s wishes. 

The following caliph, al-Muttaqi (940-4) had left Baghdad, for fear of his amir al-omara, the Turk Tuzun, who finally took hold of his master and blinded him, not without firstly prostrating himself before him. 

His successor Mustakfi (944-6) had his election at the recomendation of a woman of Shiraz, called Husn and who saw through the controller at the palace (qahramana) 

10. It is then that the hour struck for the Buyids to establish themselves in Baghdad. When the dynasty of crafty Baridis disappeared from the Mesopotamian Basin (Wasit-Basra) and when the brave soldier Tazun died from an attack of apoplexy, the Buyid Ahmad entered into secret conference with Mustakfi and occupied Bagdad without striking striking a blow on 17 January 946. 

The caliph came to meet him at the Shammasiya gate. Ahmad swore not to persecute the dignitaries in Mustakfi’s entourage, who for his part conferred on Ahmad the title of Mo’izz al-Daula and his brothers those of ’Imad al-Daula and Rokn al-Daula [respectively]. 

But the situation went sour rapidly. Firstly, the controller of the palace gave a banquet in honour of the Dailamite chiefs. Mo’izz saw an intrigue there set to detach his generals from him. Besides, the caliph arrested the chief of the Baghdad Shi’ites, forgetting that the new palace mayor was their co-religionist. 

On 29 January - twelve days after the entry into Baghdad - Mo’izz went to an audience at the palace. 

The caliph was sitting on the throne and the dignitaries had taken places around him following their rank. "Then", says historian Ibn Miskawih, "Mo’izz al-Daula came in, and after the custom, kissed the ground and the hand of Mustakfi, remaining standing in conversation with the caliph. then he sat himself on a chair and arranged to meet the ambassadors arriving from Khorasan. … At this moment, two Dailamites came forward, stretching out their hands towards Mustakfi and talking in Persian. The caliph believed that they wished to kiss the hand he extended towards them. But they seized him by the hand, hurling him to the ground, pushing his turban to the back and continued to drag him. Then Mo’izz al-Daula arose. The confusion became general and cries arose. The Dailamites arrested the [palace] controller and his wife. The people ran towards the door and there was general jostling and great pillaging. The two Dailamites dragged Mustakfi by the feet to the palace of Mo’izz and he was locked up. The caliph’s palace was pillaged until nothing was left there." Mo’izz sent for Abul Qasim, son of Muqtadir, and proclaimed him caliph the same day, under the name of Mut’lillab, who could only say "obedience to God"! 

Such were the events in all their brutality. We can neither skip over nor be misaken about their significance; after three centuries of demanding politics, the Iranians were settled in the capital of Mesopotomia. An Iranian "commisioner" now controlled the administration of the supreme chief of the Islamic state and, yet, even stranger, an adherent of Shi’ism, which was going to become the national form of the Arab religion one day, commanding from the centre like an orthodox Muslim. 

Several times the caliphs tried to pull down the Buyids but, in short, the letter of the caliph al-Muti’, dated 361/971 gives an idea of the situation. Invited by the Buyid Bakhtiyar to contribute to the success of a project of holy war, the caliph responded: "All that I have is a pittance which is insufficient for my own needs, whereas the world is in your hands and in those of the provincial governors. Neither holy war, nor the pilgrimage, nor any matter demanding the attention of the sovereign are in my jurisdiction. All that I can claim is [for] my name to be pronounced in the public prayer (khutba) … And if you wish me to renounce this privilege also, I am ready to do it and abandon all to you". 

11. We cannot follow the fortune of the Buyid dynasty in detail. The family remained divided into several fiefs with the main centres at Shiraz, at Rey and at Baghdad, but the first Buyids distinguished themselves in a deep sense through their sense of family links and [by] not breaching chivalrous concepts. When Mo’izz al-Daula died in Baghdad, his son and successor Bakhtiar showed himself to be a prince devoted to pleasure and devoid of all cleverness. Unhappy with his Turkish mercenaries, Bakhtiar took it into his head to exterminate them. A terrible revolt broke out and the Turkish chief seized power in Baghdad.The domination of the Buyids in Mesopotamia was shaken. 

The head of the family, Rokn al-Daula, remained at Rey, while his son ’Adud al-Daula governed at Shiraz. With his father’s agreement, ’Adud al-Daula left in 364/974 for Baghdad and re-established order there; but, at the same time, through subtle pressure, he made Bakhtiar abdicate and finally occupied his place. ’Adud al-Daula thought all the time of his need to obtain sancion from his father for this combination [of deeds]. Some skilful ambassadors were sent to Rey but, as soon as they opened their mouths, the old Rokn jumped, seized a lance and, brandishing it, chased the emissaries. He would say to ’Adud al-Daula: "Is the object of your expedition to help my nephew or to seize hold of his kingdom? Several times myself I went away to aid Hasan ibn Firuzan (of the Makan family), who was not my relative, and each time I have abandoned his posessions, so that I might risk my life in battling his powerful enemies (the Ziyarid Vuchmgir) and the Samanids) … Similarly, I have accepted a single dirham for myself in recompense, and I have done all this only to acquire a good name and to uphold chivalry". 

The protest was so energetic that ’Adud al-Daula lived obligated to re-establish Bakhtiar; and this was only when this outraged man [insensé] himself marched against Shiraz that ’Adud re-occupied Baghdad in 367/977 and pacified all the country as far as Amed (Diyarbak_r). 

’Adud al-Daula was the most celebrated of the Buyids and reigned 34 years (in Fars 949-978 and at Baghdad 978-983). Under him, the Buyid troops occupied Baluchistan and Makran and similarly operated with success in Oman, on the northern coast of Arabia.‘Adud was a great builder. His magnificent palace at Shiraz is described in detail by Muqaddasi who says that the walls of his 300 rooms sometimes imitated Chinese porcelain (al-ghadar al-sini), sometimes assumed the form of marble, sometimes were gilded and covered in paintings. In Fars province, ’Adud al-Daula built the famous dam named in his honour Band-i Amir; in Mesopotamia, the sanctauries of ’Ali and of Husein, the hospital of Baghdad, the palace of Saray Sultan as well in Baghdad, in Arabia - the Medina wall, etc. ’Adud al-Daula died in Mesopotamia and was buried at Najaf. 

The two brothers of ’Adud, Moayyid al-Daula and Fakhr al-Daula (whose base was Rey), were particularly known because of their vezir, the celebrated learned person Sahib Isma’il Ibn ’Abbad, who died in 385/995. 

Fakhr al-Daula died (997), leaving a son of nine years. The government was exercised by his mother, a very energetic and wise person, known under the name of Seyyida ("Madame"). When her son grew up and raised himself to power, she went herself to the side of the Kurdish prince Badr Ibn Hasanoieh [Hasanoyé] and re-occupied Rey with the help of his troops.In his time, the first Turkish dynasty appeared on the horizon. Mahmud de Ghazna summoned the Seyyida to mint money in his name, under pain of a [punitive] expedition, but the Seyyida sent the following message to him: "The destiny of arms is uncertain. If the sultan fights me, victory over a widow is not equal to great glory for him; if, on the contrary, he will will first attempt to defeat my young child, the mark of this stigma will not disappear from the forehead of his fortune until the last judgement". And when the Seyyida died (according to Miles in 419/1028) this was the end. Her son, Majd al-Daula, himself called on the help of Mahmud: in 420/1029 the great conquerer responded to an appeal, but only to exile the Rey branch in India and to accept their posessions. 

In the south, to distinguish himself, he agreed to the troubled but prolonged reign of ’Abud al-Daula’s son, Baha al-Daula,who spread out his power from Baghdad to Fars and Kerman. Thanks to continuators of Ibn Muskawihi, Rudhravari and Ibn Muhassin, we know the history of this prince [Bahaq al-Daula] in detail. 

The last years of the dynasty passed in struggle against the epigones, while to the east the Turks prepared their Persian escapade. After the Samanids, the Kara-Khanid and Ghaznavid Turks swept through, the Buyids were overwhelmed by the Seljuks. In 447 (1055), Toghrul Bey entered Baghdad and proclaiming [himself] sultan, re-establishes orthodox Sunnism while the last Buyid, (al-Malik al-Rahim), was confined in the fortress of Tabarak, close to Rey, there to end his days. In 448 (1056) his son (al-Malik al-Mansur) lost Fars, which was taken away from him by the rival Shahbankara dynasty. The Seljuks who arrived a short time afterwards treated another brother of al-Malik al-Mansur honourably, and permitted him the use of tambours and of [his] standards, but when this last of the Buyid offspring died in 487 (1094), a Turkish governor took his place. 44a 

So disappeared successively the branches of Rey, of Baghdad and of Shiraz. 

12. We have already spoken of the precursors of the Buyids but the Dailamite domination had permitted other Iranian elements to organise themselves and raise their heads. 

The Kakoyide dynasty was directly linked to the Buyids. The name Kakoyé means "maternal uncle", and it is certain that some cousins of the famous Seyyida, mother of Majd al-Daula was herself the daughter of a royal of Tabaristan. We follow the destinies of the Kakoyids (Hamadan, Isfahan), between 398-513 (1007-1119), but, by virtue of the atabeks, their offspring held Yazd in custody until 673 (1274). 

To the north-west in eastern Azerbaijan, and in Arran, the Musafarid Dailamites (see above) dominated the surroundings until the year 1000. The Shaddid Kurdes reigned in Arran (capital Ganja) between 340 and 409 (951-1018), and their western branch posessed Ani from 458 to 595 (1065-1199). Further to the south, the Ravvadid Kurds were at Tabriz and then at Maragha, from 344 (955), not only up till the appearance of the Seljuks, but also up until the Mongol invasion (about 1221). 

In the Zagros [mountains], the Kurds formed two principalities, that of Barzikan with some Hasanvaihids of 348 to 406 (959-1015) and that of some Shadanjan with the dynasty of Banu ’Annaz of 387 to 550 (997-1155). 

Similarly, in the region removed from Diyarbak_r, a chief of the Humaidi tribe, Badh, succeeded, in around 372 (982), in creating a principality which, under his Marvanid parents, will play an important role in the history of the western Kurds and only disappear in 489 (1096), under the Seljuk push. 

So everywhere, in all the extent of Persia and its periphery, the Iranian elements represented courage, taking back self-government. But soon the Turk and Mongol invasions were liquidating their Iranian principalities and substituting for them a new organisation of military feifs. The Dailamites were expatriated from their country remain there separate and finish by amalgamating with the peoples who surround them. Dailam properly said was called forth into the orbit of local life of the Caspian provinces and especially into the sphere of influence of the princes (karkiya) of western Gilan (Biyapich) of whose residence was at Lahijan. In the fifteenth century the karkiya repressed the Dailamites severely and killed a great number. 

Nevertheless, we can always hope research reveals one day some small Dailamite islands in their ancient mother country as well as in their colonies. It is sufficient to mention here the ingenious theory of F.C. Andreas on the Dailamite origin of the Zaza tribes (Dimla), to which I to return to give account elsewhere. 

13. It is certain that the Dailamites were at first a very simple people and quite rough hewn. Here is the account of a man that the Ziyarid Mardavij, after his success, sent to Dailam to bring back his brother Vuchmgir ("taker [or buyer] of quails): 

I found him surrounded by people who cultivated rice. When he glimpsed me, he approached me: it was some men without footwear, naked, putting on shorts patched with rags of diverse colours and of clothes in rags. I conveyed the message from Mardavij to Vuchmgir … Then he made the gesture of spitting on the beard of his brother and cried out: "There are those who have put on the black clothes (of the’Abbasids)" … I have proven at his home such an ignorance that I have honestly told of. … (But) much later it became the one of kings known for the best administration of its states and the policies to follow with regard to its subjects 

As for that which concerns Rokn al-Daula, the historian of the Buyids explains thus the failures of his prime minister Ibn al-’Amed [Ibn al-’Amid]: 

Rokn al-Daula, however superior to the contemporary Dailamite princes, always styed at the level of a looter-soldier [soldat pillard] who had nothing more urgent than pillage, without considering the effects of his conduct on the future of his subjects. To remunerate his troops, he permitted them to commit some acts which other persons held back from and which became irreparable. He was obliged to act such that he was not a royal prince and did not have the authority of an autocrat among the Dailamites. 

But the same historian cites from numerous tracts of the Buyid nobility. We have seen the protestations of Rokn al-Daula against the dishonesty of his son. Whereas in 322/934, after the capture of Shiraz, some officers of ’Imad al-Daula proposed to him to parade the prisoners, heavily laden with chains, their chief replied: "No, we instead pardon the enemies whom God has put in our power. Thank Him instead for this good mercy". 

It is clearly obvious that the Dailamites themselves were inspired by some past glories of Iran and set themselves up as continuators of the ancient tradition. Similarly, the temperamental and barbarous Mardavij had a golden throne manufactured for himself and ordered an ornate mitre of precious stones "on the model of Khosroes Anushirvan". 

Already in 404 (1013) Baha al-Daula had obtained from the caliph the title of shahanshah which no person had carried since the Sasanids. His son was also lobbying for the same distinction. The judges of Baghdad were interrogated on the legality of this distinction, and finally, in spite of the divergence of their opinions, the name of Jalal al-Daula was decided, with the simultaneous addition of this title to the publc prayer in 421 (1030). 

The Buyids were the protagonists of Iranian Shi’ism. At this same epoch the immediate neighbours of the Dailamites, the inhabitants of Gilan, were Sunnis. The Buyids had anticipated the policy of the Safavids, who 500 years later erected Shi’ism as the Persian national religion, whereas this form of Islam adapted well to the Persian national character, in deepening and stressing the inherent tendancies. 

The first mention of public ceremonies in the month of Muharram are reported just at the time of the Buyids. Here is what the historian Ibn al-Athir says: 

[On] 10 Muharram of the year 352 (963) Mo’izz al-Daula gives the order to close the boutiques of Baghdad and to hold public lamentations (niyaha). Some tents (qibab) made of coarse fabric were being erected and the women were undoing their hair, blackening their faces and rending their clothes, having to travel to Baghdad uttering cries and striking the face as a sign of mourning for Hasan, son of ’Ali. The Sunnis were unable to prevent these demonstrations, for the Shi’ites were numerous and the public power (sultan) was with them. 

As these lamentations on the deaths were at all times customs known of the Dailamites, and since, on the other hand, some public lamentations described by Ibn al-Athir evidently come from the ta’ziya Persians, (mourning, Muharram processions and representations of mysteries) we are able to consider the Buyids as the promoters of these typically Persian practices. 

The Samanids eclipsed the Buyids, through the splendour of their court and the number of literary talents; but among the Vezirs of the Buyids there was also remarkable men such as Abul Fadl Ibn al-’Amed (vezir of Rokn al-Daula) and Sahib Ibn ’Abbad (vezir of Moayyid al-Daula and of Fakhr al-Daula, himself a native of Telegan [Teleqan]). Avicenna, whose philosophy did not preserve foolish politics, was made vezir by Majd al-Daula, although he soon had to share the destiny of his master, imprisoned by the energetic Sayyida. The Persian poets of the Buyids were: Ustad Mantiqi, protégé of Isma’il b. ’Abbad. Bundar, who wrote in the dialect of Rey (997-1029) and Kiya Ghada ("the potter") died in 1034 (?). The great panegyrist Qatran (died in 1073?) who was true to life in Azerbaijan, could be equally considered as an echo of the Buyid epoch. Among the Arabs, al-Mutanabbi composed some odes of honour to ’Adud al-Daula. At the least, three of the Buyid princeswere well known as poets (in Arabic) and the courts of the Buyids attracted numerous literary and learned men. 

14. The Buyids fell victims of a foreign invasion, but, aside from dissensions which marked the last years of their reign, it is necessary to pick out an interior and constant cause of their weakness. 

Their army lacked discipline and, to keep the soldiers happy, it was necessary to have recourse to all sorts of expedients, and particularly to distribute some land for upkeep, which could then lose all profitable interest. In this time, all the world wanted to enjoy the advantage of naming itself Dailamite. Tanukhi’s collection of anecdotes contain the amusing story of a young adherent of the celebrated Mansur al-Hallaj who wished at all costs to make a career as a Dailamite. For this end, he had learned the Dailamite language and was habituated to swallowing great quantities of garlic. It was necessary to review the lists of fief holders several times, to cross out the names of persons who had never seen Dailam. 

The other part of the army was undermined by the discord which existed between its two constituent elements: the Dailamite infantry and the Turkish cavalry. 

The Dailamites were particularly foot soldiers. They beat themselves in forming a row of their shields painted in sparkling colours, and in overwhelming the enemy with their two-pointed javelins (jupin). To develop more initiative, the aid of cavalry was necessary and then the Turks rendered their unappreciated services. The Turks were likewise very solidly armed for the defensive. 

The Dailamite princes were powerless to stop the conflicts which broke out at each instant. We have seen the intense plan of Bakhtiyar, for exterminating all of the Turks. In 385/995 Samsun al-Daula ordered a massacre of all the Turks in Fars. The other princes, exhausted of patience with their compatriots, were trying to bear down on the Turks. But as Shi’ism was the power base of the Buyids, they were not able to detach themselves in a lasting manner from the Dailamites. They were also doomed to continual crises. 

15. Such are the essential traits which characterise the interesting epoch of the Dailamites’ domination. We have tried to present the beginning and the development of the dynasties coming out of the small Caspian region. The time in which they reigned were not very extensive, less than a century and a half. But we cannot sufficiently insist on this fact: without the Iranian interlude, represented by the Sasanids to the east and the Buyids to the west, the Iranian tradition would have been interrupted; and, much later, Persia would have had infinitely more pain in re-establishing its national consciousness, after so many long trials which it had still to undergo, up to the advent of the Safavids. 
 
Notes 

1 Dailam is not the Arabic transcription of this name, the true pronunciation of which was probably Dêlam or Dêlum.  

 2 The Dailaman district [canton] is situated at altitude 1,400-1,3000 metres, between the mountain Hatechkuh, which it separates to the north of Lahijan, and the high peak Dalfak which commands the right bank of the Sefid-rud. We find on "Dalfak" a survival of the name of the ancient (non-Iranian?) people Derbik.  

 3 Ibn Miskawih, Tajarib al-umam, of which volumes I, II and VI have been reproduced photographically in the Gibb Memorial, and of which volumes V and VI and the continuation have been edited and translated by H. A. Amendroz and D. S. Margliouth under the title The Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate. Our references (The Eclipse) refer especially to the Arabic text of this excellent edition which includes the years 295/907-393/1002. The minute and penetrating study of the Persian scholar Seyyid Ahmad Kasrawi [Kasravi] must likewise be mentioned here, Shahriyan-i Gumnam, [volumes] I-III, Tehran 1928-30, which deals in detail with the history of the dynasties of the north-west of Persia before the arrival of the Seljuks.  

 4 Muqaddasi, Bibliotheca Geogr. Arabicorum, edited by Gœje, volume III, pp. 353-73, enumerating the five provinces of "Dailam": Qumis; Gurgan; Tabaristan; Dailaman and Khazar (!!).  

 5 Istakhri, Bib. Geogr. Arab., I, 204, al-Dailam al-mahd; le Hudud al-’alam (written in 372/982), Barthold edition, Leningrad, 1930, f. 30b, Dailam-i Khassa.  

 6 According to Istakhri, p. 204, the residence of the king of Dailam was at Rudbar (in the defile of the Sefid-rud?). According to Muqaddasi, p. 300, the capital city (qasaba, shahristan) was Barvan and the other points inhabited were: the Samirum fortress in the Salarvand district (actually ruins of Shamiran, 3 farsakhs above Manjil); the city Khashm, where the chief ’Alid lived; (the city?) Tarim (actually the district of Tarom) and the district al-Talaqan [al-Telegan?] on the Shahrud. The capital city of this last must have been Shahristan, to the north-east of Alamut. The courageous explorer Miss. F. Stark, who has travelled through Dailam in 1931, confirms for me the importance of these ruins. The capital city of the Gil-s was Dulab. In a very big sense Muqaddasi, p. 207, mentions Rey already as the largest city of Dailam. {The great Persian scholar M. Qazvini (Histoire de Djoveïni, III, 434-35) expresses the opinion that the capital of the Justanids was to be found at Sharistan (Shahrak) and that through Rûdbâr we must understand the Rûdbär of Alamout [Alamut], and not that one below Manjil. In view of the impregnable position of Alamut, and of the fact that the Dailamite attacks were directed particularly against Qazvin, this increases in importance. Besides, the other Rûdbâr was also well placed in the rear of of two principal valleys controlled by the Dailamites and which were permitting their possessors to intercept communications towards the north and south.  

 7 Sirat ’Antar, III, 29, cited in Goldziher, Muhamm. Studien, I, 268, who however knows that ashqar itself is reported as clear [or bright] skin complexion (?).  

 8 Muqaddasi, pp. 360, 368: The Eclipse, II, 141 (on the frugalness of the Dailamites). Khaqani, Jour. As., 1865, vol. V, p. 346, says: Ruy-i Dailam didam az gham muy jupin chud mara; hamtchu muy-i Dailam andar-ham chikast a’dd-yi man. "I have seen the face of misfortune (Dailam is here an Arabic word), and because of the sadness my hairs prick up like the Dailamite javellins; my limbs themselves curl up [recroquevillés], similar to the hair of a Dailamite." Nizami mentions the Dailamite night bonnet (kulah-i Dailami). The musical instrument of the Dailamites was the tanbur "a sort of mandolin". Mas’udi, Muraj, VIII, 91. [Translator’s note: Despite this reference to tanbours, Minorsky also refers to tanbours in section 11 below. This is confusing, since in French the latter refers to a drum, while in Turkish it is either another way of saying the former - a mandolin-like stringed instrument - in fact, a saz - or a small drum! Tunbur in Arabic means a mandolin-like instrument, as does tambur in Afghanistan. In India and Iran a tambur is an Indian drum, while a tanbur in Iran is a type of stringed instrument. The musical instrument or instruments referred to by Minorsky are therefore difficult to define.] {Gorgânî in his poem Vîs-o-Ramîn, Minovi edition, p. 494, sings of the unconquered country of Dailam and of the courage of its inhabitants.}  

 9 Istakhri, p. 204, Ibn Hauqal, p. 267.  

10 The Dailamite names Zoanab and Sarames which are quoted by Theophylacte have an Iranian allure likewise. In the Arab historians, one finds some isolated Dailamite words: lwk "good", Muqaddasi, p. 359 (cf. lauk, "young man" in Kurdish); uchtulum, war cry of the Dailamites (the word is given in Persian dictionaries with the sense "violence, oppression") {but the root [lm must be Arabic}; according to Ibn Khallikân, translated by Sloane II, 263, the name Chabuchti [translator’s note: possibly transliterated in English as ‘Shabushti’] is of Dailamite origin, cf. The Eclipse, I, 301, but in all probability it is derived from some place name, Chapucht. Certain loan words from the dialects to the north-west which we find in Persian are evidently from the Dailamite province (jopin).  

 11 Since the commencement of the sixth century, Dailam appears to be found under Sassanid dependance. Marquart, Eran[ahr, p. 126, knows that the Sassanid representative to Dailam carried the title of vahriz. Baladhuri, p. 280, mentions the Dailamites to the court of Khusrau [Khosrow] Parviz.  

 12We find them given Greek groups in Marquart, Eran[ahr, pp. 126-27, and in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopaedie, IV, col. 2432-33 (article by Weissbach). Agathias calls the "Dilimnites" the most important tribe among those which live this side (?) of the Tigris. Procope says that the Dolomites are the barbarians who, although living among the Persians, were themselves never subject to the kings of Persia.  

13 The Dailamite colonies were particularly controlling some mountain passes in the Turco-Persian frontier chain, cf. Hoffmann, Auszüge aux syrischen Akten, pp. 245 and 207. The actual capital city of Salmas is called Dilman (Dilmaqan). The name of Lahijan district must be of the same Daylamite origin (to the south of Lake Urmiya), namesake for the province of Gilan, which was the feif of Dailamite princes of the Vehsudan family, Yaqut, III, 149, cf. Kasrawi 131. In Georgia we find a Dilama-chen (chen in Armenian = the Persian abad), Prince Vakhouct, Description géogr. de la Géorgie, translated by Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1842, p. 467, number 297.  

14 Al-athar al-baqiya, p. 224: wa qad azala al-Nasir al-Utruch thalika wa a’ada ishtirak al-marada ma’a al-nas fil-kadhkhudhahiya.  

15 Murudj [Muruj], IX, pp. 4, 8, 279. {Qudâma, 267 (trad. 202: the condition of the Dailamites has always been uncertain and changeable, because they have neither a consolidated law nor a fixed government.}  

16 The Eclipse III, 313 (under the year 388): "the women were equal to the men in influencing deisions, in justness of judgement and in participation in affairs".  

17 Muqaddasi, p. 368, Hudud al-alam, f.29b-31a (many curious details on customs). Cf. below in note 54.  

18 Ibn Rusta, p. 151, according to which the fortified points led against Dailam were Tchalus, found (rebuilt!) by Ma’mun and Muzn. Very often when this latter is mentioned, Kalar, situated one day’s march to the west of Tchalus towards the mountain, Tabari III, 1524. Mas’udi Murudj [Muruj] IX, 5, Istakhri, p. 206. On the importance of Qazvin see the sources cited in Schwarz, Iran in Mittelalter, p. 707.  

19 Ibn al-Faqih, p. 283. The mention of horsemen (fursan) is rather unexpected. See above, §14 . It is true that in The Eclipse, III, 427, we find mention of "Dailamite and Turk horsemen". Ibid., 423, It is a question of foot-soldiers carried on the backs of mules and camels.  

20 Kasrawi, I, 6. But the Arabs were very little time in the basin of the Loire, and in 759, were ousted as in Narbonne.  

21 We look for Ganzak at Takht-i Sulaiman or at Lailan (to the south-east of Lake Urmiya).  

22 Ishtakri, p. 205: Mas’udi, Murudj, p. 4, but in Mas’udi’s time, heresy was propagated among the Dailamites (alhada aktharuhum).  

23 Kasrawi, I, 23-37.  

24 Towards the end of the tenth century, Muqaddasi, see note 6 above, mentions Barvan in place of Rudbar. {On this locality see the addition to note 6 above.}  

25 The document cited in Yaqut, III, 149, sub verbo Samiran, must suppose that the Kangari were also taking hold of al-Ustaniya (Ruyan, fief of the Ustundar?) while the ancient Justanid kings were reduced to contenting themselves with al-La’ijiya (Lahijan). Cf. Kasrawi, I, 133.  

26 Leili (Lili?) appears to be descended from the ancient dynasty, Tarikh-i Guzida, p. 414, line 5, cf. Tabari, who under 216/831 cites an "Abu Laili, king of Dailam". The name could be hereditary in the family. Cf. the village Leil to the south of Lahijan.  

27 The Makan family was native to Achkavar (in Ranikuh). Cf. the name of a Dailamite chief Achkavarj, probably Achkavar-ij, "native of Achkavar"(?), The Eclipse, II, 84.  

28 Hamza Isfahani, Gottwald edition, pp. 242-42. According to Mas’udi, IX, 8, Asfar was not a Muslim: wa kana la yadinu bi-millati’l-Islam; at Qazvin he made the muezzin who said the prayer rush to the top of the minaret, ibid, IX, 10. {According to Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, al-Farq baina al-firaq, Cairo, 1328/1910, p. 267, an Isma’ili (Batini) named Abu Hatim, penetrated into the country of Dailam where a certain number of the inhabitants, including Asfar b. Chiruya, lent an ear (istajabu) to his preaching.}  

29 According to Muqaddasi, p. 353, most people were distinguishing between the Dailamites and the Gilanis with difficulty (la yakaduna yufarriquna). However, the historians named separately the Jil (Gil) beside the Dailamites, cf.The Eclipse, I, 301: III 377, etc. Cf. al-Tanukhi, Nichwar [Nishwar] p. 156 (trad. 171). On the disagreements between the two tribes see Ma’sudi, Muruj, IX, 7. The Dailamites were Shi’ites and the majority of the Gil-s Sunnis, Muqaddasi, p. 367, line 2; cf. The Eclipse, III, 305.  

30 Tarikh-i Guzida, Gibb Memorial edition, p. 414. Miss F. Stark (letter of 23 March 1932) suggests to me that the identification of Kiya-Kilich (?) with Kiya-Kalaya, a suburb in Shahristan. A village in the province Somam carries the name of Buya.  

31 Hamza p. 2421, Ibn Khallikan, translated by Slane, I, 155 (under Mo’izz al-Daula), but already Biruni, al-Athar, pp. 31-38, was criticising this artificial genealogy, in saying that the first member of the family known was Buwaih b. Fanakhusra. Cf. Marquart, ZDMG, 1895, p. 660: Der Stammbaum d. Büjiden.  

32 The Eclipse, I, 277.  

32a It concerns Karaj Abi Dulaf, near to Sultanabad of our day, between Isfahan and Hamadan.  

33 Huart, Les Ziyarides, Treatise [Mémoire] of the Académie des Inscriptions, XLII, 1922, pp. 377-384.  

34 The Eclipse, II, 37 and following pages, under the years 331-34.  

35 Ibid, II, 17. {Read the name thus, in place Kurankij}. [Translator’s note: The "wild asses" cited here are actually given in the text as "onagres", or onagers, a type of wild ass.]  

36 Ibid, II, 75, 89: the woman Husn, later given the surname ’Alam.  

37 Selon Mas’udi, Murudj, VIII, 410, Mo’izz suspected the caliph of soliciting the aid of the Hamdanites of Mosul.  

38 The Eclipse, II, 86-87.  

39 Ibid, II, 307.  

40 Ibid, II, 350: taliban lil-thikril-jamil wa muhafizatan ’ala’l-futuwwa. {Cf. ibid, II, 230: Rukn al-Daula rejects the proposition of his Minister Ibn al-’Amed to supplant the Musafirid prince of Azerbaijan, Ibrahim b. Marzuban.}  

41 Ibid, II, 213: already in 354/965 the governor of Oman was subject to Mo’izz al-Daula. &nbsnbsp;

42 Ibid, II: 404-08 and III, 69 (building at Baghdad); Muqaddasi, pp. 210, 430-31, 449. Cf. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalter, pp. 48-50, 311, 321, 405, 482. For the buildings at Baghdad see Le Strange, Baghdad During the Abbasid Caliphate, 1900, chapter XVII: "The Buyid Palaces", and G. Salmon, L’Introduction topographique á l’histoire de Baghdad, Paris, 1904 (translated from a part of L’Histoire de Baghdad, of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi), by the index.  

43 Her name was Shirin [Chirin]: she was the daughter of the Isphabad Rustam II (1006-28), king of Tabaristan (of the Bavandid dynasty).  

44 Tarokh-i Guzida, p. 428: Wilken, Geschichte d. Sultane aus Geschlechte Bujeh (the text of Mirkhond), 1835, p. 42. The Eclipse, III, 291, especially the most ancient version, attributes the success of the "seyyida" to the wise advice of the Hasanwaihid prince, Badr.  

44a See H. Bowen, ‘The Last Buwayhids", J.R.A.S., 1929, II, 225-45. [See also the translator’s note to note 8 above, re tanbours.]  

45 See Huart, Les Musafirides de l’Adherbaidjan in A Volume … Presented to E. G. Browne, Cambridge, 1922, pp. 228-56: on the atabeks of Maragha, see Minorsky, the article Maragha in the Encyclopédie de l’Islam and especially Kasrawi, Chahriyaran-i Gumnam, II and III.  

46 Huart, Les Banou-’Annaz, Syria, 1922, pp. 265-79 and 66-79. Cf. Minorsky, "Annazids", in the Encyc. of Islam, I, 312-13.  

47 We could equally mention the adventures of the Dailamite Lashkarî [Lachkarî] at Isfahan, The Eclipse, I, 213: those of a Gil Lashkarî b. Mardi in Azerbaijan, ibid, I, 398; those of the Kurd Daisam, ibid, I, 398, II, 161.  

48 Spreading their power from the Gilan plain towards the mountain, the Karkiya seyyids gradually dislodged: the Ashkavar [Achkavar,]; the local Hazaraspi (in 776/1364) of Alamut, the offspring of Isma’ili grandmothers and the clan of Kushij [Kuchidj] from Dailaman and Rudbar. In 819/1416 Seyyid Razi de Lahijan and his brother Seyyid Muhammed under the cover of mobilisation, made the Dailamites come onto the bank of the Sefid-rud, and when they presented themselves, unexpectedly gave the order to the troups of Gilan to exterminate them (Datl-i’amm). Two to three thousand Dailamites, including their chiefs, perished in these Sicilian vespers. See Zahir al-Din, Tarikh-i Gilan va Dailamistan, Rabino edition, Racht, 1330, pp. 57 and following, 118 and 122-26.  

49 Rabino, "Le Guilan", Revue du Monde Musulman, 1915-16, XXXII, 280 writes:  

some descendants of the ancient Dailamites only find themselves in the villages of Kelârdeh and of Tschoousal, on the plain, in winter and at Kelatch-Khânî in summer. The inhabitants of the village of Deilemân were also Deilemites [Rabino’s spelling], but they have sold their land and live in Barfjân [Barfdjân].  
 

50 Ibn al-Athir, VIII, 182, Huart, Les Ziyarides, p. 370.  

51 The Eclipse, II, 279.  

52 Ibid, I, 283.  

53 Hilal Ibn Sabi, Kitab al wuzara, Amendroz edition, p. 388 (= The Eclipse, III, 358): the vezir Muwaffaq in a letter to Baha al-Daula, dated 4 June 1000 calls it shahanshah [chahanchah]. The Tchararmaqala, p. 17, gives the title shahinshah to the master of Isma’il Ibn ’Abbad (see below, note 56). Yaqut, Irchad al-arib, II, 120: the title of shahinshah attributed to Jalal al-Daula under 403. Amendroz, "The Assumption of the title Shahanshah by Buwayhid Rulers. Numism", Chronicle, 1905, volume V, pp. 393-99. Cf. Mez, Die Renaissance des Islams, p. 21. In the Tcahar maqala of Nizami ’Arudi, p. 82, the title chahinchah is given to the Kakoyid ’Ala al-Daula. {G. Miles, The Numismatic History of Rayy, New York, 1938, p. 170, believes that the title shahanshah appeared for the first time on the dirham of Faula al-Daula struck in 374/984. A. H. Siddiqi, Caliphate and Kingship, Lahore, 1952, p. 55, believes that Jalal al-Daula (1025-44) was the first to receive the title of shahanshah from the caliph and that his predecessors assuming this Iranian title had their original consent. Anyway, the testimony of ’I. Athir, VIII, 11 (could be based on al-Kitab al-Taji [Kitab al-Tadji] of Ibrahim al-Sabi) is clear for demonstrating that already in the time of Bakhtiyar (killed 29 May 978) and of his rival Adud al-Daula (killed 26 March 983) the title in question was employed by the secretaries of the Dailamite princes.  

54 Ibn al-Athir, VIII, 407, 407. See the similar remarks under the years 353, 357 and 358, ibid, pp. 413, 435 (the mourning of 10 Muharram and the rejoicing of the day of Ghadir), 443. As Krymski remarks, Théatre persan, Kiev, 1925, p. 7, Ibn al-Athir’s source must be Hilal Ibn-Sabi, who justly talks of the "Shi’ite habit" of celebrating the yaum al-Ghadir [al-Ghadir day] in the fragment on the year 389 (Amendroz edition, p. 371)  

55 Muqaddasi, p. 369: The Eclipse, II, 137 (Rokn al-Daula lamented his brother for 3 days), 182 (Mo’izz al-Daula was ill from lament himself), III, 260 (Samsun al-Daula after his youthful defeat and dressing in black clothes). Cf. Ibn Isfandiyar, p. 233: Daylamite mourning is 3 days.  

56 Tha’alibi dedicated a special chapter to the Arab poetry of ’Adud al-Daula, of his son Taj al-Daula and of Khosrow b. Firuz b. Rukn al-Daula, Yatimat al-Dahr, book II, chapter 1. The following chapters, 2 and 3, are devoted to the Buyid vezirs al-Muhallabi and Abu-Ishaq al-Sabi: chapter 4 to writers of the Buyid epoch (Damascus edition, II, pp. 1-105). Chapter 9 quotes the verse of 15 poets dedicated to the vezir of Baha al-Daula Sapur b. Ardachir (ibid, pp. 290-97). Book II contains some chapters on the vezir Ibn ’Amed (ibid, pp. 2-25), on his son ’Abul-Fath (ibid, pp. 25-31), on Sahib Isma’il b. ’Abbad (ibid, pp. 31-118) and on the panegyrists of this latter (ibid, pp. 163-94). The poet Mihyar Ibn Marzuya al-Dailami is well known, who wrote in Arabic: this Zoroastrian, dead in 428 (1037) was converted to Islam only in 394 (1003), see Ibn Khallikan, translated by Slane, III, 517, his works have been recently published in Cairo. On the Persian poets, see Tchahar maqala, , pp. 28, 80 and the commentary of Mirza Muhammad Khan Qazvini. On the celebrities of the time of ’Adud al-Daula see also Ibn Isfandiyar, pp. 90-91. On the masters of ’Adud al-Daula see Abul-Faradj, Mukhtasar, Pocock edition, p. 325 (Latin translation, p. 214). See the eulogy of ’Adul al-Daula, ibid, p. 320 (translation p. 211) and in the Armenian historian Asolik, II, chapter XVI, translated Macler, 1917, p. 63. The Christians came to be grateful to ’Adud al-Daula, for having authorised the vezir Nasr b. Harun (who himself was Christian) to build churches. The Eclipse, II, 408. One of the secretaries of Mo’izz al-Daula was also a Christian from Rey, Sa’d Isr’il b. Musa, Ibid, I, 298. A curious detail of the Buyids’ religious tolerance: the governor of the important port of Siraf in 379/989 was a Jew, ibid, III, 155.  
{The poet and traveller Abu Dilaf Mis’ar b. Muhalhil found himself among the proteges of Ibn ’Abbad. See Yatimat al-Dahr, III, 174, cited in Minorsky, "The Travels of Abu Dulaf in Iran", Cairo, 1955, p. 10.}  

57 Tanukhi, Nishwar al-Muhadara, Margioliouth, p. 88, translation, p. 95.  

58 The Eclipse, III, p. 312: in 388/998 Samsun al-Daula confirmed the registers of Dailamites and excluded 6450 men at Fasa and at Kerman 400, "of whom the genealogies were not irreproachable". C. ibid, III, 361.  

59 The Buyids were serving as subsidiaries for other nationalities. Under 360/971 Ibn Miskawaih, The Eclipse, II, 300, mentions in the troops of ’Adul al-Dawla: the Dailamites, the Gil-s, the Turks, the Arabs, the Kurds and the Zutt (Indians), and under 360/970 and 366/976 the Qufs infantrymen (Kufich, mountain people of Kerman) and Baluchis [Balutch], ibid, II, 298 and 368.  

60 Tabari, III, 1693. The poem of Vis-o Ramin (written in 1048), cf. Kasrawi, cf. Kasrawi, I, 2, calls the Dailamite shields "similar to the wall and paints of 100 colours". The shields were carried by pages. The Eclipse, II, 153. The Dailamites themselves served as special lancers protecting the flaming naphtha (mazariq al-naft wal-niran), The Eclipse, I, p. 272. However, their adversaries were sometimes better skilled in the use of naphtha, Tabari, III, 1693.  

61 The Eclipse, III, 132. In 376/936 under Samsam al-Daula, 19,000 Dailamites and 3,000 Turks fought each other on the race track, regarding stables. Cf., ibid, III, 265.  

62 The Eclipse, II, 166. In 346, after the revolt of Ruzbihan. Mo’izz neglected the Dailamites and chose the Turks, whom he found more loyal. Cf. the critiique of the Daylamite character by the celebrated vizir Ibn al-’Amidi, Ibid, II, 272.  

63 Ibn al-Athir, VIII, 177: "The Dailamites were Shi’ites and (in Shi’ism) did not recognise any limit.". Kasrawi has justly turned up the fact that Alamut, the celebrated centre of Isma’ili Assassins, much later appears suddenly on Dailamite territory! According to Tarikh-i Djil wa Dailam [Tarikh-i Jil wa Dailam], dedicated to Fakhr al-Daula, the construction of the fortress of Alamut was begun by an ancient king of Dailam in 246/860, Royal Asiatic Society edition, 1931). {M. Qazvini edition, 1937, III, 270}.