ٴĪ (< Mid. Pers. 徱ī < Achaemenid Elamite tup-pi-ra; Livshits, 1977, p. 166; Back, p. 207; cf. Arm. dpir), secretary, scribe.
According to the Nāma-ye Tansar, secretaries constituted one of the four classes in Sasanian society (p. 57; tr., p. 37; ʿAhd-e 岹&Dz;ī, p. 63; Testament of 岹&Dz;ī, in Grignaschi, pp. 54, 74; Ayīn of 岹&Dz;ī, in Grignaschi, pp. 95, 115; [Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, p. 25; see class system iii). The introduction of these classes was attributed in most Islamic sources to the legendary king Jamšēd (Ṭabarī, I, p. 180; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 130; Ṯaʿālebī, Ḡo, p. 12; Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 31; &Dz;īī, p. 2; Meskawayh, I, p. 6), though some authors named instead the Sasanian king 岹&Dz;ī (Nāma-ye Tansar, p. 57; Meskawayh, I, p. 61; [Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, p. 25; ʿAhd-e 岹&Dz;ī, p. 63; Testament of 岹&Dz;ī, in Grignaschi, pp. 54, 74). In another account the art of 岹īī was attributed to Ṭahmūreṯ ([Pseudo]-Ḵayyām, p. 44; cf. &Dz;-峾, Moscow, I, p. 38). Secretaries had the important and delicate duty of handling the royal correspondence and of recording the orders, verdicts, speeches, words of counsel, exhortations, harangues, testaments, and other utterances of the king and his high officials. They were also charged with recording everyday events and chronicles, and some of them served in various state offices (īs) or were engaged in writing, compiling, and copying books. In the inscriptions of the early Sasanian kings and dignitaries a number of 岹īs were mentioned as important political figures. A(r)štād the “letter scribe” of Ray, from the Mehrān family, is mentioned among the retinue of Šāpūr I (241-72) in the latter’s inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ, Mid. Pers. l. 34 徱ī, Parth. l. 28 frawardag 徱ī, Gk. l. 66 epì epistolôn; Back, p. 365). In the Middle Persian and Parthian inscriptions in the synagogue at Dura Europus (q.v.) several 岹īs are mentioned among eminent visitors (Geiger, pp. 297ff. nos. 42-44, 46-47, 49, 54). In the inscription of Šāpūr Sagānšāh, brother of Šāpūr II (309-379), at Persepolis the title of the dignitary Narseh can be reconstructed as 徱ī (ŠPs I l. 7; Back, p. 493). The context of this inscription suggests that he had the rank of (q.v.). One 岹ī of Šāpūr I, *Apasā of Ḥarrān, left an inscription in which he reported having made a statue of the king, who in return had rewarded him generously (ŠVŠ; Back, pp. 378-82). He may have been more than a 岹ī, however, probably also a governor (cf. Back, p. 507 n. 250); during the reign of Ḵosrow I Anōšīrvān (531-79) a governor of Ctesiphon was addressed as 岹ībad “chief secretary” (Browne, p. 231). One of Ḵosrow’s secretaries (dzٳ), called Bābak son of *Behrovān (instead of Nahrovān/Bīrovān, etc., as in the mss.), was appointed chief of the military chancery (īal-jond) and enjoyed much influence and prestige (Ṭabarī, I, p. 963; Dīnavarī, ed. Guirgass, p. 74; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, pp. 1047ff.; cf. &Dz;-峾, Moscow, VIII, pp. 62ff.: mowbad). ٲīs were authorized to place their own names at the ends of inscriptions; for example, the 岹ī of Šāpūr’s inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt was Ōhrmazd son of Šēlag/Šērag (Parth. l. 30; Back, p. 371), and the 岹ī of the inscription of Kirdēr (Kartīr) at Naqš-e Rajab was Bōxtag (KNRb l. 31; Back, p. 487). A number of inscribed Sasanian seals of 岹īs have been published (Brunner, p. 141 no. 9; Bivar, p. 44; Gignoux, p. 25; Göbl, pp. 44 no. 15, 52 no. 601; Gignoux and Gyselen, 1992, p. 49); among the owners was a Christian named Sebōxt (Gignoux and Gyselen, 1987, p. 246).
ٲīs played an important part in the political events of the Sasanian period; for example, after the death of Yazdegerd I (399-421) the Persian nobles decided not to choose any of his sons, including Bahrām (who became Bahrām V Gōr, 420-38), as his successor. Instead they nominated a certain prince called Ḵosrow. Among these nobles there were three 岹īs: Gōdarz, secretary of the army (ٱ al-jond); Gošnasp Ādur (Jošnas Āḏar), the finance secretary (ٱ al-ḵarāj); and Jovānōy, the chief scribe (ṣāḥeb ī al-rasāʾel), who was sent to the Arab ruler Monḏer in Ḥīra to deter him from protecting Bahrām. When Jovānōy met Bahrām, however, he came to an agreement with him (Dīnavarī, p. 57; Ṭabarī, I, p. 859; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 934; Meskawayh, I, p. 80; Browne, p. 223; &Dz;-峾, Moscow, VII, pp. 285-88; Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, p. 92 n. 1). Later both Jovānōy and Gošnasp-Ādur were mentioned as secretaries for Bahrām (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VII, p. 308 vv. 82-84). ٲīs were also reported to have been consulted on knotty problems; an example is Ḵosrow Anōšīrvān’s consultation with his secretary, Yazdegerd, and the chief mowbad, 岹&Dz;ī, about his proposed campaign against the Turks (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VIII, p. 161). The same persons, together with some other wise men, were present at the seven catechismal sessions held in the presence of Ḵosrow to test young Bozorgmehr-e Boḵtagān (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VIII, pp. 116-46, esp. vv. 1367, 1386, 1416, 1425, 1495; cf. Browne, p. 232). The successor to the throne was customarily designated in the presence of the chief secretary and the chief mowbad (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VII, p. 253, vv. 606ff.). When a careful investigation was required the king would appoint one reliable man from among his 岹īs, one from among the clergy, and one from among his attendants for the purpose (Meskawayh, I, p. 105). After the imprisonment of Ḵosrow II (590-628) in 628 his son and successor Šērōya (Kavād II, r. 628) appointed his chief secretary to investigate his father’s crimes (Browne, p. 253). The powerful position of 岹ī carried with it the risk of severe punishment or even death, however. For example, Dād-bendād (Dād-windād), the chief secretary of the army under the last Arsacid king, Ardavān IV (ca. 216-24; see artabanus), was put to death by 岹&Dz;ī after his defeat of Ardavān (Ṭabarī, I, p. 819; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 882). A secretary of Ḵosrow Anōšīrvān who ventured an objection to the king’s fiscal reforms was also put to death (Ṭabarī, I, p. 961; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 1046; &Dz;īī, p. 5; Meskawayh, I, p. 98; Browne, p. 231). The same king ordered the execution of eighty officials accused of corruption and oppression, among whom there were fifty secretaries (dzٳ; &Dz;īī, p. 9).
ٲīs enjoyed certain privileges. They were among those exempted from taxes (Ṭabarī, I, p. 962; Dīnavarī, p. 73; Meskawayh, I, p. 99) and were authorized, like the king and the judges, to ride on “gently and steadily going horses” (; &Dz;īī, p. 9). They wore special dress, except when accompanying the army (see below; &Dz;īī, p. 3). To acquire the rank of 岹ī required certain qualifications. A commoner was not as a rule allowed to become a 岹ī (Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 93). Ferdowsī narrated the story of a shoemaker who asked to be educated as a 岹ī in exchange for lending the king a considerable amount of money, but his request was refused (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VIII, pp. 297-99). The school in which the 岹īs were trained was called 徱īestān (Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 63.1, 69.13).
The court 岹īs were selected from among the young 岹īs by examination conducted by the chief secretaries. After the names of the accepted persons had been submitted to the king, they were counted among the royal attendants. They were forbidden to associate with anyone not sanctioned by the king (&Dz;īī, pp. 3, 4). Those less qualified in handwriting and intelligence were assigned to high officials (; &Dz;-峾, Moscow, VII, p. 173, vv. 320ff.). Apart from his professional skills (see below), a 岹ī was supposed to be a person of insight (ahl al-baṣar), continence (ahl al-ʿefāf), and efficiency (ahl al-kefāya); he was to be assigned tasks in which he was experienced (&Dz;īī, p. 6, citing Šāpūr I’s testament to his son). He was expected to be the “king’s tongue” for those remote from him, his interpreter (Ebn al-Balḵī, pp. 92-93, citing Anōšīrvān; &Dz;īī, p. 3).
The estate of the 岹īs was subdivided into several groups, the establishment of which was attributed to Jamšēd (&Dz;īī, p. 2; Ṯaʿālebī, Ḡo, p. 12; Meskawayh, I, p. 6; Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 31). In Namā-ye Tansar (p. 57; tr. p. 38) seven groups of officials are mentioned; the first four were categories of 岹ī, each with specific functions: official correspondents; accountants; recorders of verdicts, registrations, and covenants; and chroniclers (see also 岹īe, 岹īī).
Official correspondents. The Pahlavi title for correspondents was frawardag/nāmag-徱ī (cf. SKZ, Parth. l. 28); they wrote in a script called frawardag/nāmag 徱īīh. The ideal correspondent was supposed to have beautiful handwriting (ū-Ծŧ), a swift hand (&;-Ծŧ), subtle knowledge (ī-Ծ&Dz;), nimble fingers (峾-Բܲ), and wise speech (ڰԲ-&;ɲ; Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, p. 27 par. 10). He also had to be skillful, vigilant, and quick-witted, so that, if the king dropped a hint, he could understand the intention fully and express it in a fluent, smooth, and pleasant style. He was also supposed to have some notion of various sciences (Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 31). At the Sasanian court there were bilingual 岹īs who also served as interpreters; for example, one Indian secretary was reported to have lived at the court of Ḵosrow II (Ṭabarī, I, p. 1053). The same king always had an Arab 岹ī as well, for example, ʿAdī b. Zayd ʿEbādī, whose father had also served this king and his father, Hormozd IV (579-90; Ṭabarī, I, pp. 1016, 1017, 1024; Browne, pp. 246-47). It was customary for some 岹īs to accompany the army into the field, and the commander-in-chief was supposed to consult them (&Dz;īī, p. 4). Sometimes they were also charged with reporting to the king in secret and spying for him; for example, when Bahrām Čōbīn became angry with Hormozd and decided to revolt, Yazdak the scribe, together with another official, fled by night to inform the king (Dīnavarī, p. 86; Browne, p. 237). The same Yazdak, with the title ٱ al-jond (probably *spāh-徱ī in Pahlavi; cf. 岹ī-e sepāh in &Dz;-峾, Moscow, VIII, p. 142 v. 1493), was mentioned among the attendants of Ḵosrow I (Dīnavarī, p. 90; Browne, p. 240). The same title was borne by one of the grandees in the time of Yazdegerd I (399-420; Dīnavarī, p. 57). Certain 岹īs were entrusted with the secret correspondence. They were called ٱ al-serr in the Arabic sources; the Pahlavi term was probably *rāz-徱ī. For example, Ḵosrow II, having killed Bendūya (Windōya) intended to kill his brother Besṭām (Wistahm; see BESṬĀM O BENDŌY) as well. He therefore ordered his ٱ al-serr to write a letter to Besṭām, summoning him for consultation. The office of confidential secretary survived into the ʿAbbasid period (Dīnavarī, pp. 106, 389; see ii, below).
Accountants. The accountants were further divided into subgroups. The financial secretaries (Pahl. šahr-(h)ā/ămār-徱ī (Paikuli inscription, Mid. Pers. l. 16, Parth. l. 14; Humbach and Skjærvø, III/1, pp. 42-43, III/2, p. 45) handled tax affairs; some were mentioned as ٱ al-ḵarāj in Arabic sources (e.g., Ṭabarī, I, p. 960). During the reign of Ḵosrow Anōšīrvān they were charged with assessing the value of the land as the basis for a new system of taxation (e.g., Meskawayh, I, p. 98). Each region had its own tax accountant, ٱ al-kūra (Meskawayh, I, p. 102). The court accountants bore the title *kadag-(h)ă/āmār-徱ī. There were also accountants attached to the treasury (ganj-(h)ā/ămār-徱ī). The title of the accountants of the (royal) stables was *āxwar-(h)ā/ămār-徱ī, of those attached to the fire temples ātašān-(h)ā/ămār-徱ī. Some inscribed seals of the latter survive; for example, one bears the name Bōxtōg ī Āmihr ī ādur ī Gušnasp 徱ī “Boxtōg son of Āmihr, scribe of the fire temple Gušnasp” (Göbl, p. 52 no. 601; cf. p. 44 no. 15). Accountants of pious foundations were known as *ruwānagān-(h)ā/ămār-徱ī. After the Arab conquest Persian accountants, ٱ or ٱ al-ḵarāj, continued to play an important part in the imperial administration; one example is the famous Zādān-farroḵ and his family (Balāḏorī, dzūḥ, ed. Monajjed, p. 368; &Dz;īī, p. 38).
Judicial secretaries. Secretaries responsible for recording judicial decisions and verdicts were probably called dād-徱ī. A certain Xwadāy-būd, with the title 徱ī, mentioned as a judicial commentator (岹, pt. 1, p. 2 l. 5), may have belonged to this group.
Chroniclers. Certain 岹īs were responsible for recording daily events. One of them, a secretary of Šāpūr II called Xwarrahbūd (Arm. Xorōhbowt), was captured by the Romans. In the Roman empire he learned Greek and wrote a book on the deeds of Šāpūr and Julian. Later he also translated into Greek a Persian book on the history of primitive times written by one of his Persian companions in captivity, Rāstsaxwan (Arm. Rastsohown; Moses of Khorene, chap. 70; tr. Thomson, p. 217). Sergius, an interpreter for Ḵosrow Anōšīrvān summarized the court archives and translated his summary into Greek; this work was used by Agathias (Christensen, Iran Sass., p. 76). Hormozd IV, after his imprisonment, asked for a 岹ī to be sent to him with a book, in order to read to him ancient stories and the exploits of the kings (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, IX, pp. 13-14 vv. 56-57, 65). According to Balāḏorī (dzūḥ, ed. Monajjed, p. 569; cf. Lukonin, pp. 711-12), in a report pertaining to the late Sasanian period, the king’s orders and decisions were recorded in his presence, and another official copied them into the royal monthly diary; then the king put his seal on the diary, which was kept in the treasury. It is also related that 岹&Dz;ī charged two intelligent pages, probably two 岹īs, with dictating and recording what he said in the presence of his courtiers while he was drinking. The next day his 岹ī would read out his words to him ([Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, p. 27). Those 岹īs whose duty was to know the rank, position, and special place of each courtier probably belonged to this group; in instances of ambiguity or dispute they were consulted (Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 49; Meskawayh, p. 29).
Copyists. Little is known about the 岹īs who engaged in writing down and copying secular and religious books in the Sasanian period. Those who transcribed or copied Zoroastrian religious books, especially the Avesta, were probably called dēn-徱ī. Manichean 岹īs were regarded as a class of the elect (Mir. Man. II, p. 325 n. 1).
The chief secretary bore the title 徱ībed, attested in the Parthian documents from Nisa as dpyrpty (D’yakonov and Livshits, nos. 90, 99, 2150, 2172). In the inscription of Šāpūr I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt the 徱ībed is mentioned among the royal dignitaries. A certain Mard with this title was named among 岹&Dz;ī’s retinue (ŠKZ, Mid. Pers. l. 29, Parth. l. 24; Back, p. 352). In the same inscription a dignitary called Ohrmazd, with the same title, is mentioned among Šāpūr I’s retinue; his father had borne it as well (ŠKZ, Mid. Pers. l. 34, Parth. l. 28; Back, p. 363). In the Arabic and Persian sources this title was given as 岹ībad (Ѳʿūī, ղԲī, p. 104; Grignaschi, pp. 103, 129; Yaʿqūbī, ղʾīḵ, I, p. 202; [Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, pp. 77, 160, 173; Browne, p. 231) or 岹īfad/ḏ (ڻ/ḏ; Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 49; Meskawayh, I, p. 29). In some of the sources this title is translated raʾīs dzٳ al-rasāʾel (Dīnavarī, p. 112). Another title for the chief secretary, also known from Parthian times, was Pahlavi 徱īān mahist (Pahlavi Texts, pp. 2 par. 8, 3 par. 22; -峾, ed. Antia, chap. 15.9), which was translated in the Persian sources as mehtar-e 岹īan (Nāma-ye Tansar, p. 87; tr., p. 61; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 1160), mehtar 岹ī (&Dz;-峾, Moscow, VII, p. 127 v. 271), or bozorg 岹ī (Baḷʿamī, ed. Maškūr, p. 186). The fact that the title 岹ībad was used for the ٱ al-ḵārāj indicates that he was chief secretary for taxation. The official so designated was the first person, after the king, to deliver a speech at the Nowrūz ceremony (Grignaschi, pp. 103, 129). The chief priest (mowbad), the chief secretary (岹ībad), and the chief religious teacher (ī) were present at public pleadings ([Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, p. 160). It was also reported that on “delicate” occasions the king dined only with three of his attendants, the chief mowbad, the 岹ībad, and the chief of the cavalry (raʾs al-asāwera; [Pseudo] Jāḥeẓ, p. 173; cf. p. 77). The 岹ībad was expected to be the wisest, the most intelligent, and the most vigilant of men (Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 49).
Bibliography:
ʿAhd 岹&Dz;ī, ed. E. ʿAbbās, Beirut, 1387/1967.
M. Back, Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften, Acta Iranica 18, Tehran and Liège, 1978.
A. D. H. Bivar, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Stamp Seals II. The Sassanian Dynasty, London, 1969.
E. G. Browne, “Some Account of the Arabic Work Entitled "Niháyatu’l-irab fī akhbári’l-Furs wa’l-ʿArab," Particularly of that Part Which Treats of the Persian Kings,” JRAS, 1900, pp. 195-259.
C. Brunner, Sasanian Stamp Seals in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978.
I. D’yakonov and V. A. Livshits, Dokumenty iz Nisy (Documents from Nisa), Moscow, 1960.
B. Geiger, “The Synagogue, The Middle Iranian Texts,” in The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VIII/1, New Haven, Conn., 1956, pp. 283-317.
P. Gignoux, Catalogue des sceaux, camées et bulles sassanides de la Bibliothèque Nationale et du Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1978.
Idem and R. Gyselen, Bulles et sceaux sassanides de diverses collections, Stud. Ir. 16/4, Paris, 1987.
Idem, “Une collection d’empreintes de sceaux sassanides,” Stud. Ir. 21/1, 1992, pp. 49-56.
R. Göbl, Die Tonbullen van Tacht-e Suleiman, Berlin, 1976.
M. Grignaschi, “Quelques spécimens de la littérature sassanide conservés dans les bibliothèques d’Istanbul,” JA 254, 1966, pp. 1-142.
H. Humbach and P. O. Skjærvø, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, III/1-2, Wiesbaden, 1983.
(Pseudo) Jāḥeẓ, Ketāb al-tāj, ed. A. Zakī Bāšā, Cairo, 1322/1914.
&Dz;īī, Ketāb al-wozarāʾ wa’l-dzٳ, ed. M. Saqqā et al., Cairo, 1357/1938.
(Pseudo) Ḵayyām, Ƿɰū-峾, ed. M. Mīnovī, Tehran, 1312 Š./1933.
V. A. Livshits, “New Parthian Documents from South Turkmenistan,” AAASH 25, 1977 [1980], pp. 157-85.
V. G. Lukonin, “Political, Social and Administrative Institutions. Taxes and Trade,” Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 681-746.
Meskawayh, Tajāreb al-omam, ed. A. Emāmī, I, Tehran, 1366 Š./1987.
Nāma-ye Tansar, ed. M. Mīnovī, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1354 Š./1975; tr. M. Boyce as The Letter of Tansar, Rome, 1968.
(Aḥmad Tafażżolī)
ٲīs, the bureaucratic personnel comprised in the third estate of Sasanian society, survived as a group after the Arab conquest of Persia. They constituted the core of the civilian administration (ī) throughout the Islamic period and played a significant role in the transmission of bureaucratic skills and the Persian cultural heritage in general under the Arab caliphs and later under the Turkish dynasties.
After the conquest Persians, of whatever class, were lower in the social hierarchy of the Muslim empire. Whereas previously members of the bureaucratic class, which comprised, beside the 岹īs, viziers, accountants and tax collectors (Dzٲɴī, record keepers, and scribes (岹ī, ٱ, Dz&Dz;ī), had been exempt from taxes, they, like all the conquered peoples had to choose between conversion to Islam and the status of clients (ī) of the new Arab rulers or payment of the poll tax (jezya) levied on nonbelievers. The Muslim rulers soon found that they needed the administrative skills of the 岹īs in order to govern their empire. Conversely, 岹īs sought the support of the ruling elite in order to maintain their privileged position in their communities (see class system iv; Cahen, Camb. Hist. Iran, pp. 305-28; &Dz;īī, pp. 16-17; Moroney, pp. 199-211, 300-05). The title 岹ī was presumably in use in the early Omayyad period before Arabic replaced Persian as the language of administration; in Islamic Persia it remained a synonym for Arabo-Persian ٱ “scribe, clerk,” the more common designation for an official in the secretariat (ī; Sellheim and Sourdel; Fragner, EI2). When Persian was revived as the language of administration in much of the eastern Islamic world, 岹ī once more became an administrative title.
The survival of the bureaucratic estate that included the 岹īs was furthered by the legacy of the four-part Sasanian social stratification, which had been made familiar to the Islamic world by Persian historians and by authors of mirrors for princes and books of ethics, who were members of the same social class. Some authors viewed this estate as a distinct stratum comparable to the those of the military, clerics, and men of affairs (i.e., merchants, artisans, peasants, and herdsmen; see Ṭabarī, I, p. 180; Ṯaʿālebī, Ḡo, p. 12; &Dz;&;-峾, ed. Ḵāleqī, I, pp. 42-43; Nāma-ye Tansar, p. 57; Ebn al-Balḵī, pp. 30-31; Gardīzī, ed. Ḥabībī, p. 2). Other writers considered 岹īs and religious leaders the two pillars of the class of “men of the pen.” For example, Naṣīr-al-Dīn Ṭūsī (d. 672/1274) divided society into four classes (men of the pen, men of the sword, men of affairs, and peasants), which were to be maintained in their proper places by the ruler; men of the pen included “learned men,” jurisprudents (ڴDZ粹ʾ), judges (ż), scribes (dzٳ), mathematicians, geometricians, astronomers, physicians, and poets (for similar views, see Davānī, pp. 138-39; tr., pp. 388-90; Wāʿeẓ Kāšefī, p. 48). The functioning of the Persian bureaucratic estate after the conquest thus contributed both to the continuity of Persian administrative traditions and to the building of the Islamic state.
Given the important position and role of 岹īs in public administration, certain qualities were considered indispensable to them. Moḥammad Ḡazālī devoted the third chapter of his Naṣīḥat al-molūk (p. 189) to 岹īs and their art; he noted that, “beside the art of literary composition, 岹īs should know many things to qualify to serve rulers,” among which qualities he included expert knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, agriculture, irrigation, medicine, and poetry. The 岹ī was also supposed to be cheerful and good-looking. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī described the qualified 岹ī as a man of noble birth with a good reputation, sound judgment, capacity for profound thought, prudence, knowledge of adab, a refined manner in correspondence, and sincere devotion to the service of his master. He defined 岹īī as “an art, comprising eloquent rhetorical syllogisms, useful in communication among people in the form of dialogue, consultation, and controversy” (Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī, text, pp. 19-22; cf. Naḵjavānī, I, pp. 98-101; ʿOnṣor-al-Maʿālī, chap. 39). The 岹īs thus preserved and passed on, often within families, bureaucratic techniques, including styles of handwriting, principles of composition, and knowledge of forms of address and titles of nobles and notables; such aspects of the bureaucratic life-style as etiquette, manners, appearance, and dress; and support for the institution of the vizierate (see Mottahedeh, 1980, pp. 25-36; Klausner, pp. 37-81). In classical Persian literature there are many references to the literary virtuosity of 岹īs. The term eventually became almost synonymous with “man of letters.”
The relative position of the bureaucratic estate in the Islamic world varied. In the late 8th and 9th centuries the power of the vizier rose in relation to that the Arab tribal military aristocracy, as the ʿAbbasids sought to consolidate their central authority (Mez, pp. 89-106). As a result, those who assisted and supported the viziers, including the 岹īs, also enjoyed high status. Like other members of the dominant classes 岹īs were exempt from taxation and controlled agricultural land as intermediaries between the state and the cultivators. Nonhereditary grants of land (ṭāʿ, in the medieval period, later ٴDzū) were basically ways of remunerating military, administrative, and religious personnel, who would then be responsible for extracting taxes from them (Lambton, Continuity, 1987, chap. X; Fragner, Camb. Hist. Iran, pp. 499-524; Cahen, EI2).
Military power began to become more important in the 10th century, when Turkish slave soldiers and Daylamites seized control of the ʿAbbasid state. In Persia the supremacy of the military persisted under Turkish, Mongol, and Turkman rule until the 19th century (see, e.g., Ashtor, pp. 168-248). In that long period princes and men of the sword were primarily of Turkish stock, whereas viziers and men of the pen in general were of Persian (in the sources sometimes called Tajik) stock. Under the Ghaznavids (366-582/977-1186) and Saljuqs (429-590/1038-1194) both the titles 岹ī and ٱ were in use. Offices known from that period include the 岹ī-e sarāy (the palace secretary), 岹ī-e nawbatī (the secretary on duty), 岹ī-e ḵezāna (the secretary of the treasury), and 岹ī-e ḵāṣṣ (the private secretary of the ruler; Anwarī, p. 189). Under the Saljuqs the 岹ī-e jāmagīyāt (secretary of the wardrobe) and 岹ī-e rūz-nāma (secretary of the daily register) were subordinate to the Dzٲɴī (accountant; Abū Rajāʾ, pp. x-xiv). In the Safavid period 岹ī was replaced as an official title by Dz&Dz;ī, but it was in use again under the Qajars.
The functional significance of the men of the pen and the men of the sword in the Persian social hierarchy was a source of conflict and rivalry throughout the long period following the Saljuq invasion. Many writers claimed either the superiority of the pen over the sword (e.g., Māwardī, p. 10) or the equal importance of the two for the survival and functioning of the state apparatus (e.g., Yaʿqūbī, pp. 27-54). Despite sporadic manifestations of solidarity and group identity within each of these groups, the clerks, like the soldiers, were often divided by factionalism incited by the rulers. In this respect both clerks and soldiers differed from members of other professions, which often exhibited strong group loyalty and functioned en bloc in intergroup conflict (Mottahedeh, 1980, pp. 108-10, 116-17).
A strong hereditary tendency among prominent bureaucratic families continued until quite late. In the 14th-century Qazvīn, for example, there were fourteen families of city officials, tax collectors, and bureaucrats (of thirty-three families of notables) who had dominated the region for generations; many had accumulated wealth and land property. The clan of Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfī, attested among notables in the city for more than five centuries, is a prime example (īḵ-dzī岹, ed. Browne, pp. 798-814).
In modern Persia 岹ī is the title of a secondary-school (岹īestān) teacher and a component in the titles of a newspaper or journal editor (sar-岹ī) and the secretary or secretary-general (岹ī-e koll) of an association or political party.
Bibliography:
Najm-al-Dīn Abū Rajāʾ Qomī, īḵa-ɴdzʾ, ed. M.-T. Dānešpažūh, Tehran, 1363 Š./1984.
Ḥ. Anwarī, Eṣtelāḥāt-e īī-e dawra-ye ḡaznavī wa saljūqī, Tehran, 2535 = 1355 Š./1976.
E. Ashtor, A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages, Berkeley, Calif., 1976.
J. Aubin, “L’aristocratie urbaine dans l’Iran seljukide. L’example de Sabzavar,” in P. Gallais and Y. J. Rion, eds., Mélanges offerts à Rene Crozet I, Poitiers, 1966, pp. 323-32.
A. E. Bertel’s, Nasir-i Khosrov i Ismailizm, Moscow, 1959; tr. Y. Ārīānpūr as Nāṣer-e Kosrow wa Esmāʿīlīān, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967.
R. Bulliet, The Patricians of Nishapur, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.
C. Cahen, “Iḳtāʿ,” in EI2III, pp. 1088-91.
Idem, “Tribes, Cities, and Social Organization,” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 305-28.
Jalāl-al-Dīn Davānī, Aḵlāq-e jalālī, ed. M.-K. Šīrāzī, Calcutta, 1911; partial tr. W. F. Thompson as Practical Philosophy of the Muhammadan People, London, 1839; repr. Karachi, 1977.
B. Fragner, “Kātib ii,” in EI2, pp. 757-58.
Idem, “Social and Internal Economic Affairs,” in Camb. Hist. Iran VI, pp. 491-567.
Abū Ḥāmed Moḥammad Ḡazālī, Naṣīḥat al-molūk, ed. J. Homāʾī, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1361 S./1982.
Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad b. ʿAbdūs &Dz;īī, al-Wozarāʾ wa’l-dzٳ, Baghdad, 1357/1938.
C. Klausner, The Seljuk Vizirate. A Study of Central Administration, 1055-1194, Cambridge, Mass., 1973.
Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Moḥammad Māwardī, al-Aḥkām al-solṭānīya wa al-welāyāt al-dīnīya, Cairo, 1380/1960.
A. Mez, The Renaissance of Islam, tr. D. S. Margoliouth, London, 1937.
Moḥammad Mofīd, Jāmeʿ-e mofīdī, ed. Ī. Afšār, III/1, Tehran, 1340 Š./1961.
M. Moroney, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Princeton, N.J., 1984.
Ḥ. Mostawfī, Tārīḵ-e gozīda, Tehran, 1339 S./1960.
R. Mottahedeh, “Administration in Buyid Qazvin,” in D. S. Richards, Islamic Civilization, 950-1150, Oxford, 1973, pp. 33-45.
Idem, Loyalty and Leadership, Princeton, N.J., 1980.
Moḥammad b. Hendūšāh Naḵjavānī, Dastūr al-ٱ fī taʿyīn al-marāteb, ed. ʿA. ʿA. ʿAlīzāda, Moscow, 1964.
Nāma-ye Tansar, ed. M. Mīnovī, Tehran, 1354 Š./1975.
Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow Qobādīānī, ڲ-峾, ed. N. Wazīnpūr, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971.
ʿOnṣor-al-Maʿālī Keykavūs b. Eskandar, ū-峾, ed. Ḡ.-Ḥ. Yūsofī, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966.
L. Sellheim and D. Sourdel, “Kātib i,” in EI2IV, pp. 754-57.
Naṣīr-al-Dīn Ṭūsī, Aḵlāq-e nāṣerī, ed. M. Mīnovī, Tehran, 1356 Š./1977.
Ḥosayn Wāʿeẓ Kāšefī, Aḵlāq-e Moḥsenī, ed. E. Tājer Šīrāzī, Bombay, 1308/1890.
Abū Sāʿed Yaʿqūbī, “Monāẓara bayn al-sayf wa’l-qalam,” in Ḡ. Yūsofī et al., eds., Yādgār-nāma-ye Ḥabīb Yaḡmāʾī, Tehran, 1365 Š./1986, pp. 27-54.
J. Zaydan, Umayads and Abbasids, tr. D.S. Margoliouth, Leiden, 1907.
(Hashem Rajabzadeh)
(Aḥmad Tafażżolī, Hashem Rajabzadeh)
Originally Published: December 15, 1993
Last Updated: November 10, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. VI, Fasc. 5, pp. 534-539
