Ādhar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali Beyg

Ādhar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali Beyg – poet, biographer, and literary critic of the 12^th/18^th century (1734–1781/1195-1134).

“Ādhar” was his pen name, and Bīgdelī was the name of his tribal affiliation. Lutf-Alīi Beyg was born in January 1722/Rabī‛ al-Ākhar 1134 in Isfahan. His father was Ḥeydar, known as Āqā Khān, son of Zeynāl III, the court administrator (mīr dīvānī) under Shah Sulaymān Ṣafavī*, and his mother was the daughter of Mīrzā Muhammad Mu‛men Khān E‛temād al-Dawla (d. 1704/1116), vizier to Shah Sulṭān Hussein*.¹  In the same year of Luṭf-Ali’s birth, Maḥmūd Mīrveys Ghalzāyī Afghān attacked Isfahan,² which led Luṭf-Ali’s family to migrate from Isfahan to Qum, where they resided for fourteen years.³ Āqā Khān, who held the governorship of Shīrvānāt,⁴ was appointed governor of Lār and Bandar Abbas in 1735/1148 by order of Nāder-Shah Afshār* (r. 1736–1747/1148–1160). He moved with his family from Qum to Shiraz to fulfill this job, but died about two years later in the vicinity of Bandar Abbas.⁵

In 1737/1150, Luṭf-Ali Beyg went on pilgrimage (ḥajj) together his uncle Ḥājī Maḥmūd Beyg.⁶ Upon returning from the pilgrimage, he visited the Shiite holy shrines in Iraq, and in 1739/1152 returned to Fars. One year later, he traveled with his brothers and friends to Mashhad, where he joined Nāder-Shah’s camp, which had just returned from the conquest of India. From there, he accompanied the royal army from Mashhad to Mazandaran and then to Azerbaijan, and eventually returned to Isfahan with the intention of settling there.⁷

After the death of Nāder-Shah, Luṭf-Ali Beyg entered the service of several of his successors, including ‛Ādel-Shah Afshār (r. 1747–1748/1160–1161), Ebrāhīm-Shah Afshār (r. 1748–1749/1161–1162), Shah Suleymān II Ṣafavī (r. 1749/1163), and Shah Esmā‛īl III Ṣafavī (r. 1749–1751/1163–1165).⁸ During this period, he was separated from Isfahan, a matter which constantly weighed heavily on him.⁹  He experienced a number of tribulations during his tenure in state service, including being briefly taken prisoner in Qum by the army of ‛Ādel-Shah while serving as the prefect (dārūghe) of Ebrāhīm Shah’s court.¹⁰ In the attack on Isfahan by Ali-Mardān Khān Bakhtīyārī, seven thousand verses of his poetry were lost,¹¹ and he was temporarily captured by Ali-Mardān Khān’s troops.¹² Following these calamities, he withdrew from the state services and, in his own words, “donned the garb of poverty.”¹³ He then turned to farming on his ancestral lands in Qum and Isfahan, which, due to unjust treatment and oppressive taxation, proved exceedingly difficult. He described these hardships in odes addressed to Karīm-Khān, his son Abulfatḥ Khān, and Karīm-Khān’s vizier, Mīrzā Ja‛far.¹⁴

During these years, Luṭf-Ali, like many of his literary and scholarly peers, benefited from the well-ordered cultural environment of Isfahan under the governance of Mīrzā ‛Abdul-Wahhāb Kalāntar (d. 1770/1184).¹⁵ Yet, with Hājī Muhammad Renānī’s ascent to power —an expansionist and severe governor of Isfahan from 1759 to 1765/1173 to 1179 who showed little attention to culture, literature, and art—, Luṭf-Ali’s life grew increasingly difficult. His odes of lament, cursing-poems, and playful derision yielded no result.¹⁶ Eventually, following protest immigration to Shiraz in 1774/1188 by a large group of Isfahan’s merchants, artisans, notables, scholars, and clerics, he too left the city and reportedly traveled to Qum along with Hātef-e Esfahānī*.¹⁷ In 1778/1192, he accompanied Hātef to Kashan at the invitation of his student Ṣabāḥī Bīdgulī. That same year, Kashan was struck by an earthquake in which several of his relatives, including his nephew Kāẓem Beyg, perished.¹⁸

According to one of his ode, beginning with the line: “shukr-e Ādhar ke shab-e hashtum-e māh-e Ādhar / du shekufte gulam az gulban-e āmāl damīd (“Thanks to Ādhar, for on the eighth night of Ādhar month / two blooming roses blossomed from the bough of hope,”) Luṭf-Ali became the father of two sons in 1780/1194, when he was nearly sixty years old.¹⁹ He died the following year, in 1781/1195, in Qum and was buried there in his family mausoleum near the shrine of Lady Ma‛ṣūme.²⁰ Some maintain that he died and was buried in his own garden, known as Tekye-ye Ādhar, located in a street in Isfahan which now bears his name.²¹ One of his poems, however, suggests that at least for a time, Bāgh-e Kārān was likely his place of residence.²² Many poets composed chronograms to mark his death, among them Hātef-e Esfahānī and Ṣabāḥī Bīdgulī.²³

Of his three sons, only Hussein-Ali Beyg became a poet; he used the pen name Sharar, and appears—unlike his father—to have been fond of the poetic style of Ṣāʾeb.²⁴ Given that Sharar was among the companions and panegyrists of Fatḥ-Ali Shāh Qājār, and especially of Prince Maḥmūd-Mīrzā, and that based on available evidence he was still alive in 1838/1254,²⁵ it is plausible to consider him the eldest son of Luṭf-Ali. Sharar’s son, Ḥāj Muhammad Rashīd Khān, who wrote under the pen name Akhgar, also attained notable mastery in calligraphy.²⁶ Ghulām-Hussein Bīgdelī, in his book tārīkh-e [history of] Bīgdelī-Shāmlū, mentions several distinguished descendants of Luṭf-Ali Beyg.²⁷ In more recent times, two of his notable descendants were Muhammad-Ali Bīgdelī Ādharī, author of a divan titled ātashkade-ye thānī,²⁸ and Aḥmad Bīgdelī Ādharī, known as Ādharī Qummī, a jurist, political figure after 1979 Revolution, and one of the founding members of the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qum.²⁹

As is well known, Luṭf-Ali belonged to the Bīgdelī tribe, one of the twenty-two constituent branches of the Ghuzz.³⁰ According to legendary Turkic genealogies, their ancestry—through several intermediaries—traces back to Bīgdel Khān, and ultimately to Ughuz Khān, the sovereign of a unified Turkistan.³¹ From the 11th/5th century onward, the Bīgdelīs were gradually relocated westward in successive stages. Some settled in Greater Syria, but were later deported to Turkistan by Teymūr. While passing through Iran, they were freed through the intercession of Kh^wāje Ali Sīyāhpush, the grandson of Sheikh Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī. They subsequently settled in Ardabil, became disciples of the Ṣafavid order, and were later regarded as one of the seven Turkaman Qezelbāsh factions, to the extent that they came to be identified as the Bīgdelī Shāmlū.³² Zeynāl I, the progenitor of the Bīgdelī line, served as commander-in-chief under Shah Esmā‛īl; his son, Zeynāl Beyg Bīgdelī, held the same position under Shah ‛Abbās*.³³ Close relatives of Luṭf-Ali continued to occupy high-ranking military and bureaucratic positions during the Zand, Afshar, and Qājār periods.³⁴ They were particularly esteemed during the Zand period: before ascending to power, Khān-e Zand benefitted from their support and patronage, and as a result, spared the life of Muṣṭafā Khān—Luṭf-Ali’s uncle—despite his collaboration with Ali-Mardān Khān Bakhtīyārī.³⁵

Luṭf-Ali appears to have begun writing poetry at an early age, as by his mid-twenties (around 25 or 26), he was already regarded as a notable poet, earning a mention in certain biographical book (tadhkera) such as rīyāḍ al-shu‛arāʾ by Vāleh Dāghestānī, compiled in 1748/1161.³⁶ He selected three different pen names over the course of his career: first Vāleh, then Nukhat, and finally Ādhar.³⁷ Vāleh Dāghestānī noted Ādhar’s revolutionary stance within the context of the Literary Return School (maktab-e bāzgasht).³⁸ According to Hedāyat,³⁹ Ādhar was the one who proposed reviving the classical poetic style in Isfahan and Shiraz. Ādhar himself, however, in his work ātashkade-ye ādhar, identifies Mushtāq-e Esfahānī* as the true pioneer of the movement⁴⁰ and acknowledges him as his master and mentor in the rules of prosody and poetic expression. Ādhar also recounts how Hātef-e Esfahānī once instructed him to compose a response poem (esteqbāl) modeled after one of Anvarī’s odes.⁴¹ In any case, considering Ādhar’s literary prominence in his era—so much so that some ranked him on par with, or even above, poets like Anvarī and Ferdawsī,⁴² and more importantly, in view of his outspoken critical remarks in his tadhkera, particularly regarding the dominant poetic style of his time and his efforts to steer literary taste away from the Indian style and back toward classical forms—he may rightly be regarded as the leader of the Literary Return movement.⁴³

Works
Ādhar’s major works are his ātashkade-ye ādhar and his dīvān. The former is a biographical book containing biographical accounts and samples of verse by some 850 poets of the Persian literary tradition. He compiled it between 1760 and 1779/1174 and 1193,⁴⁴ and the current view that announces it took him thirty years to complete is likely incorrect.⁴⁵ In keeping with the book’s title (ātashkade, “fire temple”), its structure is organized into one “flame” (shu‛le), which is subdivided into two “brazier” sections (majmare). The first majmare, devoted to earlier poets, is further divided into three “embers” (akhgar), each of which contains several “sparks” (sharāre), and in some cases, each sharāre contains multiple “rays” (shu‛ā‛). The first majmare concludes with a section on women poets, entitled Furūgh (“Radiance”). The second majmare consists of two “beams” (partu): the first presents biographies of his contemporary poets, and the second contains Ādhar’s own autobiography and poetic works. It appears that the original inspiration for compiling the ātashkade came from the literary circle of Mushtāq, a famous poet, and the attribution of its patronage to Mīrzā ‛Abdul-Wahhāb Kalāntar stems from the fact that Mushtāq’s literary gatherings were held under his sponsorship and at his residence.⁴⁶ According to Hedāyat,⁴⁷ Ādhar’s devotion to Karīm Khān and his admiration for the peace of his reign led him to dedicate the ātashkade* to Karīm Khān—an inference based on the tone and content of Ādhar’s remarks in the work.

The ātashkade is an extensive, regional, and general biography with a critical orientation,⁴⁸ which, both in its selection of examples and in its literary judgments, serves as a kind of manifesto of the Literary Return School. It also stands as a clear document of the effort to marginalize prominent poets of the Indian style, such as Ṣāʾeb Tabrīzī* and Kalīm Kāshānī, along with their works. Ādhar Bīgdelī harbored no favorable view of Ṣāʾeb Tabrīzī and believed that he had shown no regard for the earlier masters, asserting that his “new and unseemly method was declining by the day.”⁴⁹ Ādhar attributed Ṣāʾeb’s fame solely to his “personal virtues” or to the “alignment of his star.”⁵⁰ Regarding Kalīm Kāshānī, he wrote that the acceptance of his poetry in his own time was merely due to “the compassion of the king [Shah Jahān],” and that his verse was unworthy of mention.⁵¹ In addition to poets of the Indian style, Ādhar also criticized earlier figures such as Majd-e Hamgar*.⁵² Although many of Ādhar’s literary judgments were treated as authoritative by his contemporaries,⁵³ his excesses and inconsistencies in aesthetic criticism—both in evaluating poetic styles and in his selection of textual examples—did not go unnoticed even among the literary scholars of his own time.⁵⁴

What sets the ātashkade apart from other biographical works is its critical orientation; otherwise, in its regional arrangement and in the selection of many of the classical poetic examples, it has been regarded as a skillfully imitative reproduction of Taqī al-Dīn Kāshī’s khulāṣat al-ash‛ār—a biographical work which Ādhar appears to have deliberately avoided naming altogether in his own work,⁵⁵ even though he explicitly cites haft eqlīm [seven regions] multiple times as a source.⁵⁶ A biographical work titled tadhkera-ye esḥāq, compiled by Ādhar’s brother, Esḥāq Beyg ‛Udhrī Bīgdelī (d. 1771/1185), has also survived; it is essentially a curated selection of poems from the ātashkade.⁵⁷

Ādhar’s dīvān comprises nearly all major genres and forms of classical Persian poetry. His odes—written largely in imitation of Kamāl al-Dīn Esmā‛īl*, Anvarī, and especially Ẓahīr Fāryābī—are among the most highly praised.⁵⁸ His ode beginning with the line “az Ṣafāhān būy-e jān āyad hamī / būy-e jān az Isfahan āyad hamī” was composed in response to Rudakī’s famous line “būy-e jūy-e mūlīyān āyad hamī.”⁵⁹ . Two tarkīb-bands—one on the Kāshān earthquake of 1778/1192 and another an elegy for his brother⁶⁰—along with a leitmotif (tarjī‛-band) with the refrain “benshīnam va zār-zār geryam”,⁶¹ modeled after Sa‛dī’s leitmotif with the refrain “benshīnam va ṣabr pīsh gīram,” and numerous love-poems (ghazals) composed in the style of Sa‛dī,⁶² as well as a sāqī-nāme and mughnī-nāme written in imitation of Ḥāfeẓ⁶³, are all included. The dīvān also contains ribald and obscene cursing-poem and humorous verse.⁶⁴ In addition, it features several panegyric odes (manqabat) in praise of Imam Ali, Imam Reza, and the Shiite twelfth Imam,⁶⁵ as well as chronograms commemorating private or religious endowments, construction projects, and historical occasions such as births or coronations.⁶⁶

Although Ādhar has been praised for his dignified temperament, and his panegyrics are generally free of the sycophantic tone found in the work of later Return School poets, his dīvān nevertheless includes petitions on subjects such as spectacles, books, and other minor personal needs—possibly intended as poetic exercises.⁶⁷ While Ādhar, like many poets of the 6^th/12^th  and 8^th/14^th  centuries, paid considerable attention to diction and rhetorical devices, he explicitly rejected excessive wordplay and purely ornamental language in poetry.⁶⁸ The appendix of his dīvān contains several independent mathnavīs: ⁶⁹one written in the meter of Rūmī’s Mathnavī,⁷⁰ another modeled after Neẓāmī’s Leylī va Majnūn,⁷¹ a humorous debate on women and marriage in the meter of Sanā‛ī’s ḥadīqa,⁷² and a macaronic Persian-Turkic satirical mathnavī in the meter of makhzan al-asrār—all of which, complete or fragmentary, reflect his engagement with the tradition of khamse-composition or even sab‛a-compositin.⁷³ The collection also includes short mathnavīs in the form of petitions or chronograms.⁷⁴ The dīvān of Ādhar was published in 1987/1366 Sh. in a critical edition by Sayyed Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī and Ghulām-Hussein Bīgdelī.⁷⁵

Other works attributed to Ādhar include a poetic romance of yūsuf va zuleykhā, his longest and most well-known mathnavī, which—due to the immaturity of certain passages—appears to have been one of his earliest poetic efforts.⁷⁶ Despite claims that the work was ready for publication,⁷⁷ it never came to appear, and it remains accessible only through student theses and an excerpt cited by Ādhar himself in the ātashkade.⁷⁸ Another work titled daftar-e nuh āsmān, concerning the biographies of his contemporaries, is also attributed to him; it appears to be a selection from the ātashkade, compiled either by Ādhar himself or by another individual.⁷⁹ Ganjīnat al-ḥaqq, a poetic imitation (naẓīrah) of Sa‛dī’s būstān, was reportedly composed by Ādhar at the encouragement of Hātef, and is almost certainly part of the scattered mathnavīs included in the printed edition of his dīvān.⁸⁰

/Saeid Shafieioun/

Bibliography

Ādhar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali b. Āqā Khān, ātashkade-ye ādhar, ed. Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1957–1961/1336–1340.

Ādhar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali b. Āqā Khān, ātashkade-ye ādhar, part 2, ed. Mīrhāshem Muḥaddes, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1999/1378.

Ādhar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali b. Āqā Khān, dīvān, ed. Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī and Ghulām-Hussein Bīgdelī, Tehran: Jāvīdān, 1987/1366.

Akhtar, Aḥmad b. Farāmarz, tadhkera-ye akhtar, ed. ‛Abdul-Rasūl Khayyāmpūr, Tabriz: Sherkat-e Sahāmī-ye Chap-e Ketāb-e Āzarbāyjān, 1964/1343.

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, al-dharī‛a elā taṣānīf al-Shī‛a, ed. Ali-Naqī Munzavī and Aḥmad Munzavī, Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1983/1403.

Bīgdelī Ādharī, Muḥammad-Ali, ātashkade-ye thānī: dīvān-e Muhammad-Ali Bīgdelī Ādharī, Tehran: Sanāʾī, 2002/1381.

Bīgdelī, Ghulām HusseinḤosayn, tārīkh-e Bīgdelī-Shāmlū, vol. 3, Tehran: Āfarīnesh, 1995/1374.

Fāḍel Garūsī, Muhammad, tadhkera-ye Anjuman-e Khāqān, Tehran: Ruzane, 1997/1376.

Fānī Zanūzī, Muhammad-Hasan b. ‛Abdul-Rasūl, rīyāḍ al-janna, Qum: Nashr-e Muvarrekh, 1982/1402.

Ghaffārī Kāshānī, Abūl-Hasan, gulshan-e murād, ed. Ghulām-Reza Ṭabāṭabāʾī Majd, Tehran: Zarrīn, 1990/1369.

Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Aḥmad, tārīkh-e tadhkera-hā-ye fārsī, Tehran: Sanāʾī, 1984/1363.

Hātef-e Eṣfahānī, Aḥmad, dīvān, ed. Vajīhe Rabī‛, Tehran: Mīrāth-e Maktūb, 2016/1395.

Hedāyat, Reza-Qulī b. Muhammad-Hādī, majma‛ al-fuṣaḥāʾ, ed. Maẓāher Muṣaffā, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 2003/1382.

Karamī, Muhammad-Hussein and Rustamī-Nejād, Akbar, “mu‛arrefī-ye manẓūme-ye Yūsuf va Zuleykhā-ye Ādhar Bīgdelī va barresī-ye vīzhegīhā-ye sabkshenāsī-ye ān”, Bahār-e Adab, no. 36, Summer 2014/1393.

Maftūn Dunbulī, ‛Abdul-Razzāq b. Najaf-Qulī, tajrebat al-aḥrār wa taslīyat al-abrār, ed. Hasan Qāḍī Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Tabriz: Muʾassesa-ye Tārīkh va Farhang-e Iran, 1970–1971/1349–1350.

Mahdavī, Muṣleḥ al-Dīn, tadhkera al-qubūr, yā dāneshmandān va buzurgān-e Isfahan, Isfahan: Thaqafī, 1969/1348.

Maḥmūd-Mīrzā Qājār, safīnat al-Maḥmūd, ed. ‛Abdul-Rasūl Khayyāmpūr, Tabriz: Muʾassesa-ye Tārīkh va Farhang, 1967/1346.

Pūrṣafar Qaṣṣābī-Nezhād, Ali, “Bīgdelī,” in dāneshnāme-ye jahān-e eslām, ed. Ghulām-Ali Ḥaddād ‛Ādel, vol. 5, Tehran: The Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation, 2000/1379.

Shafieioun, Saeid, “guzarī dīgargūn bar tadhkera-hā-ye adabī”, funūn-e adabī, vol. 6, no. 2, Fall–Winter 2014/1393.

Sharar Bīgdelī, Hussein-Ali b. Luṭf-Ali, faghān-e del: majmū‛e-ye ash‛ār, ed. Muhammad-Ali Mujāhedī, Qum: Dār al-‛Elm, 1970/1349.

Shūshtarī, ‛Abdul-Laṭīf b. Ṭāleb, tuḥfat al-‛ālem and dheyl al-tuḥfa, ed. Ṣamad Muvahhed, Tehran: Ṭahūrī, 1984/1363.

Vā‛eẓ Qazvīnī, Muhammad-Rafī‛, dīvān, ed. Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī, [Tehran]: ‛Elmī, 1980/1359.

Vāleh Dāghestānī, Ali-Qulī b. Muhammad-Ali, tadhkera-ye rīyāḍ al-shu‛arāʾ, ed. Muḥsen Nājī Naṣrābādī, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2005/1384.

1. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, pp. 460, 719; Idem, 1957–1961/1336–1340, section 1, p. 51; Wā‛eẓ Qazvīnī, p. 601; Ghaffārī Kāshānī, p. 397.[↩]
2. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 461.  [↩]
3. Idem, part 2, p. 719.[↩]
4. Idem, part 2, p. 466.[↩]
5. Idem, part 2, pp. 466, 719; Bīgdelī, vol. 3, p. 12, which states he was killed by rebels—likely a confusion with his brother Valī-Muhammad Khān.[↩]
6. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, pp. 719–720.[↩]
7. Idem, part 2, p. 720; Ghaffārī Kāshānī, p. 398.[↩]
8. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 720.[↩]
9. Ibid, 1987/1366, p. 35.[↩]
10. Ibid, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 471.[↩]
11. Idem, part 2, p. 720; Maftūn Dunbulī, part 1, pp. 268–269.[↩]
12. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 477.[↩]
13. Idem, vol. 2, p. 720.[↩]
14. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 46, 70, 113–114.[↩]
15. Maftūn Dunbulī, part 1, p. 270; Fāḍel-e Garusī, pp. 450–451.[↩]
16. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 54–56, 272–274.[↩]
17. Maftūn Dunbulī, part 1, pp. 269–272.  [↩]
18. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 327–331; Ghaffārī Kāshānī, p. 373; cf. Fāḍel Garūsī, p. 451, who attributes Ādhar’s journey to Kāshān to an invitation by the governor, ‛Abdul-Razzāq Khān.[↩]
19. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 282–283.[↩]
20. Maftūn Dunbulī, part 1, p. 321; Maḥmūd-Mīrzā Qājār, part 1, p. 133; Akhtar, p. 17; Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 52–55.[↩]
21. Mahdavī, p. 10.[↩]
22. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, p. 506.[↩]
23. Idem, pp. fifty-two–fifty-four; Hātef Eṣfahānī, pp. 141–142.[↩]
24. Sharar Bīgdelī, pp. lā–maz and naz.[↩]
25. Idem, p. mā.[↩]
26. Idem, pp. maz–naz.[↩]
27. Bīgdelī, vol. 3, pp. 573–578, 595.[↩]
28. Bīgdelī Ādharī, p. 11.[↩]
29. Bīgdelī, vol. 3, pp. 582–595.[↩]
30. Pūrṣafar Qaṣṣābī-Nezhād, p. 259.[↩]
31. Bīgdelī Ādharī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 459[↩]
32. Idem, vol. 2, p. 460.[↩]
33. Pūrṣafar Qaṣṣābī-Nezhād, p. 260.[↩]
34. Bīgdelī Ādharī, 1999/1378, part 2, pp. 462, 464–465, 468–469, 475, 479, 481, 556, 479, 637.[↩]
35. Idem, vol. 2, p. 479.[↩]
36. Vāleh Dāghestānī, vol. 1, p. 308.[↩]
37. Idem.[↩]
38. As Vāleh Dāghestānī notes, Idem, “beh sabab-e eqteḍā-ye zamān qadrī shukh va bī-parvā vāqe‛ shude.”( It turned out somewhat humorous and bold due to the demands of the time. )[↩]
39. Hedāyat, vol. 2, part 1, p. 232.[↩]
40. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 638. On poets such as Shu‛le-ye Eṣfahānī, Ādhar himself (1999/1378, part 2, p. 520) believed that none of his contemporaries were as well-versed in classical styles; however, unlike Mushtāq, he seems not to have pursued movement-building or mentorship in this regard.[↩]
41. Idem., part 2, p. 720.[↩]
42. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, p. 162.[↩]
43. Idem, p. ninety.[↩]
44. Idem, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 11; Ādhar (1999/1378, part 2, p. 482), by noting that eight years have passed since the death of Mīr-Mahnā (1681/1092), effectively dates the completion of this book to 1779/1193.[↩]
45. Hedāyat, 2003/1382, vol. 2, part 1, p. 232.[↩]
46. Maftūn Dunbulī, part 1, p. 242; Fāḍel Garūsī, p. 450.[↩]
47. Hedāyat, 2003/1382, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 232–233.[↩]
48. Shafieioun, p. 104.[↩]
49. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1957–1961/1336–1340, part 1, pp. 122–123.[↩]
50. Idem, part 1, pp. 125–126.[↩]
51. Idem, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 47.[↩]
52. Idem, 1957–1961/1336–1340, part 2, p. 755.[↩]
53. Shūshtarī, p. 197.[↩]
54. Fānī Zanūzī, p. 640.[↩]
55. Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, vol. 1, p. 4. Gulchīn Ma‛ānī (Idem) refers to a copy of Khulāṣat al-ash‛ār by Taqī al-Dīn Kāshī that is filled with corrections and additions in the handwriting and bearing the signature of Ādhar. Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, by comparing the passages of ātashkade with the tadhkeras khulāṣat al-ash‛ār and ‛arafāt al-‛āsheqīn, points to Ādhar’s occasionally incomplete and mistaken transcriptions from these sources, and even states that Ādhar took the title of this work from the ātashkade poem by Āqā Ṣādeq Tafreshī.[↩]
56. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1999/1378, part 2, p. 420.[↩]
57. Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, vol. 1, p. 183.[↩]
58. Akhtar, p. 17; Maḥmūd-Mīrzā Qājār, vol. 1, p. 133.[↩]
59. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 146–150.[↩]
60. Idem., pp. 326–337.[↩]
61. Idem., pp. 338–344.[↩]
62. Idem., pp. 69–70.[↩]
63. Idem., pp. 346–353.[↩]
64. Idem., pp. 275–277, 288–289, 311–312, 317–318.[↩]
65. Idem., pp. 10–13, 48–53, 61–65, 95–101, 158–163.[↩]
66. Idem., pp. 302, 304, 307, 508.[↩]
67. Idem., pp. 286-287, 320.[↩]
68. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 286–287, 320.[↩]
69. A verse form of rhyming couplets [↩]
70. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1957–1961/1336–1340, part 1, p. 281; part 2, p. 709.[↩]
71. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. 477–483.[↩]
72. Idem., pp. 500–505.[↩]
73. Idem., pp. 435–476.[↩]
74. Idem., pp. 484–497.[↩]
75. Idem., pp. 506–509.[↩]
76. Akhtar, p. 17.[↩]
77. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. six–seven.[↩]
78. Karamī and Rustamī-Nezhād, p. 116.[↩]
79. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, vol. 1, p. 4.[↩]
80. Ādhar Bīgdelī, 1987/1366, pp. forty-nine, 420–423; Fāḍel Garūsī, p. 451.[↩]