Dwór Mas’uda I z Gazny w Historii Beyhaqiego. Struktura, uroczystości i rozrywki

Abstrakt

Baihaqī’s History is regarded as one of the most important sources for the study of the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty. It has often been used by historians of the Ghaznavids and their state. However, the research so far has largely neglected the problem of organization and life of their court, dealing with it only marginally in connection with studies on the Ghaznavid administrative system.

The aim of the present work is to form the fullest image possible of the court of Mas’ūd I of Ghazna (421/1030-432/1040), whose reign is covered by the extant portions of Baihaqī’s History, and at the same time to test its value as a source and its utility for research of this kind. The author asks two questions: (1) do Baihaqī’s many remarks on various members of the royal entourage and his information about their functions make it possible to reconstruct the structure of the court and the hierarchy of court dignities?, (2) are the accounts in History enough to reconstruct the course of court celebrations and their ceremonial?

The study consists of three chapters. The first is devoted to a brief presentation of the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty and their empire, a short biography of Baihaqī and a general description of his opus. Abū l-Fadl Muhammad b. Husayn Baihaqī (385/995-470/1077) occupied the important position of secretary and confidant of the head of the divān-e resālat. At a later time, not covered by the preserved part of History, he himself briefly became the head of the dīvān. While he held these posts he purposely collected materials for his future great work; for example, he copied documents from the amīr’s chancellery for his own use. He was careful to check the reliability of his informants. Above all, he was an eyewitness to most of the events he described, a witness with good orientation in matters of state and in the functioning of the court. His main informant was his superior and protector Abū Nasr Mushkān, one of Mas’ūd’s highest officials and most important advisers.

Baihaqī was quite specific about the character of his work: „Proceeding to work on this History. I took a decision to write only what I hare seen myself or heard from a trustworthy person”.

This initial assumption makes Tārīkh-i Baihaqī altogether exceptional in medieval Muslim historiography; it has none of the extensive uncritical borrowing from earlier writers and no lengthy isnads it is picturesque in its descriptions and reminiscent of a diary rather than a strictly historical work.

Of Baihaqī’s enormous work, believed to have counted more than thirty volumes, only a few parts remain: vols. VI-IX (with some gaps) and fragments of vols. V and X, which concern the years 421/1030-432/1040. On the basis of Baihaqī’s own statement that he begins his account of Ghaznavid history with the year 409/1019-1020, and of the fact that the historian himself never uses the title Tārīkh-i Āl-i Sabuktegīn, the author questions C. E. Bosworth’s opinion (Early Sources for the „History” of the First Four Ghaznavid Sultans (977-1041), in: The Islamic Quarterly, Oxford, 7:1963, p. 11) that Baihaqī intended to write a history of the whole Ghaznavid dynasty up to the accession of Ibrāhīm (451/1059).

Chapters 2 and 3 present the results of the analysis of the preserved portions of Baihaqī’s History. The text used was the Teheran edition (Abo’l-Fazl b. Hoseyn Beyhaqi, Tārix-e Beyhaki, ed. by Ali Akber Fayyāz, Tehrān 1358).

In Chapter 2 the author considers all the mentions of people continually present in the ruler’s entourage, in an attempt to put together a complete list of court dignities and to determine the responsibilities and duties associated with the particular offices. The highest court officials were the heads of the five dīvāns, which constituted the core of Ghaznavid administration, and first of all the vizier and the head of the royal chancellery. The vizier was responsible for the treasury and finances. As the sultan’s deputy he was second in importance only to him both in the state and at the court. The heads and employees of the dīvāns and also other civilian officials, the „men of the pen”, were as a rule Iranians.

An important group at the court was comprised of military officials, the „men of the sword”, Turkish by origin, who could hold certain ceremonial posts at the court in addition to their functions in the army. The great hajib, the highest military commander next to the sepāhsālār of Khorasan, was also responsible for the organization of court celebrations, at which he was master of ceremonies. Other hajibs, subordinate to him, also had specific roles to play at ceremonial audiences. The author regards as a misunderstanding the view expressed in Encyclopédie de l’Islam (2nd, ed., Leiden 1954, entry ‘Hādjib’) that in the Ghaznavid state the great hajib, unlike his Sāmānid predecessor, was not in charge of the court. The author also corrects an error of A. K. Arends (Istoria Mas’uda, Tashkent 1962), who in his Russian translation of Baihaqī treated the term āqāǧi (which denoted a court position, the hajib keeping watch outside the amīr’s chamber), as a proper name.

The vizier, the head of the royal chancellery and the remaining heads of dīvāns, and also the great hajib, the commander of the palace guard and a few other military commanders present at the court comprised the royal council. The amīr, too, had his own trusted advisers, to whom he turned independently of the meetings of the council.

Mas’ūd’s closest entourage included the nadims, i.e. table companions, who accompanied him at daily meals and wine drinking and also at banquets and on hunts. Owing to their constant presence by the ruler they had some influence on him and his policies. On the other hand, there is very little that can be said on the basis of History about the amīr’s relatives, his harem or his palace staff. Nor can we determine the size of the court, apart from the palace guard, estimated by Baihaqī to have counted four thousand qhulāms, of whom three hundred were the amīr’s bodyguard. Baihaqī’s information on the hierarchy of court dignities is incomplete, so that the hierarchy can be reconstructed only in part. By contrast, the manner of appointment to an office is described more clearly; a newly appointed official or military commander would receive a written nomination and a ceremonial garment from the ruler’s wardrobe.

Chapter 3 presents all those kinds of Mas’ūd’s court ceremonies and entertainments mentioned by Baihaqī. The chapter thus undertakes a reconstruction of various types of audiences, the ordinary and the official, celebrations of Muslim and Iranian holidays, and ceremonies connected with receiving foreign envoys. All these were held in accordance with a prearranged schedule and a specific ceremonial. The sultan’s favourite pastimes were feasts and hunting parties, on which he went with a large retinue; he also liked drinking wine and playing polo.

The picture of Mas’ūd’s court that emerges from Baihaqī’s History is very rich, although not all of its parts are equally vivid and some gaps remain. It confirms yet againt the high value of Baihaqī’s work and points to further possibilities of research, which the present author was not able to exploit.