by Nilab Saeedi
During the reign of Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā (d.1506), Herat became a flourishing center of intellectual and artistic life. Poet and statesman ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī (1441–1501) played a pivotal role in this cultural renaissance of the Timurid Herat. His patronage of historical research and critique, particularly through the Herat School, and his advocacy for Chagatai or Eastern Turkish, the dominant Turkic language of the Timurid Herat, left a lasting impact on the historiographical and poetical traditions of the dynasties that existed after the fifteenth century.
In this written interview, we are joined by Professor Aftandil Erkinov, a distinguished scholar from the International Islamic Academy of Uzbekistan, to explore Navāʾī’s political and linguistic approaches. Taking the surprising promotion of Chagatai over Persian poetry in a Persianate court as a jumping-off point, the discussion explores the political and cultural dynamics of the era as well as the interpenetration of literary writing and political action.
Nilab Saeedi: For those unfamiliar with this historical moment and actor, could you describe the linguistic preferences of the Timurid court in the late fifteenth century—specifically, at the Timurid court at Herat—and the basic significance of Alī Shīr Navāʾī?
Aftandil Erkinov: Despite the fact that the Timurids were a Turkic-speaking people, Persian was the dominant literary and administrative language, having served as the lingua franca of the Muslim East for centuries. From the chancellery to Islamic scholarship and poetry, Persian ruled the linguistic landscape. Madrassas conducted instruction in Arabic and Persian. By the medieval period, Persian poetry held unparalleled prestige. It had a centuries-old tradition, and its poetic forms were deeply engrained in intellectual and cultural life. Because of its well-established literary framework and wealth of classical works, many young Turkic poets found it easier to compose in Persian rather than their native language. By the fifteenth century, when the Timurid court moved to Herat, numerous masterpieces had been created in Persian. Even poets of Turkic origin often presented their works in Persian to gain recognition from more experienced poets.
Niẓām al-dīn Mīr ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī served at the court of Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā, who ruled from 1469 to 1506 in Herat. There, Navāʾī played a crucial role in shaping the literary and artistic landscape as both a poet and a statesman. Navāʾī was in fact a childhood friend and study companion of Bāyqarā, which helps explain his meteoric rise and enduring influence in the court. He became more involved in art from 1476 onward, and most of his works were written from that year until his death. In the 1480s, Navāʾī founded several madrasas, rabaṭs (rest houses), mosques, khanakahs (Sufi retreats), bathhouses, and bridges in Herat and other regions.
Writing under the pseudonym Navāʾī (for his Chagatai-Turkic works) and Fānī (for his Persian works), he produced more than thirty works, most of them in Chagatai Turkic, making him one of the most influential figures in Turkic literature. The sheer volume of his literary output was monumental—six of his poems alone contain 60,000 miṣraʿ (lines). Between 1483 and 1485, he composed his Khamsa [Pentalogy], the first such collection in Chagatai Turkic, while from 1492 to 1498, he compiled his Turkic poetry into the four divāns (poetry collections) that make up Khazīʾin al-maʿānī [The Treasury of Meanings]. Alongside his Chagatai-Turkic works, he also engaged with Persian literary traditions, compiling his Persian poetry under the title Divān-i Fānī [The Divān of Fani].
NS: It is widely believed that Navāʾī’s Muḥākamat al-Luġatayn [The Trial of the Two Languages] argued for the superiority of Turkic languages over Persian. In your estimation, did he thereby aim to directly challenge Persianate cultural hegemony within the Timurid court?
AE: Contrary to Soviet-era scholarship, Navāʾī’s advocacy for Turkic languages cannot be read as a direct political struggle against Persian hegemony. In essence, Navāʾī sought to elevate Chagatai Turkic within the domain of elite literary circles and establish it as a legitimate medium for high poetry, as opposed to its previous status as an oral, demotic language of the common folk and military. Navāʾī aimed not to supplant Persian, but rather to demonstrate Chagatai Turkic’s equal potential for sophisticated literary expression, as he contended methodically in his Muḥākamat al-Luġatayn. His primary objective was not political resistance, but rather, the expansion of the artistic and intellectual potential of Turkic literature within the Timurid court.
His literary approach involved the adaptation of Persian stylistic elements for Turkic languages and the incorporation of Arabic and Persian vocabulary to refine the literary capabilities of Chagatai Turkic. The influence of Navāʾī’s work on the court’s literary culture is evident in the composition of poetry in Chagatai Turkic by Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā, who, at Navāʾī’s request, issued a fermān (decree) requiring poets to write their poems in Chagatai Turkic. Nevertheless, Persian maintained its centrality and official status within the bureaucracy, which Navāʾī did not challenge.
NS: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī’s dual role as both a poet and statesman were quite significant, particularly in the context of the Timurid court. Considering his political engagement, how would you say his position as a court official influenced the themes and objectives of his literary works, especially in terms of his advocacy for Turkic languages? To what degree did this advocacy extend beyond merely literary concerns?
AE: In Navāʾī’s circle, as in the rest of the Timurid court at Herat, the highest form of poetry was associated with Persian. A debate between him and the Persian-speaking poet Kamāl al-dīn Bināʾī (1453–1512), a member of Navāʾī’s circle, captures the Chagatai Turkic’s contentious status in the Timurid court at this time. After Bināʾī returned from Iraq, at a majlis (gathering) attended by scholars and noblemen, ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī said to Bināʾī:
“If you remember anything concerning the virtues of Yaʾqūb Beg, please share it.”
Mawlānā Bināʾī replied: “Of all the virtues of Yaʾqūb Beg, none compares to the fact that he does not speak Turkic [Chagatai].”
ʿAlī Shīr responded: “Oh, Bināʾī, your rudeness has exceeded all limits. You deserve to have your mouth stuffed with filth.”
Bināʾī replied: “That is easy—just recite some Turkic [Chagatai] poetry.”
Some scholars believe that the work of Zayn al-dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣefi (d.1551), the source of this anecdote, is not strictly historical but rather a collection of memorable or instructive apocrypha from its time. Indeed, this story contains a humorous element. But it is undeniable that the linguistic environment surrounding Navāʾī denigrated Chagatai Turkic. The use of Arabic or Persian to express talent in the arts, science, or poetry remained de rigueur. The same held true in other regions. For example, across the vast territory of the Baburid (Mughal) Empire, Persian served as the lingua franca, including at the imperial court. Against this backdrop, preserving and elevating the status of Navāʾī’s native language proved challenging. At the very least, Navāʾī sought to achieve this himself, by publishing in Chagatai Turkic, but this certainly did not earn him immediate adulation.
That being said, Navāʾī had an unusually advantageous position and took advantage of it. Navāʾī had the ear and trust of Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā, serving as his vizier for nearly the entire period of his rule. In 1471, Navāʾī compiled his first Chagatai Turkic poetry collection and began to express his aspirations for the development of the Chagatai Turkic in his works. Husayn Bāyqarā also wrote poetry in Chagatai Turkic under the pseudonym Husaynī and compiled his own divān, which consisted of more than 200 ghazals (a form of amatory poem or ode). After him, his son, the Timurid prince Gharībī, also compiled his own divān, most of whose poems were written in Chagatai Turkic. Probably, Navāʾī’s desire to spread Chagatai Turkic played a role in the creation of these divāns. In 1498, Navāʾī wrote a ta̱ẕkira, or biographical dictionary of the poets of his era, with the title Majālisu’n-nafāis [Collection of the Refined]. It provides information about more than 450 poets, of whom more than 30 wrote in Chagatai Turkic. In this work, Navāʾī devoted a separate part (the eighth majlis) to the analysis of poems from the divān of Husayn Bāyqarā. The inclusion of Husayn Bāyqarā’s poems in the process of striving for Chagatai-Turkic poetry shows that under this Timurid ruler, Chagatai Turkic was becoming a political tool. As a result, the ruler himself not only issued a decree for poets to write poems in Chagatai Turkic, but also created a whole divān of his poetry. Navāʾī became even more vocal after attaining a higher position at the Timurid court. However, it took time for his ideas to gain support.
NS: Despite Navāʾī’s strong advocacy for Chagatai Turkic, his efforts did not ultimately overturn the dominance of Persian in Central Asia. With this in mind, how should we understand his long-term impact? Can his efforts be considered a failure, or do you think they left a more subtle, enduring influence on later Turkic intellectual traditions? What can this tell us about the fragility of intellectual movements when they are closely tied to dynastic politics, particularly during periods of political instability and shifting power dynamics?
AE: The works of Alī Shīr Navāʾī served as a standard for subsequent Chagatai-Turkic literature, which also contains many Arabisms and Persianisms. In the modern era, the Uzbek literary language, compared to other Turkic languages, likewise uses a relatively large number of Arabic and Persian words.
It is worth admitting that Navāʾī’s desire to spread the Chagatai Turkic did not produce the effect he expected in his own time or literary circle. Despite this, his poetic legacy quickly influenced other Turkic literatures. For example, Ahmed Pasha (d.1496), who served in the palace of the Ottoman Sultan Bāyezīd II (1481–1512), wrote imitations of 33 of Navāʾī’s ghazalsin the Ottoman Turkish language. Subsequently, writing poetry as a response to or in imitation of Navāʾī’s ghazals became a tradition in the Ottoman literary environment. Azerbaijani, Uyghur and—naturally—Central Asian literatures preserved this tradition. Individual Turkic language poets, especially in the territory of modern Uzbekistan, wrote imitative poems and mukhammas (a form of poetry based on five-line pentameter) on Navāʾī’s verses for centuries. This tradition also spread to the court’s literary milieu, acquiring a political character.
In the nineteenth century, with the emergence of new khanates—territories ruled by a khan (a tribal leader or ruler)—in Central Asia, Chagatai-Turkic literature underwent a revival via the palaces. In the Kokand Khanate (1710–1876), the ruler of Kokand and poet Amīr ʿUmar Khan (1810–1822) wrote poetry under the pseudonym Amīrī and patronized more than seventy poets in his palace. Their works were collected in the anthology Majmuʿa-yi shāʿirān [Collection of Poets], a third of which contains Chagatai Turkic poetry, with the rest in Persian. This literary climate reflected a wider political project in the Kokand Khanate, in which ʿUmar Khan sought to emulate the Timurid Husayn Bāyqarā, whom Navāʾī represented in the literary sphere, having written far superior poetry than that of his patron. This led to imitation of his poetry and in some cases even to naẓīre (direct responses in the form of imitative verse) to Navāʾī’s Chagatai Turkic poems. Consequently, from the reign of ʿUmar Khan until the demise of the Kokand Khanate, imitation of Navāʾī was the prevailing tendency. For similar reasons, the ruler of the Khiva Khanate, Muḥammad Raḥīm Khan II (1864–1910), also imitated Navāʾī’s style and formed a literary circle of over thirty poets.
Despite some of the nineteenth-century exceptions just described, my research on Turkic-Persian bilingualism in Central Asia shows that, from the end of the fifteenth century to the nineteenth century, classical Persian poetry still prevailed in poetry anthologies. In the twentieth century, Turkic texts increased, and the influence of the Persian classics and the Persian language began to weaken in Turkic areas. Of course, other factors also played a role, such as the development of paper production, which, by making the domestic ownership of published writing easier, might have promoted the use of demotic languages. But it was clearly the imitation of Navāʾī’s poetry over centuries that gave Turkic poetry its shape. Most of the poems in poetry anthologies from Turkic-speaking regions were and are written in Turkic languages. By first modeling Turkic-language poetry, Navāʾī’ enabled this shift.
Professor Aftandil Erkinov is a professor at the International Islamic Academy of Uzbekistan. He specializes in Turkic and Persian manuscripts, as well as the history of culture and literature in Central Asia from the fifteenth through twentieth centuries.
Nilab Saeedi is a Research Associate at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. She holds a PhD in History, specializing in Ottoman history and Islamic intellectual history.
Edited by Zac Endter.
Featured image: A page from the Diwan by Ali-Shir Nava’i, “Alexander the Great is hunting a duck.” Painted in Tabriz 1526. Paris National Library Collection (Folio 447 verso), CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
