Saratoga III - History

Saratoga III - History

Saratoga III

(SlpW.: t. 882; Ibp. 146'4"; b. 35'3"; dph. 16'31/2''; cpl. 210; a. 4 8" shell guns, 18 32-pdrs.)

The third Saratoga, a sloop of war laid down in the summer of 1841 by the Portsmouth Navy Yard Portsmouth, N.H., was launched on 26 July 1812, and commissioned on 4 January 1843, Comdr. Josiah Tattnall in command.

The ship sailed from Portsmouth on 16 March 1843 but was dismasted in a gale the next day and forced to return to Portsmouth for repairs. She got underway again on 3 May and proceeded down the coast to New York Harbor to prepare for service on the west coast of Africa protecting American citizens and commerce and suppressing the slave trade. On the morning of 5 June, she was towed to Sandy Hook, N.J., where, at noon, Commodore Matthew C. Perry came on board and broke his broad pennant as Commander of the Africa Squadron. At mid-afternoon, the ship stood out to sea, proceeded via the Canary and the Cape Verde islands and reached Monrovia, Liberia, on 1 August. Saratoga operated along the coast of west Africa protecting American citizens and commerce and suppressing the slave trade. She occasionally returned to the Cape Verdes for replenishment and rest for her crew. At Porto Grande in the Cape Verdes, Saratoga rendezvoused with Decatur and Macedonian on 9 September, and Perry shifted his flag to the latter two days later.

Much of Saratoga's service in the Africa Squadron was performed in implementing Perry's policy of supporting Liberia which had been founded some two decades before on the African "Grain Coast" as a haven for freed negroes from the United States. The new colony was deeply resented by the local, coastal tribes which had acted as the slave trade's middlemen, buying slaves from their bushmen captors and selling them to masters of slave ships. Missing their former profits from the now outlawed commerce in "black

ivory," these natives gave vent to their anger by harassing, threatening, and sometimes attacking the black colonists from America. From time to time, they also preyed upon American merchant shipping.

Perry's problem was one of reconciling the conflicting demands of protecting American interests on the African coast, of remaining aloof from African internal affairs, and encouraging the colonists in Liberia. The Commodore's prudence, firmness, fairness, and tact in reconciling these conflicting objectives was illustrated by his handling of two incidents soon after the squadron returned to Liberia in the early autumn. Reports greeted him upon arrival that the hostile tribes had been making trouble for the colonists in the colony of Since and had killed two sailors from American schooner, Edward Burley.

Saratoga sailed from Monrovia on 21 November, and Perry followed two days later with the rest of the squadron bringing along as a guest, Liberian Governor Joseph Jenkins Roberts. The American warships assembled at Since on the 28th. The next day, a large force of sailors and marines accompanied the Commodore and Governor ashore for a conference with an assembly of tribal kings. First on the agenda was the Edward Burley incident. Governor Roberts' questioning of a number of witnesses divulged the following story:

After the schooner's skipper, Captain Burke, had paid a Krooman in advance for serving in the ship's crew the native deserted. Burke retaliated by capturing two canoes and taking their crews prisoner. Then he dispatched two of his own men after a third canoe, but these sailors were themselves captured. After cruelly torturing the two Americans, they killed them. Once he felt sure of the story, Perry held that, while the homicides were unjustified, the Americans had been the aggressors. Perry then stated that the United States government wished to remain friendly with all African tribes but had sent him to protect American lives and property and to prevent Americans from wronging natives. He then dropped the matter, but remained in the area while Liberian colonists aided by friendly tribes drove trouble-making natives back into the hinterland.

In mid-December, the squadron sailed to Little Berebee to investigate the plundering of trading schooner Mary Carver, and murder of her entire crew. During the ensuing palaver, when Perry refused to accept the farfetched explanation of King Ben Krako, a native fired a musket at the American party. The king and his interpreter, who was known to be one of the murderers, bolted in an attempt to escape. Comdr. Tattnall of Saratoga felled the treacherous interpreter with a rifle shot and the king was also killed in attempting to flee.

After demonstrating the determination and ability of the United States to maintain American honor along the coast of Africa, being generous with friend and firm but fair with enemies, the squadron got underway late in the year for Madeira where it arrived on 18 January 1844. She returned to the African coast via the Cape Verdes and reached Monrovia on 2 March. The late spring was devoted to a cruise eastward along the coast to the Bight of Biafra. Yellow fever plagued the crew during the summer. The ship sailed for the Cape Verdes on 8 July and reached Porto Praia on the 21st. The ship returned to Liberia in September for a last visit before leaving the African coast in mid-October and heading home. She reached Norfolk on 22 November and decommissioned there on 10 December 1844.

Recommissioned on 15 March 1845, Comdr. Irving Shubrich in command, Saratoga was assigned to a squadron commanded by Commodore Robert F. Stockton and originally intended for duty in European waters. However, on 22 April, because of tension between the United States and Mexico over an impending annexation of Texas, this naval force was ordered to the Gulf of Mexico. Saratoga departed Norfolk on 27 April and proceeded to the Texas coast. She remained at Galveston with Stockton for the remainder of spring. The Commodore sailed for Washington on 23 June after ordering Saratoga and the rest of his squadron to Pensacola to replenish their stores.

On 3 July, Secretary of the Navy Bancroft transferred Saratoga to Commodore Conner's Home Squadron which was then operating ". in such a manner as will be most likely to disincline Mexico to acts of hostility . ." Saratoga operated in the gulf attempting to help Conner carry out this mission until she sailed from Pensacola on 4 December for Rio de Janeiro to join the Brazil Squadron.

The sloop-of-war cruised along the South American coast until mid-summer. Then, under orders to the Pacific for service under Commodore Sloat on the California coast, she got underway on 24 August and headed south along the coast. However, after rounding Cape Horn, the sloop-of-war ran into a fierce storm which caused severe damage and forced her to turn back toward home. She reached Hampton Roads on 29 December and decommissioned on 9 January 1847.

Repaired at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Saratoga was recommissioned in 1847, Comdr. David G. Farragut in command. Assigned to the Home Squadron, she

rounded Cape Henry on 29 March, sailed south along the coast, entered the gulf, and joined Commodore Perry's Home Squadron off Vera Cruz on 26 April. Three days later, the sloop of-war was ordered to proceed some 150 miles up the coast to blockade Tuxpan. She reached the station on the 30th and remained there until heading back toward Vera Cruz on 12 July. About a fortnight later, she got underway for Tahaseo carrying dispatches, remained at that river port but a day, and returned to Vera Cruz on 11 August. On 1 September, Saratoga relieved Decatur at Tuxpan and remained on station there, despite a serious outbreak of yellow fever on board, for about two months before heading back to Vera Cruz. After a month there, the ship got underway for the Florida coast to land her sick and replenish her stores. She arrived at Pensacola on 6 January 1848; and, after disembarking all the seriously sick patients at the base hospital, got underway north on the last day of the month. She made New York on 19 February and was decommissioned a week later.

On 17 April, a week after recommissioning, the sloop-of-war departed New York and proceeded via Norfolk to the West Indies for service in the Home Squadron. She returned to Hampton Roads on 27 November 1849 and decommissioned at the Norfolk Navy Yard on the 30th.

Recommissioned on 12 August 1850, Saratoga got underway on 15 September and proceeded to the western Pacific for service in the East India Squadron. The highlight of her service in the Far East was her participation in Commodore Perry's opening of Japan. After visiting Japan with Perry in July 1853, she sailed for the China coast and protected American interests at Shanghai while Japanese officials discussed Perry's proposals. She returned with Perry in February 1854, and, after the formal signing of a treaty between the United States and Japan on the last day of March, sailed for the Sandwich Islands carrying Comdr. H. A. Adams, to whom Perry had entrusted the American copy of the treaty. After leaving Adams at Honolulu, Saratoga sailed south, rounded Cape Horn reached Boston in September, and was decommissioned on 10 October 1854.

The sloop-of-war was recommissioned on 6 September 1855 and, but for a period out of commission in ordinary at Norfolk early in 1858, cruised in the Caribbean and the gulf until decommissioning at Philadelphia on 26 June 1860. Reactivated on 5 November 1860, she sailed from Philadelphia 10 days later to return to the scene of her first cruise, the west coast of Africa. On 21 April 1861, she captured slaver, Nightingale, off Kabenda, Africa, freeing a cargo of numerous slaves. After word of the outbreak of the Civil War reached Saratoga, she returned to the United States and decommissioned at Philadelphia on 25 August 1861.

Recommissioned on 24 June 1863, the ship was ordered to the Delaware capes for guard duty off Delaware breakwater protecting Union shipping approaching and departing Delaware Bay and performed this duty through the end of the year. On 13 January 1864, she was ordered to Carolina waters for duty in the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. During her Service off the lower Atlantic coast, landing parties from the ship made several raids in August and September which resulted in the capture of many prisoners and the taking or destruction of substantial quantities of ordnance, ammunition, and supplies. A number of buildings, bridges, and salt works were destroyed during the expedition.

As the Civil War was drawing to a close, Saratoga was detached on 4 April 1865, sailed north' and was decommissioned on 28 April. For the next decade, only two periods in commission for coastal operations (1 October 1867 to 7 July 1869 and 16 May to 14 October 1871) interrupted the veteran ship's rest in ordinary.

Saratoga was reactivated on 1 May 1875 for a year as a gunnery ship at Annapolis. Another year in ordinary beginning on 7 May 1876 preceded her final recommissioning on 19 May 1877 to start more than 11 years of service as a school ship training naval apprentices. This duty took her to various naval bases and yards along the Atlantic coast and occasionally called for cruises to Europe. She decommissioned on 8 October 1888.

From 1890 to 1907, she served on loan at Philadelphia as a state marine school ship and was sold there on 14 August 1907 to Thomas Butler and Company of Boston.

Learn more.Click here!

Piper Turbo Saratoga

Every aircraft has a personality, even if it is dull or plain. Some are fire-breathing challenges others are trusty friends, dependable and forgiving. Some are thoroughbreds, others plodding workhorses.

Piper’s Cherokee Six falls into the last category. Never a hey-look-at-me airplane, but always a big, comfortable and flexible load hauler. Performance figures and handling would not excite anyone. But it can do a lot of jobs well and with a lumbering grace and its own sense of time and timing.

Several staff members and friends have an encyclopedia of experience with the Six some have owned one. Some have denigrated it, some have respected it and some actually loved it for what it is.
Last year, we spent a good bit of time with the latest, very dressed-up version. We all had a good time together even though airplanes are inanimate things, we felt as if the airplane were enjoying it, too, almost aware that it was being flown by friends who respected its qualities.

Suddenly, to the Piper Corporation, it was gone with the whisk of a marketing broom and transformed into the Saratoga, one of four wide-body singles linked in someone’s notion of a unique selling idea. It also got a new-to-it wing, the semi-tapered design first introduce on the Warrior and now common to all offspring of the Cherokee except the Seneca twin.

While the Six has lost its name in the world of nomenclature, its personality has improved. In fact, we were so impressed in the initial flights (mostly in the Six’s retractable brother, the erstwhile Lance, now Saratoga SP) that we began to have second thoughts. Perhaps it was not so significant an improvement.

But it was. We had more cracks at the Saratoga, and on one very turbulent day, we flew a Saratoga and a Seneca on the identical trip. The difference in response was remarkable.

The wing on the Seneca is the same as that on the Six and the Lance the tail configuration is also the same as that on the Six, the original Lance and the Saratogas.

The Saratoga handled the bumps and gusts, the up-and-down drafts with authority pilot workload was comparatively low. The Seneca wallowed and required a great deal more control movement for a similar amount of correction and a great deal more concentration on flying. It was particularly noticeable at low airspeed and during takeoff and landing.

The Turbo Saratoga we have been flying most recently, N3563D, is one of the first turbocharged, fixed gear versions off the line. Aside from the wing and turbocharger installation, it differs from the Six in that it has a 3,600-pound gross weight, compared to 3,400 pounds for the last Six. Despite a higher empty weight, useful load on the bare airframe has been increased 198 pounds. Usable fuel has been increased marginally from 98 to 102 gallons, too.

Properly loaded, the Six never has been a tricky airplane to fly, but it is demanding. Heavily loaded, it takes the same precise touch that big, old, transport category airplanes require, particularly with a loading biased towards aft cg. In such cases, it points its enormous nose towards the sky even on the ground. It looks as though it is out of the loading envelope even when it is not.

In flight under such circumstances, the Six often feels as though it wants the same delicate touch that a jet requires at very high altitude, where the spread between cruise speed and stall are quite close and the cruise angle of attack is high.

Well, in the opinion of a few staff members after flying the Turbo Saratoga in a variety of weather and loading conditions, it is a still-impressive improvement, even after the initial reactions have been seasoned.

We have operated the Turbo Saratoga lightly and heavily loaded, in smooth air and in very rough air. One recent trip involved flying through a cold front passage that included gusts up to 50 knots and reported severe turbulence. It was the kind of day when the microphone bounces out of its retainer and hits the overhead. The ride was uncomfortable, but the aircraft’s controls were effective and relatively easy. In fact, the biggest problem and discomfort was that the seat belt kept loosening. We learned to tighten it every few minutes after the first few sharp knocks against the cockpit headliner.

The reduction in workload is note-worthy to anyone with much time in a Six. The improvement in roll control makes control response in the other axes more apparent.

For instance, even the rudder seems to be more effective. During the flare, it is much easier to move the Saratoga from one side of the runway to the other using rudder only.

Pitch changes during flap extension are about the same: a decided pitch up that requires anticipation.

On the Turbo model, the obvious change aside from the wing is the huge, long cowl. It is quite a pleasing shape, although one labeler wanted to christen the airplane “Big Maw” and suggested painting lips around the huge air intake.

In general appearance it is much the same as the Turbo Lance cowl. However, a great deal more attention has been paid to cooling air flow. Louvers on the top side of the cowl provide smoother, more efficient hot air exhaust and reduce the hot spots that the earlier version suffers. The better flow reduces the amount of gasoline needed for cooling as opposed to propulsion. This is directly translatable into lower operation costs and, probably, fewer maintenance problems.

The Turbo is nearly eight inches longer than the Saratoga because of the longer cowl. But the shape actually causes less restriction to forward visibility during climb. This in not to say that it does not block the view, however. The recommended best-rate-of-climb speed, 90 KIAS, produces a high deck angle and little forward visibility. Even at the recommended cruise climb of 105 KIAS, it is a problem so we have been using 120, except during actual instrument departures.

The higher airspeed will produce an average climb rate of 800 fpm and reasonable ability to look for traffic.

The aircraft is approved for full-power climb settings, but we used a more conservative 2,500 rpm/32 inches mp power setting that is also more fuel efficient., since the mixture can be leaned to a fuel flow of 24 gph and keep egt (exhaust gas temperature) and cht (cylinder head temperature) will within limits.

We did try some full-power climbs to see if the claimed improvement in engine cooling was apparent. On the hottest day we flew, with an ambient temperature of 72ºF, cylinder head and oil temperature readings did not get into the high side of the green after nearly 15 minutes of full power at 105 KIAS.

Pitch and power changes require large changes in rudder trim, and pilots of average strength quickly will learn to use the trim control down low on the pedestal.

The three-bladed propeller installed on 63D reduces takeoff ground roll by 170 feet from a two-bladed prop. Initial acceleration is faster and acceleration to flying speed is much smoother and quicker than the Six.

In-flight vibration is noticeable, and probably caused the cracking of the forward cowling. Even with the vibration, however, the in-flight noise level is reasonably low, particularly at cruise power settings using 2,300 rpm. Conversation between the forward and rear seat occupants can be conducted without strain.

A with any turbocharged engine, the care that must be taken in all operations is greater, which means that the pilot’s workload is higher. Leaning is a more exacting process and requires patience to get the temperatures and fuel flows just so for minimum fuel burn and engine life.

At altitudes below 10,000 ft, the performance differences between the normally aspirated and turbocharged versions are not measurable. Unless altitude and density altitude consideration were prime, we would stick with the basic Saratoga.

Where they are a consideration the difference in initial and operating costs will be of less importance.

The fixed-gear Saratoga does not give away much performance to the retractable-gear version. For instance, the Turbo Saratoga SP is only 12 knots faster at 65 percent power than the fixed-gear version the Saratoga SP is only nine knots faster at 11,000 feet, its optimum altitude for 65 percent power (which is not the optimum altitude for the Turbo Saratoga). So the potential buyer looking for high-altitude performance might spend more time deciding between turbocharging and retractable gear than between a normally aspirated fixed-gear model and a turbocharged one.

Workhorse or family station wagon, the Turbo Saratoga is an appealing airplane and remains a mainstay in the Piper fleet almost 30 years later.

Edward G. Tripp, AOPA Pilot, June 1980

Performance Summary

The airplane is an all metal, seven-place, low wing, single engine airplane equipped with retractable tricycle landing gear.
This airplane is certified in the normal category. In the normal category all aerobatic maneuvers including spins are prohibited. The airplane is approved for day and night VFR/IFR operations when equipped in accordance with F.A.R. 91 or F.A.R 135.

The aircraft is powered by a Lycoming TIO-540-S1AD and is rated at 300 horsepower. It is a six cylinder, turbocharged, direct drive, air cooled, horizontally opposed, fuel injected engine.

The standard fuel capacity of the airplane is 107 gallons. The inboard tank is attached to the wing structure with screws and nut plates. The outboard tank consists of a bladder fuel cell that is interconnected with the inboard tank. A fuel flush cap is located in the outboard tank only. An electric fuel pump is provided for use in case of failure of the engine driven fuel pump. The electric pump operates from a single switch and independent circuit breaker. Fuel quantity gauges for each of the tanks are located on the left side of the instrument panel.

The 14-volt electrical system includes a 12-volt battery for starting and to back up alternator output. Electrical power is supplied by a 60 ampere alternator.

Piper Saratoga and Lance Review

When looking at the Piper Lance/Saratoga, it’s important to remember that all airplanes are compromises. Since most of us lack an unlimited budget, we’re often forced to choose between going fast in a relatively small cockpit or dragging around a larger cabin more slowly. It’s simple, really: The “go-fast” airplane will get us to our destination sooner, but we might be forced to leave behind a few things, or a few people. The slower, large-cabin bird gets us there just fine, thank you, and lets us carry all the stuff we’ll need upon arrival.

In the six-seat, retractable piston-single market, there are three basic choices: Beech’s Model 36 Bonanza, Cessna’s Model 210 Centurion or Piper’s PA- 32R series, the Lance and Saratoga. The Bonanza arguably handles better than the other two while probably squeezing out a knot or two over the Centurion. The 210, on the other hand, generally has better short-field performance than the Bonanza and offers an improved hand-flown IFR platform. Piper’s Lance/Saratoga series, however, can often carry more than the other two (although the T210 out carries all others), albeit more slowly, and usually is thought of as the most stable of the three when flying IFR.

All three of these airplanes are growth versions of earlier, smaller airframes. All three are available in turbocharged models, either from the factory or in the aftermarket. In some cases, you have fixed-gear versions or derivatives as alternatives.

If trying to describe their differences by referring to the automotive world, the A36 Bonanza might be thought of as a BMW station wagon the 210 as a Ford Explorer the PA- 32R as a Chevy Suburban. All three make fine platforms when there are two or three people and a few bags. But when there are a lot of bags and people, the Suburban is one that gets the job done with ease. So it is with Piper’s Lance/Saratoga.

You just might have to stop for fuel a bit more often.

Piper Lance and Piper Saratoga History

In the early 1970s Piper suffered a major setback when a flood destroyed much of its Lock Haven, Pennsylvania plant. Among the casualties was the tooling for the popular, but labor-intensive, Comanche, which had an option for small third-row seats.

Piper decided to abandon the Comanche in favor of a new retractable derived from the fixed-gear PA-32 Cherokee Six. The company was already having success with the Seneca, a light twin derived from the same airframe, so it made sense to build on a familiar design. Not much needed to be done to the Cherokee Six: The PA-32 was already available with the 300 HP Lycoming IO-540, so essentially the only change was to fit a retractable landing gear. That meant a new engine mount and changes to the wing. Piper also modified the wing spar in the process, allowing a 200-pound boost in gross weight, to 3600 pounds. The new airplane was dubbed the Piper PA-32R Lance and introduced to the public in 1976.

The powerplant was the 300HP Lycoming IO-540 K1G5D with a 2000-hour TBO in the normally aspirated airplanes and the TIO-540- S1AD with a TBO of 1800 hours in the later turbocharged models. (The first 140 Lances built had K1A5D engines, the only difference being in fuel pump design.) The D means that the engine has the infamous Bendix dual magneto system. The fuel system originally held 94 gallons in four tanks, later upped to 102 gallons.

Piper’s PA-32R borrows heavily from its siblings. The main landing gear is much like the Seneca—logical, since the basic airframe is the same—and the nose gear resembles the Seneca and also the Arrow. The PA-32R also came with Piper’s automatic extension system for the landing gear. The fuel system is similar to the Seneca’s.

The Piper Lance remained essentially unchanged for two years. In the late 1970s, though, someone at Piper decided that T-tails were a good idea. We believe it unlikely that the responsible parties were aerospace engineers or experienced pilots, based on the aerodynamic qualities of the Piper T-tail singles in general. The Lance wasn’t the only T-tailed Piper. This also was when the PA-38 Tomahawk was rolled out and the T-tailed Arrow IV debuted.

Piper combined the T-tail’s introduction to the PA-32 airframe with a turbocharged variant. These two aircraft, the Lance II (PA-32RT-300) and Turbo Lance II (-300T), were not well received. Though Piper ballyhooed the supposed advantages of the T-tail (smaller size and weight, reduced pitch changes with trim and flap application), the truth was that when the stabilator was moved up out of the propwash, the airplane’s handling suffered. In particular, takeoff runs increased significantly since it took a good deal of speed for the stabilator to become effective, and when it did, the result was a pronounced pitch-up. Some complained of lack of rudder authority. The T-tailed Lances were also sensitive to trim settings. The T-tail was a pain to preflight, especially in winter, when a ladder is required to remove snow from the stabilator.

When pilots found out about these traits, sales plummeted. In 1980, two years after the T-tail’s introduction, Piper saw the light and reverted to the original tail design.

At the same time, the company applied the same wing upgrade that had already appeared in the PA-28 series. The constant-chord “Hershey Bar” wing was replaced with a semi-tapered planform. Piper also “simplified” the designation of the entire PA-32 series, renaming them Saratoga SP. The fixed-gear versions were simply called Saratogas. As before, there were turbo versions available, designated by a T at the end of the model number. The fixed-gear option was dropped in 1993, only to reappear briefly as the Piper 6X from 2004-2007. The retractable version saw various iterations under the Saratoga name until 2008.

Used values of the T-tail models have historically been lower than those of the conventional-tailed airplanes, which makes the T-tail a relative bargain in a six-place airplane. Owners of T-tails seem to like them. It should be noted that although Ttail owners without exception stand behind their airplanes and claim the poor reputation is undeserved, the airplane nevertheless has documented performance differences from the otherwise identical straight-tail version (more on this later).

Differences Between the Lance Turbo and the Saratoga Trubo

The turbocharged engines have AiResearch turbos with wastegates mechanically linked to the throttle controls. The pilot has to adjust the throttle to maintain manifold pressure during climb, and it is possible to overboost the engine if too much throttle is applied. (The MP gauge is inconveniently located in front of the pilot’s right knee, but there is an overboost warning light on the panel’s eyebrow.)

The Piper Turbo Lance II has an unusual updraft engine-cooling system that takes air in through a low-mounted “fish-mouth” oval scoop, forces it up over the cylinders, then back down and out through cowl flaps. Owners say the system is ineffective and requires the use of extra fuel and step-climbs to avoid engine meltdown.

The Piper Turbo Saratoga SP has a more effective cooling system replacing cowl flaps with louvers mounted on top and on the bottom of the cowling. A popular mod is to add an intercooler.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Interior

Most find the interior of the Piper PA-32R quite comfortable. The cabin is over 10 feet long and 3.5 feet high. Shoulder room for the front and center seats is four feet and 3.5 feet for the back row. Most 32Rs have club seating and there’s a big side door for the passengers, who need not clamber over a wing to enter the airplane. It’s remarkably quiet, due in no small part to the presence of a nose baggage compartment located between the cabin and engine. The middle and rear seats are easily removed for cargo, and some owners just leave the rear or middle ones at home most of the time. Because of the wide cabin, there’s plenty of room on the panel for any gadget one might want. Other than that, it’s pure Piper single.

The fuel selector is a bit different from the familiar PA-28 sidewall mounted pointer, being sensibly located on the center pedestal. One thing we don’t like is the sump-draining procedure. Not a simple matter of sticking a fuel tester in a quick drain, the procedure requires the pilot to first put a bucket under a nozzle in the belly, then get back in and hold down a lever located under the right center-row seat while simultaneously switching tanks.

This gymnastic routine continues for a minimum of 18 seconds due to the length of the fuel lines, after which the pilot gets to go back outside, look in the bucket and try to figure out which tank the water came from.

Later PA-32s have some good crashworthiness features, including seats with S-shaped frames designed to progressively crush on impact and a thickly padded glareshield.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Load Carrying

Typical of single-engine airplanes, Piper Lances and Saratoga SPs force the pilot to choose between filling the cabin and filling the tanks. Still, an airplane this size is quite practical when it comes to hauling, because carrying four with baggage and full fuel is possible. The turbo models are a bit more limited. With six FAA-standard people aboard, a PA-32R can carry enough fuel to fly 2.5 to 3.5 hours. The CG range is quite wide, but with only two people aboard, care must be taken to avoid exceeding the forward limit. There are two baggage compartments, both with a 100-pound capacity: the nose bay and a large one aft of the rear seats. One way to improve the T-tail’s squirrelly handling reputation is to put 50 pounds in the aft baggage compartment to bring the CG aft into the center of the range.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Performance Anxiety

While 150 knots isn’t all that bad, when compared to other big retractables the PA-32Rs are rather slow. Almost any A36 Bonanza or Cessna 210 will walk away from the 32R, being about 10 knots faster.

At 75 percent power, a Lance cruises at 158 knots while burning 18 GPH. The Saratoga SP is a little faster, and improvements in induction air cooling allow their engines to be leaned to peak EGT, saving a couple of gallons an hour. The turbocharged airplanes can cruise at 177 knots while burning nearly 20 GPH up high, but at lower altitudes they’re only a couple of knots faster on the same fuel.

Because of its T-tail, the Lance II has a significantly longer ground roll than the conventional-tail models. The books indicates a 1650-foot ground roll under standard conditions, and notes the roll will be one-quarter longer if the airplane is loaded toward its forward CG limit. Ground rolls for the Lance and SP are posted as 1380 and 1200 feet, respectively. Initial rate of climb is a tad over 1000 FPM for all models.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Maintenance

Several Turbo Lance II owners complained about their hot-running engines. (One said his mill once toasted the forward baggage compartment sufficiently to melt plastic diaper bags that had been stowed there.) However, as noted below, there are modifications designed to eliminate the heat problem.

Among recurring ADs are: 77-12-06, which requires the shanks of Hartzell Y-blade propellers to be inspected and cold-rolled every 2000 hours or five years (90-2-23 also calls for a one-time inspection and possible replacement of the hub, and 94-17-13 requires recurrent inspection of hub grease fittings) 78-23-01, which requires the fuel drain lever doors in naturally aspirated Lances to be checked every 100 hours until they’re replaced 93-5-22, which addresses the fuel injector lines on the TIO-540-S1AD engine 95-26-13, which requires recurrent inspection of oil cooler hoses.

A rash of engine fires in turbocharged Lances and Saratogas prompted an Airworthiness Directive requiring portions of their exhaust systems to be periodically inspected and eventually replaced. The AD targets the fittings on a 90-degree elbow between exhaust ports and turbocharger in the Lycoming TIO- 540-S1AD engine powering the big Piper singles.

In 1988, NTSB issued a warning about the fittings when it concluded its investigation of a Turbo Lance that crashed during an attempted emergency landing in Lincoln, Neb. The Safety Board found the elbow fitting in the Lance had separated, allowing hot exhaust gases to flow into the engine compartment and start a fire. The board noted the gasket and flange on the fitting had been misaligned during maintenance on the exhaust system about a month before the accident occurred.

The FAA responded with an AD (89-12-4) requiring periodic inspections of the exhaust elbows and fittings, and replacement with modified components developed by Lycoming. The FAA estimated that compliance would cost $858 per engine.

However, later evidence of a string of exhaust system-related accidents and incidents involving both the Turbo Lance II and the Turbo Saratoga SP prompted the NTSB to call for a more stringent AD. Four such crashes occurred in 1990 alone. The

Safety Board, noting that some of the crashed aircraft had received new parts called for by the AD, declared the AD was not an effective solution and called for a revision mandating repetitive inspections whether or not new parts are installed. The revised AD, AD 91-21-01, requires new exhaust parts that would beat the cracking problem.

Landing gear problems are prominent in SDR reports, accounting for about a quarter of the total. Chief among them were broken nosegear actuators and cracked or broken nosegear trunnions. Other frequently cited problems included cracked engine mounts, exhaust system leaks and separations, broken magnetos and loose stabilator attachments.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Mods, Owner Groups

Several companies have developed means to alleviate the heat problems plaguing the Turbo Lance II if this is the model you’re interested in, check to see if one of these kits has been installed in a candidate airplane. TurboPlus still offers intercoolers for the turbocharged Lance and Saratoga (

Aerodynamic clean-up kits (e.g., gap seals and fairings) are available from a number of companies, including Knots 2 U ( and Laminar Flow Systems ( LoPresti ( offers gap seals, too, along with a redesigned cowling, which the company says improves engine cooling and reduces drag.

Precise Flight ( offers speed brakes, a standby vacuum system and a pulse-light anti-collision system. Upgraded propeller systems are available from both Hartzell ( and McCauley ( for most PA-32R models.

About 4000 owners of PA-28 and -32 series airplanes belong to the Piper Owner Society (866-697-4737 or The group holds an annual convention and regional fly-ins, and publishes a monthly magazine focusing on maintenance and operational information.

Piper Lance/Saratoga Owner Comments

I bought my 1980 Turbo Saratoga (intercooled by Turbo Plus) in 1994. I have not regretted the choice. I have installed speed mods, cosmetic enhancements and almost every avionics update available. After eight planes and over 20 years as an owner/pilot, I’ve come to believe that you get what you pay for.

Most years my Saratoga annuals run about $5000, but have been as high as $15,000. A less fussy owner can certainly maintain a plane like this for less money. This airplane carries my granddaughter and I’m not willing to compromise anything I see as a safety issue to save money.

Every pilot wants more speed, but I’m satisfied with 185 to 190 knots at long-distance cruise altitudes in the mid-teens, where I am above most of the weather. I never have to worry about weight, balance or room. In the four years my son was a student in Washington, D.C., a 240-mile trip, we drove our Jeep Grand Cherokee exactly once. It simply could not handle the load that the Saratoga could carry, and the plane made overnight stays optional, not mandatory. Another four years of school in Philly only reinforced that view.

The Saratoga was also the only practical way for my late father to visit his older brother in Maryland. Both men, in their 80s and 90s, were too old and too physically impaired to travel either by ground or airline. The Saratoga interior volume means that almost anyone can enter, exit or ride in comfort. Almost anyone can get into or out of a Saratoga with a plastic footstool and that big-ass rear passenger door. For

SCUBA or ski trips I can literally toss all the equipment I want into the back without even thinking about it. I don’t deny that I would like another 20 knots or so, but I would lose almost all the utility for the kind of flying I do.

I’ve made a lot of very long trips (1500 miles or more) and the ability to stretch out, read a book, use a laptop or have a sandwich can’t be equaled without a much bigger and more expensive plane.

I’d love to own a Meridian or a TBM, but realistically that won’t happen. For pilots whose need for speed outweighs the need for space, or don’t need to save five GPH, there are better choices. But when I balance the speed of the little airplanes against the room and practicality of the Saratoga, there’s no contest.

Brian Peck, Middlebury, Connecticut

I bought my normally aspirated, fixed-gear Saratoga in 1998 to serve the transportation needs of my young family, and almost 14 years later it is still carrying out its mission. My friends said that I didn’t need a six-place airplane, but I have had no regrets.

The Saratoga has all the utility of a minivan with wings. I cannot think of a trip where we had to leave anything at home. On one trip we loaded our family of four, two grandparents, luggage for a weekend and an outboard engine and went to Maine, still under gross. When it was first introduced, Piper boasted of the size of the Saratoga when it published sales literature showing a Spinet piano being loaded in one. Has anyone ever tried transporting a piano in a Skyhawk?

The Saratoga is a well-designed airplane that performs well in several categories. If you don’t fill the 107-gallon tanks, it really can carry six adults. If you watch your load, it really can go 800 miles non-stop at 145 knots. It is well-equipped for IFR flights, and the cockpit is comfortable and stable. Most of my trips are in the Northeast and from one to two hours long, so the lack of retractable gear and turbo-charging is not missed and the savings are appreciated. Angel Flight passengers are easy to load through the large rear door.

When newer pilots ask me for advice about the purchase of a plane, I tell them to focus on their typical mission. When it comes to my typical missions of transporting family, friends and Angel Flight patients around the northeast United States, you can’t beat a used Saratoga.

Thomas G. Clements, Glens Falls, New York

I own a 1999 II HP based in Florida with about 2100 hours. The biggest selling points are its stability as an instrument platform and the comfortable seats up front. Minuses include climb performance at altitude, the long takeoff roll and the very limited full-fuel useful load. I limit myself to airways no higher than 12,000 feet and always ask for the longest runways at high altitude airports, even then using short-field techniques as a safety measure.

The post-1999 ‘Togas have great panels sporting HSIs and Garmins, and often come with TCAS and a Stormscope. I have added a panel powered 396. I definitely recommend the S-Tec 55X autopilot vs. the non-“X”-model, as it saves you from constantly adjusting the tracking. Annuals run between $3000-$7000 as there are usually a couple of things that need to be replaced. The perfect progression for this plane would be via Cherokee/Archer, Arrow and then Saratoga. From there it’s a small jump to a Seneca, followed by a somewhat bigger one to a Mirage or Meridian.

Compared to a Bonanza, the Saratoga trades speed for comfort. Versus a 206, you trade speed for useful load. Compared to its predecessor, the Lance, the Saratoga gives you many creature comforts at the price of the Lance’s load utility. A problem is getting a CFI who is really intimately familiar with the plane for the initial training. It’s better with A&P mechanics and parts.

Given that the pre-glass-panel Saratogas were virtually unchanged between 1999 and 2006 save for the upgrade to a GNS530, the earlier versions represent excellent value. If I had to do it over again, I’d get a TC for my flying in California. The HP is much more economical, however, if used mostly in eastern, southern or Midwest states.

I purchased a fixed-gear 1988 Saratoga (PA32-301) seven years ago to accommodate travel for our five-place family. We selected it for a combination of speed and capacity, which is another way of saying a Bonanza wouldn’t hold our family, bags, dog, and so forth. About 600 hours later, it’s taken us from the

Tropic of Cancer to Canada and from the Atlantic Coast throughout the Rockies. As a family, we’re delighted with the aircraft.

Perhaps the largest transition was getting used to the Saratoga’s nose. That long nose hides a lot of runway or taxiway. A loaded Saratoga tends to squat down on its mains, adding to the challenge. I’ve flown tailwheel aircraft with better forward visibility on the ground. A spotter in the right seat is well appreciated at unfamiliar airports.

With partial flaps to lower the nose, the airplane can fly a landing pattern at 90-95 knots. Once I became used to the plane I started

crossing the fence at 1.3 Vso (79 KIAS) and began fitting into GA runways with less adventure. The aircraft’s 1000-foot sea-level takeoff ground roll is the limiting factor in short-field work.

The PA32 is famous for developing prodigious sink rates. The power-off sink rate at best glide (80 KIAS) with the blue knob forward is 1400 FPM. Pulling the prop back lowers that to 900 FPM and greatly extends glide range. A full load can make up to an eight-knot difference in liftoff speed and five-knot difference in cruise. Climb rates are quite different, and there are several thousand-foot differences in service ceiling. (A fully loaded Saratoga has a service ceiling of 13,000 feet.)

We fill the mains only (70 gallons) and fly three-hour legs with ample IFR reserves, which is about all the family wants to sit still anyway. Starting with an empty weight of 2287 pounds, that configuration allows for an 893-pound payload. It’s well worth checking empty weight when considering a PA32 purchase as there’s quite a bit of variability in the fleet.

Since purchase, the Saratoga has cost $145/hour in fuel, maintenance and repairs. That’s somewhat on the high side, as early maintenance bills included catching up with several items which previous owners had deferred, including SB1006 ($2562), which calls for removal of the fuel tanks and inspection of the spar. Insurance runs $8.68 per thousand for hull insurance (no deductible), and .95 per thousand for smooth liability.

The closest thing to a formal users group is the Toga Party email list ( where one can correspond with other Saratoga owners. The Piper Owner Society (, and Piper Flyer Association ( also support the Saratoga amongst other model

Pipers. The Piper Forumis also a helpful and active Internet community.

Joe Budge, Annapolis, Maryland

This article originally appeared in the April 2012 issue ofAviation Consumermagazine.

For more great content such as this, subscribe to Aviation Consumer.


George was born in London at Norfolk House in St James's Square. He was the grandson of King George II, and the eldest son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. As he was born two months prematurely and thought unlikely to survive, he was baptised the same day by Thomas Secker, who was both Rector of St James's and Bishop of Oxford. [4] One month later, he was publicly baptised at Norfolk House, again by Secker. His godparents were King Frederick I of Sweden (for whom Lord Baltimore stood proxy), his uncle Frederick III, Duke of Saxe-Gotha (for whom Lord Carnarvon stood proxy), and his great-aunt Sophia Dorothea, Queen in Prussia (for whom Lady Charlotte Edwin stood proxy). [5]

Prince George grew into a healthy, reserved and shy child. The family moved to Leicester Square, where George and his younger brother Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany, were educated together by private tutors. Family letters show that he could read and write in both English and German, as well as comment on political events of the time, by the age of eight. [6] He was the first British monarch to study science systematically. [7]

Apart from chemistry and physics, his lessons included astronomy, mathematics, French, Latin, history, music, geography, commerce, agriculture and constitutional law, along with sporting and social accomplishments such as dancing, fencing, and riding. His religious education was wholly Anglican. [7] At age 10, George took part in a family production of Joseph Addison's play Cato and said in the new prologue: "What, tho' a boy! It may with truth be said, A boy in England born, in England bred." [8] Historian Romney Sedgwick argued that these lines appear "to be the source of the only historical phrase with which he is associated". [9]

King George II disliked the Prince of Wales and took little interest in his grandchildren. However, in 1751 the Prince died unexpectedly from a lung injury at the age of 44, and his son George became heir apparent to the throne and inherited his father's title of Duke of Edinburgh. Now more interested in his grandson, three weeks later the King created George Prince of Wales. [10] [11]

In the spring of 1756, as George approached his eighteenth birthday, the King offered him a grand establishment at St James's Palace, but George refused the offer, guided by his mother and her confidant, Lord Bute, who would later serve as Prime Minister. [12] George's mother, now the Dowager Princess of Wales, preferred to keep George at home where she could imbue him with her strict moral values. [13] [14]

In 1759, George was smitten with Lady Sarah Lennox, sister of Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, but Lord Bute advised against the match and George abandoned his thoughts of marriage. "I am born for the happiness or misery of a great nation," he wrote, "and consequently must often act contrary to my passions." [15] Nevertheless, attempts by the King to marry George to Princess Sophie Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel were resisted by him and his mother [16] Sophie married Frederick, Margrave of Bayreuth, instead. [17]

The following year, at the age of 22, George succeeded to the throne when his grandfather, George II, died suddenly on 25 October 1760, two weeks before his 77th birthday. The search for a suitable wife intensified. On 8 September 1761 in the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace, the King married Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he met on their wedding day. [d] A fortnight later on 22 September, both were crowned at Westminster Abbey. George remarkably never took a mistress (in contrast with his grandfather and his sons), and the couple enjoyed a happy marriage until his mental illness struck. [1] [8]

They had 15 children—nine sons and six daughters. In 1762, George purchased Buckingham House (on the site now occupied by Buckingham Palace) for use as a family retreat. [19] His other residences were Kew Palace and Windsor Castle. St James's Palace was retained for official use. He did not travel extensively and spent his entire life in southern England. In the 1790s, the King and his family took holidays at Weymouth, Dorset, [20] which he thus popularised as one of the first seaside resorts in England. [21]

George, in his accession speech to Parliament, proclaimed: "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain." [22] He inserted this phrase into the speech, written by Lord Hardwicke, to demonstrate his desire to distance himself from his German forebears, who were perceived as caring more for Hanover than for Britain. [23]

Although his accession was at first welcomed by politicians of all parties, [e] the first years of his reign were marked by political instability, largely generated as a result of disagreements over the Seven Years' War. [25] George was also perceived as favouring Tory ministers, which led to his denunciation by the Whigs as an autocrat. [1] On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government. [26]

Claims that he used the income to reward supporters with bribes and gifts [27] are disputed by historians who say such claims "rest on nothing but falsehoods put out by disgruntled opposition". [28] Debts amounting to over £3 million over the course of George's reign were paid by Parliament, and the civil list annuity was increased from time to time. [29] He aided the Royal Academy of Arts with large grants from his private funds, [30] and may have donated more than half of his personal income to charity. [31] Of his art collection, the two most notable purchases are Johannes Vermeer's Lady at the Virginals and a set of Canalettos, but it is as a collector of books that he is best remembered. [32] The King's Library was open and available to scholars and was the foundation of a new national library. [33]

In May 1762, the incumbent Whig government of Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle, was replaced with one led by the Scottish Tory Lord Bute. Bute's opponents worked against him by spreading the calumny that he was having an affair with the King's mother, and by exploiting anti-Scottish prejudices amongst the English. [34] John Wilkes, a member of parliament, published The North Briton, which was both inflammatory and defamatory in its condemnation of Bute and the government. Wilkes was eventually arrested for seditious libel but he fled to France to escape punishment he was expelled from the House of Commons, and found guilty in absentia of blasphemy and libel. [35] In 1763, after concluding the Peace of Paris which ended the war, Lord Bute resigned, allowing the Whigs under George Grenville to return to power.

Later that year, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 placed a limit upon the westward expansion of the American colonies. The Proclamation aimed to divert colonial expansion to the north (to Nova Scotia) and to the south (Florida). The Proclamation Line did not bother the majority of settled farmers, but it was unpopular with a vocal minority and ultimately contributed to conflict between the colonists and the British government. [36] With the American colonists generally unburdened by British taxes, the government thought it appropriate for them to pay towards the defence of the colonies against native uprisings and the possibility of French incursions. [f]

The central issue for the colonists was not the amount of taxes but whether Parliament could levy a tax without American approval, for there were no American seats in Parliament. [39] The Americans protested that like all Englishmen they had rights to "no taxation without representation". In 1765, Grenville introduced the Stamp Act, which levied a stamp duty on every document in the British colonies in North America. Since newspapers were printed on stamped paper, those most affected by the introduction of the duty were the most effective at producing propaganda opposing the tax. [40]

Meanwhile, the King had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of Prime Minister. [41] After a brief illness, which may have presaged his illnesses to come, George settled on Lord Rockingham to form a ministry, and dismissed Grenville. [42]

Lord Rockingham, with the support of Pitt and the King, repealed Grenville's unpopular Stamp Act, but his government was weak and he was replaced in 1766 by Pitt, whom George created Earl of Chatham. The actions of Lord Chatham and George III in repealing the Act were so popular in America that statues of them both were erected in New York City. [43] Lord Chatham fell ill in 1767, and Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, took over the government, although he did not formally become Prime Minister until 1768. That year, John Wilkes returned to England, stood as a candidate in the general election, and came top of the poll in the Middlesex constituency. Wilkes was again expelled from Parliament. He was re-elected and expelled twice more, before the House of Commons resolved that his candidature was invalid and declared the runner-up as the victor. [44] Grafton's government disintegrated in 1770, allowing the Tories led by Lord North to return to power. [45]

George was deeply devout and spent hours in prayer, [46] but his piety was not shared by his brothers. George was appalled by what he saw as their loose morals. In 1770, his brother Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn, was exposed as an adulterer, and the following year Cumberland married a young widow, Anne Horton. The King considered her inappropriate as a royal bride: she was from a lower social class and German law barred any children of the couple from the Hanoverian succession. [47]

George insisted on a new law that essentially forbade members of the Royal Family from legally marrying without the consent of the Sovereign. The subsequent bill was unpopular in Parliament, including among George's own ministers, but passed as the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Shortly afterwards, another of George's brothers, Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, revealed he had been secretly married to Maria, Countess Waldegrave, the illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole. The news confirmed George's opinion that he had been right to introduce the law: Maria was related to his political opponents. Neither lady was ever received at court. [47]

Lord North's government was chiefly concerned with discontent in America. To assuage American opinion most of the custom duties were withdrawn, except for the tea duty, which in George's words was "one tax to keep up the right [to levy taxes]". [48] In 1773, the tea ships moored in Boston Harbor were boarded by colonists and the tea was thrown overboard, an event that became known as the Boston Tea Party. In Britain, opinion hardened against the colonists, with Chatham now agreeing with North that the destruction of the tea was "certainly criminal". [49]

With the clear support of Parliament, Lord North introduced measures, which were called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists: the Port of Boston was shut down and the charter of Massachusetts was altered so that the upper house of the legislature was appointed by the Crown instead of elected by the lower house. [50] Up to this point, in the words of Professor Peter Thomas, George's "hopes were centred on a political solution, and he always bowed to his cabinet's opinions even when sceptical of their success. The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution." [51] Though the Americans characterised George as a tyrant, in these years he acted as a constitutional monarch supporting the initiatives of his ministers. [52]

The American War of Independence was the culmination of the civil and political American Revolution resulting from the American Enlightenment. Brought to a head over the lack of American representation in Parliament, which was seen as a denial of their rights as Englishmen and often popularly focused on direct taxes levied by Parliament on the colonies without their consent, the colonists resisted the imposition of direct rule after the Boston Tea Party. Creating self-governing provinces, they circumvented the British ruling apparatus in each colony by 1774. Armed conflict between British regulars and colonial militiamen broke out at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. After petitions to the Crown for intervention with Parliament were ignored, the rebel leaders were declared traitors by the Crown and a year of fighting ensued. The colonies declared their independence in July 1776, listing twenty-seven grievances against the British king and legislature while asking the support of the populace. Among George's other offences, the Declaration charged, "He has abdicated Government here . He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." The gilded equestrian statue of George III in New York was pulled down. [53] The British captured the city in 1776 but lost Boston, and the grand strategic plan of invading from Canada and cutting off New England failed with the surrender of British Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne following the battles of Saratoga. [54]

George III is often accused of obstinately trying to keep Great Britain at war with the revolutionaries in America, despite the opinions of his own ministers. [55] In the words of the British historian George Otto Trevelyan, the King was determined "never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans, and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal." [56] The King wanted to "keep the rebels harassed, anxious, and poor, until the day when, by a natural and inevitable process, discontent and disappointment were converted into penitence and remorse". [57] Later historians defend George by saying in the context of the times no king would willingly surrender such a large territory, [8] [58] and his conduct was far less ruthless than contemporary monarchs in Europe. [59] After Saratoga, both Parliament and the British people were in favour of the war recruitment ran at high levels and although political opponents were vocal, they remained a small minority. [8] [60] With the setbacks in America, Prime Minister Lord North asked to transfer power to Lord Chatham, whom he thought more capable, but George refused to do so he suggested instead that Chatham serve as a subordinate minister in North's administration, but Chatham refused to co-operate. He died later in the same year. [61] In early 1778, France (Britain's chief rival) signed a treaty of alliance with the United States and the conflict escalated. The United States and France were soon joined by Spain and the Dutch Republic, while Britain had no major allies of its own. Lord Gower and Lord Weymouth both resigned from the government. Lord North again requested that he also be allowed to resign, but he stayed in office at George III's insistence. [62] Opposition to the costly war was increasing, and in June 1780 contributed to disturbances in London known as the Gordon riots. [63]

As late as the siege of Charleston in 1780, Loyalists could still believe in their eventual victory, as British troops inflicted heavy defeats on the Continental forces at the Battle of Camden and the Battle of Guilford Court House. [64] In late 1781, the news of Lord Cornwallis's surrender at the siege of Yorktown reached London Lord North's parliamentary support ebbed away and he resigned the following year. The King drafted an abdication notice, which was never delivered, [58] [65] finally accepted the defeat in North America, and authorised peace negotiations. The Treaties of Paris, by which Britain recognised the independence of the American states and returned Florida to Spain, were signed in 1782 and 1783. [66] When John Adams was appointed American Minister to London in 1785, George had become resigned to the new relationship between his country and the former colonies. He told Adams, "I was the last to consent to the separation but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." [67]

With the collapse of Lord North's ministry in 1782, the Whig Lord Rockingham became Prime Minister for the second time but died within months. The King then appointed Lord Shelburne to replace him. Charles James Fox, however, refused to serve under Shelburne, and demanded the appointment of William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland. In 1783, the House of Commons forced Shelburne from office and his government was replaced by the Fox–North Coalition. Portland became Prime Minister, with Fox and Lord North, as Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary respectively. [8]

The King disliked Fox intensely, for his politics as well as his character he thought Fox was unprincipled and a bad influence on the Prince of Wales. [68] George III was distressed at having to appoint ministers not of his liking, but the Portland ministry quickly built up a majority in the House of Commons, and could not be displaced easily. He was further dismayed when the government introduced the India Bill, which proposed to reform the government of India by transferring political power from the East India Company to Parliamentary commissioners. [69] Although the King actually favoured greater control over the company, the proposed commissioners were all political allies of Fox. [70] Immediately after the House of Commons passed it, George authorised Lord Temple to inform the House of Lords that he would regard any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. The bill was rejected by the Lords three days later, the Portland ministry was dismissed, and William Pitt the Younger was appointed Prime Minister, with Temple as his Secretary of State. On 17 December 1783, Parliament voted in favour of a motion condemning the influence of the monarch in parliamentary voting as a "high crime" and Temple was forced to resign. Temple's departure destabilised the government, and three months later the government lost its majority and Parliament was dissolved the subsequent election gave Pitt a firm mandate. [8]

Saratoga III - History

Saratoga County, New York

Welcome to New York Genealogy Trails!

Our goal is to help you track your ancestors through time by transcribing genealogical and historical data and placing it online
for the free use of all researchers.

This Saratoga County Website is available for adoption.
If you have a love for history, a desire to help others, and basic webpage-making skills, consider joining us!
Get the details on our Volunteer Page .
[A desire to transcribe data and knowledge of how to make a basic webpage is required.]

We regret that we are unable to
perform personal research for anybody.

All data we come across is placed on this website, so feel free to keep checking back here.

Saratoga County
Founded 1791, formerly part of Albany County
County Seat: Ballston Spa
Largest city: Saratoga Springs
Area: 844 sq mi

Saratoga County is well-known for its Saratoga Race Course, open between late July and early September each year. This world-famous track dates back to 1863.

Saratoga County is also known for its role in American History, being the home of the Battle of Saratoga.

During the nineteenth century, Saratoga County was an important industrial center.
Its location 30 miles north of Albany on the Delaware and Hudson Railway and its proximity to water power from the Hudson River and Kayaderosseras Creek led to rapid industrial development beginning in 1810.
Some of the most important industries were paper mills, tanneries, foundries, and textile mills

The Saratoga National Historical Park is located along the Hudson River in Stillwater, and features a drive-around trail.

Mechanicville * Saratoga Springs

Ballston * Charlton * Clifton Park * Corinth * Day * Edinburg * Galway * Greenfield * Hadley * Halfmoon *
Malta * Milton * Moreau * Northumberland * Providence * Saratoga * Stillwater * Waterford * Wilton

Ballston Spa * Corinth * Galway * Round Lake * Schuylerville *
South Glens Falls * Stillwater * Victory * Waterford

Census-designated places
Country Knolls * Hadley * Milton * North Ballston Spa

Bloodville * Burnt Hills * Crescent * Gansevoort * Jonesville * Porter Corners *
Quaker Springs * Rexford * Rock City Falls * Vischer Ferry * West Milton

Courthouse Info:
Saratoga County Courthouse
30 McMaster Street - Bldg. #3
Ballston Spa, NY 12020

Saratoga III - History

Saratoga Race Course season passes, weekly ticket plans, and hospitality packages are on sale now! Single-day tickets go on sale June 23 single-day dining reservations on sale June 30.

The 2021 summer meet will run from Thursday, July 15 through Monday, September 6 and will feature 76 stakes worth $21.5 million in total purses.

Choose from a variety of weekends in the Founders Room or a Luxury Suite and save on the daily price.

Buy the latest Saratoga merchandise when you shop the official NYRA store!

Join NYRA Bets today and earn up to a $200 deposit bonus with your first qualifying deposit!

Named one of the world’s greatest sporting venues by Sports Illustrated, the past comes alive in the historic grandstand every summer.

Gambling Problems? The New York Racing Association encourages responsible wagering. If gambling is a problem for you or someone you care about, help is available 24 hours a day. Call toll-free 1-877-8-HOPE-NY

Town of Saratoga

The Town of Saratoga has a legacy that is rich history and a current environment that is attractive to residential, commercial, and agricultural pursuits. It is located in the eastern portion of the County bordering the Hudson River on the East, Saratoga Lake and the City of Saratoga Springs on the West, the Town of Stillwater on the South, and the Towns of Northumberland and Wilton on the North. It was originally a district within Albany County and subsequently in 1791 became one of the four mother towns of Saratoga County. The first European settlers arrived in the town in 1688. The Town of Saratoga is the site of the Surrender of General Burgoyne to General Gates, an event that is noted as the Turning Point of the Revolutionary War. Numerous significant historic sites such as the General Schuyler House, The Saratoga Monument, and Fort Hardy Park are located within the town. Today The National Park Service owns, maintains and operates the Schuyler House and Saratoga Monument. The Champlain Canal passed through the town from North to South and was an early impetus to the growth and development of the area. Portions of old tow path have been cleared and maintained as a pleasant walking path with numerous illustrated sign boards describing the history of the canal. A new visitors information center has been established within the Village of Schuylerville to welcome visitors to the area and provide them with information about area attractions. A new boat launch, board walk, gazebo, and picnic area have recently been completed in Schuylerville. A state boat launch within the town on Saratoga Lake provides residents with an excellent location for launching their boats and enjoying water sports and fishing. The Town is also the site of the Saratoga National Cemetery and The Saratoga County Veterans Memorial. This peaceful and serene setting with great views of the Hudson River valley provides an ideal location.

The town is the home of the Villages of Schuylerville and Victory and the hamlets of Quaker Springs, Grangerville, Deans Corners, and Coveville. The Village of Schuylerville was incorporated in 1831 and was named after the distinguished General Schuyler who was responsible for much of the development and growth of Schuylerville. The Village of Victory was incorporated in 1848 and was named in recognition of the American Victory over the British during the Revolutionary War Battles of Saratoga. The Post Office in Victory is Named Victory Mills in further recognition of the mills and the importance that they played in the economic development of the area. The hamlet of Quaker Springs is the site of a mineral spring and the Friends meeting House.

Throughout its history agriculture has been an integral part of the town. Today several large dairy, fruit, and vegetable farms operate within the town. Their presence provides a peaceful and appealing setting for numerous residential developments.

Over the years the Town of Saratoga has undergone many changes. Today a comprehensive land use plan is in place encouraging a controlled growth and development of the area. A new town highway department complex was recently completed and plans are being developed for a town park. Despite all of the changes that have occurred, the rural character of the Town and the spirit of the residents has remained constant. As the new millennium unfolds the town is prepared to honor its past and welcome the challenges that are forthcoming in the future.

Saratoga Town Hall
12 Spring Street
Schuylerville, NY 12871

Saratoga III - History

This page: John Fulkerson,The New Bohn Hotel and Mary A. Bohn, the Saratoga & Encampment Railway.

Big Horn Basin Black Hills Bone Wars Buffalo Cambria Casper Cattle Drives Centennial Cheyenne Chugwater Cody Custer Deadwood Stage Douglas Dubois Encampment Evanston Ft. Bridger Ft. Fetterman Ft. Laramie Ft. Russell Frontier Days Ghost Towns Gillette G. River F. V. Hayden Tom Horn Jackson Johnson County War Kemmerer Lander Laramie Lincoln Highway Lusk Meeteetse Medicine Bow N. Platte Valley Oil Camps Overland Stage Photos V Rawlins Rock Springs Rudefeha Mine Sheepherding Sheridan Sherman Shoshoni Superior Thermopolis USS Wyoming Wheatland Wild Bunch Yellowstone

Home Table of Contents About This Site

Walcott to Encampment Stage in front of Wolf Hotel, Saratoga, Wyo.

For discussion and photos of Saratoga and the Wolf Hotel, see N. Platte Valley . As noted on the bottom of the photo, the Scribner Stage Line ran from Walcott, via Saratoga, to Encampment. One of its more colorful drivers was John Jefferson "G-String Jack" Fulkerson (1860-1947) who arrived in Saratoga in 1902 from Pueblo where he had driven stages and freight wagons. When the railroad was under construction, he served as the stable boss for the grading contractor. Fulkerson apparently received his nick name from his skill at driving the 24-horse teams required to pull the giant freighters which brought the equipment and other gear into Encampment prior to the coming of the railroad.

"G-String Jack" Fulkerson driving an eight-horse jerk-line rig across the Saratoga Bridge, 1906.

A "G-string," more commonly referred to as a "jerk line," is used to guide or steer the front left horse or mule known as the "leader." The G-string or jerk line was connected to the outside bit ring of the leader's bridle. In this manner, the whole team would be guided to the left or the right by a steady pull or a succession of of jerks. The left horse or mule of the lead span would then be connected to the right lead horse or mule by a jockey stick (the stick in the photo beneath the leaders' heads) so that the right leader would be guided in the same direction as the left leader. Behind the lead team would be the "swings." Each pair of horses, a "span," in a team would be numbered that is in a sixteen horse team, the second span would be the "fourteens," the team behind it the "twelves," and so forth back to the next-to-the last span known as the "pointers" and the last span known as the "wheelers." While the lead span steered the team, the pointers and the wheelers steered the lead wagon. Frequently, the driver or "skinner" rather than riding on the lead wagon, would, as is Fulkerson in the photo, ride the left wheel horse which would be saddled.

It has been speculated that the practice in the Americas of driving on the right-hand side of a highway was derived from early freighters riding or walking beside the left wheel horse. By walking or driving on the left side, the freighter could hold the jerk line, or in the case of oxen hold the bull whip, and operate the brake on the left side of the vehicle with his right hand. Keeping the wagons to the right-side of the road assisted in passing on-coming wagons. Thus, by the Civil War, it was the uniform practice in the United States, as opposed to our British cousins, to ride on the right-hand side of a road. Early motor cars in the United States had the steering wheel on the curb side, but were soon moved to the left side. In a sense, therefore, while barrelling down I-80, one is still guiding the left wheel horse.

Railroad Construction, 1907.

As previously noted the railroad arrived in 1908. For Discussion and additional photographs of the Saratoga & Encampment RailWay see Saratoga.

Railway Depot, Encampment, approx. 1930.

The depot depicted is a later depot which replaced the original which burned down in 1912.

Railway Depot, Encampment, approx. 1930.

Locomotive 101, Saratoga & Encampment Railway, undated.

Operational control of the railroad was assumed under a lease by the Union Pacific in 1921. the Union Pacific entered into the lease since it was not sure that the railroad was financially viable. Formal ownership was assumed by the Union Pacific in 1928.

The Walcott, Saratoga and Encampment Stage in front of the New Bohn Hotel, 1907

At the time, there were two hotels in town, Mrs. A. B. Kinsella's Copper State Hotel and the New Bohn. The New Bohn hotel was operated by Miss Mary A. Bohn. Miss Bohn came to Encampment from Cripple Creek where she had operated the Bohn House restuarant. In Encampment, Mrs Bohn initially operated a small hotel and restauant the Bohn Hotel on Freeman Street. In 1901, she constructed the "New Bohn Hotel. The old Bohn Hotel became the Plummer Cafe and much later it housed the Echo newspaper.

Another view of the Walcott, Saratoga and Encampment Stage in front of the New Bohn Hotel, approx. 1902.

The small building to the left of the hotel is Davis & Ashley real estate and insurance agents. H. D. Ashley was a city councilman.

The New Bohn featured steam heat and electric lights and advertised a bar and billards. In the bar she served the "famous Goodhart-Hartman Company's" pure rye. She served as Worthy Matron of the Encampment chapter of the Order of the Eastern Star. On April 10, 1920, Miss Bohn was installed as part of the initial class of members of the Rebekahs, a part of the Odd Fellows. In early May, Miss Bohn commenced the annual spring cleaning of the hotel but on May 13, the Enchampment Echo reported that she was on the sick list. Two week later, after apparent improvement, she died from "typhoid-pneumonia."

The funeral service, the largest ever held up to that time in Encampment, was conducted in the Town Hall by the Eastern Star. Wreaths were provided by the Eastern Star, the Masonic Lodge, the Rebekahs and the Odd Fellows. As a part of the service, Carleton Ashley sang Miss Bohn's favorite hymn, "Beatiful Isle of Somewhere." In 1911, Carl sang at New York's Carnegie Hall. The hymn had become popular as a result of Harold Jarvis' 1909 Victor Talking Machine Company recording, played as the background for this page. Miss Bohn's brother H. O. Bohn took her body back to Warm Springs, Montana, where she was interred. In 1927, Jack Fulkerson purchased the hotel.

Livery Barn, Encampment approx. 1910.

The principal livery barn was that of J. G. Rankin on Rankin Avenue. The tower in the background is the fire bell on the Town Hall. The "Tom Keene" sign on the building advertises a cheap cigar. At the time a box of 50 Tom Keenes would sell for as little as $1.49. Eight cigars could go for as little as 8 for twenty-five cents. It has been speculated that "B" western movie cowboy George Duryea adopted the name Tom Keene after the cigar.

Walcott, Saratoga and Encampment Stage.

Today, the slightly less than 50 miles trip from Walcott to Encampment may take less than an hour with slight pauses for Saratoga and Riverside. On the stage, the trip took from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a lunch stop at Saratoga. The stage, according to Winter, was facitiously referred to as the "Overland Limited," except when late when it was referred to as the "Overdue Limited." At approximately noon the stage came to Saratoga and would cross the Platte which then ran east and parallel to the wagon road over which the stage travelled. Beyond the river lay the Medicine Bows. Various mountains came into view. Most impressive was one referred to by Winter as "Old Baldy, so called because of his head, which was made up of white marble or granite and rose high and bare above the timber line. Snow would give it a shining appearance and was thus, according to Winter, referred to by early ranchers as "Gloss Mountain." Later promoters interested in selling stock in mining and railroad opportunities renamed it "Gold Hill." It was originally going to be a destination of the Laramie, Hahns Peak and Pacific.

After leaving Saratoga, the Sierra Madres came into view. The stage passed Pass Creek, Spring Creek and Cow Creek. On distant slopes, great flocks of sheep could be observed. After Encampment faded and failed, Walcott became for a brief time a center for sheep. Finally, the stage rumbled into Encampment with the driver making a show of it. As Willis Emerson in his Treasure of Hidden Valley observed:

If it is the invariable habit of stage drivers at the point of departure to start off their horses in a full swinging gallop, it is an equally inviolable rule, when they approach the point of arrival, that they come in with a whoop and a hooray. These laws are just as immutable as ringing the bell or blowing the locomotive whistle when leaving or nearing a station.

Walcott, Saratoga and Encampment Stage.

Composer, Jessie B. Pounds
Lyrics, John Sylvester Fearis
As sung by Harold Jarvis for the
Victor Talking Machine Company, 1909

Somewhere the sun is shining,
Somewhere the songbirds dwell
Hush, then, thy sad repining,
God lives, and all is well.

Somewhere, somewhere,
Beautiful Isle of Somewhere!
Land of the true, where we live anew,
Beautiful Isle of Somewhere!

Somewhere the day is longer,
Somewhere the task is done
Somewhere the heart is stronger,
Somewhere the guerdon won.

Somewhere the load is lifted,
Close by an open door
Somewhere the clouds are rifted,
Somewhere the angels sing.

Accused killers face more charges

1 of 6 Buy Photo Georgios Kakavelos is brought into Malta Town Court for a court appearance on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2019, in Malta, N.Y. Kakavelos and a co-defendant have been charged with murder and concealment of a corpse. (Paul Buckowski/Times Union) Paul Buckowski/Albany Times Union Show More Show Less

2 of 6 Buy Photo Accused murderer James Duffy, 34, of Johnstown, left, appears before Judge James Murphy III with his attorney, Andrew Blumenberg, right, on Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2020, at Saratoga County Court in Ballston Spa, N.Y. Duffy and Georgios Kakavelos are both charged in the death of Allyzibeth A. Lamont, a 22-year-old restaurant worker from Gloversville. Her body was dumped in a shallow grave at Northway Exit 13S in Malta. (Will Waldron/Times Union) Will Waldron/Albany Times Union Show More Show Less

4 of 6 Buy Photo Georgios Kakavelos is taken out of Malta Town Court following a court appearance on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2019, in Malta, N.Y. Kakavelos and a co-defendant have been charged with murder and concealment of a corpse. (Paul Buckowski/Times Union) Paul Buckowski/Albany Times Union Show More Show Less

5 of 6 Buy Photo Accused murderer James Duffy, 34, of Johnstown is taken away following an appearance at Saratoga County Court on Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2020, in Ballston Spa, N.Y. Duffy and Georgios Kakavelos are both charged in the death of Allyzibeth A. Lamont, a 22-year-old restaurant worker from Gloversville. Her body was dumped in a shallow grave at Northway Exit 13S in Malta. (Will Waldron/Times Union) Will Waldron/Albany Times Union Show More Show Less

BALLSTON SPA - The two men who are accused of killing a 22-year-old restaurant worker and dumping her body along the Northway are now being charged with first-degree murder.

Georgios Kakavelos, 51, and James Duffy, 34, were originally charged with second-degree murder, evidence tampering and concealment of the body of Allyzibeth A. Lamont who worked with the men at Local No. 9 in Johnstown.

But Saratoga County District Attorney Karen Heggen said on Wednesday that the grand jury added murder in the first degree as well as more counts to the evidence tampering and concealment of the body charges. Kakavelos of Ballston Spa, who was the owner of the shuttered restaurant, now faces two counts of concealment of a body and six counts of evidence tampering.

Duffy who lives in Johnstown and was the restaurant's manager, also faces two counts of concealment of a body and four courts on evidence tampering.

"The superseding indictment reflects the evidence that has been identified in the continuing and ongoing investigation into the death of Allyzibeth A. Lamont," Heggen said,without elaborating.

Kakavelos' attorney Kevin O'Brien said the additional charges are "certainly unusual." When asked if he was concerned, he said he was because any punishment could be more severe.


On the death of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq in 148/765 his followers from among the Imami Shiʿites split into six groups of which two may be identified as proto-Ismaʿilis or earliest Ismaʿilis. Imam al-Ṣādeq had originally designated his second son Esmāʿil (the eponym of the Es-māʿiliya) as his successor to the imamate, but as related in the majority of the sources, Esmāʿil had predeceased his father. The two proto-Ismaʿili groups, which were based in Kufa and supported the claims of Esmāʿil b. Jaʿfar (q.v.) and his son Moḥammad, had already appeared in the lifetime of Imam al-Ṣādeq but they separated from other Imamis only in 148/765. One of these groups denied the death of Esmāʿil and awaited his return as the Mahdi. The members of this group, designated as al-Esmāʿiliya al-ḵāleṣa, or the &lsquopure Esmāʿiliya&rsquo by the earliest Imami heresiographers, Nawbaḵòti and Qomi, who are our main sources for the initial phase of Ismaʿilism, held that Imam al-Ṣādeq had announced Esmāʿil&rsquos death as a ruse to protect him against ʿAbbasid persecution as he had been politically active against them. The second group, designated as the Mobārakiya, affirming Esmāʿil&rsquos death, now recognized his eldest son Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as their imam (Feraq al-&scaroniʿa, pp. 57-58 Qomi, pp. 80-81, 83 A&scaronʿari, Maqālāt, pp. 26-27 Daftary, 1991, pp. 220 ff.). It seems likely that the Mobārakiya, derived from Esmāʿil&rsquos epithet al-Mobārak, the Blessed One (Sejestāni, Etbāt, p. 190 Edris, Zahr, p. 199 Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1958, text p. 10 Ivanow, 1946, pp. 103-12), were originally supporters of Esmāʿil before acknowledging Moḥammad as their Imam. At any rate, Mobārakiya was thus one of the original names of the nascent Esmāʿiliya, a term coined by later heresiographers.

Nawbaḵti (pp. 58-59) and Qomi (p. 81), who are generally hostile towards the Ismaʿilis, identify al-Esmāʿiliya al-Ḵāleṣa with the early Ḵaṭṭābiya, the followers of Abu&rsquol-Ḵaṭṭāb (q.v.), the most famous ḡāli (a term used pejoratively by heresiographers for those who attribute divine qualities to Imams see ḠOLĀT) in the entourage of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, who was eventually repudiated by the Imam. They further hold that on the death of Abu&rsquol-Ḵaṭṭāb in 138/755 a group of his ḡolāt followers joined the supporters of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil (Feraq al-&scaroniʿa, pp. 60-61 Qomi, p. 83). Some later sources, too, refer to close relations between the earliest Ismaʿilis and the Ḵaṭṭābis (Lewis, 1940, pp. 33-35). On the other hand, Abu&rsquol-Ḵaṭṭāb is condemned as a heretic by the Ismaʿilis of the Fatimid times (see, for example, Qāżi Noʿmān, Daʿāʾem, I, pp. 49-50 tr. Fyzee, I, pp. 65-66 idem, Ketāb al-majāles, pp. 84-85). Be that as it may, relations between al-Esmāʿiliya al-ḵāleṣa and the Mobārakiya, on the one hand, and between these groups and the Ḵaṭṭābis, on the other, remain rather obscure due to lack of reliable sources. It is certain, however, that all these groups were politically active against the ʿAbbasids and they originated within the radical milieus of Imami Shiʿism in Kufa.

Little is known about the life and career of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, the seventh imam of the Ismaʿilis. The relevant biographical information contained in early Ismaʿili sources has been preserved by the dāʿi (q.v. Ismāʿili missionary) Edris (ʿOyun, IV, pp. 351-56 idem, Zahr, pp. 204-8). Soon after al-Ṣādeq&rsquos death, and after the recognition of the imamate of his uncle Musā al-Kāẓem by the majority of the Imamis, Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil left Medina, seat of the ʿAlids, and went into hiding. His decision marked the initiation of the dawr al-satr, or period of concealment, in early Ismaʿilism that lasted until the foundation of the Fatimid state when the Ismaʿili Imams emerged from their concealment. Henceforth, Moḥammad acquired the epithet of al-Maktum, the Hidden One, in addition to al-Maymun, the Fortunate One. Nonetheless, Moḥammad maintained his contacts with the Kufan-based Mobārakiya from different localities in southern Iraq and Persia. He seems to have spent the latter part of his life in Ḵuzestān, where he had some following. He died not long after 179/795 during the caliphate of the ʿAbbasid Hārun al-Ra&scaronid. On the death of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, the Mobārakiya split into two groups (Feraq al-&scaroniʿa, p. 61 Qomi, p. 83). A majority refused to accept his death they recognized him as their seventh and last imam, and awaited his return as the Mahdi or qāʾem. A second, small and obscure group, acknowledging Moḥammad&rsquos death, traced the imamate in his progeny. Almost nothing is known with certainty regarding the subsequent history of these earliest Ismaʿili groups until shortly after the middle of the 3rd/9th century, when a unified Ismaʿili movement appeared on the historical stage.

It is certain that for almost a century after Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, a group of leaders who were well placed within Ismaʿilism worked secretly for the creation of a unified, revolutionary Shiʿite movement against the ʿAbbasids. These leaders did not openly claim the Ismaʿili imamate for three generations. They had, in fact, hidden their true identity in order to escape ʿAbbasid persecution. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Akbar, the first of these hidden leaders, had organized his campaign around the central doctrine of the majority of the earliest Ismaʿilis, namely, the Mahdism of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. Organizing a revolutionary movement in the name of a concealed imam who could not be chased by ʿAbbasid agents represented an attractive strategy. At any rate, the existence of such a group of early Ismaʿili leaders is confirmed by both the official version of the Ismaʿilis of the Fatimid period regarding the pre-Fatimid phase of their history (Edris, ʿOyun, IV, pp. 357-67, 390-404) as well as the hostile account of the Sunni polemicists Ebn Rezām and Aḵu Moḥsen preserved in later sources (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 44-156 Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 151-201 idem, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 391-97 Nowayri, XXV, pp. 187-317). Indeed, with minor variations, the names of these leaders, viz., ʿAbd-Allāh, Aḥmad, Ḥosayn, or Moḥammad and ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, who were members of the same family and succeeded one another on a hereditary basis, are almost identical in the accounts of the later Fatimid Ismaʿilis (Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1958, text pp. 10-12 Nisāburi, p. 95 see also Hamdani and de Blois, pp. 173-207) and in the lists traceable to Aḵu Moḥsen and his source Ebn Rezām (Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 238 tr. Dodge, I, pp. 462-64 Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 17-20 Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 22-26 Nowayri, XXV, p. 189 Ḥammādi Yamāni, Ka&scaronf, pp. 16 ff.). However, in the Ismaʿili sources these leaders are presented as ʿAlids descending from Imam al-Ṣādeq while in anti-Ismaʿili accounts their ancestry is traced to a certain Maymun al-Qaddāḥ. Modern scholarship has shown that the Qaddāḥid ancestry of the early Ismaʿili leaders was constructed by hostile polemicists, soon after the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate, in order to refute the ʿAlid genealogy of the Fatimid caliph-imams. Maymun al-Qaddāḥ and his son ʿAbd-Allāh (see ʿABDALLĀH b. MAYMŪN) were, in fact, associated with Imams al-Bāqer and al-Ṣādeq and had nothing to do with the leaders or imams of early Ismaʿilism (see Ivanow, 1946, pp. 61-103 Daftary, 1990, pp. 105-16).

ʿAbd-Allāh al-Akbar, the first of the early Ismaʿili leaders after Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, settled in ʿAskar Mokram, in Ḵuzestān, where he lived as a wealthy merchant. From there he began to organize a reinvigorated Ismaʿili daʿwa sending dāʿis to different districts around Ḵuzestān. At an unknown date, still in the first half of the 3rd/9th century, ʿAbd-Allāh found refuge in Syria, where he eventually re-established contact with some of his dāʿis, and settled in Salamiya, continuing to pose as a Hā&scaronemid merchant. Henceforth, Salamiya, situated some 35 km southeast of Ḥamā, served as the secret headquarters of the Ismaʿili daʿwa. The efforts of ʿAbd-Allāh, and his successors, began to bear fruit in the 260s/870s, when numerous dāʿis appeared in Iraq and adjacent regions. It was around 261/874 that Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ (q.v.) was converted to Ismaʿilism by the dāʿi Ḥosayn Ahvāzi (Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 238 Masʿudi, Tanbih, p. 395). Ḥamdān, in turn, organized the daʿwa in the Sawād of Kufa, his native locality, and in other districts of southern Iraq. Ḥamdān&rsquos chief assistant was his brother-in-law ʿAbdān (q.v.). A learned theologian, ʿAbdān enjoyed a certain degree of independence and was responsible for training and appointing numerous dāʿis, including Abu Saʿid Jannābi (q.v.), who later founded the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn.

Centered on the expectation of the imminent return of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as the Mahdi who would establish justice in the world, the revolutionary and messianic Ismaʿili movement appealed to underprivileged groups of different social backgrounds. It achieved particular success among the Imami Shiʿites who were disillusioned with the quietist policies of their imams and were left without a manifest imam after the death of the eleventh Imam, Abu Moḥammad Ḥasan al-ʿAskari (q.v. d. 260/874). It was under such circumstances that Ḥamdān won many supporters in southern Iraq and embarked on his anti-ʿAbbasid activities (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 44 ff. Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 151 ff. Nowayri, XXV, pp. 189 ff. Ṭabari, III, pp. 2124, 2126-27 Ṭabari, tr. XXXVII, pp. 169, 171-73). The Ismaʿilis of southern Iraq became generally known as the Qarāmeṭa or Carmatians (q.v.), named after their first chief local leader. This term was soon applied to other Ismaʿili communities not organized by Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān. At the time, there was a single Ismaʿili movement directed from Salamiya in the name of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as the Mahdi (Stern, 1961, pp. 99-108 Madelung, 1961, pp. 43-65). In fact, in order to prepare the ground for the emergence of the Mahdi, in 277/890 Ḥamdān established a dār al-hejra, or abode of migration, near Kufa, where his followers gathered weapons and other provisions. This abode was to serve as the nucleus of a new society for the Ismaʿilis. Similar dār al-hejras were later established for the Ismaʿili communities of Yemen, Bahrain and North Africa. The Ismaʿilis (Qarmaṭis) now referred to their movement simply as al-daʿwa (the mission) or al-daʿwa al-hadia (the rightly guiding mission), in addition to using expressions such as daʿwat al-ḥaqq (summons to the truth) or ahl al-ḥaqq (people of the truth).

In the meantime, the Ismaʿili daʿwa had appeared in many other regions in the 260s/870s. ʿAbdān&rsquos brother Maʾmun was active as a dāʿi in Fars, where the Ismaʿili converts became known as the Maʾmuniya (Daylami, p. 21). The daʿwa in Yaman was initiated by Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab (q.v.), later known as Manṣur al-Yaman. He arrived there in 268/881, accompanied by his collaborator ʿAli b. al-Fażl. By 293/905-6, when ʿAli occupied Ṣanʿāʾ, these dāʿis were in control of almost all of Yaman (Qāżi Noʿmān, Eftetāḥ, pp. 32-54 Janadi, Ketāb al-soluk, in Kay, 1892, text pp. 139-52, tr. pp. 191-212). Yaman also served as a base for the extension of the daʿwa to other regions. In 270/883, Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab sent his relative Haytam as a dāʿi to Sind, initiating the daʿwa on the Indian subcontinent (Qāżi Noʿmān, Eftetāḥ, pp. 45, 47 S. M. Stern, 1949, pp. 298 ff. Hamdani, 1956). On Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab&rsquos instructions, the dāʿi Abu ʿAbd-Allāh al-&Scaroniʿi was active among the Kotāma Berbers of Lesser Kabylia in the Maghreb by 280/893. Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab sent other dāʿis to Yamāma, Egypt and Baḥrayn. After his initial activities in Fars, Abu Saʿid Jannābi was sent to Baḥrayn by Ḥam-dān and ʿAbdān in 273/886, or a few years later. He rapidly won converts there from among the bedouins and the Persian emigrants (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 55-62, 91 ff. Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 159 ff. Nowayri, XXV, pp. 233 ff. Ṭabari, III, pp. 2188 ff., 2196-97, 2205, 2232 Ṭabari, tr. XXXVIII, pp. 77 ff., 86-89, 98, 128-29 Masʿudi, Moruj, VIII, pp. 191 ff. de Goeje, pp. 33-47, 69 ff.)

In the early 260s/870s, the daʿwa was taken to the region of the Jebāl in Persia by Ḵalaf al-Ḥallāj, who established himself in Ray. There, the Ismaʿilis became known as the Ḵalafiya. Under Ḵalaf&rsquos successors as chief dāʿis of the Jebāl, the daʿwa spread to Qom, Kā&scaronān, Isfahan, Hamadān and other towns of that region. Ḡiāṯ, the third dāʿi of Ray, extended the daʿwa to Khorasan and Transoxania on his own initiative. But the daʿwa was officially established in Khorasan during the last decade of the 3rd century (the first decade of the 9th century) by Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Ḵādem who set up his secret headquarters at Ni&scaronābur. A later chief dāʿi of Khorasan, Ḥosayn b. ʿAli Marwazi was an eminent amir in the service of the Sāmānids and he succeeded in extending the daʿwa to Herat, Ḡur and other localities under his control, (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 282-95, 297-305 tr. Darke, pp. 208-18, 220-26 Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 239 Baḡdādi, Farq, ed. Badr, p. 267 Stern, 1960, pp. 56-90 repr. in idem, 1983, pp. 189-233).

By the early 280s/890s, a unified Ismaʿili movement had replaced the earlier Ismaʿili groups. But in 286/899, soon after ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, the future Fatimid caliph, had succeeded to leadership in Salamiya, Ismaʿilism was wrought by a major schism. Ḥamdān now noticed significant changes in the doctrinal instructions he received from Salamiya, and dispatched ʿAbdān there to investigate the matter. Ḥamdān found out that instead of advocating Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as Mahdi, the new leader now claimed the imamate for himself and his predecessors, the central leaders of the Ismaʿili daʿwa in the dawr al-satr. Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān refused to accept this doctrinal change, allowing for continuity in the imamate. They renounced their allegiance to the central leadership of Ismaʿilism and suspended all daʿwa activities in Iraq. Soon after, Ḥamdān disappeared while ʿAbdān was murdered at the instigation of a subordinate dāʿi, Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh, who initially remained loyal to Salamiya (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 65-68 Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 167-68 Nowayri, XXV, pp. 227-32 Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295 tr. Kramers and Wiet, II, p. 289 Madelung, 1961, pp. 59-65, 69 ff. Daftary, 1993, pp. 123-39).

ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi&rsquos reform is explained in a letter he later sent to the Ismaʿili community in Yaman (see Ḥ. F. al-Hamdani, 1958 also Hamdani and de Blois, 1983), in which an attempt is made to reconcile his reform with the actual course of events in pre-Fatimid Ismaʿili history. He explains that as a form of taqiya, the central leaders of the daʿwa had assumed different pseudonyms, such as al-Mobārak and al-Maymun, also assuming the rank of ḥojja, proof or full representative, of the absent Imam Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. ʿAbd-Allāh, whose own pseudonym had been al-Saʿid, the Happy One, further explained that the earlier propagation of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as Mahdi was itself another dissimulating tactic and that this was in reality another collective pseudonym for every true imam in the progeny of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq. The statements of ʿAbd-Allāh are corroborated by the few surviving early Ismaʿili sources (see, for instance, Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ka&scaronf, pp. 97-99, 102 ff., 109-10, 135, 160 also Madelung, 1961, pp. 254-58).

The doctrinal reform of ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi split the Ismaʿili movement into two rival factions. One faction remained loyal to the central leadership and acknowledged continuity in the imamate, recognizing ʿAbd-Allāh and his ʿAlid ancestors as their imams, which was in due course incorporated into the Fatimid Ismaʿili doctrine of the imamate. These Ismaʿilis now allowed for three hidden imams (al-aʾemma al-masturin) between Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil and ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi. This loyalist faction came to include the bulk of the Ismaʿilis of Yaman and those communities in Egypt, North Africa and Sind, founded by dāʿis dispatched by Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab. On the other hand, a dissident faction, originally led by Ḥamdān, rejected ʿAbd-Allāh&rsquos reform and maintained their original belief in the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. Henceforth, the term Qarmaṭi came to be applied more specifically to the dissidents, who did not acknowledge ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, as well as his predecessors and successors in the Fatimid dynasty, as their imams. The dissident Qarmaṭi faction, which lacked central leadership, soon acquired its most important stronghold in the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn, founded in the same eventful year 286/899 by Abu Saʿid Jannābi who sided with Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān (Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295). There were also Qarmaṭi communities in Iraq, Yaman, Persia and Central Asia. The subsequent history of Qarmaṭism is not treated here (see F. Daftary, &ldquoCarmatians,&rdquo in EIr, IV, pp. 825-32 Madelung, &ldquoḲarmaṭī,&rdquo in EI ² IV, pp. 660-65 idem, 1959 idem, 1996).

Meanwhile, the dāʿi Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh had gone into hiding following the events of the year 286/899, possibly fearing reprisals by ʿAbdān&rsquos supporters in Iraq. From 288/901 he sent several of his sons as dāʿis to the Syrian desert where large numbers of bedouins were converted. Zekrawayh now aimed to establish a Fatimid state in Syria for ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi without his authorization. Soon Zekrawayh&rsquos sons summoned their bedouin followers to proceed to Salamiya and declare their allegiance to the imam who was still guarding his identity. In the event, ʿAbd-Allāh, whose position had now been dangerously compromised, secretly left Salamiya in 289/902 to escape capture by the ʿAbbasid agents sent after him. He first went to Ramla, in Palestine, and then in 291/904, following the defeat of Zekrawayh&rsquos movement in Syria by an ʿAbbasid army, he embarked on a historic journey which ended several years later in North Africa where he founded the Fatimid caliphate (see Yamāni, Sirat al-Ḥājeb, pp. 107-33 tr. in Ivanow, 1942, pp. 184-223 French tr. Canard, 1952, pp. 279-324). After their defeat in Syria in 291/904, Zekrawayh and his sons turned against ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi and joined the Qarmaṭi camp. Zekrawayh was finally defeated and killed in 294/907 by the ʿAbbasids while his Qarmaṭi movement lingered on for a while longer (Ṭabari, III, pp. 2218-46, 2255-75 tr. XXXVIII, 113-44, 157-79 ʿArib, pp. 9-18, 36, 137 Masʿudi, Tanbih, pp. 370-76, 391 Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 69-90 Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 168-79 Nowayri, XXV, pp. 246-76 Halm, 1979, pp. 30-53 idem, Empire of the Mahdi, pp. 66-88, 183-90).

The early Ismaʿilis elaborated the basic framework of a system of religious thought, which was further developed or modified in the Fatimid period. Central to this system was a fundamental distinction between the exoteric (ẓāher) and the esoteric (bāṭen) aspects of the sacred scriptures and religious commandments and prohibitions. Accordingly, they held that the Qurʾān and other revealed scriptures, and their laws (&scaronariʿas), had their apparent or literal meaning, the ẓāher, which had to be distinguished from their inner meaning hidden in the bāṭen. They further held that the ẓāher, or the religious laws, enunciated by prophets underwent periodical changes while the bāṭen, containing the spiritual truths (ḥaqāʾeq), remained immutable and eternal. These truths, representing the message common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, were explained through taʾwil or esoteric exegesis, which often relied on the mystical significance of letters and numbers. In every age, the esoteric truths would be accessible only to the elite (Ḵawāṣṣ) of humankind as distinct from the ordinary people (ʿawāmm) who were only capable of perceiving the apparent meaning of the revelations. Consequently, in the era of Islam, the eternal truths of religion could be explained only to those who had been initiated into the Ismaʿili daʿwa and as such recognized the teaching authority of the Prophet Moḥammad and, after him, that of his waṣi, ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, and the rightful imams who succeeded him these authorities were the sole sources of taʾwil in the era of Islam. Initiation into Ismaʿilism, known as balāḡ, was gradual and took place after the novice had taken an oath of allegiance, ʿahd or mitāq. The initiates were also obliged to keep secret the bāṭen imparted to them by a hierarchy (ḥodud) of teachers (see Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ʿālem Halm, &ldquoIsmaʿili Oath of Allegiance,&rdquo pp. 91-115). By believing in the bāṭen aspect of religion, the Ismaʿilis came to be regarded by the rest of the Muslim community as the most representative of the Shiʿites propounding esotericism in Islam and, hence, their common designation as the Bāṭeniya (q.v.). This designation was also used in a derogatory sense accusing the Ismaʿilis of generally ignoring the ẓāher, or the &scaronariʿa.

The esoteric truths or ḥaqāʾeq formed a gnostic system of thought for the early Ismaʿilis, representing a distinct worldview. The two main components of this system, developed by the 280s/890s, were a cyclical history of revelations or prophetic eras and a gnostic cosmological doctrine. They applied their cyclical interpretation of time and the religious history of humankind to Judaeo-Christian revelations as well as a number of pre-Islamic religions such as Zoroastrianism with much appeal to non-Muslims. This conception of religious history, reflecting a variety of influences such as Hellenic, Judaeo-Christian, Gnostic as well as eschatological ideas of the earlier Shiʿites, was developed in terms of the eras of different prophets recognized in the Koran. This cyclical conception was also combined with the Ismaʿili doctrine of the imamate inherited from the earlier Imamis.

According to their cyclical view, the Ismaʿilis held that the religious history of humankind proceeded through seven prophetic eras (dawrs, q.v.) of various duration, each one inaugurated by a speaker or enunciator (nāṭeq) of a divinely revealed message which in its exoteric (ẓāher) aspect contained a religious law (&scaronariʿa). Each nāṭeq was, in turn, succeeded by a spiritual legatee (waṣi), also called the silent one (ṣāmet) and later the foundation (asās), who revealed to the elite the esoteric truths (ḥaqāʾeq) contained in the bāṭen dimension of that era&rsquos message. Each waṣi was succeeded by seven imams, who guarded the true meaning of the sacred scriptures and laws in their ẓāher and bāṭen aspects. The seventh imam, also called motemm, of every era would rise in rank to become the nāṭeq of the following era, abrogating the &scaronariʿa of the previous era and enunciating a new one. This pattern would change only in the seventh, final era of history. As the seventh imam of the sixth era, the era of the Prophet Moḥammad and Islam, Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil was initially expected to return as the Mahdi (or qāʾem) as well as the nāṭeq of the seventh eschatological era when, instead of promulgating a new law, he would fully reveal the esoteric truths of all the preceding revelations. This original cyclical view of religious history was modified after ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi&rsquos doctrinal reform. Recognizing continuity in the imamate, the seventh era now lost its earlier messianic appeal for the Fatimid Is-maʿilis, for whom the final eschatological era, whatever its nature, was postponed indefinitely into the future. On the other hand, the Qarmaṭis of Baḥrayn and elsewhere continued to consider Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as their Mahdi who, on his reappearance as the seventh nāṭeq, was expected to initiate the final age of pure spirituality (see F. Daftary, &ldquoDawr,&rdquo in EIr, VII, pp. 151-53 also Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ro&scarond, pp. 185-213 tr. Ivanow, 1955, pp. 29-59 Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ka&scaronf, pp. 14 ff., 103-4, 109-10, 113-14, 132-33, 138, 143, 150, 169-70 Qāżi Noʿmān, Asās al-taʾwil Sejestāni, Etbāt, pp. 181-93 Corbin, 1983, pp. 1-58 Madelung, 1961, pp. 51 ff., 82-90 Halm, 1978, pp. 18-37 Walker, 1978, 355-66).

The cosmological doctrine of the early Ismaʿilis may be reconstructed from the fragmentary evidence preserved in later Ismaʿili texts (see especially Stern, 1983, pp. 3-29 Halm, 1978, pp. 18-127, 206-27 idem, &ldquoThe Cosmology of the Pre-Fatimid Ismāʿīliyya,&rdquo in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 75-83). This doctrine, representing a gnostic cosmological myth, was espoused by the entire Ismaʿili (Qarmaṭi) movement until it was superseded by a new cosmology of Neoplatonic provenance. According to this doctrine, through His intention (erāda) and will (ma&scaroniʾa), God first created a light (nur) and addressed it with the Qurʾānic creative imperative kon (be!). Through the duplication of its two letters, kāf and nun, the name acquired its feminine form Kuni. On God&rsquos command, Kuni created from its light Qadar, its male assistant. Kuni and Qadar were thus the first two principles (aṣlān) of creation. It was out of the original heptad of consonantal letters of Kuni-Qadar, also called the higher letters (al-ḥoruf al-ʿolwiya), that all other letters and names emerged and with the names there simultaneously appeared the very things they symbolized. This doctrine explained how God&rsquos creative activity, through the intermediary of Kuni and Qadar, brought forth the beings of the spiritual world, also accounting for the creation of the lower physical world which culminated in the genesis of Man.


In this period, often referred to as the &ldquogolden age&rdquo of Ismaʿilism, the Ismaʿilis possessed an important state of their own and Ismaʿili thought and literature as well as daʿwa activities attained their summit. After his stay in Ramla, ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi arrived in Egypt in 291/904 where he spent a year. Subsequently, he was prevented from going to the Maghreb, where the dāʿi Abu ʿAbd-Allāh al-&Scaroniʿi had been successfully active among the Kotāma Berbers from 280/893 (see Qāżi Noʿman, Eftetāḥ, pp. 71-222 Dachraoui, pp. 57-122 Halm, Empire of the Mahdi, pp. 9-128 M. Talbi, L&rsquoÉmirat Aghlabide 184-296/800-909, Paris, 1966, pp. 579-672), because the Aḡlabid rulers of the region and their ʿAbbasid overlords had discovered the Imam&rsquos plans and awaited to arrest him. ʿAbd-Allāh now headed for the remote town of Sejelmāsa, in southern Morocco, where he lived quietly for four years (292-96/905-9), maintaining his contacts with Abu ʿAbd-Allāh who had already commenced his conquest of Efriqia (the eastern part of the Maghreb) with the help of his Kotāma soldier-tribesmen. By 296/908, this Kotāma army had achieved much success signaling the fall of the Aḡlabids. On 1 Rajab 296/25 March 909, Abu ʿAbd-Allāh entered Raqqāda, the royal city outside of the Aḡlabid capital of Qayrawān, from where he governed Efriqia, as al-Mahdi&rsquos deputy, for almost a whole year. In Ramażān 296/June 909, he set off at the head of his army for Sejalmāsa to hand over the reins of power to the Ismaʿili imam himself. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi was acclaimed as caliph in a special ceremony in Sejelmāsa on 7 Du&rsquol-Ḥejja 296/27 August 909. With these events the dawr al-satr in early Ismaʿilism had also ended. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi entered Raqqāda on 20 Rabiʿ II 297/4 January 910 and was immediately acclaimed as caliph (for a detailed eyewitness account of the establishment of Fatimid rule, see Ebn al-Haytam, Ketāb al-Monāẓarāt). The Ismaʿili Shiʿite caliphate of the Fatimids had now officially commenced in Efriqia. The new dynasty was named Fatimid (Fāṭemiya) after the Prophet&rsquos daughter, Fāṭema, to whom al-Mahdi and his successors traced their ʿAlid ancestry.

The Fatimids did not abandon the Ismaʿili daʿwa on assuming power, as they entertained universal aspirations aiming to extend their rule over the entire Muslim community. However, the early Fatimid caliph-imams, ruling from Efriqia, encountered numerous difficulties while consolidating their power. In particular, they confronted the hostility of the Kharijite Berbers and the Sunni inhabitants of Qayrawān and other cities of Efriqia led by their Māleki jurists. Under the circumstances, the Ismaʿili daʿwa remained rather inactive in North Africa for some time (Madelung, 1999, pp. 97-104). Fatimid rule was established firmly in the Maghreb only under al-Moʿezz le-Din Allāh (341-365/953-975), who succeeded in transforming the Fatimid caliphate from a regional state into a great empire. He was also the first Fatimid caliph-imam to concern himself significantly with the propagation of the Ismaʿili daʿwa outside the Fatimid dominions, especially after the transference of the seat of the Fatimid state in 362/973 to Egypt, where he founded Cairo as his new capital city. The daʿwa policy of al-Moʿezz was based on a number of religio-political considerations. In particular, he was apprehensive of the success of the Qarmaṭi propaganda which not only undermined the efforts of the Fatimid Ismaʿili dāʿis operating in the same lands, notably Iraq, Persia and Transoxania, but also aroused the general anti-Ismaʿili sentiments of the Sunni Muslims who did not distinguish between the Ismaʿilis and the Qarmaṭis who had acquired a reputation for irreligiosity and lawlessness. Al-Moʿezz&rsquos policies soon bore fruit as the Ismaʿili daʿwa and Fatimid cause were reinvigorated outside the Fatimid state. Most notably, Abu Yaʿqub Sejestāni (q.v.), the dāʿi of Sistān, Makrān and Khorasan, who had earlier belonged to the dissident Qarmaṭi faction, transferred his allegiance to the Fatimids and, consequently, many of his followers in Persia and Central Asia acknowledged the Fatimid caliph-imam. Ismaʿilism also acquired a stronghold in Moltan, Sind, where an Ismaʿili principality was established.

The caliph-imam al-Moʿezz also permitted into the teachings of the Fatimid daʿwa the Neoplatonic cosmology elaborated by the dāʿis of the Iranian lands. Henceforth, this Neoplatonized cosmology was advocated by the Fatimid dāʿis in preference to the earlier mythological doctrine. In the course of the 9th/10th century, Moḥammad Nasafi, Abu Ḥātem Rāzi and Sejestāni had set about harmonizing their Ismaʿili Shiʿite theology with Neoplatonic philosophy. This led to the development of a unique intellectual tradition of philosophical theology in Ismaʿilism. These dāʿis wrote for the educated classes of society and aimed to attract them intellectually. This is why they expressed their theology, always revolving around the central Shiʿite doctrine of the imamate, in terms of the then most intellectually fashionable terminologies and themes. The Iranian dāʿis elaborated complex metaphysical systems of thought with a distinct Neoplatonized emanational cosmology. In this cosmology, fully elaborated in Sejestāni&rsquos Ketāb al-yanābiʿ and other works, God is described as absolutely transcendent, beyond being and non-being, and thus unknowable (Sejestāni, Ka&scaronf al-maḥjub, pp. 4-15). Here, the Neoplatonic dyad of universal intellect (ʿaql) and universal soul (nafs) in the spiritual world replace Kuni and Qadar of the earlier cosmology and the emanational chain of creation is traced finally to Man, while recognizing that God created everything in the spiritual and physical worlds all at once (Sejestāni, Etbāt, pp. 2-3, 28 Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw, Jāmeʿ al-ḥekmatayn, pp. 210-32). These dāʿis also expounded a doctrine of salvation as part of their cosmology. In their soteriology, the ultimate goal of salvation is the human soul&rsquos progression towards his Creator in quest of a spiritual reward in an eternal afterlife. This depended on guidance provided by the authorized sources of wisdom in every era of history (see Daftary, 1990, pp. 234-45 Walker, 1993, pp. 67-142 idem, 1996, pp. 26-103). Neoplatonic philosophy also influenced the cosmology elaborated by the Isma ʿili-connected Eḵwān al-Ṣafāʾ (q.v.). It was also in al-Moʿezz&rsquos time that Ismaʿili law was codified and its precepts began to be observed by the judiciary throughout the Fatimid state.

The Ismaʿilis had high esteem for learning and created distinctive traditions and institutions of learning under the Fatimids. The Fatimid daʿwa was particularly concerned with educating the converts in Ismaʿili esoteric doctrine, known as the ḥekma or &ldquowisdom.&rdquo As a result, a variety of lectures or &ldquoteaching sessions,&rdquo generally designated as majāles (singular, majles), were organized. The private lectures on Ismaʿili esoteric doctrine, known as the majāles al-ḥekma or &ldquosessions of wisdom,&rdquo were reserved exclusively for the Ismaʿili initiates who had already taken the oath of allegiance and secrecy. The lectures, delivered by the dāʿi al-doʿāt at the Fatimid palace, were approved beforehand by the imam. Only the imam was the source of the ḥekma and the chief dāʿi, commonly called bāb (the Gate) in Ismaʿili sources, was merely the imam&rsquos mouthpiece through whom the Is-maʿilis received their knowledge of Ismaʿili esoteric doctrines (see Kermāni, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, pp. 135, 138, 143, 205-8, 212-14). Many of these majāles were in due course collected and committed to writing. This Fatimid tradition of learning culminated in the Majāles al-Moʾayyadiya of the dāʿi al-Moʾayyad fi&rsquol-Din &Scaronirāzi (see Maqrizi, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 390-91 Qalqa&scaronandi, X, pp. 434-39 Halm, &ldquoThe Ismaʿili Oath of Allegiance,&rdquo pp. 98-112 idem, 1997, pp. 23-29, 41-55 Walker, 1997, pp. 182-86). Another main institution of learning founded by the Fatimids was the Dār al-ʿElm, the House of Knowledge, sometimes also called Dār al-Ḥekma. Established in 395/1005 by the caliph-imam al-Ḥākem (386-411/996-1021), a variety of religious and non-religious subjects were taught here and it was also equipped with a major library. Many Fatimid dāʿis received at least part of their training at the Dār al-ʿElm (Maqrizi, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 458-60 Halm, 1997, pp. 71-77 Walker, 1997, pp. 189-93).

Information on the structure and functioning of the Is-maʿili daʿwa organization was among the most guarded secrets of Ismaʿilism. The religio-political messages of the daʿwa were disseminated by networks of dāʿis within the Fatimid dominions as well as in other regions referred to as the jazāʾer (singular, jazira, &ldquoisland&rdquo). Each jazira was placed under the charge of a high-ranking dāʿi referred to as ḥojja and every ḥojja had a number of dāʿis of different ranks working under him. Organized in a strictly hierarchical manner, the Fatimid daʿwa was under the overall supervision of the imam and the dāʿi al-doʿāt, or bāb, who acted as its administrative head. The daʿwa organization developed over time and reached its full elaboration under the caliph-imam al-Mostanṣer (see Daftary, &ldquoDāʿī,&rdquo in EIr, VI, pp. 590-92 idem, 1990, pp. 224-32 Stern, 1972, pp. 437-50 Hamdani, 1976, pp. 85-114). It was in non-Fatimid regions, in the jazāʾer, especially Yaman, Persia and Central Asia, that the Fatimid daʿwa achieved lasting success (Daftary, 1999, pp. 29-43 idem, &ldquoMedieval Ismaʿilis,&rdquo pp. 48-61). The daʿwa was intensified in Iraq and Persia under al-Ḥākem. Foremost among the dāʿis of this period was Ḥamid al-Din Kermāni (q.v.). A learned philosopher, he harmonized Ismaʿili theology with a variety of philosophical traditions in developing his own metaphysical system. In fact, Kermāni&rsquos thought represents a unique tradition within the Iranian school of philosophical Ismaʿilism. He expounded a particular cosmology, replacing the Neoplatonic dyad of intellect and soul in the spiritual world by a system of ten separate intellects in partial adaptation of Fārābi&rsquos Aristotelian cosmic system (Kermāni, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, pp. 134 ff.) Kermāni&rsquos cosmology was not adopted by the Fatimid daʿwa it later provided the basis for the fourth and final stage in the evolution of Ismaʿili cosmology at the hands of Ṭayyebi Mostaʿli dāʿis of Yaman (see W. Madelung, &ldquoCosmogony and Cosmology. vi. In Ismaʿilism,&rdquo in EIr, VI, pp. 323-24 de Smet, 1995, pp. 16-377 Walker, 1999, pp. 80-117). Al-Ḥākem&rsquos reign also coincided with the initial phase of what was to become known as the Druze religion, founded by a number of dāʿis who had come to Cairo from Persia and Central Asia, notably Aḵram, Ḥamza, and Darzi. These dāʿis proclaimed the end of the era of Islam and declared the divinity of al-Ḥākem. Kermāni was officially invited to Cairo around 405/1014 to refute the new extremist doctrines from a theological perspective (M. G. S. Hodgson, &ldquoDuruz,&rdquo in EI ² II, pp. 631-34 Bryer).

The Ismaʿili daʿwa activities outside the Fatimid dominions reached their peak in the long reign of al-Mostanṣer (427-487 /1036-1094), even after the Sunni Saljuqs had replaced the Shiʿite Buyids as overlords of the ʿAbbasids in 447/1055. The Fatimid dāʿis won many converts in Iraq and different parts of Persia and Central Asia. One of the most prominent dāʿis of this period was al-Moʾayyad fe&rsquol-Din &Scaronirāzi who after his initial career in Fars settled in Cairo and played an active role in the affairs of the Fatimid dawla and Ismaʿili daʿwa. In 450/1058, al-Mostanṣer appointed him as dāʿi al-doʿāt, a post he held for twenty years, with the exception of a brief period, until his death in 470/1078 (see al-Moʾayyad fe&rsquol-Din, Sirat Klemm, pp. 2-63, 136-92). Al-Moʾayyad established closer relations between Cairo and several jaziras, especially Yaman where Ismaʿilism had persisted in a dormant form throughout the 4th/10th century. By the time of al-Mostanṣer, the leadership of the daʿwa in Yaman had fallen into the hands of the dāʿi ʿAli b. Moḥammad al-Ṣolayḥi, an important chieftain of the Banu Hamdān in the mountainous region of Ḥarāz. ʿAli al-Ṣolayḥi rose in Ḥarāz in 439/1047, marking the effective foundation of the Ṣolayḥid dynasty ruling over different parts of Yaman as vassals of the Fatimids until 532/1138. On ʿAli&rsquos death in 459/1067, Lamak b. Mālek Ḥammādi was appointed as chief dāʿi of Yaman while ʿAli&rsquos son Aḥmad al-Mokarram succeeded his father merely as head of the Ṣolayḥid state. The dāʿi Lamak had earlier spent five years in Cairo, studying with the chief dāʿi al-Moʾayyad. From the latter part of Aḥmad al-Mokarram&rsquos reign, during which time the Ṣolayḥids lost much of Yaman to Zaydis there, effective authority in the Ṣolayḥid state was transferred to al-Mokarram&rsquos consort, al-Maleka al-Sayyeda Ḥorra. She also played an increasingly important role in the affairs of the Yamani daʿwa culminating in her appointment as the ḥojja of Yaman by al-Mostanṣer. This represented the first application of a high rank in the daʿwa hierarchy to a woman (ʿOmāra b. ʿAli al-Ḥakami, Taʾriḵ al-Yaman, in Kay, 1892, text pp. 1-102, tr. pp. 1-137 Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1955, pp. 62-231). The Ṣolayḥids also played an active part in the renewed efforts of the Fatimids to spread the daʿwa on the Indian subcontinent (see al-Mostanṣer, al-Sejellāt, pp. 167-69, 203-6). The Ismaʿili community founded in Gojarāt by dāʿis sent from Yaman in the second half of the 5th/11th century evolved into the modern day Ṭayyebi Bohra community.

Meanwhile, the Ismaʿili daʿwa had continued to spread in many parts of the Iranian world, now incorporated into the Saljuq sultanate. By the early 460s/1070s, the Persian Ismaʿilis in the Saljuq dominions were under the leadership of ʿAbd al-Malek b. ʿAṭṭā&scaron who had his secret headquarters in Isfahan. He was also responsible for launching the career of Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.) who in due course led the Ismaʿili daʿwa in Persia. In Badaḵ&scaronān and other eastern parts of the Iranian world too the daʿwa had continued to spread after the downfall of the Sāmānids in 395/1005 (Ebn al-Atir, IX, pp. 211, 358, X, pp. 122 ff., 165-66 Barthold, pp. 251, 304-5, 316-18). One of the most eminent dāʿis of al-Mostanṣer&rsquos time, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow played an important part in propagating Is-maʿilism in Central Asia as the ḥojja of Khorasan he also spread the daʿwa to Ṭabarestān and other Caspian provinces. It was mainly during his period of exile in Yomgān that Nāṣer extended the daʿwa throughout Badaḵ&scaronān while maintaining his contacts with the dāʿi al-Moʾayyad and the daʿwa headquarters in Cairo. In fact, the Ismaʿilis of Badaḵ&scaronān, now divided between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, and their offshoot groups in the Hindu Kush region, now situated in Hunza and other northern areas of Pakistan, regard &Scaronāh Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw as the founder of their communities (Ivanow, 1948 Berthels, Nasir-i Khosrov Corbin, &ldquoNāṣir-i Khusrau,&rdquo pp. 520-42 Daftary, 1990, pp. 215-18 Hunsberger, pp. 220-54). By the time the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn was finally uprooted in 470/1077-78 by some local tribal chieftains, other Qarmaṭi groups in Persia, Iraq, and elsewhere too had either disintegrated or switched their allegiance to the Ismaʿili daʿwa of the Fatimids. There was now, once gain, only one unified Ismaʿili daʿwa under the supreme leadership of the Fatimid caliph-imam.

During the long reign of al-Mostanṣer the Fatimid caliphate had already embarked on its decline resulting from factional fighting in the Fatimid armies and other political and economic difficulties. The unruliness of the Turkish troops led to a complete breakdown of law and order, and drove al-Mostanṣer to appeal to Badr al-Jamāli, an Armenian general in the service of the Fatimids, for help. Badr arrived in Cairo in 466/1074 and soon assumed the leadership of civil, judicial and religious administration in addition to being &ldquocommander of the armies&rdquo (amir al-joyu&scaron), his main source of power. He managed to restore peace and relative prosperity to Egypt in the course of his long vizierate of some twenty years, as the de facto ruler of the Fatimid state. Badr died in 487/1094, having arranged for his son Afżal to succeed him in the vizierate. Henceforth, real power in the Fatimid state remained in the hands of the Fatimid viziers who also commanded the troops, whence their title of &ldquoVizier of the Sword&rdquo (wazir al-sayf). They were also in charge of the daʿw organization and activities.

Al-Mostanṣer, the eighth Fatimid caliph and eighteenth Ismaʿili imam, died in Du&rsquol-Ḥejja 487/December 1094, a few months after Badr al-Jamāli. Thereupon, the unified Ismaʿili daʿwa split into two rival factions, as al-Mostanṣer&rsquos son and original heir-designate, Nezār, was deprived of his succession rights by Afżal who quickly installed Nezār&rsquos younger half-brother to the Fatimid throne with the title of al-Mostaʿli be&rsquollāh (487-95/1094-1101). The two factions were later designated as the Nezāriya and Mostaʿliya. Afżal immediately obtained for al-Mostaʿli the allegiance of the notables of the Fatimid court and the leaders of the Ismaʿili daʿwa in Cairo who now also recognized al-Mostaʿli&rsquos imamate. Nezār refused to pay homage to al-Mostaʿli and fled to Alexandria where he rose in revolt, but he was defeated and killed in 488/1095. The imamate of al-Mostaʿli was recognized by the Ismaʿili communities of Egypt, Yaman, and western India. These Ismaʿilis, who depended on the Fatimid regime, later traced the imamate in the progeny of al-Mostaʿli. The bulk of the Ismaʿilis of Syria, too, joined the Mostaʿli camp. On the other hand, the Ismaʿilis of Persia who were then already under the leadership of Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ supported the succession rights of Nezār. The Central Asian Ismaʿilis seem to have remained uninvolved in the Nezāri-Mostaʿli schism for quite some time (al-Mostanṣer, al-Sejellāt, pp. 109-18 Ebn al-Qalānesi, p. 128 Ebn Moyassar, pp. 59 ff., Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 443 ff. Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, III, pp. 11 ff. idem, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 422-23 Ebn Taḡriberdi, V, pp. 142-45).

The Fatimid state survived for another 77 years after the Nezāri-Mostaʿli schism of 487/1094. These decades witnessed the rapid decline of the Fatimid caliphate which was beset by continuing crises. Al-Mostaʿli and his successors on the Fatimid throne, who were mostly minors and remained powerless in the hands of their viziers, continued to be recognized as imams by the Mostaʿli Is-maʿilis who themselves soon split into Ḥāfeẓi and Ṭayyebi branches. After al-Mostaʿli&rsquos premature death in 495/1101, the all-powerful vizier Afżal placed his five-year-old son on the throne with the caliphal title of al-Āmer be-Aḥkām Allāh. Afżal was murdered in 515/1121 and when al-Āmer himself was assassinated in 524/1130, the Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis were confronted with a major crisis of succession. A son, named Ṭayyeb, had been born to al-Āmer a few months before his death and he had been designated as the heir. But on al-Āmer&rsquos death, power was assumed by his cousin, ʿAbd-al-Majid, the eldest member of the Fatimid family, and nothing more was heard of Ṭayyeb. After a brief confusing period in Fatimid history, when Twelver Shiʿism instead of Ismaʿilism was adopted as the official religion of the Fatimid state by Afżµal&rsquos son Kotayfāt who had succeeded to the vizierate, ʿAbd al-Majid re-emerged on the scene in 526/1132, proclaiming himself as caliph and imam with the title of al-Ḥāfeż le-Din Allāh and Ismaʿilism was reinstated as the state&rsquos religion (Ebn al-Qalānesi, pp. 203, 229, 242 ff., 262, 270, 272-73, 295-96, 308 Ebn Ẓāfer, pp. 94-101 Ebn Moyassar, pp. 113-41 Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 506-56 Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, III, pp. 135-92 Ebn Tāḡriberdi, V, pp. 237-87).

The irregular proclamation of al-Ḥāfeẓ as imam, whose father had not been imam previously, caused a major schism in Mostaʿli Ismaʿilism. As in the case of the Nezāri-Mostaʿli split, the Mostaʿli daʿwa headquarters in Cairo endorsed the imamate of al-Ḥāfeẓ, who claimed al-Āmer had personally designated him (see Qalqa&scaronandi, IX, pp. 291-97). Therefore, it was also acknowledged by the Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis of Egypt and Syria as well as a portion of the Mostaʿlis of Yaman. These Ismaʿilis, who recognized al-Ḥāfeẓ and the later Fatimid caliphs as their imams, became known as the Ḥāfeẓiya. On the other hand, the Ṣolayḥid queen of Yaman, al-Sayyeda, who had already drifted away from Cairo, upheld Ṭayyeb&rsquos cause and recognized him as al-Āmer&rsquos successor to the imamate. As a result, the Mostaʿli community of the Ṣolayḥid state, too, recognized Ṭayyeb&rsquos imamate. These Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis of Yaman, with some minority groups in Egypt and Syria, initially known as the Āmeriya, became later designated as the Ṭayyebiya. Ḥāfeẓiya Is-maʿilism disappeared completely soon after the collapse of the Fatimid dynasty and caliphate. The Ayyubid Ṣalāḥ al-Din, the last Fatimid vizier, ended Fatimid rule in 567/1171 and thereafter persecuted the Ismaʿilis of Egypt. Henceforth, Mostaʿli Ismaʿilism survived only in its Ṭayyebi form (Casanova, pp. 415-45 Stern, 1951, pp. 193-255 Daftary, 1990, pp. 256-84).

Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilism found its permanent stronghold in Yaman, where it received the initial support of the Ṣolayḥid queen al-Sayyeda who had been looking after the affairs of the Mostaʿli daʿwa there with the help of the dāʿi Lamak b. Mālek Ḥammādi and then his son Yaḥyā (d. 520/1126). It was soon after 526/1132 that the Ṣolayḥid queen broke her relations with Cairo and declared Yaḥyā&rsquos successor Doʾayb b. Musā as the dāʿi moṭlaq, or dāʿi with absolute authority, to lead the affairs of the Ṭayyebi Mostaʿli daʿwa on behalf of Ṭayyeb, who was thought to be in hiding. This marked the foundation of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa independently of the Ṣolayḥid state. On Doʾayb&rsquos death in 546/1151, Ebrāhim Ḥāmedi succeeded to the headship of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa as the second dāʿi moṭlaq. The Ṭayyebi daʿwa spread successfully in the Ḥarāz region even though it did not receive the support of any Yamani rulers after the death of the Ṣolayḥid queen in 532/1138. After Ebrāhim Ḥāmedi (d. 557/1162), the position of dāʿi moṭlaq remained hereditary among his descendants until 605/1209 when it passed to ʿAli b. Moḥammad al-Walid of the Banu al-Walid al-Anf family of the Qoray&scaron, and it then remained in this family, with minor interruptions, until 946/1539. The Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis are of the opinion that in the current period of satr, initiated by Ṭayyeb&rsquos own concealment, their imamate has been handed down among his descendants down to the present time. All these imams have remained in concealment, and in their absence the dāʿi moṭlaqs lead the affairs of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa and community (Hamdani, 1970, pp. 279 ff. Daftary, 1990, pp. 285-91 idem, &ldquoSayyida Ḥurra: The Ismāʿīlī Ṣulayḥid Queen of Yemen,&rdquo in G. R. G. Hambly, ed., Women in the Medieval Islamic World, New York, 1998, pp. 117-30).

In the doctrinal field, the Ṭayyebis maintained the Fatimid traditions, and preserved a good portion of the Ismaʿili texts of the Fatimid period. Similarly to the Fatimids, they emphasized the equal importance of the ẓāher and bāṭen aspects of religion, also retaining the earlier interest of the Ismaʿilis in cyclical history and cosmology which served as the basis of their gnostic, esoteric ḥaqāʾeq system of religious thought with its distinctive eschatological themes. This system was founded largely by Ebrāhim Hāmedi who drew extensively on Kermāni&rsquos Rāḥat al-ʿaql and synthesized its cosmological doctrine of the ten separate intellects with gnostic mythical elements (see Hāmedi, Kanz al-walad). This represented the final modification of Neoplatonic cosmology in Ismaʿili thought (Corbin, 1983, pp. 37-58, 65 ff., 76 ff., 103 ff., 173-81 Daftary, 1990, pp. 291-97). The Ṭayyebi daʿwa organization has drawn on Fatimid antecedents with certain modifications. As in the case of imams, every dāʿi moṭlaq has appointed his successor by the rule of the naṣṣ. The dāʿi moṭlaq was normally assisted in the affairs of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa by several subordinate dāʿis designated as maʾdun and mokāser.

Meanwhile, the Ṭayyebi dāʿi moṭlaqs in Yaman maintained close relations with the Ṭayyebi community in western India. There, the Ismaʿili converts, mostly of Hindu descent, were known as Bohras, a name believed to have been derived from the Gojarāti term vohorvu meaning &ldquoto trade,&rdquo since the daʿwa originally spread among the trading community of Gojarāt. The Ismaʿili Bohras of Gojarāt were persecuted under the Sunni sultans of the region from 793/1391, forcing them to observe taqiya in the guise of Sunnism. With the establishment of Mongol rule in 980/1572, however, Bohras began to enjoy a certain degree of religious freedom and conversions to Sunni Islam ended.

On the death of the twenty-sixth dāʿi moṭlaq, Dāʾud b. ʿAjab&scaronāh, in 997/1589, his succession was disputed, leading to the Dāʾudi-Solaymāni schism in the Ṭayyebi daʿwa and community. The great majority of Ṭayyebis, then located in India, acknowledged Dāʾud Borhān al-Din (d. 1021/1612) as their new dāʿi and became known as Dāʾudis. A small number of Yamani Ṭayyebis, too, supported the Dāʾudi cause. On the other hand, a minority of all Ṭayyebis, who accounted for the bulk of the community in Yaman, recognized Solaymān b. Ḥasan (d. 1005/1597) as their new, twenty-seventh dāʿi they became known as Solaymānis. Henceforth, the Dāʾudi and Solay-māni Ṭayyebis followed separate lines of dāʿis. The Dāʾudi dāʿis continued to reside in India, while the headquarters of the Solaymāni daʿwa were established in Yaman (Moḥammad ʿAli, Mawsem-e bahār, III, pp. 169-259 Misra, pp. 27-31 Daftary, 1990, pp. 299-306). Subsequently, the Dāʾudi Bohras were further subdivided in India due to periodical challenges to the authority of their dāʿi moṭlaq.

In 1200/1785, the headquarters of the Dāʾudi daʿwa was transferred to Surat, where the forty-third dāʿi, ʿAbd ʿAli Sayf al-Din (1213-32/1798-1817), founded a seminary known as Sayfi Dars, also Jāmeʿa Sayfia, for the education of Dāʾudi scholars and the functionaries of the community. This seminary, with a major library, has continued to serve as an institution of traditional Islamic learning for the Dāʾudi Bohras. Since 1232/1817, the office of the dāʿi moṭlaq of the Dāʾudi Ṭayyebis has remained among the descendants of &Scaronayḵ Jiwanji Awrangā-bādi, while the community has experienced intermittent strife and crisis rooted in opposition to the dāʿi&rsquos authority. The present dāʿi moṭlaq of the Dāʾudi daʿwa, Sayyednā Borhān al-Din, succeeded to his position as the fifty-second in the series in 1385/1965. The total Dāʾudi population of the world is currently (2002) estimated at around 900,000, located mainly in South Asia. Since the 1920s, Bombay, with its largest single concentration of Dāʾudi Bohras, has served as the permanent administrative seat of the Dāʾudi dāʿi moṭlaq. The Ṭayyebi Bohras, together with the Nezāri Khojas, were also among the earliest Asian communities to settle, during the nineteenth century and subsequently, in East Africa (Amiji, 1969, pp. 141-81 idem, 1975, pp. 27-61).

In Yaman, the leadership of the Solaymāni Ṭayyebis has remained hereditary, since 1088/1677, with few exceptions, in the same Makrami family. Unlike the Dāʾudis, the Solaymānis have not experienced succession disputes and schisms. The Solaymāni dāʿis established their headquarters in Najrān, in northeastern Yaman, and ruled over that region with the military support of the local Banu Yām. In the twentieth century, the political prominence of the Solaymāni dāʿis, checked earlier by the Ottomans, was further curtailed by the Saʿudi family Najran was, in fact, annexed to Saudi Arabia in 1353/1934. The present dāʿi moṭlaq of the Solaymānis, the forty-ninth in the series, Sayyednā &Scaronarafi Ḥosayn Makrami who succeeded to office in 1396/1976, lives in Saudi Arabia. At present, the Solaymāni Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis of Yaman number around 70,000 persons. The Solaymāni Bohras represent a very small community of a few thousands in India (Daftary, 1990, pp. 318-23).


By 487/1094, Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.), who preached the Ismaʿili daʿwa on behalf of the Fatimids within the Saljuq dominions in Persia, had emerged as the leader of the Persian Ismaʿilis. He had already been following an independent policy, and his seizure of the mountain fortress of Alamut (q.v.) in 483/1090 signalled the commencement of an open revolt against the Saljuq Turks as well as the foundation of what was to become the Nezāri Ismaʿili state. As an Ismaʿili Shiʿite, Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ could not have tolerated the anti-Shiʿite policies of the Saljuqs, who as the new champions of Sunni Islam aimed to uproot the Fatimids. Ḥasan&rsquos revolt was also an expression of Persian &ldquonational&rdquo sentiments, as the alien rule of the Saljuq Turks was intensely detested by the Persians of different social classes. This may explain why he substituted Persian for Arabic as the religious language of the Ismaʿilis of Persia (see Daftary, &ldquoḤasan-i Ṣabbāḥ and the Origins of the Nizārī Ismaʿili Movement,&rdquo in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 181-204). It was under such circumstances that in al-Mostanṣer&rsquos succession dispute Ḥasan supported Nezār&rsquos cause and severed his relations with the Fatimid regime and the daʿwa headquarters in Cairo which had supported al-Mostaʿli. By this decision, Ḥasan had founded the independent Nezāri Ismaʿili daʿwa on behalf of the Nezāri imam. As a result of this decision, the Nezāri daʿwa survived the downfall of the Fatimid dynasty, a pattern similar to the subsequent fate of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa in Yaman (Jovayni, III, pp. 186-216 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 666-83 Ra&scaronid al-Din, pp. 97-137 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 133-72 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 41-98 Daftary, 1990, pp. 324-71).

The revolt of the Persian Ismaʿilis soon acquired a distinctive pattern and method of struggle, adapted to the decentralized power structure of the Saljuq sultanate and their much superior military power. Ḥasan devised a strategy to overwhelm the Saljuqs locality by locality and from a multitude of impregnable mountain strongholds. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ did not divulge the name of Nezār&rsquos successor to the imamate. In fact, numismatic evidence shows that Nezār&rsquos own name appeared on coins minted at Alamut for about seventy years after his death in 488/1095, while his progeny were blessed anonymously (Miles, pp. 155-62). The early Nezāri Ismaʿilis were thus left without an accessible imam in another dawr al-satr and, as in the pre-Fatimid period of concealment, the absent imam was represented in the community by a ḥojja, his chief representative. Ḥasan and his next two successors at Alamut as heads of the Nezāri daʿwa and state, were recognized as such ḥojjas (Haft bāb-e Bābā Sayyednā, pp. 21-22 Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text p. 23). It seems that already in Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ&rsquos time many Nezāris believed that a son or grandson of Nezār had been secretly brought from Egypt to Persia, and he became the progenitor of the line of the Nezāri imams who later emerged at Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 180-81, 231-37 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 663, 691-95 Ra&scaronid al-Din, pp. 79, 166-68 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 115, 202-4).

From early on in the Alamut period, the outsiders had the impression that the Persian Ismaʿilis had initiated a &ldquonew preaching&rdquo (al-daʿwa al-jadida) in contrast to the &ldquoold preaching&rdquo (al-daʿwa al-qadima) of the Fatimid times. The &ldquonew preaching&rdquo did not, however, represent any new doctrines it was merely a reformulation of the old Shiʿite doctrine of taʿlim, or authoritative teaching by the imam. It was mainly Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ himself who restated this doctrine in a theological treatise entitled al-Foṣul al-arbaʿa, or The Four Chapters. This treatise, originally written in Persian, has been preserved only in parts (see &Scaronahrastāni, pp. 150-52 tr. Gimaret and Monnot, I, pp. 560-65 Jovayni, III, pp. 195-99 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 671-73 Ra&scaronid-al-Din, pp. 105-7 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 142-43 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 51-61, 325-28). The doctrine of taʿlim, emphasizing the autonomous teaching authority of each imam in his own time, became the central doctrine of the Nezāris who, henceforth, were designated also as the Taʿlimiya. The intellectual challenge posed to the Sunni establishment by the doctrine of taʿlim, which also refuted the legitimacy of the ʿAbbasid caliph as the spiritual spokesman of all Muslims, called forth the reaction of the Sunnis. Many Sunni scholars, led by Ḡazāli, attacked the Ismaʿili doctrine of taʿlim (see Ḡazāli, Fażāʾeḥ al-Bāṭeniya, ed. ʿA. Badawi, Cairo, 1964 Mitha, pp. 28-102).

By 489/1096, when the fortress of Lamasar was seized, Ḥasan had acquired or built numerous mountain strongholds in Rudbār, the center of Nezāri power. At the same time, the Ismaʿilis had come to possess a network of fortresses and several towns in Qohestān, in southeastern Khorasan, which remained the second most important territory of the Nezāri state. Later, the Nezāris acquired Gerdkuh (q.v.) and other fortresses in the regions of Qumes, Arrajān and Zagros. By the opening years of the 6th/12th century, Ḥasan had begun to extend his activities into Syria by sending Persian dāʿis from Alamut. By the final years of Ḥasan&rsquos life, the anti-Saljuq revolt of the Persian Nezāris had lost its effectiveness, much in the same way that the Saljuqs under Barkiāroq and Moḥammad Tapar had failed in their prolonged military campaigns to uproot the Persian Ismaʿilis from their strongholds. The Ismaʿili-Saljuq relations had now entered a new phase of &ldquostalemate&rdquo (Daftary, 1990, pp. 340-44, 361-65 Hillenbrand, pp. 205-20).

After Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ&rsquos death in 518/1124, Kiā Bozorg-Omid (q.v.) followed as the head of the Nezāri daʿwa and state. A capable administrator like his predecessor, Bozorg-Omid (518-32/1124-38) maintained the policies of Ḥasan and further strengthened and extended the Nezāri state. The Ismaʿili-Saljuq stalemate essentially continued during the long reign of Bozorg-Omid&rsquos son Mo-ḥammad (532-57/1138-62) as the third lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 216-22 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 683-86 Ra&scaronid al-Din, pp. 137-61 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 172-99 Daftary, 1990, pp. 371-86). By then, the Nezāri state had acquired its distinctive administrative structure. Each Nezāri territory was placed under the overall leadership of a chief dāʿi appointed from Alamut the leader of the Qohestāni Nezāris was known as moḥta&scaronam. These dāʿis, as well as the commanders of major strongholds, enjoyed a large degree of independence and local initiative, contributing to the dynamism and resilience of the Nezāri movement. Being preoccupied with their struggle and survival in an extremely hostile environment, the Nezāris produced military commanders rather than learned theologians of the types operating under the Fatimids. Consequently, the literary activities of the Nezāris were rather limited during the Alamut period. Nevertheless, the early Nezāris did maintain a sophisticated outlook and a literary tradition, elaborating their teachings in response to changed circumstances. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ himself is credited with establishing an impressive library at Alamut. Other major fortresses in Persia and Syria, too, were later equipped with significant collections of manuscripts, documents and scientific instruments. Firmly united with a remarkable sense of mission, the Nezāris acknowledged the supreme leadership of Alamut and obeyed without any dissent the religious policies initiated at that fortress initially by the Nezāri imam&rsquos ḥojjas and, subsequently, by the imams themselves. Meanwhile, the Nezāris had been eagerly expecting the appearance of their imam, who had remained inaccessible since Nezār&rsquos murder in 488/1095.

The fourth lord of Alamut, Ḥasan II (q.v.), to whom the Nezāris referred with the expression ʿalā ḏekrehe&rsquol-salām (on his mention be peace), succeeded to leadership in 557/1162 and, soon after, declared the qiāma or resurrection initiating a new phase in the religious history of the early Nezāris. On 17 Ramażān 559/8 August 1164, in the presence of the representatives of different Nezāri communities who had gathered at Alamut, he delivered a sermon in which he proclaimed the qiāma, the long awaited Last Day. About two months later, a similar ceremony was held at the fortress of Moʾmenābād, near Birjand, and the earlier ḵoṭba and message were read out by Raʾis Moẓaffar, the moḥta&scaronam in Qohestān. There, Ḥasan II&rsquos position was more clearly equated with that of al-Mostanṣer as God&rsquos caliph (ḵalifa) on earth, implicitly claiming the status of imam for the lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 222-39 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 686-97 Ra&scaronid-al-Din, pp. 162-70 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 199-208 Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text pp. 19, 24, 38-39, 40-44, 46-47, 53, 58, tr. pp. 19, 23, 38, 40-44, 46-47, 53-54, 58 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 146-59 Lewis, 1967, pp. 70-75, Daftary, 1990, pp. 385-91).

Ḥasan II relied heavily on Ismaʿili taʾwil and earlier traditions, interpreting qiāma symbolically and spiritually for the Nezāris. Accordingly, qiāma meant nothing more than the manifestation of unveiled truth (ḥaqiqa) in the person of the Nezāri imam it was a spiritual resurrection only for the Nezāris who acknowledged the rightful imam of the time and were now capable of understanding the truth, the esoteric essence of Islam. It was in this sense that Paradise was actualized for the Nezāris in this world. The Nezāris, like Sufis, were now to rise to a spiritual level of existence, from ẓāher to bāṭen, from &scaronariʿa to ḥaqiqa, or from the literal interpretation of the law to an understanding of its spiritual essence and the eternal truths. On the other hand, the &ldquooutsiders,&rdquo the non-Nezāris who were incapable of recognizing the truth, were rendered spiritually non-existent. The imam proclaiming the qiāma would be the qāʾem al-qiāma, or the lord of resurrection, a rank which in Ismaʿili religious hierarchy was always higher than that of an ordinary imam.

Ḥasan II&rsquos son and successor Nur-al-Din Moḥammad devoted his long reign (561-607/1166-1210) to a systematic doctrinal elaboration of the qiāma. The exaltation of the autonomous teaching authority of the present Nezāri imam now became the central feature of the Nezāri thought and qiāma came to imply a complete personal transformation of the Nezāris who were expected to perceive the imam in his true spiritual reality. Nur-al-Din Moḥammad also made every Nezāri imam potentially a qāʾem, capable of inaugurating the era of qiāma. In the spiritual world of resurrection there would no longer be any need for ranks of the daʿwa intervening between the imam-qāʾem and his followers. There would now remain only three categories of persons, reflecting different levels of existence in terms of relationships to the Nezāri imam. There are the &ldquopeople of opposition&rdquo (ahl-e tażādd), the non-Nezāris who exist only in the realm of appearances (ẓāher) and are spiritually non-existent. Secondly, there are the ordinary followers of the Nezāri imam, the &ldquopeople of gradation&rdquo (ahl-e tarattob), who have penetrated the &scaronariʿa to its inner meaning. However, they have access only to partial truth, as they still do not fully understand the bāṭen. Finally, there are the &ldquopeople of union&rdquo (ahl-e vaḥdat), the Nezāri super-elite, or the aḵaṣṣ-e ḵāṣṣ, who perceived the imam in his true spiritual reality as the epiphany (maẓhar) of the word (kalema) of God (Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 104-5, 112, tr. pp. 119, 128-29 idem, Sayr, text pp. 17-18, tr. pp. 47-48) only they arrive at the realm of the ḥaqiqa, in a sense the bāṭen behind the bāṭen, where they find full truth and as such, they enjoy full salvation in the paradisal state actualized for them in this world. It seems that the privileged state of the ahl-e vaḥdat was attainable by only a few. Nur-al-Din Mo-ḥammad also explicitly affirmed the Nezārid Fatimid descent of his father and, therefore, himself, explaining that Ḥasan II was in fact imam and the son of a descendant of Nezār b. al-Mostanṣer who had earlier found refuge in Alamut. Henceforth, the Nezāris recognized the lords of Alamut, beginning with Ḥasan II, as their imams (Haft bāb-e Bābā Sayyednā, pp. 4-42 tr. Hodgson, in his Order of Assassins, pp. 279-324 Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 42, 44-45, 47-56, 98-99, 101-2, tr. pp. 46-47, 49-50, 52-63, 111-12, 115-16 Jovayni, III, 240-42 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 697-99 Ra&scaronid-al-Din, pp. 170-73 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 208-14 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 160-84, 210-17).

Meanwhile, the Syrian Nezāris had entered into an important phase of their history under Rā&scaroned-al-Din Senān, their most famous leader who had been appointed as chief dāʿi in Syria by Ḥasan II soon after his own accession in 557/1162. Senān reorganized and strengthened the Syrian Nezāri daʿwa, also consolidating their network of fortresses in the Jabal Bahrāʾ, in central Syria. Aiming to safeguard his community, he entered into intricate and shifting alliances with the major neighboring powers and rulers, notably the Crusaders, the Zangids and Ṣalāh-al-Din. Senān taught his own version of the doctrine of qiāma, which did not acquire deep roots in the Syrian Nezāri community. The only one of the Syrian dāʿis to act somewhat independently of Alamut, Senān led the Syrian Nezāris for almost three decades to the peak of their power and fame until his death in 589/1193 (Abu Ferās &Scaronehāb al-Din Maynaqi, Faṣl, in Guyard, pp. 387-489 B. Lewis, &ldquoKamāl al-Dīn&rsquos Biography of Rā&scaronid al-Dīn Sinān,&rdquo Arabica 13, 1966, pp. 225-67 idem, 1967, pp. 110-18 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 185-209 Mirza, pp. 22-39 Daftary, 1994, pp. 67-74, 94 ff.).

Nur-al-Din Moḥammad&rsquos son and successor, Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan (607-18/1210-21), proclaimed his own daring religious policy, aimed at redressing the isolation of the Nezāris from the larger world of Sunni Islam. Consequently, he publicly repudiated the doctrine of qiāma and ordered his followers to observe the &scaronariʿa in its Sunni form, inviting Sunni jurists to instruct his people. Indeed, Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan did his utmost to convince the outside world of his new policy. In 608/1211, the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Nāṣer acknowledged the Nezāri imam&rsquos rapprochement with Sunni Islam and issued a decree to that effect. Henceforth, the rights of Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan to Nezāri territories were officially recognized by the ʿAbbasid caliph, as well as by the Ḵvārazm-&Scaronāhs, who were then establishing their own empire in Persia as successors to the Saljuqs, and by other Sunni rulers. The Nezāris accepted their imam&rsquos new instructions without any opposition. They evidently viewed Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan&rsquos declarations as a reimposition of taqiya, which had been lifted in qiāma times the observance of taqiya could, thus, imply any type of accommodation to the outside world as deemed necessary by the infallible imam. Be that as it may, the Nezāri imam had now successfully achieved peace and security for his community and state (Jovayni, III, pp. 243-49 tr. Boyle, II, pp. 699-704 Ra&scaronid-al-Din, pp. 174-78 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 214-17 Hodgson, 1955, pp. 217-25 Daftary, 1990, pp. 404-7).

Under ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad (618-53/1221-55), Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan&rsquos son and successor as the penultimate lord of Alamut, the Sunni &scaronariʿa was gradually relaxed within the community and the Nezāri traditions associated with qiāma were revived, although the Nezāris continued to appear to outsiders in Sunni guise. The Nezāri leadership now also made a sustained effort to explain the different doctrinal declarations and religious policies of the lords of Alamut. All these teachings were interpreted comprehensively within a coherent theological framework, aiming to provide satisfactory explanations for the seemingly contradictory policies adopted at Alamut. Intellectual life indeed flourished in the long reign of ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad, receiving a special impetus from the influx of outside scholars, who fled the first waves of the Mongol invasions and took refuge in the Nezāri fortress communities. Foremost among such scholars, who availed themselves of the Nezāri libraries and patronage of learning, was Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, who made major contributions to the Nezāri Ismaʿili thought of the late Alamut period during his three decades amongst them in Qohestān and Rudbār.

It is mainly through Ṭusi&rsquos extant Ismaʿili writings, notably his Rowżat al-taslim, that we have an exposition of Nezāri thought of the Alamut period as it developed during qiāma and its aftermath. Qiāma, Ṭusi explained, was not necessarily a final eschatological event, but a transitory condition of life when the veil of taqiya would be lifted to make the unveiled truth accessible. In the current cycle of history, however, the full qiāma, or Great Resurrection (qiāmat-e qiāmāt) would still occur at the end of the era initiated by the Prophet Moḥammad. Be that as it may, the identification between &scaronariʿa and taqiya, implied by the teachings of Ḥasan II, was now made explicit by Ṭusi who also identified qiāma with ḥaqiqa. Thus, the imposition of the Sunni &scaronariʿa by Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan was presented as a return to taqiya, and to a new period of satr or concealment, when the truth (ḥaqiqa) would be once again concealed in the bāṭen of religion. The condition of qiāma could, in principle, be granted by the current Nezāri imam at any time, because every imam was potentially also an imam-qāʾem. Thus, Ṭusi now expounded a new doctrine of satr. In his integrated theological presentation, human life could alternate between periods of qiāma, when reality is manifest, and satr, when it would be concealed, requiring the observance of taqiya. In this sense, the term satr was redefined to imply the concealment of the religious truths and the true spiritual reality of the imam, and not the physical inaccessibility of his person, as had been the cases in the pre-Fatimid and early Alamut periods (Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 61-63, 101-2, 110, 117-19, 132-33, 143, 145, 147, tr. pp. 67-69, 115-16, 126, 136-38, 154-55, 173, and elsewhere Hodgson, 1955, pp. 225-38 Daftary, 1990, pp. 407-12). The teachings of the late Alamut period brought the Nezāris even closer to the esoteric traditions more commonly associated with Sufism.

Nezāri fortunes in Persia were rapidly reversed when the collapse of the Ḵvārazmian Empire brought them into direct confrontation with the invading Mongols. When the Great Khan Möngke decided to complete the Mongol conquests of western Asia, he assigned a priority to the destruction of the Nezāri Ismaʿili state, a task completed with some difficulty in 654/1256 by Hülegü who led the main Mongol expedition into Persia. Shortly before, in 653/1255, ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad had been succeeded by his eldest son Rokn-al-Din Ḵor&scaronāh, who would rule for exactly one year as the last lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 259-78 tr. Boyle, II, 712-25 Ra&scaronid-al-Din, pp. 185-95 Kā&scaronāni, pp. 224-33 Daftary, 1990, pp. 416 ff., 421-30). The youthful imam engaged in a complex, and ultimately futile, series of negotiations with Hülegü. On 29 &Scaronawwāl 654/19 November 1256, Ḵor&scaronāh descended from the fortress of Maymundez in Rudbār in the company of Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi and Nezāri dignitaries, and surrendered to the Mongols. With the fall of Alamut a month later, the fate of the Nezāri state was sealed. Alamut and many other fortresses were demolished. In the spring of 655/1257, Ḵor&scaronāh himself was killed by his Mongol guards in Mongolia, where he had gone to see the Great Khan. By then, the Mongols had massacred large numbers of Nezāris in their protective custody. Shortly afterwards, the Nezāri castles in Syria submitted to the Mamluks Kahf was the last Nezāri outpost there to fall in 671/1273. However, the Syrian Nezāris were permitted to remain in their traditional abodes as loyal subjects of the Mamluks and their successors. Having lost their political prominence, the Nezāris henceforth lived secretly in numerous scattered communities.


In the wake of the Mongol debacle, the Persian Nezāri Ismaʿilis survived the downfall of their state and strongholds. Many migrated to Central Asia and Sind, where Ismaʿili communities already existed. Other isolated groups in Persia soon disintegrated or were assimilated into the religiously dominant communities of their locality. The centralized daʿwa organization and direct leadership of the Nezāri imams had also disappeared. Under these circumstances, Nezāri communities developed independently while resorting to the strict observance of taqiya and adopting different external guises. Many Nezāri groups in the Iranian world disguised themselves as Sunni Muslims. Meanwhile, a group of Nezāri dignitaries had managed to hide Rokn-al-Din Ḵor&scaronāh&rsquos minor son, &Scaronams-al-Din Moḥammad, who had then succeeded to the Nezāri imamate. Subsequently, &Scaronams-al-Din was taken to Azerbaijan, where he and his next few successors to the imamate lived secretly.

&Scaronams-al-Din, who in certain legendary accounts has been confused with Mawlānā Jalāl-al-Din Rumi&rsquos spiritual guide &Scaronams-e Tabriz, died around 710/1310. An obscure dispute over his succession split the line of the Nezāri imams and their following into the Qāsem-&scaronāhi and Moḥammad-&scaronāhi (or Moʾmen-&scaronāhi) branches (Ivanow, 1938, pp. 57-79 Daftary, 1990, pp. 446 ff., 451-52). The Moḥammad-&scaronāhi imams, who initially had more followers in northern Persia and Central Asia, transferred their seat to India in the 10th/16th century and by the end of the 12th/18th century this line had become discontinued. The sole surviving Moḥammad-&scaronāhi Nezāris, currently numbering about 15,000, are to be found in Syria where they are locally known as the Jaʿfariya (Daftary, 1990, pp. 532-34). The Qāsem-&scaronāhi branch has persisted to the present time. The last four Qāsem-&scaronāhi imams have enjoyed prominence under their hereditary title of Āqā Khan (also Āghā Khan and Aga Khan). It was also in the early post-Alamut times that Persian Nezāris, as part of their taqiya practices, disguised themselves under the cover of Sufism, without establishing formal affiliations with any of the Sufi ṭariqas. The practice soon gained wide currency among the Nezāris of Central Asia and Sind as well. The earliest manifestation of this phenomenon is found in the writings of the poet Ḥakim Saʿd al-Din Nezāri Qohestāni (d. 720/1320). He is the earliest known post-Alamut Nezāri author to use poetic expressions and Sufi idioms for concealing Ismaʿili ideas, a model adopted later by many Nezāri authors of Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

In early post-Alamut times, a most obscure phase in Is-maʿili history, the Nezāris had some success in regrouping in Daylam, where they remained active throughout the Ilkhānid and Timurid periods. A certain Ḵodāvand Mo-ḥammad (d. 807/1404), a Moḥammad-&scaronāhi imam, even occupied Alamut for a while, before he was dislodged by Sayyed ʿAli, the powerful Zaydi ruler of Daylamān. The Nezāris did not survive in the Caspian region after the 10th/16th century (Ẓahir al-Din Marʿa&scaroni, Tāriḵ-e Gilān va Daylamestān, ed. M. Sotuda, Tehran, 1347 &Scaron./1968, pp. 52-68, 69-70, 76 ff., 81 ff., 89, 121, 123-30). Soltan Moḥammad b. Jahāngir (d. 998/1589) and his son Soltan Jahāngir (d. 1006/1597), belonging to Banu Eskandar rulers of Kojur, adhered to Nezāri Ismaʿilism and spread it in their dominions they represent the last known references in the sources to Ismaʿilism in northern Persia (&Scaronayḵ ʿAli Gilāni, Tāriḵ-e Māzandarān, ed. M. Sotuda, 1352 &Scaron./1973, pp. 88-89, 100). Only a few isolated Nezāri groups survived a while longer in Daylam during the Safawid period when Alamut was used as a prison. In Badaḵ&scaronān and other parts of Central Asia, the Ismaʿilis evidently acknowledged the Nezāri imamate only during the late Alamut period as a result of the activities of dāʿis dispatched from Qohestān. These dāʿis founded local dynasties of pirs and mirs who ruled over &Scaronoḡnān and other districts of Badaḵ&scaronān. Later, the Nezāris of Badaḵ&scaronān were severely persecuted by the region&rsquos Timurid and Özbeg rulers.

By the middle of the 9th/15th century, Ismaʿili-Sufi relations had become well established in the Iranian world. Indeed, a type of coalescence had emerged between Persian Sufism and Nezāri Ismaʿilism, two independent esoteric traditions in Islam which shared close affinities and common doctrinal grounds. This explains why the Persian-speaking Nezāris have regarded several of the greatest mystic poets of Persia, such as Sanāʾi, ʿAṭṭār and Jalāl-al-Din Rumi, as their co-religionists (see, for instance, Fedāʾi Ḵorāsāni, pp. 113-16). The Nezāri Ismaʿilis of Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia have continued to use verses of the mystical poets of the Iranian world in their religious ceremonies. The dissimulating Persian Ismaʿilis also adopted visible aspects of the Sufi way of life. Thus, the imams appeared to outsiders as Sufi masters or pirs, while their followers adopted the typically Sufi guise of disciples or morids (see F. Daftary, &ldquoIsmāʿīlī-Sufi Relations in Early Post-Alamūt and Safavid Persia,&rdquo in L. Lewisohn and D. Morgan, ed., The Heritage of Sufism, Oxford, 1999, III, pp. 275-89).

By the middle of the 9th/15th century, the Nezāri imams of the Qāsem-&scaronāhi line emerged in the village of Anjedān (q.v.), in central Persia, in the guise of Sufi pirs, initiating the so-called Anjedān revival in Nezāri Ismaʿilism that lasted some two centuries. With Mostanṣer be&rsquollāh II (d. 885/1480), who adopted the Sufi name of &Scaronāh Qa-landar, the Qāsem-&scaronāhi imams became definitely established in the locality where their tombs are still preserved. Taking advantage of the changing religio-political climate of Persia, including the spread of ʿAlid loyalism and Shiʿite tendencies through Sunni Sufi orders, the imams successfully began to reorganize and reinvigorate their daʿwa to win new converts and reassert their authority over various Nezāri communities. These communities, notably those in Afghanistan, Central Asia and India, had been led for long periods by independent hereditary dynasties of pirs. The imams now gradually replaced these powerful autonomous figures with their own loyal dāʿis who would also regularly deliver the religious dues to them.

The Anjedān period also witnessed a revival in the literary activities of the Nezāris, especially in Persia where authors such as Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni and Ḵayrḵvāh Harāti produced the earliest doctrinal works of the post-Alamut period. In the context of Nezāri-Sufi relations during the early Anjedān period, valuable details are preserved in the Pandiāt-e javānmardi, containing the religious admonitions of Imam Mostanṣer be&rsquollāh II. In this book, the Nezāris are referred to with Sufi expressions such as ahl-e ḥaqiqat, or the &ldquopeople of the truth,&rdquo while the imam is designated as pir or mor&scaroned. The imam&rsquos admonitions start with the &scaronariʿat-ṭariqat-ḥaqiqat categorization of the Sufis, describing ḥaqiqat as the bāṭen of &scaronariʿat which would be attained by the believers (moʾmens) through following the spiritual path or ṭariqat. The Pandiāt (text pp. 2-3, 11, 13, 14, 34-36, 54-58, 65-68 and elsewhere) further explains, in line with the earlier Nezāri teachings of qiāma times, that ḥaqiqat consists of recognizing the spiritual reality of the imam of the time. The Nezāris now essentially retained the teachings of the Alamut period, especially as elaborated after the declaration of qiāma. The current imam retained his central importance in Nezāri doctrine, and the recognition of his true spiritual reality remained the prime concern of his followers (Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text pp. 19-20, 37-38, 53-54, 58, 67-68, tr., pp. 19-20, 37-38, 53-54, 58, 67-68 Ḵayrḵvāh, Kalām-e pir, text pp. 46, 72-73, 86, 95-96, 100, 114-16 idem, Taṣnifāt, pp. 18 ff.).

The advent of the Safavids and the proclamation of Twelver Shiʿism as the state religion in 907/1501, promised a more favorable atmosphere for the activities of the Nezāris and other Shiʿite communities in Persia. The Nezāris did, in fact, initially reduce the intensity of their taqiya practices. However, this new optimism was short-lived as the Safavids and their &scaronariʿat-minded ʿolamāʾ soon persecuted all popular forms of Sufism and those Shiʿite movements which fell outside the confines of Twelver Shiʿism. The Nezāris, too, received their share of persecutions. &Scaronāh Ṭāher Ḥosayni (d. ca. 956/1549), a learned religious scholar and the most famous imam of the Moḥammad-&scaronāhi line, was persecuted in Shah Es-māʿil&rsquos reign (907-30 /1501-24). However, &Scaronāh Ṭāher, whose religious following and popularity had proved unacceptable to the Safavid ruler and his Etnāʿa&scaronari scholars, fled to India in 926/1520 and permanently settled in the Deccan where he rendered valuable services to the Neẓām-&scaronāhs of Aḥmadnagar. It is interesting to note that from early on in India, &Scaronāh Ṭāher advocated Twelver Shiʿism, which he had obviously adopted as a form of disguise. He achieved his greatest success in the Deccan when Borhān Neẓām-&scaronāh proclaimed Twelver Shiʿism as the official religion of the state in 944/1537. &Scaronāh Ṭāher&rsquos successors as Moḥammad-&scaronāhi imams continued to observe taqiya in India mainly in the form of Twelver Shiʿism (see Fere&scaronta, Tāriḵ-e Fere&scaronta, ed. J. Briggs, Bombay, 1832, II, pp. 213-31 ʿAli b. ʿAziz Ṭabāṭabā, Borhān-e maʾāter, Hyderabad, 1936, pp. 251-70, 274 ff., 281 ff., 291, 308, 324-26, 338-39, 448-50, 452-53, 584 Daftary, 1990, pp. 487-91).

Meanwhile, Shah Ṭahmāsp persecuted the Qāsem-&scaronāhi Nezāris of Anjedān and had their thirty-sixth imam, Morād Mirzā, executed in 981/1574. By the time of Shah ʿAbbās I (995-1038/1587-1629), the Persian Nezāris had successfully adopted Twelver Shiʿism as a second form of disguise. &Scaronāh Ṭāher may have been the first Nezāri imam to have conceived of this new form of dissimulation, which was now adopted by the Qāsem-&scaronāhi Nezāri imams and their followers (see Daftary, 1990, pp. 471-74). By the end of the 11th/17th century, the Qāsem-&scaronāhi daʿwa had gained the allegiance of the bulk of the Nezāris at the expense of the Moḥammad-&scaronāhis. The daʿwa had been particularly successful in Afghanistan, Central Asia and several regions of the Indian subcontinent. In South Asia, the Hindu converts became known as Khoja, derived from the Persian word ḵᵛāja (Nanji, 1978, pp. 50-83). The Nezāri Khojas developed an indigenous religious tradition, known as Satpanth or the &ldquotrue path&rdquo (to salvation), as well as a devotional literature known as the gināns (q.v.). With the fortieth Qāsem-&scaronāhi imam, &Scaronāh Nezār (d. 1134/1722), the seat of this branch of the Nezāri daʿwa, then representing the only branch in Persia, was transferred from Anjedān to the nearby village of Kahak, near Qom and Maḥallāt, ending the Anjedān period in post-Alamut Nezāri Ismaʿilism.

By the middle of the 12th/18th century, in the unsettled conditions of Persia after the demise of the Safavids and the Afghan invasion, the Nezāri imams moved to &Scaronahr-e Bābak in Kermān, a location closer to the pilgrimage route of the Khojas who regularly traveled from India to see their imam and deliver their religious dues. Soon, the imams acquired political prominence in the affairs of Kermān. The forty-fourth imam, Abu&rsquol-Ḥasan, also known as Sayyed Abu&rsquol-Ḥasan Kahaki, was appointed around 1170/1756 to the governorship of the Kermān province by Karim Khan Zand earlier he had been the beglerbegi or governor of the city of Kermān (Vaziri, pp. 543-65). It was in his time that the Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufi order was revived in Persia. Imam Abu&rsquol-Ḥasan had close relations with Nur-ʿAli-&scaronāh and Mo&scarontāq-ʿAli-&scaronāh among other Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufis in Kermān (Daftary, 1990, pp. 498-503). After Abu&rsquol-Ḥasan&rsquos death in 1206/1792, his son &Scaronāh-Ḵalil-Allāh succeeded to the Nezāri imamate and eventually settled in Yazd. In 1232/1817, he was murdered in a mob attack on his house. &Scaronāh-Ḵalil-Allāh was succeeded by his eldest son Ḥasan-ʿAli-&scaronāh who was appointed to the governorship of Qom by Fath-ʿAli-&Scaronāh and also given properties in Maḥallāt. In addition, the Qājār monarch gave one of his daughters in marriage to the young imam and bestowed upon him the honorific title of Āqā Khan (q.v.), meaning lord and master&mdashthis title has remained hereditary among Ḥasan-ʿAli-&scaronāh&rsquos successors.

Ḥasan-ʿAli-&scaronāh was appointed to the governorship of Kermān in 1251/1835 by Moḥammad Shah Qājār. Subsequently, after some prolonged confrontations between the imam and the Qājār establishment, Āqā Khan I, also known as Āqā Khan Maḥallāti, left Persia in 1257/1841. After spending some years in Afghanistan, Sind, Gojarāt and Calcutta, he settled permanently in Bombay in 1265/1848, marking the advent of the modern period of Nezāri Ismaʿilism. As the spiritual head of a Muslim community, Āqā Khan I received the protection of the British in India. The Nezāri imam now engaged in a widespread campaign for defining and delineating the distinct religious identity of his Khoja following. The Nezāri Khojas, too, had dissimulated for long periods as Sunnis and Twelver Shiʿites while their religious traditions had been influenced by Hindu elements. With the help of the courts in India, Āqā Khan I&rsquos followers were legally defined as &Scaroniʿa Imami Ismaʿilis (see Ḥasan-ʿAli-&scaronāh, Āqā Khan, ʿEbrat-afzā, Bombay, 1278/1862, pp. 8-49 Vaziri, pp. 60-64, 608-13 Algar, pp. 61-81 Daftary, 1990, pp. 504-13).

Āqā Khan I died in 1298/1881 and was succeeded by his son Āqā ʿAli &Scaronāh, who led the Nezāris for only four years (1298-1302 /1881-85). The latter&rsquos sole surviving son and successor, Solṭān Moḥammad &Scaronāh, Āqā Khan III, led the Nezāris for seventy-two years, and also became well known as a Muslim reformer and statesman. Āqā Khan III, too, made systematic efforts to set his followers&rsquo identity apart from other religious communities. The Nezāri identity was spelled out in numerous constitutions that the imam promulgated for his followers in different regions, especially in India, Pakistan and East Africa. Furthermore, the Nezāri imam became increasingly concerned with reform policies that would benefit not only his followers but other Muslims as well. He worked vigorously for consolidating and reorganizing the Nezāris into a modern Muslim community with high standards of both male and female education, health and social well-being, as well as developing a new network of councils for administering the affairs of his community. The participation of women in communal affairs also received a high priority in the imam&rsquos reforms.

Āqā Khan III died in 1376/1957 and was succeeded by his grandson, Mawlānā Ḥāżer Imam &Scaronāh Karim Ḥosayni, as he is addressed by his followers. The present imam of the Nezāris, the forty-ninth in the series, has continued and substantially expanded the modernization policies of his predecessor, also developing numerous new programs and institutions of his own which are of wider interest to the Muslims and the Third World countries (Daftary, 1990, pp. 518-32, 537-48). He has created a complex institutional network generally referred to as the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), which implements projects in a variety of social, economic and cultural areas. Prince Karim Aga Khan IV, as he is known internationally, has his secretariat near Paris. Numbering several millions, the Nezāri Ismaʿilis are scattered as Muslim minorities in more than twenty-five countries of Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.

Primary Sources. Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, Haft bāb, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow, Bombay, 1959.

ʿArib b. Saʿd Qorṭobi, Ṣelat taʾriḵ al-Ṭabari, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1897.

A&scaronʿari, Maqālāt. Baḡdādi, Farq, ed. Badr. Qoṭb al-Din Solaymānji Borhānpuri, Montazaʿ al-aḵbār, ed. S. F. Traboulsi, Beirut, 1999.

Ebn al-Atir. Ebn al-Dawādāri, Kanz al-dorar wa jāmeʿ al-ḡōrar, VI, ed. I. al-Munajjed, Cairo, 1961.

Mo-ḥammad b. Ḥasan Daylami, Bayān madhab al-Bāṭeniya, ed. R. Strothmann, Istanbul, 1939.

Ebn ʿEdāri, al-Bayān al-mōḡreb, ed. G. S. Colin and É. Levi-Provençal, new ed., Leiden, 1948-51.

Ebn Ḥammād, Aḵbār moluk Bani ʿObayd, ed. and tr. M. Vonderheyden, Algiers and Paris 1927.

Ebn Ḥaw&scaronab Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ro&scarond wa&rsquol-hedāya, ed. M. Kāmel Ḥosayn, in W. Ivanow, ed., Collectanea I, Leiden, 1948, pp. 185-213 tr. W. Ivanow as &ldquoThe Book of Righteousness and True Guidance,&rdquo in Ivanow, 1955, pp. 29-59.

Ebn al-Haytam, Ketāb al-monāẓarāt, ed. and tr. W. Madelung and P. E. Walker as The Advent of the Fatimids, London, 2000. Ebn Moyassar, Aḵbār Meṣr, ed. A. F. Sayyed, Cairo, 1981.

Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod. Idem, tr. Dodge. Ebn Taḡriberdi. Ebn al-Qalānesi, Dayl taʾriḵ Dema&scaronq, ed. H. F. Amedroz, Leiden, 1908.

Ebn Ẓāfer al-Azdi, Aḵbār al-dowwal al-monqaṭeʿa, ed. A. Ferré, Cairo, 1972.

Edris ʿEmād al-Din b. Ḥasan, ʿOyun al-aḵbār wa fonun al-ātār, IV-VI, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1973-84.

Idem, Rawżat al-aḵbār, ed. M. al-ʿAkwah, Ṣanʿāʾ, 1995.

Idem, Zahr al-maʿāni, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1991.

Moḥammad b. Zayn al-ʿĀbedin Fedāʾi Ḵorāsāni, Ketāb hedāyat al-moʾmenin al-ṭālebin, ed. A. A. Semenov, Moscow, 1959.

Ḥāfeẓ Abru, Majmaʿ al-tawāriḵ al-solṭāniya, qesmat-e ḵolafāʾ-e ʿAlawiya-e Maḡreb va Meṣr va Nezāriān va rafiqān, ed. M. Modarresi Zanjāni, 1364 &Scaron./1985.

Haft bāb-e Bābā Sayyednā, ed. W. Ivanow, in his Two Early Ismaili Treatises, Bombay, 1933, pp. 4-44.

Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, ed., On the Genealogy of Fatimid Caliphs, Cairo, 1958.

Ebrāhim b. Ḥosayn Ḥāmedi, Ketāb kanz al-walad, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Wiesbaden, 1971.

Moḥammad b. Mālek Ḥammādi Yamāni, Ka&scaronf asrār al-bāṭeniya wa aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, ed. M. Zāhed Kawtari, Cairo, 1357/1939.

Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ʿālem wa&rsquol-ḡōlām, ed. and tr. J. W. Morris as The Master and the Disciple, London, 2001.

Idem, Ketāb al-ka&scaronf, ed. R. Strothmann, London, etc., 1952.

Idem, Sarāʾer wa asrār al-noṭaqāʾ, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1984.

Abu ʿAli Manṣur al-ʿAzizi al-Jawdari, Sirat al-ostād Jawdar, ed. M. Kāmel Ḥosayn and M. ʿAbd al-Hādi &Scaronaʿira, Cairo, 1954 French tr. M. Canard as Vie de l&rsquoustadh Jaudhar, Algiers, 1958.

Jovayni, ed. Qazvini. Idem, tr. Boyle. Abu&rsquol-Qāsem ʿAbd-Allāh Kā&scaronāni, Zobdat al-tavāriḵ, baḵ&scaron-e Fāṭemiān wa Ne-zāriān, ed. M. T. Dāne&scaronpažuh, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1366 &Scaron./1987.

H. C. Kay, ed., Yaman, its Early Mediaeval History, London, 1892.

Ḵayrḵvāh-e Harāti, Faṣl dar bayān-e &scaronenāḵt-e emām, ed. W. Ivanow, 3rd ed., Tehran, 1960 tr. W. Ivanow as On the Recognition of the Imam, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1947.

Idem, Kalām-e pir, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow, Bombay, 1935.

Idem, Taṣnifāt, ed. W. Ivanow, Tehran, 1961. Ḥamid- al-Din Kermāni, Ketāb al-riāż, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1960.

Idem, Majmuʿat rasāʾel, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1983.

Idem, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, ed. M. Kāmel Ḥosayn and M. Moṣṭafā Ḥelmi, Leiden and Cairo, 1953.

Esmāʿil b. ʿAbd al-Rasul Majduʿ, Fehrest al-kotob wa&rsquol-rasāʾel, ed. ʿAli N. Monzavi, Tehran, 1966.

ʿAbd-al-Ḥākim Maliji, al-Majāles al-Mostanṣeriya, ed. M. Kāmel Ḥosayn, Cairo, 1947.

Taqi al-Din Aḥmad b. ʿAli Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ al-ḥonafāʾ, ed. J. al-&Scaronayyāl and M. Ḥ. M. Aḥmad, 3 vols. Cairo, 1967-73.

Idem, Ketāb al-mawāʿeẓ wa&rsquol-eʿtebār be-dekr al-ḵeṭaṭ wa&rsquol-ātār, Bulāq, 1270/1853-54.

Masʿudi, Moruj. Idem, Tanbih. Al-Moʾayyad fe&rsquol-Din &Scaronirāzi, al-Majāles al-Moʾayyadiya, I, III, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1974-84 I and II, ed. Ḥamid-al-Din, Bombay, 1395-1407/1975-86.

Idem, Sirat al-Moʾayyad fe&rsquol-Din dāʿi al-doʿāt, ed. M. Kāmel Ḥosayn, Cairo, 1949.

Mo-ḥammad ʿAli b. Mollā Jiwābhāʾi, Mawsem-e bahār fi aḵbār al-ṭāherin al-aḵyār, 3 vols., Bombay, 1301-11/1884-93.

Moḥammad b. ʿObayd Allāh Mosabbeḥi, Aḵbār Meṣr, ed. A. F. Sayyed et al., Cairo, 1978-84.

Abu Tamim Maʿadd al-Mostanṣer be&rsquollāh, al-Sejellāt al-Mostanṣeriya, ed. ʿA. Mājed, Cairo, 1954.

Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, Go&scaronaye&scaron wa rahāye&scaron, ed. and tr. F. M. Hunzai as Knowledge and Liberation, London, 1998.

Idem, Jāmeʿ al-ḥekmatayn, ed. H. Corbin and M. Moʿin, Tehran and Paris, 1953 tr. I. de Gastines as Le Livre réunissant les deux sagesses, Paris, 1990.

Idem, &Scarone&scaron faṣl, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow, Leiden, 1949.

Idem, Vajh-e din, ed. Ḡ. R. Aʿvāni, Tehran, 1977.

Idem, Zād al-mosāferin, ed. Badl-al-Raḥmān, Berlin, 1341/1923.

S. H. Nasr and M. Aminrazavi, ed., An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, II, Oxford, 2001.

Neẓām-al-Molk, Siar al-moluk (Siāsat-nāma), ed. H. Darke, 2nd ed., Tehran 1347 &Scaron./1968 tr. H. Darke as The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, 2nd ed., London, 1978.

Aḥmad b. Ebrāhim Nisāburi, Estetār al-emām, ed. W. Ivanow in Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, University of Egypt IV, part 2, 1936, pp. 93-107 English tr. in Ivanow, 1942, pp. 157-83.

Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Nowayri, Nehāyat al-arab, XXV, ed. M. J. ʿAbd al-Āl al-Ḥini, Cairo, 1984.

Pandiāt-e javānmardi, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow, Leiden, 1953.

&Scaronehāb al-Din Aḥmad Qalqa&scaronandi, Sobḥ al-aʿ&scaronā, Cairo, 1331-38/1913-20.

Qāżi Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, Asās al-taʾwil, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1960.

Idem, Daʿāʾem al-Eslām, ed. A. A. A. Fyzee, Cairo, 1951-61 Eng. tr. A. A. A. Fyzee, revised by I. K. Poonawala, as The Pillars of Islam I, Oxford, 2002.

Idem, Eftetāḥ al-daʿwa, ed. W. al-Qāżi, Beirut 1970.

Idem, Ketāb al-majāles wa&rsquol-mosāyarāt, ed. al-Ḥabib al-Faqi et al., Beirut, 1978.

Idem, Taʾwil al-daʿāʾem, ed. M. Ḥ. al-Aʿẓami, 3 vols., Cairo, 1967-72.

Saʿd b. ʿAbd-Allāh Qomi, Ketāb al-maqālāt wa&rsquol-feraq, ed. M. J. Ma&scaronkur, Tehran, 1963.

Ra&scaronid al-Din Fażl-Allāh, Jāmeʿ al-tavāriḵ, qesmat-e Esmāʿiliān, ed. M. T. Dāne&scaronpažuh and M. Modarresi Zanjāni, Tehran, 1338 &Scaron./1959.

Abu Ḥātem Rāzi, Aʿlām al-nobowwa, ed. Ṣ. al-Sāwi and Ḡ. R. Aʿvani, Tehran, 1977.

Idem, Ketāb al-eṣlāḥ, ed. Ḥ. Minučehr and M. Moḥaghegh. Tehran, 1998.

&Scaronahrastāni. Idem, tr. Gimaret and Monnot. &Scaronehāb al-Din &Scaronāh-Ḥosayni, Ḵetābāt-e ʿālia, ed. H. Ojāqi, Bombay, 1963.

Abu Yaʿqub Esḥāq b. Aḥmad Sejestāni, Etbāt al-nobowwāt, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1966.

Idem, Ka&scaronf al-maḥjub, ed. H. Corbin, Tehran and Paris, 1949 French tr. H. Corbin as Le Dévoilement des choses cachées, Lagrasse, 1988 Eng. tr. H. Landolt as Unveiling of the Hidden, in S. H. Nasr and M. Aminrazavi, ed., An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, II, Oxford, 2001, pp. 71-137.

Idem, Ketāb al-efteḵār, ed. I. K. Poonawala, Beirut, 2000.

Idem, Ketāb al-yanābiʿ, ed. and French tr. H. Corbin, in his Trilogie Ismaélienne, Tehran and Paris, 1961, text pp. 1-97, tr. pp. 1-127 Eng. tr.

P. E. Walker as The Book of Wellsprings, in his The Wellsprings of Wisdom, Salt Lake City, 1994, pp. 37-111.

R. Strothmann, ed., Gnosis Texte der Ismailiten, Göttingen, 1943.

Ṭabari. Idem, tr. Naṣir al-Din Moḥammad Ṭusi, Rawżat al-taslim, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow, Leiden, 1950 French tr. C. Jambet as La Convocation d&rsquoAlamût, Lagrasse, 1996.

Idem, Sayr va soluk, ed. and tr. S. J. Badakhchani as Contemplation and Action, London, 1998.

Aḥmad ʿAli Ḵān Vaziri, Tāriḵ-e Kermān, ed. M. E. Bāstāni-Pārizi, 2nd ed., Tehran 1352 &Scaron. /1973.

ʿAli b. Moḥammad al-Walid, Tāj al-ʿaqāʾed, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1967. Moḥammad b. Moḥammad Yamāni, Sirat al-Ḥājeb Jaʿfar b. ʿAli, ed. W. Ivanow, in Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, University of Egypt, IV, part 2, 1936, pp. 107-33 English tr. in Ivanow, 1942, pp. 184-223.

S. Zakkār, ed., Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, 2nd ed., Damascus, 1982.

Studies. H. Algar, &ldquoThe Revolt of Āghā Khān Ma-ḥallātī and the Transference of the Ismāʿīlī Imamate to India,&rdquo Stud. Isl. 29, 1969, pp. 55-81.

H. M. Amiji, &ldquoThe Asian Communities,&rdquo in J. Kritzeck and W. H. Lewis, ed., Islam in Africa, New York, 1969, pp. 141-81.

Idem, &ldquoThe Bohras of East Africa,&rdquo Journal of Religion in Africa 7, 1975, pp. 27-61.

A. S. Asani, Ecstasy and Enlightenment: The Ismaili Devotional Literature of South Asia, London, 2002.

Barthold, Turkestan 3. A. E. Berthels, Nasir-i Khosrov i ismailizm, Moscow, 1959 Persian tr. Y. Ārianpur as Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow va Esmāʿiliān, Tehran, 1346 &Scaron./1967.

T. Bianquis, &ldquoLa prise du pouvoir par les Fatimides en Egypte (357-363/968-974),&rdquo Annales Islamologiques 11, 1972, pp. 49-108.

M. Boivin, Les Ismaéliens, Paris, 1998.

M. Brett, The Rise of the Fatimids, Leiden, 2001.

D. R. W. Bryer, &ldquoThe Origins of the Druze Religion,&rdquo Der Islam 52, 1975, pp. 47-84, 239-62 53, 1976, pp. 5-27.

M. Canard, &ldquoL&rsquoAutobiographie d&rsquoun chambellan du Mahdi ʿObeidallāh le Faṭimide,&rdquo Hespéris 39, 1952, pp. 279-324 repr. in idem, Miscellanea Orientalia, London, 1973, article V.

P. Casanova, &ldquoLes Derniers Fāṭimides,&rdquo Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française du Caire 6, 1897, pp. 415-45.

H. Corbin, &ldquoNāṣir-i Khusrau and Iranian Ismāʿīlism,&rdquo in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 520-42.

Idem, &ldquoL&rsquoInitiation Ismaélienne ou l&rsquoésotérisme et le Verbe,&rdquo Eranos Jahrbuch 39, 1970, pp. 41-142 repr. in idem, L&rsquoHomme et son ange, Paris, 1983, pp. 81-205.

Idem, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, tr. R. Manheim and J. W. Morris, London, 1983.

D. Cortese, Ismaili and other Arabic Manuscripts: A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, 2000.

F. Dachraoui, Le Califat Fatimide au Maghreb, 296-365 H./909-975 Jc., Tunis, 1981.

F. Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge, 1990 (with full references) Persian tr. F. Badraʾi, Tāriḵ wa ʿaqāʾed-e Esmāʿiliya, Tehran, 1375 &Scaron./1996.

Idem, &ldquoThe Earliest Ismāʿīlīs,&rdquo Arabica 38, 1991, pp. 214-45.

Idem, &ldquoPersian Historiography of the Early Nizārī Ismāʿīlīs,&rdquo Iran 30, 1992, pp. 91-97.

Idem, &ldquoA Major Schism in the Early Ismāʿīlī Movement,&rdquo Stud. Isl. 77, 1993, pp. 123-39.

Idem, The Assassin Legends: Myths of the Ismaʿilis, London, 1994 Persian tr. F. Badraʾi, Afsānahā-ye ḥa&scaronā&scaronin, Tehran, 1376 &Scaron./1997.

Idem, ed., Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought, Cambridge, 1996.

Idem, &ldquoThe Ismaili Daʿwa outside the Fatimid Dawla,&rdquo in M. Barrucand, ed., L&rsquoÉgypte Fatimide, son art et son histoire, Paris, 1999, pp. 29-43.

Idem, &ldquoIntellectual Life among the Ismailis: An Overview,&rdquo in F. Daftary, ed., Intellectual Traditions in Islam, London, 2000, pp. 87-111.

Idem, &ldquoThe Medieval Ismāʿīlīs of the Iranian Lands,&rdquo in C. Hillenbrand, ed., Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth, II, Leiden, 2000, pp. 43-81.

Idem, &ldquoEsmāʿiliya,&rdquo in DMBE VIII, pp. 681-702.

A. Foʾād Sayyed, al-Dawla al-Fāṭemiya fi Meṣr, 2nd ed., Cairo, 2000.

W. Frischauer, The Aga Khans, London, 1970.

S. Guyard, &ldquoUn Grand maître des Assassins au temps de Saladin,&rdquo JA 7 série, 9, 1877, pp. 324-489.

H. Halm, Kosmologie und Heilslehre der frühen Ismāʿīlīya, Wiesbaden, 1978.

Idem, &ldquoDie Söhne Zikrawaihs und das erste fatimidische Kalifat (290/903),&rdquo Die Welt des Orients 10, 1979, pp. 30-53.

Idem, &ldquoLes Fatimides à Salamya,&rdquo REI 54, 1986, pp. 133-49.

Idem, Shiism, tr. J. Watson, Edinburgh, 1991, pp. 162-205.

Idem, The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids, tr. M. Bonner, Leiden, 1996.

Idem, &ldquoThe Ismaʿili Oath of Allegiance (ʿahd) and the &lsquoSessions of Wisdom&rsquo (majālis al-ḥikma) in Fatimid Times,&rdquo in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 91-115.

Idem, The Fatimids and their Traditions of Learning, London, 1997.

A. Hamdani, The Beginnings of the Ismāʿīlī Daʿwa in Northern India, Cairo, 1956.

Idem, &ldquoThe Dāʿī Ḥātêm Ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥāmidī (d. 596H./1199A.D.) and his Tuḥfat al-Qulūb,&rdquo Oriens 23-24, 1970-71, pp. 258-300.

Idem, &ldquoEvolution of the Organisational Structure of the Fāṭimī Daʿwah,&rdquo Arabian Studies 3, 1976, pp. 85-114.

A. Hamdani and F. de Blois, &ldquoA Re-Examination of al-Mahdī&rsquos Letter to the Yemenites on the Genealogy of the Fatimid Caliphs,&rdquo JRAS, 1983, pp. 173-207.

Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, al-Ṣolayḥeyyun wa&rsquol-ḥaraka al-Fāṭemiya fe&rsquol-Yaman, Cairo, 1955.

C. Hillenbrand, &ldquoThe Power Struggle between the Saljuqs and the Ismaʿilis of Alamut, 487-518/1094-1124: The Saljuq Perspective,&rdquo in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 205-20.

M. G. S. Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, The Hague, 1955 Persian tr. F. Badraʾi, Ferqa-ye Esmāʿiliya, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1369 &Scaron./1990.

Idem, &ldquoThe Ismāʿīlī State,&rdquo in Camb. Hist. Iran, V, pp. 422-82.

J. N. Hollister, The Shiʿa of India, London, 1953.

A. C. Hunsberger, Nasir Khusraw, The Ruby of Badakhshan, London, 2000.

ḤasanʿAli Ismāʿilji, Aḵbār al-doʿāt al-akramin, Rajkot, 1937.

W. Ivanow, &ldquoA Forgotten Branch of the Ismailis,&rdquo JRAS, 1938, pp. 57-79.

Idem, Ismaili Tradition concerning the Rise of the Fatimids, London, etc., 1942.

Idem, The Alleged Founder of Ismailism, Bombay, 1946.

Idem, Nasir-i Khusraw and Ismailism, Bombay, 1948.

Idem, Studies in Early Persian Ismailism, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1955.

Idem, Ismaili Literature: A Bibliographical Survey, Tehran, 1963.

N. Eboo Jamal, Surviving the Mongols: Nizārī Quhistānī and the Continuity of Ismaili Tradition in Persia, London, 2002.

C. Jambet, La Grande résurrection d&rsquoAlamût, Lagrasse, 1990.

V. Klemm, Die Mission des fāṭimidischen Agenten al-Muʾayyad fi d-dīn in &Scaronīrāz, Frankfurt, etc., 1989.

Y. Lev, State and Society in Fatimid Egypt, Leiden, 1991.

B. Lewis, The Origins of Ismāʿīlism, Cambridge, 1940.

B. Lewis, The Assassins, London, 1967 Persian tr. F. Badraʾi, Fedāʾiān-e Esmāʿili, Tehran, 1348 &Scaron./1969.

S. T. Lokhandwalla, &ldquoThe Bohras, a Muslim Community of Gujarat,&rdquo Stud. Isl. 3, 1955, pp. 117-35.

W. Madelung, &ldquoFatimiden und Baḥrainqarmaṭen,&rdquo Der Islam 34, 1959, pp. 34-88 English version, &ldquoThe Fatimids and the Qarmaṭīs of Baḥrayn,&rdquo in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 21-73.

Idem, &ldquoDas Imamat in der frühen ismailitischen Lehre,&rdquo Der Islam 37, 1961, pp. 43-135.

Idem, &ldquoAspects of Ismāʿīlī Theology: The Prophetic Chain and the God Beyond Being,&rdquo in Nasr, ed., 1977, pp. 51-65 repr. in idem, Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam, London, 1985, article XVII.

Idem, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, Albany, NY, 1988, pp. 93-105.

Idem, &ldquoThe Religious Policy of the Fatimids toward their Sunnī Subjects in the Maghrib,&rdquo in M. Barrucand, ed., L&rsquoÉgypte Fatimide, son art et son histoire, Paris, 1999, pp. 97-104.

Idem, &ldquoIsmāʿīliyya,&rdquo in EI ² IV, 1973, pp. 198-206.

G. C. Miles, &ldquoCoins of the Assassins of Alamūt,&rdquo Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 3, 1972, pp. 155-62.

N. A. Mirza, Syrian Ismailism, Richmond, Surrey, 1997.

S. C. Misra, Muslim Communities in Gujarat, Bombay, 1964.

F. Mitha, Al-Ghazālī and the Ismailis, London, 2001.

A. Nanji, &ldquoModernization and Change in the Nizari Ismaili Community in East Africa&mdashA Perspective,&rdquo Journal of Religion in Africa 6, 1974, pp. 123-39.

Idem, The Nizārī Ismāʿīlī Tradition in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, Delmar, NY, 1978.

Idem, &ldquoIsmāʿīlism,&rdquo in S. H. Nasr, ed., Islamic Spirituality: Foundations, London, 1987, pp. 179-98.

Idem, &ldquoIsmāʿīlī Philosophy,&rdquo in S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman, ed., History of Islamic Philosophy, London, 1996, I, pp. 144-54.

S. H. Nasr, ed., Ismāʿīlī Contributions to Islamic Culture, Tehran, 1977.

I. K. Poonawala, Biobibliography of Ismāʿīlī Literature, Malibu, Calif, 1977.

N. Pourjavady and P. L. Wilson, &ldquoIsmāʿīlīs and Niʿmatullāhīs,&rdquo Stud. Isl. 41, 1975, pp. 113-35.

D. de Smet, La Quiètude de l&rsquointellect: Néoplatonisme et gnose Ismaélienne dans l&rsquooeuvre de Ḥamīd ad-Dīn al-Kirmānī (Xe/XIes.), Louvain, 1995.

S. M. Stern, &ldquoIsmāʿīlī Propaganda and Fatimid Rule in Sind,&rdquo Islamic Culture 23, 1949, pp. 298-307.

Idem, &ldquoThe Succession to the Fatimid Imam al-Āmir, the Claims of the Later Fatimids to the Imamate, and the Rise of Ṭayyibī Ismailism,&rdquo Oriens 4, 1951, pp. 193-255 repr. in idem, History and Culture in the Medieval Muslim World, London, 1984, article XI.

Idem, &ldquoHeterodox Ismāʿīlism at the Time of al-Muʿizz,&rdquo BSOAS 17, 1955, pp. 10-33.

Idem, &ldquoThe Early Ismāʿīlī Missionaries in North-West Persia and in Khurāsān and Transoxania,&rdquo BSOAS 23, 1960, pp. 56-90.

Idem, &ldquoIsmāʿīlīs and Qarmaṭians,&rdquo in L&rsquo Élaboration de l&rsquoIslam, Paris, 1961, pp. 99-108.

Idem, &ldquoCairo as the Centre of the Ismāʿīlī Movement,&rdquo in Colloque international sur l&rsquohistoire du Caire, 1972, pp. 437-50.

Idem, Studies in Early Ismāʿīlism, Jerusalem and Leiden, 1983.

L. V. Stroeva, Gosudarstvo ismailitov v Irane v XI-XIIIvv., Moscow, 1978 Persian tr. P. Monzavi, Tāriḵ-e Esmāʿiliān dar Īrān, Tehran, 1371 &Scaron./1992.

P. E. Walker, &ldquoEternal Cosmos and the Womb of History: Time in Early Ismaili Thought,&rdquo IJMES 9, 1978, pp. 355-66.

Idem, Early Philosophical Shiism: The Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abū Yaʿqūb al-Sijistānī, Cambridge, 1993.

Idem, Abū Yaʿqūb al-Sijistānī: Intellectual Missionary, London, 1996.

Idem, &ldquoFatimid Institutions of Learning,&rdquo Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 34, 1997, pp. 179-200.

Idem, &ldquoThe Ismāʿīlī Daʿwa and the Fāṭimid Caliphate,&rdquo in M. W. Daly, ed., The Cambridge History of Egypt: Volume 1, Islamic Egypt, 640-1517, ed. C. F. Petry, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 120-50.

Idem, Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Kirmānī: Ismaili Thought in the Age of al-Ḥākim, London, 1999.

Idem, Exploring an Islamic Empire: Fatimid History and Its Sources, London, 2002.

Watch the video: Saratoga National Historical Park - Quick History Lesson