ʿABBĀS MĪRZĀ, son of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and father of the line of Qajar rulers from Moḥammad Shah on. He was born on 4 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 1203/26 August 1789 in the town of Navā, Māzandarān. His mother, Āsīya Ḵānom, was a daughter of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Khan Devellū; Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah had married her at the behest of Āqā Moḥammad Shah. A Qoyonlū on his father’s side and a Devellū on his mother’s, ʿAbbās Mīrzā, the future crown prince, united in his person the two main branches of the Qajar tribes. By reconciling them, Āqā Moḥammad Shah had paved the way for his own accession to the throne (Hedāyat [see bibliog.], IX, p. 226; Dahncke, p. 26).
ʿAbbās Mīrzā grew up in an age marked by the struggle between Russia and Iran in Azerbaijan and the Caucasus. In 1797, when he was only eight years old, he accompanied his great-uncle, Āqā Moḥammad Shah, on a campaign against the local ruler of Šošā (capital of Qarabāḡ). He was left behind at Ādīna Bāzār , near Ardabīl, together with the other princes; and he returned to Tehran via Rašt after the shah’s assassination that June (Fasāʾī, Fārsnāma, pp. 242f.; tr. Busse, pp. 73, 75). On Nowrūz, 1212/21 March 1798, Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah succeeded to the throne, having ensured that his rivals no longer posed a threat. On 13 Šavvāl 1213/20 March 1799 he made ʿAbbās Mīrzā crown prince with the title Nāyeb-al-salṭana. According to the Persian sources, this title accorded with the will of the late shah, whose political aim was to cement the bond between the Qoyonlū and the Devellū. Older sons were passed over, because they were the issue of wives lower in rank than Āsīya Ḵānom. ʿAbbās was given Solaymān Khan Qāǰār and Mīrzā ʿĪsā Farāhānī, called Mīrzā Bozorg, as adjutants (Hedāyat, IX, p. 348; Fasāʾī, pp. 246, 231 and 267 [for Āqā Moḥammad Shah’s will]; tr. Busse, pp. 88f., 36, 160) .
At the same time, ʿAbbās Mīrzā was assigned the governorship of Azerbaijan; it was a threatened province, like Khorasan in the northeast, where the shah proceeded in the spring of 1799. Thus it was natural that the crown prince should have been dispatched to subdue the Kurd Jaʿfar-qolī Khan Dombalī, who was asserting a territorial claim to Azerbaijan. After a victory near Salmās, ʿAbbās Mīrzā marched to Ḵoy and then returned to Tabrīz. Although the crown prince’s brothers who were also appointed governors of important provinces in the same year as himself usually took up permanent residence in their provincial capitals, ʿAbbās Mīrzā clearly did not live in Tabrīz all the time. In fact, Mīrzā Bozorg had built him the palace of Negārestān near Tehran (Tancoigne, pp. 179f.). In 1803, ʿAbbās Mīrzā was in Tehran, where, in autumn or winter, his marriage to the daughter of a Devellū prince was solemnized with great pomp (Hedāyat, IX, pp. 373f.). When the Russians overran Ganǰa in 1804, he left Tehran and marched to the relief of Erevan, which was under siege from Russian forces. When the Russians retreated to Tiflis, the shah, then at the Russian front, left Azerbaijan in the hands of “experienced amirs.” Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah returned to Tehran in the fall, while ʿAbbās Mīrzā remained in Tabrīz and made preparations for the following year’s campaign. In the summer of 1805 the crown prince fought with moderate success against the Russians; only then was he formally appointed governor of “Azerbaijan and Qarabāḡ, from Qaplān Kūh to Darband” (Fasāʾī, p. 253; tr. Busse, p. 110). He received full authority to appoint and dismiss governors of the various districts (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, pp. 244, 285). Apart from a few brief intervals, he resided in Azerbaijan continuously until 1831; he would spend the summers in Tabrīz and the winters in Ḵoy, except when he took the field against the Russians or the Turks.
The First Russo-Persian War (1804-13). The immediate objective of the Russian advance on Ganǰa was to secure the southern frontier of Georgia, a province of Russian empire since 1801. According to Persian sources, Mortażā-qolī Khan, brother and rival of Āqā Moḥammad Shah, after deserting to the Russians, persuaded them to invade territory claimed by Iran (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, p. 186). With the appearance of the Russians in the frontier area, Iran was drawn into the crosscurrents of European power politics. Ambassadors from Great Britain, France, and Russia, having arrived in Tabrīz, faced the difficult task of adapting their own initiatives in Iran to the rapid fluctuation of policy in Europe. The tribal princes between the Aras and the Caucasus proved unreliable allies for both Iran and Russia, as were the Ottoman governors of Van. The crown prince sought repeatedly to take Erevan (with the nearby fortress of Pambak). Šošā, Ganǰa (Elizabetpol/Korovabad ), Nakhchevan, and Šīrvān. Between 1804 and 1810 he launched annual campaigns across the Aras, although the war was as good as over by 1806, for Russia had by then gained a firm hold on the land north of the Aras, with the exception of Erevan (Dahncke, p. 82). In 1810 the Russians offered Iran a peace treaty which would have restored the occupied territory to her and left her a free hand in eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia, but these terms were rejected (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, pp. 391f.). In 1225/1810-11 Nakhchevan was once again the crown prince’s objective. Finally, in 1813, as a result of Napoleon’s campaign in Russia and at British instigation, the peace of Golestān in Šīrvān was signed. Under its terms Iran had to cede Darband, Baku, and Šīrvān—that is, all territory north of the Ḵorāsān.
During the war ʿAbbās Mīrzā had secured the support of the Ottoman governor of Van. According to a Persian account (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, pp. 316-34), this assistance was the reason for a Russian advance on Qars. When the Greek war of independence broke out in 1821, Moḥammad-ʿAlī Mīrzā (governor of Kermānšāh, brother and rival of the crown prince) seized the opportunity to invade Mesopotamia and reached the very walls of Baghdad. But ʿAbbās Mīrzā did not remain idle. Jealous of his brother’s success (so Fraser maintains, Caspian Sea, p. 312), he campaigned in the Kurdish territory of Bitlīs and Mūš, west of Lake Van. The war was ended by the peace of Erzerum, which restored the frontiers of 1639; again ʿAbbās Mīrzā and Iran had been denied success by the intervention of the European powers.
The Second Russo-Persian war (1826-28). The peace of Golestān had not led to any final settlement. Neither Russia nor ʿAbbās Mīrzā, however, was responsible for fomenting fresh hostilities. The ʿolamāʾ proclaimed a ǰehād against Russia, as they had done in 1810; presumably court circles in Tehran and Tabrīz had some role in this affair. The shah and the crown prince had no choice but to acquiesce. In September, 1826, ʿAbbās Mīrzā advanced toward Ganǰa via Šošā; but he suffered such a severe defeat that the outcome of the war was never thereafter in doubt. Persian military actions the following year were of little consequence. ʿAbbās Mīrzā scored minor victories at Üč Kilise (Echmiadzin) and Nakhchevan (Fasāʾī, IX, p. 273, tr. Busse, p. 181), but the Russians penetrated into Azerbaijan and captured Tabrīz on 3 Rabīʿ II 1243/24 October 1827. By the terms of the peace of Torkmāṇčāy (q.v.), a town southeast of Tabrīz, all land north of the Aras was ceded to Russia; the frontier thus determined still remains in effect. In a sequel to the war, ʿAbbās Mīrzā displayed his diplomatic skills to the full. When the Russian envoy Griboedov was assassinated in Tehran (8 February 1829), the crown prince declared a three-day period of public mourning and sent his son, Ḵosrow Mīrzā , on a mission of atonement to Russia. (It was at first planned to send the crown prince himself). He did not agree to Paskievich’s proposal that he support the Russian campaign against the Turks (see Paskievich’s letter to ʿAbbās Mīrzā in Fonton, pp. 405-08; nevertheless, court circles in Tehran regarded him with disapproval as pro-Russian (Fraser, Koordistan II, pp. 46f.).
The crown prince’s position was always in jeopardy from the lack of any clear order of succession and the decentralizing policy of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (factors which had an important effect on British and Russian attitudes). The crown prince’s most dangerous opponents were his brothers Ḥosayn-ʿAlī Mīrzā Farmānfarmā, governor of Fārs, and Ḥasan-ʿAlī Mīrzā Šoǰāʿ-al-salṭana, governor of Khorasan until 1823 and governor of Kermān from 1243/1827-28. While ʿAbbās Mīrzā was allegedly toying with the idea of moving his residence to Isfahan (Stocqweeler, p. 174), the shah sent him to put down a rebellion in Yazd and to frustrate an alliance between the governors of Fārs and Kermān. He arrived at the Tehran court on 12 Šaʿbān 1246/21 January 1831. At the end of March he went to Yazd to restore his nephew Sayf-al-molūk Mīrzā to the governorship. He then marched on to Kermān and had Śoǰāʿ-al-salṭana escorted back to Tehran; Ḵosrow Mīrzā was installed in Kermān as the new governor. On 1 Rabīʿ II 1247/9 September 1831, the crown prince was again with the shah at Deh Kord near Isfahan. There the shah appointed him governor of Khorasan. He retained the governorship of Azerbaijan, where his fifth son, Farīdūn Mīrzā, was to represent him (Hedāyat, IX, pp. 744f.). ʿAbbās Mīrzā departed at once for the east and, in the summer and autumn of 1832, conquered the territory east and northeast of Mašhad—Ḵabūšān, Saraḵs, and Torbat-e Haydarī (Hedāyat, X, pp. 52, 55). The chroniclers assert that he planned the conquest of Ḵīva and Afghanistan, lands that had once formed part of the Safavid empire, and conducted negotiations with the vizier of Herat and the khan of Ḵoqand (Hedāyat, X, pp. 30-32). In the eyes of more objective observers, however, the Khorasan expeditions were an attempt to compensate for the defeats in Azerbaijan by scoring victories over weaker enemies; he might thus reinforce his claim to the throne (Fraser, Koordistan II, pp. 25-29). Even before his journey to Tehran, he had instructed his eldest son, Moḥammad Mīrzā, to make preparations for a major offensive. Death put an end to these plans. When Moḥammad Mīrzā succeeded Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah in 1834 and tried to continue that task in the east which Āqā Moḥammad Shah had already begun, he was checked by British intervention, just as his father had been thwarted by Russia on the Aras.
Sir Gore Ouseley, the British ambassador, who arrived in Iran in 1811, had already described ʿAbbās Mīrzā as ailing (Ouseley, II, p. 400). Ker Porter, in 1818, and others emphasize his pallor (Ker Porter, I, p. 249). Belanger, himself a doctor, examined the crown prince in 1825 and diagnosed a liver disease (“Journey to Persia,” Gent. Mag., Oct., 1825, p. 301). The crown prince was constantly treated by his personal physicians, the Englishman MacNeill and Cormick; in 1238/1822-23 a Persian doctor, Moḥammad Mīrzā Eṣfahānī, was also consulted. At Mašhad the English-trained Mīrzā Bābā also attended him (Burnes, II, p. 96). Yet none of their efforts succeeded in arresting the disease. ʿAbbās Mīrzā died at Mašhad, aged forty-four, on 10 Jomādā II 1249/25 October 1833, and was buried in the shrine of Imam Reżā (Hedāyat, X, pp. 61f.).
Education, cultural interests. The crown prince was apparently carefully educated in the traditional manner—a process which must have been decisively influenced by Mīrzā Bozorg. The prince knew the works of the Persian historians. His favorite reading matter was Ferdawsī’s Šāhnāma (Morier, Second Journey, p. 216). He was otherwise not particularly fond of poetry, although, as fashion demanded, Tabrīz had its court poets (Ṣabūr of Kāšān, d. 1228/1813, and Forūḡ, son of the more famous Ṣabā; see Rypka, Iran. Lit., p. 312). The palaces in Tabrīz and Ūǰān were adorned with numerous pictures, including portraits of Napoleon, the czar, and Sultan Selīm III (Belanger, p. 301; Kotzebue, p. 115). The last named, a ruler favorably disposed toward Western reforms, was secretly emulated by the crown prince. Under ʿAbbās Mīrzā, thanks to its geographical position and the political situation, Tabrīz became the gateway for entry of modern influences. Western ideas entered first via Turkey and Russia, later through the French and British embassies in Azerbaijan. ʿAbbās Mīrzā seized on these eagerly and turned Tabrīz into the “focal point of the westernization of his country” (Gabriel, Erforschung, p. 144). He never tired of expanding his intellectual horizons. He was conversant with European history (Morier, Journey, p. 284), probably from the works of Turkish writers, and was very well informed about political events in Europe (Ker Porter, I, pp. 254f.). Although he could not understand English (Morier, Second Journey, p. 216; cf. Kotzebue, p. 105), he had a small library of English books, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A Frenchman, L’Ami, who had come to Iran with Gardane in 1807, was entrusted with setting up a modern school system (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, pp. 321f., 373f.). After the establishment of diplomatic relations with Great Britain, the crown prince became deeply receptive to English influences. He sent young men to study in England; some items of his personal equipage, including a coach used in the summer, were of English manufacture (Ker Porter, I, p. 260; idem, II, p. 507; Kotzebue, pp. 100, 104). His map collection, however, came from Istanbul printing house (Morier, Journey, p. 283; idem, Second Journey, p. 216), another identification of his unfamiliarity with Western languages.
Military reforms. The confrontation with the Russians, whose armies had modern equipment and were organized on modern principles, rendered urgent a reform of the Persian army. Iran found itself in a predicament similar to that which had faced the Ottoman empire since the early 18th century. In 1804 ʿAbbās Mīrzā went to war in a coat of Mongolian mail from the royal treasures (Fasāʾī, p. 252; tr. Busse, p. 108)—no doubt partly for reasons of symbolism. Even then he realized that the Persian army was no match for Russian tactics and weapons, and he began to train his troops along European lines (neẓām-e ǰadīd). From Ottoman sources he gained a knowledge of Western military theory. Practical training was given, at first, by Russian deserters or prisoners of war who entered the crown prince’s service. This practice was reinforced when, in the wake of the European wars of liberation, unreliable units which had fought in France were transferred to the Caucasian front. In 1819 Russian deserters made up an entire regiment of 800 men (Ker Porter, II, pp. 582, 588). From 1807, French instructors were also engaged in Tabrīz; but, after the break with France, British officers formed the majority in the training program. Later, after the British presence in Azerbaijan had been severely reduced in deference to Russian interests, Italians (Sicilians), Poles, and others sought employment and reward in the prince’s service. Henry Lindsay (Bethune), who had built up the artillery, departed in 1821. Subsequently Fraser and Johnson criticized the poor condition of the artillery, the shortage of ammunition, and the practice of calling up troops for only short periods (Fraser, Khorasan, p. 228; Johnson, pp. 212, 214). For instruction, Ottoman, but also French and Russian (Morier, Journey, p. 283), texts were used. L’Ami directed the first military academy in Iran (Brydges, Mission, pp. 312f.); and arsenals, cannon foundries, and powder mills were set up in Tabrīz (Kotzebue, p. 100). Since ʿAbbās Mīrzā was convinced that Persian cavalry were equal to any challenge, he confined his reforms to the artillery and infantry (Kotzebue, p. 99). In 1808-09 there were 6,000 infantry trained on European principles; in 1817, 8,000; in 1831, 12,000, plus 1,200 artillerymen and one cavalry regiment—in all, ten battalions of Persians and two of Russians (Morier, Journey, p. 216; Kotzebue, p. 93; Stocqweeler, p. 164).
The military program was rounded off with the building of new fortifications. The old forts of Tabrīz, Ardabīl, and Ḵoy were modernized (Jahāngīr Mīrzā, pp. 186f.; Hedāyat, X, pp. 64f.; Morier, Second Journey, p. 305; Johnson, p. 221). A new fort based on European design was constructed at ʿAbbāsābād on the Aras, securing the crossing south of Nakhchevan; an Armenian church on the site was converted into a powder magazine (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, pp. 417f; Brydges, Mission, p. 283; Morier, Second Journey, p. 311). The fort of Ḵorāsān Dašt, where the Qarāǰadāḡ flows into the Aras, was also intended to guard the frontier (Jahāngīr Mīrzā, p. 188). From 1819 English engineers supervised the building of Top Qaḷʿa on Lake Urmia, with its arsenal and barracks (Ker Porter, II, pp. 571-73, 580).
Administration, economic activity, building. The Russo-Persian wars swallowed up large sums of money. Since British subsidies were inadequate and the shah refused funds (because officials in Tehran considered Azerbaijan a rich province), ʿAbbās Mīrzā tried to solve his difficulties by drawing up a detailed fiscal register. The traditional intelligence service of the Islamic state was reactivated, a ruznāma-nevīs being appointed in every town to transmit information (Hedāyat,, X, pp. 65f.). The custom of allowing men to buy their way into government service was abolished (Morier, Second Journey, p. 240). Mīrzā Abu’l-Qāsem, son of Mīrzā Bozorg, concerned himself with introducing a suitable script and a simple epistolary style.
While the traditional forms were maintained in the bureaucracy and the financial sector owing to the dearth of officials suitable for effecting reforms, a handful of industrial projects (their products to supply mostly army needs) got under way with European help. Examples are arsenals, the exploration of copper deposits, a smelter near Ahar, weaving mills, and other industrial plants. In Ḵoy a woolen mill was built on a European design. An attempt to set up a paper mill failed, as did the scheme for a mine at Qaplān Kūh (Hedāyat, X, p. 65; Morier, Journey, p. 283; Johnson, pp. 213f.; Ker Porter, II, pp. 506f.; Gabriel, Erforschung, p. 144). About 1816, Armenians from Istanbul founded a printing house in Tabrīz (Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia IV, p. 155). Little was done to improve the traveler’s lot. A caravansery was established on the Ṣāyen pass between Ardabīl and Sarāb (Hedāyat, X, pp. 261, 281).
The prince’s building activity was modest. Tabrīz received a maydān surrounded by the barracks—the only presentable building in Tabrīz, according to Kinneir. About 1818-19 a modest palace (dār al-emāra) was under construction, and qanāts were built outside the city. The prince ordered his officials to build houses. He also built two country seats, Bāḡ-e Šemāl and Bāḡ-e Ṣafā, with pavilions, avenues, and rotundas in European style. (The latter estate is described in detail in Fowler, I, pp. 77-84.) But Ker Porter commented, “The prince does not aim as much at adorning the city, as to strengthen it” (I, p. 227; cf. Hedāyat, X, p. 65; Morier, Journey, p. 279; Kinneir, p. 151; Kotzebue, p. 101). Ḵoy, where the crown prince spent his summers, became, in Ker Porter’s opinion (II, p. 500), “one of the most flourishing places in the kingdom.” On the plain of Ūǰān, southeast of Tabrīz, ʿAbbās Mīrzā had a small hunting lodge, which Kotzebue visited and described (p. 115; see Morier, Second Journey, p. 209; Johnson, pp. 208f.; Ker Porter, I, p. 258).
Personal characteristics. The crown prince was “rather above the ordinary stature;” his eyes were “dark and expressive...; his nose aquiline; his beard full, and like his finely-formed eye-brows, of a jet-black” (Ker Porter, I, p. 249; similarly Fowler, I, pp. 320-21). He dressed simply and scorned embellishment. He was a skilled horseman and hunter and an excellent marksman. His visitors expressed admiration for his intelligence, breadth of knowledge, benevolence, and liberal attitudes on religion; they perceived him as the future ruler who would restore his land to its former glory. “In every sense a perfect gentleman” was Burnes’s verdict (I, p. 96; cf. Morier, Second Journey, p. 215; Ouseley, II, p. 400; Kotzebue, pp. 95-105; Ker Porter, I, pp. 244, 254f.). When British policy toward Iran changed, so too did the opinions of British travelers. His love of reform was held to be infantile; he was said to lack perseverance, to be miserly, and to enjoy flattery (Fraser, Caspian Sea, pp. 310f.). After the death of Mīrzā Bozorg, his government was criticized even within Iran (E. Smith and H. G. O. Dwight, Missionary Researches in Armenia..., London, 1834, pp. 322-24). The crown prince’s personality, in both its positive and its negative aspects, is illuminated in an obituary notice for which Henry Willock, who had known him for many years, supplied the material (JRAS 1, 1834, pp. 322-25). Even though ʿAbbās Mīrzā’s character may not have been blameless (in which respect his chronic illness should be borne in mind), he was nonetheless the most capable of the Qajar rulers. He, his advisers, and his officials laid foundations on which the later reformers could build (see F. Ādamīyat, Amīr-e Kabīr va Īrān, Tehran, 1348 Š./ 1969, pp. 162-65). Among his advisers, besides Mīrzā Bozorg and the latter’s son, Mīrzā Abu’l-Qāsem, should be mentioned Aḥmad Khan, beglerbegī of Tabrīz (see Tancoigne, p. 77).
Like all Qajars, ʿAbbās Mīrzā fathered numerous progeny: He left twenty-six sons and twenty-one daughters; Moḥammad Mīrzā, who succeeded Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah in 1834, was born of the prince’s marriage to the daughter of Moḥammad Khan Qājā Devellū (see list in Jahāngīr Mīrzā, p. 187; Hedāyat, X, pp. 63f.). Five sons became governors of Fārs: Fīrūz Mīrzā (1835--36, 1849-53), Farīdūn Mīrzā Farmānfarmā II (1836-40), Farhād Mīrzā (1841-43, 1876-81), Bahrām Mīrzā (1848-49), and Solṭān Morād Mīrzā (1858-60). Several sons made literary names for themselves: For example, Jahāngīr Mīrzā wrote the historical work Tāʾrīḵ-e now ; Farhād Mīrzā became a renowned court poet and compiled an English-Persian dictionary in verse.
Unedited letters and papers: British Museum Add. 19,529 (from 1810 to 1814); 22,707 (1830-32); 27,245 (1817-18); see Rieu, Pers. Man. I, pp. 392b-94a.
Edited: See Ī. Afšār, Fehrest-e maqālāt-e fārsī, Tehran, 1348 Š./1969, I, p. 537.
Persian chronicles: ʿAbd-al-Razzāq b. Naǰaf-qolī, Maʾāṯer-e solṭānīya: tr. Sir Harford Jones Brydges, The Dynasty of the Kajars, London, 1833 (covers up to the year 1226/1811-12).
Jahāngīr Mīrzā, Tāʾrīḵ-e now, ed. ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tehran, 1327 Š./1948 (describes the period 1240-67/1824--51).
Reżā-qolī Khan Hedāyat, Rawżat al-ṣafā-ye Naṣerī IX, X, Qom, 1339 Š./1960.
Mīrzā Masʿūd, “an account of ʿAbbās Mīrzā, apparently an extract from a larger work” (Storey, I/1, p. 338, no. 434).
Contemporary reports: James Morier, A Journey through Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor, London, 1818.
N. von Kotzebue, Reise nach Persien mit der russisch-kaiserlichen Gesandschaft, Weimar, 1819.
W. Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries of the East, More Particularly Persia in 1810, 1811, 1812, 3 vols., London, 1819-23.
J. M. Tancoigne, A Narrative of a Journey into Persia and Residence in Tehran..., London, 1820.
R. Ker Porter, Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia..., 2 vols., London, 1821-22.
J. B. Fraser, Narrative of a Journey into Khorasan, London, 1825.
Idem, Travels and Adventures in the Persian Provinces on the Southern Banks of the Caspian Sea, London, 1826.
J. H. Stocqweeler, Fifteen Months Pilgrimage through Untrodden Tracts of Khuzistan and Persia, 2 vols., London, 1832.
H. J. Brydges, An Account of the Transactions of H.M.’s Mission to the Court of Persia in the Years 1807-11, London, 1834.
A. Burnes, Travels into Bokhara..., 3 vols., London, 1834.
Fraser, Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia..., London, 1840.
G. Fowler, Three Years in Persia with Travelling Adventures in Koordistan, 2 vols., London, 1841.
F. Fonton, La Russie dans l’Asie-Mineure, ou campagnes du Maréchal Paskévitch en 1828 et 1829, et tableau du Caucase, Paris, 1840.
A. de Gardane, Mission du général Gardane en Perse sous le Premier Empire, Paris, 1865.
There is no comprehensive scholarly biography of ʿAbbās Mīrzā. On matters of detail: M. Dahncke, Iran in napoleonischer Zeit 1797-1814 (Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Dissertazionen, 27), Hamburg, 1973.
ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Hažīr, “Dar rāh-e valīʿahdī-ye ʿAbbās Mīrzā,” Mehr 1, 1971, pp. 707-09.
P. W. Avery, “An Enquiry into the Outbreak of the Second Russo-Persian War, 1826-28,” Iran und Islam, in Memory of Vladimir Minorsky, ed. C. E. Bosworth, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 17-45.
D. P. Costello, “Griboedov in Persia in 1820: Two Diplomatic Notes,” Oxford Slavonic Papers 1954, pp. 81-92.
O. I. Popova, Griboedov—Diplomat (with many contemporary lithographs), Moscow, 1964.
Originally Published: December 15, 1982
Last Updated: July 13, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. I, Fasc. 1, pp. 79-84