Introduction

This article investigates the narratives constructed around the life and personality of Sanāʾī within the Herat literary circle, based on the theory of “Reception Literary History”. Our aim is to examine the diverse interpretations of Sanāʾī's life presented in biographical and historical sources. The key criteria of reception theory include the social and literary horizon of expectation of the era, the individual interests of the narrators, their pre-existing mindsets and cultural inclinations, and the strategies they employed in constructing the narrative of Sanāʾī's life. Through mechanisms such as highlighting, omission, addition, alteration or reduction, weakening, strengthening, and similar reactions, these narrators sought to present an image of Sanāʾī that aligned with the discursive context of their own time and their personal and cultural preferences. In doing so, they filled gaps and omissions in existing texts or hypothesized answers to potential questions. This approach to literary historiography does not seek to identify the single “correct” account of Sanāʾī's life among multiple versions, nor does it aim to reconcile historical events with reality. What becomes significant here is why and how these narratives emerged throughout history, the factors influencing their formation, and the reasons for their distinctions across different time periods and literary centers. The images of Sanāʾī that took shape during this approximately 50-year period in the Herat literary center are particularly important as they served as the primary source for introducing and constructing various representations of him throughout the history of Persian tadhkira (biographical) writing.

Method

The theoretical foundation of this article is Reception Theory. We aim to apply the criteria defined within this theory, along with our own interpretations, to first extract necessary information from four primary texts that constitute our corpus. Subsequently, we will categorize, elaborate on, and analyze this information. Ultimately, this method will answer our fundamental question: How was the narrative of Sanāʾī's life constructed in biographical and historical sources of the 9^th century AH?

Discussion

Our first text is Nafahāt al-Uns (883) by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī. Jāmī, a Sufi poet associated with the Naqshbandiyya order, was closely connected to power holders and the court but was reluctant to accept political positions. In Nafahāt al-Uns, he presents Sanāʾī as a “mystic inclined towards Naqshbandiyya, repentant, shaikh, khwāja, sage, and meaning-oriented eloquent speaker” who, coincidentally, also suffered from association with courtiers, and whose Sufi poetry was consistently well-received and cited. The elements combined in this work are purely mystical and Sufi, perfectly aligning with a Sufi tadhkira.
Our second text is Tadhkirat al-Shuʿarāʾ (892) by Dawlatshāh Samarqandī, written approximately ten years later. Dawlatshāh Samarqandī incorporates information about Sanāʾī from oral tradition. The image he provides of Sanāʾī is that of a poet with strong religious inclinations who avoids political activities, generally introduced as a "religious, repentant, ascetic, Sufi, sage, and poet" individual. The narrative he constructs for Sanāʾī's life is consistent with the character-building archetype within the Timurid era's Sufi discourse. Dawlatshāh emphasizes the element of religiosity more than Jāmī, comparing Sanāʾī to a Sufi poet like Rumi and even elevating him above Rumi.
Our third text is Majālis al-ʿUshshāq (908). The author of this work is not precisely known, but recent research suggests a higher probability of its attribution to Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā. The author's overall purpose in writing this book was to elucidate pure spiritual love (ʿishq-e majāzī) and distinguish it from the unhealthy behaviors prevalent in 9^th century Herat. His intention was to clarify a concept of spiritual love that could serve as a prelude to divine love. The narrative the author constructs of Sanāʾī's life aligns with this purpose. For the first time, he introduces the narrative of Sanāʾī's love for the butcher's son. This narrative existed in oral tradition but entered the tradition of written mystical works for the first time in Majālis al-ʿUshshāq. In his narrative, Sanāʾī is a “lover of the butcher's son, repentant, Sufi, ascetic, sage, and poet”. Thus, the main axis of his account of Sanāʾī's life becomes love.
Our last text is Ḥabīb al-Siyar (930) by Khwāndamīr. Khwāndamīr, a historian trained and affiliated with the Timurid court in Herat, analyzes the correctness or incorrectness of narratives and historical accounts of Sanāʾī's life from a historian's perspective. In Ḥabīb al-Siyar, he redefines Sanāʾī as a “courtier, contemporary of Bahram Shah, mystic, shaikh, and poet”. In his narrative, Sanāʾī has a leaning towards the court, and for this reason, he dedicates his work to the king.

Conclusion

The progression of these images demonstrates that Sufism, as the dominant discourse of the Herat center and the Timurid era, constitutes the main axis of reception of Sanāʾī in these four works. However, due to the varying mystical, religious, romantic, and historical inclinations of each author, their reception and the depicted image of Sanāʾī become distinct and diverse. The purely mystical and Sufi-like personality that Jāmī presents of a repentant and transformed Sanāʾī is re-represented in Dawlatshāh's Tadhkira, through its intermingling with popular culture and oral tradition, accompanied by elements of religion and Sharia, making Sanāʾī's Sufism more repentant, legally observant, and ascetic. The distinct strategy of the author of Majālis al-ʿUshshāq causes a different dimension of Sanāʾī's life to be highlighted, and repentance (tawba), which was considered the basis for Sanāʾī's transformation and Sufi life in the two previous tadhkiras, becomes less significant. In the Majālis al-ʿUshshāq narrative, Sanāʾī's repentance is a prelude and prerequisite for achieving a higher experience. It should be noted that the different perspective in this work redefines the perfection of Sanāʾī's life not through repentance but through love.
The diminished emphasis on Sanāʾī's repentance and his two-stage life is reproduced in Ḥabīb al-Siyar. In Khwāndamīr's narrative, the story of repentance is completely rejected, as historical documents do not confirm the accuracy of the time of repentance. It should also be considered that Khwāndamīr attempts to highlight the political aspect of Sanāʾī's character. In this narrative, Sanāʾī must remain a panegyrist of kings, and panegyric is not consistent with repentance.