Ibn Naṣūḥ Shīrāzī is one of the prominent poets of the 8th century AH who, despite his significant presence at the Jalayirid court and his close engagement with the dominant poetic currents of his time, has received relatively little attention in the history of Persian literature. As a result, scattered, sometimes inaccurate, and insufficiently documented information concerning his life, works, and literary status has circulated in biographical dictionaries (tazkiras) and modern scholarship. Adopting a historical and text-critical approach and drawing on both early and later sources, manuscript evidence, and internal textual analysis of poetic materials, the present study seeks to provide a coherent and well-documented account of Ibn Naṣūḥ’s biography, works, intellectual orientations, and literary position. The findings demonstrate that a critical reassessment of the sources not only corrects several erroneous assumptions but also clarifies the poet’s status as one of the significant figures of 8th century Persian poetry.

1. Introduction
The history of Persian literature abounds with poets who, despite their fame and influence during their own lifetimes, were gradually marginalized in later periods. Ibn Naṣūḥ Shīrāzī belongs to this group of poets. Living in the 8th century AH, he composed poetry in a wide range of genres, including qaṣīda, ghazal, mathnawī, and rubāʿī. The accounts provided by tazkira writers are generally brief, repetitive, and at times contradictory, which has prevented a proper understanding of his actual place within the Persian poetic tradition. The central concern of this study is therefore to reassess and critique these reports and to reconstruct Ibn Naṣūḥ’s life and works on the basis of reliable historical and literary evidence.

2. Literature Review
Early sources constitute the most important body of information on Ibn Naṣūḥ. Among them, Tazkirat al-Shuʿarāʾ by Dawlatshāh Samarqandī is the earliest known source; although it refers to the poet’s reputation, it provides little precise biographical information. The most significant early source is Khulāṣat al-Ashʿār wa Zubdat al-Afkār by Taqī al-Dīn Kāshānī, which offers a relatively detailed biographical account and transmits a substantial selection of Ibn Naṣūḥ’s poetry. Works such as ʿArafāt al-ʿĀshiqīn by Awhadī Balyānī and Ṣuḥuf-i Ibrāhīm by ʿAlī Khalīl supply supplementary information, though they largely rely on Kāshānī’s account.
In modern scholarship, Zabīḥollāh Ṣafā’s History of Literature in Iran has played a foundational role in introducing Ibn Naṣūḥ and has served as the basis for many subsequent studies. Nevertheless, certain inaccuracies—such as those concerning the number of verses in his dīvān or the dedication of the mathnawī Maḥabbat-nāma—have become entrenched in later works and thus require reconsideration.

3. Methodology
This study employs a historical–analytical and text-critical methodology. Through a comparative examination of early and later tazkira sources, collation of manuscript materials, analysis of internal textual evidence from the poems, and correlation of literary data with the political and social events of the 8th century AH, the authors aim to present a documented and coherent narrative of Ibn Naṣūḥ’s life and oeuvre. Particular attention is paid to historical inconsistencies and to the use of poetic evidence as supplementary historical documentation.

4. Discussion
The findings indicate that Ibn Naṣūḥ was originally from Shiraz but was raised in Tabriz, where he spent a substantial part of his life, as well as periods in Baghdad. He initially pursued the conventional sciences of his time and later gained renown in poetry and mysticism. His presence at the Jalayirid court—especially during the reigns of Sulṭān Ḥusayn and Sulṭān Aḥmad Jalayirī—consolidated his social and literary standing, and after the death of his master Salmān Sāvajī, he most likely attained the position of poet laureate (malik al-shuʿarāʾ).
From an intellectual perspective, poetic evidence clearly indicates Ibn Naṣūḥ’s adherence to Twelver Shiʿism, a point that some later sources have questioned. Stylistically, his poetry continues the tradition of Sanāʾī, Saʿdī, and Ẓahīr al-Dīn Fāryābī, while displaying striking linguistic and thematic affinities with the works of Salmān Sāvajī and Ḥāfiẓ Shīrāzī. This stylistic convergence demonstrates that Ibn Naṣūḥ composed his poetry firmly within the mainstream poetic discourse of the 8th century.
Beyond their literary value, Ibn Naṣūḥ’s works reflect the turbulent political and social conditions of the period marked by the collapse of the Ilkhanids and the emergence of local dynasties. His explicit references to insecurity, warfare, and social disorder render his dīvān a valuable source for historical and sociological studies of the era. Moreover, his mathnawī Maḥabbat-nāma occupies a distinctive position within the tradition of dah-nāma composition due to its structural innovations and its creative use of messengers.
A close examination of the autograph manuscript of Khulāṣat al-Ashʿār establishes that the number of extant verses by Ibn Naṣūḥ is precisely 915. One of the most significant corrections proposed in this study is the rejection of the attribution of the dedicatee of Maḥabbat-nāma to Shaykh Kajjajī—a hypothesis previously suggested by Ṣafā. By comparing the date of Shaykh Kajjajī’s death (778 AH) with the completion date of Maḥabbat-nāma (788 AH), this study demonstrates that the work was in fact dedicated to Khwāja Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bū al-ʿIzz, Minister of Sulṭān Aḥmad Jalayirī.

5. Conclusion
Through a critical re-examination of sources and an analysis of historical and literary evidence, the present study establishes Ibn Naṣūḥ Shīrāzī as a significant yet underrecognized poet of the 8th century AH. Correcting erroneous data—particularly regarding the number of verses in his dīvān and the dedication of Maḥabbat-nāma—and clarifying his religious orientation and literary status constitute the main contributions of this research. The results indicate that Ibn Naṣūḥ was not only an influential poet in his own time, but that his works remain a valuable resource for contemporary literary, historical, and cultural studies.