Few periods of Iran's past are as little known as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the age of Saljuq Turkish domination. This valuable study is an important contribution to our understanding of the Saljuq period in general and is likely to remain the seminal work on Isfahan's pre-Mongol history for the foreseeable future. Its contribution is twofold: it highlights above all how local elites reacted to Turkish domination, seeking to preserve their privileges and lands, while it also offers an invaluable insight into the functioning of the Saljuq court and state, at least for the period between c. 1072 and 1125 when Isfahan was the dynasty's effective capital (a role it shared, to some extent and for some purposes, with Baghdad, a subject which is in need of further elucidation).

The first chapter examines the identity of Isfahan in the pre-Saljuq period, suggesting that its closest relationship was more with Baghdad, the city which it sought to rival as a cultural and political centre, than other major urban centres in Iran. The second chapter deals with the incorporation of Isfahan into the Saljuq state, a difficult process owing to the local elites' justifiable fear that they would lose out to the Saljuqs' Khurasani administrators who dominated bureaucratic positions. Subsequent chapters (Chapter 4, 6 and 7) examine how this Khurasani elite maintained its grasp on power and the local reactions this provoked, one of which, Durand-Guédy convincingly argues, was Ismailism “which resonated with both the common people and a part of the old elite that had lost status with the coming of the Khurasanis” (p. 148). The analysis of the domination of twelfth-century Isfahan by the Khujandīs, one of these Khurasani families that originally owed its position to Niẓām al-Mulk (Chapters 7, 9 and 10), offers invaluable insights into the functioning of local elites at a time when sultanic power was on the decline, as the author has been able to make use of a little-known contemporary inshāʾ collection from Isfahan, the Mukhtārāt al-Rasāʾil, which is a treasure trove of information on the structure and politics of the elite. The final chapter discusses Isfahan under Khwarazmian domination, when the Khujandīs' main rivals, the Ṣāʿid family, rose to prominence to the former's detriment.

Although the scanty evidence for urban development is discussed in places, as the title implies, this is a work focused very much on the politics of local elites. Perhaps inevitably, because of the nature of the sources, we hear much less about the internal political dynamics of the Turkish rulers and amirs, with the exception of the admirable Chapter 3. This examines the relationship of the early Saljuq court with the city, concluding that while Isfahan did indeed deserve the title of Saljuq capital, at least from the time of Malikshāh, the court tended to reside in the military camp physically outside of the city itself, the spatial division underlining the separation between Iranian and Turk.

In addition to political history, Durand-Guédy's insights into the religious history of the period can be illuminating, although they are not the focus of the book. His discussion (pp. 142–52) of the Ismaili movement in Isfahan alluded to above provides much food for thought by stressing how it was separate from – and regarded as illegitimate – that of the more famous Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ. The comments (pp. 36–40, 135–42) on the prevalence of Hanbalism in Isfahan provide a useful corrective to the tendency to see the movement as purely Baghdad-centred – although, as I have argued elsewhere, Hanbalism or at least Hanbali-style groups could be found in Khurasan too,Footnote ¹ so I would not necessarily take this as evidence for the “special relationship” between Baghdad and Isfahan (cf. p. 36). The role of Hanbalism in mediaeval Iran would make a valuable subject for future research.

The range of sources Durand-Guédy has used is admirable, with under-exploited resources like contemporary poetry being brought into full play alongside the Arabic and Persian chronicles and biographical dictionaries; it is also useful to have the original text of important quotations presented in Appendix F. (Other appendices give chronological and genealogical information with regard to the rulers and local elites in the city.) With regard to historical fact and interpretation, however, there are points where one might quibble, as is inevitable in a work of such bulk. For example, on p. 172 the author describes the end of the civil war between Berkyaruq and Muḥammad in the following terms:

This seems to be based on the narrative in Bosworth,Footnote ² but the principal primary source, Ibn al-Athīr, tells a rather different story. While it was Berkyaruq who first sued for peace, the precise proposals came from Muḥammad and were clearly designed to ensure that Muḥammad's primacy was maintained in his territories: “the sultan Berkyaruq was not to oppose his brother Muḥammad in the matter of the drums [signifying sultanic authority], and was not to be mentioned alongside him [in the khuṭba] in the rest of the lands he had acquired”.Footnote ³ Thus Durand-Guédy's statement that possession of Isfahan was “one of the attributes of the sultanate”, the surrender of which effectively meant abdicating the right to be sultan, seems to me somewhat uncertain. If it ever did have such a status it was certainly short-lived. As Durand-Guédy himself shows, neither Tughril nor Alp Arslan had any particular attachment to the city nor spent much time there, and Sanjar never set foot in it as sultan. On one of Sanjar's rare ventures west to bring his nephew Mahmud to obedience, the proclamation of the khuṭba in the senior Saljuq's name in Baghdad seems to be the defining element in asserting his suzerainty.Footnote ⁴ Later, the centre of the sultanate in the west moved to Hamadhan (p. 209), more conveniently located for controlling the Saljuq domains and, one might add, for recruiting allies from the Kurdish and Turkish tribes that pastured around that city. Thus Muḥammad's willingness to surrender the city to Berkyaruq may have been based on nothing more than a simple calculation that it was too remote from his main powerbase in the north to be easily maintained as part of his domains.

I would also question the statement on p. 256 that Sanjar “only visited his western territories twice”, in 526/1132 and 544/1149–50, allowing the Saljuq line in the Jibal “near total freedom of action”. In fact, Sanjar also launched a major, if ill-fated, campaign west in 513/1119, soon after Muḥammad's death, when he reached as far as Hamadhan.Footnote ⁵ In 522/1128 he advanced to summon the sultan in the west, Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad, to obedience, although he only had to come as far as Rayy before Maḥmūd presented himself.Footnote ⁶ As the latter incident indicates, as well as Sanjar's intervention on the side of Ṭughril b. Muḥammad,Footnote ⁷ Sanjar did maintain an interest in events in Jibal and Isfahan, although his experience of 513/1119 had doubtless taught him that the logistics of intervention were problematic.

Such quibbles notwithstanding, there is no doubt as to the value and importance of this work. It is a major contribution to our understanding of the neglected Saljuq period and the mediaeval history of Iran more generally and sheds fresh light on many neglected or misunderstood issues while handling an impressive array of sources with dexterity. Every library collection encompassing the pre-modern Middle East should certainly acquire a copy.