On January 20, 1609, in the streets of Madrid, swords clashed between an Iranian convert to Christianity and one of Spain’s rising literary talents. The violence left Don Diego de Persia (formerly Bunyad bey, a secretary from Shah Abbas I’s embassy to Europe) with life-threatening facial and chest wounds. Seven years after his baptism with King Philip III as godfather, Don Diego found himself bleeding on Madrid’s cobblestones at the hands of Alonso Jerónimo de Salas Barbadillo, the young novelist who would later earn praise from Cervantes himself.

This violent confrontation has been almost entirely overlooked in both Azerbaijani and Spanish historiography, yet the surviving court records provide unprecedented detail about honor culture, violence, and judicial processes involving Safavid converts in Habsburg Spanish society. For Azerbaijani scholarship specifically, this case corrects fundamental errors about the embassy members and provides evidence about Don Diego’s relative success in integration compared to other converts.

In my earlier series, I focused on early Safavid diplomacy during the time of Shah Abbas towards European powers.^[1] This article builds on that foundation by presenting details of the 1609 street fight using archival sources and criminal proceedings to reconstruct Don Diego de Persia’s biography and reveal broader patterns of integration failure. In this article I explain how despite Bunyad bey’s relative success, institutional barriers like limpieza de sangre^[2] doctrine prevented his admission to the Order of Santiago twice (1622, 1629).

Origins

Don Diego started life as Bunyad bey, born in 1584 to one of the prominent Qizilbash tribes. He entered history as part of Shah Abbas I’s 1599-1602 embassy to Europe seeking a grand alliance against the Ottoman Empire. The palace historian of Maurice of Hesse-Kassel, Wilhelm Dilich, described Bunyad bey as a “young court attendant” in his chronicle.^[3] This raises interesting questions: why would Shah Abbas send a sixteen-year-old on such a critical three-year diplomatic mission across continents?

I propose that only someone from a very prominent family would be entrusted with such responsibility so young. If his family was part of Qizilbash tribal nobility, he would serve as both trainee and hostage (albeit remotely). His youth made him less threatening while his family connections ensured loyalty.

Unlike his embassy colleagues Oruj bey Bayat and Aligulu bey Bayat, who were explicitly identified as members of the Bayat tribe, Bunyad bey appears in contemporary documents simply by his name. When Don Diego later applied to join the Order of Santiago in 1622, he claimed descent from the “Dukes of Xamen.”^[4] Spanish scholars haven’t investigated this claim’s source. Even Hernán García doesn’t comment on this title.^[5]

But the phonetic correspondence is striking. In early 17th-century Castilian orthography, the letter <x> represented the voiceless prepalatal fricative /ʃ/ (the sound in English ‘ship’). The velarization of this phoneme to the modern /x/ (the guttural ‘j’) was not fully completed until the mid-to-late 17th century.^[6] “Xamen” would thus have been pronounced approximately as “Shamen”—a near-perfect match for “Shamlu,” the name of one of the seven original Qizilbash tribes.

The Shamlu derived their name from Sham (Syria), just as other major Qizilbash tribes took their names from geographic origins: the Rumlu from Rum (Anatolia), the Tekelu from Teke in southeastern Anatolia. These tribal confederations had coalesced around the Safavid spiritual order in the fifteenth century, transforming from religious devotees into the militant force that brought Shah Ismail I to power in 1501. The first vicegerent of the entire Safavid Empire under Shah Ismail I was Hossein Beg Laleh Shamlu, effectively serving as prime minister and commander-in-chief of Qizilbash armies. The “chief of all the armies” under Shah Abbas I in 1588 was Ali Qoli Khan Shamlu.

If Bunyad bey was indeed Shamlu, this explains why he could be sent on such an important embassy at sixteen and why his Santiago applications later claimed ducal-level nobility—he was translating authentic Safavid aristocratic credentials into Spanish terminology his audience would understand. Even though we lack concrete knowledge of Bunyad bey’s parentage, we can safely assume he was part of an upper strata of nobility.

1609 violence

By 1609, Don Diego had spent seven years in Spain following his baptism on July 15, 1602, at El Escorial with King Philip III as godfather.^[7] He had survived a major crisis in May 1605 when both he and Don Juan de Persia were implicated in the murder of Khoja Hasan,^[8] secretary to Bastamgulu bey, the next Safavid ambassador to Spain.^[9] After eighteen months in prison,^[10] the actual killer confessed, but the verdict sentenced both converts to ten years’ military service in Flanders. Don Álvaro de Carvajal intervened, and the sentence was suspended.^[11]

Don Diego had established himself in Madrid’s Calle del Príncipe, the heart of Spanish Golden Age literary culture, home to the Corral del Príncipe playhouse^[12] where Lope de Vega’s and Calderón’s works premiered. This Quarter of the Muses^[13] forced intimate proximity among rival authors.^[14] Living here placed Don Diego among poets, playwrights, actors, prostitutes, students, and soldiers.

The confrontation of January 20, 1609, brought together figures whose backgrounds could hardly have been more different.^[15] Alonso Jerónimo de Salas Barbadillo, born in Madrid on July 29, 1581, was educated at Alcalá de Henares and Valladolid. In 1608, he joined the elite Congregation of Slaves of the Blessed Sacrament^[16] at the Oratory of Olive Grove^[17] alongside Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, Vicente Espinel, and Francisco de Quevedo. His novel La Patrona de Madrid (1608) had established him as a rising talent.

Eugenio de Heredia, 25-year-old royal chamber musician, was the third figure. His father, Luis de Heredia, served as a scribe to Philip III. Court testimony reveals that Eugenio knew Don Diego socially as they were described as “friends” (amigos).

Around 8-9 PM on January 20 (the feast of Saint Sebastian), Salas Barbadillo and Eugenio de Heredia arrived at Don Diego’s house. According to court testimony, they “came looking for said Don Diego de Persia” and were invited to dine. The dinner party assembled in Don Diego’s residence included Hernan Mendez de Olivenza (a Portuguese gentleman who lived with Don Diego as his housemate) and neighbors from the building, including Alonso de Zamora, his wife Doña Beatriz Mendez, and their daughters. They dined on mutton stew past 11 PM. Following the meal, the men left together for a walk through the Madrid night.

The archival sources describe the incident as a matter involving women.^[18] Court testimony mentions that women were present at or near the dinner. The proximity of women to the dining party, combined with the immediate eruption of violence after the meal ended, suggests that something was said or done during dinner that could not be left unanswered.

Spanish dueling practice in this period did not involve formalized rituals. There were no seconds arranging terms, no designated dueling grounds, no physicians standing by. Armed men in a society where nearly every gentleman carried a sword could move from heated words to drawn blades in moments.

The testimonies directly contradict each other. Don Diego testified that as they walked near the Calle de la Cruz, Salas and Heredia began speaking ill of women. Don Diego reprimanded them, arguing that it was wrong. As the argument heated up near the Concepcion Jeronima convent, Don Diego called Heredia a “picarillo” (little rogue).

Eugenio de Heredia and Salas provided the opposite account. They testified that Don Diego had led them out specifically to harass women. They alleged Don Diego wanted to serenade and shout insults (calling them “whores”) at certain women, specifically “Persian women”, and when the poet and musician refused to participate in such dishonorable acts, Don Diego became violent.

The court documents do not indicate which version was deemed more credible, though subsequent events suggest the authorities found Don Diego’s account more plausible: Don Diego was never arrested despite the investigation, while Salas was eventually convicted and exiled (though later pardoned).

Regardless of who initiated what, violence erupted near the convent. According to Don Diego, Heredia grabbed the hilt of Don Diego’s sword to disarm him. Both Heredia and Salas then drew their weapons and attacked. Don Diego returned to his house covered in blood with a broken sword.

The surgeon, Pedro Gonçalez Beltran, was summoned at 3:00 AM. He reported that Don Diego had sustained a horrific wound on the right side of his face, slicing from the ear to the lip. The cut was so deep it penetrated the jaw, severed three molars, and opened into the mouth. He also suffered a stab wound below the left nipple. The surgeon faced life-threatening hemorrhage, potential infection, and possible internal organ damage.

Despite his severe injuries, Don Diego did not stay home. He bandaged his face, grabbed a shield (broquel) and a sword from his servant, and went back out seeking revenge. He went to the home of Luis de Heredia (Eugenio’s father) near the Church of San Pedro, causing a commotion on the staircase with his sword drawn, demanding to know where the “traitor” Eugenio was.

The 63-year-old Luis tried to de-escalate, telling Don Diego to calm down and wait. His daughter Maria pleaded, saying, “Don Diego… you have no reason to treat my brother this way, as he is your friend.” Don Diego left.

Failing to find Eugenio, Don Diego and Hernan Mendez de Olivenza tracked down Salas Barbadillo near the house of the Marquis of Camarasa.^[19] Luis went into the street half-dressed to see if they were killing his son. He saw three men with naked swords and shields chasing Salas. He saw them catch up to Salas and slash him with a sword, even though Salas had his sword sheathed. Luis eventually found Salas at the Marquis’s house, wounded in the head. Luis de Heredia formally filed a criminal complaint against Don Diego de Persia, Hernan Mendez, and their accomplices.

Pedro Gutiérrez de la Cerva, a twenty-five-year-old servant of the Marquis and Captain of the Spanish Guard, supported Luis’s version. Gutiérrez observed that Salas was badly wounded in the head and summoned a barber. Domingo Aparicio, a twenty-four-year-old barber, testified that around 2:00 AM, servants summoned him to treat a man with a sword slash in the middle of his head.

Legal proceedings

On January 21, 1609—the day after the violence—Judge Silva de Torres issued an arrest order: “Hernán Méndez de Olivenza and the servants of Don Diego de Persia, put them in jail, and seize the goods of all the culprits.” The investigation Silva supervised included witness testimony from Luis de Heredia and others. Silva sat on the panel of alcaldes together with Gregorio López Madera, Francisco Márquez, and Don Fernando Ramírez who deliberated in the Royal Prison’s audiencia chamber.

Because Don Diego was a Persian convert under royal protection with a lifetime pension from Philip III, the justice system intervened with particular vigor. The case fell to Judge Gonzalo Pérez de Valenzuela, who had been appointed magistrate of the Royal Household and Court on April 11, 1609. This newly-minted position gave him jurisdiction over cases involving members of the royal household.

Eugenio Heredia testified on March 26, 1609, claiming that Don Diego had secretly armed himself by wearing a protective leather coat beneath his doublet before leaving the house, allegedly harboring anger because Eugenio had recited a couplet mimicking Don Diego’s language.

According to Eugenio, the group walked to the Plazuela del Ángel around 12:30 AM, at which point he and Salas told Don Diego to return home. Eugenio stated that after briefly entering the Duke of Osuna’s^[20] house and coming back out, they encountered Don Diego, Fernan Mendez, and two servants waiting for them. He testified that Don Diego’s group drew their swords and attacked, wounding Salas in the head. Eugenio explicitly denied Don Diego’s version—specifically that the fight started because they insulted women or that they had gone to Don Diego’s house to kill him.

Two days later, Hernán Méndez de Olivenza gave a statement flatly denying that he had accompanied Don Diego to hunt down and wound Salas, maintaining that he had remained at home throughout. Interestingly, in his initial testimony as a witness, he stated that he was home around 2:00 AM when Don Diego arrived banging on the door, covered in blood. Don Diego claimed that Salas and Heredia had attacked him treacherously, though he did not explain the cause. Hernán claimed he left the house while Eugenio was playing the guitar and believed the men were great friends.

Salas remained free for months after the incident. However, he was arrested in September 1609 for writing libels^[21] calling three constables (Pedro Berxel, Pero de Sierra, Jerónimo Ortiz) cuckolds and mocking their wives’ alleged infidelity. The judges noted that the prisoner still had a pending cause regarding the wounding of Don Diego de Persia. When final judgment was rendered, it conflated the two offenses; Salas was sentenced to exile not just for his libelous poetry, but for the “pendency between him and Don Diego de Persia.”

The discovery of the satires provided thematic resolution to the conflicting narratives. During initial investigation, Don Diego testified that the fight began because Salas and Heredia were “speaking ill of women,” a charge Salas had indignantly denied. The September raid on Salas’s desk revealed he was indeed writing verses mocking women like Doña Francisca Ortiz and Doña María de Vicuña, vindicating Don Diego’s version.

Despite this validation and the severe disfigurement he suffered, Don Diego chose mercy over litigation. When Salas petitioned King Philip III for a pardon on Good Friday of 1610, the royal decree explicitly noted that Don Diego “did not complain against you nor asked for anything.”^[22] This refusal to press charges was the decisive factor that allowed the King to lift the exile, permitting Salas to return to Madrid.

Don Diego’s treatment in this case reveals his relatively strong position compared to other converts. He was never arrested despite being a central figure in violent incidents. He maintained servants, including Diego Lopez who testified on his behalf. Most significantly, unlike Don Juan de Persia who was required to have a supervising priest until 1616 to ensure his continued Christianity, Don Diego never had such supervision imposed on him. This differential treatment suggests Spanish authorities viewed Don Diego as more trustworthy and better integrated than other prominent converts.

Honor cultures

To fully understand what occurred on January 20, 1609, we must situate it within broader frameworks of honor.^[23] The violence Don Diego experienced and the choices he made afterward emerged from the intersection of two honor systems that shared structural similarities while diverging in crucial institutional and symbolic particulars.

The concept of honra in early modern Spain encompassed both internal moral integrity and external social reputation, with the latter carrying greater practical weight. As historian Scott K. Taylor demonstrates, the traditional image of a rigid “honor code” requiring automatic violent revenge oversimplifies actual practice.^[24] Spaniards employed varied repertoires of response to honor violations: legal remedies through courts, private settlements negotiated by mediators, strategic avoidance of known enemies, public humiliation of opponents through satire (as Salas Barbadillo practiced), and when other options failed, violence.

Yet violence remained ever-available and socially legible, particularly among men claiming noble status. The ubiquity of swords in urban spaces, the celebration of martial valor in literature and theater, and the legal tolerance for mutual combat among social equals all reinforced violence as a legitimate honor strategy. Don Diego’s severe wounding did not scandal Spanish society because of the violence itself—brawls were commonplace—but because of the victim’s special status as a royal convert-godson.

Iranian and Turkic honor culture operated through related but distinct concepts:

• Namus: Sexual honor, family reputation, particularly the chastity of female relatives. Violations of namus demanded revenge, often violent, to restore family standing.^[25]

• Ghayrat: Zeal, bravery, the duty to defend honor, property, and family. Men demonstrated ghayrat through protective vigilance and willingness to fight.^[26]

• Sharaf: Dynamic reputation earned through moral conduct, generosity, and noble deeds. Unlike namus (which could be permanently lost through sexual dishonor), sharaf could increase or decrease based on behavior.

The Qizilbash tribes among whom Bunyad bey was raised added warrior honor codes specific to their religious-military identity. The concept of sufigari^[27] meant “proper conduct for a Sufi” but extended to mean “conduct becoming to a Qizilbash officer”—loyalty to the shah, obedience to commanders, courage in battle, and devotion to Shi’ite faith. Its opposite, na-sufigari, signified rebellious or treasonable conduct, a capital crime.^[28] The institution of javanmardi,^[29] Iranian concept of “young manliness,” provided ethical frameworks emphasizing generosity, self-sacrifice, patience, humility, and spiritual bravery.

If Bunyad bey were indeed Shamlu, he would have absorbed warrior honor codes from childhood through the most militarized of Qizilbash tribes. The Shamlu had produced the first prime minister of the Safavid Empire, Husein Beg Shamlu, who controlled supreme military command. The court’s designation of Don Diego as “warrior” acknowledged his military training.

By 1609, Don Diego had spent seven years in Spain, learning Spanish honor codes while retaining Safavid frameworks. This dual consciousness likely shaped his response to the “matter of skirts” that triggered the violence. Iranian namus and Spanish honra both constructed female sexuality as crucial to male reputation. Both cultures expected men to respond violently to sexual dishonor.

Court testimony of Doña María de Heredia (Eugenio’s sister or mother) claims that Don Diego demanded Salas Barbadillo and Eugenio de Heredia recite mocking verses to “some women who were Persians”^[30] and call them whores. When his guests refused, declaring “they were not men who would do such things, especially to women”, Don Diego allegedly provoked the confrontation that nearly killed him.

This testimony raises several interpretive questions. The reference to “Persian women” could indicate: actual Persian/Azerbaijani women living in Madrid whom Don Diego knew; a rhetorical category Don Diego invoked without specific individuals being present; an excuse fabricated by Salas and Eugenio to justify their violence; or a misunderstanding or misrecording of what was actually said. The phrase appears only in testimony from Don Diego’s opponents and their family members, not from Don Diego himself or neutral witnesses.

What the testimony definitively shows is that “Persian” identity was deployed as a meaningful category in the conflict, whether or not actual Persian women were involved. The episode demonstrates how ethnic identity, female honor, and sexual transgression became entangled in Madrid’s social imagination regarding Safavid converts.

Literary stereotypes and dramatic parallels

The archival records suggest that Safavid converts were in contact even after their conversion. Records preserved in the Protocol Archive of Madrid illuminate the financial and social integration of Don Juan, Don Diego, and Don Felipe. Through notarized powers of attorney, these noblemen authorized third parties to collect their royal stipends, which collectively amounted to 1,200 ducats. Notarial documents also reveal economic stratification within the group; while Don Diego contracted with moneylenders for advances on his pension, Don Juan appeared to possess greater liquidity.

However, these converts navigated a literary culture that openly mocked them. Lope de Vega, one of Spain’s most celebrated playwrights and a member of the elite group alongside Cervantes, Quevedo, Calderón and Salas Barbadillo himself, wrote a cutting sonnet ridiculing Iranians from “the first embassy.”^[31] The poem depicted them burying a musk-scented monkey with elaborate Muslim funeral offerings while their “alcoranista” (Quran expert) performed “vain rites.” Lope’s bitter punchline: “How terrible the world’s disorder! / That living men with need / eat the honors of dead monkeys!”^[32]

The satire operated on multiple levels. Literally, it portrayed Persian converts as crypto-Muslims maintaining Islamic superstitions despite baptisms. But literary scholar Jesús Cañas Murillo has proposed a deeper allegorical reading: the poem was simultaneously a coded attack in Lope’s literary war against Luis de Góngora and the culteranos.^[33] The “alcoranista” attacked Pellicer by suggesting he was not a true cristiano viejo.^[34] Whether read literally or allegorically, the sonnet deployed “Persian” identity as a symbol of foreignness and religious falsity.

Another dramatist whose work may have drawn on exotic convert experiences was Andrés de Claramonte, who established his own theatrical company in March 1609—just two months after Don Diego’s near-fatal duel. Claramonte’s play The brave black man in Flanders^[35], probably written between 1610 and 1612 with possible first performance in Murcia in 1612, presents striking parallels to Don Diego’s trajectory.

The play’s protagonist, Juan de Mérida, is a former slave who seeks to prove his valor through military service in Flanders. Like Don Diego, he overcomes racism and social hierarchy to become a war hero. The play’s climax features the king granting Juan de Mérida the habit of Santiago, appointing him general, and assigning him six thousand ducats in rent. Claramonte’s fictional exotic hero achieved exactly what the real Don Diego could not: the Santiago habit that would legitimize his social ascent.^[36]

The play acknowledges the transgressive nature of this ending. Modern editions note that granting Santiago to a former slave requires “deus ex machina” justification as it was unthinkable in the period either in reality or fiction. The play explicitly includes verses where the king grants the protagonist the Santiago habit specifically to justify the protagonist’s marriage to his former owner, an ending so transgressive that some 18th-century editions removed it entirely.

Claramonte’s connection to Don Diego’s social world was direct. In 1611, Claramonte attended the literary academy of Diego Gómez de Sandoval alongside Góngora, Lope, Quevedo, and Salas Barbadillo—the very man who had dueled Don Diego two years earlier. The stories of Persian converts’ scandals, Don Diego’s violence, and his military ambitions would have circulated in precisely these literary circles where Claramonte was establishing his reputation. Whether Claramonte consciously modeled his character on Don Diego or drew on general knowledge about exotic converts’ experiences, the play demonstrates that Spanish dramatists were actively using exotic military heroes as subject matter during precisely the years Don Diego was attempting his own social ascent.

The theatrical and literary implications may extend far beyond contemporary gossip. Between 1619 and 1620, the Mercedarian friar Tirso de Molina composed The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest^[37], the first literary treatment of the Don Juan legend.^[38] The play features two key characters: Don Juan Tenorio and Don Diego Tenorio, his father.

The onomastic coincidence—Don Juan and Don Diego, the precise names of two Persian converts living in Madrid’s theatrical district during Tirso’s formative years—demands investigation. More compelling is the network connecting Tirso to the Persian converts’ story. In 1604, Alonso Remón edited and wrote the prologue to Don Juan de Persia’s Relaciones. On August 24, 1605, just three months after Don Juan and Don Diego were imprisoned for Khoja Hasan’s murder, Remón entered the Order of Mercy in Toledo. During his novitiate, he lived with Tirso de Molina, who had entered the order in 1600.

Tirso lived with a man who personally knew Don Juan de Persia, who had edited his book, who could relay stories about the exotic converts living in Madrid. The tales would have been irresistible: two Persian Muslims baptized with royal sponsorship; imprisoned for murder but cleared; one nearly murdered in a street fight over women.

Tirso’s Don Juan Tenorio shares structural parallels with stereotypes surrounding Don Juan and Don Diego de Persia. The fictional Don Juan is an aristocrat who moves through high society yet remains fundamentally transgressive, precisely the contradiction embodied by Persian converts who bore royal godparentage yet remained perpetually foreign. The play’s Don Diego Tenorio repeatedly expresses shame: “Oh son, how badly you repay me / for the love I have had for you!”^[39] In historical record, the older, established Don Juan de Persia (who wrote a book, obtained substantial pension, married with royal approval) versus the younger, problematic Don Diego de Persia (imprisoned for murder, nearly killed in a duel, remaining unmarried, disappearing into obscurity) creates a similar dynamic.

Tirso’s Tisbea laments: “I sheltered him, I hosted him, in such notorious danger, and the vile guest was a viper to my foot.”^[40] This parallels Don Diego’s 1609 case perfectly: he hosted Salas and Eugenio for dinner as friends, they shared a meal, then violence erupted. The betrayal of hospitality is a theme in both stories.

The evidence remains circumstantial but compelling. We cannot prove Tirso consciously modeled his characters on the Persian converts. Yet the coincidence of names, the direct personal connection through Remón, the timing of scandalous events during Tirso’s formative years, and the thematic parallels suggest that Don Juan and Don Diego de Persia’s shadow presence haunts the origins of Spanish literature’s most famous sexual transgressor.

After 1609

Don Diego’s response to his wounds was to seek military distinction that would demonstrate his transformation from Muslim to Catholic warrior. By August 1, 1614, he was fighting with four soldiers at his own expense against Ottoman-aligned forces in Larache, Morocco. He subsequently served at the Mahdiyya (La Mámora) fortress under Admiral Luis Fajardo y Chacón. These campaigns formed part of Philip III’s Mediterranean strategy following the expulsion of the Moriscos (1609-1614).

Don Diego’s military service bore fruit in 1621 when he petitioned for the contino^[41] position. His petition made three key arguments: he had served with distinction at the Battle of Mamora, he was the only Iranian remaining at court, and most significantly he had mastered both Persian and Turkish languages. This linguistic claim revealed strategic value: Don Diego could serve as interpreter and intelligence asset. The king appointed him contino in 1622.

Yet Don Diego aimed higher. In April 1622, he applied for knighthood in the Order of Santiago. The Order required applicants to prove noble lineage through four generations, absence of Jewish, Muslim, or convert ancestry “no matter how far removed” (the doctrine of purity of blood), legitimate birth, and sufficient wealth. Don Diego could document neither his genealogy nor satisfy the limpieza de sangre requirement—by definition impossible for a Muslim convert.

He attempted to bridge this gap by claiming descent from the “Xamen Dukes of Iran”—the Shamlu tribe. Don Juan de Persia’s Relaciones explicitly described the Shamlu as holding positions equivalent to Spanish dukes.^[42] Don Diego was translating authentic Safavid aristocratic credentials into Spanish terminology his audience would understand.

Don Baltasar de Zúñiga, the king’s foreign affairs adviser, championed Don Diego’s cause, arguing that his faithful service, battlefield valor, linguistic abilities, and noble Iranian lineage merited recognition.^[43] The Marquis of Caracena rejected the application. The Order’s statutes explicitly excluded anyone with Muslim ancestry, and no amount of service could override written requirements. When Zúñiga died in October 1622, Don Diego lost his most powerful advocate.

However, in 1628, he achieved appointment as gentleman-in-waiting^[44] to the king, a Burgundian-derived position involving service at the sovereign’s table. The position granted access to royal chambers impossible for most courtiers. Next year, Don Diego applied to be a knight of Santiago again. Juan de Villela and Pedro de Zúñiga rejected his candidacy.^[45] The fundamental problem remained: limpieza de sangre requirements permanently disqualified anyone with Muslim ancestry. One scholar noted that the statutes were so rigid that “Jesus himself would have failed to qualify as a porter in Toledo Cathedral” due to his Jewish ancestry.^[46]

Don Diego’s interests extended beyond military and political advancement. On July 21, 1631, he ransomed the Flemish artist Juan de la Corte from debtor’s prison, paying 568 reales. The contract bound the de la Corte brothers to regular artistic production for their patron.^[47] De la Corte specialized in battle paintings and architectural views. These subjects that would have resonated with Don Diego’s military service.

The final documented appearance of Don Diego de Persia comes in 1636, when he joined the military at the start of the Franco-Spanish War.^[48] This conflict marked Richelieu’s decisive intervention against Habsburg dominance. For a man approaching sixty, joining this campaign represented either continued military ambition or desperate circumstances. No further documentation records his fate.

Conclusion

This reconstruction of Don Diego de Persia’s biography using January 20, 1609 duel case accomplishes several historiographic goals for Azerbaijani scholarship.

First, it establishes Bunyad bey (Don Diego de Persia) as a figure deserving independent scholarly attention. The phonetic correspondence between “Xamen Dukes” and Shamlu, combined with Don Juan de Persia’s explicit description of Shamlu as equivalent to Spanish dukes, provides evidence for his hitherto unestablished tribal identification. If correct, this connects him to one of Safavid Azerbaijan’s most powerful military tribes.

Second, it reveals that despite not being as popular as Don Juan, Don Diego was comparatively more successfully integrated than other prominent converts. Unlike Don Juan de Persia, who required a supervising priest until 1616 to ensure his continued Christianity, Don Diego never had such supervision. He maintained servants, including Diego Lopez who testified in the 1609 case, suggesting financial stability. Most significantly, despite being the victim in a violent incident that left him severely wounded, Don Diego was never arrested. The investigation targeted his servants and housemate Hernan Mendez, but Don Diego himself faced no charges. This differential treatment suggests authorities viewed him as a credible victim rather than a troublemaker.

Third, the contradictory testimonies reveal competing interpretations of the violence. Don Diego claimed he defended women’s honor when Salas and Eugenio insulted them; Salas and Eugenio claimed Don Diego wanted them to insult “Persian women” and they refused. The court documents do not indicate which version was accepted, but subsequent events favor Don Diego’s account: Salas was convicted and exiled (though later pardoned at Don Diego’s request), while Don Diego faced no punishment. The reference to “Persian women” in testimony from Don Diego’s opponents is ambiguous. It could indicate actual Persian women in Madrid, a rhetorical category, or an excuse fabricated to justify the violence. The evidence does not definitively establish whether Persian women lived in Madrid, though the deployment of “Persian” as a meaningful category in the conflict is itself significant.

Fourth, the post-1609 trajectory reveals both advancement and structural barriers. Don Diego achieved appointment as contino (1622) and gentleman-in-waiting (1628), positions granting regular court access. He served in Morocco campaigns (1614) demonstrating military valor. He patronized Flemish artists (1631), behaving as Spanish nobility would. Yet the Order of Santiago rejected his applications twice (1622, 1629) despite powerful advocacy from Don Baltasar de Zúñiga. The limpieza de sangre doctrine, treating Muslim ancestry as permanent disqualification “no matter how far removed”, created an institutional barrier that no amount of service, valor, or royal favor could overcome.

Fifth, Don Diego’s final disappearance (1636) into Franco-Spanish War military campaigns leaves his ultimate fate unknown. Whether he died in combat, returned to Spain in obscurity, or met some other end, the archival silence is itself significant. A man who had been the king’s godson, who held court positions, who had served for thirty-four years, disappears from the record without notice. This absence suggests that despite his relative integration success, Don Diego remained marginal enough that his death or disappearance warranted no official documentation.

For Azerbaijani historiography, this case study demonstrates the importance of examining Safavid embassy members as individual historical actors with distinct trajectories rather than treating them as an undifferentiated category. Don Diego’s experience differed significantly from Don Juan de Persia’s (who required priestly supervision, who had less financial stability, whose ultimate fate is also unknown but who appears in records longer than Don Diego due to this book). These differences suggest that “integration” was not a single process but varied based on individual circumstances, tribal affiliations, and relationships with Spanish authorities.

The literary dimension deserves particular emphasis. Multiple Spanish dramatists like Lope de Vega, Andrés de Claramonte, and possibly Tirso de Molina were actively drawing on exotic convert experiences as material for their works during precisely the years Don Diego was attempting integration. Lope mocked Persian converts in satirical verse. Claramonte created a fictional hero who achieved (through royal decree granting Santiago) exactly what Don Diego was denied. Tirso (or Claramonte) possibly used the names “Don Juan” and “Don Diego” for characters whose scandals mirror those of the real Persian converts. This literary attention suggests that Don Diego and his fellow converts were not marginal figures but sufficiently prominent and controversial to inspire theatrical representation—though the representations themselves often reinforced stereotypes about exotic foreigners rather than documenting individual experiences.

The 1609 duel itself remains ambiguous. We cannot determine who provoked whom, whether the violence concerned actual Persian women or rhetorical categories, or why Don Diego chose to pardon Salas rather than press charges. What the case definitively shows is that converts navigated complex honor systems, that their violent conflicts generated contradictory testimonies reflecting competing cultural frameworks, and that judicial processes treated them as both protected (Don Diego was never arrested) and scrutinized (his household was investigated). Don Diego’s subsequent advancement to gentleman-in-waiting demonstrates that the 1609 violence did not permanently damage his standing, though the Santiago rejections show that institutional barriers remained insurmountable regardless of individual achievement.

^[1] For earlier articles, see: Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’s European Spies – First Contacts,” Baku Research Institute , January 21, 2024, https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari/ ; Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’s European Spies – Great European Embassy,” Baku Research Institute , February 22, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari-boyuk-avropa-sefirliyi/ ; Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’ European Spies – Secret Embassy,” Baku Research Institute , March 15, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari-gizli-sefrilik/ ; Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’s European Spies – The Grand European Embassy (Part II),” Baku Research Institute , April 14, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari-boyuk-avropa-sefirliyi-2/ ; Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’ European Spies – Polish Embassy” Baku Research Institute , May 25, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari-polsa-sefirliyi , Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’ European Spies – Rome Embassy” Baku Research Institute , June 28, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/sah-abbasin-avropa-casuslari-roma-sefirliyi/ , Javid Agha, “European spies of Shah Abbas – Spanish Embassy and the transition to Christianity” Baku Research Institute , June 11, 2024 https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/en/shah-abbas-european-spies-the-spanish-embassy-and-conversions-to-christianity/; Javid Agha, “Shah Abbas’ European Spies – The Fate of the Embassy and Oruj bey Bayat”, Baku Research Institute, 16 September 2024, https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/en/the-fate-of-the-embassy-and-oruj-bey-bayat/

^[2] limpieza de sangre —treating religious ancestry as an indelible biological inheritance that baptism could never erase

^[3] Original: ein junger hofjunatehr, in Dilich, Wilhelm (1605). Hessische Chronica / zusammen getragen und verfertiget durch Wilhelm Schäffern genandt Dilich [Hessian Chronicle / compiled and prepared by Wilhelm Schäffern aka Dilich] (in German). p. 347. doi:10.25673/opendata2-14874

^[4] Biblioteca de la Universidad de Salamanca, Ms. 1925, 14, ff. 29-31. Baltasar de Zúñiga to Marqués de Caracena, Aranjuez, 14 April 1622. ‘Sobre el hábito de la Orden de Santiago que S.M. quería dar al embajador de Persia, Madrid 16 April 1622’

^[5] Enrique de Jesús García Hernán, Persian Knights in Spain: Embassies and conversion processes, The Spanish Monarchy and Safavid Persia in the Early Modern Period politics, war and religion, Colección Historia de España y su Proyección Internacional , 2006. p. 63-97

^[6] Penny, Ralph. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1991. p. 90

^[7] Carlos Alonso, Embajadores de Persia en las cortes de Praga, Roma y Valladolid (1600-1601): Anthologica Annua 36 (1989) p. 164 [154]

^[8] Original: Cochacen

^[9] AGS, EST, document 2748.

^[10] AGS, EST, vol. 2637, p. 13, 116, 117 and 150

^[11] AGS, CC, document. 912, p. 68

^[12] Shergold, N. D. A History of the Spanish Stage: From Medieval Times to the End of the Seventeenth Century. Oxford University Press, 1967. Pp. 383-414

^[13] Original: Barrio de las Musas

^[14] Rennert, Hugo Albert. The Spanish Stage in the Time of Lope de Vega. The Hispanic Society of America, 1909, p. 271-272.

^[15] All the information about the court cases of 1609 is from Francisco Rafael de Uhagón, Dos novelas de Alonso Jerónimo de Salas Barbadillo, Madrid, 1894 p. x-xxxiii which cites AGS, Procesos de la Cámara, leg. 1.648, fol. 28

^[16] Original: Congregación de Esclavos del Santísimo Sacramento

^[17] Original: Oratorio del Santo Cristo del Olivar

^[18] Original: algún asunto de faldas – lit. matter of skirts

^[19] Francisco Manuel de los Cobos y Luna, 2nd Marquess of Camarasa (died in 1616)

^[20] Pedro Téllez-Girón (1574-1624)

^[21] Original: cornamenta de tres alguaciles

^[22] Original: no querello de vos ni os ha pedido cosa alguna

^[23] Pitt-Rivers, Julian. “Honour and Social Status.” In Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, edited by J.G. Peristiany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. pp. 19-79

^[24] Taylor, Scott K. Honor and Violence in Golden Age Spain. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008, p. 227-228

^[25] Fischer, Michael M. J. Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution. Harvard University Press, 1980, p. 150

^[26] Ayubi, Zahra M. S. (2019-07-30). Gendered Morality: Classical Islamic Ethics of the Self, Family, and Society. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54934-9 p. 88-89

^[27] Original: صوفی‌گری

^[28] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, and Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Expectation of the Millennium: Shi’ism in History, State University of New York Press, 1989, p.169

^[29] Original: جوانمردی. Read more on the concept here: Ridgeon, Lloyd. Jawanmardi: A Sufi Code of Honour. Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

^[30] Original: unas mugeres que heran unas persianas

^[31] Lope de Vega, Rimas humanas y divinas del licenciado Tomé de Burguillos, sonnet 143

^[32] Ignacio Arellano, El ingenio de Lope de Vega. Escolios a las «Rimas humanas y divinas del licenciado Tomé de Burguillos», New York, IDEA/IGAS, 2012, ISBN: 978-1-938795-84-8, p. 216-217

^[33] Jesús Cañas Murillo, “Una lectura del soneto 143 de Burguillos, con la guerra contra el gongorismo y contra Pellicer al fondo”. Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes (in Spanish).

^[34] Old Christian, someone whose ancestors had always been Christian, with no Jewish or Muslim convert blood.

^[35] Original: El valiente negro en Flandes

^[36] Claramonte, Andrés de, El valiente negro en Flandes, edición de Ana Ogallas Moreno, Würzburg/Madrid, More Than Books/Clásicos Hispánicos, 2016. (Clásicos Hispánicos; 62). ISBN: 9783959550611 (epub), 9783959550116 (mobi).

^[37] Original name: El burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra

^[38] While traditional criticism assigns the play to Tirso de Molina, the theory that Andrés de Claramonte authored it remains debated. For this article’s purposes, the authorship question doesn’t affect the network analysis connecting Alonso Remón (who edited Don Juan de Persia’s book) to the Mercedarian order where both Tirso and potentially Claramonte had access to stories about the Persian converts.

^[39] Original: ¡Ay hijo, que mal me pagas / el amor que te he tenido!

^[40] Original: amparéle, hospedéle, en tan notorio / peligro, y el vil güésped / víbora fue a mi planta

^[41] contino – a permanent court attendant who received a salary for regular presence at royal functions, ranking below nobles but above ordinary servants

^[42] Relaciones de Don Juan de Persia, 1604, page 9

^[43] Salamanca University Library, manuscript 1925, document 14, pp. 29-31. ‘Sobre el hábito de la Orden de Santiago que S.M. quería dar al embajador de Persia, Madrid 16 April 1622’.

^[44] Original: gentilhombre de boca

^[45] AGS. EST. document 2756. rescript, February 1, 1629

^[46] Fred Skolnik (ed), Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 13, Thomson Gale, 2007, p. 25

^[47] AHPM, protocol 6080, p. 328r-329v

^[48] Madrid Palace Archives, case 827, specimen 16 – Don Diego de Persia