Storey Online

2 From the Middle of the 9th Century to the Last Quarter of the 11th: Part 2
(22,622 words)

In Volume 5: Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period

previous chapter: Part 1

§ 58. Abū l-Qāsim Firdausī,1 the author of the Iranian national epic, is arguably the greatest of all Persian poets. His life very soon became shrouded in legend and all that can really be said about him with any degree of certainty is what the poet himself tells us, but even this is not always easy to discern given the textual problems posed by the Shāhnāmah, the surviving manuscripts of which diverge immensely from one another.

The fundamental scholarly studies of Firdausī and the Shāh-nāmah remain those by Nöldeke2 and Taqī-zādah.3 The recent inception of the first really critical edition of the poem by Khāliqī-Muṭlaq (the first five volumes of which are available at the time of writing) promises to put the study of the epic on an entirely new footing and to make obsolete much of what has been written up till now, including, very possibly, these paragraphs.4

The many passages in which the poet invokes the Ghaznavid Maḥmūd tell us, in any event, that at least the final version of the work was completed during his reign (389/999 to 421/1030). Moreover, the majority of the manuscripts of the Shāh-nāmah end with verses referring to the completion of the poem on the day Ard (25th) of Sifandārmud of the year 400 (panj hashtād bār) of the hijrah, i.e. either 8 March 1010 or possibly the same day in 1011.5 However, in a number of old manuscripts the year of completion is given rather as 384 of the hijrah (February 994 to February 995)6 and the year ‘384’ is given as the date of the completion of Firdausī’s poem also at the end of Bundārī’s Arabic translation, a work that is older than any of the existing Persian manuscripts which contain the closing lines of the poem.

Besides this, a very small number of manuscripts have, after the usual closing verses, an ‘epilogue’ in verse7 in which the author (ostensibly Firdausī himself) says that he completed the story (dāstān) in the year of the hijrah 389 (nahum sāl u hashtād bā sī-ṣad) while staying with one Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, the ruler of Khān i Lanjān (near Isfahan). The precise date is given first according to the Muslim calendar as Tuesday 25 Muḥarram, which in the year in question would correspond to Tuesday 17 January 999, then, a few verses later, as the Persian date day Asmān (27th) of Bahman, which in that year corresponds to 14 February. Taqī-zādah argued that these dates belong to three successive recensions of the Shāh-nāmah: Firdausī completed his first version on 25 Sifandārmud ah 384 = 12 March 994, which corresponds (according to Taqī-zādah)8 in that year to 25 Muḥarram (the Muslim date mentioned in the ‘epilogue’); the second version (to which the epilogue belongs) was completed on 27 Bahman ah 389 = 14 February 999 (the verses mentioning ‘Tuesday 25 Muḥarram’ having supposedly been wrongly introduced from the closing section of the first version), and only after this did Firdausī go to Ghaznah where he presented his third and final version of the poem to Maḥmūd in the year 400/1009–10 (whereby the date ‘25 Sifandārmud’ would have been introduced into this version from the first). This elaborate construction has not met with universal approval. A number of scholars, beginning with Mīnuwī,9 have argued that the ‘epilogue’ is not the work of Firdausī at all and that it records not the composition of the Shāh-nāmah but a copying of the text which took place not in 389 but in 689 (reading shash-ṣad instead of the palaeographically virtually identical sī-ṣad), in which year Tuesday 25 Muḥarram would correspond to Tuesday 7 February 1290. It would thus be the anonymous 13th-century scribe, and not Firdausī, who enjoyed the hospitality of the ruler of Khān i Lanjān. Unfortunately, this does not solve the chronological problems, since 25 Muḥarram 689 (7 February 1290) does not correspond to 27 Bahman either according to the Zoroastrian calendar, nor according to the Jalālī calendar, though in the latter case the divergence is only of five days.10 Nonetheless, Mīnuwī was certainly right to say that the author of the ‘epilogue’ does not in fact explicitly claim to have composed the Shāh-nāmah and that, moreover, it is written in a style quite unlike Firdausī’s.

More recently still, Ateş has argued that the text of the epic contains allusions to events as late 409/1019 (Maḥmūd’s conquest of Qannauj11), which, if correct, would mean that all of the dates mentioned in the various versions of the closing verses are too early, at least for the final version of the work. In any event, the main problem with the notion of two or three successive recensions is that even those manuscripts which claim the completion of the poem for 384 and thus presumably represent a pre-Ghaznavid recension of the epic, nonetheless contain passages lauding Maḥmūd (who did not even become king until 389/999) and in general do not seem to represent a different textual tradition from those giving the date 400. If, as indeed seems likely, Firdausī did release two (or perhaps even more) different versions of the Shāh-nāmah during his lifetime, these versions must have become so completely mixed up with one another in the subsequent manuscript tradition (and in the oral tradition) that it is now impossible to ascertain which verses belong to which recension.

The concluding section also contains (again with considerable variation from manuscript to manuscript) verses in which the poet gives his age as ‘65’, ‘71’ or ‘almost 80’ and speaks of having laboured on the epic for 35 years. Various attempts have been made to deduce from these verses the exact date of the poet’s birth12 as well as the date when he began work on the poem, but all this seems futile as long as the text has not been sorted out. In the meanwhile we should content ourselves with the knowledge that at the time when he completed his masterpiece (whether in 384 or 400 or even a few years later) the poet was an old man (something between 65 and 80), that his birth must consequently have fallen in the first half of the 4th/10th century, and that he began work on the poem well before the time of Maḥmūd.

Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī, writing a little more than a century after Firdausī’s time, is our earliest biographical source. Indeed, it is probable that everything that we find in the later biographers (as well as in the three prose introductions to the Shāh-nāmah itself) is either taken, directly or indirectly, from ʿArūḍī or else freely invented.13 According to this author Abū l-Qāsim Firdausī was a rich land-owner (dihqān) from the village of Bāzh, in the district of Ṭabarān, in the province of Ṭōs. He worked on the Shāh-nāmah for 25 years and, when it was finished, had it copied out by ʿAlī Dailam and recited publicly by Abū Dulaf. The governor of Ṭōs, Ḥuyaiy (bad variant: Ḥusain) b. Qutaibah rewarded him for his efforts by remitting the tax (kharāj) due on his land. There-upon Firdausī went with his book and his reciter to Ghaznah where, with the help of the wazīr, the poem was brought to the attention of Maḥmūd. But the minister’s enemies attacked the poet for being a Shiite (rāfiḍī), and a Muʿtazilite to boot, with the result that the sultan rewarded him with a paltry 20 000 dirhams. The poet, gravely offended, gave the money to a bath-house attendant and a beer-seller (i.e. two very lowly persons) and fled from Ghaznah. At first he took refuge in the house of Ismāʿīl al-Warrāq, the father of Azraqī, in Herat. Six months later he fled to the ruler of Ṭabaristān, the sipahbad Shahryār,14 at whose court he composed a satire against Maḥmūd. But the sipahbad, fearing the wrath of that king, purchased the manuscript of the satire for 100 000 dirhams and had it destroyed. The last part of ʿArūḍī’s account (which he claims to have heard in 514/1120–1 from the poet Muʿizzī, who in turn had it from the Amīr ʿAbd al-Razzāq of Ṭōs) tells how Maḥmūd, on hearing his minister recite a verse from the Shāh-nāmah, regretted at last his shabby treatment of the great poet and ordered that a camel-train of indigo valued at 60 000 dīnārs be sent to him, together with the king’s apologies. But as the caravan entered the town of Ṭōs by one gate, Firdausī’s corpse was carried out through another.

ʿArūḍī’s story is a good one, and on the whole not implausible, but is it true? The main difficulty involves Firdausī’s supposed satire. ʿArūḍī maintains that this poem was destroyed by the ruler of Ṭabaristān, apart from the six verses which our author quotes. This would have to mean that the satire (hajw-nāmah) which we find—apparently in widely diverging forms—in so many of the manuscripts of the Shāh-nāmah15 has been elaborated from these six authentic verses. Final judgement on this matter must, however, await a critical edition of the satire.16

Apart from the Shāh-nāmah and the Satire, a number of lyrical pieces have been attributed to Firdausī by the anthologists; these have been collected by Ethé.17 But as there seems to be no mention of them in early sources they must be regarded as, at least, doubtful.18 The religious mathnawī entitled Yūsuf u Zulaikhā is now no longer generally regarded as the work of Firdausī and will be discussed, below, § 322.

The Shāh-nāmah is a mathnawī of about 60 000 verses (inc. ba nām i khudāwand i jān u khirad * k-az īn bartar andēshah bar nagdharad), a grandiose compendium of the legendary and (from the time of Alexander onwards) semi-legendary history of Iran, beginning with the ‘first king’ (in Zoroastrianism the first man) Gayōmart and continuing down to the Islamic conquest, a retelling of the Iranian national tradition which, though not specifically Islamicised, has at least been shorn of most of its overtly Zoroastrian content and thus made broadly acceptable to a Muslim audience. The ultimate source of Firdausī’s poem is the (for us lost) Sasanian book to which early Arabic authors refer either by its name in Middle Persian (Khwadāy-nāmag) or in Arabic (Siyar al-mulūk). The book was translated from Middle Persian into Arabic by Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (died ca. 140/757), whose version was followed by others, whereby it remains unclear whether these merely reworked the older translation or actually made use of the Sasanian original. All of these Arabic versions are lost, but we can form a fairly precise idea of their contents (and of those of their source) from the account of pre-Islamic Iran given by such historians as Ṭabari and Hamzah al-Iṣfahānī. In Neo-Persian there were at least four versions of the Book of Kings before Firdausī, namely the Shāh-nāmah in verse by Masʿūdī al-Marwazī (probably well before 355/966),19 the version, presumably in prose, by Abū l-Muʾaiyad al-Balkhī (in the Samanid period)20—with which the ‘Shāh-nāmah of Abū ʿAlī al-Balkhī’, mentioned by Bairūnī, is perhaps identical21—the incomplete versification by Daqīqī (from about the same time),22 and, most importantly, the prose version prepared for the governor of Ṭōs, Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq, in Muḥarram 346/957. As Taqī-zādah has demonstrated, a small portion of the latter has been preserved in the ‘older preface’ which we find at the beginning of many copies of Firdausī’s Shāh-nāmah. The most significant argument for this rests on a passage in Bairūnī23 which tells us that ‘in the Shāh-nāmah’ Ibn ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṭūsī had fabricated for himself a genealogy tracing him back to the primaeval king Manūchihr; this genealogy is found precisely in the ‘older preface’.24 According to this preface, the prose Shāh-nāmah was compiled for the governor by his minister, Abū Manṣūr Maʿmari, with the help of a number of ‘wise men’ from various parts of Khuräsān, four of whom are mentioned by their (evidently Zoroastrian) names. It has generally been assumed that the ‘four men’ translated the Book of Kings from Middle-to Neo-Persian, though the text does not at this point actually say anything about translating, but merely about their ‘bringing forth’ (firāz-āwardan) of the ‘books of the kings’. As the text, a few lines later,25 specifically mentions the (Arabic) writings of Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ and Ḥamzah al-Iṣfahānī it must be assumed that these were also used in compiling the Persian Shāh-nāmah and that the function of the ‘four men’ was perhaps little more than to augment the Arabic histories with the help of certain Zoroastrian texts.26

Nöldeke, who did not seem to have been aware of any pre-Firdausian version of the Book of Kings in Neo-Persian apart from the ‘Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr’, assumed, reasonably enough, that the latter was in fact the ‘ancient book’ on which Firdausī based his poem and the same opinion was upheld by Taqī-zādah and, it seems, everyone else since. However, seeing that Taqī-zādah has demonstrated that there were other Persian Shāh-nāmahs prior to that of Abū Manṣūr, the assumption that only the latter could have been Firdausī’s source requires re-examination. In fact, there are three passages in Firdausī’s poem (all of them in the final section, the history of the Sasanians) where the poet refers explicitly to one or the other of the ‘four men’ and where consequently his dependence on the Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr is manifest.27 On the other hand, in the earlier portions of the epic (i.e. the greatest part of the text) not only are there no references to the ‘four men’ but, more significantly, there are at least two passages where Firdausī’s account is at odds with what we happen to know of Abū Manṣūr’s Shāh-nāmah. One is in the story of Ḍaḥḥāk, where Firdausī tells us how Farēdūn stopped the boulder with which his brothers were trying to kill him by means of ‘a magic spell’ (afsūn).28 But according to the ‘older preface’ Farēdūn stopped the rock ‘with his foot’.29 It is, of course, possible that Firdausī changed the story to suit his purposes, but if he had really introduced the ‘spell’ in an attempt to heighten the drama of the incident one would not have expected him to do so in such an offhand fashion, without further elaboration.30 An even clearer example is in the history of the Arsacids. Here, Firdausī tells us that he had no information about ‘their dates’ (tārīkh-ishān) and that ‘apart from their names i have not heard anything about them, nor have i seen anything in the book of kings’ (k-az ēshān juz az nām na-shnīdah-am * na dar nāmah i khusrawān dīdah-am).31 But Bairūnī32 tells us explicitly that the ‘Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr’ gave both the names and the length of the reigns of the Arsacid kings and proceeds to convey this information in the form of a table. Moreover, the names that he gives from this source are quite different from those given by Firdausī, whose list of the Arsacid kings is more like the one which Bairūnī quotes a few pages earlier33 as those given by Ḥamzah al-Iṣfahānī, supposedly from the Avesta.34 It is thus quite clear that the ‘book of kings’ which Firdausī had before him when he was writing his account of the Arsacids was not the ‘Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr’ known to Bairūnī, but rather some other version. This contradiction has been known for a long time and Taqī-zādah made a rather hesitant attempt to explain it away by proposing that there might have been a textual discrepancy between the manuscript of the prose Shāh-nāmah used by Firdausī and the one available to Bairūnī. But seeing that both authors were writing at about the same time and that at that time the Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr was only a few decades old, such a hypothesis is not particularly attractive. It would seem much more likely that Firdausī had the (then relatively new) Shāh-nāmah of Abū Manṣūr at his disposal only at the time when he was writing the final section of his poem (that devoted to the Sasanians) and that for the earlier sections (the bulk of the work) he depended on one of the earlier Persian translations of the Book of Kings. In short, though there can be no doubt that Firdausī’s poem is based on written sources, we cannot necessarily presume that it is all based on a single source.

The oldest dated copy of the Shāh-nāmah is the Florence manuscript,35 which contains only the first half of the work and is dated Tuesday the 3rd (or 30th)36 of Muḥarram 614 (11 April or 9 May 1217). The manuscript, though it has been in Europe for centuries, was only recently identified as a copy of Firdausī’s epic. Previously, the oldest codex was believed to be the British Library copy (Add. 21,103) which contains the date Muḥarram 675 (1276) on the restored final leaf in a note which states that this date was copied from the ‘original’ (manqūl ʿan-hu). It is not absolutely certain that the ‘original’ from which the (apparently) 16th-century copyist supplied the missing pages of the London manuscript is identical with the mutilated copy to which they were appended, though this is likely. These two are the only known manuscripts bearing dates from the 13th century. There are a handful of dated copies from the 14th (see below, Dublin, Leningrad, Istanbul, Cairo, Karachi, New York). The mass of the manuscripts are from the 15th century or later.

An interesting feature of many of the later manuscripts is that large segments of other poems of the Persian ‘epic cycle’ (Karshāsp-nāmah, Burzō-nāmah etc.) have been inserted into the text at more or less appropriate places. To what extent this ‘greater Shāh-nāmah’ results merely from the endeavour of the scribes to create as ‘complete’ a text as possible, and to what extent it reflects a contamination of the scribal tradition by the oral tradition, remains to be examined.

The majority of the manuscripts have one (or sometimes more) of the following prose prefaces:

‘Preface i’: The so-called older preface (inc. sipās u āfrīn khudāy rā kih īn jahān u ān jahān rā afrīd), is contained in the majority of the older manuscripts (though not in the oldest, the Florence copy). As already mentioned, this consists largely of material salvaged from the preface to the old prose Shāh-nāmah. A critical edition was prepared by Qazwīnī.37 The pioneering French translation by Wallenbourg38 has been superseded by a richly annotated English version by Minorsky.39 More recently a new edition of the Persian text with numerous (often rather daring) conjectural emendations and an extensive commentary was published by Monchi-Zadeh.40 For the archaic linguistic features in the older preface see Lazard, Langue pp. 36–7 et passim.

‘Preface ii’: beginning ḥamd (u sipās) u sitāyish mar khudā rā ʿazza wa jalla kih khudā i har du jahān ast. This is presumably what Qazwīnī called the ‘middle preface’ (muqaddamah i ausaṭ). Its contents are summarised in Rieu p. 536.

‘Preface iii’: beginning with the verse iftitāḥ i sukhan ān bih kih kunad ahl i kamāl * ba thanā i maliku l-ʿarsh i khudā i mutaʿāl. This preface was written by (or perhaps rather for) the Timurid Bāysunghur b. Shāh-rukh in 829/1425–6. Though it does not appear to have been published as such, the greater part of it is incorporated into the Persian introduction in Macan’s edition of the epic.

Extensive lists of manuscripts have been published by I. Mendelsohn, in Firdausī Celebration 935–1935, ed. D.E. Smith, New York 1936, and by Ī. Afshār in his Kitāb-shināsī i Firdausī, Tehran 1347sh./1969; the latter list has also been incorporated, with additions, into Munzawī’s general catalogue of Persian manuscripts (Munz. iv 31332–31855). Unfortunately, both lists contain a large number of errors. Afshār’s compilation suffers in particular from the absence of bibliographic references and from the fact that it does not usually distinguish between more-or-less intact manuscripts on the one hand and loose leaves or even detached miniatures on the other. The selective list that follows has been compiled independently of those just mentioned (though it has been compared with them) and aims less at ‘completeness’ than at controllability. For a detailed description of some of the oldest manuscripts see the articles by J. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq in Īrān-nāmah iii pp. 378–406, iv pp. 16–47, 225–255, vii pp. 63–94 (quoted in what follows as ‘Kh.-M.’ with volume and page number).

Dispersed Manuscripts: The ‘Demotte’ manuscript (it is a deplorable convention to name a dispersed manuscript after the vandal who was responsible for its mutilation) is attributed by art historians to the first half of the 14th century. It was dismembered during the early part of the twentieth century; its pages were ripped out and sold separately, many of the miniatures were detached and pasted at random on to pages of text and new bits of text were manufactured to fill the blank spaces. For the present location of the surviving fragments and a reproduction and identification of the known miniatures see O. Grabar and S. Blair, Epic images and contemporary history. The illustrations of the great Mongol Shahnama, Chicago/London 1980, Supplemented by S. Blair, ‘On the track of the “Demotte” Shāhnāma manuscript’, in Les manuscrits du moyen-orient … Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, ed. F. Déroche, Istanbul/Paris 1989, pp. 125–31. Three other early manuscripts are reconstructed and discussed in M.S. Simpson, The Illustration of an Epic. The earliest41 Shahnama manuscripts, New York/London 1979, and attributed by the author to ‘around the year 1300’;42 these are the ‘first small Shāhnāmah’ (the largest fragment of which is Dublin Beatty 104), the ‘second small Shāh-nāmah’ and the codex of which the largest portion is preserved in the Freer Gallery (Washington). The author gives admirably precise information about the present location of the individual folios of these manuscripts. She also touches more briefly on the ‘Schulz’ Shāh-nāmah, the remnants of which are in the Metropolitan Museum (New York) and which appears to belong to the same school. Yet another dispersed manuscript (the largest portion of which is now in Dublin, Beatty 110) contained at one point a rosette with the date 741/1340–1. For the location of the other known leaves see E. Grube, Muslim miniature paintings from the xiii to xix century from collections in the United States and Canada, Venice 1962, p. 32, Supplemented by Simpson, op. cit., p. 45, no. 15, and her discussion, pp. 9–10. Another, later, dispersed manuscript is the ‘Houghton’ (or ‘Shāh Ṭahmāsp’) Shāhnāmah which is attributed to the 16th century and was vandalised by Houghton in the 1970s. The study by M.B. Dickson and S.C. Welch, The Houghton Shahnameh, 2 vols., Cambridge (Mass.) 1981, was prepared before its dispersal on the art market. Dublin Beatty 104 (77 detached leaves from the ‘first small Sh.N.’, with miniatures. 14th century?); Beatty 110 (see also Kh.-M. iii p. 385; Fragment containing about one fourth of the work, including a portion of preface i, from a manuscript containing the date 741/1340–1; see above, ‘dispersed manuscripts’. Pictures); Beatty 111 (Ten folios from the ‘Demotte’ manuscript, attributed to the 14th century. Pictures); Beatty 114 (Kh.-M. Ill pp. 360–1. Fragment. Apparently part of the same original Ms. as London Or. 2780—for which see Asadī, Karshāsp-nāmah—dated 800/1397. Pictures); Beatty 118 (One illustrated folio. 15th century?); Beatty 157 (Kh.-M. iii p. 401. Dated Jumādā i 885/1480. Preface i. Conclusion combines the versions with the dates 384 and 400. Pictures); Beatty 158 (Kh.-M. iii p. 402. Dated 23 Jumādā i 885/1480. Preface i. With date of composition 384. Pictures); Beatty 214 (Dated 955/1548. Preface iii. Lacunae. Pictures); Beatty 230 (16th century? With date 384); Beatty 256 (5 illustrated folios. 16th century?); Beatty 270 (With pictures, one of which is dated Muḥarram 1066/1655); t.c.d. 1549 (Dated 1067/1656–7 according to Robinson, Paintings p. 161. Pictures); Beatty 271 (17th century? Pictures); Beatty 277 (Fragment. 16th century? Pictures); Beatty 295 (‘Dated’ 8 Dhū l-ḥijjah 905/1501, but this seems to have been tampered with. Pictures); t.c.d. 1551 (Pictures); Manchester Lindesiana 8 (=Robinson 613–31. Dated 860/1456 according to the Hand-list, but Robinson says he was unable to find any date and attributes the miniatures to the 16th century. Pictures); Lindesiana 933 (=Robinson 475–8, 694–768. Dated 1195/1781, but according to Robinson this applies only to the restored final leaves; he attributes the rest to the 15th century. Pictures); Lindesiana 9 (=Robinson 431–74 15th century? Preface i. Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Lindesiana 932 (=Robinson 575–612. Dated Muḥarram 949/1542. Pictures); Lindesiana 910 (=Robinson 481–549, 769–800. 16th century? Pictures); Lindesiana 121 (Dated 1024/1615); Lindesiana 909 (=Robinson 1481–1579. Dated 23 Jumādā ii 1060/1650. Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Lindesiana 869 (dated 1227/1812. Pictures); Lindesiana 525 (18th–19th century? Pictures); Lindesiana 220 (18th–19th century? Imperfect); Oxford Ouseley Add. 176 (Ethé 501; Robinson pp. 16–22. Written for Ibrāhīm b. Shāh-Rukh [early 15th century]. Preface iii. Glossary. Pictures); Ms. Pers. c. 4 (Ethé 1977; Robinson pp. 74–6; Kh.-M. iii pp. 397–8, iv pp. 243–5. Dated 4 Shaʿbān 852/1448. Preface ii. 1 Picture); Elliot 325 (Ethé 493; Robinson pp. 48–54; Kh.-M. iv pp. 17–9. Dated 14 Ramaḍān 899/1494. Preface i. Pictures); Ouseley 369 (Ethé 494; Robinson pp. 94–7. Dated Rabīʿ ii 959/1552. Preface iii. Pictures); All Souls ms. 288 (Coxe ii/1 p. 77; Robinson pp. 185–6. Dated 26 Ṣafar 988/1580. Breaks off at death of Iskandar. ‘Includes the episode of Barzū’. Pictures); Pers. d. 44 (Beeston 2537. Colophons dated 24 Shawwāl 1000/1592 and 4 Rabīʿ i 1001/1592. Imperfect); Dep. b. 5 (Beeston 2538; Robinson pp. 104–6. 16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Ouseley 345 (Ethé 495. 16th century? Pictures); Ouseley 344 (Ethé 496; Robinson pp. 115–118. Dated 1010/1601–2 [Robinson says 1009]. Preface iii. Pictures); Ind. Inst. Pers. 7 (Beeston 2539. Dated 9 Muḥarram 1016/1607. First and last folios missing); Hyde 49 (Ethé 497. Dated 1022/1613. Preface ii and i, and followed by a vocabulary); Ouseley 370 (Ethé 498. Contains a note dated 22 Bahman-māh 1049/1639); Ind. Inst. 32 (Beeston 2540. 18th–19th century? Pictures); Whinfield 1 (Beeston 2541. 19th century? Pictures); Bodl. 716 (Ethé 499. Preface iii. Pictures); Fraser 60 (Ethé 500. Preface iii. Glossary. 1 picture); Hyde 50 (Ethé 502. The beginning of the Bāysunghur (?) preface is missing); Ouseley 247–249 (Ethé 503. 3 volumes of a set of originally 4. Preface iii); All Souls 289 (Coxe ii/1 p. 77. Pictures); Eton 117 (First half); 118 (Second half); 119 (First half. All 3 Mss. modem); Richmond Keir iii. 133–75 (Dated 25 Jumādā i 879/1475. Pictures); Keir Suppt. pp. 13–26 (=New York Kraus 114–27. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 945/1539. Pictures); Keir iii.355–84 (Dated 15 Shaʿbān 1035/1626. Beginning missing. Pictures); London Add. 21,103 (Rieu pp. 533–4; Kh.-M. iii pp. 381–3, iv pp. 41–7. Dated, according to the restored final leaf, Muḥarram 675/1276.43 Preface i); s.o.a.s. 46483 (Fragment containing the episode of Bahrām Gūr. 13th century?); Or. 2833 (Rieu Suppt. 263. Dated Ramaḍān 807/1405. The version edited by Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī on the basis of the ‘best manuscripts’ and copied in the margin of his Ẓafar-nāmah);44 Or. 1403 (Rieu pp. 534–5; Kh.-M. iii pp. 392–3, iv pp. 233–8. Dated 11 Ramadān 841/1438. Preface i. Contains the version with the date 384 and the ‘epilogue’ referring to the completion of the poem in 389. There is also a rhymed colophon with the date 10 Muḥarram 779/1377. Pictures); Or. 12688 (Meredith-Owens p. 75. Dated 850/1446–7. 2 vols. Pictures); Add. 18,188 (Rieu p. 535; Kh.-M. iii pp. 403–4, iv pp. 245–6. Dated 23 Jumādā ii 891/1486. Pictures); r.a.s. 239 (Preface iii. Pictures. One of the miniatures contains a banner with the inscription ‘al-sulṭān al-aʿẓam Muḥammad Jūkī’, a name borne by two Timurid princes of the middle of the 9th/15th century. The fly-leaf has seals of Bābur and of other Moghuls and an autograph note by Shāh Jahān dated 8 Jumādā ii 1037/1628);45 Or. 4384 (Rieu Suppt. no. 198. 15th century? Preface i and date of composition 384. Some lacunae. Pictures); Add. 15,531 (Rieu pp. 535–6. Dated Dhū l-ḥijja 942/1536. Preface i. Pictures); i.o. 863 (=Robinson 269–91. Dated 18 Dhū l-qaʿdah 967/1560. Preface iii. Pictures); Or. 12084 (Meredith-Owens p. 74. Dated 972/1564–5. 3 vols. Pictures); i.o. 869 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 987/1580. Slightly defective. Preface iii); i.o. 872 (Dated Ramaḍān 991/1583. Preface ii); Add. 27,302 (Rieu p. 536. Dated 994/1596. Preface ii. Pictures); Ross and Browne xxiii (Dated 1008/1599–1600. Preface i. ‘Between ff. 158 and 159 … have been inserted twenty-four folios in a later hand, containing the Episodes of Barzú and Súsan’); i.o. 860 (Completed 16 Rajab 1008/1600. Preface i.); i.o. 873 (=Robinson 929–52. Dated 10 Shaʿbān 1008/1600. Preface ii. Pictures); i.o. 875 (Dated 10 Rabīʿ i 1009/1600); Add. 27,257 (Rieu p. 536. Probably 16th century. Preface iii); Add. 5600 (Rieu pp. 536–7. 16th century? Preface i. Pictures); i.o. 880 (=Robinson 953–1001. 16th century? Apparently contains interpolations from the Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); i.o. 881 (=Robinson 321–3. Incomplete. Pictures, which Robinson attributes to the 16th century, apparently added later); i.o. 878 (16th century? Contains the ‘epilogue’ found in Or. 1403); i.o. 867 (=Robinson 363–76. 16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); i.o. 2992 (=Robinson 378–434, where it is attributed to the 16th century. Has a stamp dated 23 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1169/1756. Preface iii. Pictures); i.o. 861 (Dated 23 Ramaḍān 1009/1601. Preface i. Pictures); i.o. 864 (Dated 29 Muḥarram 1012/1603. Preface iii. Pictures); i.o. 876 (= Robinson 1005–67. Dated 1 Ramaḍān 1012/1604. Pictures); Add. 7724 (Rieu p. 537. Dated Rabīʿ i 1021/1612. Preface iii. Pictures); i.o. 874 (= Robinson 1113–51. Robinson thinks it might be dated Dhū lḥijjah 1022/1614, ‘but the reading is by no means certain’. Preface ii. Pictures); Add. 16,761 (Rieu p. 537. Dated Dhū l-qaʿda 1023/1614. Preface i. Pictures); Add. 27,258 (Rieu pp. 537–8. Dated Ramaḍān 1037/1628. Preface iii. Pictures); i.o. 877 (Completed end Muḥarram 1053/1643. Variant readings in margins); Add. 4943 (Rieu p. 538. Dated Rabīʿ i 1054/1644. Second half only); i.o. 2859 (Dated 7 Ṣafar 1074/1663. Date of completion given as 384. Preface iii. Pictures); r.a.s. 238 (Dated 1077/1666–7. Preface iii); i.o. 865 (Completed 8 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1111/1700. Preface iii); Add. 6609 (Rieu p. 538. 17th century? Includes 5 leaves from an older Ms. Preface i. Pictures); Add. 6610 (Rieu p. 538. 17th century? First half only. Pictures); Or. 4906 (Rieu Suppt. no. 195. 17th century? The epilogue has the date 384/994. Into the text are interpolated large extracts from the Karshāspnāmah and the Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Or. 11842 (Meredith-Owens p. 74. 17th century? 2 vols. Pictures); i.o. 870 (=Robinson 1152–74. 17th century? Incomplete. Preface iii. Pictures); Ross and Browne clixclx (17th century? Pages in disorder. Pictures); s.o.a.s. 21381 (17th century?); s.o.a.s. 25294 (17th century? Pictures); r.a.s. 241 (17th century? Pictures); r.a.s. 242 (17th century? 1 picture); Wellcome 415A (17th century? Lacunae throughout. Pictures); i.o. 868 (=Robinson 1083–1110. 17th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Add. 18,804 (Rieu pp. 538–9. Dated 1131/1719. Second half only. Pictures); Add. 25,797 (Rieu p. 539. 18th century? First quarter only); Egerton 682–685 (Rieu p. 539. Dated Rabīʿ i 1202/1787–8); Add. 26,143 (Rieu p. 539. 18th century? First half only); Ross and Browne xxivxxvii (18th century? 4 volumes containing a portion of the work); Ross and Browne clxi (18th century?); i.o. 3682 (18th century?); s.o.a.s. 24949 (18th century? Pictures); i.o. 866 (Dated 26 Muḥarram 1220/1805–Preface iii); Or. 2926 and 2976 (Rieu Suppt. no. 196, completed Rabīʿ i 1249/1833, and no. 197, dated 1 Jumādā i 1252/1836. Preface iii. Many interpolations from other epics. Incomplete at the end. Pictures); Or. 12483 (Meredith-Owens p. 75. 19th century. 2 vols. Pictures); s.o.a.s. 24948 (19th century? Pictures); Wellcome 415B–E (Assorted loose leaves, 19th century?); i.o. 862 (First half only. Preface i); i.o. 879; i.o. 2858 (Preface i); r.a.s. 240; r.a.s. 243 (Pictures); Cambridge Or. 420 (Browne Suppt. 785; Kh.-M. iii pp. 393–4. ‘Seems to be dated 841/1437–8’. First part only); Fitzwilliam 22–1948 (Cat. p. 406; Kh.-M. iv pp. 19–20. 34 disconnected folios. 15th century? Pictures); Or. 1356 (2nd Suppt. 173. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 972/1565. Pictures); Fitzwilliam 21–1948 (Cat. p. 406. 2 illustrated folios. 16th century?); Collection of Sir Harold Bailey (according to Robinson, i.o. catalogue p. 188 no. 1. Dated 3 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1012/1604); Fitzwilliam 311 (Cat. p. 301. Dated 1041/1630–1. Pictures); Corpus 202 (Browne Suppt. 786. Dated 1053/1643–4. Second part. Pictures); Add. 269 (Browne Cat. cxcvii. 16th–17th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Add. 835 (Browne Cat. cxcix. 16th–17th century?); Add. 312 (Browne Cat. cxcviii. 17th–18th century? Preface iii and i. Glossary); Or. 1354 (2nd Suppt. 171. 18th century?); Nn. 1. 20. (Browne Cat. cxcvi. Preface i); Corpus 203 (Browne Suppt. 787. Fragment); Browne Coll. v.69* (Ends with death of Rustam. Preface i); Leeds P. 42 (17th century?); Edinburgh National Lib. 738 (Dated Rajab 969/1562); Univ. 265 (16th century? Pictures); Univ. 266–267 (Contains a seal dated 1041/1631–2); Univ. 268–269 (Preface i); Fife Dunimarle Castle (Robinson, Paintings p. 79. Dated 850/1446–7. Pictures); Madrid Bibl. de Palacio patrimonio nacional ii 3.218 (Kh.-M. iv pp. 27–8. Dated 901/1495–6. Preface i); Paris Supplément 1946 (Blochet 1175. 14th century? Two leaves only); Supplément 493 (Blochet 1162; Kh.-M. iii pp. 394–5, iv pp. 238–42. Dated 5 Dhū l-qaʿdah 844/1441. Date of completion given as 384. Pictures); Supplément 494 (Blochet 1163; Kh.-M. iii pp. 395–6. Dated 27 Jumādā i 848/1444. Pictures); Ancien fonds 228 (Blochet 1164/Richard; Kh.-M. iii pp. 17–8. Dated 22 Ramaḍān 895/1490 Preface iii. Pictures); Ancien fonds 278 (Blochet 1165/Richard. Completed 21 Ṣafar 901/1495, but some leaves replaced later. Preface i and satire); Supplément 1280 (Blochet 1161. 15th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Supplément 489 (Blochet 1166. Completed Jumādā ii 953/1546 Preface iii. Pictures); Supplément 492 (Blochet 1168. Dated 12 Ramaḍān 1004/1596. Missing leaves replaced and pictures added in 18th century); Supplément 1256 ii (Blochet 1199. 16th century? 5 leaves. Pictures); Ancien fonds 229 (Blochet 1167/Richard. 16th or 17th century? Preface iii); Supplément 1026 (Blochet 1169. Three hands which Blochet dates between the 16th and 18th centuries. First half of poem with Preface iii); Supplément 1122 (Blochet 1170. 16th or 17th century? Preface i. Pictures); Supplément 490 (Blochet 1171. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1012/1604. Pic­tures); Supplément 1307 (Blochet 1172. Dated 15 Ramaḍān 1023/1614. Pictures); Supplément 491 (Blochet 1173. Dated 1027/1618. Preface iii. Pictures); Supplé­ment 1027 (Blochet 1174. 18th century? Pictures); Strasbourg Landauer 6 = Hoghoughi 19 (15th century? 2nd half only. Pictures); Landauer 5 = Hoghoughi 18 (Dated 8 Rabīʿ i 1224/1809. Pictures); Leyden 494 (Cat. dcxxxi; Kh.-M. iii p. 393, iv pp. 232–3. Dated 15 Ramaḍān 840/1436. Pictures); Genoa Ms. C.vii. 145 (Piemontese 172. 19th century. 2nd half only. Contains extracts from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Florence Bibl. Naz. Centr. Ms.Cl.III.24 (Piemontese 145. Dated Muḥarram 614/1217. First half only);46 Bibl. Naz. Centr. Ms.Cl.III.48 (Piemontese 146. 15th century? Preface i. Pictures); Laurenziana Framm. Or. 1 (Piemontese 78. 15th century. 3 folios only); Laurenziana Or. 5 (Piemontese 79. Dated Shawwāl 990/1582. Preface i. Contains extracts from Karshāsp-nāmah and Sām-nāmah. Pictures); Venice Bibl. Armena Ms. 2012 (Piemontese 413. Dated 981/1573–4. Incomplete); Bibl. Armena Ms. 2134 (Piemontese 414. 19th century. 2nd half only. Incomplete. Pictures); Rome Vatican Ms. Pers. 118 (Rossi pp. 126–7; Kh.-M. iii p. 396, iv pp. 242–3. Dated 848/1444–5. Preface iii); Casanatense Ms. 4893 (Piemontese 245. Dated Ramaḍān 1036/1627. Has a preface dedicated to Sulṭān Ḥusain Bāiqarā, followed by preface iii. Contains Dāstān i Kuk i Kuhzād. Pictures); Naples Ms. III.G.68 (Piemontese 220. Dated 20 Rabīʿ i 977/1569. Preface i. Contains extracts from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Ms. III.G.68 bis (Piemontese 221. 18th century? 2 volumes containing the first half of the work. Extracts from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Hamburg Orient. 197–198 (Brockelmann 154–155. Two volumes. Preface ii); Göttingen Asch 70 (Dated 1030/1620–1. Pictures; according to Mendelsohn); Pers. 28 (Dated 1051/1641–2; Mendelsohn); Pertsch 48 (90 folios. 16th century? Mendelsohn); Gotha Nachträge 47** (Dated 31st year of Aurangzēb/1687–8. First half only. Preface iii); Halle no. 774 (Mendelsohn); Munich Cim. 36 (Aumer 8; Kh.-M. iv pp. 28–9. Dated 26 Jumādā i 902/1497. Pictures); 16 Quatr. (Aumer 14. Dated 1048/1638–9. Preface beginning: al-ḥamdu li llāh rabb al-ʿālamīn ḥamd u sipās i bē qiyās mar khudāwand rā kih jahān u jahānīn rā biyāfrīd. Pictures); 12 Quatr. (Aumer 15. Same preface as preceding Ms. Pictures); 14 Quatr. (Aumer 12. Preface iii); 15 Quatr. (Aumer 13. Dated 1129/1717. Preface iii); Cod. or. 24m (Aumer 9. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1064/1654. First half only); 13 Quatr. (Aumer 10. Pictures); Cim. 92a (Aumer 11. First half only. Preface iii); Berlin Ms. or. fol. 4255 (Stchoukine 10; Kh.-M. iii pp. 405–6, iv pp. 247–8.47 Dated 19 Rajab 894/1489. Pictures); Ms. Diez A. fol. 1 (Pertsch 703; Stchoukine 26. Dated 1002/1593–4. Preface iii. Pictures); Ms. or. fol. 359 (Pertsch 706; Stchoukine 19. Has a stamp of Sulṭān Aḥmad b. Muḥammad [=Aḥmad i (1603–17) or Aḥmad iii (1703–30)]. Stchoukine attributes to 16th century. Preface iii. Pictures); Ms. or. fol. 4251 (Stchoukine 30. Dated Ṣafar 1014/1605. Pictures. From the description of the pictures it appears that this manuscript contains portions of the Karshāspnāmah; Ms. or. fol. 147 (Pertsch 704. Dated Jumādā ii 1073/1663. Preface iii); Ms. or. fol. 209 (Pertsch 18; Stchoukine 33. Dated 12 ‘of the second month’ 1077/1666. Down to the death of Afrāsiyāb. Evidently contains interpolations from Karshāsp-nāmah, Burzō-nāmah, etc. Pictures); Ms. or. fol. 172 (Pertsch 702; Stchoukine 63. 17th century? Preface i. Pictures); Hamilton 260 (Pertsch 702a; Stchoukine 65. First half only. Preface i. Owner’s note dated 1765 ad. Pictures); Ms. or. fol. 189 (Pertsch 705; Stchoukine 67. Dated 1199/1784–5. Preface iii. Pictures); Minutoli 134 (Pertsch 700; Stchoukine 73. Dated 15 Shawwāl 1245/1830. Pictures); Minutoli 20 (Pertsch 701. Modern fragment); Ms. or. fol. 3380 (Stchoukine 32. 19th century. First part only. Pictures); Cracow Majda p. 96 no. 3 (Dated 1028/1619); Wroclaw Majda p. 94 no. 3 (17th century? Pictures); Vienna Flügel 501 (also Kh.-M. iii pp. 400–1. Dated 15 Shawwāl 882/1478. Preface i according to Kh.-M.); Flügel 502 (also Duda pp. 173–6. Dated 30 Muḥarram 1016/1607. Preface iii. Pictures); Flügel 503 (also Duda pp. 59–63. Completed 9 Rabīʿ iii 1026/1617. Pictures); Krafft clxxxvi (Dated 1169/1755–6); Zagreb (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 26. Dated Ramaḍān 982/1574. Pictures); Bucharest M.O. 333 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 978. Pictures); Cluj M.O. 203 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 985. Preface iii. Pictures); Lund Supplémenta liv (Dated 5 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1011/1603. Pictures); Leningrad48 Dorn cccxxix (=G./D. 1; Kh.-M. iii pp. 384–5, iv pp. 229–30. Dated Jumādā i 733/1333. Lacunae. Pictures);49 Acad. C 52 (G./D. 2. Fragmentary. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 117 (Kostygova 410 = G./D. 3. 15th century? 1 picture); Acad. C 1654 (G./D. 4; Kh.-M. iii pp. 396–7, iv p. 243. Dated Ramaḍān 849/1445. Preface i. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxii (=G./D. 5. 15th century? Down to reign of Khusrau Parwēz. Beginning missing. Pictures); Acad. C 822 (Rosen pp. 169–70 = G./D. 6; Kh.-M. iv pp. 20–1. 15th century? Preface i. Pictures); Acad. C 184 (Rosen p. 169 = G./D. 7. Dated 5 Muḥarram 931/1524. Pictures); Acad. C 50 (G./D. 8. Dated Rabīʿ i 956/1549. Preface iii. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxi (=G./D. 9. 16th century? Down to reign of Gushtāsp. Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah. Pictures); Dorn cccxxx (=G./D. 10. 16th century? Down to reign of Bahman. Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah); Univ. (G./D. 11. Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah. Preface iii. Pictures); Acad. D 1 (G./D. 12. Preface i. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxiv (=G./D. 13. Dated 1 Jumādā i 992/1584. Preface iii. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 382 (Kostygova 412 = G./D. 14. 16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 266 (Kostygova 403 = G./D. 15. Dated 1007/1598–9. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 90 (Kostygova 404 = G./D. 16. Dated 1011/1602–3. Preface iii. Interpolations from Karshāsp-nāmah. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 65 (Kostygova 405 = G./D. 17. Dated 20 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1039/1630. Preface iii. Interpolations from Karshāsp-nāmah and Farāmarz-nāmah. Pictures); Dorn cccxxxiii (= G./D. 18. Completed 1061/1651. Preface iii. Interpolations from Karshāsp-nāmah etc. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 381 (Kostygova 411 = G./D. 19. 17th century? Pictures); Nauchnaya Biblioteka im. M. Gorkogo MO 11 (G./D. 20. 17th century? Preface iii); Nauchnaya Biblioteka im. M. Gorkogo MO 72 (G./D. 21. Before 1100/1688–9); Nauchnaya Biblioteka im. M. Gorkogo MO 38 (G./D. 22. 17th century? Beginning missing); Acad. C 51 (G./D. 23. 17th century? Interpolations from Burzō-nāmah); Publ. Lib. New Series 64 (Kostygova 409 = G./D. 24. 17th/18th century? Pictures); Acad. D 377 (G./D. 25. Dated 1 Rajab 1138/1726. Pictures); Acad. C 53 (G./D. 26. 18th century?); Publ. Lib. New Series 394 (Kostygova 406. Dated 1253/1837–8. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 13 (Kostygova 407 = G./D. 27. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1271/1855. Preface i. Pictures); Publ. Lib. New Series 12 (Kostygova 408 = G./D. 28. Dated 20 Rajab 1280/1863); Acad. C 1670 (G./D. 29. 19th century); Acad. D 14 (Index 2297); Istanbul Topkapı, Hazine 1479 (Karatay 332; Kh.-M. iii pp. 383–4, iv pp. 225–9. Dated Ṣafar 731/1330. Preface i. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1511 (Karatay 333; Kh.-M. iii pp. 386–7. Dated Shawwāl 772/1371. Imperfect at the beginning. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1515 (Karatay 334; Kh.-M. iii p. 391. Dated Rabīʿ i 803/1400. Pictures); Tarlan 380 (Dated 829/1425–6. Incomplete.); Nuruosmaniye 3384 mükerrer (Ateş 1. Dated 25 Jumādā i 834/1431. Preface i); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1547 (Karatay 335. Dated Shawwāl 842/1439); Ayasofya 3861/1 fol. lb-586a (Ateş 2. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 857/1453. Preface ii); Topkapı, Hazine 1496 (Karatay 336; Kh.-M. iii pp. 398–9. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 868/1464. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1489 (Karatay 337; Kh.-M. iii pp. 402–7. Dated 887/1482. Preface i. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1506 (Karatay 338; Kh.-M. iii p. 404. Dated 3 Jumādā ii 891/1486. Pictures); Üniversite fy 1407 (Ateş 3; Edhem/Stchoukine xxiv; Kh.-M. iv p. 17. Dated Jumādā i 895/1490. Preface iii. Pictures); Üniversite fy 1406 (olim Yildiz 7954/310. Ateş 4; Edhem/Stchoukine xlv; Kh.-M. iv p. 19. Dated 899/1493–4. Pictures. This is the second volume of a manuscript the first half of which—minus a number of detached pages—is in the Türk ve İslâm Eserler Müzesi, Istanbul, Ms. 1978);50 Köprülü, Mehmet Asim Bey 392 (Cat. iii p. 182. Dated 3 Ṣafar 899/1493); Topkapı, Hazine 1507 (Karatay 343; see his corrigenda; Kh.-M. iv pp. 23–4. Dated Rabīʿ ii 900/1495. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1542 (Karatay 344; Kh.-M. iv p. 24. Dated 10) Rajab 900/1495. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1491 (Karatay 345; Kh.-M. iv pp. 24–5. Dated 20 Jumādā i 901/1496. Preface iii. Pictures); Topka-p1, Ahmet iii 3065 (Karatay 346; Kh.-M. iv p. 26. Dated 901/1495–6 according to Karatay, but Kh.-M. doubts this date. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1508 (Karatay 347; Kh.-M. iv pp. 29–30. Dated 902/1496–7. Preface iii. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1510/i (Karatay 348; Kh.-M. iv pp. 30–1, 248. Dated 5 Dhū l-ḥijjah 903/1498. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1513 (Karatay 339. 15th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1509 (Karatay 340. 15th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1499 (Karatay 341. 15th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1478 (Karatay 342. 15th century?); Topkapı, Hazine 1504 (Karatay 349. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 914/1509. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1480 (Karatay 350. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 927/1521. Pictures); Topkapı,Hazine 1485 (Karatay351. Dated Rajab 928/1522. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1482 (Karatay352. Dated Shawwāl 939/1533. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1514 (Karatay 353. Dated 942/1535–6. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1481 (Karatay 354. Dated 950/1543–4. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1516 (Karatay 355. Dated 27 Rajab 954/1547. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1495 (Karatay 356. Dated Ṣafar 960/1553. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1477 (Karatay 357. Dated Rajab 971/1564); Topkapı, Hazine 1488 (Karatay 358. Dated 972/1564–5. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1493 (Karatay 359. Dated 973/1565–6. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1483 (Karatay 360. Dated 978/1570–1. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1497 (Karatay 361. Dated Muharram 982/1574. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1544 (Karatay 362 and corrigenda. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 983/1576. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1548 (Karatay 363. Pictures); Üniversite fy 1405 (Ateş 6; Edhem/Stchoukine xxxiii; Kh.-M. iv pp. 21–2. Attributed to 15th [Kh.-M.], 16th [Edhem/Stchoukine] or 17th century [Ateş]. Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1546 (Karatay 364. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1549 (Karatay 365; Kh.-M. iv pp. 22–3. 16th century? Preface i. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1475 (Karatay 366. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1484 (Karatay 367. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1486 (Karatay 368. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1487 (Karatay 369. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1490 (Karatay 370. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1494 (Karatay 371. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1500 (Karatay 372. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1502 (Karatay 373. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1503 (Karatay 374. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1505 (Karatay 375. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1512 (Karatay 376. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1656 (Karatay 377. 16th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1476 (Karatay 378. Dated 1000/1591–2); Topkapı, Hazine 1492 (Karatay 379. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1006/1597. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1501 (Karatay 380. Dated Ramaḍān 1010/1602. Pictures); Topkapı, Hazine 1498 (Karatay 381. Dated 1038/1628–9. Pictures); Nuruosmaniye 3384 (Ateş 5. Dated 12 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1085/1675); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1541 (Karatay 382. Dated 1097/1685–6.); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1543 (Karatay 383. 17th century? Pictures); Topkapı, Revan köşkü 1545 (Karatay 384. 17th century? Contains a prose introduction); Cairo Dār al-kutub 6006 sīn (Ṭirāzī 1371; Kh.-M.iii pp. 385–6, iv pp. 230–1. Dated Shawwāl 741/1341); Dār al-kutub 73 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1370; Kh.-M. iii p. 388, iv pp. 231–2. Dated 796/1393–4. Pictures); Dār al-kutub 18 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1365; Kh.-M. iii p. 387. Dated 733/1332–3 according to the catalogue but Kh.-M. doubts this); Dār al-kutub 49 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1366. Dated 805/1402–3 according to Ḥilmī but 705/1305–6 according to Ṭirāzī [printing error?]. Pictures); Dār al-kutub 59 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1368. Dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 844/1439. Pictures); Dār al-kutub 60 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1369. Dated Shawwāl 905/1500. Pictures); Dār al-kutub 53 tārīkh fārisī (Ṭirāzī 1367. Dated Shaʿbān 1066/1656. Pictures); Baku i 329 (Dated 1043/1633–4); i 330 (Dated 1154/1741–2); Najaf 1385 (Munz. no. 31501. 15th or 16th century? with later additions); Tehran Majlis 5243 (Munz. no. 31349 inspexit. 14th century? Imperfect at both ends); Malik 5994 (Munz. no. 31350 inspexit; he attributes it to the 14th century, ‘dated’ 600/1203–4). Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 341 (Dated 5 Jumādā i 833/1428. Preface iii. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 348 (Dated Ṣafar 847/1443. Pictures); Adabīyāt i p. 323 (Dated 16 Shawwāl 864/1460 according to Munz. 31435, where the date given in the catalogue [1004] is rejected. Fragment); Bayāt 1 (Nuskhah-hā vi p. 66. Dated 885/1480–1. Pictures); Museum 3590 (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 208. Dated 12 Jumādā i 895/1490); Millī ii 972 (15th century? End missing); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 345 (Dated 5 Jumādā i 929/1523. Beginning missing; contains the last part of preface i. Pictures); Museum 4361 (Nuskhah-hā ii p. 208. Dated 938/l53–2. Pictures); Millī ii 983 (Dated 948/1541–2. Pictures); Gulistān/Bayānī (Dated 950/1543–4. Pictures. Munz.); Majlis iii 1100 (16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Majlis iii 1101 (16th century? Preface ii and i); Shūrā i Islāmī 622 (Dated Rajab 1009/1601. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 343 (Dated 10 Ramaḍān 1021/1612. Pictures); Sipah-sālār v p. 133 (Dated 1030/1620–1. Pictures) [Munz]; Majlis viii 2529 (Dated 1055/1645); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 347 (Dated Muḥarram 1068/1657. Preface i. Pictures); Millī iii 1063 (Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1085/1675. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 344 (Dated Rajab 1189/1775. Preface i); Millī iii 1060/1 (Dated 1240/1824–5); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 338 (Dated 1252/1836–7. Preface i. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 342 (Dated 23 Shawwāl 1262/1846. preface ii); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 346 (Safawid. Incomplete. Preface i. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 349 (Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 350 (Safavid. Preface iii. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 351 (Preface iii. Pictures); Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 352 (Qajar. Pictures); Majlis 1102 (late); Mashhad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Maulawī (Nuskhah-hā v p. 36. 15th century? Incomplete); Riḍawī vii 648 (16th century?); Riḍawī vii 649 (Dated 26 Rabīʿ i 1212/1797. Last part only); Tashkent Acad. ii 749 (Dated 854/1450); Acad. ii 750 (Dated 890/1485); Acad. ii 751 (Dated 964/1556–7. Pictures); Acad. viii 5715 (Dated 1004/1595–6); Acad. ii 752 (16th century? Preface iii); Acad. ii 753 (16th century?); Acad. viii 5714 (16th century?); Acad. viii 5717 (16th–17th century?); Acad. ii 754 (Dated 1012/1603–4. Pictures); Acad. ii 755 (Extract. Dated 4 Rajab 1052/1642); Acad. viii 5716 (Dated 1058/1648); Acad. ix 6091 (Dated 18 Rabīʿ i 1075 /1664. Preface iii. Pictures); Acad. viii 5718 (17th century?); Acad. viii 5719 (17th century? Fragment); Acad. ii 756 (18th century? With an introduction); Acad. ii 757 (19th century); Acad. ii 758 (19th century); Dushanbe Acad. ii 317 (Dated 2 Shawwāl 1010/1602); Acad. ii 320 (16th–17th century?); Fird. Libr. 22 (16th–17th century?); Acad. ii 318 (17th–18th century? Pictures); Acad. ii 319 (18th century? Preface iii); Acad. ii 321 (19th century? Fragment. Pictures); Kabul Royal Libr. 69 (Cat. p. 28. Dated 1044/1634–5. Pictures); Royal Libr. 70 (Cat. p. 28. Fragment. Pictures); Museum 225 Cat. p. 141. Dated 1233/1817–8. One picture); Museum 226 (Cat. p. 141. Incomplete); Karachi National Museum 1957–913/3 (Dated 752/1351. Second half; according to Kh.-M.’s edition); Lahore Shēranī 6348 (Dated Jumadā ii 855/1451. Munz); Shērānī i 146 (15th century? Preface i. Munz.); Univ. ii p. 428 (Dated 998/1589–90. Munz.); Bombay Cama (Cf. Kh.-M. iii pp. 388–90. 14th century? Incomplete. Pictures); b.b.r.a.s. Persian 1 (Dated 6 Rajab 910/1504. Preface i. Pictures); Rehatsek p. 153 no. 94–95 (Dated 1021/1612); Rehatsek p. 153 no. 92–3 (Dated 1035/1625–6); Rehatsek p. 152 no. 90 (Second half only. Pictures); Rehatsek p. 152 no. 91 (Second half only); b.b.r.a.s. Persian 2 (Pictures); Navsari Meherji Rana p. 47 no. 87 (Imperfect at both ends); Meherji Rana p. 97 no. 103 (“Vol. ii”. Dated 1197/1783); Meherji Rana p. 97 no. 104 (beginning only); Khakpur (Nuskhah-hā vii p. 567. Fragment from the 15th century?); Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1099 (Dated 977/1569–70. Preface iii. Pictures); Āṣafīyah i p. 244 no. 262 (Dated 1007/1598–9); Sālār Jung iv 1104 (16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Sālār Jung iv 1100 (Dated 20 Shaʿbān 1009/1601. Preface iii. Defective. Pictures); Sālār Jung iv 1101 (Dated 1026/1617. Pictures); Sālār Jung iv 1102 (Dated Ramaḍān 1041/1632. Preface iii and i); Sālār Jung iv 1103 (Completed Shawwāl 1071/1668. Pictures); Sālār Jung iv 1105 (17th century? Pictures); Āṣafīyah i p. 244 no. 32 (Dated 1236/1820–1. Pictures); Āṣafīyah i p. 244 no. 212 (Pictures); Āṣafīyah iii p. 104 no. 1335; Rampore Saulat 32 (17th century? Incomplete); Saulat 33 (17th century? Last 3 volumes of a set of 5); Saulat 34 (18th century? Last 2 volumes of a set of 4); There are also 11 Mss. in the Ridā library, the oldest of which is dated 840/1436–7, according to Gharawī, Waḥīd vii, 1348sh./1970 p. 48; Uch 282 (16th century? Pictures); Lucknow Sprenger 222 (Several unspecified copies); Bankipore i 2 (15th century? Preface iii. Pictures); i 1 (Dated 17 Ramaḍān 942/1536. Preface iii. Lacunae. Pictures); Suppt. i 1794 (Dated 3 Dhū l-qaʿdah 985/1578. Pictures); i 3 (Dated 29 Shawwāl 999/1591. Preface iii); i 4 (Dated 14 Shaʿbān 1008/1600. Preface iii. 1 picture); i 5–8 (Dated 22 Ramaḍān 1094/1683. Pictures); i 9 (1 picture); Suppt. i 1792 (17th century? Preface iii. Contains interpolated extracts from the Karshāsp-nāmah. Pictures); Suppt. i 1795 (18th century? Has a colophon—apparently spurious or copied from the prototype—dated 4 Ramaḍān 789/1387. Many leaves missing or misplaced. Has the epilogue dated 389. Pictures); Suppt. i 1793 (Dated 23 Ramaḍān 1246/1831. Pictures); Calcutta Ivanow 421 (also Kh.-M. iii pp. 399–400. Completed Shawwāl 882/1478. The concluding verses mention the date 384. Preface iii); Būhār 276 (16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Būhār 277 (16th century? Preface iii. Pictures); Ivanow 422 (17th century? Preface i. Pictures); Los Angeles Univ. M743 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 18th century? Beginning and end missing); Univ. W7 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 19th century? Last part only); Univ. W9 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 18th century? End missing); Univ. W14 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 17th–18th century? Beginning and end missing); Univ. W132 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 18th century? End missing); Ann Arbor 280 (16th century? Pictures); Baltimore Walters Art Gallery (Robinson, Paintings p. 122. Dated 955/1548. Pictures); Princeton 1 (Dated Jumādā i 951/1544. Defective at beginning. Preface iii. Pictures); 2 (Dated 1065/1654–5. Pictures); 3 (Dated 1085/1674–5. Preface i. Pictures); 4 (Dated 1009/1600–1. Pictures); 406 (Pictures); 407 (Dated 15 Rabīʿ ii 1257/1841. Preface i); New York A large number of copies and fragments (one dated 753/1352) are described in B.W. Robinson, The Kevorkian Collection: Islamic and Indian manuscripts, miniature paintings and drawings, unpublished typescript, New York 1953. These have since been dispersed on the art market; Kraus 114–127 (see supra: Richmond); Jackson-Yohannan 1 (Dated 996/1588. Down to death of Alexander. Beginning missing. Preface i. Pictures); Kraus 128–143 (16th century? Pictures); Jackson-Yohannan 2 (Dated 1 Muḥarram 1011/1602. Beginning missing. Pictures); Jackson-Yohannan 3 (Dated 12 Shaʿbān 1016/1607. Preface i and satire. Pictures); Public Libr. (Mendelsohn p. 45. Dated 1023/1614); Jackson-Yohannan 4 (Completed Shawwāl 1079/1669. Preface iii, with Preface i and satire added later. Pictures); Jackson-Yohannan 5 (16th–17th century? Down to death of Alexander. Pictures); Public Libr. (Mendelsohn p. 58. 19th century); Cambridge (Mass.) Harvard Pers. 25 (Nuskhah-hā iv p. 5. 16th century? Pictures); A number of separate illustrated leaves from various copies (including 6 from the ‘Demotte’ Ms.) are found in the Fogg museum; see Schroeder ii, iiiviii, x, xii, xxviixxviii and further leaves listed in Norgen/Davis; Philadelphia Lewis Coll. 50 (15th/16th century? Pictures); Lewis Coll. 52 (Dated 996/1588. Preface i. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 53 (Dated 1000/1591–2. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 51 (16th/17th century? Preface i. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 54 (17th/l8th century? Pictures); Lewis Coll. 55 (Has a seal dated 1140/1727–8. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 56 (One volume of a set. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 57 (18th century? Preface i. Pictures); Lewis Coll. 58 (19th century? Pictures); Lewis Coll. 59 (Dated 1244/1828–9. Pictures); Washington Library of Congress (Dated 1137/1724–5. Pictures) [Mendelsohn].

Besides these there are a large number of uncatalogued manuscripts, fragments of manuscripts, loose pages and detached miniatures in many private collections and art galleries.

Mss. containing the Bāysunghur preface only: London i.o. 871; i.o. 2860; Istanbul Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 1632/i (Cat. ii p. 397. 16th century?).

Editions (complete, nearly complete or ongoing): Calcutta 1829 (The Shah Nameh: an heroic poemcarefully collated … and illustrated by a copious glossary of obsolete words and obscure idioms: with an introduction and life of the author in English and Persian [the latter containing the largest part of the Bāysunghur preface] and an appendix, containing the interpolated episodes etc. found in different manuscripts By Turner Macan. 4 vols); Bombay 1849 (with Macan’s appendix and glossary. Illustrated); 1272/1856–7 (again with Macan’s appendix etc. Illustrated); 1275/1858–9 (based on Macan. Illustrated); 1300/1882–3 (Ed. by Nūr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ṣamad and Muḥammad Ḥusain Kashmīrī); 1316/1898 (“Ayeene-e-Khursheed”, or the Shah-Nameh of Firdousi as edited by Khurshedji Minocherji Kateli. 6 parts); 1914 (Photozincographic reproduction of the Shiraz edition. Illustrated); Lucknow 1287/1870–1 (2 vols. Illustrated); 1884; Lucknow and Cawnpore 1897 (with glossary. 4 vols.); Cawnpore 1874 (based on Macan, with preface and glossary); Tehran 1247/1831–2 (Preface by Hajjī ʿAbd al-Muḥammad al-Rāzī); 1836; 1265/1848–9 to 1267/1850–1 (based on Macan. 4 pts. Illustrated); 1276/1859–6; 1310–2sh./1931–4 (Ed. M. Ramaḍānī. Based on Macan, Mohl, Vullers; ʿAbd al-Muḥammad, Auliyāʾ Samīʿ and a Ms. 5 vols.); reprinted 1341sh./1963; 1313–5sh./1934–5 (Ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī and others. Vols. 1–6 are a revision of Vullers’s edition, 7–9 are based on Macan and Mohl. With critical notes. Illustrated); 1335sh./1956–7 (Ed. M. Dabīr-Siyāqī on the basis of Macan’s edition. 6 vols.); 1350sh./1971–2 (Ed. M.J. Maḥjūb); Paris 1838–78 (Le Livre des Roispublié, traduit, et commenté par M. J. Mohl. 7 vols); For a (still valuable) critical commentary on the first volume see F. Rückert, ‘Bemerkungen zu Mohl’s Ausgabe des Firdusi, Band I’, zdmg viii, 1854, pp. 239–329, x, 1856, pp. 127–282; Shiraz 1849; Leyden 1877–84 (Firdusii Liber Regum, ed. J.A. Vullers and S. Landauer. A ‘critical’ edition based on Macan and Mohl. 3 vols, only published, ending with the reign of Dārā son of Dārā. The manuscript of the remaining two volumes was prepared by F. Wolff and is now in the library of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft in Giessen; cf. zdmg 141, 1991, p. 88); Moscow 1960–71 (Шах-нāме. Критический текст. Ed. Ye. E. Bertel’s, ʿA. al-Ḥ. Nōshīn et al. 9 volumes. This first critical edition based on manuscripts suffers from the fact that it used too few manuscripts as well as from the eclectic method followed by the editors. The later volumes—for which Nōshīn bears the main responsibility—are considerably more useful than the earlier ones); 1991 (Шах-наме, vol. i, ed. M.N. Osmanov. More volumes apparently to follow); Dushanbe 1964–66 (ed. K. Aynī, Z. Ahrorī, V. Sirus, A. Dewonaqulow; 9 volumes in Tajik script, with variant readings); New York (vols. ii–iv: Costa Mesa and New York) 1988—(ed. J. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq. In progress. A splendid critical edition).

Partial editions: Calcutta 1811 (The Shah Namu, being a series of heroic poems, on the ancient history of Persia … Edited under the super-intendence of M. Lumsden. Vol. i only); Leipzig 1891 (I. Pizzi, Anto-logia Firdusiana con un compendio di grammatica persiana e un vocabulario. 2nd edition); Bombay 1914 (The Shahnameh of Firdausi. Its full text [in Gujarati characters] and its translation in Gujarati by Mahiar Navroji Kutar and Faramarz Navroji Kutar. Apparently only one volume published); Ashkhabad 1935 (Dastani cənd əz Şahnaməje Ferdovsi. Moqəddəmə, tertib və izahate axere ketab M. ə. Mənaf-zadə. In Latinised Persian); Tehran 1352sh./1973 (Dāstān i Rustam u Suhrāb az Sh.N., ed. M. Mīnuwī); 1354sh./1975 (Dāstān i Furūd, ed. M. Raushan, with variants and glossary), 2nd ed. 1369sh./1990; 1363–9sh./1985–90 (Dāstān i Siyāwūsh az Sh.N., 2 vols., ed. M. Mīnuwī, completed by M. Qarīb and M. Madāʾinī); 1370sh./1991 (Razm-nāmah i Rustam u Isfandyār, ed. J. Shiʿār and Ḥ. Anwarī, with extensive commentary).

Glossaries and concordances:

Muʿjam i (alfāẓ i) Shāh-nāmah by Sharīf Daftar-Khwān Muḥammad b. al-Riḍā b. Muḥammad al-ʿAlawī al-Ṭūsī, who was still alive in 589/1193.51 Ms.: Dublin Beatty 360 (16th century?). Edition: Tehran 1353sh./1974 (ed. Ḥ. Khidīw-jam on the basis of a Ms. dated Dhū l-qaʿdah 1285/1869).
Lughat i Shah-nāmah (in Turkish) written by ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Baghdādī in 1067/1656–7 and published by Salemann (1895). Cf. pl iii § 106.
Ganj-nāmah dar ḥall i lughāt i Shāh-nāmah by ʿAlī al-Makkī b. Ṭaifūr al-Bisṭāmī. Completed 7 Jumādā ii 1079/1668. Mss.: London i.o. 891 (Dated 14 Shawwāl 1079/1669); Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1112 (18th century? End missing); Sālār Jung iv 1113 (19th century?).
F. Wolff, Glossar zu Firdosis Schahname, Berlin 1935; reprint Hildesheim 1965. This glossary and concordance is a fundamental work for studies of the Shāh-nāmah and of the history of the Persian language; id., ‘Verbesserungen und Zusätze zum Schahname-Glossar’, zdmg 141, 1991, pp. 88–113 (published from the martyred author’s posthumous papers).
R. Shafaq, Farhang i Shāh-nāmah bā sharḥ i ḥāl i Firdausī, Tehran 1320sh./1941; 2nd edition 1350sh./1972.
M. Dabīr-Siyāqī, Kashfu l-abyāt i Shāh-nāmah i Firdausī, 2 vols., n.p., 1348–50sh./1969–71;
ʿAlī Jahāngīrī, Farhang i nām-hā i Shāh-nāmah, Tehran 1369sh./1990;
Manṣūr Rastgār Fasāʾī, [same title], vol. i, Tehran 1369sh./1990;
Maḥmūd Zanjānī, Farhang i jāmiʿ i Shāh-nāmah, Tehran 1372sh./1993.

Complete (or nearly complete) translations:

(Arabic prose): Taʾrīkh al-Shāh-nāmah by al-Fatḥ b. ʿAlī al-Bundārī al-Iṣbahānī (see pl i p. 199) at the command of al-Malik al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā b. al-Malik al-ʿĀdil Abī Bakr b. Aiyūb. It was begun in Damascus in 620/1223 and completed in 621/1224. Cf. Ḥājjī Khalīfah iv p. 12, no. 7407; Brockelmann i p. 321, Suppl. i p. 554. Edited by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿAzzām, Cairo 1350/1932.

(Georgian): several (mediaeval) versions edited by J. Abuladze, 2 vols., Tiflis 1916, 1934.

(Turkish verse): Fragments or two (or the same?) translations: Mss.: Vienna Flügel 504 (Dated Jumādā i 1078/1667); Flügel 505 (before 1703 ad). For other verse translations see Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish manuscripts in the British Museum, p. 154 sq. and Gibb, History of Ottoman poetry ii p. 390.

(Turkish prose): Ms.: Istanbul Yıldiz 7951/309 (3 vols. Edhem and Stchoukine xvi. Dated 1187/1773–4. Pictures); For a modern Turkish translation see: Şehname. Terceme eden Necati Lugal ve Kenan Akyüz. 2 vols., Istanbul 1947.

(French prose): Mohl’s translation (see under editions, Paris) was republished (without the text) as Le livre des Rois par Abou’l-kasim Firdousi, 7 vols., Paris 1876–8. Extracts from the same were again reprinted, with slight revision, in Ferdowsi. Le livre des rois … traduit … par J. M. Extraits choisis et revus par Gilbert Lazard, Paris 1979.

(Italian verse): Il libro dei Re, poema epico recato dal persiano in versi italiani da I. Pizzi, 8 vols., Turin 1886–8.

(English verse): The Sháhnáma of Firdausí, done into English by A.G. Warner … and E. Warner, 9 vols., London 1905–25.

(German prose): A complete literal translation, based on the Moscow edition, by H. Kanus-Credé was published in instalments in Iranistische Mitteilungen vi, 1972 to xxviii, 1998 (with some gaps).

Translations of substantial portions:

(English): The poems of Ferdosi translated by J. Champion, Vol. i (No more published), Calcutta 1785, reissued London 1788; Soohrab, a poem: freely translated from the original Persian of Firdousee; being a portion of the Shahnamu of that celebrated poet by J. Atkinson, Calcutta 1814 (in rhymed couplets, with the Persian text); republished (with significant revision) in Atkinson’s The Sháh námeh of 1832 (see below, p. 78), pp. 543–608; Episodes from the Shah Nameh … by S. Weston, London 1815; Roostum Zaboolee and Soohrab, from the history of Persia; entitled Shah Namuh; or, Book of Kings, by Firdousee. Translated into English verse, with the original text annexed: notes, plates, & an appendix, by W.T. Robertson, Calcutta 1829; Episodes from the Šahnāmeh by J.J. Modi, 2 vols., Bombay 1906–7; The Shah-namah of Fardusi, by A. Rogers (large extracts translated in rhymed couplets, with linking narrative in prose), London 1907; The Epic of the Kings, (much abridged) translation by R. Levy, London 1967; J.W. Clinton, The tragedy of Sohrâb and Rostâm, Seattle 1987 (with the Persian text, unfortunately not in the recension actually followed by the translation; see also the review by M.C. Hillmann and response by Clinton in Īrān-shināsī i/3, 1989, pp. 53–76 of the English section); id., ‘The story of Sām son of Narimān and the birth of Zāl’, Iranica varia: Papers in honour of Professor Ehsan Yarshater (=Acta Iranica 30), Leiden 1990, pp. 38–47; id., In the dragon’s claws. The story of Rostam & Esfandiyar from the Persian Book of Kings, Washington 1999; The legend of Siyavash, translated by D. Davis, Harmondsworth 1992.

(German): Das Heldenbuch von Iran aus dem Schah Nameh des Firdussi von J. Görres, 2 vols., Berlin 1820; Heldensagen von Firdusi [ten episodes] tr. by A. von Schack, Berlin 1851; Epische Dichtungen aus dem Persischen des Firdusi [nine further episodes] by the same, 2 vols. Berlin 1853; Heldensagen von Firdusi in deutscher Nachbildung [the 19 episodes of the two preceding works, with additions] Berlin 1865, Stuttgart 1877, Stuttgart 1894; Firdosi’s Königsbuch (Schahname) übersetzt von F. Rückert. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von E.A. Bayer. Sage I–XIII, Berlin 1890, Sage XV–XIX, Berlin 1895 [Rückert’s Ms. for ‘Sage XIV’ = Rustam and Suhrab, was not found], Sage XX–XXVI, Berlin 1895; Geschichten aus dem Schahnameh. Ausgewählt und übertragen von Uta v. Witzleben, Cologne 1960; Das Buch der Könige, übertragen von Uta v. Witzleben, Düsseldorf/Cologne 1961.

(Gujrati): by Jamshedji Kharshedji Desai. Ms.: Navsari Meherji Rana p. 143 no. 38 (First part only); Shāh-nāmeh. Translated into Gujarati from Firdousi from the commencement up to the reign of king Minocheher by J.J. Modi, with an appendix containing an account of the kings, according to the Avesta, Pahlavi and other Persian books. Bombay 1904.

(Russian): Книга о Царях, tr. S. Sokolov, Pt. i [to the death of Farēdūn], Moscow 1905; Further extracts from his translation (Заль и Рудабе, Ростем и Сохраб) are printed in Krymsky’s История Персии, Vol. 1/4, Moscow 1913, pp. 277–408; Книга цареи … перевод М. Лозинского, под ред., с комментариями и статеи Ф.А. Розенберга, Moscow-Leningrad 1934; Шахнаме, translated in verse by Ts.B. Banu-Lakhuti and others, Moscow 1957—(apparently not completed).

(Armenian): Tr. Y. Tireakean, Paris 1906; New York 1909.

(Czech): Kniha králú (Šah-náme), tr. J. Borecký, Prague 1910.

(Danish): Firdausis Kongebog: udvalgte sagn af det persiske nationalepos i metrisk gengivelse med en indledning om digteren og hans vaerk, by A. Christensen. Copenhagen 1931.

Retellings of the whole of the epic, or of individual episodes (for children or otherwise), in various languages, are numerous, but need not be listed here. See, however, M.A.R. Khan, ‘Sháhnáma epitomised’, Indo-Iranica xi, 1958, /1 pp. 78–87, /2 pp. 9–22, /3 pp. 44–71.

Extracts and abridgements:

Ikhtiyārāt i Shāh-nāmah (or Kitāb i intikhāb i Shāh-nāmah) written by one ʿAlī b. Aḥmad for Malik-Shāh and completed, according to the text, in 474/1081–2. After the compiler’s introduction (inc. alā ai khirad-mand i rōshan-ruwān * ḥaqīqat k-az īn dūr bāsh az kamān) there follow extracts from Firdausī’s poem under various headings (‘praise of the prophet’, ‘praise of kings’, ‘description of old age’ etc.). The narrative content of the Shāh-nāmah plays no role in it. See the account of the work in the Gotha catalogue.52 Mss.: Gotha 48 (Ms. written for Sulṭān Muḥammad Khān b. Murād Khān, regn. 1594–1603).53 The same work is evidently found also in Istanbul Üniversite fy 147 (Ateş 7. Dated 910/1504–5. Beginning missing) and perhaps also in London i.o. 882 (Dated Rabīʿ i 945/1538. Badly damaged. Ethé’s tentative identification of the Ms. with the ikhtiyārāt of Masʿūd b. Saʿd b. Salmān—for which see the following entry—is apparently quite arbitrary).54
ʿAufī ii p. 33 mentions the Ikhtiyārāt i Shāh-nāmah by the famous poet Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān (for whom see below, § 240). The work does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps this is a wrong attribution of the just mentioned Ikhtiyārāt of ʿAlī b. Aḥmad?
An anonymous Miftāḥ i Shāh-nāmah in prose was written in 845/1441–2. Ms.: Leyden 1659(2) (Cat. mmdlxxviii. Dated 1112/1700–1).
Extracts from the Shāh-nāmah, with connecting passages in prose, are contained in the majmūʿah of Niẓām al-dīn Aḥmad Gīlānī, a pupil of Bahāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad al-Āmulī (d. 1030/1620–1).

Mss.: Berlin Petermann 175 fol. 11b–21a (Pertsch 45); the same anthology is reported also in Hyderabad Āṣafīyah ii p. 970 no. 306.

Muntakhab i Shāh-nāmah or Khulāṣah i Shāh-nāmah or Tārīkh i (Dil-gushāy) Shamshēr-khānī by Tawakkul Beg, son of Tūlak Beg, (for whom see pl i, § 1332) written for the governor of Ghaznīn, Shamshēr Beg, in 1063/1653. An abridgement in prose, with copious extracts from Firdausī’s poem. The actual epitome extends only as far as the reign of Ardashīr, followed by an enumeration of the remaining kings and a biography of the poet.

Mss.: Manchester Lindesiana 145 (Dated 1063/1653); Lindesiana 135 (17th–18th century?); Lindesiana 402 (Dated 1265/1848–9); Oxford Ouseley 222 (Ethé 504. Dated 9 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1144/1732); Ind. Inst. Pers. 101 (Beeston 2542. Dated 13 Dhū l-ḥijjah 1239/1824); Ind. Inst. Pers. 89 fol. 177–232 (Beeston 2543. 19th century. A fragment of the work); Eton 120, 121 (Dated 1194/1780); London Add. 25,798 (Rieu pp. 539–40. 17th century?); i.o. 883 (Dated 25 Ṣafar of the 46th year of ʿĀlamgīr = 1114/1702); i.o. 884 (Dated 3 Rajab of 1st year of Rafīʿ al-jalālat, identified by Ethé with Rafīʿ al-darajāt, which would date this Ms. to 1131/1719); Or. 371 (Rieu p. 540. Dated Shaʿbān 1155/1742. Pictures); i.o. 885 (Dated 9 Shawwāl 1170/1757); i.o. 886 (Dated 5th year of Shāh-ʿĀlam 1177/1763–4); i.o. 887 (Dated 5 Jumādā ii 1186/1772); s.o.a.s. 47646 [or 43646?] (Dated 25 Shaʿbān 1196/1782); Egerton 1105 (Rieu p. 540. 18th century?); Add. 6939 (Rieu p. 540. A transcript of the preceding with a translation by J. Haddon Hindley); Add. 7725 (Rieu p. 540. Dated Rabīʿ i 1198/1784); Add. 6611 (Rieu p. 540. Dated Dhū l-Qaʿdah 1212/1798); Add. 27,269 (Rieu p. 540. 18th century); Add. 5619 (Rieu p. 540. 18th century); Add. 24,415 (Rieu p. 541. Dated Dhū l-ḥijjah 1218/1804); Or. 7031 (Meredith-Owens p. 67. Dated 1238/1822–3); Ross and Browne clxxx (Dated 8 Rajab 1259/1843); Or. 7539 (Meredith-Owens p. 68. 19th century. Abbreviated); Or. 8761 (Meredith-Owens p. 69. 18th or 19th century. Pictures); i.o. 888 (modern); i.o. 889; i.o. 890 (defective); Cambridge Oo. 6. 60 (Browne Cat. cc. Dated 25 Dhū l-ḥijjah 13th year of Muḥammad Shāh = 1143/1730–1); Add. 411 (Browne Cat. cci.); Corpus, No. 108 (Browne Suppt. 235); Edinburgh Univ. 270 (Dated 1090/1679); New Coll. Or. 29; Paris Ancien fonds 99A (Blochet 1181/Richard. Dated 10 Rabīʿ ii 1143 = 1137 Bengali era = 12th year of Muḥammad Shāh Ghāzī/1730); Supplément 1894 (Blochet 1184. Dated Rabīʿ ii 1213/1798); Supplément 198 (Blochet 1182. 18th century?); Supplément 197 (Blochet 1183. 18th century? Incomplete); Supplément 1731 (Blochet 1185. 18th century? Incomplete); Copenhagen Mehren xliii; Mehren xliv; Berlin Sprenger 1619 (Pertsch 708); Ms. or. 4° 221 (Pertsch 709); Ms. or. oct. 1080 (Heinz 180; Stchoukine 76. Dated 1251/1835–6. Pictures); Leipzig Vollers 917; Mashhad Riḍawī iii p. 90 no. 55 (listed in the catalogue as a manuscript of the Shāh-nāmah, but its conclusion is quoted as ‘shud tamām Shahnāmah i Dil-gushāy’); Bombay Rehatsek p. 152 no. 89 (Dated 1129/1717); Univ. iv (Dated 2 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1224/1809); Navsari Meherji Rana p. 19 no. 28/ii (First part only. Dated 1215 Y./1845–6); Meherji Rana p. 97 no. 105; Uch 283 (Dated 29 Ramaḍān 1126/1714. Pictures); Bankipore i 10; Suppt. i 1796 (Dated 3 Ṣafar 1239/1823); Suppt. i 1797 (19th century. Pictures); Poona Bhārat Itihāsa Samshodhak Mandal no. 69 (Acc. to Bombay Univ. catal. p. 268); Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1106 (18th century? Pictures); Sālār Jung iv 1107 (Dated 1224/1809); Sālār Jung iv 1108 (Dated 30 Muḥarram 1245/1829); Sālār Jung iv 1109 (18th century?); Calcutta Ivanow 423 (18th century? Defective at end); Ivanow Curzon 185 (Dated 12 Shaʿbān 17th year of Muḥammad Shāh/1147/1735. The 2nd half of the Ms. supplied by a modern hand); Ivanow Curzon 186 (Contains a seal dated 1134/1721–2); Ivanow Curzon 187 (19th century? One picture); Būhār 278 (19th century?); Madras i 290; i 291 (Dated 1137/1724–5); Dacca Univ. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (all late).

Translations: (Urdu verse): by Munshī Mūlchand. ‘He died about ad 1832’ (Sprenger p. 267). Mss.: Cambridge Corpus 148 (Browne Suppt. 789. Dated 1267/1850–1); extract in London Or. 1763 fol. 24–47 (Rieu p. 1026). Edition: Calcutta 1846.

(English): J. Atkinson: The Sháh námeh of the Persian poet Firdausí, translated and abridged in prose and verse, with notes and illustrations by J. Atkinson, London 1832. (Although it is nowhere stated in the volume, this is in fact essentially a translation of the ‘Shamshēr-khānī’, as was noted by Rieu p. 540. Atkinson’s book concludes with a reprint of his Soohrab, as mentioned above, p. 75). For another translation, see under Mss., London Add. 6939.

Shāh-nāmah i Bakht-āwar-khānī, by Bahādur ʿAlī, son of Ilāhwirdī Khān ʿĀlam-gīr-shāhī (the latter died in 1079/1668–9 acccording to the Maʾāthir al-umarā). See Rieu p. 1037b. The author of the Bombay University Catalogue says that this work is ‘but a clever copy’ of the Muntakhab i Shāh-nāmah by Tawakkul Beg, but without the verses. Ms.: Bombay Univ. xxxviii.
Shāh-nāmah i nathr by Khurshēd, son of Isfandyār, of Navsārī, for Captain Aungier in 1671. Ms.: London Royal 16 B. xiv (Rieu p. 541. Dated Sharīwar 1040 Y./1671. The author’s original draft); Add. 6938 (Rieu p. 541. Transcript of the first part of the preceeding with a translation by J. Haddon Hindley).

Partial translation: see under Mss.

ʿIṭr Shāh-nāmah composed by Shāhim (?) ʿAlī-khān, known as Shāh-ʿĀlam-Ibrāhīmī Sabzwārī Awad’hī in 1121/1709–10, for whom see the Berlin catalogue, p. 739. The author epitomises the poem in prose, with extracts from the original. The last section is devoted to the history of the kings of Delhi down to Shāh-ʿĀlam ii. Ms.: Berlin Ms. orient. Fol. 276 (Pertsch 707. Autograph? The Ms. contains first of all the author’s own transcript of the Bāysunghur preface dated 6 Rabīʿ i 1142 = 1137 faṣlī = 11th year of Muḥammad Shāh/1729. Then in a different script the text of the epitome, of which the last 4 leaves are in a different hand and dated the beginning [ghurrah] of Shawwāl 1123/1711).
Muntakhab i Rām Narāyan, completed in 1140/1727–8. Ms.: Bankipore i 11 (Dated 7 Dhū l-qaʿdah 1141/1729).
Fihrist i Shāh-nāmah, or Muntakhab i Shāh-nāmah, written in 1147/1734–5 by Bhīm Sēn, with the takhalluṣ Muḥibb. Ivanow describes it as a ‘versified table of contents’ of the Sh.N., Keshavarz, however, as ‘a prose version’ of the same. (Inc. in both Mss.: alā ai ṣāḥib i dānish, khirad-war * dar īn nāmah ba fikr i zharf bi-ngar). Mss.: London Wellcome 424 (Dated 1230/1815); Calcutta Ivanow 424 (Dated 1177/1763–4).
A verse abridgement, again with the title Fihrist i Shāhnāmah, by Shīrīn Parand (date?) is found in London i.o. 892 (Dated 1166/1752–3. Incomplete).
Durrah i chahār-pārah by Farīdūn b. Muḥammad Qāsim Ḥalāl-khwur Māzandarānī and three others, written for Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh in 1216/1801–2. The section on the Pēshdādiyān, by the afore-mentioned Farīdūn is preserved in: London Add. 7664 (Rieu pp. 541–2. Dated 1222/1807).
Khulāṣah i Shamshēr-khānī, a meta-abridgement of no. 5 above, was prepared by Jamīl al-dīn Bījnōrī in 1821. Ms.: Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1110.
Muntakhab i Shāh-nāmah (in verse), copied (and apparently written?) by Mīrzā Riḍā Naqqāsh b. Muḥammad ʿAlī-Khān in 1277/1860–1. Ms.: Tashkent Acad. vi 4415.
Shāh-nāmah i Firdausī i manthūr by Qāḍī Baqā. Ms. (autograph?): Kabul Ministry of Information 101 (Cat. p. 251. Dated 1314/1896–7).

Unspecified verse abridgement: Ms.: Navsari Meherji Rana p. 101 no. 124(1).

Unspecified prose versions: Mss.: Tashkent Acad. ix 6305 (18th–19th century?); Los Angeles Univ. C6 (Nuskhah-hā xi/xii p. 57. 18th century?).

Three extracts from the Shāh-nāmah, followed by one from the Humāi-Humāyūn of Khwājū, are contained in: London Add. 27,261 ii (Rieu pp. 868–71. Dated Jumādā ii 814/1411).

The so-called Bīzhan-nāmah is in fact an episode from the Shāhnāmah with some interpolated verses. Mss.: London Or. 2946 fol. 2–49 (Rieu Suppt. no. 199 i. 18th century?); Oxford Ms. Pers. e. 14 (Ethé 1979). Cf. J. Matīnī, ‘Dar bārah i Bīzhan-nāmah’, Āyandah vi/1–2, 1360sh./1981. pp. 32–7.

Miscellaneous collections of extracts:

Mss.: Manchester Lindesiana 131c (Dated 1140/1727–8); Lindesiana 260 (18th century?); Lindesiana 841 b,c (Dated 1085/1674–5); Florence Laurenziana Or. 306 fol. 123v–157r (Piemontese 95 ii. Dāstān i Suhrāb bā Rustam. Dated 20 Jumādā ii 975/1567); Gotha 40/6 (Baḥr al-durar); Istanbul Revan köşkü 1896/iii (Karatay 904); Navsari Meherji Rana p. 87 no. 44; Bombay Univ. xviii (dāstān i Rustam u Akwān-dēw u Isfandyār); Univ. xix (Isfandyār-nāmah); Univ. xx (dāstān i Rustam u Isfandyār); Univ. xxi (Bahman-nāmah); Univ. xxix (dāstān i Kāmūs i Kashānī. Dated 16 Tīr 1044Y./1675); Univ. xxx (dāstān i Kāʾōs); Univ. xxxi (Kāʾōs-nāmah. Dated 6 Asfandārmad 1024Y./1655); Univ. xxxiv (dāstān i Rustam u Isfandyār); xxxix (Suhrāb-nāmah); Univ. xxxvi (From the beginning to the birth of Rustam); Univ. xxxvii (‘from the battle of Yāzdahrukh … to Bèzan’s coming to Kay-Khusraw with Gustaham’).

lf passim; Rāduyānī passim; ʿArūḍī passim; ʿAufī ii pp. 32–3; Shams passim; Daulat-shāh pp. 49–55; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 382–438; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 440–2 (with much further literature).

Apart from the already mentioned studies by Nöldeke (which contains a survey of the older literature), Taqī-zādah and Khāliqī-Muṭlaq,55 the following might serve as a sample of the extensive secondary literature on Firdausī and the Shāh-nāmah: W. Barthold, « К истории персидскаго Эпоса », Записки Восточнаго Отделения Имп. Русск. Археол. Об. xxii, 1913–4; translated by H.H. Schaeder as ‘Zur Geschichte des persischen Epos’, zdmg xcviii, 1944, pp. 121–57; Фердовси 934–1934, (various authors), Leningrad 1934; P.B. Vachha, Firdousi and the Shahnama, A study of the great Persian epic of the Homer of the East, Bombay 1950 (important review, in English, by J. Tavadia, zdmg cii, 1952, pp. 381–7); T. Kowalski, Studia nad Šāhnāme, 2 vols., Cracow 1952–3; P. Humbert, Observations sur le vocabulaire arabe du Châhnâmeh, Neuchatel 1953; K.H. Hansen, Das iranische Königsbuch. Aufbau und Gestalt des Schah­name von Firdosi, Mainz 1954; A. Ateş, ‘Şâh-nâme’nin yazılış tarihi ve Firdevsî’nin sultan Mahmud’a yazdığı hicviye meselesi hakkında’, Belleten 18/70, 1954, pp. 159–68; id., ‘La date de la dernière rédaction de Şāh-nāme de Firdavsī-i Ṭūsī et sa satire contre Sulṭān Maḥmūd’, ibidem pp. 169–78; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 458–521; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsah passim; G.Yu. Aliev, Легенда о Хосрове и Ширин в « Шахнаме » Фирдоуси, uziv 19, 1958, pp. 190–210; M.N. Osmanov, Фирдоуси. Жызнь и творчество, Moscow 1959; id., Своды иранского героического эпоса (« Худай-наме » и « Шахнаме ») как источники « Шахнаме » Фирдоуси, uziv 19, 1958, pp. 153–89; M.T. Bahār, Firdausī-nāmah, Tehran 1345sh./1966; M. Mīnuwī, Firdausī wa shiʿr i ū, Tehran 1346sh./1967; A.A. Starikov, Firdausī wa Shāh-nāmah, trans. by R. Ādharakhshī, Tehran 1346sh./1967; M. ʿA. Islāmī-Nudūshan, Zindagī wa marg i pahlawānān dar Shāh-nāmah, Tehran 1348sh./1969; ʿA. al-Ḥ. Nōshīn, Sukhan ē chand dar bārah i Shāh-nāmah, Moscow 1970 (detailed review by D. Monchi-Zadeh, zdmg, 125, 1975, pp. 395–408); M. Dj. Moïnfar, Le vocabulaire arabe dans le livre des rois de Firdausī, Wiesbaden 1970; M.N. Osmanov, O так называемом дастане « хакан-и чин » в « шах-наме », Памятрики письменности Востока 1972 pp. 120–3; M.M. Maguire, Rustam and Isfandiyār in the Shāhnāmeh (microfilmed dissertation, 1973), also printed in Iranistische Mitteilungen xxvi/2, 1996, pp. 1–237; C.-H. de Fouchécour, ‘Une lecture du Livre des rois de Firdowsi’ Studia iranica v, 1976, pp. 171–202; A. Krasnowolska, ‘About a “black-and-white thread” in the Šāh-nāme’, Folia orientalia 18, 1977, pp. 219–31; id., ‘Rostam Farroxzād’s prophecy in Šāh-nāme and the Zoroastrian apocalyptic texts’, Folia orientalia 19, 1978, pp. 173–84; Fr. Machalski, ‘Abolqāsem Ferdausī et son Šāhnāmeh en Pologne’, Folia orientalia 18, 1977, pp. 211–7; Mīnuwī wa Shāh-nāmah, Tehran 1356sh./1978 (reprint of a number of articles by M., with new contributions by others); A. Mazahéry, ‘L’Iran de Ferdovsi et le héros culturel Rustam’, Zaman 1, 1979, pp. 4–20; Shāh-nāmah i Firdausī wa shukūh i pahlawānī, ed. M. Madāʾinī, Tehran 1357sh./1979 (a collection of 19 articles); M. Boyce, ‘Firdausī’, Enzyklopädie des Märchens iv, 1984, col. 1188–94 (interesting for the folkloristic elements in the Sh.N.); Abū l-Qāsim Injawī, Firdausī-nāmah, 3 vols., 2nd ed., Tehran 1363sh./1984; A.S. Melikian-Chirvani, ‘Le livre des rois, miroir du destin’, Studia Iranica xvii, 1988, pp. 7–46, xx, 1991, pp. 33–148 (supposedly to be continued); S.Ḥ. al-D. Rāshidī, ‘Nufūdh i Firdausī wa Shāh-nāmah dar Sind’, Dānish xi, 1366sh./1989, pp. 56–89; Īrān-shināsī ii/2, 1369sh./1990 (collection of articles in Persian and English delivered at two conferences in 1990); M. Qarīb, Bāz-khwān-ī Shāh-nāmah, [Tehran] 1369sh./1990; M. Murtaḍawī, Firdausī wa Shāh-nāmah, Tehran 1369sh./1990; A. Shapur Shahbazi, Ferdowsī a critical biography, Costa Mesa (California) 1991; M.J. Maḥjūb, Āfarīn i Firdausī, [Tehran] 1371sh./1992; D. Davis, Epic and Sedition. The case of Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāmeh, Fayetteville 1992; S. Ḥamīdiyān, Dar-āmadī bar andīshah u hunar i Firdausī, Tehran 1372sh./1993; J. Ehlers, Die Natur in der Bildersprache des Šāhnāme, Wiesbaden 1995 (reviewed by me in jras 1998, pp. 450–1); EIr s.v. ‘Ferdowsī’ (J. Khaleqi-Motlaq). The enigmatic verse yak-ē dakhmah kard-ash zi summ i sutōr … (= ed. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq ii p. 198, Kai-Kāʾōs 1007–9) has been discussed by me in Bulletin of the Asia Institute vii, 1993, pp. 31–4 (with references to previous studies) and now also (with entirely different conclusions) by M.R. Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Kilk 68/70, 1374sh./1996, pp. 17–31.

§ 59. Abū Zaid56 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ghaḍāʾirī (or: al-Ghaḍārī)57 al-Rāzī was one of the poets who congregated at the court of Maḥmūd at Ghaznah. ʿArūḍī lists him among the poets of the Būyids; if this is true, then he is likely to have served the last Būyid rulers in Ray before the Ghaznavid conquest of that city in 420/1029. He has left us with one complete poem, a long ode in -āl in praise of Maḥmūd, which, according to a Ghaznavid poet of the next generation, Masʿūd i Saʿd i Salmān,58 Ghaḍāʾirī sent from Ray to Ghaznah and for which he received a reward of 1000 dīnārs. Maḥmūd’s poet laureate, ʿUnṣurī, penned a reply with the same rhyme and metre, a devastating lampoon of the rival poet’s talents. Jājarmī includes Ghaḍāʾirī’s ode in his Muʾnis al-aḥrār and the texts of it and of ʿUnṣurī’s response were included by Taqī in the small selection of ʿUnṣurī’s poems in his Khulāṣat al-ashʿār, whence it has made its way into the manuscripts and printed editions of ʿUnṣurī’s dīwān.59 The same two poems, and a third, supposedly Gaḍāʾirī’s reply to ʿUnṣurī, again with the same rhyme and metre, were printed by Hidāyat, but as long as the third poem has not been traced to earlier sources its authenticity must remain doubtful. The other biographical ‘information’ given by Hidāyat, including the statement that the poet died in 426/1034–5, cannot be confirmed. It seems that Hidāyat confused him with the theologian Aḥmad b. Ḥusain al-Ghaḍāʾirī.

Bairūnī, Kitāb al-jamāhir fī maʿrifat al-jawāhir, ed. Krenkow, Hyderabad 1355/1936–7, p. 80 (one verse); lf (4 verses quoted in the margin of Ms. nūn only); Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes pp. 96–7); ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad loc.); Waṭwāṭ pp. 19, 74; ʿAufī ii pp. 59–60; Shams passim; Jājarmī ii pp. 463–7; Daulat-shāh pp. 33–5; Rāzī iii pp. 19–21; Taqī (British Library Ms. Or. 3506, fol. 45b–47a); Ādhar pp. 1098–1101; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 368–72; ʿA. Iqbāl, ‘Iḥyā i yak qiṭʿah i shiʿr az Ghaḍāʾirī i Rāzī’, Armaghān xv, 1313sh./1934, pp. 333–6 (Also in his Majmūʿah i maqālāt pp. 328–31); id., ‘Chand nuktah i tāzah rājiʿ ba shāʿir i mashhūr Ghaḍāʾirī i Rāzī’, Āmūzish wa Parwarish ix/10, 1318sh./1930, pp. 17–22 (=Majmūʿah i maqālāt pp. 525–9); M. Dabīr-Siyāqī, Ghaḍāʾirī wa ashʿār i ū, Tehran 1334sh./1955; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 p 570–5; ln s.v. ‘Ghaḍāʾirī’ pp. 243–4 (Dh. Ṣafā); Khaiyām-pūr p. 419 (with further references); EIr s.v. Ġażāʾerī Rāzī.

§ 60. Ḥakīm Ghamnāk is known to us only from the handful of verses quoted in Asadī’s Lughat i furs. Cf. Horn, Einl. p. 26.

§ 61. Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghawwāṣ60 (‘pearl-fisher’) al-Junaidī is mentioned by Thaʿālibī as a bilingual (i.e. Arabic and Persian) poet who ‘is alive now’ (Thaʿālibī died in 429/1037–8; the first version of his Yatīmah was completed in 384/994, but was later augmented by the author). The same authority quotes eight of his Arabic verses, including two addressed to one al-Saiyid Abū Jaʿfar al-Mūsawī. ʿAufī, referring explicitly to Thaʿālibī’s Yatīmah, quotes the same two verses but says that they were addressed to the well-known Būyid wazīr al-Ṣāḥib Ismāʿīl b. ʿAbbād (d. 385/995). He then proceeds to quote four of his Persian verses in praise of wine. Further verses by (presumably the same) Ghawwāṣ61 are quoted in Asadī’s Lughat i furs, including a complete rubāʿī in Punjab manuscript, s.v. mak.

Thaʿālibī Yatīmah iv pp. 318–9; lf (see the indexes to the 3 editions, and Horn Einl. p. 26); ʿAufī ii pp. 23–4; Rāzī ii p. 189 (quotes the same Persian verses as ʿAufī); Ethé, Vorl. p. 49; Ṣafā i6 p. 441 (confuses ʿAufī with Thaʿālibī); ln s.vv. ‘Junaidī’ p. 132 and ‘Ghawwāṣ’ p. 352; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 138–9; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15; Idārah-chī pp. 128–30.

§ 62. Fakhr al-dīn Asʿad al-Jurjānī (Gurgānī) is the author of the romantic epic of Wīs u Rāmīn. After the customary invocation of God and his Prophet (inc. sipās u āfrīn ān pād-shāh rā * kih gētī rā padīd āwurd u mā rā) the poet launches into an extensive encomium on the Seljuq Toǧril (429/1038 to 455/1063) in which he dwells in particular on that king’s conquest of Isfahan in 441/1050, which date must be seen as the terminus post quem for Gurgānī’s poem. This is followed by eulogies of Toǧril’s minister, Khwājah Abū Naṣr b. Manṣūr, and of his governor in Isfahan, Khwājah Abū l-Fatḥ b. Muḥammad, the poet’s actual patron. He then tells us how this governor asked him what he thought of the story of Wīs and Rāmīn. The poet replies62 that it is fine story, put together by six wise men in ‘Pahlawī’. But today not everyone understands that language. Moreover, ‘in those days poetry was not a profession’ (ān-gah shāʿirī pēshah na-būda-st). If those authors were alive today they would see ‘how speech is now produced’ and ‘how (quantitative) metre (wazn) and rhymes (qawāfī) are imposed upon it’. At the request of the governor Gurgānī takes it upon himself to retell the old story with the requisite poetic embellishment. This section has generally been understood to mean that Gurgānī’s source, the ‘Pahlawī’ book of Wīs and Rāmīn was a poem, but without quantitative metre or rhyme. Although this is certainly possible, it does not seem the only conceivable interpretation of Gurgānī’s words. It could be that he is simply saying that his source was in prose, and indeed could not have been otherwise, since ‘in those days’ that which a Muslim author would recognise as ‘poetry’ did not even exist. To be sure, the existence of a Middle-Persian poem (or poems) on the subject is evidently implied by Ḥamzah al-Iṣfahānī63 when, in his commentary on the dīwān of Abū Nuwās, he explains the Arabic poet’s phrase firjardāt Rāmīn wa Wīs by saying that ‘firjardāt are like odes’ (ka l-qaṣāʾid),64 but this may refer not to a poetic version of the whole story but rather to a collection of songs put into the mouths of the two lovers. Something similar would seem to be implied by the verse of Rūmī’s65 which asks whether the reader has not seen the dīwāns of Wīs and Rāmīn (dawāwīn i Wīsah u Rāmīn) or heard the tales (ḥikāyāt) of Wāmiq and ʿAdhrā. There may thus well have been ‘dīwāns’ of the two lovers, alongside the story of their adventures, in the same way that there is an (Arabic) dīwān of Majnūn alongside the story of his romance with Lailā. It is consequently not certain that the ‘odes’ of Wīs and Rāmīn were identical with the source used by Gurgānī. In any event, the fact that Gurgānī has evidently based his poem directly on a Middle-Persian book and not (like Firdausī or Asadī) on documents already relatively far removed from their Sasanian sources goes a long way towards explaning the decidedly Zoroastrian flavour of so much of what we find in it. The specifically Parthian background of the story has been well developed by Minorsky and need not be discussed here.

Wīs u Rāmīn has survived in a very small number of manuscripts. The pronounced amoral character of the work and, particularly, the fact that it appears to condone adultery on the part of a woman meant that the work, if read at all, was widely regarded as indecent. Despite this, it had a great influence on the formation of the style of the Persian romantic epic.

A number of authors have made extensive comparisons between the story of Wīs and Rāmīn and the well-known Celtic legend of Tristan and Iseult. However, in the absence of any plausible explanation of how this story could have migrated from Persia to mediaeval Europe it must be assumed that the apparent similarities between the two are due in part to the recurrence of certain universal folkloristic motives, and in part to the fact that both have as their point of departure an identical human situation: the story of a young woman forced against her will to marry an older man.

ʿAufī reports that, apart from Wīs u Rāmīn, the only other known composition by Gurgānī were five verses (quoted by ʿAufī) satirising one Thiqat al-mulk (i?) Shahryār.66 A lyrical poem of eight verses is quoted by Jājarmī.

Mss. of Wīs u Rāmīn: Oxford Elliot 273 (Ethé 522); Paris Supplément 1380 (Blochet 1203. 16th century); Berlin Sprenger 1378 (Pertsch 681. Dated 28 Rabīʿ ii 1270/1854. Copied from the Calcutta Ms.); Istanbul Beyazit (olim Umumi) 5411 (see Todua/Gwakharia p. xxvii); Tehran Gulistān/Bayānī p. 534 (17th century?) [Munz.]; Bombay Univ. no. 137 (Cat. pp. 220–2. Defective at both ends); Hyderabad Sālār Jung iv 1117 (End missing. Has a seal dated 1020/1611–2); Calcutta Ivanow 429 (16th century? = Lucknow Sprenger 109, the basis of the Calcutta edition). Cf. Munz. iv 36323–8.

Extracts: London Add. 12,560 fol. 177–185 (Rieu pp. 821–2. Dated Shaʿbān 1228/1813); Turin Nallino 68 fol. 85b–90b (dated Rabīʿ i 745/1344, now destroyed. Contained the ten letters); Tehran Malik 5611/4 (Munz. 36324 inspexit. 18th century? With a preface in prose); Other anthologies are listed in the introduction to the edition by Todua/Gwakharia.

Editions: Calcutta 1864–5 (Ed. W. Nassau Lees and Munshi Ahmad Ali); Tehran 1314sh./1935 (Ed. M. Mīnuwī); 1337sh./1959 (Ed. M.J. Maḥjūb); 1349sh./1970 (critical edition by M.A. Todua and A.A. Gwakharia, based on 5 complete Persian manuscripts, 5 anthologies and the Georgian translation); Dushanbe 1966 (in Tajik script).

Translations: (Georgian): The old Georgian version (Visramiani) is attributed to Sargis T’mogveli (12th century) and is of great importance for the history of the Persian text. Editions: Tiflis 1884 (ed. I. Chavchavadze, A. Saradjishvili and P. Umicashvili); 1962 (Висрамиани. Текст, исследование и словарь, ed. A.A. Gvakhariya and M.A. Todua).

(English): Visramiani, translated from the Georgian by O. Wardrop, London 1914; Vis and Ramin, translated from the Persian by G. Morrison, New York/London 1972 (with useful notes).

(Russian): Висрамияни. Грузинский роман 12 века и персидская поэма 11 века Вис и Рамин, translated (from the Georgian) by B.T. Rudenko and (from the Persian by) M.M. D’yakonov, Moscow/Leningrad 1938; Translated from the Georgian by Ts. Yordanishvili, Tiflis 1949, reprint 1960; Вис и Рамин, translated from the Persian by S. Lipkin, Moscow 1963.

(French): Le roman de Wîs et Râmîn, traduit par H. Massé, Paris 1959 (from the Persian).

(Czech): O lásce Vísy a Rámína, translated (presumably from the Persian) by V. Kubičková, Prague 1979.

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (‘Farrukhī i Gurgānī’ is evidently a scribal error for ‘Fakhrī …’ See Qazwīnī ad loc.); ʿAufī ii p. 240; Shams p. 80, 145; Ibn al-Mujāwir (see below, p. 143 fn.); Mustaufī p. 824; Jājarmī ii p. 952; Wālih (quotes ca. 700 verses from Wīs u Rāmīn according to Pertsch p. 623); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 375–6; K.H. Graf, ‘Wîs und Râmîn’, zdmg 23, 1869, pp. 375–433 (contains a partial verse translation); R. von Stackelberg, « Несколько слов о персидском Эпосе Виса и Рамин », Древности восточные ii, 1896, pp. 10–23; F. Gabrieli, ‘Sul poema persiano “Vīs u Rāmīn”’, aion n.s. 1, 1940, pp. 253–8; id., ‘Note sul “Vīs u Rāmīn” di Fah̠r ad-dīn Gurgānī’, Rendiconti, vi/xv, 1939, pp. 168–88; V. Minorsky, ‘Vīs u Rāmīn A Parthian Romance’, bsoas xi, 1946, pp. 741–63, xii, 1947, pp. 20–35, xvi, 1954, pp. 91–2, xxv, 1962, pp. 275–86 (reprinted with considerable revision in his Iranica pp. 151–99. Fundamental); M. Mīnuwī, ‘Wīs u Rāmīn’, Sukhan vi, 1333–4sh./1956, pp. 13–21, 129–37; Ṣafā, Tārīkh I6 pp. 370–83; Khaiyāmpūr p. 435 (with further references); A.A. Gvakharia, ‘« Вис о Рамин » Фахраддина Горгани и « Хосров и Ширин » Низами Гянджеви’, Труды Унив. Тбил. 116, 1965, pp. 199–207; A.A. Gvakhariya and M.A. Todua, ‘Значение древнегрузинс­кого перевода « Висрамиани » для устанновления критического текста его персидского оригинала « Вис у Рамин »’, in Иранская Филология, Leningrad 1964, pp. 104–10; M. Molé, ‘Vīs u Rāmīn et l’histoire seldjoukide’, aion n.s. 9, 1960, pp. 1–30; D. Kobidze, ‘On the antecedents of Vis-u-Ramin’, Yádnáme-ye Jan Rypka, Prague 1967, pp. 89–93; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 563–76; M.ʿA. Islāmī-Nudūshan, ‘Wīs u Rāmīn wa Shāh-nūmah’, Nāmah i Mīnuwī, Tehran 1350sh./1971, pp. 18–37; G. Morrison, ‘Flowers and witchcraft in the “Vis o Ramin” of Fakhr ud-Din Gurgani’, Acta Iranica iii, 1974, pp. 249–59; Dsh. Sh. Giunashvili, Филологические Заметки, Tbilisi 1978 [a collection of 6 articles with many references to W.u.R]; id., ‘Sukhan ī chand dar bārah i matnshināsī i manẓūmah i Wīs u Rāmīn i Fakhr al-dīn i Gurgānī’, Īrān-shināsī ii/1, 1990, pp. 125–34; J.C. Bürgel, ‘Die Liebesvorstellungen im persischen Epos Wis und Ramin’, Asiatische Studien 33, 1979, pp. 65–98; P. Kunitzsch, ‘The “description of the night” in Gurgānī’s Vīs u Rāmīn’, Der Islam lix, 1982, pp. 93–110; O. Neugebauer, ‘The date of the “horoscope” in Gurgānī’s poem’ [=31 March 965], Der Islam lx, 1983, pp. 297–301; G. Lazard, ‘La source en « fârsi » de Vis-o Râmin’, Труди Тбилисского Ордена Трудового 241, 1983, pp. 34–9; M.S. Southgate, ‘Vīs and Rāmīn: An anomaly among Iranian courtly romances’, jras 1986 pp. 40–52; eadem, ‘Conflict between Islamic mores and the courtly romance of Vīs and Rāmīn’, The Muslim World lxxv, 1985, pp. 17–28; ei2 s.vv. ‘Gurgānī’ (H. Massé) and ‘Wīs u Rāmīn’.

Literature on the supposed connections between Wīs u Rāmīn and the literature of the West: R. Zenker, ‘Zur Ursprung der Tristansage’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie xxxv, 1911, pp. 715–31; R. Schroeder, ‘Die Tristansage und das persische Epos “Wis und Ramin”’, Germanische-romanische Monatsschrift xlii, 1961, pp. 1–44; P. Gallais, Genèse du roman occidental: Essais sur Tristan et Iseult et son modèle persan, Paris 1974; P. Kunitzsch, ‘Are there Oriental elements in the Tristan story?’, Vox Romana xxxix, 1980, pp. 73–85.

§ 63. Ḥakkāk Marghazī67 is quoted a dozen times in Asadī’s lf (see the indexes). Sōzanī68 enumerates him among the distinguished satirical poets.

§ 64. A qiṭʿah of two verses by an otherwise unknown Halīlah is quoted by ʿAufī (ii p. 65) in his chapter on the Ghaznavid poets.

§ 65. Ḥanẓalah al-Bādghīsī is listed by ʿAufī amongst the poets of the Tahirids. Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī tells the story of the profound effect which two of his verses had on Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khujistānī before the time when the latter entered the service of the Saffarid ʿAlī b. Laith. This Aḥmad went on to rebel against the Saffarids in 261/875. It is, however, not clear whether ʿArūḍī regarded him as Aḥmad’s contempory or whether he was supposed to have flourished at an earlier date. The date given for the poet’s death by Hidāyat, namely 219/835, seems rather too early.

Collection of fragments (4 verses), French translation, discussion and literature: Lazard, Poètes i pp. 17–8, 53, ii p. 12.

ʿArūḍī p. 26; ʿAufī ii p. 2; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 199; EIr s.v. ‘Ḥanẓala’.

§ 66. A single verse by an otherwise unknown Ḥaram-Shāh (or Khurram-shāh?) is quoted in manuscript P of lf, s.v. bahār. He is evidently not the same as the Khurram-shāh Kirmānī who is quoted by Jājarmī (ii pp. 981, 1068) and Rāzī (i p. 277).

§ 67. Two verses by an otherwise unknown Hazl Bustī are quoted by Rādūyānī (p. 12).

§ 68. Ḥusain Īlāqī is known to us only from Rādūyānī, pp. 108–9 who credits him with six verses from a contrived poem without the letter alif. The same verses are quoted anonymously by Waṭwāṭ, pp. 65–6, and by Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 508, where they are attributed to Munjīk. Ateş, in his note on the passage in Rādūyānī, considers the possibility that he is identical with Turkī Kashī Īlāqī.69

Cf. Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 p. 456; Idārah-chī pp. 45–6.

§ 69. A single verse by one Kiyā Ḥusainī Qazwīnī is quoted in the Vatican manuscript of lf s.v. rang. He is perhaps identical with the author of four verses cited by ʿAufī (ii p. 67) amongst the Ghaznavid poets whose name appears in Browne’s edition (following Ms. E.) as Muḥsin i Qazwīnī, in Ms. S. as again handwriting author? and in Hidāyat (Majmaʿ i p. 511), who merely repeats the information given by ʿAufī, as Muḥsin i Farāhī(?).

§ 70. Abū ʿAlī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), the famous physician and philosopher, died in 428/1036–7; cf. pl ii §§ 4, 78, 355. He is credited with a number of Arabic and Persian poems, the most substantial of the latter being a qaṣīdah of 27 verses concerning hygiene, preserved in Paris Ancien fonds 384 iii (Blochet 2041/Richard. 15th century?) and Tehran Univ. ix 2596 (majmūʿah dated 16 Ramaḍān 1087/1676). Besides this a number of qiṭʿahs and rubāʿīyāt are attributed to him in various anthologies.

A quatrain of his and a reply to it by Abū Saʿīd b. Abī l-Khair: Ms.: Paris Supplément 793 fol. 103v–104r (Blochet 1984. 16th century?). Six apparently unpublished quatrains are found in Paris Supplément 1777 fol. 326 in marg. (according to M. Achena, EIr. iii p. 103).

Editions: H. Ethé, ‘Avicenna als persischer Lyriker’, Nachrichten … Göttingen xxi/1, 1875, pp. 555–67; Stalinabad 1953 (In Tajik script); Dushanbe 1980.

Translation (Russian verse): Ибн Сина. Избранное (various translators), Tashkent 1981.

Jājarmī ii pp. 1174–5 (one rubāʿī); Ādhar p. 315; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 68; Hidāyat, Riyāḍ pp. 163–4; Khaiyām-pūr p. 20; Chr. Rempis, ‘Avicenna als Vorläufer ʿOmar Chajjāms’, Orientalische Studien Enno Littmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag … überreicht, Leiden 1935, pp. 149–56; A. Zajączkowski, ‘Czterowiersze Awicenny. Z dziejów literatury irańskiej w Azji Środkowej’, Przegląd Orientalistyczny 1952, pp. 34–55; S. Nafīsī, Zindagānī wa kār wa andīshah wa rūzgār i pūr i Sīnā, Tehran 1333sh./1954 (contains on pp. 41–53 an edition of 118 verses with indication of their sources).

§ 71. Abū ʿAlī Ilyās is cited as the author of a single verse in lf s.v. pazhūl. Perhaps he is the father of the poet ʿAlī b. Ilyās Āghājī (above, § 26)?

§ 72. Abū l-Ḥasan ʿIrāqī, Masʿūd’s secretary (dabīr), died on Monday, 6 Shaʿbān 429 (15 May 1038).70 Rādūyānī quotes two of his verses.

Rādūyānī p. 47 (and Ateş ad loc.)

§ 73. Ismāʿīl (ii) b. Nūḥ al-Muntaṣir, the last Samanid ruler, who was killed in 395/1005, was an amateur poet as well.

ʿAufī i 22–3 (‘Manṣūr’ is an error for ‘Muntaṣir’); H. Ethé, ‘Die Lieder des Kisâʾî’ (see infra, no. 91) pp. 149–53 (translation of ʿAufī’s entry); ln s.v. ‘Ismāʿīl’ pp. 2533–4; Khaiyām-pūr p. 40; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15; Idārah-chī pp. 239–46.

§ 74. Ismāʿīl Rashīdī71 is credited with a single verse in lf, s. v. taryān. Evidently not the late 11th-century poet Rashīdī Samarqandī.72

§ 75. Abū l-Muẓaffar Naṣr b. Muḥammad al-Istighnāʾī al-Naisābūrī is known only as the author of a single erotic du-baitī quoted by ʿAufī in his chapter on the Samanid poets.

ʿAufī ii p. 23; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 88; Ethé, Vorl. p. 48; ln s.v. ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar’ p. 849; Khaiyām-pūr p. 37; Idārah-chī p. 36.

§ 76. ʿIyāḍī is cited by ʿAufī as the author of an elegy on the death of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī (in 467/1075). Hidāyat calls him ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ʿIyāḍī Sarakhsī and quotes a number of his poems, among them the verses in ʿAufī and also elegies on Ibn Sīnā (died 428/1036–7) and Alp-Arslān (died 465/1072) and an ode to Malik-Shāh (465/1072 to 485/1092). If these are indeed all his one must doubt Hidāyat’s statement that he was a contemporary of Muʿizzī and Niẓāmī ʿArūḍī. One verse by ʿIyāḍī is quoted in the Vatican manuscript of lf.

lf (ed. Horn) p. 120; ʿAufī i p. 71; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 354–5; Khaiyām-pūr p. 411.

§ 77.73 Abū l-Maḥāmid Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Jauharī al-Ṣāʾigh al-Harawī (as ʿAufī calls him), or (as he styles himself) ‘Jauharī i zar-gar’ (Arabic ṣāʾigh and Persian zar-gar both mean ‘goldsmith’) is quoted by ʿAufī as the author of two odes. The first contains a verse addressing ‘malik tāj i mulūk i ʿaṣr Farrukh-zād i farrukh-pai’ (p. 112 v. 20) and ʿAufī is thus probably right to say that our poet was a contemporary of the Ghaznavid Farrukh-zād (443/1052 to 451/1059), though it is surprising that he includes him in the chapter devoted to the poets of Seljuqs, not those of the Ghaznavids. This poem is clearly an imitation of one by Qaṭrān;74 Jauharī quotes the first miṣrāʿ of Qaṭrān’s poem at the very end of his own, though he refers to its author only as ‘ustād i sukhan’. ʿAufī’s second ode is a light-hearted complaint about having received an old horse from the stable-master of an unnamed sultan; in the penultimate verse the author calls himself ‘Jauharī i zar-gar’. Jājarmī quotes two poems by ‘malik al-kalām Jauharī i zar-gar’ and both of them (like ʿAufī’s second ode) end with the poet’s signature. (Muṣaffā maintains the second of these is an imitation of a well-known qaṣīdah by Muʿizzī, but I do not think the similarity is very great; both are merely imitating the same Arabic models.) Daulat-shāh quotes the first of the two poems cited by Jājarmī, but adds that its author was a pupil of Adīb Ṣābir and a contemporary of Athīr Akhsīkatī, that he was a native of Bukhārā who settled in Isfahan, that his patron was Sulaimān-shāh b. Muḥammad b. Malik-shāh (555/1160 to 556/1161) and that he versified the story of Mahsatī and Amīr Aḥmad, though our informant adds that others say that this story was composed by Niẓāmī (sic!) and that only God knows the truth of the matter. The later sources add nothing new. It seems likely that all the ‘information’ given by Daulat-shāh is wrong and that his claim that Jauharī lived at the time of Sulaimān-shāh was extrapolated from a verse in the last poem quoted by ʿAufī (p. 117 v. 5) in which the poet refers to the Sulaimān (Solomon) of the Qurʾān. As for Jauharī’s supposed versification of the story of Mahsatī and Aḥmad, it must be evident from Daulat-shāh’s formulation that he had no first-hand knowledge of such a work. It is possible, as Meier suggested, that Daulat-shāh confused our poet with the late 13th-century alchemist and rhyme-smith ʿAbd Allāh Jauharī Tabrīzī who in fact refers at some length to Mahsatī in the commentary to his own Qaṣīdah ḥaulīyah. But Meier was hardly right to suggest that there were two poets who both used the name ‘Jauharī i zar-gar’, one at the time of Farrukh-zād and the other a century later at the time of Sulaimān-shāh; the poems quoted by ʿAufī and by Jājarmī are evidently all by one and the same poet.

The ‘Jauharī’ whom ʿArūḍī (p. 28) includes in his list of the poets of the Qarakhanids is more likely to be the later writer Ḥamīd al-dīn al-Jauharī.75

ʿAufī ii pp. 110–7; Jājarmī i pp. 85–6, 147–9; Daulat-shāh pp. 118–21; Rāzī iii pp. 423–4 (no. 1481); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 184–5 (new edition i pp. 504–6, and Muṣaffā’s notes); Ṣafā, Tārīkh ii pp. 438–43; Meier, Mahsatī pp. 60–1; Khaiyām-pūr p. 141.

§ 78. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Bukhārī al-Jōybārī is the author of a ghazal of five verses cited by ʿAufī, who, like ʿArūḍī, includes him among the Samanid poets.

ʿArūḍī p. 28; ʿAufī ii p. 11; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 185; ln s.v. ‘Abū Isḥāq’ p. 370; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 396–7; Khaiyām-pūr p. 142. Idārah-chī p. 41.

§ 79. Kāʾōs-Kai (doubtless a metrically dictated inversion for Kai-Kāʾōs), the son of Kai-Khusrau, of Rai is, according to verses 1524 and 1541, the author of the Zoroastrian religious mathnawī commonly called Zarātusht-nāmah; see also verses 45–6, where the author speaks of his ‘father’ (bāb) Kai-Khusrau, son of Dārā, of Rai. Although his authorship has been noted more or less clearly by Rieu, Storey and Ṣafā, the poem has traditionally been attributed to the 13th-century Zoroastrian poet Zarātusht b. Bahrām b. Pazhdū.76 In fact, the verse in which this name is mentioned (1554) is clearly part of a rhymed colophon; Zarātusht is thus not the author, but merely the copyist of the manuscript from which some (or all) of the surviving copies descend. The original poem ends either with verse 1533,77 or perhaps with 1539. Moreover, between the end of the original poem and the beginning of Zarātusht’s colophon (v. 1551) there is an older rhymed colophon in which the anonymous scribe announces that he ‘wrote’ (i.e. copied) the story on the basis of the words (guftār) of Kāʾōs-Kai b. Kai-Khusrau—on whose soul he invokes blessings (i.e. the author was already dead)—in two days during the month of Ābān, ‘when the world was frozen’ (kih gētī fusurd). ‘I began’, he continues, ‘on the day Ādur (=9th); on Ābān (10th) I was drunk while at the festival (i.e. the festival of Ābānagān), and on the evening of Khwar (11th) I finished writing it’. The year is given in two of the manuscripts available to Rosenberg as 647 (chil u haft bā shash-ṣad) of Yazdgird, but in the Leningrad manuscript as 347 (… sī-ṣad).78 The earlier date was rejected by the editor (who knew that the supposed author, Zarātusht b. Bahrām, lived in the 7th/13th century) as an obvious textual corruption, but Rempis has since argued that it is the only one possible. 11 Ābān 647 Y. would correspond to 13 August 1278 Julian, on which date it is impossible to imagine that ‘the world was frozen’. On the other hand, 11 Ābān 347 corresponds to 28 October 978 Julian (or 4 November projected Gregorian). From this Rempis concluded that Kai-Kāʾōs’s poem must have been written before this date, i.e. it must be roughly contemporary with Daqīqī’s uncompleted Shāh-nāmah. However, the possibility should also be condsidered that the date has been tampered with (e.g. by Zarātusht b. Bahrām) and that consequently both years are wrong. The verses in which Hurmuzd ‘predicts’ the conquest of Iran by invaders from the land of the Turks (v. 1401) would seem to point rather to a date during the Ghaznavid or Seljuq period, i.e. not before the last part of the 4th/10th century.79 If the statement that ‘the world was frozen’ in the middle of Ābān is to be taken literally then this would indeed seem to require a date before the end of the 11th century at the latest.80 But it is also possible that fusurd in vs. 1548 should be understood metaphorically, thus not ‘when the world was frozen’, but ‘when the people of the world were dejected’. Consequently, I do not see any compelling reason to doubt that the poem might well have been composed at any period up to just before the time of Zarātusht b. Bahrām, i.e. up to the middle of the 13th century.81

The title of the poem (inc. sukhan rā ba nām i khudāy i jahān * bi-ārāyad az [or: bi-āghāz dar] āshkār u nihān) is given in some of the manuscripts as Zarātusht-nāmah (Book of Zoroaster), in others as Kitāb i maulūd i Zartusht (Book of the birth of Zoroaster),82 and the latter is evidently correct, as it is mentioned by the poet himself in v. 1523 (chu maulūd i Zartusht khwānī tamām …). Indeed the poem does deal with the birth and childhood of Zoroaster and with his early prophetic career, down to the conversion of Gushtāsp. The author tells us (v. 14 sqq.) that it is based on a ‘royal book’ in ‘Pahlawī script’ which was in the possession of the chief priest (mōbad i mōbadān) and that at the request of that divine he versified it in ‘Persian script’ (khaṭṭ i darī).83 The account of the life of the prophet which then follows is very close to that which we find in surviving Middle-Persian books such as Dēnkard and the Epistles of Zādsparam and it is most likely that one of these is in fact the ‘book’ to which the poet refers. After the account of the conversion of Gushtāsp we find, rather abruptly, a new dībājah (v. 1260 sqq.) followed by the story of how Zoroaster asked Hurmuzd in vain for immortality and had to content himself with an account of the future history of the world down to the coming of the final saviour. This section is a fairly close verse paraphrase of the surviving Zand ī Wahman-Yasht. Its irrelevance for the story of the ‘birth’ of Zoroaster might lead one to suspect that the whole section from v. 1259 to 1522 is an interpolation, but one should perhaps not expect too much structural unity in a work of this sort. In any case, there does not seem to be an appreciable difference in language or style between the versified Wahman-Yasht and the other parts of the poem.

Mss.: Manchester Lindesiana 300 (Cat. p. 235. 18th century?); Oxford Ouseley 40 (Ethé 1947. 19th century); Ouseley 397 (Ethé 1948. Incomplete); London Roy. 16 B. viii. (Rieu i pp. 46–7. 17th century?); Add. 27,268 fol. 1–76 (Rieu I. p. 49. Dated Ardībihisht 1046Y./1676); Ross and Browne ccxiii (18th century?); s.o.a.s. 12274 fol. 20a–36b (Inspexi. 18th century? First 29 verses missing); Glasgow T.5.5. (Weir 3. Dated 30 Ardībihisht 1046Y./1676); Paris Supplément 200 (Blochet 198/2; Unvala p. 34. Dated 1103Y./1733–4); Supplément 48 (Blochet 199/1; Unvala pp. 22–4. Copied from a Ms. dated 1103Y., apparently Supplément 200, in 1760–1); Supplément 199 (Blochet 197; Unvala p. 34. Dated 1205/1790–1); Munich Cod. Zend. 72 (Bartholomae p. 289; Unvala p. 76); Leningrad Kokand Collection 38 fol. 141–159v (See Rosenberg’s edition pp. iii–x. Ms. completed 1066/1655–6); Mashhad Univ. 179 (Dated 18 Ṣafar 1268/1851); Bombay Brelvi p. xxix no. 16 (Dated 1095Y./1725–6); Univ. liii(1) (Dated 18 Bahman 1164Y./1795. Final portion of printed edition, including date, missing here. Called Maulūd i Zartusht); Navsari Meherji Rana p. 29 no. 49/i (Dated Bahman 1228 Y./1859); Meherji Rana p. 101 no. 125(1); Meherji Rana p. 101 no. 126; Meherji Rana p. 103 no. 136; Cambridge(Mass.) Harvard Pers. 16 (Nuskhah-hā iv p. 5). Cf. Munz. vi 46575–89.

Prose paraphrase: Ms.: Oxford Fraser 259 (Ethé 1949).

Editions: St. Petersburg 1904 (Le livre de Zoroastre (Zarâtusht Nâma) de Zartusht-i Bahrâm ben Pajdû publié et traduit par Frédéric Rosenberg. Good critical edition with extensive introduction and notes); Tehran 1337sh./1959 (ed. M. Dabīr-Siyāqī on the basis of Rosenberg’s edition, with a Persian translation of his introduction).

Translations: (Gujrati): Ms.: Navsari Meherji Rana p. 76 no. 51 (Dated 10 Dai 1151Y./1782).

(English): by E.B. Eastwick apud J. Wilson, The Parsi Religion, Bombay 1843, pp. 477–522 (inadequate; see Rosenberg’s criticism).

(French): see editions.

(German): ‘Das Zarathustra-Buch, deutsch von H. Kanus-Credé’, Iranistische Mitteilungen xi, 1977 (contains also a translation of Rempis’s article).

The older literature is surveyed in Rosenberg’s introduction and in pl i, § 201. Add to these: C. Rempis, “Qui est l’auteur du Zartusht-Nâmeh?”, Mélanges d’orientalisme offerts à Henri Massé,Tehran 1342sh./1963, pp. 337–42; R. ʿAfīfī’s introduction to his edition of Zarātusht’s Ardā-Wirāf-nāmah, Mashhad 1343sh./1964–5, pp. 9–18; Ṣafā, Tārīkh iii pp. 434–47 (overlooks Rieu, Storey and Rempis and claims that ‘everyone’ has attributed the poem to Zarātusht b. Bahrām); J.B. Saʿīd, ‘Bar-rasī i chand wāzhah i Zarātusht-nāmah’, Jashn-nāmah i Muḥammad Parwīn i Gunābādī, Tehran 1975, pp. 69–77.

§ 80. Two verses by an otherwise unknown Kashfī are quoted in manuscript nūn of lf (ed. Iqbāl pp. 325, 519–200).

§ 81. Kaukabī Marwazī is included in ʿAufī’s chapter on the Ghaznavid poets, where six of his verses are quoted.

ʿAufī ii p. 65; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 487; Khaiyām-pūr p. 493.

§ 82. Kēr i Khar (‘ass’s penis’) is given as the author of a pair of pornographic verses quoted by Rādūyānī, p. 47.

§ 83. A single verse by Khabbāz Qāʾinī is quoted in lf, s.v. khabīwāz. Presumably not identical with the following.

lf (ed. Iqbāl) p. 173, (ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī) pp. 115–6; ln s.v. ‘Khabbāz’ p, 239; Idārah-chī p. 33.

§ 84. Khabbāzī al-Naisābūrī is included by ʿArūḍī and ʿAufī among the Samanid poets and the latter cites two of his verses. Hidāyat claims that he died in 342/953–4, but it is not known where he found this information.

ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī ad. loc.); ʿAufī ii p. 27; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 199; Ethé, Vorl. pp. 50–1;84 Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 p. 438; Khaiyām-pūr pp. 186–7 (with further references); ln s.v. ‘Khabbāzī’ p. 240; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15; Idārah-chī pp. 110–1.

§ 85. Khaffāf is quoted a good number of times in Asadī’s lf and once by Shams i Qais.

lf passim; Shams p. 394; Khaiyām-pūr p. 193.

§ 86. The Tārīkh i Sīstān (p. 315) quotes a single verse by one Abū l-Ḥusain al-Khārijī addressed to Mākān b. Kākī (died 329/940–1). See Lazard, Poètes i p. 24, 77, ii p. 51.

§ 87. Abū Saʿīd Khaṭīrī is quoted several times in Asadī’s lf (where the Mss. also have ḥṣry and ḥṣyry). One half-verse is quoted by Rādūyānī.

lf (see the indexes to the 3 editions); Rādūyānī p. 75.

§ 88. Khujastah Sarakhsī is quoted about a dozen times in Asadī’s lf. He and the just-mentioned Khaṭīrī are named in a poem by Sōzanī.85

lf passim; Khaiyām-pūr p. 187; 49–50.

§ 89. Abū Ṭāhir al-Ṭaiyib b. Muḥammad al-Khusrawānī merits a short entry in ʿAufī’s chapter on the Samanid poets. Shams i Qais quotes two verses of his, mocking old men who dye their beards, in which he incorporated a verse by Rōdakī. Later authors, however, turn the story around and quote two verses of Rōdakī’s86 with which he supposedly responded to Khusrawānī’s attack. The qiṭʿah attributed to Rōdakī—and indeed the whole anecdote—is most probably spurious. They form thus a very weak basis for the contention that the two poets were contemporaries. Khusrawānī might well have lived a generation later.

lf passim; Rādūyānī pp. 103–4 (and Ateş ad loc.); ʿAufī ii p. 20; Shams p. 440; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 199; H. Ethé, ‘Fünf Lieder Khusrawânî’s und Abû Naçr Gîlânî’s’, SB München, 1873, pp. 654–8 (edition and verse translation of 13 verses from late tadhkirahs); ln s.v. ‘Abū Ṭāhir’ pp. 557–8; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 398–9, 440–1; Khaiyām-pūr p. 191; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; G.L. Windfuhr, ‘Wortmuster bei Xosravani’, zdmg 119, 1970, pp. 229–40 (recycled in jaos 109, 1989, pp. 260–1); Idārah-chī pp. 112–26; EIr s.v. ‘Abū Ṭāher K̲osravānī’ (M. Dabīrsīāqī).

§ 90. Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Khusrawī al-Sarakhsī al-Ḥakīm is frequently quoted by Asadī and Rādūyānī. ʿAufī quotes odes that he dedicated to the Buyid wazīr al-Ṣāḥib Ismāʿīl b. ʿAbbād (d. 385/995) and to the Ziyarid ruler of Gurgān, Shams al-Maʿālī Qābūs b. Wushmgīr (367/978 to 402/1012). Bākharzī mentions him in connection with these same patrons and quotes a number of his Arabic verses.

Bākharzī no. 305; lf passim (and Horn, Einl. p. 18); Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes pp. 124–5); Waṭwāṭ p. 76; ʿAufī ii pp. 18–19. Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 433–5; Khaiyām-pūr p. 191; Lazard, Poètes i p. 15; Idārah-chī pp. 226–37.

§ 91. Abū l-Ḥasan87 al-Kisāʾī al-Marwazī is evidently identical with the ‘ascetic’ whom Bākharzī calls Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Kisāʾī al-Marwazī and to whom he attributes two Arabic verses. ʿAufī devotes a long entry to him, quoting, among other things, a qaṣīdah in which the poet states that he was born on a Wednesday, three days before the end of Shawwāl in 341 (=16 March 953) and that at the time of the composition of the poem he had reached the age of 50, i.e. he was still alive in 391/1000–1. ʿAufī also quotes an ode in praise of ‘Sulṭān i Ghāzī Yamīn al-daulah’, i.e. Maḥmūd of Ghaznah, and a religious poem in praise of ʿAlī. ʿArūḍī, on the other hand, includes him among the Samanid poets; if correct, this would suggest that he was patronised successively by the Samanids and Ghaznavids. The collection of his fragments by Riyāḥī contains a total of 292 verses which the editor considers authentic and references to a number of spurious poems. Among the former special mention is due to a substantial poem (the first in the volume) of 50 verses quoted by Taqī Kāshī in the supplement (tadhnīb) to his Khulāṣat al-ashʿār (Bankipore viii no. 684); the authenticity of the poem is assured by the fact that two of its verses are quoted by Asadī and one by Rādūyānī. Kisāʾī is frequently mentioned in disparaging terms in the poems of Nāṣir i Khusrau (see the index to his dīwān); however, the exchange of poems between Kisāʾī and Nāṣir quoted by Taqī (followed by Hidāyat) is manifestly spurious.

Collections of fragments: H. Ethé, ‘Die Lieder des Kisâʾî’, SitzungsberichteMünchen 1874, pp. 133–53 (with German ‘verse’ translations); M.A. Riyāḥī, Kisāʾī i Marwazī. Zindagī, andīshah wa shiʿr i ū, Iran 1367sh./1989.

Bākharzī no. 288; lf passim (very frequently quoted; there are several new verses in the ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī); Rādūyānī passim (and Ateş’s notes pp. 97–8); Naşīr al-dīn al-Qazwīnī al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-naqḍ (ed. Muḥaddith i Urmawī, Tehran 1331sh./1952) pp. 252, 628; ʿArūḍī p. 28 (and Qazwīnī’s notes ad loc.); ʿAufī ii pp. 33–9 (and Nafīsī’s notes in the new edition); Shams pp. 272, 320; Rāzī ii pp. 7–9; Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i pp. 482–5; ln s.vv. ‘Abū Isḥāq’ pp. 369–70 and ‘Kisāʾī’; Khaiyām-pūr p. 485 (with further references); Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 441–9; Shafīʿī-Kadkanī, Ṣuwar pp. 430–3; Lazard, Poètes i p. 14; Idārah-chī pp. 285–332; EI2 s.v. ‘Kisāʾī’ (J.H. Kramers/J.T.P de Bruijn, with further literature).

§ 92. Labībī, whose name and place of origin are not recorded, was a contemporary of Farrukhī and ʿUnṣurī, as is clear from his verses quoted by Rādūyānī:

gar Farrukhī bi-murd, chirā ʿUnṣurī na-murd?
pīr-ē bi-mānd dēr u jawān-ē bi-raft zūd.
farzānah-ē bi-raft u zi raftan-sh har ziyān,
dēwānah-ē bi-mānd u zi māndan-sh hēch sūd.

(‘If Farrukhī has died, why hasn’t ʿUnṣurī died? An old man stayed long but a young man has departed quickly. A wise man departed, and from his departure comes only harm; a madman remained, and his remaining is no good to anyone’).

These verses would be of considerable importance for the chronology of Persian literature in the first half of the 5th/11th century if we had reliable information about the vital statistics of any one of the three poets involved. Unfortunately, we do not. Labībī is evidently the author of five verses quoted by Baihaqī referring, as the historian tells us, to an event during the reign of Masʿūd i (though the manuscripts of Baihaqī’s work give the name of the poet as ‘Laithī’). Moreover, ʿAufī, in his chapter on the Ghaznavid poets, quotes a fairly long qaṣīdah of his in which the poet gives the kunyah of his patron as ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar’; ʿAufī identified the latter as ‘Amīr Abū l-Muẓaffar Yūsuf b. Nāṣir al-dīn’, but this is definitely wrong (as both Bahār and Rypka/Borecký have noted, apparently independently); for one thing, Maḥmūd’s brother’s name was Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf etc., and for another the poet calls his patron a ‘king’ (pād-shāh). It is thus probable that the poem was in fact addressed to the ruler of Chaghāniyān, Fakhr al-daulah Abū Muẓaffar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad.88 Whether it is in fact the work of Labībī is, however, not certain, as it is ascribed in later tadhkirahs to Farrukhī and has also found its way into copies of the dīwāns of Manūchihrī, Lāmiʿī and Azraqī. Apart from these poems we have a good number of quotations from Labībī in the Lughat i furs, which cites this poet very frequently. Most of the surviving fragments are from invectives and a large portion of them are vehemently pornographic.

Collections of fragments: J. Rypka and M. Borecký, ‘Labíbí’, Archiv Orientální 14, 1943, pp. 261–307 (a critical edition and German translation of the fragments); M. Dabīr-Siyāqī, Labībī wa ashʿār i ū Tehran, 1332sh./1953 (first published in Mihr viii, 1331 sh./1952, pp. 310–2, 367–71, 650–3 and again reprinted in the first instalment of his Ganj i bāz-yāftah, Tehran, 1334sh./1955, pp. 1–34.)

lf passim (two new fragments in ed. Mujtabāʾī/Ṣādiqī pp. 97, 132); Rādūyānī p. 32 (and Ateş ad loc.); Baihaqī pp. 73–4; ʿAufī ii pp. 40–1; Saif Harawī p. 510 (two verses); Hidāyat, Majmaʿ i p. 494 (Labībī) and 445–6 (the poem he attributes to Farrukhī); Dīwān i Farrukhī, ed. ʿA. ʿAbd al-Rasūlī, Tehran 1311sh./1932–3, p. 5 of the introduction; M.T. Bahār, ‘Qaṣīdah i Labībī’, Āyandah iii, 1306sh./1927, pp. 151–7 (an edition of the one long ode; reprinted in the ln article); ln s.v. ‘Labībī’; Ṣafā, Tārīkh i6 pp. 547–50; Khaiyām-pūr p. 500; ei2 s.v. ‘Labībī’ (J.T.P. de Bruijn).

next chapter: Part 3


^ Back to text1. Bundārī (i p. 3 of the edition cited on p. 149), an early and reliable source, gives his names as Abū l-Qāsim Manṣūr b. al-Ḥasan al-Firdausī al-Ṭūsī. Later authors give his personal name also as Aḥmad or Ḥasan and diverge also concerning his father’s name.

^ Back to text2. Th. Nöldeke, ‘Das iranische Nationalepos’, GIrPh ii, pp. 130–211; second, much revised, edition printed separately under the same title, Berlin/Leipzig 1920; English translation by L.T. Bogdanov, Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute vii, 1930; Persian translation (Ḥamāsah i millī i Īrān) by B. ʿAlawī with an introduction by S. Nafīsī, Tehran 1327sh./1948. All references are to the 2nd German edition.

^ Back to text3. Taqī-zādah’s contributions were first published under the pseudonym ‘Muḥassil’ as a series of 13 articles in the journal Kāwah (Kaveh), n.s. iii, 1920–1. They were reprinted in a slightly shortened form as ‘Shāh-nāmah wa Firdausī’, Haz. Fird. pp. 17–108, and again in their original form as part of the volume Firdausī wa Shāh-nāmah i ū, ed. Ḥ. Yaghmāʾī, Tehran 1349sh./1970-l (separate pagination). Nöldeke’s appreciation of Taqī-zādah’s contributions was published (posthumously) under the title ‘Ein Beitrag zur Schahname-Forschung’, Haz. Fird. (European section) pp. 58–63.

^ Back to text4. As a by-product of his work on the edition Khāliqī-Muṭlaq has published a large number of important articles on the text and interpretation of the epic, e.g. ‘Die Reste altiranischer Anschauung über das Pferd im Šāhnāma’, zdmg Suppl. iii/2, 1977, pp. 1049–1052; ‘Yak-ī dakhmah kard-ash zi summ i sutūr’, ndat xxix,–8, pp. 462–70; ‘Der Plan einer neuen Schahname-Edition’, Studia Iranica x, 1981, pp. 85–92; ‘Sī nuktah dar abyāt i Shāh-nāmah’, Āyandah viii, 1361sh./1983, pp. 575–84, 790–8 (with a follow-up article by F. Mujtabāʾī in Āyandah ix, 1362sh./1983, pp. 606–12); ‘Muʿarrifī i qiṭaʿāt i ilḥāqī i Shāh-nāmah’, Īrān-nāmah iii, 1363sh./1984–5, pp. 26–53, 246–61; ‘Chihil u yak nuktah dar abyāt i Shāh-nāmah’, Nām-wārah i Duktur Maḥmūd i Afshār iii, Tehran 1366sh./1987 pp. 1838–56; ‘Muʿarrifī i sih qiṭʿah i ilḥāqī dar Shāh-nāmah’, Īrān-shināsī i, 1368sh./1990, pp. 675–90; etc. Many of his papers have been republished as Gul i ranj-hā i kuhan, Tehran 1372sh./1993.

^ Back to text5. There are two possible ways to understand this configuration of a Zoroastrian date with an Islamic year. One is that the event in question occurred on the 25 Sifandārmud which fell during the Islamic year 400 (=August 1009 to August 1010), that is on 8 March 1010. The other is that it occurred on 25 Sifandārmud of the kharājī year that commenced on Nau-rōz in ah 400 (=14 March 1010), that is on 8 March 1011. For details see the article ‘Taʾrīkh’ in ei2, section viii (‘The tax year’) and the literature cited there. In either case, the conversion takes account of the fact that the five epigomenal days still stood, in Firdausī’s time, between the months of Ābān and Ādhar (see my article ‘The Persian calendar’, Iran 34, 1996, pp. 39–54). The objections voiced in a review of first edition of pl v, in bsoas 56, 1993, p. 601, are not valid.

^ Back to text6. In the apparatus of the Moscow edition this reading is cited only for the manuscript ‘K’ (i.e. Cairo, Dār al-kutub 73 tārīkh fārisī; see below p. 69), where the year is given as si-ṣad sāl u hashtād u chār, without indication of the month or day. But in other manuscripts (see Haz. Fird. p. 70) the same sum is formulated with different words and in at least some of these the precise date of completion is again given as 25 (Ard) Sifandārmud, which would correspond to 12 March 994 or 995 (according to the two possible interpretations mentioned in the previous footnote). It should be obvious that if 384 and 400 are in fact the years in which two different recensions of the epic were completed, then the date ‘25 Sifandārmud’ can be correct in only one of the two years; the poet is most unlikely to have finished the revision on the exact anniversary of the first version.

^ Back to text7. This was published and translated by C. Schefer in an appendix to his edition of the Safar-nāmah of Nāṣir i Khusrau, Paris 1881, pp. 298–302.

^ Back to text8. Haz. Fird. p. 79. According to Wüstenfeld’s tables 25 Muḥarram 384 corresponds to Sunday 11 March 994, but, of course, tables give only approximate equivalents. In any case, 25 Sifandārmud/12 March was a Monday, while the ‘epilogue’ speaks of Tuesday 25 Muḥarram. Taqī-zādah is thus forced to reckon with a scribal error (‘taḥrīf’) in the text of the epilogue.

^ Back to text9. M. Mīnuwī, ‘Kitāb i Hazārah i Firdausī wa buṭlān i intisāb i Yūsuf u Zulaikhā ba Firdausī’, Rūzgāri nau v/3, 1323sh./1944, pp. 16–36.

^ Back to text10. 27 Bahman 658 Yazdgirdī corresponds to 25 November 1289; 27 Bahman 211 Jalālī to 2 February 1290. According to my calculations, during the time when the epilogue could have been composed, 27 Bahman of the Zoroastrian calendar corresponds to a Tuesday about 25 days into Muḥarram only in 421/1030 and 558/1163 (in both cases according to the late Sasanian positioning of the epagomenae). It would thus seem more likely that it was written in one of these years and that the year given in the text was intentionally altered by a scribe wishing to assign the verses to Firdausī.

^ Back to text11. Cf. ed. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq i p. 17, dībājah 179.

^ Back to text12. Nöldeke, p. 25, suggested, with great caution and explicit reference to the uncertain state of the text, that the age ‘65’ might be combined with the year ‘389’ mentioned in the ‘epilogue’ to give a birth-date of 323 or 324 (935 or 936), in which case the poet would have been 76 or 77 (‘almost 80’) on completion of the ‘final version’ in 400. The date 324 was approved by Taqī-zādah and officially accepted by the Iranian government. Most recently A. Sh. Shabazi has attacked the problem in his article ‘The birthdate of Firdausī (3rd Dey 308 Yazdigardi = 3rd January 940)’, zdmg 134, 1984, pp. 98–105. Shabazi’s arguments are based on uncontrollable assumptions, such as the number of verses that the poet wrote per day, and side-steps the textual problems. An entirely different set of dates have been proposed by ʿA.R. Nāẓim-zādah, ‘Tārīkh i surūdan i Sh.N.’, Āyandah xi/4–5, 1364sh./1985–6, pp. 252–65.

^ Back to text13. For a critical confrontation between ʿArūḍī and the later sources see Nöldeke §20–23. The fragmentary preface in the Florence manuscript (which shares many elements with the Bāysunghur preface and with Daulat-shāh’s biography) is edited, translated and analysed in Piemontese’s article (see below, p. 58 fn).

^ Back to text14. This has generally been presumed to mean the Bāwandid Shahryār iii, who ruled from 358/969 to 396/1006, which would require a very early date for the final completion of the poem (well before 400). But perhaps the intended ruler is the ‘minor Bāwandid’ Abū l-Fawāris Shahryār b. ʿAbbās b. Shahryār, who left an inscription dated 413/1022 (see Minorsky, Iranica p. 155 n. 1). I see now that the possibility of identifying this person with the sipahbad mentioned by ʿArūḍī was considered also by W. Madelung in EIr i p. 749 (s.v. ‘Āl-e Bāvand’) as well as by Ṣ. Sajjādī in dmbi i p. 589.

^ Back to text15. Cf. Nöldeke §22.

^ Back to text16. M. Shērānī in his Chahār maqālah bar Firdausī wa Shāh-nāmah, n.p. (apparently Kabul) 1355sh./1977 (originally published in Urdu in the 1920s) argues that the hajw-nāmah has been constructed out of verses from the Shāh-nāmah and quotes (pp. 105–9) a number of parallel verses from the two poems. This deserves further investigation, though of course it must also be determined whether the passages which Shērānī quotes from the Shāh-nāmah are authentic and not rather interpolations from the hajw-nāmah. The question of formulaic repetitions within the Shāh-nāmah itself (a well-known feature of epic poetry in all languages) should also not be left out of consideration.

^ Back to text17. H. Ethé, ‘Firdûsî als Lyriker’, SB München 1872 pp. 275–304, 1873, pp. 623–59.

^ Back to text18. The earliest authority to quote anything of Firdausī’s, apart from the Shāh-nāmah and the Satire, is ʿAufī ii p. 33, where we find two verses from an ode to Maḥmūd and a gnomic qiṭʿah of five verses. The latter is, however, almost certainly either by Muḥammad b. ʿAbdih (see below § 108) or else expanded from two of his verses.

^ Back to text19. See below, no. 105.

^ Back to text20. See above, no. 16.

^ Back to text21. Loc. cit.

^ Back to text22. See above, no. 52.

^ Back to text23. al-Bairūnī, al-Āthār al-bāqiyah, ed. E. Sachau, p. 38.

^ Back to text24. Haz. Fird. pp. 144–6.

^ Back to text25. Haz. Fird. p. 140.

^ Back to text26. The story of the invention of the game of chess, for which Firdausī refers explicitly to one of the ‘four men’ (see above, p. 9), clearly has nothing to do with the Khwadāy-nāmag and there is no trace of the story in Ṭabarī.

^ Back to text27. For these passages see above, pp. 910.

^ Back to text28. Ed. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq i, Ḍaḥḥāk v. 291.

^ Back to text29. Haz. Fird. p. 137.

^ Back to text30. In general Firdausī’s tendency is rather to play down the mythical and supernatural elements in the Iranian national tradition. In the mentioned passage in the ‘older preface’ the author is in fact justifying some of the more incredible incidents in the Book of Kings, claiming that they have a deeper meaning, known only to the wise, ‘such as the heroic deed (dastburd) of Arish, and such as that stone which Afrēdūn stopped with his foot, and such as the snakes which emerged from Ḍaḥḥāk’s shoulder’. Only the last of these is found in this form in Firdausī’s poem. The story of Arish (Avestan ərəxša-) and his superhuman bow-shot is well known from the Arabic off-shoots of the Book of Kings, but is entirely missing from Firdausī’s poem. Compare also Firdausī’s very bland treatment of the story of Kāʾōs’s flight to heaven.

^ Back to text31. Moscow edition vii p. 116, Ashkāniyān 64–5.

^ Back to text32. Āthār pp. 116–7.

^ Back to text33. P. 114.

^ Back to text34. Cf. Ḥamzah al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb taʾrīkh sinī mulūk al-arḍ wa l-anbiyāʾ, Berlin 1340/1922, p. 13.

^ Back to text35. See the detailed description by A.M. Piemontese, aion 40, 1980, pp. 1–38, 189–242.

^ Back to text36. The manuscript has سيئم which can represent either. Piemontese (p. 11) reads ‘30th’ with reference to the fact that 3 Muḥarram 614 was, according to the usual tables, not a Tuesday but a Wednesday (12 April), but this betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental problems involved in all conversion tables.

^ Back to text37. In his Bīst maqālah ii, Tehran 1313sh./1934, pp. 1–64; a revised edition based on the collation of a larger number of manuscripts was published by Qazwīnī in Haz. Fird. pp. 123–48.

^ Back to text38. Notice sur le Schàh’-Namé de Ferdoussì, et traduction de plusieurs pièces relatives à ce poème, Vienna 1810, pp. 25–69.

^ Back to text39. V. Minorsky, ‘The earlier preface to the Shāh-nāmeh’, in Studi in onore di G. Levi della Vida, Rome 1956, ii pp. 159–79, reprinted in his Iranica, pp. 260–73.

^ Back to text40. D. Monchi-Zadeh, Topographisch-historische Studien zum iranischen Nationalepos (=Abh. f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes xli,2), Wiesbaden 1975.

^ Back to text41. Sic; the author evidently means ‘earliest illustrated’.

^ Back to text42. A much earlier dating of the ‘first small Sh.N.’ was claimed by E. Blochet, ‘On a Book of Kings of about 1200 A.D.’, Rupam lxi, 1930, pp. 3–10. This has been rejected by subsequent scholars.

^ Back to text43. The month is not indicated by Rieu. Kh.-M. quotes the colophon as: katabtu (or: kutibat) min al-nuskhah fī Muḥarram sanat khams wa sabʿīn wa sitt-miʾah. kadhā fī manqūl ʿan-hu 675.

^ Back to text44. A facsimile of the manuscript, with an introduction in Persian and German by N. Rastgār, has now been published as Ẓafar-nāmah i Ḥamd Allāh i Mustaufī ba inḍimām i Shāhnāmah i Abū l-Qāsim Firdausī, 2 vols., Tehran and Vienna 1377sh./1999.

^ Back to text45. For a description of this manuscript and reproductions of its miniatures see The Shāhnāmah of Firdausī with 24 illustrations from a fifteenth-century manuscript formerly in the Imperial Library, Delhi, and now in the possession of the Royal Asiatic Society described by J.V.S. Wilkinson with an introduction on the paintings by Laurence Binyon, London 1931.

^ Back to text46. For this manuscript see above, p. 58 and Kh.-M. iii pp. 380–1, v pp. 31–41. A facsimile has been published in Iranistische Mitteilungen xxi/1, 1991.

^ Back to text47. See also the detailed discussion of this Ms. by J. Khāliqī-Muṭlaq, ‘Muʿarrifī i yak nuskhah i muʿtabar i Sh.N.’, Farkhundah-payām 1360sh./1981, pp. 60–105.

^ Back to text48. For the Leningrad manuscripts see L.T. Gyuzal’yan, M.M. D’yakonov, Рукописи Шах-Намэ в Ленинградских Собраниях, Leningrad 1934 (abbreviated G./D.). Gyuzal’yan was responsible for the description of the minatures, D’yakonov for the (detailed and very valuable) codecology.

^ Back to text49. The paintings are reproduced and discussed in A.T. Adamova and L.T. Gyuzal’yan, Миниатюры рукописи поэмы « Шахнаме » 1333 года, Leningrad 1985.

^ Back to text50. Four miniatures from the first volume of this manuscript are in Richmond Keir iii.128–31; see the discussion in Robinson’s catalogue, pp. 159–62 (and plates).

^ Back to text51. Cf. H. Khidīw-jam, ‘Sharīf Daftar-Khwān, muʾallif i nukhustīn farhang i Sh.N. i Firdausī’, Farkhundah Payām 1360sh./1981–2 pp. 432–7.

^ Back to text52. This work is mentioned in the colophon of Tehran Gulistān/Ātābāy ii 352, where the author is called ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Qāʾinī.

^ Back to text53. This manuscript is wrongly identified by Munzawī no. 27248.

^ Back to text54. I learn from Īran-shināsī xii/3, 1379sh./2000, that an edition of the Ikhtiyārāt was published in Mashhad in the same year.

^ Back to text55. See above, pp. 50, 59.

^ Back to text56. Thus ʿAufī; Hidāyat has Abū Yazīd.

^ Back to text57. The manuscript of Rādūyānī’s Tarjumān al-balāghah has ‘Ghaḍāʾirī’ four times, as do the poet himself and ʿUnṣurī in their poetical debate; ‘Ghaḍārī’ appears twice in Rādūyānī as well as in a verse by Manūchihrī (Dīwān, ed. Dabīr-Siyāqī, p. 86). The later sources fluctuate between the two forms.

^ Back to text58. See his dīwān, ed. Yāsimī, pp. 308–9.

^ Back to text59. For the relationship between Taqī’s anthology and the copies of ʿUnṣurī’s so-called dīwān, see below, pp. 3878.

^ Back to text60. Thus Thaʿālibī. ʿAufī gives his name as Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh, but does not mention the name Ghawwāṣ.

^ Back to text61. The identity of ‘Junaidī’ and ‘Ghawwāṣ’ does not appear to have been noted in the secondary literature.

^ Back to text62. Ed. Todua/Gwakharia p. 28. See the translation in Minorsky, Iranica pp. 153–4 (=bsoas xi, 1946, pp. 2–3) and the important remarks by Boyce, jras 1957, pp. 37–8. In a later contribution, (bsoas xxv, 1962, pp. 278–9) Minorsky rightly upholds (against Zarrīn-kūb, Sukhan ix/10, 1337sh./1958, pp. 1015–8) that ‘Pahlawī’ here means ‘Middle-Persian’ and not the local vernacular of north-Western Persia. Gurgānī tells us precisely that the old book of Wīs and Rāmīn was studied by people in order to learn ‘Pahlawī’; with the latter the poet thus evidently means a literary language and not a colloquial dialect. See also G. Lazard, Minorsky Volume pp. 366–7 and note 19.

^ Back to text63. Cf. M. Mīnuwī, ‘Yak-ī az fārsiyāt i Abū Nuwās’, mdat 1/3, 1333sh./1954, pp. 62–77. The relevant verse by Abū Nuwās is on p. 67, Ḥamzah’s commentary on p. 69.

^ Back to text64. Firjard is clearly an Arabic spelling of Middle-Persian fragard, a word known to us as the designation for the individual ‘chapters’ of the Avestan text Vendidad.

^ Back to text65. Dīwān i Shams i Tabrīz, ed. Nicholson, p. 4, v. 7.

^ Back to text66. For the name, and the possible identity, of this person see Minorsky, Iranica p. 154, 198.

^ Back to text67. The nisbah is found only in the marginal additions to manuscript nūn of lf; see Iqbāl’s edition pp. 106, 280.

^ Back to text68. Dīwān, ed. Shāh-Ḥusainī, p. 93. See below, § 302.

^ Back to text69. Below, § 148.

^ Back to text70. Baihaqī p. 539.

^ Back to text71. The name is given thus is lf, ed. Iqbāl, p. 357, apparently on the authority of manuscript sīn, and in Ṣiḥāḥ p. 238; Farhang i Jahāngīrī (apud Horn, Einl. p. 18) has Ismāʿīl Rashīd. In the Vatican manuscript of lf he appears merely as Rashīdī.

^ Back to text72. For whom see below, § 272.

^ Back to text73. [In the first edition this entry was printed as footnote 2 on pp. 348–9.]

^ Back to text74. See his dīwān, p. 243, and the editor’s note.

^ Back to text75. See below, § 214.

^ Back to text76. For whom see below, pl vi.

^ Back to text77. Rempis thought that the original poem ended with v. 1534, arguing that the verb niwishtam in 1535 necessarily means ‘I copied’ rather than ‘I composed’. However, the original poet also refers in several places to his having not merely ‘spoken’, but also ‘written’ the poem; e.g. v. 1525: chu bīnī tu īn khaṭṭ u guftār i man … Potentially more significant is the fact (to which Rempis also draws attention) that in some of the manuscripts the poem actually ends with v. 1533, but even this can only be regarded as proof that the original poem ended here (rather than that the prototype was accidentally torn off at this point) when a stemma codicum has been established which shows that the manuscripts containing the shorter version really represent a different textual tradition from those containing the rhymed colophons.

^ Back to text78. The s.o.a.s. manuscript, which seems on the whole to belong to the same family as the Leningrad codex, has (fol. 36b) … sh.y.ṣ.d (sic!). This could easily represent a miscopying of an old manuscript in which sīṣad was written with an ihmāl sign over its first letter.

^ Back to text79. This observation holds good, of course, also for the author’s source for this part of the poem, i.e. the Zand ī Wahman-Yasht. I intend to return to the question of the dating of that work on an apposite occasion.

^ Back to text80. In ad 1101 (for example) 11 Ābān would correspond to 27 September Julian (or 4 October projected Gregorian), which seems rather early for a ground frost in any part of Iran. A later dating would move us even further forward in the calendar.

^ Back to text81. This is the revised verdict expressed in the corrigenda to the first edition, p. 621. On this basis Kai-Kāʾōs ought to have been excluded from the present chapter.

^ Back to text82. The name of the prophet occurs in the poem as Zarātusht, Zartusht, Zār(a)tusht or Zarratusht, depending on the requirements of the metre. All of these reflect Avestan Zaraθuštra- (it is perhaps then better to read Zarāthusht, etc.?). The usual Neo-Persian forms of the name, Zardusht and Zard’husht, continue Middle-Persian Zardu(kh)sht.

^ Back to text83. V. 25.

^ Back to text84. Ethé quoted in this connection three verses that Wālih ascribes to one Abū ʿAlī b. Ḥakīm Khabbāz and which refer to his father, Khabbāz, as a doctor, whom Ethé equated with Khabbāzī. But Ethé retracted this suggestion in i.o. Cat. col. 444 no. 912, where it is noted that the three verses are cited also by Rāzī (Tehran edition, ii p. 436).

^ Back to text85. See below, p. 350.

^ Back to text86. Vs. 485–6 of Nafīsī’s second edition of Rōdakī’s fragments, with indication of sources (all late).

^ Back to text87. Thus ʿArūḍī; the late tadhkirahs—for which see Ethé’s article—call him Abū Isḥāq Majd al-dīn.

^ Back to text88. Thus already Hidāyat p. 445, who calls the dedicatee ‘Abū l-Muẓaffar Muḥtāj i Chaghānī’ but attributes the ode to Farrukhī. Bosworth, Iran xix, 1981, p. 12, considers the possibility that the poet’s patron was Abū l-Muẓaffar Naṣr b. Nāṣir al-dīn, another brother of Maḥmūd’s, but was he a ‘pād-shāh’?

Cite this page
“2 From the Middle of the 9th Century to the Last Quarter of the 11th: Part 2”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 29 November 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲