نشریه جستارهای نوین ادبی
سال چهل و چهارم شماره 3 (پیاپی 174، پاییز 1390)

Ferdowsi has composed a few lines concerning himself at the end of the story of Shapur-e Zulaktaf beginning with: چو آدینه هرمزد بهمن بود بر این کار فرّخ نشیمن بودScholars have proposed different hypotheses about these lines. Some believe that these lines reflect Ferdowsi’s desire to see the prophet Mohammad after his death, as the pleasure of completing this part of Shāh-nāmeh, and the celebration of his sixty-third birthday. Yet, considering the structure, the order, and the expressive method of these lines, it is revealed to us that Ferdowsi is emphasizing the coincidence of Friday and the first days of Bahman; so he thinks of holding a banquet. This coincidence is indeed very fortunate for Ferdowsi because Friday in Islamic faith is a holy day and Hormazd-e bahman in the ancient astronomical beliefs was the day of Venus, a planet of rejoice and jollification. Furthermore, the beginning day (Hormozd/Urmazd) of each month in the Iranian culture, having its impact on the Islamic culture, is a fortunate day regarded as a day of rejoice and feasting. There is evidence that the first day of Bahman specifically would be considered blessed like celebration. During the life of Ferdowsi, there was only one Friday that coincided with the first day of Bahman. Considering the fact that Ferdowsi mentions a few lines later that he has turned sixty-three years old, he must have been born in the year 324. This date, of course, contradicts the assumptions of most scholars who believe that Ferdowsi was born in 329 or 330.

There is no reference to the word “Karimān” in Garshaāp story in the Avesta, Pahlavi and Persian Zoroastrian texts. However, it can be found in the story of “Rostam and Sohrāb”, and “Rostam and Esfandiār” in the Shāh-nāmeh. Since the epic texts in other Iranian languages are significant in Shāh-nāmeh studies, the Haft-Lashkar manuscript and other texts in the Gurani language are worth considering in order investigating the significance of “Karimān”. This word and its modified derivative “Qahramān” in these texts refer to two characters: Narimān’s father and a hero in the age of Hushang and Tahmureth. Therefore, it can be concluded that “Karimān” in the Shāh-nāmeh corresponds to two characters: 1) Nariman's father in the story of “Rostam and Sohrab” and 2) Hushang’s son in the story of “Rostam and Esfandiār”. It can be assumed that Ferdowsi considers sources other than Khoday-nameh and Abumansuri’s Shāh-nāmeh for the word.

The character of Alexander is a mingling of good and bad features; however, there is a kind of illogical anti- Alexander attitude in the studies of the Shāh-nāmeh which is in contrast with the popularity of Alexander in both oral tradition and formal literature. In the Shāh-nāmeh, Alexander is the son of Darab and a descendant of Iranian kings and is entitled to the crown. His story is narrated in about 2408 couplets in detail. The Shāh-nāmeh episode of Alexander has been interpreted by Nöldeke and others as a “face-saving” stratagem aimed at lessening the dishonor of defeat by an alien invader. Although the idea that Iranians may have concocted this story in order to soften the blow of foreign conquest is plausible, this plausibility is not the same thing as proof. A similar story according to which Alexander is the son of an Egyptian king exists in Egyptian versions of the story of Alexander. Since these similar tales existed among two peoples whom Alexander vanquished and then sought to conciliate, it could be equally assumed if these two tales were made up by Alexander’s own propagandists. Alternatively, these tales may have been fabricated by the Greco-Persian and Greco-Egyptian nobilities of the post-conquest societies of Iran and Egypt which sought to bridge the gap between the worlds of their fathers with those of their mothers. All of these scenarios, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, are plausible. The article discusses these different interpretations by drawing on the known historical details of Alexander’s invasion of Iran.

The discovery and publication of Saint-Joseph manuscript of Beirut is a very important event in Shāh-nāmeh studies. In addition to other valid versions like Florence manuscript (614 A.H.), London manuscript (675 A.H.), Topkapi Palace of Istanbul manuscript (731 A.H.), Leningrad manuscript (733 A.H.), Cairo manuscript (741 A.H.), and Arabic translation of Bondāri (621 A.H.), this version may be very suitable in editing the Shāh-nāmeh. The author has compared it with his own edition (Esfehan, Shāh-nāmeh studies 1379, five volumes) during seven months and has found approximately 700 differences. The present essay examines 106 cases to inform the scholars about some of the differences. It is hoped that this new-found edition will pave the way for a more authoritative edition of the Shāh-nāmeh.

The above line is one of disputable and difficult lines in the introduction of “Rostam and Sohrāb Story”. There are several suggested meanings for the lines and the phrse "door of āz" including death, greed and the supreme greed of humanity for knowing secrets of death to achieve immortality. The author reasons that the following meanings can be suggested for the word for āz: "need, requirement, wish and in general human natural demands”. Accordingly, the meaning of this line is as follows: “all human beings have natural demands like eating, drinking, sexuality and various wishes which are characteristics of the life in this world”. Since this life with its own specific features is in contrast with death, the mysterious door of death will be opened to nobody.

In Ferdowsi’s Shāh-nāmeh, “Farr” is one of the most important and most frequent concepts. The ideal concept of “Farr” appears in the charismatic (i.e. Farreh-mand) person in the form of holy light, miraculous powers, mastery over nature, good fortune, or in the form of material indices like sacred animals and tools. This myth is associated with the formation of community, the concept of social class, and two types of legitimacy: charisma and kinship. There are several types of Farr of which the most important is “Kayānid Farreh” which justifies the legitimacy of the king and accords divine status to his government. From the anthropological perspective, Farr may be considered as a manifestation of the holy ancestor of humankind or the cultural hero of the civilization that leads to the formation of the original pattern of the priest-king in Ferdowsi’s Shāh-nāmeh. In this pattern, Kayānid Farreh will require a hereditary background and is a symbol of conditional divine protection of the king and would leave him in case the king fails to meet the requirements of his divine office. In the present paper, after examining the functions of Farr in the Shāh-nāmeh, it is attempted to study the religious and political significance of this concept using an anthropological approach. It is then compared with equivalent concepts such as Manna, Charisma and Topo in the mythology of other nations. The formation of the priest-king model as the personification of the Manna archetype is also analyzed. The sin and the subsequent separation of Farreh are also examined in the charismatic personality based on theories of psychic inflation and the unity of the mind of the crowd.

The belief in certain fundamental myths in an investigation of different peoples and nations’ mythologies is plausible. These fundamental myths are the origins and prototypes of the more recent ones. There are several reasons why fundamental myths, either or partially, may be forgotten. However, they will never become entirely extinct. Over long periods in history and in the process of dusting the collective unconscious, they will be recreated and reconstructed within other mythical narratives. As an example, one may refer to the reconstruction of “Djam-e Djam” in “Kay Khosrow” myth. Like fitting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, through examination of more recent mythologies we may put the forgotten parts of the fundamental myths in order to gain access to their essence. In this paper, the mythical account of “Djamshid” has been examined as a fundamental myth for the birth of regenerative myths.

In the Shāh-nāmeh of Ferdowsi, the following verse has been used in describing the beauties of Rūdābeh, the daughter of Mehrāb: دو نرگس دژم و دو ابرو بخم ستون دو ابرو چو سیمین قلمSeveral manuscripts of the Shāh-nāmeh have recorded tīγ-e-dožam or tīγ-e-deram instead of sīmīn-qalam in this verse; therefore, some scholars have preferred tīγ-e-deram to tīγ-e-dožam and sīmīn-qalam. This fact has led them to suggest that the spelling of tīγ-e-deram is the original one and it has been changed first to tīγ-e-qalam [¬= penknife (¬? ¬) ¬] and then this form has been metamorphosed and simplified to sīmīn-qalam by a number of scribes. Besides, it has been supposed that deram in tīγ-e-deram has nothing to do with the Persian word deram (¬= drachma¬) meaning "silver coin" and it must be read as daram referring to "an instrument for cutting, such as knife or dagger". In fact, there is some linguistic evidence which indicates that the application of daram in the Persian language is quite implausible and the second element in the phrase tīγ-e-deram has been used in its well-known meaning, namely, "silver coin". Accordingly, it is possible that Ferdowsi might have used deram metaphorically pointing to "silver" and tīγ-e-deram to refer to "a dagger made of silver". Besides, there are some examples in the Shāh-nāmeh and other Persian texts which indicate that the phrase sīmīn-qalam in the above– mentioned verse and also in the following verse which describes Sūdābeh: دو یاقوت خندان، دو نرگس دژم ستون دو ابرو چو سیمین قلمLike tīγ-e-deram is an original one and is created by Ferdowsi himself.

Nezami Aruzi is the first author articulating Ferdowsi's life in Chāhar-Maghāle. Among his findings, he gives an account of Ferdowsi’s life which was related by Amir Moazi (in 514 A.H.) and Abdol-Alrazagh before him. Although this significant account which includes the best events of Ferdowsi's later life has been considered in recent researches, it has not been criticized in detail. This article first examines the mentioned part and then evaluates each part based on reliable historical sources