The Comparison of the Name and Title of Sassanid Kings according to the Shahnameh and the Historical Texts of the Islamic Period from the third to the seventh Century AH

The mythological and historical stories of ancient Iran during the Sassanid era were compiled in a book called Khodaynameh. This book had been translated into Arabic and Persian several times during the Islamic period, and most of the writers of the Islamic period used these translations to refer to Iran's history. The plurality of these translations occasioned some confusions in understanding the historical events. On the other hand some historians and writers tried to correct these differences, but these modified texts also have distinct differences in narratives of Iranian history. Hence, one of the cases in which numerous disputes are found in the historical texts are the names and titles of the Sassanid kings that have been mentioned in their books, and how these titles can be used to refer to the sources that they had been used. The following research is based on the analytical-documentary method according to the studies in the names and titles of Sassanid kings in Shahnameh and the historical texts of the third to the seventh centuries AH. The similarities and the differences can be used to understand the sources the authors used. In some cases, the names and titles in Shahnameh are unique as they, have obvious differences with other historical texts. However in some other cases, unlike other texts some of the names and titles are not included in Shahnameh.
These differences and similarities show some important points to understand the sources of the historical books of the Islamic era and specially Shahnameh. Considering the differences and the similarities, this research attempts to answer the following questions: Which books were used as the sources of the historical texts of the third to seventh AH. to refer to the Sassanid king’s titles? And whether Ferdowsi used many books as a source or only one particular book was used as a main source? Before the perfection of the epic poems by Ferdowsi, epic poems may have begun by poets like Masudi Marvazi and developed by Daghighi Toosi. According to the available evidence, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh is probably the ephemeral form of a book that is known as Shahnameh of Abumansouri and this book was a translation of another book, known as Khodaynameh (Xwatāy.nāmag). The researchers using the available evidence attributed the writing of Khodynameh in the period of kingdom of Bahram V to Khosrow Anushirvan, Khosrow Parviz and Yazdgerd III (Tafazzoli, 1998, p. 270). Although the final drafting and finalization of Khodaynameh must have been done in the early Islamic centuries by the Zoroastrian priests in order to narrate the details of the governance of Yazdgerd, it has also explained how Yazdgerd was defeated and killed by a miller in the city of Merv (Khaleghi-Motlagh, 2008, p. 30).
After the Arab domination and their influences in Iran, this book had been translated into Arabic which was named Siyar al-Muluk al-Fors or Siyar al-Muluk. According to the scholars researches, it can be seen that there were nine translations and adaptations of the Khodaynameh (Tafazzoli, 1998, p. 273), and eleven translators and carriers worked on this book (Safa, 2011, p. 69).
At the moment, due to the lack of Pahlavi version of Khodaynameh and also the Arabic and Persian translations, it is difficult to discuss precisely all the features and characteristics of this book; However, if the translators had translated the literary techniques of Khodaynameh into their Arabic and Persian translations as far as possible, the authors of historical books that used them would have taken at least some of the literary, rhetorical and linguistic characteristics of Khodaynameh to their books.
Hence, with careful consideration of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the historical texts of the third to the seventh centuries AH. it can be seen that one of the ancient Iranian traditions that had even been used as a literary feature in some books, such as Shahnameh, is the usage of title for the kings of Iran, which is likely to return to the historical and literary tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. According to numerous evidence, it can be said that each of the Iranian mythological and historical kings had a title by which he was recognized. Among these kings, an important part of Iran's history has been dedicated to the Sassanid kings, whose attention to the historical texts of the Islamic era is visible as these kings used title for themselves based on wich the historians tried to point them out. For example, as we know the name Bahram-e Bahramian (Bahram III) was written by Ferdowsi, as Kerman-shah (King of Kerman) (Hamidian, 2015, Vol. 7, p. 213, 2), while all the historians, wrote as Sakan-shah or Sakestan-Shah (King of the Saka), or they thought the composition of Khosrow Parviz in the order, were the name and title of the king, whilst only Ferdowsi in Shahnameh, mentioned the Parviz as a name and Khosrow as title of that king. If Ferdowsi had used multiple sources in Shahnameh, he would have definitely paid attention to the historical books of his current time and in some cases should have referred to the title of Sassanid kings according to the other books. It seems that Khwarazmi and Al-Biruni had found the list of Sassanid kings and their titles in another sources other than of books of Moses Khosravi and Bahram ibn Mardanshah, particularly Al-Biruni about these books had been referred to The History of Prophets and Kings and directly from these two books did not mention anything.
In addition, Dinwari, Tabari, Massoudi, Isfahani and Maghddasi probably paid particular attention to the books of Bahram ibn Mardanshah and Khosravi's books, and their details about the title of Sassanid kings were based on the contents of these two books.
Saalabi and Ibn Balkhi referred to the books of Isfahani and Tabari's History, and their details about the Sassanid kings which are close to these two books. It was said that Saalabi had used Abumansouri's Shahnameh as a source meaning that he had used the same source as Ferdowsi did, however, it had distinct differences regarding the use of some titles.
The author of the Mojmal al-tawarikh tried to use the most authoritative sources. He had been paid special attention to the contents of the books of Moses Khosravi, Bahram ibn Mardanshah, the narration of Isfahani, and Tabari.
The authors of Ferdowsi's sources most probably did not use the books of Moses Khosravi and Bahram ibn Mardanshah. This shows that the Zoroastrian priests had probably preserved the book of Khodaynameh and used it as their major source. This point of view is strengthened by the fact that before the translation of these priests, it can be seen that another Shahnameh which was written in prose by Abu Ali Mohammed ibn Ahmad al-Balkhi, but according to the Al-Biruni’s opinion, this book had been written based on the authentic Arabic book, Siyar al-Muluk. Although it seems that Zoroastrian priests are well acquainted with the Arabic translations of Khodaynameh as, in some cases they refer to the Arabic translation of a title such as Hovie Sonba, which is referred to as Zo al-Aktaf (he who pierces shoulders) in the Shahnameh for Shapur. It should, however, be said that Ferdowsi had used a different source compare to that of the Islamic writers due to the differences in some of the titles. Thus, it is clear that Shahnameh Abumansouri was the major source of Ferdowsi which was already translated from Khodaynameh.