IRANICA.COM - FERDOWSI

FERDOWSÈ,ABU'L-QAÚSEM (329-410 or 416/940-1019 or 1025), one of the greatest epic poets and author of the ˆa@h-na@ma, the national epic of Persia. See also ˆAÚH-NAÚMA.

i. LIFE

Life. Apart from his patronymic (konya), Abu'l-Qa@sem, and his pen name (takòallosá), Ferdows^, nothing is known with any certainty about his names or the identity of his family. In various sources, and in the introduction to some manuscripts of the ˆa@h-na@ma, his name is given as Mansáu@r, H®asan, or Ahámad, his father's as H®asan, Ahámad, or ¿Al^, and his grandfather's as ˆarafæa@h (S®afa@, Adab^ya@t, pp. 458-59). Of these various statements, that of Fathá b. ¿Al^ Bonda@r^, who translated the ˆa@h-na@ma into Arabic in 620/1223, should be considered the most creditable. He referred to Ferdows^ as "al-Am^r al-H®ak^m Abu'l-Qa@sem Mansáu@r b. al-H®asan al-Ferdows^ al-T®u@s^" (Bonda@r^, p. 3). It is not known why the poet chose the pen name Ferdows^, which is mentioned only once in text and twice in the satire (ed. Khaleghi, V, p. 275, v. 3, ed. Mohl, I, p. lxxxix, vv. 4, 6). According to a legend recorded in the introduction to the Florence manuscript, during the poet's visit to the court of the Ghaznavid Sultan Mahámu@d, the latter, pleased with his poetry, called him Ferdows^ "[man] from paradise" (Khaleghi, 1988, p. 92), which became his sobriquet. According to Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, p. 75, comm., p. 234) his birthplace was a large village named Ba@‘ (or Pa@z, Arabicized as Fa@z), in the district of T®a@bara@n (or T®abara@n) near the city of T®u@s in Khorasan. All sources agree on his being from T®u@s, the present-day Maæhad. The precise date of his birth was not recorded, but three important points emerge from the information the poet gives on his own age. First, in the introduction to the story of Kay K¨osrow's great war Ferdows^ says about himself that he became a poor man at the age of 65, and he twice repeats this date; he then states that when he was 58 and his youth was over Mahámu@d became king (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleqi, IV, p. 172, vv. 40-46). This statement is a more reliable guide than the three occasions on which the poet refers to himself as 65 or 68 years old; and since Mahámu@d succeeded to the throne in 387/997, the poet's birth date was 329/940. Second, a point occurs in the story of the reign of Bahra@m III (q.v.), when the poet refers to himself as being 63, and approximately 730 lines later repeats this reference to his age as 63, adding that Hormazd-e Bahman (the first of the month of Bahman) fell on a Friday (ˆa@h-na@ma, Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59). According to the research of Shapur Shahbazi (1991, pp. 27-29), during the years which concern us, only in the Yazdegerdi year 371, that is 1003 C.E., did the first of Bahman fall on a Friday. If we subtract 63 from this date, we arrive at 329/940 as the poet's birth date. The third point occurs at the end of the book when the poet refers to his own age as being 71, and to the date of the ˆa@h-na@ma's completion as the day of Ard (i.e., 25th) of Esfand in the year 378 ˆ. (400 Lunar)/8 March 1010 (see calendar), which again establishes his birth date as 329/940 (ˆa@h-na@ma, Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82; see further S®afa@, Adab^ya@t, pp. 459-62; idem, H®ama@sa, p. 172, n. 1; Shahbazi, pp. 23-30).

We have little information on the poet until he began writing the ˆa@h-na@ma in approximately 367/977, apart from the fact that he had a son who was born in 359/970 (see below). Therefore the poet must have married in the year 358/969 or earlier. No information concerning his wife has come down to us. Some commentators, e.g., H®ab^b Ya@g@ma@÷^ (p. 30), Moháammad-Taq^ Baha@r (p. 39), and D¨ab^há-Alla@h S®afa@ (H®ama@sa, p. 178), have considered the woman referred to in the introduction to the story of Be@‘an/B^‘an and Mane@‘a /Man^‘a (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 303-6) to be the poet's wife. If this conjecture is correct, it is probable that his wife was both literate and able to play the harp, that is, she, like the poet himself, was from a landed noble family (dehqa@n; q.v.) and had benefited from the education given to girls by such families, including learning to read and write and the acquisition of certain of the fine arts (cf. the story of the daughters of the dehqa@n Borze@n, ˆa@h-na@ma, Moscow, VII, pp. 343-44; Khaleghi, 1971, pp. 102-3, 129, 200-2; Bayat-Sarmadi, pp. 188-89). Another point which emerges from the introduction to the story of Be@‘an and Mane@‘a is that in his youth the poet was relatively wealthy. Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, p. 75) also confirms this detail. Not only the content of this introduction, but also the diction and the less skillful poetry of the story itself, as compared to the rest of the ˆa@h-na@ma, clearly indicate that it was a product of the poet's youth, which he later included in the ˆa@h-na@ma (M^nov^, 1967, pp. 68-70; S®afa@, Adab^ya@t, pp. 462-64; idem, H®ama@sa, pp. 177-79). This story, however, cannot have been the only literary work produced by the poet before 367/977, when he was thirty-eight years years old. Up to this time the poet must have produced poetry which has since been lost. The poems (in the qasá^da, qetá¿a, and roba@¿^ forms) attributed to him in biographical dictionaries (tadòkeras), some of which may well not be by him, are probably from this period. Hermann Ethe‚ (q.v.) collected these poems in the last century and printed them with a German translation (see also Taq^za@da, pp. 133-34; ˆe@ra@n^, pp. 130-35). The narrative poem Yu@sof o Zolaykòa@ is certainly not by Ferdows^ (Qar^b; ˆe@ra@n^, pp. 184-276; M^nov^, 1946; idem, 1967, pp. 95-125; Naf^s^, 1978, pp. 4-5; S®afa@, Adab^ya@t, pp. 488-92; idem, H®ama@sa, pp. 175-76; Storey/de Blois, V, 576-84). According to legends found in the introductions to a number of ˆa@h-na@ma manuscripts, the poet had a younger brother, whose name was Mas¿u@d or H®osayn (see ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, editor's Intro., p. xxxiii).

At all events, according to his own statement, the poet began work on the composition of the ˆa@h-na@ma after 365/975 (ˆa@h-na@ma, Moscow, IX, p. 381, v. 843), and since Ferdows^ specified in the exordium to the poem that he began this task after the death of Abu@ Mansáu@r Daq^q^ (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13) the composition of the poem must have begun in 366-67/976-77. At first the poet intended to travel to the Samanid capital Bokhara (q.v.; ibid., I, p. 13, vv. 135-36) in order to continue Daq^q^'s work, using the copy of the prose ˆa@h-na@ma of Abu@ Mansáu@r b. ¿Abd-al-Razza@q (q.v.), which had been used by Daq^q^ (qq.v.), and which probably belonged to the court library; but since a friend (identified as Moháammad Laækar^ in the introduction to Ba@yson@g@or^ ˆa@h-na@ma, q.v.) from his own city placed a manuscript of this work at his disposal (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, vv. 140-45), he gave up this idea and started work in his own town, where he also benefited from the support of Mansáu@r the son of Abu@ Mansáu@r Moháammad. According to the poet himself, this man was extremely generous, magnanimous, and loyal; he had a high opinion of the poet and gave him considerable financial help (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 14-15; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1967, pp. 332-58; idem, 1977, pp. 197-215; also, after the death of Èraj [ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 121, vv. 513-14], where Ferdows^ moralizes and reproaches the killer of an innocent king, it is probably that by such a king he means Mansáu@r). In the whole of the ˆa@h-na@ma this is the only moment at which the poet speaks explicitly of having received financial help from anyone, and since he wrote this after the death of Mansáu@r, there is no reason to believe that it was written in order to please the object of his praise. Further, that he did not remove his praise of Mansáu@r from the ˆa@h-na@ma even after he added that of Sultan Mahámu@d to the poem's introduction indicates the extent of his attachment to Mansáu@r (and before him to his father Abu@ Mansáu@r), as well as his sympathy for the political and cultural tendencies of Abu@ Mansáu@r (Khaleghi, 1977, pp. 207-11). The year 377/987, in which Mansáu@r was arrested in N^æa@pu@r and taken to Bokhara, where he was then executed, was a turning point in Ferdows^'s life; in the ˆa@h-na@ma from this moment onward there is no mention of anything to indicate either physical comfort or peace of mind, rather we find frequent complaints concerning his old age, poverty, and anxiety. Nevertheless, Ferdows^ was able to complete the first version of the ˆa@h-na@ma by the year 384/994, three years before the accession of Mahámu@d (tr. Bonda@r^, II, p. 276; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 378-406; idem, 1986, pp. 12-31). The poet, however, continued to work. In 387/997, when he was 58 or a little older, composed the story of S^a@vakòæ (ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 202, v. 12) and a year later wrote a continuation of the former narrative, the "Revenge for S^a@vakòæ" ("K^n-e S^a@vakòæ"; ibid., ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 379, v. 7).

He was then a quite different poet from the pleasure-loving and wealthy young man depicted in the introduction to the story of Be@‘an and Mane@‘a. He complained of poverty, old-age, failing sight, and pains in his legs and looked back on his youth with regret. Even so, he hoped to live long enough to bring the ˆa@h-na@ma to its conclusion. In 389/999, he started work on the reign of Ano@æ^rava@n (q.v.) and once again complained of old age, pains in his legs, failing sight, and the loss of his teeth and looked back to his youth with regret (Moscow, VIII, p. 52). The poet was, nevertheless, very active during this year. By the time he was 61, in 390/1000, he had composed almost 4,300 of the almost 4,500 verses of the story of Ano@æ^rava@n. The poet complained that at his age drinking wine gave no pleasure and he prayed that God would grant him sufficient life to finish the ˆa@h-na@ma (Moscow, VIII, pp. 303-4, vv. 4277-86). Two years later, in 392/1002, the poet was busy writing the narrative of the reigns from Bahra@m III to ˆa@pu@r II (four reigns in all, covering 76 years in little more than 700 verses). It is not clear what occurred during this year to make the poet more content, as both at the opening of the first reign and also at the end of the fourth reign he expresses the desire to drink wine (Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59; in the first of these verses the word ru@zbeh is used, which can be interpreted as either "fortunate" or as a person's name, and which appears in the ˆa@h-na@ma with both meanings. In the second case Ru@zbeh is probably the name of Ferdows^'s servant). This period of happiness passed quickly. Two years later, in 394/1004, at the beginning of the story of Kay K¨¨osrow's great war, during the course of a panegyric on Mahámu@d, he complains in accents of despair of his poverty and weakness; he points out the value of his work to Mahámu@d and asks Mahámu@d's vizier, Fazµl b. Ah®mad Esfara@yen^ (q.v.), to intercede on his behalf so that some help may be forthcoming from Mahámu@d (ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 169-74).

The year 396/1006, when the poet was 67, was the worst period of his life. In this year his 37-year-old son died. The poet describes his grief in extremely simple and personal language, complaining to his son that he has gone on ahead and left his father alone, and asks God's forgiveness for him (Moscow, IX, pp. 138-39, vv. 2,167-84). What is most striking in this elegy is the hemistich: ham^ bu@d hamva@ra ba@ man doroæt ("He was always rude to me"; ibid., v. 2,175). Was there a disagreement between father and son? And if so over what? No answer to this question can now be given. The poet inserts this elegy into the narrative of the reign of K¨osrow Parve@z. Approximately 1,500 lines further on, at the end of this reign, he writes that he has now completed his sixty-sixth year (Moscow, p. 230, v. 3681). This does not seem to accord with his previous statement, but if one takes into account the exigencies of rhyme and the fact that the poet was not always 100 percent accurate over figures, even in such a case, one can draw the conclusion that the reign of K¨osrow Parve@z (a little more than four thousand verses) was written during the years 395-96/1005-6, when the poet was 66 or 67 years old. This obvious contradiction over the exact age of the poet, however, is not found in the variant "I was sixty five and he was thirty-seven" (mara@ æast o banj o vera@ s^ o haft) found in certain manuscripts.

In the course of the history of K¨osrow Parve@z, the poet complains that, due to the calumny of rivals, Mahámu@d has not given his attention to the stories of the ˆa@h-na@ma, and the poet asks the king's sa@la@r (general), Mahámu@d's younger brother Nasár, to intercede for him and turn Mahámu@d's attention toward the poet (Moscow, IX, p. 210, vv. 3,373-78). From this it is clear firstly that no payment from Mahámu@d had ever reached Ferdows^, and secondly that Ferdows^ had sent some of the narratives of the ˆa@h-na@ma separately, before he either took or sent the whole poem to GÚazna (q.v.). The poet mentions his poverty many times during the course of the ˆa@h-na@ma, and frequently praises Mahámu@d, his brother Nasár, and his governor of T®u@s, who would seem to have been Abu'l-H®a@ret¯ Arsla@n Ja@dòeb (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 25-27; Eqba@l), but there is nowhere any suggestion that he had ever received any assistance from these individuals. On the contrary, as has been indicated, he everywhere complains of the king's indifference to his work. At the end of the ˆa@h-na@ma (Moscow, IX, p. 381) he also writes that the powerful came and copied out his poetry for themselves, and the sole profit to the poet from them was their saying "well done" (ahásant). He only mentions two individuals, ¿Al^ Deylam Bu@ Dolaf and H®oyayy b. Qotayba, who helped him. In certain manuscripts, ¿Al^ Deylam and Bu@ Dolaf are mentionedd as the names of two people, which agrees with the statement of Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, pp. 77-78, comm. pp. 465-66) that the first was a copyist of the ˆa@h-na@ma and the second its reciter (ra@w^). If this statement of Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^'s is correct, then these two individuals did not give the poet any monetary assistance. Instead, as a copyist and reciter of sections of the ˆa@h-na@ma for the nobility of the town of T®u@s, they each profited from the poet's work. In this case line 849 (Moscow, IX, p. 381) of the Moscow edition is incorrect and should be mended according to the variant readings of the line and the reference in the Ùaha@r Maqa@la. H®oyayy b. Qotayba, in his capacity as financial controller of T®u@s, sometimes remitted the poet's taxes.

Finally, in his seventy-first year, on 25 Esfand 400/8 March 1010, Ferdows^ finished the ˆa@h-na@ma (Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82). According to Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, pp. 75) and Far^d-al-D^n ¿AtÂtÂa@r (Ela@h^-na@ma, p. 367; Asra@r-na@ma, p. 189, v. 3,204), the total time spent on the composition of the ˆa@h-na@ma was twenty-five years. In the satire, however, there is thrice mention of thirty years and once of thirty-five years (ed. Mohl, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 11, p. xc, vv. 11, 20, p. xci, v. 4). If we place the beginning of work on the ˆa@h-na@ma in 367 and its completion in 400 the time spent on its composition is thirty-three years, and if we extend the poet's work to the period before 367—the composition of Be@‘an and Mane@‘a—and add to this time spent on revision after 400, the figure of thirty-five years is closer to the truth. There are lines in the ˆa@h-na@ma which, according to some scholars, refer to events of the year 401/1011 (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 18-20; Taq^za@da, 1983, p. 100, n. 3; M^nov^, 1967, p. 40). Ahámad Ate¶ has gone even further than this and claims that since Ferdows^, during the course of his praise of Mahámu@d in the introduction to the ˆa@h-na@ma, mentions Kaæm^r and Qannu@j among his territories, and since Mahámu@d first conquered these regions in 406/1015 and 409/1018, Ferdows^ must have made the final revision of the ˆa@h-na@ma and sent it to GÚazna in 409/1018 or 410/1019. He also draws the conclusion that Mahámu@d sent the poet a financial reward but that this reached T®u@s in 411/1020, after the poet's death (Ate¶, 159-68). The names Kaæm^r and Qannu@j, which appear in this panegyric beside other names such as Ru@m (the West), Hend (India), Ù^n (China), etc. and which occur many more times throughout the ˆa@h-na@ma, is no indication of a conquest by Mahámu@d of these two areas. Their occurance in the panegyric is simply due to poetic license and leads to no historical conclusions.

Our information on the poet's life after 400/1010 is limited to the matters reported by Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, pp. 75-83). According to him, after the completion of the ˆa@h-na@ma, ¿Al^ Deylam prepared a manuscript of it in seven volumes and Ferdows^ went to GÚazna with his professional reciter Abu@ Dolaf. There, with the help of Mahámu@d's vizier Ahámad b. H®asan Meymand^ he presented the book to Mahámu@d, but because of the calumny of those who envied him, and the poet's religious orientation, it was not favorably received by the king. Instead of 60,000 dinars (q.v.), payment was fixed at 50,000 dirhams (q.v.), and finally at 20,000 dirhams. Ferdows^ was extremely upset by this and went to a bathhouse; upon leaving the bathhouse he drank some beer and divided the king's present between the beer seller and the bath attendant. Then, fearing punishment by Mahámu@d, he fled from GÚazna by night. At first he hid for six months in Hera@t in the shop of Esma@¿^l Warra@q, father of the poet Azraq^ (q.v.), and then he took refuge in T®abaresta@n with Espahbad ˆahr^a@r, a member of the Bavandid dynasty (see AÚL-E BAÚVAND; the report of the poet's journey to Baghdad, which appears in the introductions to the a number of manuscripts of the ˆa@h-na@ma, is merely a legend; similarly, the story of the poet's journey to Isfahan is based on interpolated passages; see S®afa@, Adab^ya@t, pp. 474-76; M^nov^, 1967, pp. 96-98; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 233-36). While in T®abaresta@n, the poet composed 100 lines satirizing Mahámu@d, but the amir of T®abaresta@n bought the satire for 100,000 dirhams and destroyed it, so that only six lines survived by word of mouth, and these Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ recorded. Later, due to events described by Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^, Mahámu@d regretted his behavior toward the poet and on the recommendation of the above mentioned vizier had camel loads of indigo to the value of 20,000 dinars sent to Ferdows^, but as the camels were entering T®u@s by the Ru@dba@r gate Ferdows^'s corpse was being borne out of the city by the Raza@n gate. In the cemetery the preacher of T®a@bara@n prevented his being buried in the Muslim cemetery on the grounds that Ferdows^ was a Shi¿ite, and so there was no choice but to bury the poet in his own orchard. Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ tells how he visited the poet's tomb in 510/1116 (on this site, see Taq^za@da, 1983, pp. 120-21). According to Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (pp. 47-51), Ferdows^ left only one daughter, and the poet had wanted the king's payment as a dowry for her. But after the poet's death, his daughter would not accept the payment and, on Mahámu@d's orders, the money was used to build the Ùa@ha caravansary near T®u@s, on the road which goes from N^æa@pu@r to Marv. The year of the poet's death is given by Dawlatæa@h Samarqand^ (ed. Browne, p. 54) as 411/1020, and by H®amd-Alla@h Mostawf^ (p. 743) and Fasá^há K¨úa@f^ (p. 129) as 416/1025. According to the first date, Ferdows^ was eighty-two years old when he died, and according to the second report he was eighty-seven.

Many details of Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^'s account are inaccurate or even merely legendary (see, e.g., Qazv^n^'s introducton to Ùaha@r maqa@la, pp. xiv ff.). For example, he claims that only six lines survived of the satire, but in some manuscripts of the ˆa@h-na@ma the number of lines is as many as 160. Some scholars considered the satire to be genuine (Nöldeke, pp. 29-31; Taq^za@da, pp. 114-16). But Mahámu@d ˆe@ra@n^ established that many of the lines are spurious or are taken from the ˆa@h-na@ma itself, and he therefore rejected the authenticity of the satire. The spuriousness of many lines in the satire, however, does not establish that the satire never existed at all. Besides, there are excellent lines in the satire which are not taken from the ˆa@h-na@ma. Generally, it appears that in his article ˆe@ra@n^ was mainly seeking to vindicate Mahámu@d (Khaleghi, 1984, p. 121; Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 97-103).

There is a line in the satire (Mohl's edition, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 10) in which the poet refers to his age as being almost eighty. According to this line, the poet composed the satire before 409/1018. But it is very probable that the vizier who was Ferdows^'s benefactor was Abu'l-¿Abba@s Fazµl b. Ahámad Esfara@yen^, whom Ferdows^ praised in the ˆa@h-na@ma, and not, as Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ writes (p. 78), Ahámad b. H®asan Meymand^. The latter, although holding an important position at Mahámu@d's court, is never mentioned in the ˆa@h-na@ma. In the legends written in some of the introductions to ˆa@h-na@ma's manuscripts, Meymand^ has been mentioned among Ferdows^'s adversaries at Mah®mu@d's court. This vizier was a fanatical Sunni, strongly opposed to heretics and the QarmatÂ^s, and it is possible that he was influential in the removal of Esfara@yen^ from office in 401/1011 and his murder in 404/1014, and also in the execution of H®asanak M^ka@l in 422/1031, who was accused of harboring qarmatÂ^ tendencies. In like fashion, after he became vizier in Esfara@yen^'s place in 401/1011, he directed that the language of the court records, which Esfara@yen^ had caused to be kept in Persian, be changed back to Arabic. Meymand^ was vizier until 412/1025. He was then removed from office and imprisoned, and the vizierate was transferred to H®asanak M^ka@l. Thus the vizier who is said to have caused Mahámu@d to regret his treatment of Ferdows^, if the story is to be believed, was probably H®asanak and not Meymand^. If Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^'s story is true, 416/1025 is therefore the more probable date of Ferdows^'s death (see Taq^za@da, 1983, pp. 111-13).

Certain other details of Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^'s version of events are confirmed by various sources. For example, the author of the Ta@r^kò-e S^sta@n (ed. Baha@r, pp. 7-8) also gives a report of Ferdows^'s journey to GÚazna and his encounter with Mahámu@d. Similarly, Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^ (Haft Peykar, p. 15, v. 47; idem, Eqba@l-na@ma, p. 22, v. 14; idem, Kòosrow o ˆ^r^n, pp. 24-25, vv. 21-22) and ¿AtÂtÂa@r (Ela@h^-na@ma, p. 367, vv. 11-13; Asra@r-na@ma, pp. 188-190, vv. 3,203-26; Mosá^bat-na@ma, p. 367, v. 8) frequently refer to the differences between the poet and the king, to Mahámu@d's ingratitude toward Ferdows^, and even to the incident of the poet's drinking beer and giving the king's gift away. ¿AtÂtÂa@r also refers to the preacher's refusing to say prayers over the body of Ferdows^. Further, in the introduction to the Ba@yson@g@or^ ˆa@h-na@ma, a statement in Na@sáer-e K¨osrow's Safar-na@ma is quoted to the effect that in 437/1045 on the road from Sarakòs to T®u@s, in the village of Ùa@ha, Na@sáer-e K¨osrow saw a large caravansary and was told that this had been built with the money from the gift that Mahámu@d had sent to the poet, which, since he had already died, his heir refused to accept. This report is absent from extant manuscripts of the Safar-na@ma, but Sayyed H®asan Taq^za@da (1983, pp., 120-21) is of the opinion that it is probably genuine. Theodore Nöldeke (1920, p. 33) at first considered it spurious but later changed his mind (1983, p. 63, n. 1). Although it is possible to doubt some of the details in Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^'s account, we do not at the moment have any absolute reasons to reject all the particulars in his narrative.

Social background. In the introductions to various manuscripts of the ˆa@h-na@ma, Ferdows^'s father is referred to as a dehqa@n (q.v.) who was a victim of oppression by the financial controller of T®u@s. Even though this account may be no more than a legend, there is no doubt that Ferdows^ belonged to the landed nobility, or dehqa@ns. According to Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (p. 75), Ferdows^ was one of the dehqa@ns of T®u@s and in his own village "had considerable possessions, such that with the income from his properties he was able to live independently of others help." According to the same account (p. 83), "within the city gate there was an orchard belonging to Ferdows^," where he was buried (see further, Baha@r, pp. 148-49). The dehqa@ns were preservers of traditional civilization, customs, and culture, including the national legends (see Mohl's introduction to the ˆa@h-na@ma, p. vii; Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, p. 440; S®afa@, H®ama@sa, pp. 62-64). On the one hand, in the ˆa@h-na@ma dehqa@n appears along with the a@za@da (freeborn; see AÚZAÚD) with the meaning of "Iranian," and, on the other, beside mo@bad (Zoroastrian priest), with the meaning of "preserver and narrator of the ancient lore." In the ˆa@h-na@ma, a legend concerning a dehqa@n by the name of Borze@n (Moscow, VII, pp. 341-46) gives us an opportunity to glimpse, to some extent, the nature of the life of this class. By comparing this with the story of a farmer's wife in the same reign (ibid., pp. 380-84), the difference between the life of a dehqa@n and that of a simple farmer is apparent. At all events, Ferdows^ belonged to one of these reasonably wealthy dehqa@n families, which in the second and third centuries of the Islamic era accepted Islam mainly as a way of preserving their own social position, and for this reason, contrary to what is usually the case with new converts, not only did they not turn their backs on the culture of their forefathers but made its preservation and transmission the chief goal of their lives. The basis of Ferdows^'s character, and the national spirit of his work, were founded in the first place on this class consciousness of the poet and the milieu in which his genius was nurtured. Khorasan had been a center of political, religious, national, and cultural movements at least since the rise of Abu@ Moslem (q.v.; killed in.137/755). With the compilation and translation of the prose ˆa@h-na@ma known as the ˆa@h-na@ma-ye abu@ mansáu@r^, which later became Ferdows^'s major source, on the orders of Abu@ Mansáu@r Moháammad b. ¿Abd-al-Razza@q in 346/957, the national language and culture, which had been lacking in previous movements in Khorasan, found a special place in Abu@ Mansáu@r's political ambition (M^nov^, 1967, pp. 52-55). The young Ferdows^, who was no more than seventeen years old when the ˆa@h-na@ma of Abu@ Mansáu@r was completed, must have been profoundly affected by this national and cultural movement. It was in these years that the education of a dehqa@n together with the poet's national sentiment were able to mature in a congenial environment and to take shape, and thus become the foundation of the whole of his poem, so that, as Nöldeke put it (1920, pp. 36, 40-41), the poet's attachment to Iran is clear in every line of the ˆa@h-na@ma. The effects of Ferdows^'s love for Iran must be considered not only in the transmission of the culture, mores, customs, and literature of ancient Iran to Islamic Persia but also in the spread of Persian as the national language. In this way the struggle for the preservation of Iranian identity while Persia was in danger of being Arabized in the name of the Islamic community—although the movement had begun before Ferdows^'s time with the ˆo¿u@b^ya movement—finally bore fruit through Ferdows^'s efforts. In this way Persia is deeply indebted to Ferdows^, both as regards its historical continuity and its national and cultural identity.

Education. Since Ferdows^, unlike many other poets, did not make his work a showcase for his own erudition, discussion of his education is a difficult matter. On the other hand, the intellectual quality of the ˆa@h-na@ma shows that we do not deal simply with a great poet but with someone who judges many of the vicissitudes of life with wisdom and understanding, and this would not have been possible if he had not been in possession of a knowledge of the sciences of his time. However, Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) thought that Ferdows^ had not received formal education in the sciences of his timeFERDA[O]WS AL-MORˆEDÈYA, especially in scholastic theology, but considered him simply to be a reasonably educated person in such matters (for Ferdows^'s world view, see K¨a@leg@^ MotÂlaq, 1991, pp. 55-70). Nöldeke also believed that Ferdows^ did not know Pahlavi (1920, p. 19, n. 1). Taq^za@da (p. 126) and ˆe@ra@n^ (pp. 170-71), on the other hand, believe that Ferdows^ was completely conversant with the sciences of his own time. Bad^¿-al-Zama@n Foru@za@nfar (q.v.; pp. 47-49) and Ahámad Mahdaw^ Da@m@g@a@n^ (p. 42) believe that Ferdows^ even had a thorough knowledge of Arabic prose and verse. Similarly, Sa¿^d Naf^s^ (1978, pp. 9-10), H®ab^b Ya@g@ma@÷^ (p. 6), and Lazard (pp. 25-41) believe that Ferdows^ knew Pahlavi. However, Moháammad-Taq^ Baha@r (pp. 96-135) and Shapur Shahbazi (pp. 39-41) agree with Nöldeke on the matter of Ferdows^'s knowledge of Pahlavi. In a later article on Ferdows^, Nöldeke, following Taq^za@da, wrote that he had previously underestimated the poet's knowledge of Arabic (1983, p. 63), but it appears that he did this mainly to satisfy the amour-propre of Persians. Certainly, it is probable that Ferdows^ learnt Arabic in school. The problem of Pahlavi in his time and for a person like him lay mainly in the difficulty of its script; thus if a person read a text in this language to the poet, he could probably understand it in the main. But in the ˆa@h-na@ma there is nowhere any direct indication that Ferdows^ knew either Arabic or Pahlavi. In the exordium to the story of Be@‘an and Mane@‘a, he says that his "loving consort" (mehrba@n ya@r) read a "Pahlav^ book" (daftar-e pahlav^; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 305, v. 19, p. 306, v. 22). But Ferdows^ refers to ˆa@h-na@ma-ye abu@ mansáu@r^ as being in Pahlavi (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, v. 143), and thus it could be interpreted as meaning "Pahlava@n^" or "eloquent/heroic Persian." There is, however, no evidence in the ˆa@h-na@ma to indicate that Ferdows^ could read Pahlavi.

Religion. Ferdows^ was a Shi¿ite Muslim, which is apparent from the ˆa@h-na@ma itself (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 1o-11) and confirmed by early accounts (Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^, text, pp. 80, 83; Nasá^r-al-D^n Qazv^n^, pp. 251-52). In recent times, however, some have cast doubt on his religion and his Shi¿ism. Some have simply called him a "Shi¿ite" (Ya@g@ma@÷^, pp. 23, 28); others, such as Baha@r (p. 149), have raised the question of whether Ferdows^ was an adherent of Zayd^ Shi¿ism, Ismai¿li Shi¿ism, or Twelver Shi¿ism. Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) believed that he was a Shi¿ite but did not consider him to be a member of any of the extremist Shi¿ites (@g@ola@t; q.v.). ˆe@ra@n^ (pp. 111-26) called Ferdows^ a Sunni or Zayd^ Shi¿ite, but ˆe@ra@n^ was mainly concerned with defending Mahámu@d's Sunnism. Mohá^tÂ T®aba@tÂaba@÷^ (pp. 233-40) also considered Ferdows^ to be a Zayd^ Shi¿ite. ¿Abba@s Zarya@b K¨o÷^ (pp. 14-23) argued that he was an Isma¿ili Shi¿ite, while Ahámad Mahdaw^ Da@m@g@a@n^ (pp., 20-53) believed him to be a Twelver Shi¿ite (see also, Shahbazi, pp. 49-53). The basic supporting evidence for the view that Ferdows^ was a Sunni or Zayd^ Shi¿ite has been the lines that appear in many manuscripts of the ˆa@h-na@ma, in the exordium to the book, in praise of Abu@ Bakr, ¿Omar, and ¿Ot¯ma@n, but these lines are later additions, as is apparent for lexicographic and stylistic reasons, and also because they interrupt the flow of the narrative (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39; Ya@g@ma@÷^, p. 27; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1986, pp. 28-31); with the excision of these lines no doubt remains as to Ferdows^'s Shi¿ism. One must also take into account the fact that T®u@s had long been a center of Shi¿ism (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39) and that the family of Abu@ Mansáu@r Moháammad b. ¿Abd-al-Razza@q were also apparently Shi¿ites (Ebn Ba@bawayh, II, p. 285). On the one hand, Ferdows^ was lenient as regards religion. As Nöldeke remarks, Ferdows^ remembered the religion of his forbears with respect, and, at the same time, nowhere did he show any signs of a deep Islamic faith. Indeed, to the contrary, here and there are moments in the ˆa@h-na@ma (e.g., Moscow, IX, p. 315, v. 56) which, even if they were present in his sources, should not strictly have been given currency by the pen of a committed Muslim (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 38-39). On the other hand, however, Ferdows^ showed a prejudice in favor of his own sect and, as is apparent from the exordium to the ˆa@h-na@ma, considered his own sect to be the only true Islamic one. The explanation for this contradiction, in the present writer's opinion, lies in the fact that during the first centuries of Islam, in Persia, Shi¿ism went hand in hand with the national struggle in Khorasan, or very nearly so, such that the caliphate in Baghdad and its political supporters in Persia never made any serious distinction between the "Maju@s" (i.e., Zoroastrians), "Zand^q" (i.e., Manicheans), "QarmatÂ^s" (i.e., adherents of Isma¿ili Shi¿ism), and Ra@fezÂ^s (i.e., Shi¿ites in general; see Bag@da@d^, tr. pp. 307 ff.). Ferdows^ was, as Nöldeke remarks, above all a deist and monotheist who at the same time kept faith with his forbears (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 36-40; Taq^za@da, 1983, pp. 124-25). Ferdows^ attacks philosophy and those who attempt to prove the reality of the Creator, believing that God can be found neither by the eye of wisdom, nor of the heart, nor of reason, but that His existence, unity, and might are confessed only by the existence of His creation; thus he worshipped Him, remaining silent as to the whys and wherefores of faith (khaleghi-Motlagh, 1975, pp. 66-70; idem, 1991, pp. 55-57). According to his beliefs, everything, good or evil, happens to an individual only through the will of God, and every kind of belief in the benign or evil influence of the stars is a derogation of the reality, unicity, and might of God. This absolute faith in the unicity and might of God is disturbed in the ˆa@h-na@ma by a fatalism that is possibly the result of Zurvanite influences from the Sasanian period, and this, here and there, has produced a self-contradictory effect (Khaleghi, 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; idem, 1991, pp. 55-68; 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; Banani, pp. 96-119; Shahbazi, pp. 49-59).

Due to his upbringing as a dehqa@n, Ferdows^ was acquainted with the ancient culture and customs of Iran, and he deepened this knowledge by his study of ancient lore so that they became part of his poetic world view. There are many instances of this in the ˆa@h-na@ma, and here as an example one can mention the custom of drinking wine. According to the poet, in accordance with Iran's ancient beliefs, wine shows the essence of a man as he really is (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 3-4); one must drink at times of happiness (ibid., Moscow, VII, p. 192, vv. 658-59), but it is happiness that is to be sought in drinking wine, not drunkenness (ibid., Moscow, VIII, p. 109, vv. 964-65), and he reproaches the Arabs who are strangers to the custom of drinking wine (ibid., Moscow, IX, p. 320, v. 113). The most important of the poet's ethical attitudes include maintaining a chastity of diction (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 55, n. 2), honesty (ed. Khaleqi, III, p. 285, vv. 2,879-80; Moscow, VIII, p. 206, vv. 2,626-27; S®afa@, H®ama@sa, p. 203; Ya@g@ma@÷^, pp. 14-15), gratitude toward his predecessor Daq^q^ and, at the same time, frank criticism of his poetry (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13, V, pp. 75-76, 175-76). With the same kind of frankness the poet admonishes kings to act justly (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 29-31; VIII, p. 62, vv. 161-66). His belief in the permanence of a good reputation (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 156-57, vv. 1,061-62), in fine speech (ibid., II, p. 164, vv. 574-76), and in fairness toward enemies (ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 163, vv. 937-38, IV, p. 64, v. 1,014) in so far as this is compatible with the heroic code of behavior, are all apparent. But when it comes to the domination of Iran by her enemies, especially at the end of the ˆa@h-na@ma, he is violently opposed to both Arabs and Turks (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 37, 41). Certainly, these attitudes were in the poet's sources, but he incorporated them into his work with complete conviction. Generally, it seems as though the ethical values of the poet's sources and of the poet himself reciprocally acted on one another. In this way, certain ethical values of the ˆa@h-na@ma, such as praise for effort, condemnation of laziness, recommendation of moderation, condemnation of greed, praise for knowledge, encouragement of justice and tolerance, kindness towards women and children, patriotism, racial loyalty, the condemnation of haste and the recommendation of deliberation in one's actions, praise for truthfulness and condemnation of falsehood, the condemnation of anger and jealousy, belief in the unstableness of the world, which is everywhere evident throughout the ˆa@h-na@ma especially at the ends of the stories, and so forth, are considered also to be values held by the poet himself (see adab; Esla@m^, pp. 64-73).

Other opinions of the poet are his belief in the genuineness of the narratives in his sources (ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 12, vv. 113-14) and his strong belief in the lasting values of his own work, a subject referred to frequently in the ˆa@h-na@ma (e.g., ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 173-74, vv. 66-68; for other examples, see Yag@ma@÷^, pp. 15-17; Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 34-35). Finally it seems as though he was a man who was fond of pleasantries and witticisms (e.g., concerning Ru@da@ba, see ed. Khaleghi, p. 243, v. 1,158; Manu@±ehr's joking with Za@l, ibid., p. 253, vv. 1,283-88; Sa@m's and S^ndokòt's joking with each other, ibid., p. 262, vv. 1,407-9; the joking of the young shoemaker's mother before the king, Moscow, VII, p. 325, vv. 336-46). The sum of such heartfelt, mature, and eloquently expressed views and ethical precepts regarding the world and mankind have led to his being referred to, from an early period, as h®ak^m (philosopher), da@na@ (sage), and farza@na (learned); that is, he was considered a philosopher, though he was not attached to any specific philosophical school nor possessed a complete knowledge of the various philosophical and scientific views of his time.

Ferdows^ and Sultan Mahámu@d. In various places in his work the poet devoted in all some 250 lines—some of which are very hyperbolic—to the praise of Mahámu@d, and the name Mahámu@d and his patronymic Abu'l-Qa@sem are mentioned almost thirty times; but that sincerity which is apparent in the ten lines Ferdows^ wrote in praise of Mansáu@r in his introduction to the ˆa@h-na@ma is never visible in the lines on Mahámu@d, though in many places he either directly or by implication offers Mah®mu@d moral advice (e.g., Moscow, VII, pp. 114-15, vv. 29-40; VIII, pp. 153-54, vv. 1,700-04, p. 292, vv. 4,080-81). The climactic point of these allusions addressed to Mahámu@d must be considered to occur at the end of the ˆa@h-na@ma in the letter of Rostam, the Sasanian general, to his brother on the eve of the battle of Qa@des^ya. In particular, the line in which it is prophesied that a talentless slave will become king (Moscow, IX, p. 319, v. 103) is like a bridge that takes us from the hyperbolic praise of Mahámu@d in the ˆa@h-na@ma to the hyperbolic contempt for him of the satire. The poet's hopes of a monetary reward from Mahámu@d must be considered one reason for his praise of Mahámu@d (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 34), but, as indicated above, there is no sign anywhere in the ˆa@h-na@ma that any assistance from Mahámu@d ever reached the poet (Nöldeke, pp. 27-29). The praise of Mahámu@d must be considered an entirely calculated gesture, forced on the poet by his poverty (Esla@m^, pp. 59-60). With Mahámu@d's assumption of power in Khorasan, the Shi¿ite Ferdows^ had, at the least, until he had finished work on the ˆa@h-na@ma, to include him in the poem. This being the case he could not, according to the usual custom in Persian narrative poems, wait until the end of the poem and then write a single panegyric to be used in the preface, but was forced to compose separate passages of praise, or to place them at the head of a story that was then sent to GÚazna. Other passages of praise may well have been placed at the beginning of sections of the seven-volume ˆa@h-na@ma. But the closer he got to the end of the ˆa@h-na@ma, with there still being no sign of Mahámu@d's paying him any attention, the more pointed his sarcastic allusions to Mahámu@d became, until finally in the satire he took back virtually all his praise. In the satire the poet frequently speaks "of this book" (az in na@ma) and this led Nöldeke (1920, p. 29) to conclude that the satire was composed as a supplement to the ˆa@h-na@ma and that the poet's intention was to take back his praise of Mahámu@d with this satire, that is, the ˆa@h-na@ma was no longer dedicated to Mahámu@d, as the poet himself states in the satire (Mohl's Intro., p. lxxxix, vv. 3-4). Nezáa@m^ ¿Aru@zµ^ (text, pp. 49-50), also makes the same statement (see also Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 83-105).

Ferdows^ the poet and storyteller. The ˆa@h-na@ma has not received its rightful attention in works written in Persian on the art of poetry (e.g., al-Mo¿jam of ˆams-al-D^n Ra@z^), which works consider eloquence and poetic style largely as a matter of particular figures of speech. So far there has been little serious work on Ferdows^'s poetic artistry, and our discussion of this subject will not therefore go beyond general principles.

In discussing Ferdows^'s achievement one must consider, on the one hand, the totality of the ˆa@h-na@ma as a whole and, on the other, his artistry as a storyteller. Throughout the entire ˆa@h-na@ma, a balance is masterfully maintained between words and meaning, on the one hand, and passion and thought, on the other. Ferdows^'s poetic genius in creating a lofty, dynamic epic language that is brief but to the point and free from complexity greatly contributes to the strength of his style.

The most important figures of speech in the ˆa@h-na@ma include: hyperbole, paronomasia, repetition, comparisons (similes and metaphors), representative images, proverbial expressions, parables, and moral advice. Hyperbole, which is the most important principle of epic language, is present in order to increase the reader's emotional response. Some kinds of paronomasia are used to create a verbal rhythm, that is to increase linguistic tension by acoustic means. The most commonly used kinds of paronomasia include those that involve a complete identity of two words (be ±ang a@r ±ang o may a@g@a@z kon "Bring in your hand [±ang] a harp [±ang] and set out the wine"; Moscow, V, p. 7, v. 19) and those that involve alliteration (æod az rakòæ rakòæa@n o az æa@h æa@d "He became radiant [rakòæa@n] because of Rakòæ [the name of Rostam's horse] and happy [æa@d] because of the king [æa@h]"; ed. Khaleghi, II , p. 125, v. 93; kola@h o kama@n o kamand o kamar "Cap and bow and lariat and belt"; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 147, v. 676). This effect is sometimes achieved by the repetition of one word (bed-u@ goft narm ay java@nmard, narm! "He said to him: Gently o young man, gently!"; ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 222, v. 683; makon æahr^a@ra@ java@n^, makon! "Do not, o prince, do not act childishly!; ed. Khaleghi, p. 363, v. 846). There are also comparisons used to render the language representational, that is, to construct an image visually. Among the kinds of comparison used in the ˆa@h-na@ma one must mention short comparisons which do not use words that indicate a comparison is being made (brief metaphors) and explicit comparisons (i.e., similes; For other examples, see Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 69-71; S®afa@, H®ama@sa, pp. 267-77). Sometimes Ferdows^ uses personification as an image (be ba@z^gar-^ ma@nad ^n ±arkò-e mast "This drunken wheel [i.e., of the firmament] is like a juggler; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 56, v. 474), sometimes proverbial expressions (hama@n bar ke ka@r^d kòod bedrav^d "As you sow so shall you reap!"; ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 114, v. 383), and sometimes parables, that is, the explanation of a situation by another exemplary situation (e.g., ibid., p. 216, vv. 770-73). In each of these three figures of speech, the image is constructed by reason. Another example of this is the elaboration of language as moral maxims (tava@na@ bovad har ke da@na@ bovad! "knowledge is power"; ibid., p. 4, v. 14). On the other hand, Ferdows^ avoids those figures of speech which involve complex language or which take language far from the intended meaning. For this reason complex metaphors, ambiguities of grammatical construction, riddles, and academic phraseology are rarely found in his work (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 64-65). Metaphors such as "dragon" for a "sword"; "narcissus" and "magician" for "eyes"; "coral," "garnet," and "ruby" for "lips"; "tulip" for "a face"; "pearls" for "tears," "teeth," and "speech"; "cypress" for "stature"; and so on, that have since been parts of the conventional themes, motives, and images used in Persian poetry.

The most important descriptive passages of the ˆa@h-na@ma are descriptions of war, the beauty of people, and the beauty of nature. Although Ferdows^ himself had probably never taken part in a battle and the descriptions of scenes of warfare are in the main imaginary, as Nöldeke says (1920, p. 59), they are described so variously, with such liveliness and to so stirring an effect that, despite their brevity, the reader seems to see them pass before his eyes. The story of Dava@zdah Rokò (q.v.; ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 3-166) is particularly a case in point (Nöldeke, ibid). Ferdows^ does not simply introduce his heroes, he lives with them and shares their sorrows and joys. He grieves at the death of Iranian heroes, but he does not rejoice at the demise of Iran's enemies; his sincerity conveys his own emotions to the reader. When he describes the beauty of people, he is at his best when the subject is a women (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 183-84, vv. 287-93). As a dehqa@n, Ferdows^ lived in close contact with nature; for this reason the descriptions of nature in his poetry have the lively coloring of nature itself, not the coloring of decorative effects as in the poetry of Nezáa@m^. Of his descriptions of nature particularly noticeable are those concerned with the rising and setting of the sun and moon, placed at the opening of many sections of individual stories, and of the seasons of the year, in particular of spring, situated in the introductions to stories (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 219-20, vv. 1-9).

Ferdows^'s poetic artistry go hand in hand with his skill as a storyteller. Major stories usually begin with a preamble (kòotÂba) which includes moral advice, a description of nature, or an account of the poet himself. In the examples that involve moral advice there is normally a connection between the contents of the preamble and the subject of the story that follows, as in the introductions to the stories of Rostam and Sohra@b, of Ka@vu@s' expedition to Ma@zandara@n, and of Foru@d (q.v.), the son of S^a@vakòæ. Such a connection is sometimes also found in introductions containing descriptions of nature (Kòa@leq^ MotÂlaq, 1975, pp. 61-72; idem, 1990, pp. 123-41). Thereafter begins the story and proceeds quickly. In the important stories of the ˆa@h-na@ma, events are neither given in so direct a manner as to join the opening of the story to its conclusion in the shortest possible manner, nor with such ramifications that the main story line is lost. But the attention of the poet to certain details of the incidents described, without the story ever straying from its main path, fills the narrative with action and variety (e.g., see the quarrel between the gatekeeper of Mehra@b's castle and Ru@da@ba's maids in ˆa@h-na@ma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 196, vv. 468-77; Nöldeke, 1920, p. 17). Many of the narrative poets who followed Ferdows^ were more interested in the construction of individual lines than of their stories as a whole. In such narrative poems, the poet himself speaks much more than the characters of his poem, and even where there is dialogue, there is little difference between the attitudes of the various characters of the story, so that the speaker is still the author, who at one moment speaks in the role of one character and the next moment speaks in the role of another. The result is that in such poems, with the exception of Fakòr-al-D^n Gorga@n^'s V^s o Ra@m^n and to some extent the poems of Nezáa@m^, the characters in the story are less individuals than types. In contrast, the dialogues in the ˆa@h-na@ma are realistic and frequently argumentative, and the poet uses them to good effect as a means of portraying the inner life of his characters. This is so to such an extent that it is as if many of the characters of the ˆa@h-na@ma lived among us and we knew them well. Since these characters are developed as distinct, genuine individuals, it is inevitable that sometimes differences between them should lead to conflicts that make each episode extremely dynamic and dramatic. An instance is the conflict in the story of Rostam and Esfand^a@r (q.v.), which has been described as "the deepest psychological struggle in the whole of the ˆa@h-na@ma, and one of the deepest examples of its kind in the whole of world epic" (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 59). Ferdows^ is also very skillful in creation of tragic and dramatic moments, such as the dialogue between Sohra@b and his father, Rostam, when Sohra@b is on the point of death (ed. Khaleghi, II, pp. 185-86, vv. 856-65), Sa@m's reaction upon receiving Za@l's letter (ibid., I, p. 208, vv. 656-66), the disobedience of Rostam's loyal horse, Rakòæ, and his risking his life for Rostam (ibid., II, pp. 26-27, v. 345-46, the anger of the natural world when S^a@vakòæ's blood is spilled (ibid., II, pp. 357-58, vv. 2,284-87), the minstrel Ba@rbad's cutting off his fingers and burning his instruments while mourning for K¨osrow II Parve@z (Moscow, IX, pp. p. 280, vv. 414-18), and so on. The final part of Ferdows^'s elegy for his son and the Ba@rbad's elegy on the death of K¨osrow II Parve@z together with certain of the preambles to various stories and other descriptive passages show that Ferdows^ was also a master as a lyric poet (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 64). Such moments in the ˆa@h-na@ma distinguish it from other epics of the world (ibid., p. 63); due to their simplicity and brevity, however, they do not harm the epic spirit of the poem, rather they give it a certain musicality and tenderness; in particular, due to the descriptions of love in the poem, these lyric moments take it beyond the world of primary epic (ibid., p. 54, n. 2).

Since the greater part of the epic poetry before Ferdows^'s time, and even his own main source, the ˆa@h-na@ma-ye abu@ mansáu@r^, have disappeared, it is difficult to judge how far Ferdows^'s artistry is indebted to his predecessors. From the thousand lines of Daq^q^ in the ˆa@h-na@ma, from certain other scattered lines by poets who had preceded him, and also from the Arabic translation of T¨a¿a@leb^, it can be seen that Ferdows^ was not an innovator but rather someone who continued an extant tradition, both in his epic style and in his narrative method. At the same time, as Nöldeke has said (1920, pp. 22-23, 41-44), it can be shown by reference to these same works that Ferdows^ not only succeeded in preserving his poetic independence, but also that Persian epic poetry is indebted to him for its finest flowering.