|
FERDOWSIii. HAJW-NĀMA
Hajw-nāma is the title of a verse lampoon of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ḡazna attributed to Ferdowsī. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī, text, pp. 75-81), after Ferdowsī presented his Šāh-nāma, the sultan, at the instigation of the poet’s detractors, used the pretext of the poet’s alleged Muʿtazilite and Shiʿite (rāfeżī) orientation to give him only twenty thousand dirhams as the reward (ṣela) for the epic. Finding the amount humiliating, Ferdowsī distributed it among workers in the public bath and fled to Ṭabarestān, where he petitioned the Bawandid ruler Šahrīār for asylum and wrote his verse lampoon. Šahrīār, who was on good terms with Maḥmūd, paid the poet a thousand dirhams for each of his lampoon’s one hundred verses and destroyed it. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī recorded the six lines that survived. No other credible source speaks of Ferdowsī’s trip to Ḡazna and his escape to Ṭabarestān; moreover, the Bavandid ruler Šahrīār b. Šarvīn, who has been identified with the ruler mentioned in the Čahār maqāla (e.g., comm. p. 244), could not have lived until 400/1009, which is considered the date Ferdowsī finished his composition (see ĀL-E BĀVAND). Thus one cannot rely on the veracity of many of the details of Neżāmī’s account. Introductions to manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma reproduce that account and embellish it with many accretions. In some of them, the Hajw-nāma runs more than one hundred lines (the Mohl edition, Preface, pp. 88-92 contains 93 lines).
A great deal of textual evidence and scholarship has fed the controversy surrounding the Hajw-nāma. Maḥmūd Khan Šīrānī (pp. 37-110) established that many of the lines of the lampoon had either been taken from the Šāh-nāma itself or are too weak to be consistent with Ferdowsī’s style. He thus concluded that either the Hajw-nāma was fabricated after Ferdowsī’s time (p. 55) or that if Ferdowsī had indeed penned such a satire, it disappeared and the origin of what we have today is a mystery (p. 103). However, there is reason to suspect that Šīrānī may not have been entirely objective in his judgment, since his article was intended to be a defense of the Ghaznavid ruler rather than a critique of the Hajw-nāma. Jalāl-al-Dīn Homāʾī has suggested that Oṯmān Moḵtārī’s mention at the end of his Šahrīār-nāma (written between 492-508/1098-115, predating Čahār maqāla by some fifty years) of his own reluctance to satirize his patron even if the latter would fail to reward him (Dīvān, pp. 788 n. 1, 832) might be an oblique reference to the hajw-nāma of Ferdowsī. Moreover, contrary to Šīrānī’s view, not all of the verses of the Hajw-nāma are from the Šāh-nāma, nor are all of them weak. Some of the lines are firm, substantial, and original (see for example the introductions to MS Istanbul, Topkapı Saray Kütüphanesi, Hazine 1479, dated 731/1331, and MS Cairo Dār al-kotob, 6006 sīn, dated 741/1340). Šīrānī is not, however, alone in his doubts about the lampoon; Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār was also skeptical about the authenticity of the entire poem (pp. 30-31).
Some scholars like Theodore Nöldeke (pp. 29-31), Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda (p. 80), Ḏabīḥ-Allāh Ṣafā (pp. 190-91), and Moḥammad-Amīn Rīāḥī (pp. 142-44) believed in the existence of the Hajw-nāma and the authenticity of some of its verses. Nöldeke (p. 29) felt that the use of the term “this book” in the Hajw-nāma showed that Ferdowsī appended it to the Šāh-nāma, thereby negating the various verses that praised Sultan Maḥmūd in the larger work. He suggested that, in accordance with Ferdowsī’s wishes, all of the verses panegyrizing Sultan Maḥmūd should be removed and replaced with the Hajw-nāma.
The opening verses of the Hajw-nāma, which are found in all manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma as well as in Čahār maqāla, indicate that the dispute between Ferdowsī and Sultan Maḥmūd was sectarian in nature. This is the same argument that Ferdowsī makes in the introduction to the Šāh-nāma (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 10-11), namely, his defense of the truth of Shīʿīsm to the exclusion of all other forms of Islam. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī also saw this as the reason for the sultan’s displeasure with Ferdowsī, which led to the composition of his lampoon of Maḥmūd. A verse in the Hajw-nāma (ed. Mohl, preface, p. 89, v. 8), suggests that certain people demeaned Ferdowsī in the eyes of the sultan, which agrees in some respects with the contention of Čahār maqāla (p. 78) that courtiers opposed to the grand vizier Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī (but cf. above, p. 517) were responsible for the sultan’s displeasure.
Ferdowsī’s Hajw-nāma is a rarity among Persian lampoons for its lack of obscenities. The modesty of Ferdowsī’s attack is entirely consistent with the decorum of the Šāh-nāma, which is another argument for its authenticity. Were it not for mild insults like “ignoble” (bad-gowhar) and “son of a servant” (parastārzāda) used in its more heated and some combative lines, the Hajw-nāma would lose its status as lampoon. The last verse (Mohl, ed., Preface, p. 92, v. 3), whether genuine or not, has proven prophetic: “The poet harmed in some disgraceful way/Will pen a dart that lasts till judgment day.” In the history of Persia, all the reports of Maḥmūd’s military conquests have not made him as famous as Ferdowsī’s Šāh-nāma. By the same token, all the blood the sultan shed has not made him as infamous as the poet’s putative Hajw-nāma.
Bibliography (for cited works not given in detail, see “Short References”): M.-T. Bahār, Ferdo wsī-nāma-ye Malek-al-Šoʿarā Bahār, ed. M. Golbon, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966. Th. Nöldeke, Das iranische Nationalepos, Berlin and Leipzig, 1920; tr. B. ʿAlawī as Ḥamāsa-ye mellī-e Īrān, 3rd ed., Tehran, 1357 Š./1978. Bahāʾ-al-Dīn Oṯmān Moḵtārī, Dīvān, ed. J. Homāʾī, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962. M.-A. Rīāḥī, Ferdowsī, Tehran, 1375 Š./1996. Ḏ. Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa-sarāʾī dar Īrān, 4th ed., Tehran, 1363 Š./1984, pp. 186-91. M. Šīrānī, Čahār-maqāla bar Ferdowsī wa Šāh-nāma, tr., ʿA.-Ḥ. Ḥabībī, Kabul, 1355 Š./1976. S. Ḥ. Taqīzāda, “Šāh-nāma wa Ferdowsī,” in Hazāra-ye Ferdowsī, Tehran, 1322 Š./1943, pp. 17-107.
(DJALAL KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH)
iii. MAUSOLEUM
PLATE I
PLATE II
PLATE III
The Ferdowsī mausoleum (Ārāmgāh-e Ferdowsī), a monumental tomb in Ṭūs, Khorasan, was built between 1928 and 1934 and remodeled in 1969. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūẓī, when Ferdowsī died in 411/1019-20, a religious leader of the town prevented his burial in the Muslim cemetery of Ṭūs, and the poet was interred in his own garden, located inside the town of Ṭābarān near the Razān gate (Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī, text, p. 83, comm., pp. 245-46; Minorsky, p. 980; see also Shahbazi, 1991, p. 103). According to a tradition reported in the introduction to an abridged manuscript of the Šāh-nāma preserved in Berlin, Abu’l-Ḥāreṯ Arslān Jāḏeb, the Ghaznavid governor of Ṭūs, built a domed mausoleum over Ferdowsī’s tomb (bar marqad-e Ferdowsī qobba-ī sāḵt; apud Taqīzāda, pp. 245-46). Neẓāmī ʿArūżī visited the tomb in 510/1118 (Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī, text, p. 83), and in 892/1482 Dawlatšāh Samarqandī (q.v.) reported (ed. Browne, p. 54): “At the present time his noble tomb (marqad-e šarīf-e ū) is well known, and pilgrims visit it to seek boons.” Despite repeated destruction of Ṭūs by Turks, Mongols, Uzbeks, and Tīmūr, Ferdowsī’s tomb remained a venerated site. In about 1000/1592, Qāżī Nūr-Allāh Šūštarī wrote (II, p. 609): “His tomb is nowadays well-marked and celebrated, people from all realms, particularly the Imami Shiʿites, make pilgrimage to it (zīārat-e ū bejā mīāvarand). The present writer also has had the honor and blessing of visiting it (be šaraf-e zīārat-e ū mošarraf wa fāʾez šoda).” In 1822 a small “dome ornamented with lacquered tiles” was still standing (Fraser, p. 519), but even this was gone by 1883 (Minorsky, p. 980; Curzon, Persian Question I, p. 174). In that year ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Khan Āṣaf-al-Dawla Šīrāzī, governor of Khorasan, discovered the tomb and began to erect a brick structure over it but was unable to complete the project (Minorsky, p. 980; Šāhroḵ, p. 163).
The rise of nationalism in Persia early this century motivated scholars and dignitaries to urge the government to build a suitable mausoleum for the poet who had done so much to preserve Iranian identity and history. Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (q.v.) wrote several articles on the necessity of the project and urged Reżā Khan (later Reżā Shah) to prove his asserted nationalism by building a mausoleum. “Otherwise,” he wrote, “we, the people of Khorasan, will do it ourselves” (p. 449). At the initiative of Arbāb Kayḵosrow Šāhroḵ, the nationalist representative of the Zoroastrians in the Majles, the newly established Anjoman-e āṯār-e mellī (q.v.) put out a leaflet inviting the public to participate through financial contributions or a lottery in the construction of an appropriate mausoleum for Ferdowsī, “who has no superior among great Iranians” and who “constitutes a pillar of Iranian nationalism.” Šāhroḵ was commissioned to visit Ṭūs and locate the site of Ferdowsī’s tomb. He succeeded in finding the tomb by consulting literary sources, investigating the ruins of Ṭūs, and interviewing elderly locals who still remembered A@ṣaf-al-Dawla’s structure (Šāhroḵ, pp. 161-64; Ṣadīq, II, pp. 202-3). Construction of the tomb started in 1928, under the supervision of Šāhroḵ, and was finished in 1934, in time for Ferdowsī’s millenary celebration (q.v.). Karīm Ṭāherzāda Behzād provided an architectural plan, evidently following suggestions by the court minister ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Teymūrtāš (Ṣadīq, II, p. 203; according to Šāhroḵ, p. 166, Teymūrtāš forced his views on the Anjoman). But this proved impractical and work consequently proceeded according to a plan and gypsum miniature model submitted by André Goddard (q.v.). The pyramid roof envisioned in this design cracked and collapsed soon after construction and was replaced by a stepped-pyramidal roof planned by Behzād (Šāhroḵ, pp. 164-71). Situated in a garden of fruit trees measuring 25,248 m2 (endowed by its owner, Nāʾeb al-Tawlīya Qāʾem-maqāmī, and later enlarged to some 30,000 m2). The structure was erected by Ḥosayn Ḥajjār-bāšī Zanjānī and Ḥosayn A@qā Lorzāda, and the masonry came from the Ḵallaj marble quarry near Mašhad (Šahroḵ, pp. 165-66, 171). The appearance of the monument was reminiscent of buildings at Persepolis and the tomb of Cyrus the Great (q.v.) at Pasargadae. It consisted of three parts: (1) An innermost section centered around a two-stepped marble platform on which lies the cenotaph, a marble slab (150 x 100 cm) some 50 cm high. (2) A square (16 x 16 m) chamber built of dressed marble and ornamented on the interior with faience work. Four tall columns with double-headed bull capitals rise on the corners of the chamber supporting the highly ornamented stepped-cornice. Each wall is further decorated with a pair of similar but shorter engaged columns which are joined by stepped-lintels to form pseudo-doorways. The Persepolis traits are further indicated by the image of a winged man (which in Achaemenid art represented the Royal Fortune but which is popularly known as the Forūhar symbol: Shahbazi, 1974, 1982) carved on the upper part of the south wall of the chamber. The cornice supports an entablature that is turned inward to form a square base for a wall 100 cm high, which itself tapers inwards to create a smaller square on which rests the uppermost wall, again 100 cm high, carrying the roof. Eight columns surrounding the aforementioned innermost-platform rise half way up to carry a roof and form two upper and lower corridors within the chamber. (3) An outer stepped-platform of dressed marble, on which stands the chamber.
Many inscriptions (engraved by Ḥasan Zarrīn-ḵaṭṭ) and sculpted scenes (carved by Šaʿbān Pūrjaʿfarī) adorn the monuments. Most texts are verses from the Šāh-nāma and carved on walls. The epitaph inscribed on the tomb-stone may be rendered in English as follows: “In the name of the Lord of life and wisdom [this is a distich which opens the Šāh-nāma]. This auspicious site is the resting place of the most eminent of Persian poets and the composer of the Iranian national saga, Ḥakīm Abu’l-Qāsem Ferdowsī of Ṭūs, whose words are the resurrector of the country of Iran and whose grave is eternally revered by the people of this land. Date of birth 323; date of death 411; date of construction of the mausoleum 1353.”
Thirty years after the raising of this monument it became necessary to rescue it from dampness and provide it with sufficient space. Under the supervision of the architect Hūšang Seyḥūn, the Ministry of Culture and Art (Wezārat-e Farhang wa honar) enlarged the mausoleum in the following manner. The solid floor of the original chamber was hollowed out and the area beneath expanded on all sides to form a hall measuring some 900 m2, with an entrance from the west and walls decorated with glazed tiles or plaques of inscriptions and sculpted scenes representing stories from the Šāh-nāma. At the same time the garden was expanded on all sides, covering an area of 56,753 m2, and the site was provided with restaurants, hostels, and a library. A statue of the poet was also erected southeast of the monument, and the entire complex was officially “opened” in April 1968 in time for the first annual congress of Ṭūs, which was devoted to the study of Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma.
Ferdowsī’s mausoleum has assumed the sanctity of a national shrine. One of the most photographed sites in Persia, it has also appeared as the designs on many handicrafts as well as on stamps and official currency. As recently as 1992-95 it served as the reverse design of the 10 rial coins minted by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Bibliography: Edāra-ye koll-e ḥefāẓat-e āṯār-e bāstānī wa banāhā-ye tārīḵī-e Īrān, “Arāmgāh-e ḥamāsasarā-ye bozorg-e Īrān, Ferdowsī,” Honar o mardom, nos. 153-54, 1354 Š./1975, pp. 152-66 (a detailed but somewhat confused account, which, with necessary corrections, forms the basis of the present description). M.-T. Bahār, “Qabr-e Ferdowsī,” Nawbahār-e haftagī 13/28-29, Tehran, 1301-2 Š./1922-23, pp. 434-35, 449-50. J. B. Fraser, Narrative of a Journey into Khorasan in the Years 1821 and 1822, London, 1825. V. Minorsky, “Ṭūs,” in EI1 IV, pp. 974-80. Qāżī Nūr-Allāh Šūštarī, Majāles al-moʾmenīn, Tehran, 1336 Š./1957. ʿĪ. Ṣadīq, Yādgār-e ʿomr, 4 vols., Tehran, 1340-2536 (1356) Š./1961-77, II, pp. 201-5, 210-11. A. Sh. Shahbazi, “An Achaemenid Symbol I-II,” AMI, N. S. 7, 1974, pp. 135-44; 13, 1980, pp. 119-47. Idem, Ferdowsī: A Critical Biography, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1991. Kayḵosrow Šāhroḵ, Yāddāšthā-ye Kayḵosrow Šāhroḵ, ed. J. Ošīdarī, Tehran 2535=1355 Š./1976. S. Ḥ. Taqīzāda, Ferdowsī wa Šāh-nāma-ye ū, ed. Ḥ. Yaḡmāʾī, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970.
(A. SHAHPUR SHAHBAZI)
IV. MILLENARY CELEBRATION (JAŠN-E HAZĀRA)
By the early 20th century, European studies (particularly by Mohl and Nöldeke) about Ferdowsī and his achievement, and French, German, and English renditions of the Šāh-nāma had made Ferdowsī a household name in the scholarly circles of Europe (Shahbazi, pp. 10-13). Persians, aware of these developments and spurred by the patriotic sentiments motivated by the Constitutional Revolution (q.v.) and the works of fervently nationalistic poets and scholars, began to voice the necessity of the official recognition of Ferdowsī as the true “resurrector” (after the Arab conquest of Persia in the 7th century) of Iranian identity. This movement was led by four notable nationalists: Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda, the statesman and scholar, who not only made the research of Theodore Nöldeke and others available in Persian but also contributed substantially to Ferdowsī studies; Kayḵosrow Šāhroḵ, the highly respected representative of the Zoroastrian community in the Majles; Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (q.v.), the most influential poet of the time and a politician-journalist; and Moḥammad-ʿAlī Forūḡī (q.v.), the erudite prime minister. Already in 1922 Bahār urged Reżā Khan (later Reżā Shah), who had recently seized power, to prove his asserted nationalism by celebrating Ferdowsī and building a worthy mausoleum for the “resurrector of Iranian national identity and people” (zenda konanda-ye mellīyat-e o nežād-e Īrān; Bahār, 1922-23, pp. 434 ff.), while Šāhrok, ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Teymūrtāš,ò and others explored the best way to achieve such a goal. By 1933 Reżā Shah was persuaded, despite angry protests from fanatical anti-Ferdowsī groups (Bahār, p. 449-50; cf. Šāhroḵ, pp. 164 ff.) to arrange for an official celebration of Ferdowsī’s millenary. Nöldeke had calculated Ferdowsī’s birthdate to be 934-35 (in Grundriss, p. 151) and Taqīzāda strongly favored this date (pp. 7-12), which meant the dating of the millenary to be 1934-35. Jules Mohl (pp. XXII ff.) and Bahār (pp. 760 ff.), however, had demonstrated that the birthdate was 939-40 (for the exact date, 3 January 940, see Shahbazi, pp. 27-30), which favored the holding of the millenary in 1939/40. Forūḡī settled in favor of 1934: “The hazāra of Ferdowsī in any rate coincides with these current years. A few years earlier or later makes no difference” (1933, p. 757).
The celebrations were held in Tehran, Mašhad, and Ṭūs (where the Ferdowsī mausoleum, q.v., was inaugurated in 1934) and lasted for nearly a month. Simultaneously, various state officials and scholars in the Soviet Union, France, Britain, U.S.A., Germany, Egypt, Iraq, and a number of other countries held festivities in universities, clubs, and embassies, and various publications (see below) were dedicated to the study of Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma. The gathering of some one hundred distinguished scholars as well as many dignitaries of various nationalities in Tehran and Mašhad was a most beneficial event for Iranian studies in general and for research on Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma in particular. The Persian delegation, comprised of forty members, was led by Forūḡī (who delivered the inaugural speech) and included, among others: Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār, Aḥmad Bahmanyār, ʿAbbās Eqbāl (q.v.), Naṣr-Allāh Falsafī (q.v.), Badīʿ-al-Zamān Forūzānfar (q.v.), Jalāl-al-Dīn Homāʾī, Aḥmad Kasrawī, Mojtabā Mīnovī, Saʿīd Nafīsī, Ḥasan Pīrnīā, Ebrāhīm Pūr-(e) Dāwūd, ʿAbd-al-ʿAzīm Qarīb, Ḡolām-Reżā Rašīd Yāsamī, Moḥammad-ʿAlī Tarbīat, and Ḥasan Waḥīd Dastgerdī. The elder statesman Moḥtašem-al-Salṭana Ḥasan Esfandīārī (q.v.) was appointed honorary chairman of the congress, ʿĪsā Ṣadīq served as its coordinator, and Arthur Christensen (q.v.), ʿAbd-al-Wahhāb ʿAzzām, and Henri Massé as its secretaries. Forūḡī, ʿAlī-Aṣḡar Ḥekmat, and Šāhroḵ accompanied Reżā Shah during his visit and played host to the large gathering (Šāhroḵ, pp. 171-73). After Persia, the Soviet Union sent the largest delegation, which included Iosif Orbeli, A. A. Freiman, Yuri N. Marr, and Evgenĭ E. Berthels (q.v.). In addition, the Soviet Union presented the people and government of Persia with reproductions, which had been manufactured by a galvanoplastic technique from actual specimens in the Hermitage, of eleven Sasanian and post-Sasanian plates; a facsimile of a Šāh-nāma manuscript dated 711/1333; and a number of books on Sasanian metalworks. (The plates were kept in the Īrān-e Bāstān Museum until 1973, when the present writer, serving there as the curator of the Classical Department, was ordered by the court to send half of them to what was then the Šahyād Museum. This was done after the author’s departure in 1974.) Vladimir Minorsky, the Russian-born Iranologist, came from London. Other distinguished participants included Denison Ross, Jan Rypka, Bedrich Hrozny, Arthur Christensen, Henri Massé, André Godard, Fuat Köprülü, Ḥādī Ḥasan (q.v.), Behramgore Anklesaria (q.v.), and Jamshedji Unvala (a full list of the participants may be found in Ṣadīq, ed., 1943, pp. 1-3;(see also PLATE IV).
An important outcome of the Ferdowsī millenary was the publication of a large number of scholarly works on Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma (see bibliography). A year before the millenary, Moḥammad Ramaẓānī published the Šāh-nāma in Tehran in 5 volumes (based on T. Macan’s edition) with an introduction by Rašīd Yāsamī. Sayf Āzād edited and published the Šāh-nāma and illustrated it with pictures of ancient kings inspired by Achaemenid and Sasanian sculptures (4 vols., Berlin, 1934-35; see Forūḡ, pp. 6-7). Just in time for the millenary, Massé’s Firdausi et l’épopée nationale appeared (Paris, 1934), which synthesized previous studies in a convenient form. A collection of articles by Bahār on Ferdowsī’s life and works and the chronology of the Šāh-nāma was published in Isfahan in a special issue of Bāḵtar monthly (q.v.; Bahār, 1934). Another one, containing mainly the papers presented by various Persian scholars to the congress, formed a special issue of Mehr monthly (2/5, 1313 Š./1934) as Ferdowsī-nāma-ye Mehr. A third collection by Armenian scholars appeared in Yerevan under the title Firdusi Žolovacus (Ferdowsī celebration), which included two fine articles by Melikʿ Ōhanǰanyan. A fourth collection by Soviet scholars was titled Ferdovsi 934-1934. Another collection of articles, Firdausi Celebration, was published in New York, which included a very valuable catalogue of the principle manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma then known. The French periodical Journal Asiatique devoted its 1935 volume to Ferdowsī, and Sayf Āzād commemorated the millenary in a special issue of his Īrān-e Bāstān (Berlin, 1936)
During the congress, Jan Rypka had expressed the opinion that the greatest service that the scholarly world could render to the Persian-speaking communities would be the publication of a critical and reliable edition of the Šāh-nāma (Forūḡ, p. 7). The Borūḵīm Publishing Company in Tehran tried to address this desideratum and published the complete text of the Šāh-nāma, based on Vuller’s edition, with page numbers of Macan and Mohl also noted, under the supervision of Mojtabā Mīnovī, ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Solaymān Ḥayyem (Haim), and Saʿīd Nafīsī (Yarshater, p. sīzdah). This edition was ornamented by illustrations by Darvīš Parvarda-ye Īrānī, whose novel style combined Persian miniature traditions with Armenian iconography and European realism. Moḥammad Qazvīnī edited and published the preface to ʿAbū Manṣūrī’s Šāh-nāma as “Moqaddama-ye qadīm-e Šāh-nāma.” Fritz Wolff made a lasting contribution with the publication of his Glossar zu Ferdosis Schahname, which was presented as a gift to the Persian people by the German ambassador (Ṣadīq, ed., 1943, Intro., p. 7). Of the papers read by the participants in the congress, thirty-three were printed (together with one sent earlier by Nöldeke, Taqīzāda’s articles originally published in Kāva in 1920-21, and Qazvīnī’s "Moqaddama-ye qadīm-e Šāh-nāma”) in Tehran in 1314 Š./1935, but publication was withheld until 1943 due to Reżā Shah’s displeasure with Taqīzāda (see Ṣadīq, 1966, pp. 216-17)3 under the title Ketāb-e hazāra-ye Ferdowsī (reviewed by Mīnovī). Forūḡī’s valuable lectures on Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma appeared in several periodicals in 1933-35 and much later were published in a separate volume (Forūḡī, 1972). These contributions greatly advanced Iranian scholarship, and led to the appearance of Ḏabīḥ-Allāh Ṣafā’s monumental work in 1942 (Ṣafā, Intro.), which contained a detailed critical evluation of all aspects of the Šāh-nāma and soon became the standard work in its field. Other millenary celebrations of Ferdowsī and the Šāh-nāma held in Tehran and Mašhad in the 1970s and 1990 will be discussed in entries under the Šāh-nāma.
Bibliography: Ī. Afšār, Ketāb-šenāsī-e Ferdowsī: Fehrest-e āṯār o taḥqīqāt dar bāra-ye Ferdowsī wa Šāh-nāma, Tehran, 2535=1353 Š./1974 (contains reproduction of program and other material related to the millenary celebration). M.-T. Bahār, “Qabr-e Ferdowsī,” Now bahār-e haftagī 13/2-9, 1301-2 Š./1922-23, pp. 434-35, 449-50. Idem, “Šarḥ-e ḥāl-e Ferdowsī az rū-ye Šāh-nāma,” Bāḵtar 1/11-12, 1313 Š./1924, pp. 748-829. E. E. Berthels, “Ferdovsi i ego tvorchestvo” (Ferdowsī and his creation), in Ferdowsi 934-1934, pp. 97-118. M. S. Dimand, “Firdausi’s influence on Persian art,” in D. E. Smith, ed., Firdausi Celebration 935-1935, New York, 1936, pp. 13-24. ʿA. Eqbāl, “Naqš o negār-e dāstānhā-ye mellī-e Īrān,” in Ṣadīq, 1943, pp. 151-96. M. Esḥāq, “Nofūḏ-e Ferdowsī dar Hendūstān,” in Ṣadīq, ed., 1943, pp. 149-50. Ferdowsi 934-1934, Leningrad, 1934. Ferdowsī-nāma-ye Mehr, Mehr 5/2, Tehran, 1313 Š./1934. Firdusi Zholovacus (Ferdowsī celebration), Yerevan, 1934. N. Ya. Marr, “Vazn-e šeʿrī-e Šāh-nāma,” in Ṣadīq, ed., 1943, pp. 188-97. K. Mełikʿ-Ohanjanyan “Firdusi yew Irani vipakan motivner ‘Šah-name’-um u hay matenagrut’yan meǰ,” in Firdusi Žolovacus, Yerevan, 1934, pp. 1-116. Idem, “Hay-iranakan Žolovrdakan vep,” ibid., pp. 157-230. M. Forūḡ, “Šāh-nāma-ye Ferdowsī,” Sīmorḡ, no. 4, 1976, pp. 3-19. M.-ʿA. Forūḡī, “Maqām-e arjmand-e Ferdowsī,” Armaḡān 14, 1312 Š./1933, pp. 745 ff. Idem, “Maqām-e Ferdowsī wa ahammīyat-e Šāh-nāma,” in Ṣadīq, ed., 1943, p. 16. Idem, Maqālāt-e Forūḡī dar bāra-ye Šāh-nāma wa Ferdowsī, ed., Ḥ. Yaḡmāʾī, Tehran, 1972. F. Macler, “Arménie et Chah-nameh,” JA, 1935, pp. 549-59. M. Mīnovī, “Ketāb-e hazāra-ye Ferdowsī wa boṭlān-e entesāb-e Yūsof o Zolayḵā ba Ferdowsī,” Rūzgār-e now 5/3, London, 1946, pp. 16-36. J. Mohl, Le Livre des Rois I, Paris, 1838. Th. Nöldeke, “Das iranische Nationalepos,” in Grundriss II, pp. 130-211; rev. ed. published seperately, Leipzig, 1920; tr. B. ʿAlawī as Hamāsa-ye mellī-ye Īrān, Tehran, 1948. I. Orbeli, “L’argenterie sassanide et le Shah-Nameh,” in Ṣadīq, ed.,1943, pp. 4-71.
M. Qazvīnī, “Moqaddama-ye qadīm-e Šāh-nāma,” in idem, Bīst-maqāla-ye Qazvīnī, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, 2 vols., Tehran, 1928-34, II, pp. 1-64. A. A. Romaskevich “Ocherk istorii izucheniya Shakh-name” (Sketches of the history of Šāh-nāma studies), in Ferdowsi 934-1934, pp. 13-50. ʿĪ. Ṣadīq, ed., Ketāb-e hezāra-ye Ferdowsī/The Millenium of Firdawsi, the Great National Poet of Iran, Tehran, 1322 Š./1943 (Pers. and non-Persian articles and a brief discussion in the Pahlavi language by A. A. Freiman). Idem, Yādgār-e ʿomr II, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966, pp. 201-33. Ḏ. Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa-sarāʾī dar Īrān, Tehran, 1321 Š./1942, 2nd rev. ed., Tehran, 1333 Š./1954. A. N. Samoilovich, “Iranskii geroicheskiĭ epos v literaturakh tiurkskich narodov Sredneĭ Azii” (The Iranian heroic poetry in the literature of Central Asian Turks), in Ferdowsi 934-1934, pp. 161-76. A. Sh. Shahbazi, Ferdowsī: A Critical Biography, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1991. D. E. Smith, “A Bibliography of the Principal Manuscripts and Printed Editions of the Šāh-nāma in Certain Leading Libraries of the World,” in idem, ed., Firdausi Celebration 935-1935, New York, 1936. S. Ḥ. Taqīzāda, “Ferdowsī,” Kāva, nos., 1-2, Berlin, 1920-21. P. B. Vachha, Firdousi and the Shahnama: A Study of the Great Persian Epic of the Homer of the East, Bombay, 1950. E. Yarshater, intro. to Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, pp. yāzda-hījda.
(A. SHAPUR SHAHBAZI)
V. HOMAGES TO FERDOWSĪ
Ever since the appearance of the Šāh-nāma, Ferdowsī has been held in high esteem, and many poets have referred to him and his work, the best known being Saʿdī’s tribute in the Būstān to “Ferdowsī-ye pāk-zād,” quoting a line from him even though the verse itself has not been found in the Šāh-nāma .
In recent times, beginning with the famous Ferdowsī celebrations of 1934, tributes in different forms have been paid to him by both government and private institutions. These include naming streets, squares, schools, libraries and foundations, and installing statues of him in different places. Among these are the following:
A statue of Ferdowsī donated by Parsees of India was formerly in Ferdowsī square in Tehran but was removed to a new location in the campus of the University of Tehran at the front of the Faculty of Letters and Humanities. At its original location, a new statue of the poet by Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣadīqī was placed in 1976. The city of Tehran presented the city of Rome with a statue of Ferdowsī by Ṣadīqī in 1966. It is in a small square also bearing the name of the poet (Pizzale Firdusi). In Tajikistan a statue of Ferdowsī was erected in a street bearing his name in 1992.
PLATE V
The poet’s name has been used in relation to many educational and academic institutions. Many schools in Persia and Tajikistan bear his name. The University in Mašhad, a lecture hall in the Faculty of Letters and Humanities of University of Tehran, and the National Library of Tajikistan in Dushanbe, are all named after him. The college library of Wadham College, Oxford, which contains a collection of Persian books and manuscripts, was also officially named the Ferdowsi Library in 1995.
The Ministry of Arts and Culture (Wezārat-e farhang o honar) instituted an organization called the Šāh-nāma Foundation (Bonyād-e Šāh-nāma) whose main brief was the preparation and edition of a critical edition of the Šāh-nāma. The organization was headed by the eminent scholar Mojtabā Minovī assisted by a number of scholars. A few sections of the book were published but the major task remained unfinished when the organization was disbanded after the 1979 Revolution. Minovī’s library, bequeathed to Bonyād-e Šāh-nāma, also contains a bust of Ferdowsī which was originally in the Ferdowsī library, attached to Ketāb-kāna-ye Mellī (The National Library). Recently Moḥammad Eslāmī Nadūšan has founded an organization the aim of which is to celebrate the poet and pay homage to his work.
Following the already mentioned 1934 celebrations, there have been many conferences specifically devoted to Ferdowsī and his poetry in Persia and other parts of the world. The series of conferences at Ṭūs in the seventies, the international conference held in Tehran after the 1979 Revolution (1990), major conferences in other Persian cities like Isfahan and Bandar ʿAbbās, and other recent conferences in Cologne (1990), at Columbia University, New York (1997), and at Harvard University, supported by the Ilex Foundation (1999), are examples of this perennial interest in the poet and his work among readers and scholars worldwide.
For further details see Supplement.
(EIr.)
|