Lately, a research oriented book full of scientific findings of a turbulent period in the history of Iran has been published. This book is called “Shahnameh and the end of the Sassanids,” written by Dr. Zagros Zand, a university professor. With his time-consuming and methodical insights, he has expanded the scope of our knowledge and reminded us of the historically rare values of the Shahnameh. In various parts of his book, Dr Zand testifies that “Ferdowsi’s historiography shows his discernment in narrating historic details”. His historiographic research and the effort he has put into writing such a prolific and groundbreaking book produces a lasting impact on the reader.
Dr Mahmoud Afshar’s endowed publishers have published this book. Our suggestion to Shahnameh lovers is not to miss reading the book “Shahnameh and the End of the Sassanids.” Dr. Mahmoud Afshar Endowments Publications published this book. A group of the country’s best scientists and scientific writers select books for publication in this foundation. This is another sign of the scientific values of the book “Shahnameh and the end of the Sassanids.” We are grateful to Dr Zagros Zand for answering some of our questions about the historical importance of the Shahnameh.
The first question that I think should be prioritized is how much do we need the Shahnameh to reconstruct and recognize the history of the Sassanids?
Some Sassanid scholars have already considered this issue, and they have pointed out that Shahnameh is a valuable source. Most of them have used Shahnameh in their research. Like Shapoorshahbazi and Dr. Pourshariati, and Dr Khaleqi Motlagh who, in their notes about Shahnameh, have discussed and pointed out that Shahnameh is a useful source for understanding the history of the Sassanids. But knowing that there are data and narrations in Shahnameh that are sometimes mythical, sometimes concise, sometimes long, and occasionally unique and are not found in other historical sources requires studies and analyses that have not been done completely.
Sassanid scholars have said that some narrations of the Shahnameh in comparison with other historical books, about the names of cities and people and the year of events, are not baseless and may be more accurate than others narrations. However, if you asked them for a reason, they could not answer. Some of them did not pay much attention to the Sassanid section of Shahnameh and the historical values of this text or looked at it hastily and only said that the narration of Shahnameh is correct if it is mentioned in other historical texts and if not, then it should be considered as a literary narration. This can be considered as an emotional look by Iranians towards their historic past.
However, you could find these two approaches in Sassanid scholars. But I have said in my book that we should know that if Shahnameh is a reliable source for understanding the Sassanids and is equivalent to the history of Tabari and other history texts, so then we should use Shahnameh in our Sassanid period studies. But if Shahnameh is a narrative for national pride, then we should consider to place it in the literary genre. We should also clarify this, and this is what I have done in my book “Shahnameh and the end of the Sassanids”: with an honest approach. It is true that in writing the book, I had hypotheses and presuppositions and relied on what others and I had done. However, I have compared Shahnameh data, in detail, with other sources I could find about the last years of the Sassanid, in pre-Shahnameh historical documents. In some parts, I have come to the conclusion that Shahnameh narration is in line with other sources, and in other parts, I have said that it is not. If a narration in the Shahnameh is different or not found in any other sources, I have proved that Ferdowsi has narrated events faithfully and has not let his judgement interfere.
It seems that the narrations of Shahnameh are derived from the Sassanid Khodaynameh through one medium (Shahnameh of Abu Mansouri). Does this mean that in Shahnameh, we are confronted with official, monarchical, and even class-oriented narratives?
The answer is yes and no. But it should be noted that the narration in Shahnameh is not the same as the narration in Khodainameh. If we take a wholesome look into Shahnameh, parts of the history of “Zal”, Rostam, and Sohrab and have not been in the Sassanid Khodaynameh (letter of the kings). Or parts of the end of the Kiyanids, which coincide with the end of the Achaemenids and Alexander and the beginning of the Parthians, have probably been from another source and the “Alexander Letter.” This section is also thought to have been in the Epistle. Another point is that we did not have one Kodaynameh in the Sassanid period, and there are different types of Khodaynameh.
Some of the Khodaynameh writers may not have had a monarchical approach, while others may have had a Zoroastrian religious approach or a heroic and aristocratic approach to Parthian families. These are speculations that come to mind because research on Khodaynameh is still a big question and vague, and no final answer has been found. Due to this same variety of Khodaynameh in the Sassanid period the sources from the Islamic period are not consistent in narration of events. We would not have so many different narrations if there was one Khodaynameh.
This period is a period of profound and sometimes extensive political, social and religious changes. So, there is no doubt that the history that Ferdowsi or even Daghighi or Saalebi or Masoudi or dinvari or Tabari wrote, however much they may have tried to be close to the facts, but due to the political upheaval, their subconscious minds could not be same as the mind of a writer from the Sassanid period.
This is a critical debate that is linked to the philosophy of language and philosophy of narration. With this in mind can we still consider Shahnameh to be narrated from the Khodaynameh? No, not at all. To assume that Ferdowsi had the same approach and the same conclusion as the court secretaries of Anoushirvan and Khosrow Parviz is undoubtedly wrong; it is not so. But, we know that Ferdowsi didn’t write history based on his own ideology or narratives of the confused stories of his time. Therefore, we can say that Shahnameh, collectively, we see a big, hard and stable core and a variable shell, color and glaze that is changed over time.
If you compare Shahnameh with Nezami Ganjavi’s works, you will understand this better. Nezami has used a story or a narration from ancient Iran, but the narrations are like wax in his hand. He has involved his literary and linguistic creativity and his own objectives with such skill that only with a lot of caution and scrutiny will you be able to find some signs of the ancient Iran, and guess what was the story that Nezami is trying to narrate. We quickly understand that Ferdowsi was trustworthy in Abu Mansouri’s Shahnameh. Only in the beginning and end of the stories did he bring his philosophy and worldview.
I should add here that I think for answer to many of the questions we have about Ferdowsi and his Shahnameh we should go one step back, to Abu Mansouri and his team of compilers, led by Moameri; which means that we should ask why they chose certain references and left some out. Which narration have they added and which have they left out? What political, social, and class aspirations did the compilers of Abu Mansouri Shahnameh have if they wanted to gain identity independence from the Samanids in the political sphere? But since Abu Mansouri’s Shahnameh has been destroyed and nothing but its preface is available, our knowledge about this is very little, and we are forced to speculate.
It is mostly for this reason that I am posing such a question, because the judgements made in Khodaynameh about characters like Shahrbaraz, seem to be sharp and directional. In Ferdowsi’s shahnameh, too, this sharp judgement is reflected. Perhaps we can assume that Shahrbaraz was more or less popular among the people, and not the rulers. With this in mind, can we be so skeptical that the Shahnameh narrative about the end of the Sassanids is not far from class directions?
Fortunately, because we have other historical texts, we see in many places that the approach and conclusions of the Shahnameh about characters of different periods are not much different from other sources before it. For example, characters such as Mani, Mazdak, Shahrbaraz and others are not different from the texts written before the Shahnameh (such as the historiographies of Tabari, Yaqubi, Dinvari and others). Those who, like Ferdowsi, did not use Abu Mansouri’s Shahnameh and add other translations of Khodaynameh, which were either taken from Ebn Moqaffa’s translation or other texts of the Sassanid period, and when we see that the Shahnameh is in line with these texts and differs only in details, we can conclude that they did not come to change historical figures at will or for their own political and some class guided.
Thus, the general judgement and official views from the Sassanid period (whatever they were) have been more or less transferred. Of course, this is a difficult debate and it is necessary to look into each subject separately and also the available documents. Others also agree to this. For example, Dr Khaleghi has compared the different sources and found that the similarities outweighed the differences. Incidentally, this is one of the excellent reasons in many places to realize that Ferdowsi was faithful to the sources.
Because if it were not so, he could manipulate the narrations, increase or decrease them, or change the narrations according to the color and glaze of the time. But fortunately, he did not do so. We can even say that changes were made mostly during the Sassanid period. For example, the view that the Sassanids had of the Parthians, or the class struggle that existed, and the manipulations made by the priests of that period, during which Mazdak was shown as an evil man, occurred more in the different Khodaynameh’s and transferred to the next era.
We have various sources about the end of the Sassanid rule written by Iranian historians such as Tabari, Yaghoubi, or Masoudi. However, you have mentioned that “Shahnameh is the most Iranian historical text” in your book. What does this mean?
The first is that they have details that may not be available in all sources. That is why all narratives are valuable. For example, Massoudi has taken many events from Tabari and written summaries. But when you look at Tabari’s history, Masoudi’s narration has not made us needless of Tabari and other older sources. Sometimes, there are some narrations that we do not find in the old texts, but they exist in the later ones. For example, it is Majma al tavarikh or in other texts. We think that the later narrations are not created by the writer but taken from a source which has disappeared and not found any more. Therefore, none of the texts make us needless of the others sources, and all Arabic and Persian histories, poems and prose, and even the most recent ones are used to reread the history of the Sassanids.
The second point is that Ferdowsi, in comparison with other historiographers, lived in a place and at a time when he could have more independence in writing. For example, Tabari sat in the court of the Islamic Caliphate and wrote history. It is clear that, like any other court historian, in the field and political arena in which power prevails, he has written history and, inevitably, had on bend towards that side. Although Tabari has not lost his Iranian identity and has served Iran a lot, he first considers himself a Muslim in the court and then an Iranian. Perhaps the history of Islam is essential to him in the first place, and then the history of Iran. His works show the same. In his book, “History of the Messengers and the Kings,” it is true that Iran is an integral part of his writings, but he wrote the history of the world and as part of it, wrote the history of Iranians and the Semites.
Another is the language issue. When a historian writes his work in Arabic we must admit that he did it with an Arabic and Islamic mindset. But, Ferdowsi wrote the Shahnameh somewhere in Khorasan with the support and power of a semi-independent and semi-established ruler named Kanarangian in Tus. The Kenargans claimed to be Iranian and wanted to break free from Turkish and Arab domination, and were very interested in keeping Iranian customs and lifestyle. Ferdowsi himself was from an Iranian class and family, and was a farmer. He was a nationalist and was proud of the ancient Iranian customs. Hence, I believe that he is the most Iranian historian from the point of view of thought, worldview, class and politics, and the language and style he has used in poetic historiography. Not to think he is a racist. By that I mean guarding Iranian customs and values, writing about the Iranians’ ancient history and in this way trying to prevent its destruction and oblivion. I have never said that because Ferdowsi is more Iranian than others, his narration is better. I have described him as a historian. Iranianism also has consequences; Sometimes it is good and sometimes (if it is racist) wrong. This is what we need to keep in mind when analyzing history.
Another issue that can better explain the points I mentioned is about the fall of the Sassanids and invasion of the Arabs. Look at the surge of Ferdowsi’s feelings, as an Iranian, when recounting the Arab attack and the collapse of the Sassanids, you will find that he spoke more openly, boldly, and explicitly than any other writer. Dinvari and others may have felt the same thing in their hearts, but why not reflected in their texts? Because they lived in a place and time and administrative, social, and political conditions, they could not express themselves frankly.
Tabari was sitting in a place where the victory of the Arabs was considered as a good thing, but where can you find such an impression in the Shahnameh? From this aspect, Shahnameh is a book that is looking upon the world from the heart of Iran and considers the Arab invasion as an attack on Iranian borders.
