Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:53:30.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rashīd al-Dīn and the Shāhnāmeh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

CHARLES MELVILLE
CHARLES MELVILLE*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridgecpm1000@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores some different, interrelated versions of the history of the Pīshdādiyān, the earliest dynasty represented in the Shāhnāmeh, especially the recently edited text of Rashīd al-Dīn's Jāmi‘al-tawārīkh. This is compared with Bal‘amī’s Persian version of the History of al-Ṭabari and Qāḍī Baiḍāwī’s Niẓām al-tawārīkh, of which the latter is shown to provide much the closer basis for Rashīd al-Dīn's work — especially when confronted with the manuscripts of the Jāmi‘al-tawārīkh contemporary with the life of Rashīd al-Dīn. Comparison with both the early Arabic and Persian witnesses of the work suggests that the printed edition does not represent Rashīd al-Dīn's original text, but later reworkings of his chronicle — such as that by the fifteenth-century historian, Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū — which draw more directly on the Shāhnāmeh. In so far as there is discernible subtext to Rashīd al-Dīn's coverage of these earliest periods of Iranian monarchical history, it is more to emphasise the didactic message of the Shāhnāmeh and the justice and constructive achievements of the first kings, than to follow Firdausī’s narrative. Despite the potency of idea of the Shāhnāmeh as expressing Persian kingly traditions, it is suggested that perhaps it was only after the time of Rashīd al-Dīn and the Islamisation of the Mongol rulers that historians appreciated and emulated the literary and narrative aspects of the text for their own sake.

Type
Part III: The Sources
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 1-2 , January 2016 , pp. 201 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Tārīkh-i Sāmāniyān va Būyiyān va Ghaznaviyān, (ed.) Ahmed Ateş (Ankara, 1957, reprint 1999); (ed.) M. Dabīrsiyāqī (Tehran, 1338/1959); (ed.) M. Raushan (Tehran, 1386/2007).

2 Tārīkh-i Āl-i Saljūq, (ed.) Ahmed Ateş (Ankara, 1960, reprint 1999); (ed.) M. Raushan (Tehran, 1386/2007).

3 Tārīkh-i Ismā‘īliyān, (ed.) M. T. Dānishpazhūh and M. Mudarrisī Zanjānī (Tehran, 1348/1969); (ed.) M. Raushan (Tehran, 1387/2008).

4 See esp. The Saljūqnāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nishāpūrī, (ed.) A. H. Morton (Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004), pp. 23-32; Mesiami, J. S., “Rulers and the writing of history”, in Writers and Rulers, (ed.) Gruendler, B. and Marlow, L. (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 73–95 Google Scholar; Daftary, F., “Persian historiography of the early Nizārī Ismā‘īlīs”, Iran 30 (1992), pp. 91–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 95.

5 Tārīkh-i Īrān va Islām, (ed.) M. Raushan, 3 vols. (Tehran, 1392/2013). I am most grateful to Ms. Shiva Mihan for bringing a copy of this for me in Tehran, and later reporting information from Dr Raushan that a fourth volume is in preparation with details of the editorial method, personal communication, November 2014.

6 The first draft of this paper was presented at the Shahnama Millennial conference in Cambridge in December 2010.

7 See e.g. Melikian-Chirvani, A. S., “Le Livre des Rois, miroir du destin. II – Takht-e Soleymān et la symbolique du Shāh-Nāme”, Studia Iranica 20 (1991), pp. 33–148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 54-74.

8 For an example of the extensive literature on this, see Adamova, A.T., Medieval Persian Painting: The Evolution of an Artistic Vision, translated and edited by J. M. Rogers (New York, 2008), pp. 1–29 Google Scholar.

9 See further, Hillenbrand, R., “The arts of the book in Ilkhanid Iran”, in The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353, (ed.) Komaroff, L. and Carboni, S. (New Haven and London, 2002), pp. 134–167 Google Scholar, esp. 155-167, and its references.

10 Melville, C., “The royal image in Mongol Iran”, in Every Inch a King, (ed.) Mitchell, L. and Melville, C. (Leiden, 2013), pp. 343–369 Google Scholar, esp. 351-359 and n. 49.

11 See e.g., Allsen, Thomas T., Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 83–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See “Jāme‘al-tavārik”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica XIV/5 (2008), pp. 462-468, for a general introduction.

13 Gray, Basil, The World History of Rashid al-Din. A Study of the Royal Asiatic Society Manuscript (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Blair, Sheila S., A Compendium of Chronicles. Rashid al-Din's Illustrated History of the World. The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, XXVII (London and Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

14 Talbot Rice, D., The Illustrations to the ‘World History’ of Rashid al-Din, (ed.) Gray, B. (Edinburgh, 1976)Google Scholar.

15 Ettinghausen, R., “An illuminated manuscript of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū in Istanbul. Part I.”, Kunst des Orients, 2 (1955), pp. 30–44 Google Scholar. Thanks to Sheila Blair for the loan of the microfilm, which I passed on to Stefan Kamola before fully exploiting it.

16 I am grateful to Professor Dr Zeren Tanındı for a handlist of the paintings it contains.

17 See in addition, Sara Güner Inal, “The Fourteenth-Century Miniatures of the Jāmi‘al-tavārīkh in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Hazine Library no. 1653”, PhD dissertation (University of Michigan, 1965); Sara Güner Inal, “Some miniatures of the Jāmi‘al-tavārīkh in the Istanbul, Topkapi Museum, Hazine Library no. 1654”, Ars Orientalis 5 (1963), pp. 163-175; Inal, Sara Güner, “Miniatures in historical manuscripts from the time of Shahrukh in the Topkapi Palace Museum”, in Timurid Art and Culture: Iran and Central Asia in the Fifteenth Century, (ed.) Golombek, L. and Subtelny, M. (Leiden, 1992), pp. 106–115 Google Scholar; Richard, F., “Un des peintres du manuscrit Supplément persan 1113 de l'Histoire des Mongols de Rašīd al-Dīn identifié”, in L'Iran face à la domination mongole, (ed.) Aigle, D. (Teheran-Paris, 1997), pp. 307–320 Google Scholar.

18 With the notable exception of a series of studies by Felix Tauer.

19 H. 1653: Jahn, K., Die Chinageschichte des Rašid ad-Din (Vienna, 1971)Google Scholar; Die Frankengeschichte des Rašid ad-Din (Vienna, 1977). H. 1654: Die Geschichte der Kinder Israels des Rašid ad-Din (Vienna, 1973); Die Indiengeschichte des Rašid ad-Din (Vienna, 1980). Idem, Die Geschichte der Öguzen des Rašid ad-Din (Vienna, 1969), is based on Istanbul, Süleimaniye Ms. Bagdat 282.

20 Accessible at: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_7628. I am most grateful to Dr Bruno de Nicola for drawing attention to this Ms. at the study day at the British Library on 30 October 2014 and illustrating the note on the calligraphy of Bāysunghur (fol. 410v). Although I had long been aware of it, I had never seen the manuscript and overlooked it when I started work on this paper.

21 E. G. Browne, “Suggestions for a complete edition of the Jami‘u'tawarikh of Rashidu'd-Din Fadlu'llah”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (January 1908), pp. 17-37, at p. 18; Rieu, C., Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, I (London, 1879), pp. 74–78 Google Scholar.

22 See below.

23 Tauer, Felix, “Les manuscrits persans historiques des bibliothèques de Stamboul: I”, Archív Orientalní, 3 (1931), pp. 87–118 Google Scholar, at pp. 97-98. Raushan used it for his edition of the Mongol history (4 vols., Tehran, 1373/1994), IV, p. 2974; in his edition of the section on the Khwarazmshahs, Tārīkh-i salāṭīn-i Khwārazm (Tehran, 1389/2010), pp. sīzdah-pānzdah, he recognises it to be an element of the Majma‘ al-tawārīkh-i sulṭāniyeh by Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, a later recension of his Majmū‘eh; cf. Woods, J. E., “The rise of Tīmūrid historiography”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46/2 (1987), pp. 81–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 97; Subtelny, M. E. and Melville, C., “Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica XI/5 (2002), pp. 507–509 Google Scholar.

24 RJT, III, p. 1556. The majority of variants are marked with the siglum sl (Süleimaniye).

25 RJT, III, p. 1525.

26 See e.g. Sāmāniyān, pp. shānzdah–bīst-o chahār; Salāṭīn-i Khwārazm, pp. nuh–sīzdah.

27 The currently unidentified Gulistan Palace Ms. proves from the variants cited in vol. III to be closer to the ‘original’ Persian text than Damad Ibrahim Pasha 919.

28 Raushan, RJT, intro. p. bīst-o yek; Raushan also edited the BTT, Tārīkhnāmeh-yi Ṭabarī, 5 vols. (Tehran, 1378/1999).

29 They are, however, in the Manchester Ms. 406, f. 2v, with variations. Ms. 406 mainly mirrors Raushan's text in this respect.

30 BNT, pp. 14-15; RJT, pp. 69-70.

31 Subtelny, Maria, “Between Persian legend and Samanid orthodoxy: accounts about Gayumarth in Bal‘ami's Tarikhnama ”, in Ferdowsi, the Mongols and the History of Iran. Art, Literature and Culture from Early Islam to Qajar Persia, (eds) Hillenbrand, R., Peacock, A.C.S. and Abdullaeva, F. (London, 2013), pp. 33–45 Google Scholar, at pp. 38-39. The parallel contexts are the appropriation of Persian (and Islamic) traditions for the Samanid regime and the repackaging of the same for the new Mongol power about 350 years later. We may also note the ‘coincidence’ that the earliest surviving complete text of Bal‘amī including the pre-Islamic sections is dated 702/1302; ibid., p. 34.

32 Firdausī, Shāhnāmeh, (ed.) Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh, I (New York, 1987), p. 24 (hereafter SN).

33 BNT, p. 16.

34 E.g. RJT, pp. 82-84.

35 Ibid ., p. 85; Manchester Ms. 406, ff. 3v-4r.

36 Add. 7628, ff. 5r-v.

37 BTT, p. 88.

38 SN, p. 41.

39 BNT, p. 16; RJT, p. 86.

40 RJT earlier, p. 85, refers also to the Tārīkh-i ‘ajam.

41 RJT, pp. 87-95.

42 RJT, pp. 75-76; cf. BTT, p. 84.

43 SN, p. 29 and the variants on p. 30, which suggest that the establishment of Sadeh is a later accretion.

44 Add. 7628, f. 5v.

45 RJT, p. 96.

46 RJT, pp. 96-101.

47 Ms. Add. 7628, ff. 5v-6r. Discrepancies with the Arabic text in the Edinburgh Ms. Arab 20, f. 4v, are noted [in brackets].

48 Presumably Bishapur in Fars; cf. the variants in BNT, p. 17, n. 1. The localities is Isfahan – Jay, Mihrin, Saruyeh – are all mentioned in the historical geographies of the city, e.g. Muḥammad Mihdī, Niṣf-i jahān fi ta‘rīf al-Iṣfahān, (ed.) M. Sutudeh (Tehran, 1368/1989), pp. 139-141. See also the Mujmal al-tawārīkh wa'l-qiṣaṣ, (ed.) M. Bahar (Tehran, 1318/1939), p. 39, for an earlier account.

49 Text: bi-farmān; correctly in the Gulistan Palace Ms. (cited in the variants in JRT, III, p. 1563) and the Arabic version, Arab 20, f. 4v.

50 Cf. BTT, p. 86, applied to Hushang. The variants (see n. 49) again provide some better readings.

51 RJT, p. 102.

52 An attribute also of Hushang, SN, p. 31.

53 BTT, p. 89.

54 SN, pp. 35-37.

55 SN, p. 37, vv. 46-47.

56 These are however, as usual, in the Manchester Ms. 406, f. 6v.

57 SN, p. 41, vv. 3-4.

58 SN, pp. 41-42, vv. 10-13.

59 SN, p. 42, vv. 14-19, omitting v. 17.

60 SN, p. 36, vv. 20-23, with variants.

61 For these locations, see Mustaufī, Ḥamd-Allāh, Nuzhat al-qulūb, (ed.) Dabīr-Siyāqī, M. (Tehran, 1378/2000), p. 177 Google Scholar; there was a dam on the river Kur at Ramjird, ibid., p. 181.

62 BNT, pp. 17-18; Ms. Arab 20, ff. 4v-5r; BL. Add. 7628, f. 6r; a close copy of the 1317 Persian text in Ms. H. 1654, ff. 4v-5r: cf. Inal, “Miniatures in historical manuscripts”, pp. 103-104, Fig. 2.

63 SN, p. 43, vv. 35-42, omitting vv. 39, 41.

64 RJT, pp. 107-108.

65 BTT, pp. 90-91.

66 RJT, p. 109.

67 Closely echoing BNT, p. 18 and Arab 20, f. 5r; H. 1654, f. 5r and Add. 7628, f. 6r.

68 SN, p. 45, vv. 73 (very different) and 74.

69 SN, p. 51, vv. 174-182, omitting vv. 176, 179 and 182.

70 RJT, pp. 112-13; verses not traced so far in Ṭūsī, Asadī, Garshāspnāmeh, (ed.) Yaghmā’ī, H. (Tehran, 1317/1939)Google Scholar.

71 SN, VI, (ed.) Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh and M. Omidsalar (New York, 2005), pp. 440-445.

72 R JT, pp. 113-15; for the bridge, Arab 20, f. 5r; H. 1654, f. 5r; BL. Add. 7628, f. 6r; none of which, however, mention Ardashir; neither does Mujmal al-tawārīkh, p. 40. Earlier accounts of many of the details associated here with Jamshid, including his ring and the invention of wine, are noted in “Jamšid I. Myth of Jamšid”, and “II. Jamšid in Persian literature”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, XIV/5 (New York, 2008), pp. 501-522 (P.O. Skjaervo) and 522-528 (M. Omidsalar), esp. pp. 504-505, 509, 523-526.

73 Subtelny, p. 36.

74 BTT, p. 93. See further, van Zutphen, Marjolijn, Farāmarz the Sistāni Hero. Texts and Traditions of the Farāmarznāme and the Persian Epic Cycle (Leiden, 2014)Google Scholar, esp. pp. 24-25, 91-91.

75 JT, pp. 116-118, 120-124.

76 See Kh. Bayani's thorough introduction to his second edition of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū’s Zail-i Jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh (Tehran, 1350/1971), pp. 29-35. The similarity extends to the preliminary passages on the uses of history, in RJT, pp. 10-23, composed by Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū and not present in the contemporary mss. of the Jāmi‘ al-tawārīkh.

77 Cf. Add. 7628, ff. 6v-8r.