Iranian Influence on Moslem Literature, Part I

by Konstantin Aleksandrovich Inostrantzev

The principal value of Tabari's compilation consists in the extremely exhaustive presentation of the history of Islam from the first appearance of the Prophet; no other Arabic work in this respect can compare with his. The pre-Islamic history comprises, may be, a twentieth portion of the whole work and gives a very groat deal of what we would rather be without. Of the highest moment, however, is the tolerably detailed section on the history of the Sasanides and their times embodied in it, and whose German translation forms the text of our book. This section goes back partly to good Arabic records and mostly, at least mediately, to very important ancient Persian sources. But the stories from the mythological and historical traditions which appear scattered in Tabari in proceeding sections have a cognate origin. If the criticism of the sources is here very much facilitated on the one hand, because these orientals where they excerpt love to adhere, as far as possible, to the letter of their models or sources, it is on the other, rendered difficult because Tabari does not mention his immediate authorities. Only in reports of theological interest, to which the whole of the history of the growth of Islam belongs, he proceeds to indicate his sources with precision; otherwise he cites at the best an old authority come down to him only obliquely, and in most cases none at all. Throughout the Persian history he never names an authority, barring Hisham, whom he quotes here and there and who was an acknowledged authority in another province of tradition.

[Sidenote: Story of Persia based on indigenous original work.]

[Sidenote: Occasional identity of Firdausi and Tabari.]

The story of Persia from the first mythical Kings to the last of the Sasanides exhibits in Tabari, as in allied Arabic works, a certain similarity of conception and presentation which leads to the assumption of an indigenous original work at least respecting a very large portion. Now the Shahnameh of the great poet Firdausi, a national epic of the kind which no other people possess, while it on one hand, apart from the poetic license indulged in by Firdausi, contains much that is either not found at all or is essentially differently related in Arab writers; on the other, considerably accords with those Arab annalists in the order, in the whole structure, and in the details of the narrative. Indeed the poet often reproduces almost the identical phraseology of the historian. But now since according to both tradition and internal grounds Firdausi's bases were not Arabic books, the coincidence must be explained from a common ultimate source. The original work has been reflected to us in Tabari and other Arabs as well as Firdausi through a series of intermediate texts. To judge by the express statements and suggestions as also by various features in style and phraseology and further by all that we are aware of touching the circumstances of the literature we can say with certainty that, that original work like all other Persian narrative productions of the Sasanides and of the period of Arab conquest was composed in the written, language of this period, the Pahlavi. The most important connected presentment of Persian history in Pahlavi to which our reports go back is no doubt the Khoday Nameh, i.e., the "Book of Lords" a title which answers to the subsequent Shah Nameh or "Book of Kings."

Hamza mentions that name. The prose introduction to Ferdausi says that the "Book of Kings" was written first of all at the instance of Khushrau I Anoshirwan, but that the complete story was compiled only under Yazdegerd III by the Dihkan Danishwar. This work which it would not be too bold to identify with the Koday Nameh began with the primeval king, Gayomarth, and reached down to the termination of the reign of Khushrau II, surnamed Parwez. Although this introduction to Ferdausi dates but from the fifteenth century, and as for details is disfigured by inaccuracies and fictions, I attach weight to what it indicates respecting the time of its composition. In fact the concord of the narrative in the various sources reaches down to the death of Parwez and then abruptly ceases; while there are no vestiges to demonstrate that the completion of the original work was brought about subsequent to the victory of the Arabs. And the legitimistic nature of the story Is especially in keeping with the times when usurpation and insurrections of all sorts had run their course, and when the people looked forward with, the inauguration of the rule of the youthful grandson, of Parwez, who was crowned at the sacred place where the dynasty took its rise, to an era of prosperity to the ancient monarchy,—a hope which was fearfully crushed with the loss of the battle of Kadisiya towards the close of 637. Again the replies made by the imprisoned king which have been reproduced in different sources suit the times of the Yezegerd who descended from Khusrau II and not Sheroe, Khusrau's brilliant career despite its shady side strongly contrasted with the period ushered in by the patricide. A small piece of writing which depicts the first stormy years of Khusrau's domination in a romantic fashion seems to have arisen about the same time.

I am less certain about the name Danishwar. It was probably an adjective signifying "possessed of knowledge." It was easy for anyone who knew from Firdausi that the landed nobility called the Dihkan constituted the peculiar custodians of national lore to name a "learned Dihkan" as the collector of the stones of kings.

The compilation prepared at the time had undoubtedly drawn upon written documents without which It would have been impossible to give minute particulars of a long by-gone past. Besides the brief notices communicated by the Syrian Sergius to Agathias from the Basilika apomnemoneiumata are in the main in unison with our Arabo-Persian stories. Thus then in Khushro's time there existed a general survey of the history of Persia more or less in an official version. But otherwise there is no need to lay stress on the mention of Khushrau here, for all manner of things beneficial and good are ascribed to this king.

[Sidenote: Nature of the Khoday Nameh.]

The book of kings contains, as we said, the story of Persia from the creation of the world to the fall of the last purely national domination. It made no distinction between wholly mythical, semi-fabulous, and fully historical dynasts, so that the Arabs and Persians who drew upon it never suspected that e.g., Hoshang and Rustam are not such historical persons as Shahpur I and Bahram Chobin. But in the material itself we notice a conspicuous difference. The mythical tales which in their crude nascent forms were already there at the period of the Avesta were in course of time richly developed and under the Sasanides were no doubt universally known. To these were joined ecclesiastical speculation and traditions concerning the genesis of the world, civilisation and the legislation of Zoroaster. There were also several genealogical trees. In all these at the most a few proper names were historical. Of the empires of the Medes and of Persians proper this tradition had no knowledge. It is doubtful if it contained even quite a feeble reflex of the last days of the Achaeminides. On to this ancient autochthonous tradition was immediately joined the story of the last Darius and Alexander emanating from a foreign source, the Greek romance of Alexander. Not more than a few names was all that was preserved of the long period covering the Macedonian and the Parthian supremacy. With the Sasanides the national reminiscences became clearer. Round the founder of the dynasty were accreted, on the one hand, legends wholly fabulous and on the other, such as embodied excellent historical data. But the latter seem to be inadequately represented in the main work, the Khodayname. Again very few particulars were known of the reigns of the succeeding sovereigns down to Yezdegerd I. In the chapters which correspond to those of the old Book of Kings just this want of actual information, it seems, the compilers strove to veil behind rhetorical accounts of scenes of homage done to the rulers, imperial speeches from the throne, etc. For the following ages on there was, in general, good, partly very authentic information. But this entire presentment did not concern itself solely with veracity. The Iranians who from very remote antiquity extravagantly lauded truth, had in reality never any great sense of it. The Khoday Nameh and kindred productions were unfairly biassed and rhetorical. The ornamental and figurative ingredients are indicated even by the Arabic reproductions, though the latter are greatly condensed. A classic testimony to it has been kindly communicated to me by Baron Von Rosen which is a passage from a Petersberg manuscript of Albayan Wattabyin of Jahiz in which the Shuubiya or the Persians, who, though Muslims placed their nation above the Arabs say: "And he who is interested in reason, fine culture, knowledge of ranks, examples and penalties, in elegant expressions and superlative thoughts, let him cast a glance at the History (more properly the Vitae) of Kings." History of the Kings, Siyar-ul Muluk, is the title of the Arabic rendering of the Book of Kings in Pahlavi. Compare likewise Hamza's remarks on the works on Persian history. I have laboured to show the partiality of the Persian tradition in the footnotes. The narrative is conceived in a monarchical and legitimistic spirit, but equally all along from the view point of the superior nobility and the clergy. Add to this the exertions to cry up as much as possible the glory of Persia which sometimes produces a strange effect. Moreover, there must have been no lack of contradictions as to facts as well as respecting estimates of personal character which was inevitable owing to the employment of varying sources. Nevertheless a work like this written under the Sasanides and familiar with the state of things obtaining in the empire and more or less of an official nature, must have been an admirable fount of history. There was hardly ever a better presentment of the story of this house than the Khoday-Nameh.

[I have translated the entire passage from the since printed text. See p. 170.—G.K.N.]