Filologie medievali e moderne 19 Serie orientale 4

e-ISSN 2610-9476 ISSN 2610-9468

# **Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition** Two Characters: Farha¯d and Turandot

Paola Orsatti

**FARHA¯D AND TURANDOT**

—

ORSATTI

**Edizioni** Ca'Foscari

Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition

# Filologie medievali e moderne Serie orientale

Serie diretta da Antonella Ghersetti

19 | 4

# Filologie medievali e moderne

# Serie occidentale

#### Direttore | General editor

Eugenio Burgio (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

#### Comitato scientifico | Advisory board

Massimiliano Bampi (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Saverio Bellomo † (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Marina Buzzoni (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Serena Fornasiero (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Tiziano Zanato (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

# Serie orientale

#### Direttore | General editor

Antonella Ghersetti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

#### Comitato scientifico | Advisory board

Attilio Andreini (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Giampiero Bellingeri (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Piero Capelli (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Emiliano Bronislaw Fiori (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Daniela Meneghini (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Antonio Rigopoulos (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Bonaventura Ruperti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

e-ISSN 2610-9476 ISSN 2610-9468

URL http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/collane/filologie-medievali-e-moderne/

# Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition

Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot

Paola Orsatti

Venezia **Edizioni Ca' Foscari** - Digital Publishing 2019

Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition. Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot Paola Orsatti

© 2019 Paola Orsatti per il testo

© 2019 Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing per la presente edizione

Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Qualunque parte di questa pubblicazione può essere riprodotta, memorizzata in un sistema di recupero dati o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma o con qualsiasi mezzo, elettronico o meccanico, senza autorizzazione, a condizione che se ne citi la fonte.

Any part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission provided that the source is fully credited.

Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing Università Ca' Foscari Venezia Dorsoduro 3246, 30123 Venezia http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it |<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1a edizione ottobre 2019 ISBN 978-88-6969-354-0 [ebook] ISBN 978-88-6969-355-7 [print]

Certificazione scientifica delle Opere pubblicate da Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: tutti i saggi pubblicati hanno ottenuto il parere favorevole da parte di valutatori esperti della materia, attraverso un processo di revisione doppiamente anonima sotto la responsabilità del Comitato scientifico della collana. La valutazione è stata condotta in aderenza ai criteri scientifici ed editoriali di Edizioni Ca' Foscari.

Scientific certification of the works published by Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: all essays published in this volume have received a favourable opinion by subject-matter experts, through a double anonymous peer review process under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the series. The evaluations were conducted in adherence to the scientific and editorial criteria established by Edizioni Ca' Foscari.

Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition. Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot / Paola Orsatti — 1. ed. — Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing, 2019. — 116 p.; 23 cm. — (Filologie medievali e moderne; 19, 4). — ISBN 978-88-6969-355-7.

4**4** URL http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/libri/978-88-6969-355-7/ DOI http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-354-0

### 5Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition

Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot

Paola Orsatti

### Abstract

This book gathers together two essays. The first deals with the origins of the character of Farhād, the unlucky lover of Shīrīn, who ‒ in the Persian narrative tradition ‒ digs a route through Mount Bīsutūn and accomplishes other admirable works. The essay suggests that Farhād, as we know him from long narrative poems, historical chronicles, and reports by geographers and travelers, is the issue of a conflation between the legendary character of the Master of Mount Bīsutūn and a historical personage, Farrahān, the general-in-chief of the Sasanid king Khusraw II Parvīz's army (r. 590-628 EC), as this figure was re-elaborated in a number of later legends.

The second essay identifies a character named 'Būrān-dukht' as the prototype from which Turandot, the heroine of the tale well-known in Europe from Puccini's opera (1926), springs. Two historical personages, both called Būrān or Būrāndukht, are relevant in this line of development: the first is the daughter of the Sasanid king Khusraw II Parvīz (r. 580-628 CE), who was queen of Persia for a short period (630-631 CE); the other is the daughter of Ḥasan b. Sahl, wife of Caliph al-Maʾmūn (813-833 CE).

**Keywords** Persian narrative tradition. Origins of literary characters. Turandot. Farhād. Farrahān Shahr-barāz. Niẓāmī. Būrān-dukht. The Turandot tale.

To my husband Mansoor Farahpoor from Hamadan painter and sculptor, and to all my Iranian family

### 9Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition

Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot

Paola Orsatti

## Table of Contents

### Preface 11

### PART Ι FARHĀD, FARRAHĀN, AND THE KING OF SYRIA

### 1 19 Farhād the Master 19

1 Introduction. – 2 The Backdrop of the Character and His Name. – 3 Farhād in the Sources. – 4 Farhād and Ṭāq-i Bustān. – 4.1 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Romantic Tradition. – 4.2 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Historical and Geographical Tradition. – 5 Farhād as a Constructor of Channels. – 6 Farhād and Mount Bīsutūn. – 7 Farhād as Enamoured of Shīrīn. – 8 Farhād as a Foreigner: His Social Status and Fatherland. – 9 Conclusions.

### 2 General 'Farhād' 41

1 Introduction. – 2 Towards a Second Farhād: Farhād in the Mujmal al-Tavārīkh. – 3 The Hypotheses on the Origins of the Character of Farhād. – 4 Farrahān Shahrbarāz. – 5 Farrahān Between History and Legend. – 6 Legendary Developments of the Figure of Farrahān Shahr-barāz; the King of Syria. – 7 Conclusions.

### PART ΙΙ THE ORIGINS OF TURANDOT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHARACTER FROM SHĪRĪN TO BŪRĀN-DUKHT

### 1 The Turandot Tale 63

1 Introduction: the Misogamist Woman and Her Riddles. – 2 The Eastern Prose Turandot Tales. – 3. Niẓāmī's Tuesday Tale.

### 2 Shīrīn and Other Figures of the Misogamist Woman in Persian Literature 69

1 Shīrīn, the Lady of the Castle. – 2 Shīrīn's Aunt Mihīn Bānū. – 3 Shīrīn and the Misogamist Handmaiden. – 4 Shīrīn and the Interdiction Against Sexual Intercourse Due to a Prediction.

### 3 75Būrān, the Daughter of Khursraw Parvīz 75

1 Shīrīn and Būrān. – 2 Būrān, the Wise and Combative Queen.

### 4 79Būrān, the Wife of Caliph al-Maʾmūn 79

1 Būrān's Historical Figure. – 2 The Development of the Character: the Postponement of the Union Due to the Bride's Indisposition.

### 5 85Būrān-dukht Back to Persia, and Her Association with Riddles and Enigmatic Expressions 85

1 Non-Verbal Riddles Though Objects: Niẓāmī's Tuesday Tale and the Pearls as Symbols. – 2 Niẓāmī ʿArūżī's Anecdote on Maʾmūn and Būrān in the Čahār Maqāla. – 3 Maʾmūn and Būrān in ʿAwfī's Collection of Anecdotes.

### 6 The Turandot Tale in Europe: 93 Origins of the Name 'Turandot' 93

1 The Name 'Turandot'. – 2 From Būrān-dukht to Tūrān-dukht. – 3 Conclusions: the Anecdote of Maʾmūn and Būrān and the Turandot Tale.

**Materials for a History of the Persian Narrative Tradition** Two Characters: Farhād and Turandot Paola Orsatti

# Preface

I gather here and publish together two essays relating to the study of characters in medieval Persian narrative literature.

The first essay deals with the origins of the character of Farhād, the unlucky lover of Shīrīn, who – in the Persian tradition – digs a route through Mount Bīsutūn and accomplishes other works whose remains are located in the area surrounding the ancient route linking Hamadan, in western Iran, with Qaṣr-i Shīrīn and Baghdad. In this study it is suggested that the literary character of Farhād is the issue of a conflation between the legendary character of the Master of Mount Bīsutūn and a historical personage, Farrahān, the general-in-chief of the Sasanid king Khusraw II Parvīz's army (r. 590-628 CE), as this figure was re-elaborated in a number of later legends. The second essay identifies a character named 'Būrān-dukht' as the prototype from which the Turandot of European tales (or at least her name) springs; and individuates two historical personages, both called Būrān or Būrān-dukht, as the historical-legendary figures from which Būrān-dukht /Turandot took her name and some of her features: the first is the daughter of Khusraw Parvīz, who became queen of Persia for a short period (630- 631 CE); the other is the daughter of Ḥasan b. Sahl, wife of Caliph al-Maʾmūn (813-833 CE).

Both studies have been conducted with the same method, and represent two parallel upshots of the same stream of research focusing on the transformation of historical or semi-historical figures into literary characters. Indeed, many of the literary characters studied here can be considered, at least in part, as transformations of historical figures – though it should not be forgotten that the treatment of 'historical' figures in medieval works is not exempt from legendary or ideologically-oriented re-elaborations, from the very beginning of their written transmission. Unlike other researches aiming at reconstructing a supposed 'historical kernel' from ancient legends, this research starts from literary characters and their possible historical or legendary kernel in order to understand their literary function in Persian literature.

In this research, the following texts, belonging to different literary genres, have been exploited: long narrative poems, historical chronicles, reports by geographers and travellers, works of *adab*. Taking due account of the differences between texts it is possible to reconstruct a better outline of a literary character, whose image has often come down to us as scattered in a myriad of fragments. The aim is that of contributing to a better understanding of the Persian medieval narrative tradition.

I studied the characters of the Persian narrative tradition – especially as this tradition is attested in long narrative poems in the Mathnavī form – by following the development of a character from one text to another. Indeed, my work moves from a reading of the texts aimed at noticing any possible intertextual references, in the belief that the meaning of a character in a given text can be better understood by analysing the function of the same character in other texts. Indeed intertextuality, intended both as a deliberate choice by an author and as an unconscious mechanism that determines the development of a narrative from one text to the other, plays an important role in Persian and other Islamic literatures, and may help explain the genesis of literary characters.

I have tried to avoid any possible subjective reading and interpretation by adopting a philological attitude towards the analysed texts. The merging of the Farhād of Mount Bīsutūn with the figure of Khusraw's general is attested by a passage from an early New Persian text quoted in the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, the *Pīrūz-nāma*, which speaks of a certain 'General Farhād' in connection with the stone works at Ṭāq-i Bustān. Given that in the *Mujmal* the same personage is also quoted among the important dignitaries of Khusraw Parvīz's court, as the general-in-chief of his army, 'General Farhād' in this text seems not to be just a lapsus or a mistake by the copyist. A number of legendary developments related to Farrahān ('Farhād' in the *Mujmal*), afterwards usurper of the throne of Persia, confirm this hypothesis: Farrahān is presented as the unrequited wooer of Queen Būrān – a figure which in some texts is partially interchangeable with Shīrīn. As to the name 'Turān-dukht', from which the 'Turandot' of European tales is thought to originate, this name is not attested in Islamic sources except as a misspelling (*taṣḥīf*) of the form 'Būrān-dukht'. The ensuing research, then, tries to answer the question: who exactly is Būrān-dukht?

In my reading of the texts a leading idea has been that of distinguishing the 'form' of a character, i.e. his name and formal role (often coinciding with his historical or legendary identity), from his narrative function. Indeed, different characters, with different names (as for example Shīrīn and the first Būrān, i.e. Khusraw's daughter), may play the same narrative function, and – in whole or in part – may merge into one another. Moreover, not rarely different characters may give birth to a single new or superordinate character on the basis of some of the features pertaining to the original, more or less historical, personages. It is for this reason that, in the second essay gathered in this book, devoted to the study of the character of Būrān-dukht, I consider the two historical personages called Būrān or Būrān-dukht, as well as a number of other different historical or legendary characters, such as Shīrīn and her aunt Mihīn Bānū, as having lent some of their features to the superordinate character of 'Būrān-dukht'; the latter being then a kind of label referring to a more general character formed by different features pertaining to different literary, legendary, or historical figures.

Indeed, another leading idea of this research is that only rarely literary characters do represent a simple and unanalysable phenomenon; most often they are composed of a set of narrative features (partially coinciding with the themes and motifs of the traditional typological analysis of the plots) which contribute to the outline of the character itself. In the different texts the various features of a figures (e.g. 'the woman delaying her wedding', 'the woman who resorts to riddles and enigmatic expressions during intimacy', 'the unrequited suitor', etc.) may be put together in different ways, with emphasis on one or more features rather than on others; and can migrate from one character to another. Every new assemblage of narrative features may give birth to new characters and narrative developments, or to variants of the same character. I am going to explain what I mean by summing up some of the conclusions of my study.

Shīrīn is certainly not only the positive figure portrayed in Niẓāmī's poem *Khusraw va Shīrīn*. In Firdawsī's *Shāhnāma* she is an unsuitable bride for a king, a woman of low origins, who kills her rival with poison. Far from being a princess or a queen, she is only one of Khusraw's handmaidens in the historical chronicle by Balʿamī, and is one of the women of Khusraw's harem in the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*. She is an (at least initially) infertile woman in the Byzantine chronicle by Theophylact Simocatta and in an anecdote narrated, on the basis of a tradition reported by Ibn al-Kalbī, in the chronicle by Ṭabarī. The latter anecdote lets us even suspect her of being indirectly responsible for the Arab conquest of Persia. In the Persian moral literature (not analysed in these essays), she becomes an exemplum illustrating the advice that a king should never let a woman or one of his wives interfere in matters of the reign. On the other hand, in Niẓāmī's poem Shīrīn is the niece of Mihīn Bānū, and lives in a kingdom of women placed between Armenia and the city of Bardaʿ, in Arrān. Niẓāmī's assertion that Bardaʿ's ancient name was Harūm discloses another feature of the character of Shīrīn: indeed, Harūm was the name of the legendary country of the Amazons. Because of her location, and for some traits of her character, Shīrīn then also embodies the character of the misogamist woman. Only by retracing more ancient stages in the development of Shīrīn's figure is it possible to understand the different – often contradictory – features of her literary character in the different texts.

Būrān, or Būrān-dukht, Khusraw Parvīz's daughter and queen of Persia, is considered in historical sources as a wise and combative queen, equal to any man. In Ṭarsūsī's *Dārāb-nāma* the daughter of Dārāb – the last Persian king, defeated by Alexander – is quite surprisingly called Būrān-dukht; she refuses to marry Alexander and fights not against the Arabs, as Būrān does according to historical texts, but against Alexander and the Greek conquerors. Only the reference to the historical or semi-historical character of Būrān (Khusraw's daughter) may explain the character of Būrān-dukht in the *Dārāb-nāma*: both share the feature of being the daughter of the last Persian king before an epochal change in Iranian history. In the latter text Būrān-dukht even develops a fabulous feature: she has a slight moustache on her lip and looks like a man. Not only does she embody the type of the misogamist woman, but her feature of being a combative queen develops further into having a masculine aspect as well. In Jamālī's poem *Mihr va Nigār*  (805/1403), composed in response to Niẓāmī's *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, it is Būrān – though under the made-up name of Nigār – who is the heroine of the story. She is the Lady of the Castle – one of the features pertaining to the character of Shīrīn: she lives in an ancient castle in the desert, close to the royal court of Madāyin (the Qaṣr-i Shīrīn of tradition, of course) and cannot marry any man being bound by a promise to her cousin, who has in the meantime been kidnapped by brigands and has disappeared. This narrative development in Jamālī's poem explains the (initial) misogamy of Nigār/Būrān; otherwise, why should a princess live alone in a castle, refusing to marry? The character of Būrān, or Būrān-dukht, represents then another type of misogamist woman; indeed Būrān, who in Ṭarsūsī's *Dārāb-nāma* delays her wedding with Alexander, even rejects or kills her suitor in some legends analysed in the first essay, on the character of Farhād.

The other Būrān or Būrān-dukht, the daughter of Ḥasan b. Sahl and wife of Caliph al-Maʾmūn, is a cultivated and clever woman who, in later anecdotes, is able to suggest to the caliph something concerning her personal situation in an indirect and allusive way, thus managing to defer their union. Not only does she embody the feature of misogamy – which she shares with Shīrīn and the first Būrān – but her character is also connected with narratives involving the presence of enigmatic expressions, true enigmas, or non-verbal riddles through objects (as are the pearls in Niẓāmī ʿArūżī's tale about Maʾmūn's marriage with Būrān).

The anonymous princess in Niẓāmī's Tuesday tale in the poem *Haft paykar* (593/1197) represents the merging between the character of the misogamist woman, living alone in her castle (as Shīrīn, and Jamālī's Nigār do), and the anonymous heroine of a series of folk-tales which, from Persian and Turkish literature, arrive as far as Europe, in Pétis de la Croix's tale collection *Les Mille et un Jours* (1710-12). The presence of the pearls as symbolic objects in the mute, enigmatic exchange between the princess and her suitor may be a trace of a 'genetic' affinity, or derivation, of this beautiful tale from anecdotes revolving around the union between Būrān-dukht and Maʾmūn, especially as this anecdote is narrated by the other Niẓāmī, Niẓāmī ʿArūżī (551/1156 ca).

The bond connecting together all these characters – from Shīrīn, through the two Būrāns, until the princess in Niẓāmī's tale – may appear slight. However, only such a link allows us to understand the last anecdote analysed in the second essay, taken from ʿAwfī's collection of tales. This curious anecdote, revolving around Maʾmūn and Būrān, can be fully understood only in reference to Shīrīn's story as recounted by Ibn al-Kalbī/Ṭabarī.

As to Farhād, it is possible to trace not only the different features of the character, which correspond to different 'specializations' of his personage, but it is also possible to outline a chronology of their development – at least as far as the texts analysed for this research let us know – from that of being the Master of Mount Bīsutūn, to Farhād as the artist of the site of Ṭāq-i Bustān, until the romantic development of Farhād as enamoured of Shīrīn. Probably only in this last stage of development of the character was the influence of legends relating to Khusraw's general Farrahān relevant. A confirmation of the conflation between the two personages is offered by the character of 'The King of Syria' in late Persian poems of love and adventure – that represent a parallel and, probably, more ancient literary stream than that of Niẓāmī's poem *Khusraw va Shīrīn*. The King of Syria (in Khwājū Kirmānī's *Gul va Nawrūz*, composed in 742/1341), or the son of the King of Syria (in Salmān Sāvajī's *Jamshīd va Khwarshīd*, composed in 763/1372) cannot be other than a late re-elaboration of the character of Farrahān. From a functional point of view, however, he corresponds to Farhād in Niẓāmī's poem and the poems in response to the latter: indeed, he is the rival of the protagonist, corresponding to Khusraw in the other poems.

I would like to thank a number of colleagues and friends who helped me in this work: Claudia A. Ciancaglini, Mauro Maggi and Prods Oktor Skjaervo for their assistance with Middle Persian issues; Geraint D. Evans for having revised my English; and, above all, Angelo Arioli and Anna Livia Beelaert for their invaluable help in the redaction of this work, the first for his assistance in locating and, often, understanding the Arabic texts, the latter for having scrupulously revised a first draft of it, and for her friendly help on a number of thorny issues. I also thank Daniela Meneghini, who read this work giving me useful suggestions, and Antonella Ghersetti, for having accepted it in the series "Filologie medievali e moderne".

**Part Ι Farhād, Farrahān, and the King of Syria**

**17**

# 1 Farhād the Master

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 2 The Backdrop of the Character and His Name. – 3 Farhād in the Sources. – 4 Farhād and Ṭāq-i Bustān. – 4.1 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Romantic Tradition. – 4.2 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Historical and Geographical Tradition. – 5 Farhād as a Constructor of Channels. – 6 Farhād and Mount Bīsutūn. – 7 Farhād as Enamoured of Shīrīn. – 8 Farhād as a Foreigner: His Social Status and Fatherland. – 9 Conclusions.

#### 1 Introduction

This study aims to investigate the origins of the character of Farhād, starting from a brief review of the sources referring to him and the hypotheses put forward concerning the birth of the character and his name. The origins of this character, the *Kūh-kan* (Mountain Excavator) for love of Shīrīn in the Persian romantic tradition, seem to be quite recent.1 Indeed, unlike other more or less historical characters of the Persian narrative tradition, Farhād is unknown to the Byzantine, Armenian, and Syriac sources, as well as to the *Shāhnāma* and the earliest Arabic texts. He is first mentioned in Abū Dulaf's travelogue (in a passage dating from 340/951), and in the Persian adaptation of Ṭabarī's chronicle by Balʿamī (begun in 352/963 CE). The character of Farhād plays for the first time a significant role in the plot of Niẓāmī's poem *Khusraw va Shīrīn* (composed between 571/1176 and 576/1181, with later additions), and from there spreads into the Persian and Turkish narrative

1 On the character of Farhād, see the groundbreaking study by Duda, *Ferhād und Schīrīn*, in particular 4-11, on the history of the legend of Farhād and Shīrīn before Niẓāmī; and Aliev, *Legenda o Khosrove i Širin*, 73-81, who offers a review of the Persian and Arabic sources for this character. For other studies on the origins of the character see below. 'Romantic tradition' is used here in reference to the literary tradition of long narrative poems of amatory content, in the Mathnavi form.

tradition and in other literatures of the Islamic world.2 This poem, which narrates the love story between the Sasanid king Khusraw II Parvīz (r. 590-628 CE) and the beautiful Shīrīn, herself originally a historical character,3 is placed in a precise temporal frame: the period spanning from the troubled events that preceded Khusraw's accession to the throne of Persia (June 590) till his murder brought about by a conspiracy of noble-men (February 628) and the accession of his son Shīrūy or Shīrūya to the throne (Qubād II, r. February-September 628).

As will be shown, Farhād is a composite figure. In what follows, a survey of the different literary and non-literary (geographical or historical) sources is provided, in order to distinguish the different constitutive layers of the character. It should be stressed that the two types of sources cannot be rigidly separated, as there is a continuous interaction happening between literary and non-literary works.

#### 2 The Backdrop of the Character and His Name

The character of Farhād and its origins are closely linked to the area surrounding the ancient route linking Hamadan to Baghdad. This area is rich in the vestigia of past epochs of Iranian history (see **fig. 1** below). It stretches from the mountainous passage of Bīsutūn – with the relief and inscription of Darius and a number of other archeological remains4 – to the Sasanid site of Ṭāq‑i Bustān, some ten kilometers north-east of Kirmanshah, at the end of the western spurs of Mount Bīsutūn. This area also includes, further westwards, Qaṣr-i Shīrīn, a site – today in Iraqi territory – where the ruins of Sasanid buildings are still visible.5

The character of Farhād is also linked to the presence of springs and channels,6 and to the physical conformation of the territory: anyone travelling from Hamadan to Kirmanshah cannot but be struck – on ap-

2 See Duda, *Ferhād und Schīrīn*, 77-129; Burrill, "The Farhād and Shīrīn Story"; and Moayyad, s.v. "Farhād". A catalogue of authors following in the wake of Niẓāmī's poems, with a bibliography of their works, is given by Aliev, *Temy i sjužety Nizami v literaturakh narodov Vostoka*.

3 On the historical character of Shīrīn see Scarcia, *Scirin*; and Baum, *Schirin Christin – Königin – Liebesmythos*.

4 See Luschey, s.v. "Bīsutūn II. Archeology".

5 See Streck (J. Lassner), s.v. "Ḳasr-i Shīrīn"; Le Strange, *The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate*, 63.

6 For channels in the region around Kirmanshah see Schwarz, *Iran im Mittelalter…*, 480-1. Luschey, "Bisutun. Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte", 138, has identified a channel in the area of Bīsutūn as Farhād's legendary channel of milk (see also below, and fn. 53).

proaching Mount Bīsutūn – by the impressive profile of the mountain, which appears as if it had been cut vertically. Among the geographers writing in Arabic, al-Iṣṭakhrī in his *Kitāb masālik al-mamālik* (written around the mid-tenth century), writes: "Bīsutūn: an inaccessible mountain whose peak cannot be climbed. […] Its shape, from its highest to its lowest point, is as smooth as if it had been hewed";7 a description repeated – almost in the same words – by other subsequent authors.8

This area full of archeological remains is also connected to ancient literary traditions, such as the legend of queen Semiramis.9 The road linking Ecbatana (Hamadan), through Mount Bīsutūn, to the West, is called in Greek sources 'the road of Semiramis';10 and the name Mount Bīsutūn has in Arabic sources, *Sinn Sumayra* (The tooth of Semiramis), represents a meaningful survival of her legend.11 Semiramis is described in Greek sources (Ctesias of Cnidus as referred to by Diodorus of Sicily's *Bibliotheca historica*, II, 4-20) as a powerful queen, as strong and wise as a man, under whose orders a number of

10 See Eilers, "Semiramis", 20, 53 and 64.

7 Al-Iṣṭakhrī, *Kitāb masālik al-mamālik*, 230.

8 See for example al-Qazwīnī (thirteenth century) in his *ʿAjāyib al-makhlūqāt*, 154, s.v. "Jabal Bīsutūn".

9 On her legend in connection with the legend of Shīrīn see Eilers, "Semiramis", especially 47-67.

11 See Eilers, "Semiramis", 64 and fn.120a. Schwarz (*Iran im Mittelalter*, 4: 452) and Le Strange (*The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate*, 188), instead, wrongly consider the mountain called *Sinn Sumayra* by Arabic authors as a different mountain from Mount Bīsutūn.

engineering works were accomplished. Among them there is the construction of roads, bridges, and tunnels, and – in particular – a channel through Mount Alvand (Orontes) to bring water to Ecbatana. The relation between Semiramis and the character of Shīrīn, who commissions Farhād to build a channel to bring milk from the high mountain pastures to her castle, in the arid region of Qaṣr-i Shirin, is evident.12

The origins of the character of Farhād, therefore, are probably related to the natural characteristics of the area, and to the archeological remains and engineering works spread throughout the region. Farhād came to be considered the creator of all of them; a sort of *genius loci* who would explain the natural, artistic and engineering wonders, as well as – possibly – also bringing to mind a character in the ancient legend of Semiramis: that of Onnes, Semiramis's husband (see ch. 2, § 3).

As to the character's name, an interesting hypothesis has been put forward by Wilhelm Eilers. The New Persian proper name Farhād is generally explained as the issue of Middle Persian *frahād*, from Old Iranian \**fra-dāta*- (Young Avestan *fraδāta-* 'favored, enhanced').13 While recalling this etymology, Eilers also supposes an origin of the character's name from the past participle *frahaxt* 'educated, learned; the Master'; and conjectures a merging of the two etymologies. Indeed, the form *frahaxt* (written <frhht>, from *frahaxtan* 'to educate, teach, instruct') may have evolved into *frahāt* because of a phonetic change *‑axt* > *‑āt* attested in various Persian dialects; or may have been read *frahāt* through mere graphic confusion.14 According to Eilers, then, Farhād is not so much a proper name, as a title referring to the salient feature of this character: the Master.15

One of the questions still requiring further study concerns the possible bond between the Farhād of Mount Bīsutūn and the different, more or less legendary heroes bearing the same name.16 Indeed Fradāta, Фραδάτης/Фραάτης in Greek sources, is the name of a number of Parthian kings whose possible relevance for the birth and development of the character of Farhād has still to be ascertained in detail.17

17 Moayyad ("Farhād", 257) defines Farhād as one of "the Parthian princes who are transformed in the Iranian national epic into warrior-heroes at the Kayanian court", thus connecting the figure of Farhād with the homonymous heroes of the Kayanian myth.

12 Eilers, "Semiramis", in particular 53-4.

13 Gignoux, *Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique*, 86, no. 373.

14 Indeed, <hh> of the Pahlavi script can both represent *hx*, as in the participle <frhht> *frahaxt*, and *h'*, as in the reading *frahāt* supposed by Eilers.

15 Eilers, "Semiramis", 48-9 and fn. 85.

16 See Justi, *Iranisches Namenbuch*, 101-2, s.v. "Frahāta" [sic for *Fradāta*]. See also Wolff, *Glossar zu Firdosis Schahname*, 613, s.v. "Farhād1-3".

#### 3 Farhād in the Sources

Different sources, pertaining to different literary genres, have been reviewed in connection with the development of the character of Farhād.18 Among the Persian romantic poems, those analysed are (in chronological order): Niẓāmī's poem *Khusraw va Shīrīn*; Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī's poem *Shīrīn va Khusraw* (composed in 698/1299); ʿĀrif Ardabīlī's poem *Farhād-nāma* (771/1369); and Hātifī's poem *Shīrīn va Khusraw*, written between 889/1484 and 895/1490. Among early Arabic geographical and historical sources, some of which are earlier than Niẓāmī's poem, those of interest for this research are the abridged redaction of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī's *Kitāb al-buldān*, originally composed around 290/903,19 as well as the second *risāla* of Abū Dulaf, who travelled in Persia in the years 331/943-341/952.20 Later authors writing in Arabic generally limit themselves to repeating the accounts of Ibn al-Faqīh and Abū Dulaf.21 Moreover, the case of Zakariyā al-Qazwīnī's works ʿ*Ajāyib almakhlūqāt* and *Kitāb āthār al-bilād* (thirteenth century) is particularly significant in that they are by then so deeply influenced by Niẓāmī's narrative that they can probably be neglected in the study of the origins of the legend of Farhād.22 Among early Persian historical

18 I do not know any extensive research on the figure of Farhād in Persian lyrical poetry. According to H. Moayyad, one of the earliest references to Farhād in lyrical poetry is a line by Āġājī Bukhārī, a contemporary of Daqīqī (second half of the tenth century), quoted in the *Lughat-i Furs* (ed. ʿAbbās Iqbāl [Āshtiyānī], 382, s.v. "mītīn" 'axe, pick'), in which "the Samanid poet compares the alacrity with which his beloved rushes into his arms to the speed with which Farhād's chisel falls on Bīsotūn" ("Farhād", 257). This line (*ba tundī čunān ūftad bar bar-am/ki mītīn-i Farhād bar Bīsutūn*) is also quoted in recent anthologies of early poetry such as Maḥmūd Mudabbirī, *Šarḥ-i aḥvāl va aš*ʿ*ār-i šā*ʿ*irān-i bī dīvān dar qarnhā-yi 3-4-5-i hijrī-yi qamarī*, Tehran, 1370/1991, 195 (who refers to the *Lughat-i Furs*, *Ṣiḥāḥ al-Furs*, Surūrī's *Majma*ʿ *al-Furs*, and the *Farhang-i Vafāʾī*) and Aḥmad Idāračī Gīlānī, *Šā*ʿ*irān-i* ʿ*aṣr-i Rūdakī*, Tehran, 1370/1991, 158 (I thank Anna Livia Beelaert for these references); but is quoted neither in Gilbert Lazard's *Les premiers poètes persans (IXe–Xe siècles)*, Vol. 2: *Textes persans*, nor in other editions of Asadī's *Lughat-i Furs*, such as that by F. Mujtabāʾī and ʿA.A. Ṣādiqī. According to Dihkhudā, s.v. "mītīn", this line is also attributed to Rūdakī. In Dihkhudā's *Lughat-nāma* another line concerning Farhād's hard work with his axe, attributed to Farrukhī, is also quoted (*čandān-ki ba šamšīr-i tu bad-xwāh fakandī/ Farhād magar ki nafakand-ast ba mītīn*).

19 Textual problems concerning possible changes and additions by the eleventh-century editor of the work are not dealt with here.

20 See Minorsky, s.v. "Abū Dulaf, Misʿar b. Muhalhil al-Khazradjī al-Yanbuʿī".

21 See for example Yāqūt, *Mu'jam al-buldān*, 3 (1868): 250-3, s.v. "Shibdāz", and 4 (1869): 112-14, s.v. "Qaṣr Shīrīn".

22 See the report given by al-Qazwīnī, s.v. "Jabal Bīsutūn", in his *ʿAjāyib al-makhlūqāt*, 154-6; and in his *Kitāb āthār al-bilād*, 229-33 and 295-7, s.v. "Qaṣr Shīrīn". Concerning the story of Farhād the relationship between Niẓāmī's narrative and al-Qazwīnī's report should be studied in detail: al-Qazwīnī in both his *ʿAjāyib al-makhlūqāt*, 154, and in his *Kitāb āthār al-bilād*, 229, refers to "the chronicles of the Persians" (*tawārīkh al-*ʿ*Ajam*) as his source; and it is difficult that with this expression he could have meant Niẓāmī's

sources, the following are relevant: the Persian reworking of Ṭabarī's chronicle by Balʿamī (begun in 352/963 CE); the anonymous Persian chronicle *Mujmal al-tavārīkh va*ʾ*l qiṣaṣ* (composed in 520/1126 ca); and the *Nuzhat al-qulūb* by Mustawfī Qazvīnī (730/1340).

From these texts, different traditions concerning Farhād emerge, which correspond to different layers and different narrative features of this character.

#### 4 Farhād and Ṭāq-i Bustān

In her invaluable research on Ṭāq-i Bustān and the growth of the legend of Farhād, Priscilla Soucek reviews the early sources describing the site, and discusses the identity of the figures in the reliefs according to the sources, and the artist who sculpted them.23 The connection of Farhād with the site must be quite recent: in the current state of knowledge, Niẓāmī seems to be the first author explicitly attributing the realization of the Ṭāq-i Bustān reliefs to Farhād.24

### **4.1 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Romantic Tradition**

In Niẓāmī's poem Farhād is a twofold character.25 From one side he is a skilled sculptor and a master (*ustād*), an architect and engineer (*muhandis*), who had studied astronomy and geometry in China together with Shāpūr, Khusraw's counsellor and a skilled painter – Shāpūr himself introduces Farhād to Shīrīn in these terms.26 From the other side he is a workman, skilled in using his adze and endowed with extraordinary strength and a mountain-like body who, by Khusraw's order and for love of Shīrīn, digs a route across Mount

poem. Between Niẓāmī's and al-Qazwīnī's narrative some slight differences can also be seen. Al-Qazwīnī had a direct knowledge of the region of Mount Bīsutūn, whose area and archeological remains he also describes as an eyewitness.

23 Soucek, "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān".

24 Soucek ("Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 45) writes: "He [Niẓāmī] merged the traditions regarding the sculptor and workman of Ṭāq-i Būstān with those about Farhād, the noble lover of Shīrīn. Whether or not he was the first to attribute the carving of the sculptures at Ṭāq-i Būstān to Farhād, it was from his account that later authors drew and developed this theme".

25 The story of Farhād and Shīrīn occupies eight chapters (51-58) in Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ed. Tharvatiyān.

26 See Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 51, 15-21. In references to the text of Niẓāmī's poem the first cipher refers to the chapter in the Tharvatiyān edition, and the following to the number of the verse line(s) within each chapter.

Bīsutūn.27 Indeed, according to Niẓāmī, Khusraw – when informed of Farhād's love for Shīrīn – orders his rival to perform an impossible task, hoping to get rid of him: to cut a route through Mount Bīsutūn. Before setting about the task, Farhād sculpts the images of Shīrīn, Khusraw and Khusraw's famous horse, Shabdīz, on one side of the mountain (see **figs. 2-3** below), corresponding to the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān according to popular belief (Niẓāmī, however, does not mention any toponym).28 As already stated, this is, at present, the first attestation of the tradition according to which Farhād is the sculptor of these reliefs.

Niẓāmī's account, which locates the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān close to Mount Bīsutūn and to Shīrīn's castle (Qaṣr-i Shīrīn), shows that the poet had never seen the places he alludes to (see **fig. 1** above). Indeed Niẓāmī shows Farhād as working hard during the day and, in the evening, speaking to the stone image of his beloved (one of the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān), and looking towards her castle.29 Mustawfī Qazvīnī, in his work *Nuzhat al-Qulūb* (comp. 740/1340), voiced a criticism towards Niẓāmī for not having had any direct knowledge of the places described in his poem. Mustawfī underlines the fact that from the foot of Mount Bīsutūn to the *Ṣuffa-yi Shabdīz* 'Platform of Shabdīz' – as this author calls the site now known as Ṭāq-i Bustān – there is a distance of six parasangs (about 35 kilometers).30

While in the poems by Amīr Khusraw and Hātifī no mention is given of Farhād's connection with this site, ʿĀrif Ardabīlī's poem *Farhādnāma* (771/1369) clearly connects the character of Farhād with the main arched grotto and the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān (see **fig. 3** below).31 During a trip to Baghdad ʿĀrif had had the opportunity to see the area linked with the Farhād legend, and refers to the site as an eyewitness.32

ʿĀrif narrates what, according to him, is the true story of the *Kūhkan*, the Mountain Carver Farhād, and is openly critical of Niẓāmī's poem. He intends to present Farhād in a different light: Farhād is a foreigner, but is neither unsuccessful nor desperate; on the contra-

32 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 173, ll. 3627-3629. On ʿĀrif's biography see Ādhar, "Introduction to ʿĀrif Ardabīlī", pp. nuh-pānzdah [9-15]. In particular, on ʿĀrif's trip to Baghdad, cf. pp. čahārdah-pānzdah [14-15].

27 See Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 51, 29-30, and ch. 56. On the different aspects of the character of Farhād in the sources see Scarcia, "Alla ricerca di un Ur-Farhâd".

28 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 55, 42-44.

29 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 56, 1-13.

30 Mustawfī Qazwīnī, *The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb*, 193.

31 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*. The poem is attested by a single manuscript conserved in Istanbul (MS Ayasofya 3335). It was studied for the first time by Duda in 1933, and later edited with an introductory essay by ʿAbd al-Riḍā Ādhar in 1976. Summaries of the poems are given by Duda (*Ferhād und Schīrīn*, 86-97) and Sattārī, *Usṭūra-yi* ʿ*ishq va*  ʿ*āshiqī dar chand* ʿ*ishq-nāma-yi fārsī*, 53-64. See also Aliev, *Temy i sjužety Nizami*, 60-2.

**Figure 2** Ṭāq-i Bustān ‒ The reliefs in the front upper panel of the great grotto (drawing by Mansoor Farahpoor)

**Figure 3** The site of Ṭāq-i Bustān (drawing by Mansoor Farahpoor)

ry, he is a very skilled artist, proud and satisfied with his art.33 His love for Gulistān, in the first part of the poem (*Farhād va Gulistān*, ll. 1-2558), and for Shīrīn in the second part (*Farhād va Shīrīn*, ll. 2559-4364) is fully reciprocated.

Farhād is the son of the emperor of China (*Faghfūr*) and a skilful architect, calligrapher and painter. Dispossessed of his kingdom at his father's death by his paternal uncle, he seeks refuge in Abkhāz (Abkhazia), a region of Georgia replacing Niẓāmī's Armenia.34 His companion is Shāpur (Shāvur/Shāūr in this poem), a native of Abkhazia who had come to China to study painting.

Farhād had fallen in love with Gulistān (Rose Garden), the daughter of a highly skilled sculptor and stone-mason (*sang-tarāsh*) simply called Ustād (Master) in the poem, on the basis of the portrait Shāpūr had painted on the walls of a palace, while still in China. The Master and his family live in Abkhazia, in a beautiful garden called Khumistān, so called because of the presence there of numerous jars (*khum*) of wine connected to one another by channels bearing the wine to little basins – wine and wine-drinking being emphasized in relation to the Christian setting of the poem. According to ʿĀrif, Gulistān's name, too, was due to the fact that she was born in that garden. As the Master had promised his only daughter to the man who would prove his equal in stone-carving, Farhād accepts the challenge of learning the hard craft of stone-cutter out of love for Gulistān, and carves a statue, or a relief, of her. With this wonderful work Farhād is victorious over the other suitors to Gulistān's hand. The marriage covenant between the two young people is decided. The Master makes Farhād a gift of the garden of Khumistān and has a palace with a portico (*ayvān*) constructed for him, with a door opening onto the garden – a clear reference to the site of Ṭāq-i Bustān, though transposed in Abkhazia. Farhād, in his turn, builds there an arch (*ṭāq*), with the images of the King of Abkhāz sitting on a throne (he is Shīrīn's father, brother of Mihīn Bānū35), together with Shāpūr and Farhād on one side, and the Master in the act of entrusting Gulistān's hand to Farhād, on the other – again a loose reference to the reliefs in the front upper panel of the main arched grotto in Ṭāq-i Bustān. He decorates this magnificent vault with figures reproducing the wall-paintings in the palace Farhād had had built in China. Farhād is converted to Christianity and the two lovers marry. Thus ends the first part of the poem.

33 For this criticism, see especially ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 173-4, ll. 3635-3654.

34 In Islamic times the term 'Abkhāz' (Abkhazia), western Georgia, was used to refer to the whole country of Georgia. Cf. Giunashvili, s.v. "Abkāz".

35 Here Duda's summary of the poem should be corrected (*Ferhād und Schīrīn*, 90), as he asserts that Mihīn Bānū was the wife of the king of Abkhazia.

The culminating section of the poem's first part, therefore, is located in a garden (*bustān*), the garden of Khumistān, where Farhād builds a beautiful arch (*ṭāq*). In the poem there is no mention of the toponym 'Ṭāq-i Bustān', this archeological site being referred to as *Shabdīz* in the second part of the poem (l. 3627).36 However, the description of the arch in the garden, decorated with a series of figures, clearly alludes to the main arched grotto at Ṭāq-i Bustān and its reliefs. Also a number of linguistic hints (the garden is often referred to, with a hendiadys, as *bāgh u bustān*) seems to allude to this site and to the certainly corrupted name, Ṭāq-i Bustān, that has come down until today to refer to it (see below).37

In the first part of the poem, then, Farhād is explicitly identified as the author of what appears to be a replica, in Abkhazia, of the Ṭāq-i Bustān's reliefs. It is important to note that in ʿĀrif's poem not only is Farhād a foreigner – the son of the king of China – but his work is also described as inspired by foreign models: the reliefs of the arch in the Khumistān garden – had said the author – were a copy of the paintings in a palace in China. As to the Master, the father of Gulistān, he lives in Abkhazia, a Christian region. He appears as a duplicate, with geographical displacement (from China to Abkhazia) of the master who had taught Farhād and Shāpūr sculpture and painting, in Niẓāmī's poem. These elements: Farhād as the sculptor of the arch and its reliefs; the focus on the Christian milieu of the story; and the foreign (Chinese) inspiration of his work, point to important features in the origin of the Farhād legend (see ch. 2 below).

#### **4.2 Ṭāq-i Bustān and the Master in the Historical and Geographical Tradition**

Unlike the romantic tradition, early historians and geographers attribute the construction of Ṭāq-i Bustān and its reliefs to another personage, different from Farhād, whose name is variously given: Faṭṭūs or Qaṭṭūs (Ibn al-Faqīh),38 Qaṭṭūs (Yāqūt),39 Fuṭrūs (Zakariyā al-

36 'Shabdīz' is the toponym given by many Arabic geographers for the place now called Ṭāq-i Bustān. See for example the passage by Yāqūt referred to in note 21 above.

37 The hendiadys *bāgh u bustān* recurs many times in the first part of the poem. See for example ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, ll. 1081, 1298, 2495, and 2551, at the end of the first part of the poem. In the latter line, the first part of the poem is called 'the story of the Garden' (*nivishtam dāstān-i bāgh u bustān*).

38 Ibn al-Faqīh, *Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān*, 214,15 and 216,14 (French transl., 259 and 261).

39 Yāqūt, *Mu*ʿ*jam al-buldān*, 3: 250 and 251, s.v. "Shibdāz".

**Figure 4** Ṭāq-i Bustān ‒ The reliefs in the front lower panel of the great grotto (drawing by Mansoor Farahpoor)

Qazwīnī),40 Kīṭūs (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*).41 They describe the site when speaking of the town of Qirmāsīn/Qirmīsīn (Kirmanshah): among the wonders near the town, these authors mention the relief representing Shabdīz, the famous horse so beloved of Khusraw Parvīz (see **fig. 4**).

A short poem describing the beautiful arch of Ṭāq-i Bustān and its reliefs, quoted in Ibn al-Faqīh's *Kitāb al-buldān*, seems to provide a trace of an early legendary development concerning the Master who had created them – not yet identified with Farhād, however. The poem is ascribed to Aḥmad b. Muḥammad i.e., probably, Ibn al-Faqīh himself.42 In this poem it is told that, among the reliefs on the arch, Faṭṭūs had represented himself.43 It is possible – as supposed by Priscilla Soucek – that by the beginning of the tenth century legends concerning the sculptor of the reliefs were already circulating in the area.44

40 Al-Qazwīnī, *Kitāb āthār al-bilād*, 230. If Fuṭrūs is not the original name of the master, it may be a form adapted to represent the well-known Greek name, Pétros.

41 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl qiṣaṣ*, ed. Bahār, 79,15. See also the Berlin manuscript dated 751/1350, published in fac-simile: *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl qiṣaṣ. Nuskha-yi ʿaksī-yi muvarrakh-i 751 qamarī (kitābkhāna-yi Birlīn)*, f. 30*r*13.

42 Herzfeld, "Khusraw Parwēz und der Ṭāq i Vastān", 98.

43 Ibn al-Faqīh, *Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān*, 216,14 (French transl., 261).

44 Soucek, "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 43-4.

In his second *risāla*, edited, translated and commented on by Vladimir Minorsky, Abū Dulaf, speaking of the image of Shabdīz near Qirmīsīn, describes a relief or a statue, which has often been interpreted as referring to the character of Farhād: "Before the king [the "man on horseback made of stone"] there is a man with the appearance of an artisan with a bonnet on his head […] and in his hand he holds a *balkān* with which he is digging the earth". The interpretation of this description and the meaning of the word *balkān*, translated as 'spade' by some scholars, are controversial. Despite Minorsky's contrary opinion, it has often been taken as meaning that one of the reliefs, or a statue, at the site was popularly interpreted as representing – if not Farhād – a worker connected with the creation of the site.45

It should be noted that in the early historical and geographical sources here analysed, nowhere is the toponym Ṭāq-i Bustān attested. In the poem by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad (Ibn al-Faqīh) just referred to, the place where the famous arch is located is called Wastān (this is the vocalization given in the printed text).46 Paul Schwarz considers this form, which is glossed as "name of a village" in one of the manuscripts of Ibn al-Faqīh's work, as a shortened form for Bahīstūn/Bīsutūn.47 However, Bistām/Wistām as the name of a village near the site is also attested by two Persian sources. The first one is the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, which preserves what probably was the original name of the place, Bisṭām48 – though the author of the *Mujmal* wants to connect it with Bisṭām/Gustaham, Khusraw's uncle (see ch. 2, §§ 2 and 3).49 The other source is Mustawfī Qazvīnī's *Nuzhat al-qulūb*. The author writes: "Visṭām (var. Bisṭām): it is a big village facing the Ṣuffa-yi Shabdīz".50 Indeed, *Ṣuffa-yi Shabdīz* is the name Mustawfī uses in reference to the archeological site.51 The Arabic geographers generally refer to this site as *Shabdīz*, from the name of Khusraw's famous horse.

To sum up: Farhād as the artist of the reliefs of the site now called Ṭāq-i Bustān only appears in the romantic narrative tradition. This version of the Farhād legend is first given by Niẓāmī and then – in

45 Abū Dulaf, *Travels in Iran (circa A.D. 950)*, 45 § 34, and 92 (Minorsky's Commentary). On the identification of this figure as that of Mithra in the relief of Ardashīr II, see Luschey, "Bisutun. Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte", 138.

46 Ibn al-Faqīh, *Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān*, 216,2 (French transl., 261).

47 Schwarz, *Iran im Mittelalter*, 4: 488 fn. 1.

48 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl qiṣaṣ*, 79,15; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal altavārīkh*, f. 30*r*12.

49 On the presence of the proper name Bistām/Bisṭām as a place-name in different regions of Iran, especially of western and northwestern Iran, see Eilers, s.v. "Besṭām (or Bestām)". On Khosrow's uncles see ch. 2, §§ 2 and 3.

50 Mustawfī Qazvīnī. *The geographical part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb*, 109.

51 Mustawfī Qazwīnī. *The geographical part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb*, 108, 109, 193.

much greater detail – by ʿĀrif Ardabīlī. Instead, in the early Arabic sources and in the Persian *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, other names are recorded for the Master of Ṭāq-i Bustān.

#### 5 Farhād as a Constructor of Channels

Among the famous works accomplished by Farhād according to tradition only the construction of a channel to bring milk for Shīrīn is mentioned in all of the analyzed poems.

Farhād's excavation of a channel to bring milk from the fertile mountain pastures to Shīrīn's castle is first recounted in Niẓāmī's poem, where this work, commissioned by Shīrīn herself, is the first of the famous deeds accomplished by Farhād.52 After him, also Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī, in his poem *Shīrīn va Khusraw* (composed in 698/1299), recounts that Farhād was commissioned by Shīrīn to carve a channel for receiving milk at her palace – though, distancing himself from the other authors, Amīr Khusraw locates this work in the area of Mount Bīsutūn.53 At the beginning of the Farhād episode is the construction of a first channel in the Bīsutūn area (referred to in a line not even present in all manuscripts) placed,54 along with a reference to another of Farhād's works at Mount Bīsutūn (see below, § 6). Among the traditional deeds accomplished by Farhād, neither the engraving of the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān, nor Farhād's carving a route through Mount Bīsutūn by Khusraw's order are referred to in Amīr Khusraw's poem.

In ʿĀrif's poem Farhād carves a number of channels, bearing not only milk but also wine (on the emphasis on wine in the poem see above). Whereas a garden recalling the 'garden' of Ṭāq-i Bustān (The Arch in the Garden) is the main setting for the first part of the poem, Qaṣr-i Shīrīn is the main setting of the second part. ʿĀrif recounts that after a long period of mourning for the death of his first wife, his beloved Gulistān, Farhād at last reciprocates the love Shīrīn had felt for him since their first encounter. In Shīrīn's palace in Abkhazia Farhād builds a cellar with pipes bringing the wine to a basin.55 After Mihīn Bānū's death, however, Shīrīn flees from home to escape from

52 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 51.

53 Cf. Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī, *Shirin va Khosrow*, 145-6, ll. 1655-60 (Shīrīn commissions the work) and 153, ll. 1744-52 (Farhād carves a channel through Mount Bīsutūn). Luschey ("Bisutun. Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte", 138) has identified a channel in the area of Bīsutūn as Farhād's legendary channel of milk. In Amīr Khusraw's poem the Farhād episode is narrated in 142-200, ll. 1623-2270.

54 Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī, *Shīrīn va Khusraw*, 143, l. 1636.

55 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 160-1, ll. 3343-70.

an unwanted Armenian suitor, taking refuge in Qaṣr-i Shīrīn.56 After a short time Farhād joins her, and excavates a channel and a pool for the supply of milk, as in the traditional account. According to his declared polemical attitude, ʿĀrif corrects the version given by Niẓāmī about the famous channel constructed by Farhād for Shīrīn: in this channel no milk but only water flowed, the milk being carried sealed in goatskins floating on the current and watched by attendants57 – an example of ʿĀrif's rationalizing attitude from one side, but also a reference to a perhaps preexistent version concerning the channel, also testified by Mustawfī Qazvīnī in his *Nuzhat al-qulūb*, who speaks of "goatskins full of milk thrown into that channel of water".58

In Hātifī's poem *Shīrīn va Khusraw*, written between 889/1484 and 895/1490, Farhād is of Chinese origin and the colleague (*ham-pīsha*) of Shāpūr.59 In this poem not only does Farhād excavate a channel for Shīrīn, but also a tunnel to escape from the well where he has been thrown by Khusraw's order:60 indeed, after the carving of the channel, an innovation in Hātifī's treatment of the matter is that, when Khusraw is told of Farhād's love for Shīrīn, he has him taken to the top of a mountain and thrown into a well. With the help of a spade he finds by chance Farhād, however, menages to dig a tunnel through the foot of the mountain and escapes from the well – a new deed attributed to Farhād in addition to the traditional ones.

Farhād as the constructor of one or more channels in the region of Qaṣr-i Shīrīn, instead, is unknown to the earliest historical and geographical sources. Ibn al-Faqīh, in the chapter devoted to the reasons for the construction of Shīrīn's castle, relates a tradition concerning the construction of two channels in this site; but this work is not attributed to Farhād. Ibn al-Faqīh recounts that Khusraw (i.e. Khusraw II Parvīz) had ordered the creation of a big garden destined to become a hunting reserve, with every kind of animals. The king was so pleased with the garden that in a moment of intoxication he asked Shīrīn to express any wish she had. Shīrīn asked Khusraw to have two channels, one bearing milk, the other wine, constructed. Though this text attests to an early connection between Qaṣr-i Shīrīn and the construction of one or more channels at Shīrīn's request,

56 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 164, l. 3428.

57 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 170, ll. 3562-3572.

58 Mustawfī Qazwīnī, *The geographical part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb*, 43, s.v. "Qaṣr-i Šīrīn".

59 Hātifī, *Shīrīn va Khusraw*, 64, ll. 854-855. The Farhād episode is narrated in 63- 89, ll. 833-1185.

60 Hātifī, *Shirin va Khusraw*, 65-8, ll. 863-989 (channel for the milk), and 72-3, ll. 953- 68 (carving of the tunnel through the mountain).

no mention of Farhād is to be found here.61 Also Mustawfī Qazvīnī, in the already mentioned passage from his *Nuzhat al-qulūb* about a channel of water carrying goatskins full of milk in the area of Qaṣr-i Shīrīn,62 does not mention Farhād as the constructor of it. Only a geographical source probably already influenced by Niẓāmī's narrative, Zakariyā al-Qazwīnī's *Kitāb āthār al-bilād* (thirteenth century), refers to Farhād's construction of a channel for Shīrīn.63

To sum up: Farhād as the constructor of one or more channels by Shīrīn's order only appears in the romantic narrative tradition and in late geographical sources, such as al-Qazwīnī's *Kitāb āthār al-bilād*, probably already influenced by Niẓāmī's poem. This is the sole legendary deed attributed to Farhād to be found in all of the analyzed poems. In the present state of research, also the attribution of this work to Farhād, in the same way as the carving of the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān, seems to be an innovation due to Niẓāmī, widely accepted in the subsequent poems in response to his *Khusraw va Shīrīn*. The popular etymology of Shīrīn's name, explained as referring to her being fond of milk (*shīr*), may have helped the diffusion of the motif of the 'channel of milk' (*jūy-e shīr*) in the poetic narrative tradition.

#### 6 Farhād and Mount Bīsutūn

The first mention of Farhād in connection with Mount Bīsutūn, which is also the very first mention of this character, is to be found in the second *risāla* of Abū Dulaf's travelogue, in a passage seemingly derived from local sources in 340/951. After having described the reliefs at the site near Qirmīsīn (Kirmanshah), Abū Dulaf continues the description of his itinerary in these words: "Thence [from Qirmīsīn] to a rock called Sumayra, high, towering (over the plain) and bearing a wonderful image and beautiful pictures. It is reported that Kisrā Abarvīz charged Farhād-the-Sage (*ḥakīm*) with this work".64

The "wonderful image and beautiful pictures" referred to in this passage are certainly to be identified as the reliefs of Darius65 – though the commissioner is, according to this tradition, Khusraw Parvīz. As suggested by Ghazanfar Aliev, the expression "it is

61 Ibn al-Faqīh, *Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān*, 158-9 (French transl., 192-3). ʿĀrif Ardabīlī's version, recounting of channels for the wine beyond the famous channel for the supply of milk (ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 46-7, ll. 940-57, and 160-3, ll. 3343-405), can have been derived from this tradition.

62 See above, and fn. 58.

63 Al-Qazwīnī, *Kitāb āthār al-bilād*, 296.

64 Cf. Abū Dulaf, *Travels in Iran*, 46 § 35, and 92-3 (Minorsky's Commentary).

65 Cf. Minorsky, Commentary to Abū Dulaf, *Travels in Iran*, 92.

reported" (*yuqālu*) indicates that the author is here relating oral traditions gathered on the spot.66 This passage is important, both for its ancientness, and because it testifies to an early connection of Farhād with Mount Bīsutūn and the (Darius) reliefs. By contrast, Farhād's connection with Shīrīn is not referred to, yet.

A clear reference to Farhād's legendary excavation of a route through Mount Bīsutūn is given for the first time by Niẓāmī: Khusraw – when informed of Farhād's love for Shīrīn – orders his rival to perform an impossible task: to cut a route through Mount Bīsutūn.67 It is possible, however, that a short passage by Balʿamī already refers to Farhād's legendary excavation of a route, considered as Farhād's punishment for having fallen in love with Shīrīn (see below, § 7).

In his poem Amīr Khusraw – who had already placed Shīrīn's channel of milk in the area of Bīsutūn (see above, § 5) – seems to refer to another of the archeological remains in the Bīsutūn area. He recounts that one day, when wandering on horseback near Mount Bīsutūn, Shīrīn sees "a stone (*sang-ī*) polished in the likeness of an anvil, white and beautiful as a blossoming petal (or a smiling face, *gulbarg-i khandān*), as smooth and shining as crystal, which not even an ant could have climbed".68 The poet is probably referring here to the huge panel commissioned by Khusraw Parvīz and left blank, popularly called the ʿTarāsh-i Farhād' (Farhād's Smoothing), which is still visible not far from the relief and inscription of Darius.69 This panel is apparently already referred to by al-Iṣṭakhrī who, after the description of Mount Bīsutūn quoted above ("Its shape, from its highest to its lowest point, is as smooth as if it had been hewed"), adds: "And (for) a number of cubits from the ground its surface is already hewed and polished".70

At the end of the second part of ʿĀrif's *Farhād-nāma*, Farhād is clearly connected with the works at Mount Bīsutūn and Ṭāq-i Bustān. Indeed, the poet recounts that, after the construction of the channel of Qaṣr-i Shīrīn (see above, § 5), one day Farhād and Shīrīn go hunting together. Pursuing some gazelles they arrive at a mountain: the name is not given, but it is certainly to be identified with Mount

70 Al-Iṣṭakhrī, *Kitāb masālik al-mamālik*, 230. See also Schwarz, *Iran im Mittelalter*, 4: 452. As Amīr Khusraw did not travel outside the Indian subcontinent, he may have come to know of this panel from Iṣṭakhrī's description, or from other sources.

69 See Luschey, "Bisutun. Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte", 129 and fig. 25, and s.v. "Bīsutūn II. Archeology"; Howard-Johnston, "Pride and Fall: Khusro II and his Regime", 94-5; and s.v. "Kosrow II".

Bīsutūn. Farhād stays in this area for some time, hunting and polishing stones (possibly another allusion to the *Tarāsh-i Farhād*), and sculpting beautiful images.71 Farhād also sculpts a series of figures in the place called *Shabdīz* (Ṭāq-i Bustān). ʿĀrif adds that Shabdīz is the name given to this beautiful place (*but-khāna*), full of stone images (*buthā-yi sangīn*) from antiquity; a place located two days travel away from Qaṣr-i Shīrīn.72

In Hātifī's poem, it is only after Farhād's escape from the well (the new episode added to the saga of Farhād by this poet) that Khusraw decides to free himself of his rival by having him cut a passage through Mount Bīsutūn. Both Amīr Khusraw and ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, instead, omit the traditional datum of Farhād's hard work for carving a route through Mount Bīsutūn, an omission probably connected with the increasing idealization of the character of Farhād, the son of the emperor of China travelling incognito in Persia (see also below, § 8).

To sum up: a reference to the legend of Farhād as the author of the reliefs, or of any other work, on the wall of Mount Bīsutūn, is given by Abū Dulaf, Amīr Khusraw, and ʿĀrif Ardabīlī. As to the narrative element of Farhād as the Mountain-Carver for love of Shīrīn, this feature is present, among the romantic poems here considered, only in Niẓāmī and Hātifī's poems, and is possibly alluded to in Balʿamī's account (see below).

#### 7 Farhād as Enamoured of Shīrīn

It is, seemingly, in the second half of the tenth century that the legend of Farhād is enriched with a new element: the romantic development of his character and his connection with the legendary cycle revolving around the love between Khusraw and Shīrīn. The Persian reworking of Ṭabarī's chronicle by Balʿamī (begun in 352/963 CE) is at present the first source speaking of Farhād as enamoured of Shīrīn.73 In the section describing the marvels of Khusraw Parvīz's reign, the horse Shabdīz, and the astonishing beauty of Shīrīn – one of Khusraw's handmaidens – Balʿamī says: "This handmaiden was the one with whom Farhād was in love; and Parvīz punished him by send-

71 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 173, ll. 3624-9.

72 ʿĀrif Ardabīlī, *Farhād-nāma*, 173, ll. 3627-9.

73 Cf. Aliev, *Legenda o Khosrove i Širin*, 75. Aliev does not exclude the hypothesis, advanced by E.É. Bertel's (*Nizami. Tvorčeskij put' poéta*, 106), that the passage on Farhād in the chronicle by Balʿamī represents a later addition.

ing him to dig the mountain".74 The mountain referred to is, certainly, Mount Bīsutūn, and Farhād is by then the *Kūh-kan*, the Mountainexcavator for love of Shīrīn.

In the anonymous Persian chronicle *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl qiṣaṣ* (composed in 520/1126 ca), in the chapter related to the reign of Khusraw Parvīz, two different traditions concerning Farhād are related, in both of which Farhād is, strangely enough, credited with the title of *sipahbad* (general).75

The first tradition has some resemblance with the one narrated in the just quoted passage on the wonders of Khusraw's reign in Balʿamī's chronicle (the second tradition from the *Mujmal* will be analyzed in ch. 2 below). Among the wonders of Khusraw's reign the author speaks of Shīrīn, the most beautiful among the 12,000 women of his harem – here, too, Shīrīn is only one of the women of Khusraw's harem. Then the author adds: "The *sipahbad* Farhād was in love with her. He executed the work at Bīsutūn, the vestiges of which are (still) visible".76 According to this tradition, then, Farhād is enamoured of Shīrīn and the author of a work (perhaps this refers to the reliefs and inscription of Darius) on Mount Bīsutūn.

Another source speaking of Farhād in connection with Shīrīn is a passage from the *Siyar al-mulūk* (end of the eleventh-beginning of the twelfth century), which seems to pertain to a different tradition from the romantic one. In chapter forty-two, the advice of allowing women no access to the secrets of their men is illustrated with the following brief consideration: "As Khusraw nurtured such a love for Shīrīn handing her the reins of (his) pleasures, he used to do all she wanted. Inevitably Shīrīn became arrogant and – with such a great sovereign – was inclined towards Farhād".77 Shīrīn is here considered as having, at least to a certain extent, requited Farhād's love.

74 Balʿamī, *Tārikh*, 2: 1091. The same tradition is also reported in another recension of Balʿamī's chronicle, represented in the French translation by Zotenberg: "C'est de cette femme que fut amoureux Ferhâd, que Parwîz punit en l'envoyant extraire des pierres à Bisoutoun" (*Chronique de […] Tabari…*, 2: 304). On the problem of the text of Balʿamī's chronicle see Aliev, *Legenda o Khosrove i Širin*, 75 fn. 47; and Lazard, *La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane*, 38-41.

75 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 78-82 (for Farhād's title see 79, lines 12 and 17). See also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, ff. 29*v*-31*r*; in particular, for Farhād's title, see f. 30*r* lines 10 and 14.

76 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 79,12-13; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 30*r*10-11.

77 Cf. Niẓām al-Mulk, *Siyar al-mulūk*, 246. Khismatulin ("To Forge a Book in the Medieval Ages") has convincingly demonstrated that Niẓām al-Mulk was not the author of either the last eleven chapters of the *Siyāsat-nāma*/ *Siyar al-mulūk*, or of the anecdotes of the first thirty-nine chapters. Khismatulin has also shown that the additions to the original piece are the work of the poet Muʽizzī at the beginning of the twelfth century.

Priscilla Soucek, in reference to this passage that she considers as going back to Sasanid sources, states that "the story of Farhād and Shīrīn originated at the Sassanian court".78 However, this short passage only seems to reflect the unfavourable light surrounding Shīrīn in early texts, and probably also in Sasanid sources, well represented in the *Shāhnāma*; but, in itself, is insufficient to prove that the character of Farhād as lover of Shīrīn could hark back to Sasanid sources. On the subject, Aliev was definitively of the opposite opinion. Considering that there is no mention of Farhād (as enamoured of Shīrīn, or otherwise) either in Ṭabarī or in Jāḥiẓ, and that he is unknown to Christian (Byzantine, Armenian and Syriac) sources, Aliev concludes that the origins of this character must be considerably later than the events narrated in the poems. He asserts: "According to us it is certain that in the Pahlavi sources no mention of Farhād was to be found".79

In the romantic narrative tradition Farhād is chiefly the rival of Khusraw in his love for Shīrīn. He embodies the type of the lover who dies for his unhappy love, a literary type destined to great fortune in the Persian and other Islamic literatures, especially in connection with the increasing influence of mystic currents on literary production. (Such a development of the character in a mystical direction, and his partial overlapping with the figure of Majnūn, does not concern us here).

To sum up: Farhād as enamoured of Shīrīn is recorded for the first time in Balʿamī's chronicle, and is afterwards present in the first tradition concerning Farhād quoted in the *Mujmal*. This narrative feature is characteristic of the romantic narrative tradition, in its entirety.

#### 8 Farhād as a Foreigner: His Social Status and Fatherland

Early non-literary sources speaking of the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān and the master who carved them (see above, § 4.2) unanimously assert that the sculptor (variously named as Faṭṭūs, Qaṭṭūs, etc.) was the son of Sinimmār/Sinnimār, the constructor of the castle of Khawarnaq;80 and Sinimmār is defined as *al-Rūmī* (the Greek). The foreign origins of the master of Ṭāq-i Bustān may possibly represent a historically reliable datum. Priscilla Soucek considers the reliefs in the main grotto as inspired by Greek (Byzantine) models;81 and seems to lean

78 Soucek, "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 45.

79 Aliev, *Legenda o Khosrove i Širin*, 73-5.

80 On this castle see Massignon, s.v. "Al-Khawarnaḳ"; Würsch, s.v. "Kawarnaq"; and "Das Schloss Ḫawarnaq nach arabischen und persischen Quellen".

81 Soucek "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 29-34.

toward a possible Greek origin of the sculptor's name, as she writes: "The correct Greek form of the name has never been established".82 Ernst Herzfeld, on the other hand, considers the form Qaṭṭūs, given by one of the manuscripts of Ibn al-Faqīh's work, as the closest to the original, and favours a purely Iranian origin of this name.83

In the romantic tradition Farhād is generally seen as a foreigner. In Niẓāmīs poem, among the features that make up his character, the most important one is that of being a loner, rootless and far from home: "Plants have roots in the earth; but not I. Dogs have their place in the world; but not I".84 Moreover, in the famous question-and-answer confrontation (*munāẓara*) between Khusraw and Farhād, which is a set piece in all the poems in response to Niẓāmī's *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, and in many passages of the poem, Farhād embodies the type of the lover suffering from love without hope: he is a commoner, while his rival is a king, a powerful man.

In Amīr Khusraw's poem Farhād, though being an artist and a foreigner, becomes the son of the Khāqān of China living incognito abroad. Likewise, in ʿĀrif's poem Farhād is the son of the Faghfur of China and a skilful architect, calligrapher and painter, dispossessed of his kingdom at his father's death by his paternal uncle. The increasing idealization of this character comes to a halt with Hātifī's poem: Farhād is here mainly presented as a specialized workman – the emphasis on the importance of work and manual skill being an issue probably dealt with in connection with the social advancement and prestige acquired by the artisan class in the Timurid period.

As to Farhād's fatherland, Niẓāmī is silent. He simply states that Shāpur and Farhād had been companions (*ham-zād*) in China, where both had studied under the same master.85 Only in the poems composed after Niẓāmī is Farhād's Chinese origin asserted with certainty. As Shāpūr and Farhād are unanimously considered as artists – Shāpūr a painter, and Farhād a sculptor – their connection with China, the homeland of Mani (famous in Persian literature as a skilled painter) is hardly surprising. Moreover, according to a well-established tradition attributed to the prophet, China was the place where one should go to learn science. However, the foreign origin of Farhād can also represent a significant element in connection with the origins of this character (see ch. 2 below).

To sum up: Farhād is generally seen as a foreigner in the romantic tradition; and is considered of Chinese origin in the poems composed after Niẓāmī's poem. While already in Niẓāmī's poem, and afterwards

85 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 51, 17.

82 Soucek "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 40 fn. 69.

83 Herzfeld, "Khusraw Parwēz und der Ṭāq i Vastān", 97-8.

84 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 56, 99.

in Hātifī's, he is a highly qualified worker, with possibly a lower social status (at least in Hātifī), in the poems by Amīr Khusraw and ʿĀrif he appears as the son of the emperor of China. In the historical and geographical sources, instead, the master of Ṭāq-i Bustān, called Faṭṭūs, Qaṭṭūs, Fuṭrūs, etc. according to the different sources, is the son of the Greek Sinimmār/Sinnimār, the constructor of the castle of Khawarnaq.

#### 9 Conclusions

From the review of the literary and non-literary sources given above it emerges that the two most ancient sources referring to the character of Farhād – Abū Dulaf's travelogue, and Balʿamī's chronicle – connect this character to Mount Bīsutūn. He is the sculptor of the "wonderful image and beautiful pictures" on the mountain side, according to Abū Dulaf; and is the lover of Shīrīn "punished by Khusraw Parvīz by sending him to dig the mountain", according to Balʿamī.

In the romantic narrative tradition, in the poems by Niẓāmī, ʿĀrif Ardabiīlī and Hātifī, Farhād is the carver of one or more channels, and in particular the carver of a channel, commissioned by Shīrīn, to bring the milk from the high mountainous pastures to her castle, the famous Qaṣr-i Shīrīn – Amīr Khusraw, however, places Farhād's channel in the area of Mount Bīsutūn. ʿĀrif does not only speak of the famous channel for milk, but also of a number of channels for carrying wine, that Farhād constructed for Shīrīn. Farhād's character as the constructor of one or more channels (for milk and for wine) is instead unknown to the earliest non-literary sources, and in particular to Ibn al-Faqīh's *Kitāb al-buldān* (beginning of the tenth century), in the section concerning Qaṣr-i Shīrīn and the reasons for its construction.

Farhād's legendary deed as Mountain-Excavator for love of Shīrīn is to be found – after a possible hint to it in the passage from Balʿamī's chronicle – in the poems by Niẓāmī and Hātifī, but not in Amīr Khusraw and ʿĀrif's poems: these authors give an idealized portrait of Farhād as the son of the emperor of China. As for the reasons for Farhād to being committed to mountain excavation, this deed is explained either as a punishment for his love for Shīrīn, as in Balʿamī's report, or as a trick devised by Khusraw and his minister(s) in order to get rid of him. Indeed, in Balʿamī's chronicle Farhād appears as if sentenced to hard labour at Mount Bīsutūn; whereas in the poetic narrative tradition the excavation of the mountain is presented as due to Khusraw's pretended wish to have a route carved through Mount Bīsutūn: a deed in which, contrary to Khusraw's expectations, Farhād succeeds.

The connection of Farhād with the reliefs of the site now called Ṭāq-i Bustān seems to be a relatively late narrative development. It seems to be first attested in Niẓāmī's poem; and becomes a central feature of the character of Farhād only in later poems, such as the *Farhād-nāma* by ʿĀrif Ardabiīlī. Earlier non-literary sources, such as Ibn al-Faqīh's *Kitāb al-buldān*, show however that, at the beginning of the tenth century, the development of legends concerning the master who realized the site were already circulating in the area.

A clear link between a certain 'Farhād' – a general under Khusraw Parvīz – and Ṭāq-i Bustān is attested by a passage from an early Persian historical source quoted in the anonymous historical work *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl‑qiṣaṣ*, which will be analyzed in the second chapter of this study. This will give us the opportunity to discuss another personage, historical this time, who may have been also relevant in the growth of the legend of Farhād, especially in connection with its romantic development: Farhād as the unrequited lover, enamoured of a queen or a woman of royal origins.

# 2 General 'Farhād'

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 2 Towards a Second Farhād: Farhād in the Mujmal al-Tavārīkh. – 3 The Hypotheses on the Origins of the Character of Farhād. – 4 Farrahān Shahr-barāz. – 5 Farrahān Between History and Legend. – 6 Legendary Developments of the Figure of Farrahān Shahr-barāz; the King of Syria. – 7 Conclusions.

#### 1 Introduction

In chapter 1 a review of the sources concerning Farhād and the archeological sites of Mount Bīsutūn and Ṭāq-i Bustān has been conducted, with the purpose of individuating the main features of the character defined as 'The Master of Mount Bīsutūn'. There is a point on which the majority of the sources analyzed seem to agree: Farhād (in the poetic tradition), or the artist of the reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān (in the historical and geographical tradition) is a foreigner, his fatherland being placed in China according to poets, in Rūm (Greece, Byzantium) according to historians and geographers.

In what follows I will attempt to show that the character of Farhād, as we know it from the Persian romantic tradition, represents the outcome of the literary development of the Master of Mount Bīsutūn with possible influences from a historical figure: Farrahān, alias Shahr-barāz, Khusraw Parvīz's supreme commander of the army (see below, § 4). Indeed, in the romantic transformation of the character of Farhād and its association with the narrative cycle centred around Khusraw and his love for Shīrīn, the conflation between the Farhād of Mount Bīsutūn and the historical character of Khusraw Parvīz's general may have been relevant.

#### 2 Towards a Second Farhād: Farhād in the Mujmal al-Tavārīkh

The chapter related to the reign of Khusraw Parvīz in the anonymous Persian chronicle entitled *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl‑qiṣaṣ* (composed in 520/1126 ca)86 provides important information on the origins of 'the second Farhād'. After a tradition concerning Farhād's love for Shīrīn (see ch. 1, § 7), the author of the *Mujmal* – speaking of the relief of Shabdīz in the site now called Ṭāq-i Bustān – quotes a second and different tradition. His source is an earlier unpreserved text: the *Pīrūz-nāma* ('Book of Pīrūz' or 'Book of The Victorious').87 It should be noted that in both traditions given by the *Mujmal* Farhād is qualified as *sipahbad* (general).

According to the *Pīrūz-nāma*, the sculpting of the reliefs at the site now called Ṭāq-i Bustān was the work of a foreign master called Kīṭūs (the Faṭṭūs/Qaṭṭūs etc. of other sources; see ch. 1, § 4.2). The text, however, also mentions another personage connected with the construction of the site: a general named Farhād. Indeed, the passage distinguishes General Farhād – who, according to current interpretation, directed (*farmūd*) the sculpting of the reliefs, the construction of a palace or portico (*ayvān*) in stone, and a castle (*qaṣr*) above it – from the person who, with other master masons, materially carried out the work: Kīṭūs, son of the Greek Sinimmār. When these works were completed – states the author, continuing to quote from the *Pīrūz-nāma* – Khusraw ordered them to be donated to Farhād.88

The passage from the *Pīrūz-nāma* quoted in the *Mujmal* has a convoluted syntax and its language seems to be quite archaic. Given its

86 On the *Mujmal*, see Daniel, "The Rise and Development of Persian Historiography", 136-9; Weber, Riedel, s.v. "Mojmal al-tawāriḵ waʾl-qeṣaṣ".

87 On the *Pīrūz-nāma* as one of the sources of the *Mujmal* see M. Qazvīnī's introduction to the fac-simile edition of the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh* (1309/1920) from the Paris manuscript Persan 620, reprinted in *Mujmal al-tavārīkh vaʾl qiṣaṣ*, ed. Bahār (p. lām ṭā [=39]); and Weber, Riedel, s.v. "Mojmal al-tawāriḵ waʾl-qeṣaṣ". Concerning the date of the *Pīrūz-nāma*, Priscilla Soucek favors a dating to the pre-Islamic period ("Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 40). However, the *Pīrūz-nāma* seems more likely datable to the early Islamic period, because in another passage the author of the *Mujmal* says: "In the *Pīrūz-nāma* I read that the hate of Shāpūr [Dhuʾl-aktāf: this title is only given in the heading of the paragraph, *pādšāhī-yi Shāpūr-i Dhuʾl-aktāf*] towards the Arabs depended on the fact that in the sentences (*aḥkām*) of Jāmāsp he had read that, from among the Arabs, a prophet would come who would destroy the religion of Zarathustra" (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 66,2-14). The work alluded to in the latter statement is probably to be identified with the Pahlavi apocalyptic text *Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg*, ed. and transl. by D. Agostini, in particular chapters 16 and 17, 109-15 (translation). On this basis, it seems possible a dating of the *Pīrūz-nāma* – like the last layer of Middle Persian Zoroastran apocalyptic texts – to the period immediately following the Islamic conquest of Iran (see Macuch, "Pahlavi Literature", 154-5).

88 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 79,16-20; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 30*r*13-17.

importance, it will be quoted and translated in full. The author of the *Mujmal* says:

*va dar Pīrūz-nāma čunān khwāndam ki īn ṣanʿathā bar sang Kīṭūs kard, pisar-i Simsār* [var. *Sinimmār*]*-i Rūmī, ān-ki Sidīr va Khavarnaq kard-ast, va Farhād-i sipahbad farmūd-aš bā ustādān-i dīgar*. *Va čūn bipardākht ba farmān-i Khusraw – bad-ān sar-čašma ayvān būd, va qaṣr-ī bālā-yi īn ṣuffa-yi sangīn ki hanūz ba-jāy-ast, va šāh ānjā šarāb khward* [var. *khward-ī*] *bā buzurgān va sipāhān – ba Farhād dād*. *Va ānjā ṣifat-i Parvīz va Shabdīz va Shīrīn va Mawbad va shikārgāh hama ba-jāy-ast, nigāšta bar sang-ī*

I read in the *Pīrūz-nāma*89 that these works in stone were made by Kīṭūs, the son of the Greek Sinimmār, the one who constructed the Sidīr and the Khavarnaq. General Farhād ordered him (to construct them), together with other masters.90 When they were finished, by Khusraw's order – there was a portico on that spring, and a castle above this stone platform that still exists; and (when the works were finished) the king drunk wine there with the nobles and the army91 – they were given to Farhād. The images of Parvīz, Shabdīz, Shīrīn, the Mawbad, and a hunting-place are all visible there, sculpted on a rock.92

91 The Berlin manuscript gives here a lectio facilior (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 30*r*16): *va šāh ānjā šarāb khward-ī bā buzurgān va laškariyān* (and the king there used to drink wine with the nobles and the soldiers). The reading of the Bahār edition (when the works were finished […] the king drunk wine there with the nobles and the army) seems preferable. As Soucek ("Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 40) has noted, here a reference is probably to be seen to "the celebration of the completion of the works by a ceremony or festivity".

92 The new critical edition of the *Mujmal*, based on four manuscripts in Heidelberg, Berlin, Dublin and Paris (*Mudjmal at-tawārīkh wa-l-qiṣaṣ: eine persische Weltgeschichte aus dem 12. Jahrhundert*) gives the same texts, apart from a more archaizing *īn ṣanʿathā ba sang bar Kīṭūs kard* instead of *īn ṣanʿathā bar sang Kīṭūs kard*. I wish to thank Anna Livia Beelaert for having checked the text, as I have not this edition at my disposal.

89 In this place, both in the Bahār edition of the *Mujmal* (79,16), and in the Berlin manuscript (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 30*r*13), the title of this work is given as *Sarvar-nāma* (the Book of the Lord), with a variant *Parvīz-nāma* in the apparatus of the Bahār edition. However, in other places of the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh* (37,14, 66,12, 70,22, 80,3 of the Bahār edition, corresponding to ff. 14*v*2 and 5, 25*r*16, 27*r*4, and 30*r*20 of the facsimile of the Berlin manuscript) the title of this important source is given as *Pīrūz-nāma*.

90 In reference to a more archaic linguistic stage, the difficult passage *va Farhād-i sipahbad farmūd-aš bā ustādān-i dīgar* can also be interpreted as "and he [Kīṭūs] was ordered by General Farhād (to do it), together with other masters"; or as "and by General Farhād (the work) was ordered to other masters (too)", with *farmūd* in a passive/ ergative value, and *bā* meaning 'to' (Middle Persian *bāz, bāz ō*). The overall meaning of the passage, however, would be the same. In the following phrase, I have interpreted *bipardākht* (they [the works] were finished), and *ba Farhād dād* (they were given to Farhād) as passive/ergative non agential forms.

The interpretation of the verb *farmūd* "(Farhād) ordered" in the difficult passage *va Farhād-i sipahbad farmūd-aš bā ustādān-i dīgar* is problematic. That 'General Farhād' could have been the commissioner of the work, i.e. the one who ordered these works to be accomplished, seems to be improbable in light of what is stated at the end of the just quoted passage, where it is reported that, when the works were finished, "by Khusraw's order … they were given to Farhād", the commissioner of the works being – as unanimously stated also by other sources – Khusraw Parvīz. For this reason, the passage has generally been interpreted as meaning that general Farhād had been the supervisor or director of the works. This is the interpretation given by Soucek, who translates: "Farhād the Sipāhbad directed him [Kītūs] with other workers".93 And Jules Mohl more freely translates: "Lui [Kitous] et les autres artistes travaillaient sous les ordres du Sipahbed Farhād".94 However, this interpretation is not convincing, because *farmūdan* does not mean 'to direct or supervise a work'. I would like to suggest a slightly different interpretation: "General Farhād ordered him (Kīṭūs) to realize (the works), together with other masters", with *farmūdan* meaning 'to tell (to do) something, to have something done'.95

The new interpretation of the passage from the *Pīrūz-nāma* assigns a different role to 'General Farhād': he is not so much the commissioner, or the supervisor of the works, as, rather, someone who had a voice in the choice of the skilled workers in charge of the work, also being the ultimate beneficiary of the site. But why is the Farhād enamoured of Shīrīn called 'general', in the first tradition (see ch. 1, § 7)? And: why is the general of Khusraw Parvīz called Farhād in the second tradition? Who is he?

In the *Mujmal*, a third passage (apparently not quoted from the *Pīrūz-nāma*) mentions a *sipahbad* Farhād. It is to be found in the section devoted to the notables of the Sasanid kings where, among Khusraw Parvīz's dignitaries, the author records: "The minister (*dastūr*) was Kharrād Burzīn; the nobles were Bindūy and Gustaham (=Bisṭām), his uncles; the general of the army (*sipahbad*) was Farhād".96 Then,

96 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 96,10-11; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 35*r*17-18. On Khusraw's uncles, and above all on Bistām, cf. Shapur Shahbazi, s.v. "Besṭām o Bendōy"; Nöldeke, "Exkurs 7. Empörung des Bistâm"; and Howard-Johnston, s.v. "Kosrow II".

93 Soucek, "Farhād and Ṭāq-i Būstān", 40.

94 Mohl, "Extraits du Modjmel al-tewarikh", 127.

95 The use of *farmūdan* in the meaning 'to command, order (*farmān dādan*)', and 'to tell' in a high and formal style, is quite ancient. See Wolff, *Glossar zu Firdosis Schahname*, 610-12, s.v. "farmūdan"; see also the frequent expression *nāma farmūd* 'he told/ordered (to write) a letter' (Wolff, *Glossar*, 611A); and it is already attested in Manichaean Middle Persian (cf. Durkin-Meisterernst, *Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian*, 156A).

the latter must be the Farhād referred to in the two passages from the *Mujmal* discussed above, where he bears the appellative of 'General'.

From historical sources we know that the commander-in-chief of Khusraw Parvīz's army was a general called Farrahān (or Farrukhān in some sources), also known by the title of Shahr-barāz.97 It is therefore possible that the author of the *Mujmal*, or his source(s), confused together two personages: a fictional one, i.e. the Farhād of Mount Bīsutūn, and a historical one, Farrahān, Khusraw's general. The relationship between the two personages – if there is any relationship at all – has to be explained, starting from a review of the main theories concerning the origins of the character of Farhād.

#### 3 The Hypotheses on the Origins of the Character of Farhād

Concerning the origins of the character of Farhād, three theories, put forward by Aliev (1960), Eilers (1971), and Scarcia (in Cristoforetti and Scarcia 2013), deserve consideration. Apart from Eilers's hypothesis, the theories by the other two scholars are influenced by the passage(s) on Farhād from the *Mujmal*.

Wilhelm Eilers compares Farhād to the character of Onnes (῎Οννης), the first husband of Semiramis, an Assyrian general to King Ninos; according to the legend, when King Ninos won Semiramis's love and married her, Onnes in despair committed suicide.98 The similarity between the situation in the Semiramis legend, and the triangle Khusraw (corresponding to Ninos), Farhād (Onnes) and Shīrīn (Semiramis) is striking. This would be a further feature linking the legend of Semiramis with that of Shīrīn, according to Eilers.99

On the other hand, starting from the just quoted second passage from the *Mujmal*, Gianroberto Scarcia conjectures that the Farhād of the Persian romantic tradition was based on a true historical character, Khusraw's rebel uncle Bisṭām; and explains the name of the archeological site of Ṭāq-i Bustān not so much as "the Arch in the village named after the Uncle of Ḫusraw Parwiz", but as "the Arch of the Uncle of Ḫusraw Parwiz" *tout court*. Indeed, concerning Bisṭām, i.e. the name of the village where the relief of Shabdīz was located,

97 On this personage see below, § 4. The author of the *Mujmal* does know a personage called Shahr-barāz, but seems to ignore that he was Khusraw's most famous general and the same person as the one called 'Farhād' in other places of the book. The author only knows that Shahr-barāz was one of the kings who reigned after Khusraw Parvīz (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 87), that he was not of kingly ascent (*na az aṣl-i šāhān būd*, 87,15B and 97,6), and that in the *Shāhnāma* he was called both Gurāz and Farāyīn (*Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 83,1).

98 Eilers, "Semiramis", 52 and fn. 90.

99 On the legend of Semiramis in connection with Shīrīn, see above ch. 1, § 2. See also Part II (*The Origins of Turandot*), ch. 2, § 1 below.

the author of the *Mujmal* adds: "Bisṭām was Gustaham, Khusraw's (maternal) uncle".100 Scarcia thus conjectures that the arch was constructed by Bisṭām/Gustaham "to celebrate his fleeting moment of glory", and was then left unfinished after Khusraw Parvīz's triumph. As to the appellative *sipahbad*, Scarcia recalls that Khusraw's uncle belonged to the ancient and noble family of the Ispahbads; *sipahbad* in the *Mujmal* would therefore be not so much a title attributed to 'Farhād', but the name of his (i.e. of Bisṭām's) family.

When Khusraw, after having defeated the rebel general and usurper to the throne, Bahrām Chūbīn (591 CE), decided that the moment had arrived to rid himself of his uncles, Bisṭām formed an army, married Bahrām's widow, Gurdiya, and rebelled against Khusraw, proclaiming himself king. The final battle between Khusraw and Bisṭām was fought out in the vicinity of Hamadan, and therefore not far from Ṭāq-i Bustān. Khusraw defeated him, but only through treachery: Bisṭām was killed and his army scattered. Some sources cite Gurdiya, instigated by Khusraw, to be Bisṭām's assassin; soon after, Khusraw married her. Gurdiya, therefore, the wife of Bisṭām and responsible for his death, then married Khusraw: enough to give birth to the legend of the two rivals for love of a woman, who became the reason for the death of her unrequited lover 'Farhād'.101

This hypothesis is fascinating, but does not take due account of the passage, in the *Mujmal*, where it reports that "when the works were finished, by Khusraw's order […] they were given to Farhād" (see above, § 2). This seems to exclude a possible identification of Farhād/Bisṭām as the commissioner of the arch. Moreover, the third just quoted passage from the *Mujmal* explicitly states that Farhād was the commander of Khusraw's army, and that he was someone different from Khusraw's uncle. If the *Mujmal* and its source, the *Pīrūznāma*, have to be taken as reliable historical sources, these texts give glimpses of a different historical background (see below, § 5).

In 1960 Ghazanfar Aliev put forward an interesting hypothesis to explain the appellative 'general' (*sipahbad*) attributed to Farhād in the *Mujmal*. As we have already seen (ch. 1, § 7), Aliev thinks that the origins of the Farhād character and legend, unknown to the Sasanid sources, are quite recent. He also focuses on the popular and oral origins of his legend, and thinks that only gradually the legend of the *Kūhkan*, the Excavator of Mount Bīsutūn – connected to the Mount Bīsutūn area – merged with the legendary cycle of the loves of Khusraw and Shīrīn. As to the *Farhād-i sipahbad* of the *Mujmal*, Aliev thinks that such

100 *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, 79,15; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, f. 30*r*12-13.

101 See Cristoforetti, Scarcia, "Talking about Sîmurġ and Tâq-i Bustân with Boris I. Marshak", 344-6 (*On the so-called Farhād*). On Khusraw's uncles see fn. 96 above.

an appellative must have arisen out of misreading – possibly due to the author of the *Mujmal* himself – of the name of Khusraw's famous general, *Farrahān* or *Farruhān*, also known to the sources as Farrukhān, and better known by the title of Shahr-barāz, the conqueror of Syria and Jerusalem. Indeed, according to Aliev, the name فرهان might have been graphically confused with and finally read as فرهاد, Farhād being a much more famous personage than Farrahān Shahr-barāz at the time of the composition of the *Mujmal*. Aliev's hypothesis, therefore, only concerns the origins of the title *sipahbad* attributed to Farhād in the *Mujmal*; indeed he rejects the idea of Farhād as a historical figure.102

Aliev's intuition about a graphic confusion between 'Farrahān' and 'Farhād' (only possible on the basis of the writing of this name in Arabic script103) may be illuminating in explaining the figure of Farhād in the *Mujmal*/*Pīrūz-nāma*. Aliev, however, does not discuss the second tradition reported by the *Mujmal* (see § 2 above), which seems to refer to a different Farhād from the one known from the romantic poetical tradition: he is neither the Mountain Excavator (*Kūh-kan*) for love of Shīrīn, nor a master stone-cutter or a sculptor, but a general who had a role in the construction of the site of Ṭāq-i Bustān. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the 'Farhād' of the second tradition from the *Mujmal*/*Pīrūz-nāma* actually referred to Khusraw Parvīz's general, whether his connection with the works at Ṭāq-i Bustān be historically true or not. 'Farhād' can in actual fact represent not only a misreading of the name, or title, 'Farrahān', but can be a trace of the superimposition of a historical character on that of the Master of Mount Bīsutūn.

To sum up: the two passages concerning Farhād in the *Mujmal altavārīkh*, in which Farhād bears the title of *sipahbad*, suggest that Farhād, the Master of Mount Bīsutūn, was here superimposed on another personage who in actual fact was a general. In particular the second passage, which has the *Pīrūz-nāma* as its source, clearly distinguishes General 'Farhād' from the Master of Ṭāq-i Bustān, named Kīṭūs.

#### 4 Farrahān Shahr-barāz

Farrahān, or Farrukhān as he is called in some sources, is a key personage in the critical period which led to the destitution and death of Khusraw Parvīz and, shortly thereafter, to the end of the Sasanid dynasty. In the sources and in modern studies he is more often called Shahr-barāz.104 He was Khusraw's most famous general, well-known

102 Aliev, *Legenda o Khosrove i Širin*, 73-81 (in particular 77).

103 In ancient manuscripts, final *nūn* and *dāl*/*dhāl* can be easily confused.

104 On the forms of his names (or titles) see Justi, *Iranisches Namenbuch*, s. vv. "Farroχān: 9. Ferruhān", 95; "Razmiozan", 260; and "Šahrwarāz", 277-8. On Razmyūzān/Romizān/

to both Christian and Islamic sources as the supreme commander of the Persian army during the long Perso-Byzantine war (603-628 CE). He is the general who made important territorial conquests for Khusraw when, after the murder of Maurice (602) – the Byzantine emperor who had restored Khusraw to his throne after Bahrām Chūbīn's revolt – Khusraw had at last a pretext to move against Byzantium.105

According to Cyril Mango's reconstruction, Shahr-barāz appears for the first time on the scene in 606-7 CE, when he leads the invasion of Mesopotamia, under Byzantine control at the time. He conquers Mardin, Amida and, in 609, Edessa. In the following year he crosses the Euphrates and takes possession of the city of Zenobia. In 611 he conquers Apamea, Emesa, Antioch. In 613 he conquers Damascus, thus taking control of a great part of Syria. In 614 he invades Palestine and conquers Jerusalem, finally taking the Holy Cross to Persia.106 After many years of continuous victories, he suffers his first serious defeat in Armenia in 622. Afterwards, in 626, his army besieges Constantinople. On this occasion the Persian troops have a secondary role, compared to the role of the troops of the Avars. Mango voices a doubt: "On se demande si son manque d'activité n'était pas voulu".107

107 Mango, "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix", 106-7. According to Howard-Johnston, such an early political understanding between Heraclius and Shahr-barāz "should probably be rejected as a piece of deliberate disinformation, circulated to further Roman interests as the war reached its climax in 627-628" (see Historical commentary to Pseudo-Sebeos, *The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos*, 223).

Romiuzān 'He who seeks the battle' (etymology according to Justi, *Iranisches Namenbuch*, 260), the different forms of this title and the question of Razmyūzān's identity with Shahrbarāz, see Nöldeke in Ṭabarī, *Geschichte der Perser*, 290 fn. 3. On the identity between Shahr-barāz and Razmyūzān, and the forms of the latter title see also Banaji, "On the Identity of Shahrālānyōzān in the Greek and Middle Persian Papyri from Egypt", 30 fn. 18, who proposes a different etymology for the title Razmyūzān (34-35 and fn. 43; I wish to thank Matteo Compareti, who brought this article to my attention). On this matter, see also fn. 106 below.

105 On these events, see Mango "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix". See also the articles by Howard-Johnston reprinted in the volume *East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity*, and in particular his "Al-Tabari on the Last Great War of Antiquity"; and Kaegi, Cobb, "Heraclius, Shahrbarāz, and al-Ṭabarī". See also Banaji, "On the Identity of Shahrālānyōzān", who also identifies Shahr-barāz as the general who in 619 conquered Alexandria, known from Greek and Middle Persian papyri from Egypt with the title of Shahr-ālānyōzān.

106 Scholars generally accept the datum, mainly reported by Christian sources, that the conqueror of Jerusalem was Shahr-barāz, and that he also had the title of Razmyūzān. However, both Ṭabarī and Balʿamī consider the general who conquered Jerusalem as a different person from the Farrahān (Farrukhān) also called Shahbarāz. Ṭabarī (*History*, V: *The Sāsānids*, 318) says that the conqueror of Jerusalem was Rumiyūzān (this is the form of the title given there), considered as a different general from Shahr-barāz; and Balʿamī (*Tārīkh*, 2: 1095) mentions, as the conqueror of Jerusalem, another commander (*sarhang*, captain), likewise different from Shahr-barāz, called Ṣadrān. Concerning the identity between Shahr-barāz and Rumiyūzān, Nöldeke expresses some doubts: "Ob es [the title 'Rumiyūzān'] nun ein früheren Title oder Beiname oder aber doch Name eines Unterfeldherrn ist der fälschlich mit seinem Obern verwechselt wird, kann ich nicht sagen" (Ṭabarī, *Geschichte der Perser*, 290 fn. 3).

In the sources an anecdote revolving around an intercepted letter, narrated in many variants, throws some light on the deterioration in relations between Khusraw and Shahr-barāz and the latter's betrayal.108 For some time after Khusraw's deposition and murder (February 628), Shahr-barāz continued to hold the conquered territories both in Mesopotamia and in Syria, keeping himself far from Persia. Mango indeed writes: "[After Khusraw's deposition and killing] les hostilités en Perse prirent fin, tandis que Šahrvaraz restait toujours dans les territoires qu'il avait conquis sur les Romains et *qu'il considérait, peutêtre, comme sa propre satrapie*".109 Only in July 629, according to some sources, a meeting and an agreement between him and the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641) took place; after that Shahr-barāz came back to Persia.110 About Shahr-barāz's rule over the occupied territories (Rūm, i.e. the Byzantine territory), Balʿamī writes: "Farrukhān [i.e. Farrahān Shahr-barāz] conquered all Rūm, and entrusted it to Maurice's son. But the people gathered together and said: 'We do not want the son of Maurice […].' Therefore Farrukhān kept on staying there and *ruling over Rūm as a king* (*malikī-yi Rūm hamī kard*)".111 After Khusraw's murder, and the brief reigns of Shīrūya (Qubād II) son of Khusraw, and Ardashīr III son of Shīrūya, for a short period (40 days according to Firdawsī; from April 27 to June 630 CE, according to Justi112) Shahr-barāz reigned on the throne of Persia, hoping to transmit the kingdom to his sons; but he was soon killed.113

Parvaneh Pourshariati has recently argued that Farrukhān and Shahr-barāz were two different historical personages,114 basing her

108 This anecdote has been studied, in eastern Christian sources, by Mango, "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix", 107-11. See also Howard-Johnston, "Al-Tabari on the last great war of Antiquity", 12-14, who compares the eastern Christian version of the anecdote with the one given by Ṭabarī; and especially Kaegi, Cobb, "Heraclius, Shahrbarāz, and al-Ṭabarī" (with further bibliography), who also analyze and translate the early Islamic version of the anecdote attributed to the traditionist al-Zuhrī (d. 142/742) preserved in the *Kitāb futūḥ al-Miṣr wa akhbārihā* by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (d. 257/871). A version of this anecdote is also given by Firdawsī, *Shāhnāma*, 8: 299-308, ll. 3841-959.

109 Mango, "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix", 109 (emphasis added). Also one important account, quoted by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam in his *Kitāb futūḥ al-Miṣr* and attributed to the traditionist al-Zuhrī, clearly shows that "Heraclius left Shahrbarāz in possession of those regions under Persian occupation that he had captured" (Kaegi, Cobb, "Heraclius, Shahrbarāz, and al-Ṭabarī", 106).

110 See Mango, "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix", 110-11.

111 Balʿamī, *Tārikh*, 2: 1095-6 (emphasis added).

112 Justi, *Iranisches Namenbuch*, 95 (s.v. "Farroχān: 9. Ferruhān").

113 Firdawsī, *Shāhnāma*, 8: 385-90, ll. 1-48. On these events, see also Pseudo-Sebeos, *The Armenian History*, 86-9 (ch. 40, 129-30); and Howard-Johnston, Historical commentary to Pseudo-Sebeos, *The Armenian History*, 223-6.

114 Cf. Pourshariati, *Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire*, 142-53.

argument on the account given in the *Shāhnāma*. 115 However, that Shahr-barāz and Farrahān (this is probably the right form of the general's title116) were the same person emerges almost unanimously from the sources, included the *Shāhnāma*. In this poem Shahr-barāz (The Wild Boar of the Reign) is called Gurāz (Wild Boar, i.e. metaphorically Hero) probably because, as Nöldeke has suggested, the form Shahr-barāz, with two consecutive short syllables, would have been incompatible with the meter of the poem; and not infrequently this title is attested as Varāz/ Barāz alone.117 After his accession to the throne, this same personage is called Farāyīn (فرایین(. It is highly probable that the form 'Farāyīn' of the *Shāhnāma* originated as an erroneous reading of the other title borne by Shahr-barāz in its Pahlavi spelling: Farrukhān according to Theodor Nöldeke.118

It is also possible that the form 'Farāyīn' is not just the result of an erroneous reading of a Pahlavi word, but was dictated by the wish to deliberately obscure the honorific title of the general, afterwards usurper of the throne of Persia, responsible for the Persian defeat in front of Byzantium and, indirectly, for the fall of the Sasanid dynasty: a sort of *damnatio memoriae* through concealment of his regnal name or honorific title. Whereas the Christian sources and, to a certain extent, also some early Islamic sources do not present

116 See below, notes 118 and 133.

117 See Nöldeke in *Ṭabarī*, *Geschichte der Perser*, 292 fn. 2. According to Dieter Weber, 'Shahr' (Reign) was a prefixed honorific extension of titles such as Warāz (Wild Boar) or Palang (Leopard), and therefore could also be omitted (Weber, "Ein bisher unbekannter Titel aus spätsassanidischer Zeit", 234).

118 See Nöldeke in *Ṭabarī*, *Geschichte der Perser*, 292 fn. 2. In order to explain the form *Farāyīn* of the *Shāhnāma* it seems preferable to suppose a Pahlavi form <plh'n>, that is Farrahān, an adjective meaning 'glorious', from *farrah* 'glory' (spelled phonetically as <plh> instead of heterographically as GDE) and the adjectival suffix *-ān*. Indeed, *farrox(v)* 'fortunate, blessed' < Old Iranian \**hṷarna-hṷant-*, Avestan *xvarᵊnah-vant-* (see Ḥasandūst, *Farhang-i rīša-shinākhtī-yi zabān-i fārsī*, 3: 2003-4, no. 3599, s.v. "Farrux") would have been spelled <plhw> in the Pahlavi script; and Farroxān would have been spelled <plhw'n> with a <w>, before suffix *‑ān*, not represented in the form given by Firdawsī. It should also be noted that in its first occurrence in the printed edition of Ṭabarī's chronicle (*Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari*, 1002, l. 13), the general's title is not given as Farrukhān, but as Farruhān, with a vocalization with *u* which may represent a hybrid between Farrahān and Farrukhān. The form Farrukhān instead of Farrahān may have crept in as a *lectio facilior* instead of a less common Farrahān. Indeed, in Middle Persian both Farrox and Farroxān are frequently attested as proper names, spelled <plhw> or <plhw'> (Farrox), and <plhw᾿n> (Farroxān), respectively (see Gignoux, *Noms propres sassanides*, 82, no. 352, s.v. "Farrox", and 83, no. 354, s.v. "Farroxān").

115 "for our argument that we are in fact dealing with two separate figures and not one, we fortunately possess a source that in this, as in many other cases, contains valuable information, and here must be deemed the most reliable, namely the *Shāhnāma*  of Ferdowsī" (Pourshariati, *Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire*, 146).

Shahr-barāz in an unfavourable light,119 the *Shāhnāma* – though not concealing Khusraw's responsibilities in the collapse of his own empire120 – represents in some respects a different tradition, much more unfavourable to Shahr-barāz Farrahān.121

#### 5 Farrahān Between History and Legend

Apart from narratives showing a high degree of literary elaboration and even mirroring a more or less deliberate purpose of distorting the recounting of events, reliable historical documents about Shahrbarāz are not numerous. Ryka Gyselen has published two seals belonging to a general named Pirag, having the honorary title of Shahrbarāz and living under King Khusraw (therefore either Khusraw I Anushirvān, or Khusraw II Parvīz). This general was the *spāhbed* of the side of the south (*kust ī nēmrōz*). In the second seal it is added: "(of the) Mihrān (family)".122 Parvaneh Pourshariati has claimed the identification of the owner of the seal with the Shahr-barāz of the epoch of Khusraw II.123 If the Shahr-barāz general of Khusraw Parvīz was a member of the ancient Mihrān family of Arsacid origins, the treatment reserved to him in the Persian and in some Islamic sources, starting from the ignominious episode of diarrhea at the moment of his enthronement narrated by Ṭabarī,124 must be imputed to the seriousness of his faults. Ṭabarī only says that he did not belong to the reigning royal house, i.e. the Sasanid family; but in two places the *Mujmal* asserts that the Shahr-barāz who succeeded to the throne of Persia was not of royal blood.125 The way Firdawsī describes Gurāz is

124 Ṭabarī, *History*, V: *The Sāsānids*, 402-3.

119 This accounts for the report by al-Zuhrī, connected – according to Kaegi and Cobb – to the eastern Christian historiographical tradition. Indeed Kaegi and Cobb write: "The general presentation of Shahrbarāz's defection in the early Islamic historiographical tradition conforms to the presentation of the same event in the eastern Christian historiographical tradition as represented by Theophilus […] all relate the fall of Persia to Khusraw's treachery toward his own trusted subjects" ("Heraclius, Shahrbarāz, and al-Ṭabarī", 103).

120 On Khusraw Parvīz's downward spiral see Firdawsī, *Shāhnāma*, 8: 299-319, ll. 3839-4107.

121 At the beginning of the episode narrating the last years of Khusraw's reign (Firdawsī, *Shāhnāma*, 8: 299-319, ll. 3847-9), Gurāz is qualified as *bī-hunar* (unskilful), *dīv-sar* (bad-tempered), *bī-dād* (unjust), and *shūm* (bad ominous).

122 Gyselen, *The Four Generals of the Sasanian Empire: Some Sigillographic Evidence*, 40-1, seals 2d/1 and 2d/2.

123 Pourshariati, "Recent Discovered seals of Wistaxm, uncle of Husraw II?". Banaji, "On the Identity of Shahrālānyōzān", 29 fn. 13, rejects Pourshariati's identification.

125 See fn. 97 above. Concerning Shahr-barāz, Ṭabarī (*History*, V: *The Sāsānids*, 402) says: "He was not of the royal house of the kingdom". In the *Mujmal al-tavārīkh* (87,15

not fitting for someone of noble origins.126 Firdawsī even represents a dialogue between the just enthroned Farāyīn and his two sons; his eldest son, while expressing his concerns about his father's decision to ascend to the throne of Iran, says: "When has any of our fathers ever been a king!", thus asserting their not royal ascent.127 Shahrbarāz is instead considered as a Sasanid in the *Chronicle of Seert*. 128

If the *Pīrūz-nāma*, as quoted by the *Mujmal*, is to be considered a reliable historical source, it seems to depict Khusraw and Farrahān in their moment of glory, before Farrahān's treachery and the final catastrophe. Indeed, this text seems to present the construction of the main arch and the front reliefs of Ṭāq-i Bustān as a celebration of Khusraw's victories over Byzantium, in a moment in which "Khusro had every reason to be confident that final victory was within his grasp … (and) commissioned several monuments designed to celebrate and commemorate his forthcoming victory".129 Farrahān was the protagonist of these victories; hence his connection with the monument – whether the statement that it was afterwards given to him (possibly as a recompense for his war achievements) be historically true, or not. Having long stayed in the Byzantine occupied territories, Farrahān may have been informed about the most skilled local artists; hence a second reason for his connection with the site. Though not all scholars are inclined to attribute the reliefs in the front panels of the main grotto of Ṭāq-i Bustān to Khusraw Parvīz's epoch, and their meaning and historical context are still debated, the *Pīrūz-nāma* would provide further evidence – to be subjected, of course, to critical scrutiny – endorsing their attribution to the epoch of Khusraw Parvīz.130

If, instead, the tradition about Farhād given by the *Mujmal*/*Pīrūznāma* has not to be considered as historically reliable, its value for literary studies is nevertheless relevant. It shows that the figure of Farrahān Shahr‑barāz had soon entered legend.

126 See fn. 121 above.

130 A different date for the reliefs in the main arch of Ṭāq-i Bustān has been presented and discussed by Callieri, *Architecture et représentation dans l'Iran sassanide*, 154- 9. For a recent review of the hypotheses on the date and context of this monument see also Compareti, "La raffigurazione della 'gloria iranica' nell'arte persiana e la sua distinzione dall'uccello fenice/simurgh", 10-15; and "Observations on the Rock Reliefs at Taq-i Bustan".

col. B and 97,6) it is written: "(He was) not of royal descent (*na az aṣl-i šāhān/mulūk*)"; see also the Berlin manuscript *Mujmal al-tavārīkh*, ff. 32*v*15 and 35*v*5.

127 Firdawsī, *Shāhnāma*, 8: 386, l. 5B.

128 Cf. Mango, "Héraclius, Šahrvaraz et la vraie croix", 110.

129 Howard-Johnston, "Pride and fall: Khusro II and his regime", 94. Luschey ("Bisutun. Geschichte und Forschungsgeschichte", 129), in reference to the many monuments commissioned by Khusraw II in this period speaks of 'Bauprogramm'.

#### 6 Legendary Developments of the Figure of Farrahān Shahr-barāz; the King of Syria

In a legend focusing on the figure of Shahr‑barāz, the latter appears as the (probably unwanted) husband, and afterwards as the unrequited suitor to the hand of Būrān, daughter of Khusraw II and, after the murder of Ardashīr III son of Shīrūya, queen of Iran (630-631 CE).131

In what appears to be the earliest attestation of the legend, given in the Armenian history attributed to Sebeos (mid seventh century),132 Būrān is said to be Shahr‑barāz's wife. (It must be noted that the name of the famous general and usurper of the throne of Persia is given here as Khoṙeam, i.e. probably Khorre(h)ān, a variant of the title 'Farrahān' under which the general was also known133). As a marriage between Shahr‑barāz and Būrān does not seem to be attested in other sources, this marriage may represent an early legendary development. It is also to be noted that in this text, immediately after the murder of Khoṙeam Shahr‑barāz, a different personage, Khoṙokh Ormizd (Farrukh Hurmuz of Islamic sources134), appears as the unwanted – in fact, killed – suitor to the hand of Būrān (Bor in the Armenian text).

The passage from the Armenian chronicle is as follows: "[After Khoṙeam's killing] they [the Persians] installed as queen Bor, Khosrov's daughter, who was his [Khoṙeam's] wife, and they appointed as chief minister at court Khoṙokh Ormizd, who was prince of the region of Atrpatakan. Then this Khoṙokh sent (a message) to the queen: 'Become my wife'. She agreed, saying: 'Come with a single man at midnight, and I shall fulfil your wish'. Arising at midnight, he went with a single aide. But when he entered the royal palace, the guards of the court fell on him, struck him down and killed him".135

135 Cf. Pseudo-Sebeos, *The Armenian History*, 89 (ch. 40,130).

131 On this queen see below, Part II, ch. 3.

132 Cf. Pseudo-Sebeos, *The Armenian History*, 89 (ch. 40,130).

133 Th. Nöldeke (in *Ṭabarī*, *Geschichte der Perser*, 292 fn. 2), without questioning that Shahr-barāz and Farrukhān were the same person, considers unlikely that this personage could have been called both Farrukhān and Khurrahān (*Chorahân*). However, an oscillation between different outcomes of a same word is attested for other proper names too. Suffice it to quote Bisṭām ~ Gustaham; (Shahr‑)Barāz ~ Gurāz; Fahrabadh or Bahlabad ~ Bārbad (Khusraw Parvīz's famous musician). Indeed, in the title borne by Khusraw's general, *farrah/farre* and *khwarrah/khorre* are two parallel outcomes corresponding to Old Median *farnah-* and Young Avestan *xvarənah-* 'glory' respectively – the form with *f‑* having traditionally been considered of Median origin, though being found in many other Iranian languages and dialects (see Gnoli, s.v. "Farr(ah)"; for a different explanation of the origin of the *f-* forms see Lubotsky, "Scythian Elements in Old Iranian", 191-5; see also Shavarebi, Qaemmaqami, "Les mots moyen-perses XWARRAH et FARR"). As to the Armenian spelling Khoṙeam, with ṙ representing Iranian *rr* < *rn*, see Bolognesi, *Le fonti dialettali degli imprestiti iranici in armeno*, 28.

134 On this personage, see Pourshariati, *Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire*, 146-53.

In the *History* of Ṭabarī the heroine of this story is Āzarmīdukht, Būrān's sister and queen after her for a short period. She – says the author – was "one of the most beautiful of the women of the Persians". When Farrukh Hurmuz, who is here defined as the "Iṣbahbadh of Khurāsān", sent a message asking her to give herself in marriage to him, she answered: "Marriage to a queen is not permissible". She then convened him for an amorous encounter, and had him murdered by the commander of her guard.136 Despite the many differences with the legend of Farhād, in this narrative it is possible to recognize some of the characteristic motifs of the latter legend: one is, broadly speaking, the motif of the suitor who dies because the woman he loves does not reciprocate him, or has him killed; another motif is, more specifically, that of the lower social status of the suitor, who cannot aspire to the queen's hand as he is not of kingly descent. The latter, despite the corrections introduced by some poets who transformed Farhād into the son of the Emperor of China, is one of the main features of the character of Farhād in the romantic tradition: Farhād's love is without hope, because his rival is a king and he is only a commoner (see ch. 1, § 7).

The tradition which identifies Farrahān Shahr‑barāz, instead of Farrukh Hurmuz, as the unrequited wooer of queen Būrān seems to be first attested in Ibn al-Faqīh's *Kitāb al-buldān* (beginning tenth century). In a line from the poem in which Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, i.e. Ibn al-Faqīh himself, describes the reliefs at the site of Ṭāq-i Bustān, Ernst Herzfeld identifies a certain Khurrīn ("Et Ḫurrīn qui s'est élancé et qui, de sa fleche, fait signe à une jeune beauté qui ne parle pas"137) as Farrahān Shahr-barāz, the young beauty not responding to his nod being identified with Būrān.138 If Herzfeld's interpretation of the line in question is to be accepted, this text, beyond providing an early attestation of the legend of Shahr-barāz as unrequited suitor to Būrān's hand, also attests to an early connection of his character with Ṭāq-i Bustān and its reliefs: a proof that, at the beginning of the ninth century, the legend of the unrequited wooer, still identified with Khusraw's general, was already widespread in the area.

The tradition which gives Farrahān Shahr‑barāz as Būrān's unwanted husband seems to be also reflected in one of the stories intercalated in Abū Dulaf's second *risāla* (mid-tenth century).139 At the

136 Ṭabarī, *History*, V: *The Sāsānids*, 406.

137 Ibn al-Faqīh, *Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān*, 216,5 (French transl., 261). Khurrīn (Khwarrēn) would be a slightly different adjectival form meaning 'glorious', from *khwarr/ khorr* 'glory' and the adjectival suffix *-ēn*, used here in reference to the famous general.

138 Herzfeld, "Khusraw Parwēz und der Ṭāq i Vastān", 99.

139 Minorsky, "Two Iranian legends in Abū-Dulaf's second risālah", 175-8. On Abū Dulaf see Minorsky, "Abū Dulaf, Misʿar b. Muhalhil al-Khazradjī al-Yanbuʿī", 116.

end of his description of Tustar, Abū Dulaf speaks of a high ranking lady – whose name is hardly recognizable in this very damaged passage – who had built a wonderful bridge in Tustar. About her Abū Dulaf recounts a story: on the very night of her wedding, with the help of her beardless pages dressed up as slave-girls, she killed "the king of the Yemen" who – after having murdered her kingly "brother" – had married her. Vladimir Minorsky, who published and analyzed this tale, identifies the royal princess who killed the usurper to the throne as Būrān,140 and the King of the Yemen as Shahr-barāz – in actual fact, the latter had killed Ardashīr, the son of Būrān's brother Shīrūya, and not her brother. Minorsky defines the character of the King of the Yemen as "a mere invention" due to Abū‑Dulaf himself; and adds: "Of what he [Abū‑Dulaf] heard he must have retained only the fact that the usurper came from a far-away place".141 This is exactly the feature shared by both the legendary character of Farhād, and the historical or – better – semi-historical character of Shahrbarāz: both come from a far-away country.

Shahr-barāz appears as the hero of a number of legends, which are like scraps of a more ancient corpus focusing on the figure of the famous general. This legendary corpus was possibly the object of one of the lost works quoted by Ibn al-Nadīm in his *Fihrist* under the title: *Kitāb Shahrīzād* (sic for *Shahr-barāz*) *maʿa Abarwīz*. 142

Among these legends one must have been that of the 'Treasure carried by the wind' (*ganj-i bād-āvard*) which, in Niẓāmī's poem, is only the name of one of the melodies sung by Bārbad at Khusraw's court.143 This story is briefly recounted by Balʿamī, in the section devoted to the wonders of Khusraw's kingdom – though in this text no reference to Shahr-barāz's role is to be found. According to Balʿamī, the King of Rūm (the Byzantine emperor) had sent some ships charged with a fabulous treasure to Abyssinia (Ḥabash), in order to preserve his riches from the dangers of the war; but the wind had pushed the ships onto the coasts of Oman, and they had fallen into Khusraw's hands.144 Masʿūdī, in his *Kitāb murūj al-dhahab* (332/943), preserves another variant of this story, which explicitly attributes the recovering of the treasure to Shahr-barāz. In this text Shahr-barāz, whose title is deformed into Shahr(i)bār (a form not too different from the one given

141 Minorsky, "Two Iranian Legends in Abū-Dulaf's Second risālah", 177.

144 Balʿamī, *Tārikh*, 2: 1091.

140 Būrān is also famous for having constructed or repaired a number of bridges. About her Ṭabarī says: "She gave orders for silver coins to be minted, and she repaired masonry bridges (*al-qanāṭir*) and bridges of boats (*al-jusūr*)" (*History*, V: *The Sāsānids*, 404).

142 Ibn al-Nadīm, *Fihrist*, 1: 305.

143 Niẓāmī, *Khusraw va Shīrīn*, ch. 48, 7.

in the *Fihrist*), is the margrave (*marzbān*, 'general of the confines') of Maghreb. He recovers the fabulous 'Treasure carried by the wind' on the shores of Antioch, the city he had conquered.145

A second legend connected with the figure of Shahr-barāz, possibly going back to ancient pre-Islamic sources, is that of the epistolary exchange – with interception of a letter – between Shahr-barāz and Khusraw, already mentioned above (§ 4). Both legends must be of early origins and are recounted in a long narrative concerning Khusraw Parvīz and Shahr-barāz inserted in the *Kitāb al-tāj*, in the section devoted to the deceptions used by kings as a means to win a war or a conflict.146