نسخه‌ای گزینشی از داستان‌های شاهنامه برای تقدیم به محمود غزنوی

Introduction

The dispersion of the panegyrics to Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni throughout the Shahnameh, in terms of their placement and the sequence of the narratives, lacks a clear logical justification if one assumes that a complete version of the work was presented. It may therefore be supposed that Ferdowsi did not incorporate these eulogies in a unified and systematic manner into the original version of the Shahnameh, or that they were added to the text by scribes in later periods, particularly after the poem had gained widespread renown. Moreover, certain verses at the beginning of the story of Khosrow and Shirin allude to Ferdowsi’s failure to secure Mahmud’s patronage and to the indifference of the Ghaznavid court an observation that may further complicate the question of the fate of the presentation copy and the manner of its reception. On this basis, drawing on the available evidence, the present study strengthens the hypothesis that the scattered nature of Mahmud’s panegyrics is not the result of later interpolations, but rather reflects the structure of a selective version that Ferdowsi prepared during the course of composing the Shahnameh for presentation to Mahmud of Ghazni.

2. Literature Review

Scholars hold differing views regarding the time and manner in which the panegyrics to Mahmud of Ghazni were incorporated into the Shahnameh, as well as the date of its dispatch to the Ghaznavid court.
Taqizadeh, Rajaʾi, Atash, Riahi, Kazzazi, Nahvi, Khaleghi-Motlagh, and Aydenlu argue that the panegyrics to Mahmud were composed after 400 AH, since Ferdowsi refers in the Shahnameh to the remission of taxes, an act that would have occurred either after the famine in Khurasan in 401 AH or following Mahmud’s Indian campaigns in 406 and 409 AH.
Ritter, for his part, believed that the Shahnameh was sent to the Ghaznavid court “in installments”.
Nevertheless, these views have paid comparatively little attention to the relationship between the placement of the panegyrics within the text and the form of the presentation copy itself.

3. Methodology

The present study adopts an analytical-historical method and, drawing on internal textual evidence from the Shahnameh, examines the content of the panegyrics, the probable time of their composition, and their position within the narrative structure of the Shahnameh. It seeks to clarify the logic behind the dispersion of these eulogies and to propose a plausible reconstruction of the structure of the presentation copy prepared by Ferdowsi.

4. Discussion

The prevailing assumption among many Shahnameh scholars is that Ferdowsi sent a “complete version” of the Shahnameh to the court at Ghazni; however, the dispersion of the panegyrics to Mahmud of Ghazni within the poem is not compatible with such an assumption. If Ferdowsi had intended to present a complete Shahnameh, the eulogies would have been expected to appear at the beginnings of the volumes or at least at the opening of the most important narratives, whereas no such pattern is observable in the text. The absence of this pattern suggests that the prevailing assumption should be reconsidered and that the actual form of the presentation copy must be re-examined.
It may be hypothesized that Ferdowsi, rather than sending a complete Shahnameh, presented to the Ghaznavid court a selective compilation of the stories he had completed by that time or during the composition of which he had composed panegyrics to Mahmud, assembled in a separate volume. On this basis, the panegyrics to Mahmud mark the boundaries of those sections of the Shahnameh that were prepared to introduce Ferdowsi’s work to the court. This selective version was not conceived independently, but was designed during the composition and completion of the Shahnameh and was subsequently, for presentation purposes, likely extracted from the poem and fair-copied.
Thus, by distinguishing the stories in which Ferdowsi inserted panegyrics to Mahmud, one may posit the existence of a coherent selective collection that he arranged for presentation to the court at Ghazni and for introducing his work. Some historical sources, however, such as Chahar Maqala by Nizami Aruzi describe the Shahnameh as having been presented as a complete work. This report offers only a general picture of the process of composition and presentation, and it should be noted that such accounts are typically late relative to the completion of the poem (400 AH) and contain numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. Therefore, while internal textual evidence alone is not conclusive, taken together and in light of the limitations of the historical sources, it strengthens the hypothesis of a selective presentation version prepared for Mahmud of Ghazni.

5. Conclusions

An examination of the dispersion and placement of the panegyrics to Mahmud of Ghazni within Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh indicates that the assumption of a complete, polished, and unified version having been sent to the court at Ghazni is not supported by the evidence. The panegyrics are not only inconsistent in terms of their location, order, and coherence, but they also overlap temporally with specific stages of the poem’s composition, clearly preceding the completion of the entire work. These findings reinforce the likelihood that Ferdowsi composed the panegyrics during the course of creating the Shahnameh, rather than after its completion.
A historical analysis of the panegyrics, coupled with evidence regarding Ferdowsi’s age, suggests that their composition most likely occurred within a limited period, between 390 and 394 AH, a time that coincides with the consolidation of Mahmud of Ghazni’s political power and the poet’s hope of securing courtly patronage. From this perspective, the panegyrics to Mahmud should be understood not as later interpolations by scribes, but as part of Ferdowsi’s strategy for preparing a presentation copy: a version in which the poet, while continuing to compose the Shahnameh, selected certain narratives for submission to the court.
Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the presentation copy of the Shahnameh sent to Mahmud of Ghazni was not a complete version of the poem, but a selective compilation of composed stories. The selection was deliberate rather than random, guided by themes such as military victory, territorial expansion, political legitimacy, justice, and the portrayal of the ideal king, while tragic episodes or narratives highlighting weakness, failure, or crises of royal legitimacy were omitted. The concentration of panegyrics in stories such as the Great War of Kay Khosrow, Daqiqi’s Sayings, Ferdowsi’s Sayings, the Seven Labors of Esfandiyar, Rostam and Shaghad, the reign of Darab, the Arsacids, Shapur son of Ardashir Babakan, Yazdegerd the Wrongdoer, and the contents of the Letter of Nowshinrowan to his son Hormazd, attests to this intentional selection.
Moreover, the opening verses of the story of Khosrow and Shirin, in which Ferdowsi laments the indifference of the Ghaznavid court and his own failure to attract Mahmud’s attention, provide a crucial indication for reconstructing the fate of this presentation copy. These verses suggest that the selective Shahnameh, at least in the form Ferdowsi had intended, was not accepted, and that this failure and the consequent shift in audience is reflected within the text itself.