¹ó´¡¸é±áÄ€¶Ù, a romantic figure in Persian legend and literature, best known from the poetry of NeẓÄmÄ« GanjavÄ« (q.v.) as a rival with the Sasanian king Ḵosrow II ParvÄ“z (r. 591-628) for the love of the beautiful Armenian princess ŠÄ«rÄ«n. His story, following its masterly depiction by NeẓÄmÄ«, provided the source for several narrative works in Persian, Turkish, Urdu, Pashto, and Kurdish.
FarhÄd (Phraates, q.v.), like MÄ«lÄd and Bēžan, is among the Parthian princes who are transformed in the Iranian national epic into warrior-heroes at the Kayanian court (Camb. Hist. Iran III, pp. 458 and 1157). Unlike Bēžan, however, FarhÄd plays only a minor part in the &³§³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;Äå³ó-²ÔÄå³¾²¹ with no specific episode of his own.
One of the first references to FarhÄd as a Sasanian rather than a Kayanian figure in Persian historical texts is in BalÊ¿amÄ«’s Persian adaptation of ṬabarÄ«’s History: “...this concubine [ŠÄ«rÄ«n] was the one with whom FarhÄd fell in love. ParvÄ“z punished FarhÄd by sending him to cut through the mountain” (BalÊ¿amÄ«, ed. BahÄr, pp. 1090-91). The anonymous author of the Mojmal al-tawÄrīḵ wa’l-qeá¹£Äá¹£, (ca. 520/1126), refers both to the Kayanian FarhÄd (Mojmal, ed. BahÄr, pp. 25, 92) and the FarhÄd of Ḵosrow ParvÄ“z’s reign (ibid., pp. 79, 96) although he retains the warrior-hero associations of the latter by describing him as an army commander (sepahbad) in love with ŠÄ«rÄ«n. It may be noted that in this text FarhÄd is not depicted as a sculptor but as the overseer of the Byzantine Keyá¹Å«s who carries out the stone carvings (ibid., p.79). The legend of FarhÄd and ŠÄ«rÄ«n was also widely known to Persian poets long before NeẓÄmÄ«’s time. The earliest reference is perhaps a single bayt attributed by some early lexicographers to ĀḡÄjÄ« BoḵÄrÄ« (q.v.) in which the Samanid poet compares the alacrity with which his beloved rushes into his arms to the speed with which FarhÄd’s chisel falls on BÄ«sotÅ«n (Loḡat-e fors, ed. EqbÄl, p. 382). There are also many allusions to the legend scattered in the lyrical poetry of well-known Persian poets before NeẓÄmÄ«, including Farroḵī, Qaá¹rÄn, MasÊ¿Å«d-e SaÊ¿d-e SalmÄn, Ê¿OṯmÄn-e MoḵtÄrÄ«, NÄá¹£er-e Ḵosrow, AnwÄrÄ«, and SanÄʾī. A brief reference by NeẓÄm-al-Molk, ca. 484-85/1091-92, mentions the legend as a well-known popular story (samar-Ä« maÊ¿rÅ«f) and claims that Ḵosrow’s uxoriousness towards ŠÄ«rÄ«n emboldened her to desire FarhÄd rather than her royal spouse (SÄ«ar al-molÅ«k, ed. H. Darke, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968, p. 246).
The poet NeẓÄmÄ« was well acquainted with SÄ«ar al-molÅ«k, as is shown by the evidence of his verbatim quotations in his Haft paykar of phrases from the passage on BahrÄm GÅr’svizier RÄst-ravešn (RÄst-rošan) in the SÄ«ar al-molÅ«k. In his characteristic way, NeẓÄmÄ« adopted the story as told by NeẓÄm-al-Molk while radically altering its moral implications. In his narrative poem Ḵosrow o ŠÄ«rÄ«n, probably finished in 576/1180, FarhÄd appears at a point when relations between ŠÄ«rÄ«n and her royal lover are strained. Acting on ŠÄ«rÄ«n’s request, FarhÄd, described as an architect and sculptor well-versed in the sciences and also endowed with immense physical strength, undertakes to cut a stone canal for the flow of milk from the pasture to her palace. Later in the poem, in a pivotal ³¾´Ç²ÔÄåẓa°ù²¹ (stichomythia) FarhÄd defeats Ḵosrow in a verbal duel about ŠÄ«rÄ«n. The dialogue is the culmination of the clash between two conflicting codes and concepts of love, one heroic and sensual, regarding the beloved as a prize or booty to be conquered and possessed, the other unrequited and all-consuming, relishing the very notion of the annihilation of the self through love. Ḵosrow, unable to dissuade FarhÄd from abandoning his love for ŠÄ«rÄ«n, charges him with the task of cutting a road through the rocks of BÄ«sotÅ«n, agreeing to give up, as a reward, his own claim to ŠÄ«rÄ«n. FarhÄd takes up the challenge; when Ḵosrow learns that this seemingly impossible labor is almost done, he sends FarhÄd the false news of ŠÄ«rÄ«n’s death. In his despair, FarhÄd falls from the rocks and dies.
Throughout the centuries many poets have tried to compose imitations of NeẓÄmÄ«, either in the form of self-contained narrative poems on the legend of FarhÄd and ŠÄ«rÄ«n, or within the wider frame of the Ḵosrow and ŠÄ«rÄ«n romance. Perhaps the most successful among the latter group was AmÄ«r Ḵosrow DehlavÄ« (q.v.; d. 725/1325), followed by Ê¿Abd-AllÄh HÄtefÄ« (q.v.; d. 927/1520). AmÄ«r Ḵosrow (ŠÄ«rÄ«n o Ḵosrow, ed. G. Alieva, Moscow, l961), expanding the brief reference to FarhÄd’s education in China in NeẓÄmÄ«, described FarhÄd as a Chinese prince who sacrifices his rank and wealth for love of the arts. HÄtefÄ« and subsequent poets only mention that he was a Chinese artist. In their attempts at innovation both AmÄ«r Ḵosrow and HÄtefÄ« (ŠÄ«rÄ«n o Ḵosrow, ed. S. Asadulloev ,Moscow, l977) introduced changes in the plot that demonstrate a certain lack of sophistication (Moayyad). Ê¿Aref-e ArdabÄ«lÄ« (b. ca. 711/1312), in his rather bizarre ¹ó²¹°ù³óÄå»å-²ÔÄå³¾²¹ (ed. Ê¿A. Ä€á¸ar, Tehran 2535=1355 Š./1976), departed radically from NeẓÄmÄ«’s plot, substituting in the first part of his narrative GolestÄn, the daughter of FarhÄd’s teacher, for ŠÄ«rÄ«n. In the second part, he focused on the relationship between FarhÄd and ŠÄ«rÄ«n, adopting a mocking tone towards NeẓÄmÄ« and poking fun at what he saw as NeẓÄmÄ«’s absurd idealizations of love. Instead, he offered what he regarded as a more robust and down to earth approach where sexual gratification becomes the driving motive and the ultimate ideal. WaḥšÄ« BÄfqÄ« (d. 991/1583) was in the initial stages of composing a FarhÄd o ŠÄ«rÄ«n when he died. His work was completed by Weá¹£Äl ŠÄ«rÄzÄ« (d.1262/1846) with some additional lines later appended by Ä€qÄ MahdÄ« á¹¢Äber ŠÄ«rÄzÄ«, who would have preferred for FarhÄd to be receptive to love instead of rejecting ŠÄ«rÄ«n’s advances (DÄ«van-e WaḥšÄ« BÄfqÄ«, ed., Ḥ. Naḵaʾī, Tehran, 1339 Š./1960, pp. 491-611; KollÄ«yat-e dÄ«vÄn-e WaḥšÄ« BÄfqÄ«, ed. M. DarvÄ«š, Tehran, n.d. [1964?], pp. 487-603). MÄ«rzÄ Moḥammad-JaÊ¿far NeyrÄ«zÄ«, writing under the pen name ŠoÊ¿la (d. 1316/1897) is the last known composer of a Ḵosrow o ŠÄ«rÄ«n in which the FarhÄd episode appears, with only insignificant changes to the original plot (Ḵosrow o ŠÄ«rÄ«n, ed. Ê¿A-W. NÅ«rÄnÄ« Weá¹£Äl, Shiraz, 1343 Š./1964).
The influence of the legend of FarhÄd is not limited to literature but permeates the whole of Persian culture, including folklore and the fine arts. FarhÄd’s helve supposedly grew into a tree with medicinal qualities, and there are popular laments for FarhÄd, especially among the Kurds (Mokri) There is also evidence of the widespread popularity of the legend in the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century from the surviving pottery of the time—an unglazed ceramic vessel, for example, depicts two scenes from the FarhÄd episode (Soucek, p. 46). A survey of the FarhÄd legend, as depicted in the illustrated manuscripts of NeẓÄmÄ«, lies beyond the scope of this article.
Bibliography (for cited works not given in detail, see “Short References”):
E. E. Bertels, Izbrannye trudy: Nizami i Fuzuli, Moscow, 1962.
K. R. F. Burrill, “The FarhÄd and ShÄ«rÄ«n Story and Its Further Development from Persian into Turkish Literature,” in P. J. Chelkowski, ed., Studies in Art and Literature of the Near East in Honor of Richard Ettinghausen, Salt Lake City, Utah, and New York, l974, pp. 53-58.
H. W. Duda, Farhad und Schirin: Die Literarische Geschichte eines persischen Sagenstoffes, Prague, 1933.
W. Eilers, Semiramis: Entstehung und Nachhall einer Altorientalischen Sage, Vienna, 1971.
H. Massé and A. Zajaczkoiwski, “FarhÄd wa ShÄ«rÄ«n,” in EI2 II, pp. 793-95.
H. Moayyad, “MoqalledÄn-e Ḵosrow o ŠÄ«rÄ«n-e NeẓÄmÄ«,” ±õ°ùÄå²Ô&²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;±ð²ÔÄå²õÄ« 5, 1993, pp. 72-88.
M. Mokri, “Pleureuses professionnelles et la mort de Chîrîn” in Contributions scientifieques aux études iraniennes IV, Paris and Louvain, l995, pp. 460-505.
²Ñ´Ç²Ô³ú²¹·ÉÄ«, ±·´Ç²õḵa³óÄå IV, pp. 3021-28.
A. RÄdfar, KetÄb-æenÄsÄ«-ye NeẓÄmÄ« GanjavÄ«, Tehran,1371Š./1992.
P. Soucek, “FarhÄd and ṬÄq-i BÅ«stÄn: The Growth of a Legend,” in P. J. Chelkowski, ed., Studies in Art and Literature of the Near East in Honor of Richard Ettinghausen, Salt Lake City, Utah, and New York, l974, pp. 27-52.
Storey/de Blois V/2, pp. 438-495.
M. Streck-[J. Lassner], “Kaá¹£r-i ShÄ«rÄ«n,” in EI2 IV, pp. 730-31.
(Heshmat Moayyad)
Originally Published: December 15, 1999
Last Updated: December 15, 1999
