FERDOWSI
ii. ᴡ-ĀѴ
Ჹ-峾 is the title of a verse lampoon of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ḡazna attributed to Ƿɲī. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī, text, pp. 75-81), after Ƿɲī presented his &Dz;-峾, the sultan, at the instigation of the poet’s detractors, used the pretext of the poet’s alleged Muʿtazilite and Shiʿite (ڱżī) orientation to give him only twenty thousand dirhams as the reward (ṣe) for the epic. Finding the amount humiliating, Ƿɲī distributed it among workers in the public bath and fled to Ṭabarestān, where he petitioned the Bawandid ruler Šahrīār for asylum and wrote his verse lampoon. Šahrīār, who was on good terms with Maḥmūd, paid the poet a thousand dirhams for each of his lampoon’s one hundred verses and destroyed it. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī recorded the six lines that survived. No other credible source speaks of Ƿɲī&ܴ; trip to Ḡazna and his escape to Ṭabarestān; moreover, the Bavandid ruler Šahrīār b. Šarvīn, who has been identified with the ruler mentioned in the Čahār maqāla (e.g., comm. p. 244), could not have lived until 400/1009, which is considered the date Ƿɲī finished his composition (see ĀL-E BĀVAND). Thus one cannot rely on the veracity of many of the details of Neżāmī’s account. Introductions to manuscripts of the &Dz;-峾 reproduce that account and embellish it with many accretions. In some of them, the Ჹ-峾 runs more than one hundred lines (the Mohl edition, Preface, pp. 88-92 contains 93 lines).
A great deal of textual evidence and scholarship has fed the controversy surrounding the Ჹ-峾. Maḥmūd Khan Šīrānī (pp. 37-110) established that many of the lines of the lampoon had either been taken from the &Dz;-峾 itself or are too weak to be consistent with Ƿɲī&ܴ; style. He thus concluded that either the Ჹ-峾 was fabricated after Ƿɲī&ܴ; time (p. 55) or that if Ƿɲī had indeed penned such a satire, it disappeared and the origin of what we have today is a mystery (p. 103). However, there is reason to suspect that Šīrānī may not have been entirely objective in his judgment, since his article was intended to be a defense of the Ghaznavid ruler rather than a critique of the Ჹ-峾. Jalāl-al-Dīn Homāʾī has suggested that Oṯmān Moḵtārī’s mention at the end of his &Dz;ī-峾 (written between 492-508/1098-115, predating Čahār maqāla by some fifty years) of his own reluctance to satirize his patron even if the latter would fail to reward him (ī, pp. 788 n. 1, 832) might be an oblique reference to the -峾 of Ƿɲī. Moreover, contrary to Šīrānī’s view, not all of the verses of the Ჹ-峾 are from the &Dz;-峾, nor are all of them weak. Some of the lines are firm, substantial, and original (see for example the introductions to MS Istanbul, Topkapı Saray Kütüphanesi, Hazine 1479, dated 731/1331, and MS Cairo Dār al-kotob, 6006 ī, dated 741/1340). Šīrānī is not, however, alone in his doubts about the lampoon; Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār was also skeptical about the authenticity of the entire poem (pp. 30-31).
Some scholars like Theodore Nöldeke (pp. 29-31), Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda (p. 80), Ḏabīḥ-Allāh Ṣafā (pp. 190-91), and Moḥammad-Amīn Rīāḥī (pp. 142-44) believed in the existence of the Ჹ-峾 and the authenticity of some of its verses. Nöldeke (p. 29) felt that the use of the term “this book” in the Ჹ-峾 showed that Ƿɲī appended it to the &Dz;-峾, thereby negating the various verses that praised Sultan Maḥmūd in the larger work. He suggested that, in accordance with Ƿɲī&ܴ; wishes, all of the verses panegyrizing Sultan Maḥmūd should be removed and replaced with the Ჹ-峾.
The opening verses of the Ჹ-峾, which are found in all manuscripts of the &Dz;-峾 as well as in Čahār maqāla, indicate that the dispute between Ƿɲī and Sultan Maḥmūd was sectarian in nature. This is the same argument that Ƿɲī makes in the introduction to the &Dz;-峾 (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 10-11), namely, his defense of the truth of Shīʿīsm to the exclusion of all other forms of Islam. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī also saw this as the reason for the sultan’s displeasure with Ƿɲī, which led to the composition of his lampoon of Maḥmūd. A verse in the Ჹ-峾 (ed. Mohl, preface, p. 89, v. 8), suggests that certain people demeaned Ƿɲī in the eyes of the sultan, which agrees in some respects with the contention of Čahār maqāla (p. 78) that courtiers opposed to the grand vizier Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī (but cf. above, p. 517) were responsible for the sultan’s displeasure.
Ƿɲī&ܴ; Ჹ-峾 is a rarity among Persian lampoons for its lack of obscenities. The modesty of Ƿɲī&ܴ; attack is entirely consistent with the decorum of the &Dz;-峾, which is another argument for its authenticity. Were it not for mild insults like “ignoble” (bad-gowhar) and “son of a servant” (貹岹) used in its more heated and some combative lines, the Ჹ-峾 would lose its status as lampoon. The last verse (Mohl, ed., Preface, p. 92, v. 3), whether genuine or not, has proven prophetic: “The poet harmed in some disgraceful way/Will pen a dart that lasts till judgment day.” In the history of Persia, all the reports of Maḥmūd’s military conquests have not made him as famous as Ƿɲī&ܴ; &Dz;-峾. By the same token, all the blood the sultan shed has not made him as infamous as the poet’s putative Ჹ-峾.
Bibliography (for cited works not given in detail, see “Short References”):
M.-T. Bahār, Ferdo wsī-nāma-ye Malek-al-Šoʿarā Bahār, ed. M. Golbon, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966.
Th. Nöldeke, Das iranische Nationalepos, Berlin and Leipzig, 1920; tr. B. ʿAlawī as Ḥamāsa-ye mellī-e Īrān, 3rd ed., Tehran, 1357 Š./1978.
Bahāʾ-al-Dīn Oṯmān Moḵtārī, ī, ed. J. Homāʾī, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962.
M.-A. Rīāḥī, Ƿɲī, Tehran, 1375 Š./1996.
Ḏ. Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa-sarāʾī dar Īrān, 4th ed., Tehran, 1363 Š./1984, pp. 186-91.
M. Šīrānī, Čahār-maqāla bar Ƿɲī wa &Dz;-峾, tr., ʿA.-Ḥ. Ḥabībī, Kabul, 1355 Š./1976.
S. Ḥ. Taqīzāda, “&Dz;-峾 wa Ƿɲī,” in Hazāra-ye Ƿɲī, Tehran, 1322 Š./1943, pp. 17-107.
(Djalal Khaleghi-Motlagh)
Originally Published: December 15, 1999
Last Updated: January 26, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. IX, Fasc. 5, pp. 523-524
