Ferdowsi`s Foreign Sources

Despite Ferdowsi's meticulous detail in describing the history and legends of Persia in the Shahnameh, the information he provides on his sources for this great work are vague at best, and consequently questions surrounding these sources have long piqued the curiosity of scholars in both Iran and the West. More curious still is the presence, scattered within the Shahnameh, of stories that are instantly recognisable to readers versed in the traditions of both Western and Eastern literature. Indeed it seems highly likely that there are stories within the Shahnameh that at the very least have their origins in foreign mythology. In this essay I plan to investigate episodes from two works that seem to be present; the Teichoscopy in Homer's Iliad and Werner's account of the Chinese legend of Li Ching and No-Cha, taken from Xu Zhonglin's Fen Sheng Yen I. In order to determine whether these stories come from non-Persian sources I intend to investigate two areas: firstly the level of structural and linguistic similarity between the stories to show that they come from a common source, and secondly the evidence for how they were transmitted from a foreign source to Ferdowsi.

The first pair of scenes I will examine is the Teichoscopy in Book 3 of the Iliad, and its parallel in the Shahnameh: Sohrab and Hojir surveying the Persian army. Davis explains how the structural similarity of the two scenes begins with the setting and character roles; he describes how Sohrab, though not in fact the commander of the Turan army has become "the outstanding figure on the Turanian side at this moment in the poem" , and thus parallels his Iliad counterpart Priam. He also explains how Hojir and Helen are both present in 'enemy' fortresses at the time of the scene, and how both are summoned to participate in the scenes; Helen by the goddess Iris, and Hojir by Sohrab. Therefore there are clear similarities between the introductions to the two scenes. In both stories the 'enemy' is asked to help in identifying members of the opposing army; in the Iliad Priam first asks after a man who seems regal, to which Helen replies "the man you pointed out is imperial Agamemnon son of Atreus, a good king and a mighty spearman too." In the Shahnameh, Sohrab points to the largest tent first; Hojir replies "That is the Persian King's court." Sohrab and Priam both subsequently point to two further comparable characters; Odysseus and Tus, both introspective and self-interested, and Ajax and Gudarz, both great warriors. The Iliad continues with Helen questioning the whereabouts of her brothers, Castor and Polydeuces , while in the Shahnameh it is Sohrab who wonders where is father is. Here there is a moment of contrast, as it is Sohrab and not Hojir who questions the whereabouts of a family member, and Sohrab asks after a living person, while Helen's cousins are already dead. However, both scenes display a similar moment, where the pressing issue of war is temporarily set aside as a character ponders an issue important to them personally. Despite this superficial difference, the structure and details present in both of the stories is remarkable. The high level of similarity in structure and detail between these two scenes suggests that it is highly likely that the scene from the Shahnameh is at least based upon its parallel in the Iliad. Furthermore, Davis points out that the lack of any other known source available to Ferdowsi for this episode makes it even more likely that the Homeric text is the source for the story in the Shahnameh.

The second pair of stories I will examine is the story of No-Cha and Li Ching from Werner's translation of the story from the Feng Shen Yen I and that of Sohrab and Rostam. Much like what we have seen with the Iliad, there are striking resemblances between the Shahnameh and its Chinese counterpart. Firstly, Sohrab and his Chinese counterpart No-Cha are both described as growing un-naturally quickly; "Tahmineh named him Sohrab. When a month had gone, he seemed a year old; at three, he played polo; at five, he took up archery and practised with a javelin. By the time he was ten, no one dared compete with him." The Chinese story tells us "At seven years of age No-Cha was already six feet in height." Paul Brewster argues that a further similarity is that both father's are fighting for a tyrannical king; Rostam for King Kavus and Li Ching for Chou Wang. In combat, Rostam is twice bested by Sohrab, but escapes death both times, before eventually defeating his son in combat. In the Chinese legend Li Ching is also nearly defeated twice before escaping with his life. However, there are several significant differences between the two episodes; firstly, Li Ching flees once, but is subsequently protected by his son and a Taoist saint, he also does not kill No-Cha , whereas in the Shahnameh, Rostam takes a break for night, tricks Sohrab into sparing him and then defeats and kills him . Furthermore Li Ching and No-Cha know who they are fighting, unlike Sohrab and Rostam. Moreover, the Persian story takes place during a war, whereas the Chinese story is one of revenge and family feud.

These significant structural differences could lead us to dismiss the idea that the Chinese story is the origin of the episode in the Shahnameh. However, one cannot deny the similarities between them, and the presence of alterations between one culture and another should not surprise us; as stories which are absorbed into a new culture often undergo changes to fit with existing elements of a story. The differences between the episode of Sohrab and Rostam and its counterpart and the lack of differences between the Teichoscopy and its parallel in the Shahnameh indicate a divergence in the transmission of the two, foreign stories from their respective origins to the Ferdowsi and the Shahnameh.

Having demonstrated the structural and detail similarity between the Shahnameh, the Iliad and the Feng Shen Yen I, we now need to consider the method of transmission from Greek and Chinese sources to Ferdowsi and the Shahnameh in order to prove that the stories in question have moved from their indigenous culture into Persian literature. Therefore we need to dwell briefly on the question of whether Ferdowsi used written or oral sources. While the traditionally held belief is that Abu Mansur's Shahnameh was Ferdowsi's principal source, most scholars attest that oral sources were also used in compiling his work. Arberry wrote "His (Ferdowsi's) chief source was the prose Shahnama of Abu Mansur, but other writings, and some oral informants, contributed to the filling in of his massive picture." Dick Davis believes that Ferdowsi widely used oral sources, and argues that the structure of the earlier sections of the Shahnameh prove this is the case. He does however concede that Ferdowsi had access to written sources for other sections of the poem. It seems probable, therefore, that Ferdowsi drew upon oral and written sources while composing the Shahnameh, and thus when considering the question of the transmission of foreign elements we need to consider both written and oral methods of transmission.

As far as the Iliad is concerned, there is some evidence that a translation may have existed. Jorg Kraemer makes reference to a 12th century report by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus that Theophilus of Edessa translated the Homeric works into Syriac in the 8th century AD. Dick Davis argues that since this translation precedes Ferdowsi by some 200 years this provides ample time for a translation to have reached him. Indeed Ferdowsi did have recourse to other Greek texts which he did use. EG Browne argued that Ferdowsi used the Greek 'Alexander Romance', writing that instead of a direct transition from Dara II to the Sassanians "an entirely foreign element is introduced, namely the Alexander Romance. reposing entirely on the lost Greek text of the Pseudo-Callisthenes." While there is no definitive evidence that Ferdowsi had access to a translation, it seems likely he would use the Iliad were it available, as he did with Greek texts that were available.

We ought also to consider the possibility of oral transmission. There wa a prolonged history of cultural contact between Persia and Greece in the centuries prior to the composition of the Shahnameh, through both war and trade. This protracted period of contact between Greek and Persian cultures came at a critical time in the formation of the Shahnameh; Yamamoto wrote "The national legend may have undergone important changes throughout Parthian minstrelsy. The minstrels effectively contributed to the collection of stories of different peoples who lived in the neighbouring countries, as well as incorporating them into the national legend." This particular period, with regular contact with the Greeks through trade would undoubtedly have afforded Persian minstrels the opportunity to select and adapt elements of Greek folklore for their own national legend, and thus renders the oral transmission of the Iliad into the Shahnameh a distinct and credible possibility.

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence for a translation and the ample chances for oral transmission, I believe that in this case the text of the Shahnameh itself indicates that Ferdowsi was working from a translation. Moments before this episode Sohrab, according to Davis, mounts his horse, which he argues is surprising for one about to mount fortress walls. The transition from one scene to the next here is rather laboured compared to similar situations in the poem. The unusual situation of Sohrab viewing the defending Persian army from a fortress he has captured, serves to bring the scene in line with Homer's story. Whereas elsewhere, stories seem to have been adapted over time to fit the existing parts of the legend, in the case of the Teichoscopy it appears that the surrounding story has been formulated to accommodate the new, foreign section, suggesting that Ferdowsi used a fixed version of Homer's story, i.e. a translation.

There is no evidence of a translation of Xu Zhonglin's work being available to Ferdowsi, and thus the case its transmission rests entirely on oral means. The story seems to have arrived in Persia through the Sakas, who were displaced from their homeland c.160 BC by the Yueh-chi and eventually settled in India, Khotan and Kashgar. Here the Sakas were well placed, between Persia and China, to transmit stories between the two cultures. Paul Brewster claims that it was again the minstrels who played the primary role in this literary dispersion, "Ballad composers and singers and tellers of tales were largely instrumental in disseminating Saka legends to other areas." This question of Saka legend in the Shahnameh is one often raised over the Rostam legends, and Khalegi-Motlagh argued that the section concerning Rostam was Saka in origin, and was incorporated during the Parthian period ; which as Yamamoto pointed out was one of great change in the national legend. An oral transmission from China, through Saka legend to the Shahnameh would also account for the differences between the two versions of the story. As the Parthian minstrels would have been exposed to the legends of the Sakas for an extended period of time; any stories they incorporated into their own folklore would have been adapted over telling and re-telling to fit the existing stories about Persia, and the values of its culture. Brewster argues that in all likelihood Ferdowsi knew that these stories were Chinese in origin . However, it seems more likely that these were Saka stories incorporated by Parthian minstrels into Persian folklore, and that while they are foreign in origin, they may well have been presented as Persian stories, as they became part of the fabric of the mythology around familiar characters over time.

We have, then, two stories which are foreign in origin, from two different places, and which reached Ferdowsi and the Shahnameh in two very different ways. The structural similarities between Homer's Teichoscopy and Ferdowsi's parallel in the Shahnameh are so numerous, as are the similarities in the details between the two scenes that it is almost certain that the former influenced Ferdowsi's rendering of the episode. And while there is no conclusive proof, the reports of translations in the region and the apparent modelling of the main story around the scene do suggest that this is a section taken from the Homeric text and inserted by Ferdowsi. Thus, while we cannot definitively say he used a written translation, the evidence we do have points to Ferdowsi doing so. On the other hand the legend of Li Ching and No-Cha, while definitely similar to the story of Rostam and Sohrab, bares differences to its Persian counterpart. The lack of evidence of any written translation, the apparent changes the story has undergone and the Parthians' prolonged contact with the Sakas at a time when the national epic underwent significant changes suggest it has entered Persian folklore gradually through Saka oral storytelling. While Ferdowsi, in all likelihood, did not use a Chinese text as a direct source, there is evidence that Saka legends at least influenced the Persian national epic, and perhaps Sistan minstrels were among the oral sources consulted by Ferdowsi. In conclusion, therefore, the two sections are foreign in origin; in the case of the Teichoscopy, it demonstrates that Ferdowsi probably did use the Iliad as a direct source, and the legend of No-Cha and Li Ching demonstrates how some of the stories included by Ferdowsi have come from foreign sources through Persian minstrelry. In any case, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh is an illustration of how foreign material can be incorporated into a national legend.