Turan - Blog Posts
Turan, Goddess of Love
Alluring, pure, fascinating and bold, Turan is the love, fertility and femininity goddess of the Etruscan pantheon and also the protector of the ancient city of Velch. The Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren, Belgium states that her name in Etruscan means “dove”, while other linguists came to the conclusion that it shares the same indoeuropean of the Ancient Greek word “τύραννος”, standing for “lord”. Nonetheless, two other theories exist: the first one recalls the dominant nuance of Turan’s persona, as the Ancient Greek word for “matron” is the similar sounding noun “δρούνα”; the latter instead focuses more on the Etruscan word “Tan” meaning “moon”, and its nexus with the goddess’ name, as female deities in numerous religions are believed to be bearers of the lunar energy, opposed to the male solar energy. The goddess shares a vast number of similarities with her Roman equivalent, Venus, such as the romantic relationship with the charming Adonis (in Etruscan “Atunis”), and a presumable bonding with the god of war Acun (where the “c” implies an aspiration). Her maidens were called “Lasas” and her spirit animals are pigeons and black swans. The importance given to such goddess is a clear hint to the matriarchal society on which archaic Etruria planted its roots, as even later women will have freedom and privileges (such as the right of landowning and having personal accessories of any type). She is also known as “Turan ati”, meaning “Mother Turan”, similarly to Cybele in Anatolia and Ashtoreth in abrahamic cults.
The song which I think incarnates at best the fascinating, tense, seductive and virginal nature of Turan is “Lovesick” by BANKS, as the rhythm carries a nostalgic and frustrating, yet mystifying and almost monumental verve. It reminds me of a heavenly garden with sakura trees dotted all over, under a menacing crimson sky.
I hope with all my heart you experience the music’s aura.
Iran–Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu (Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
Pre-publication of chapter XVI of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XIV, XV and XVI belong to Part Five (Fallacies about Sassanid History, History of Religions, and the History of Migrations). The book is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
------------------------
Hsiung-nu soldier from Saksanokhur, Tajikistan
However, soon afterwards, Europe faced two major threats that lasted many centuries: the Islamic armies and the Manichaean subversion. Despite their ferocity and their conquests, at a certain point the Islamic armies were stopped either in Western or in Eastern Europe. But the Manichaean tidal wave that hit Europe back was disproportional and beyond any expectation. Starting from the Eastern Roman Empire and the entire Caucasus region and as early as the 7th c. CE, the Paulicians triggered an enormous religious, social and imperial destabilization across vast lands. The famous Eastern Roman Akritai, i.e. the imperial Eastern Roman guards and frontal forces against the Islamic Caliphate, were – all – Paulicians, having rejected the Christian Orthodox Constantinopolitan theology. Digenes Akritas, the Eastern Roman Empire's greatest hero and Modern Greeks' most revered and foremost legendary figure was a Paulician, not an Orthodox.
Constantinopolitan patriarchs, emperors and theologians persistently described the Paulicians as Manichaeans; they used the same term also for the Iconoclasts. This does not mean that these religious, spiritual and esoteric systems of faith were 'Manichaean' stricto sensu, but they were definitely formed under determinant Manichaean impact. The same concerns the Bogomiles across the Balkans, Central and Western Europe, starting in the 10th c., the Cathars across Western Europe from the 12th c. onwards, and also many other religious, spiritual and esoteric systems that derived from the aforementioned.
The Muslim friends, partners and associates of the Paulicians were also groups formed under strong Manichaean impact and historically viewed as such; known as Babakiyah or Khurramites or Khorram-dinan, the 8th c. religious group setup by Sunpadh and led in the 9th c. by Babak Khurramdin made an alliance with the Eastern Roman Emperor Theophilos (829-842), an outstanding Iconoclast, and not only repeatedly revolted against the Abbasid Caliphate but also fought along with the Eastern Roman army in 837 in the Anti-Taurus Mountains to recapture Melitene (Malatya), and on many other occasions. The Khurramite commander Nasir and 14000 Iranian Khurramite rebels had no problem in being baptized Iconoclast Christians and taking Greek names (Nasir became then known as Theophobos), which shows the Manichaean origins and affinities of the Iconoclasts and the Khurramites.
The state of the Paulicians
The massacre of the Paulicians
Kale-ye Babak, the impregnable castle of the Babakiyah (or Khurramites) near Kaleybar – East Azerbaijan, Iran
Afshin brings Babak as captive in Samarra. from a manuscript miniature of the Safavid times
Babak Khorramdin statue from Babek city in Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan
Within the context of early Islamic caliphates, the Manicheans prospered, definitely marked by their superiority in terms of spirituality, letters, sciences, philosophy and cosmology. It was relatively easy for them to reinterpret the Quran as a Manichaean scripture; it was totally impossible for the uneducated and naïve early Muslims to oppose Manicheans in open debate or to outfox Manichaean interpretative schemes. Among the leading Muslim erudite polymaths, mystics, poets and translators of the early period of Islamic Civilization (7th – 8th c.), many defended all major pillars of the Manichaean doctrine and even the dualist dogma; Ibn al Muqaffa is an example. The illustrious translator of the Middle Persian literary masterpiece Kalila wa Dimna into Arabic was a crypto-Manichaean Muslim, and surely he was not the only. Ibn al Muqaffa was executed as per the order of Caliph al-Mansur (754-775), but the first persecution of the Manicheans started only under the Caliph al-Mahdi (775-785); however, this was the time many groups and movements or Manichean origin started openly challenging Islam and the Caliphate in every sense. However, it is noteworthy that the greatest Caliph of all times, Harun al Rashid (786-809), had a very tolerant and friendly stance toward Manicheans of all types.
Abu’l Abbas al-Saffah proclaimed as the first Abbasid Caliph: the Abbasid dynasty opened the door for a cataclysmic Iranian cultural, intellectual, academic, scientific and spiritual impact on the Muslim world.
However, it is only as late as the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir (908-932) that the Manicheans, persecuted in the Caliphate, left Mesopotamia in big numbers, making of Afrasiab (Samarqand) and Central Asia the center of their faith, life and activities. This was not a coincidence; many Turanians had already been long date enthusiastic Manichean converts and adepts, whereas several Manichaean monuments unearthed in Central Asia date back to the 4th c. At the time of al-Mansur, the Uyghur Khaqan (: Emperor) Boku Tekin accepted Manichaeism as official state religion in 763; the Uyghur Khaqanate stretched from the Tian Shan mountains and the Lake Balkhash (today's Kazakhstan) to the Pacific. For more than one century, Manichaeism was the state religion across the entire Northeastern Asia.
During the same time, Manichaeism was diffused in Tibet and China. Similarly with what occurred in the Islamic Caliphate, Manicheans in Tibet and China had it easy to reinterpret Buddhism in Manichaean terms. As a matter of fact, Chinese Buddhism is full of Manichaean impregnations. For this reason, several anti-Buddhist Chinese emperors (like Wuzong of Tang in the period 843-845) confused the Manicheans with the Buddhists and persecuted them too. However, Manichaeism was for many centuries a fundamental component and a critical parameter of all social, spiritual, intellectual and religious developments in China. And this was due to the incessant interaction of Turanians and Iranians across Asia. About:
During the Sassanid and early Islamic periods, the central provinces of Iran had to embrace many Turanian newcomers. This was one of the numerous Turanian waves that the Iranian plateau and its periphery had to welcome across the millennia. A vast and critical topic of the World History that was excessively distorted and systematically misrepresented across various disciplines of the Humanities is the chapter of the major Eurasiatic Migrations. Various distorting lenses have been used in this regard. It is surely beyond the scope of the present chapter to outline this subject, but I must at least mention it with respect to the persistent Orientalist efforts to divide and dissociate Iranian from Turanian nations across several millennia.
If one accepts naively the 'official' dogma of Western colonial historiography, one imagines that all the world's major civilizations (Sumerians, Elamites, Akkadians-Assyrians/Babylonians, Egyptians, Cushites-Sudanese, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartu, Phoenicians, Iranians, Greeks, Romans, Dravidians, Chinese, etc.) were automatically popped up and instantly formed by settled populations. Modern historians, who compose this sort of nonsensical narratives, are monstrous gangsters intending to desecrate human civilization and to extinguish human spirituality. All civilizations were started by nomads, and there was always a time when all indigenous nations (each of them in its own turn) were migrants.
But modern Western historians intentionally and criminally misrepresent the major Eurasiatic Migrations in a most systematic and most sophisticated manner, by only introducing - partly and partially - aspects of this overwhelming and continual phenomenon, like spices on gourmet dishes. I do not imply that the Eurasiatic Migrations were the only to have happened or to have mattered; there were also important migrations in Africa, the Pacific, and the continent of the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas. However, I limit the topic to the migrations that are relevant to the History of Iran and Turan. So, those who study Ancient Roman History are customarily told that, 'although everything was fine and civilized Romans prospered in peace', suddenly some iniquitous barbarians arrived to invade Roman lands and to embarrass the civilized settled populations altogether; this type of bogus-historical presentations is a Crime against the Mankind, because it distorts the foremost reality of human history, namely that we have all been migrants.
There is no worst bigotry worldwide than that of settled populations.
Yet, every manual of history would be easily rectified, if few extra chapters were added, at the beginning and during the course of the narration, to offer an outline of parallel developments occurred in the wider and irrevocbly indivisible Eurasia.
The discriminatory, truly racist, manner by which the civilized migrants are presented in various manuals of (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Cushitic, Anatolian, Roman, Greek, European, Russian, Iranian, Dravidian, and Chinese) History helps only reinstate the vicious and immoral axiom that 'History is written by the victors'. Every historian, who does not consciously write in an objective manner to reveal the truth and to reject the paranoia of the aforementioned adage, is an enemy of the Mankind.
Beyond the aforementioned points, many historians today will try to find an excuse, saying that, by writing about let's say the so-called 'barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire', they intentionally reflect the Roman viewpoint, because they rely on Roman historical sources. This could eventually be accepted, if stated in 1820, when the modern science of history had not advanced much, and only few archaeological excavations had taken place. But if this is seriously expressed as an apology today, it constitutes an outrage. The least one can say to these forgers is that they must first obtain an interdisciplinary degree, before publishing their nonsensical manual, or – alternatively - study several paperbacks on the History of the Migrant Nations (in this case: Huns, Vandals, Goths, etc.).
An even greater mistake that modern historians make is that they present the continual phenomenon of Eurasiatic migrations in a most fragmentary manner; this creates, by means of Nazi propaganda, the wrong idea and the distorted impression that all of a sudden, every now and then, new migrants appear in the horizon, coming out of the vast Asiatic 'nowhere'. This is an aberration and a fallacy. The absurd factoid, which is deceitfully called "Invasions of the Roman Empire" and is peremptorily dated between 100 CE and 500 CE, is merely an academic fabrication. Why?
First, there were incessant migrations before and after the said period.
Second, the aforementioned factoid is a fallacy due to the fact that, during the same period, other migrations took also place, but the specialists in Roman History do not mention (or even do not know) them; however, these migrations (that they fail to even name) constitute intertwined phenomena with those that they present in their manuals, and consequently their presentation is a conscious and plain distortion.
Third, the events are always portrayed as a menace of barbarism, as breach of Roman legitimacy, and as violation of a hypothetical right of the Roman Empire to exist. This is an outrage; the Roman Empire was not a sacrosanct institution. In many aspects, its lawless formation, barbaric expansion, and bloody wars constitute some of the World History's bleakest pages. But criminal colonial historians never discussed 'unpleasant' topics with the correct terminology; they did not write for instance about the barbarian Roman demolition of Carthage, the monstrous Roman sack of Corinth, the savage Roman invasion of Seleucid Syria or the lawless Roman annexation of Egypt.
This is the disgusting bias of the Western colonial historiographers: when a negative development takes place against Rome, it is 'bad'; and quite contrarily, when an undesirable occurrence happens to others, it is 'good'. And in order to represent this vicious bias as 'historical truth', they mobilize a great intellectual effort, involving many methods. In this regard, the Eurasiatic migrations are absurdly fractured into many parts, and many of these parts are deliberately concealed, when focus is made on only one of them. The pseudo-academic methods involved to disguise and conceal the topic are numerous.
First, some migrations are not presented as such, but named after the migrant nations; examples: Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts. And yet, these nations are basically known due to their migrations across vast lands.
Second, other migrations are not mentioned as such, but called after the name of the location where excavations brought to light the material remains of a migrant nation's civilization; example: Andronovo culture, Afanasievo culture, etc.
Third, several migrant nations of different origin are regrouped after the geography where they spread; this is totally paranoid, because no one can possibly 'regroup' the Vandals, who crossed Central and Western Europe, reached North Africa, settled in Hippo Regius and Carthage, and then attacked Greece, Sicily, Rome, Sardinia, Corsica and the Iberian coastlands, with the Huns, who crossed Siberia, Russia, and Ukraine, settled in Eastern Europe and attacked the Balkans, Italy and Gaul.
Fourth, several migrant nations are dissociated from one another migrant nation of the same ethnic origin (example: Huns and Turkic nations), whereas in cases of severe distortion, different names of the same nation, attested in diverse historical sources, are tentatively presented as names of two different nations (example: Huns and Hsiung nu whose name is erroneously spelled Xiongnu).
Fifth, several parts of migrant nations are arbitrarily dissociated from their ethnic counterparts and presented separately as settled nations (example: White Huns or Hephthalites).
Sixth, the ethnic origin of several migrant nations is confusingly presented (example: the Bulgars, who were a Turkic nation, are often included in Europe's 'Migration Period' and categorized along with Slavs, whereas they should have been mentioned in the 'Turkic migrations'!).
To the aforementioned inaccuracies, distortions and prejudices, a plethora of false maps is added to comfortably reduce the size of kingdoms, empires and nations whose existence did not happen to please the discriminatory minds of the perverse Anglo-French and American colonial historians.
The end result of this systematization of Western colonial falsehood is that great and highly civilized conquerors and emperors like Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, Kublai Khan, Timur Lenk and others appear as mysterious meteorites, who came from "nowhere", as barbarian invaders, and a "scourges of God", whereas in reality they all (and many others) were far more educated, more cultured, more competent and more heroic than any Greek, Macedonian, Roman or European king or general. To the aforementioned historical reality additional, deceitful tactics and insidious procedures have been added by the criminal, racist, Western European and North American 'historians': they definitely proved to be able to write 100000 words to deplore the destructions supposedly caused to the Human Civilization by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, and others, but when they happen to write about the fact that Alexander the Great burned Persepolis, they remain malignantly and partially silent, abstaining from any due criticism.
King Attila with the Turul bird in his shield (Chronicon Pictum, 1358)
It would be far easier for all to tell the truth: 'Asia is Turan' for most of its territory. And the moral lesson must be drawn: the existence of a 'state' is not a reason for anyone not to invade its lands. States are not sacrosanct; and in any case, the territory occupied by the nation that setup the local state, in all cases of historical states, was also invaded by the ancestors of that nation in the first place.
The biased Western colonial historians carry out all these distortions as tasks in order to promote the lawless interests of their own disreputable states; for this reason they always concealed the following unwavering reality: throughout World History, various fundamental concepts like 'land', 'state', 'nation', 'sacred place', etc. have had different connotations among nations of nomadic migrants and nations of settled populations.
Furthermore, several fundamental concepts, which are valid among settled nations, have no validity at all among nomads and migrant nations, and vice versa. In addition, some basic concepts that exist among nomads and migrant nations start being altered and becoming different if and when these nations happen to settle somewhere 'permanently'. The concept of 'universe' and the deriving imperative of 'universalism' are fundamental notions of nomads and migrant nations; notably, the Akkadians (early Assyrians – Babylonians), who first produced significant literary narratives to detail the concept, were also a migrant nation that had settled only few centuries before writing down in cuneiform texts their world views.
The History of Eurasiatic Migrations, in and by itself, highlights the extensive presence of Turanians in Iran since times immemorial. Thanks to the Turanians of the Achaemenid Empire, the Turkic nations of Central Asia, China and Siberia came to get detailed descriptions of faraway regions and lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, the Caucasus Mountains, the Anatolian plateau, the plains of Ukraine and Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and Egypt. Consequently, further the interaction between Iran and Rome progressed, more details about the western confines of Europe reached the Turanian nomads who were moving around Lake Balkhash (Kazakhstan), Yenisey River and Baikal Lake (Siberia), Orkhon River (Mongolia), the Tarim Basin (China), the Oymyakon River (Yakutia, Eastern Siberia) and other circumferences. The incessant waves of migrations to the West and to the South were not blind and desperate movements of uninformed barbarians, who ran like crazy on their horses; only the distorted publications of Western colonial historians contain similar, nonsensical conclusions.
The pattern of the Turanian military horsemen and skillful soldiers is absolutely prominent and protruding in the History of the Early Caliphates; but it is merely the continuation of a millennia long tradition. This consists in a very embarrassing fact for all the Western Orientalists specializing in Early Islamic History, and more particularly with focus on the 8th c. CE, the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the rise of Abbasid Baghdad. They therefore constantly come up with incredible assumptions, farfetched arguments, nonsensical explanations, and sly innuendos to explain how and why so many Turanian soldiers and military heads appear in the Islamic Caliphate. In fact, without Turanian military skills, the Umayyad dynasty of Damascus may have not been overthrown.
It is well known that the early Islamic armies advanced up to Merv in today's Turkmenistan (651) and they stopped there. For the next hundred years, the only Islamic advance in Asia was effectuated only in today's Baluchistan province of Pakistan; only at the end of the 7th c. and the beginning of the 8th c., the Islamic armies reached the Indus Delta and Gujarat. But how the Islamic Caliphate started being flooded with Turanian soldiers as early as the last decades of the Umayyad rule, if there had not already been massive Turanian populations in the Sassanid Empire of Iran? If the Turanian nations were confined 'somewhere in Eastern Siberia and Mongolia' (as per the distortions of colonial Orientalists), why did they appear to be so deeply involved in battles and developments that took place in Mesopotamia and Syria during the first half of the 8th c.? The answer to this question is very simple: there were always massive Turanian populations in the Pre-Islamic Iranian empires.
---------------------------------------------------
Download the chapter in PDF here:
Φερντοουσί, ο Παραδεισένιος: Εθνικός Ποιητής Ιρανών και Τουρανών, Θεμελιωτής του Νεώτερου Ευρασιατικού Πολιτισμού
Ferdowsi, the Paradisiacal: National Poet of all Iranians and Turanians, Founder of Modern Eurasiatic Civilization
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 28η Αυγούστου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παραθέτει στοιχεία από ημερήσιο σεμινάριο στο οποίο παρουσίασα (Πεκίνο, Ιανουάριος 2018) τα θεμέλια της ισλαμικής και νεώτερης παιδείας και πολιτισμού όλων των Τουρανών, Ιρανών και πολλών άλλων, μουσουλμάνων και μη, Ασιατών.
-------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/φερντοουσί-ο-παραδεισένιος-εθνικός-π/ ============
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Πολύ λίγοι αντιλαμαβάνονται ότι, αν ο γνωστός Αλβανός χριστιανός και μετέπειτα μουσουλμάνος ηγεμόνας Γεώργιος Καστριώτης επονομάσθηκε από τους Οθωμανούς Σκεντέρμπεης (1405-1468), αυτό οφείλεται στον Πέρση Φερντοουσί, τον εθνικό ποιητή Ιρανών και Τουρανών που αφιέρωσε κάποιες από τις ιστορίες που αφηγήθηκε στον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο – ή μάλλον στο τι από τον Αλέξανδρο (ποια πλευρά του χαρακτήρα του βασιλιά) παρουσίασε μέσα στο έπος του.
Αυτές οι ιστορίες έτυχαν περαιτέρω επεξεργασίας και αναπτύχθηκαν περισσότερο μέσα σε έπη μεταγενεστέρων ποιητών, όπως ο Αζέρος Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί, για να διαδοθούν απ’ άκρου εις άκρον του ευρασιατικού χώρου.
Αυτή ήταν η αξία του μύθου: επηρέασε μακρινούς λαούς και μεταγενέστερες περιόδους, μέσω των ηθικών προτύπων και των συμβολισμών, πολύ περισσότερο από όσο η θρησκεία και η ιστορία.
Μέσω του Σαχναμέ του Φερντοουσί, το οποίο είναι το μακροσκελέστερο έπος όλων των εποχών (μεγαλύτερο από όσο η Ιλιάδα κι η Οδύσσεια μαζί), οι Οθωμανοί αλλά και πολλοί άλλοι, Γεωργιανοί, Μογγόλοι, Ινδοί, Αρμένιοι, Κινέζοι, Τουρανοί (Turkic) και Πέρσες, Τάταροι και Ρώσσοι, όπως και πολλοί βαλκανικοί λαοί έμαθαν ένα πλήθος από ηρωϊκά πρότυπα των οποίων φέρουν οι ίδιοι τα ονόματα ως προσωπικά και τα ανδραγαθήματα ως πρότυπο ζωής.
Οι ιστορίες του Σαχναμέ έγιναν παραμύθια για τα μικρά παιδιά, διδακτικές ιστορίες για τα σχολεία, και παραδείγματα για τους προετοιμαζόμενους στρατιώτες, έτσι διαπερνώντας την λαϊκή παιδεία σχεδόν όλων των εθνών της Ασίας, μουσουλμάνων και μη.
Τα ονόματα των ηρώων του Φερντοουσί που είναι τουρανικά κι ιρανικά βρίσκονται σήμερα ως προσωπικά ονόματα ανάμεσα σε Βόσνιους κι Ινδονήσιους, Μογγόλους της Ανατολικής Σιβηρίας κι Ινδούς, Τατάρους της Ρωσσίας και Πέρσες, κοκ.
Το να γνωρίζεις τις ιστορίες του Φερντοουσί είναι απόδειξη ανώτερης παιδείας είτε βρίσκεσαι στο Αζερμπαϊτζάν, είτε είσαι στο Μπάνγκλα Ντες, είτε ζεις στο Καζάν, είτε μένεις στην Ανατολική Σιβηρία.
Πόσες είναι οι ιστορίες του έπους; Σχεδόν 1000!
Η παραπάνω αναφορά στον Σκεντέρμπεη είναι ένα μόνον από τα πάμπολλα παραδείγματα της απέραντης, υστερογενούς επίδρασης του Φερντοουσί η οποία εξικνείται σε πολύ μακρινά σημεία της γης και ανάμεσα σε λαούς που δεν είχαν καν διαβάσει το τεράστιο έπος.
Αλλά οι αναγνώστες του έπους είχαν επηρεαστεί πολύ περισσότερο όσο υψηλά και αν ευρίσκονταν.
Γράφοντας στον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ στις παραμονές της μάχης του Τσαλντιράν (1514), δηλαδή σχεδόν 500 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Φερντοουσί, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ περιέγραψε τον εαυτό του ως ‘θριαμβεύοντα Φερεϊντούν’, κάνοντας έτσι μια αναφορά σε ένα από τους πιο σημαντικούς και πιο θετικούς ήρωες του Σαχναμέ.
.Το δείπνο που παρέθεσε στον γιο του Φερεϊντούν ο βασιλιάς της Υεμένης. Από σμικρογραφία χειρογράφου
Για να αναφερθεί στον αντίπαλό του, Ιρανό Σάχη, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ έκανε περαιτέρω χρήση των ιστοριών του ιρανικού – τουρανικού έπους:
απεκάλεσε τον θεμελιωτή της δυναστείας των Σαφεβιδών “σφετεριστή της εξουσίας Δαρείο των καιρών μας” και “κακόβουλο Ζαχάκ της εποχής μας”.
Και αυτοί οι όροι παραπέμπουν σε κεντρικά πρόσωπα των ιστοριών του Σαχναμέ, έπος στο οποίο ο Φερντοουσί αναμόχλευσε και ανασυνέθεσε την Παγκόσμια Ιστορία κάνοντάς την να περιστρέφεται όχι γύρω από περιστασιακά ιστορικά πρόσωπα (όπως αυτά έχουν μείνει γνωστά) αλλά γύρω από διηνεκείς χαρακτήρες οι οποίοι, καθώς επαναλαμβάνονται από το ένα ιστορικό πρόσωπο στο άλλο και ενόσω κυλάνε οι αιώνες, αποκτούν πολύ μεγαλύτερη σημασία ως ηθικοί παράγοντες ενός αέναου παρόντος
Ο Φερεϊντούν συντρίβει τον Ζαχάκ.
Θα αναφερθώ στον Φερντοουσί και στο Σαχναμέ σε πολλά επόμενα κείμενα. Εδώ όμως παρουσιάζω ένα βίντεο – εκλαϊκευτική συζήτηση (στα αγγλικά) ειδικών για το έπος Σαχναμέ (ανεβασμένο σε τρία σάιτ με εισαγωγικό σημείωμα σε αγγλικά, ρωσσικά κι ελληνικά) και μια βασική ενημέρωση (στα αγγλικά) για την ζωή του Φερντοουσί, του οποίου το έργο απετέλεσε την κοινή ιστορική δεξαμενή αξιών και ηθικών αρχών της ευρασιατικής παράδοσης και την πολιτισμική βάση πάνω στην οποία βρίσκονται όλα τα έθνη κατά μήκος των ιστορικών Δρόμων του Μεταξιού.
Ο σφετεριστής της εξουσίας Δαρείος κάθεται στον θρόνο και από τα χέρια ενός αυλικού δέχεται το στέμμα που του εξασφάλισε η μητέρα του.
Σχετικά με τις σμικρογραφίες ενός χειρογράφου του Σαχναμέ, διαβάστε:
Το Σαχναμέ του Σάχη Ταχμάσπ (1524-1576): οι πιο Όμορφες Σμικρογραφίες Χειρογράφου στον Κόσμο
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/το-σαχναμέ-του-σάχη-ταχμάσπ-1524-1576-οι-πιο-όμ/
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Ferdowsi, the National Poet of Iran and Turan – Shahnameh, the Book of the Kings
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240281
Ferdowsi was a Persian Iranian. I make this clarification here because there has never been an Iranian nation; Iran, both in pre-Islamic and Islamic times was composed of many different nations. And so it is today. As a matter of fact, the Azeris and the Persians are the most populous nations currently living in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Ferdowsi was born around 940, just over 300 years after Mohammed’s death in Medina (632) and some 200 years after the rise of the Abbasid dynasty, the foundation of Baghdad, and the transfer of the Islamic Caliphate’s capital from Damascus to Baghdad (750). About 100 years before Ferdowsi was born, the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258) had reached its historical peak, and then a slow decline began.
Ferdowsi’s real name is Abu ‘l Qassem Tusi, since he was born in Tus, northeastern Iran. He was often called “hakim” (‘philosopher’ or more correctly ‘the wise man’). ‘Ferdowsi’ is what we today would call ‘pen-name’ or ‘nickname’ (Farsi and Arabic. ‘lakab’). It literally means ‘Paradisiacal’ (the word ‘Ferdows’ in Farsi comes from the ancient Iranian word ‘paradizah’ which, like the corresponding ancient Greek word, comes from the Assyrian Babylonian word ‘paradizu’ which means ‘paradise’). Ferdowsi completed the writing of Shahnameh on March 8, 1010.
The composition of Shahnameh (the Book of the Kings), the greatest epic poem of all time, lasted 33 years (977-1010) and was Ferdowsi’s main occupation in life. As per one tradition, the Sultan Mahmud of Gazni (the Gaznevid dynasty controlled lands in today’s Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and northern India) promised Ferdowsi as many gold coins as the verses he would deliver.
The payment of 60,000 gold coins was opposed by the sultan’s top courtier (who considered Ferdowsi a heretical Muslim or even a Parsi), and so 60,000 silver coins were sent instead – unbeknownst to the sultan. Ferdowsi refused to receive them, and this reaction enraged the sultan, who did not know what exactly had happened. Then, the poet went into exile to escape. When the sultan finally found out what the courtier had done, he executed him and sent 60,000 gold coins to Ferdowsi, who had just returned to his hometown, Tusi. However, the caravan carrying the sum reached the city gate when the funeral procession headed for the cemetery because the poet had just died (1020).
————————————
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Фирдоуси, Национальный поэт Ирана и Турана – Шахнаме, Книга Царей
https://www.ok.ru/video/1490059004525
Фирдоуси был персом из Ирана. Я делаю это разъяснение здесь, потому что никогда не было иранской нации; Иран, как в доисламский, так и в исламский период, состоял из множества разных народов. И так сегодня. На самом деле, азербайджанцы и персы – самые густонаселенные народы, в настоящее время живущие в Исламской Республике Иран.
Фирдоуси родился около 940 года, немногим более 300 лет после смерти Мухаммеда в Медине (632 год) и примерно через 200 лет после подъема династии Аббасидов, основания Багдада и переноса столицы Исламского халифата из Дамаска в Багдад (750). , Приблизительно за 100 лет до того, как Фирдоуси родился, Халифат Аббасидов (750-1258) достиг своего исторического пика, и затем начался медленный спад.
Настоящее имя Фирдоуси – Абу Кассем Туси, так как он родился в Тусе на северо-востоке Ирана. Его часто называли «хаким» («философ» или, точнее, «мудрец»). «Ferdowsi» – это то, что мы сегодня называем «псевдоним» (фарси и арабский. «Лакаб»). Это буквально означает «райский» (слово «Фердоус» на фарси происходит от древнего иранского слова «парадизах», которое, как и соответствующее древнегреческое слово, происходит от ассирийского вавилонского слова «парадизу», что означает «рай»). Фирдоуси завершил написание Шахнаме 8 марта 1010 года.
Шахнаме (Книга Царей) – величайшая эпическая поэма всех времен. Написание эпопеи длилось 33 года (977-1010) и было главным занятием Фирдоуси в жизни. Согласно одной из традиций, султан Махмуд Газни (династия Газневидов контролировала земли в сегодняшнем Афганистане, Таджикистане, Кыргызстане, Пакистане и северной Индии) обещал Фирдоуси столько золотых монет, сколько стихов, которые он напишет.
Оплате 60 000 золотых монет воспротивился высший придворный султана (который считал Фирдоуси еретиком-мусульманином или даже парсом), и поэтому вместо этого было отправлено 60 000 серебряных монет – без ведома султана. Фирдоуси отказался их принимать, и эта реакция разозлила султана, который не знал, что именно произошло. Затем поэт отправился в изгнание, чтобы сбежать. Когда султан наконец узнал, что сделал придворный, он казнил его и отправил 60 000 золотых монет Фирдоуси, который только что вернулся в свой родной город Туси. Однако караван с суммой достиг городских ворот, когда похоронная процессия направилась на кладбище, потому что поэт только что умер (1020).
———————————–
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Φερντοουσί / Ferdowsi, Εθνικός Ποιητής του Ιράν & Τουράν – Σαχναμέ / Shahnameh, Βιβλίο των Βασιλέων
Ο Φερντοουσί ήταν Πέρσης Ιρανός. Σημειώνω εδώ ότι δεν υπήρξε ποτέ ιρανικό έθνος κι ότι το Ιράν, και στα προϊσλαμικά και στα ισλαμικά χρόνια, όπως άλλωστε και σήμερα, απετελείτο κι αποτελείται από πολλά και διαφορετικά έθνη.
Σήμερα, οι Αζέροι κι οι Πέρσες είναι τα πολυπληθέστερα έθνη που κατοικούν την Ισλαμική Δημοκρατία του Ιράν.
Ο Φερντοουσί γεννήθηκε γύρω στο 940, δηλαδή λίγο περισσότερο από 300 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Μωάμεθ στην Μεδίνα (632) και περίπου 200 χρόνια μετά την άνοδο της δυναστείας των Αβασιδών στο Ισλαμικό Χαλιφάτο, την θεμελίωση της Βαγδάτης και τη μεταφορά της πρωτεύουσας του χαλιφάτου από την Δαμασκό στην Βαγδάτη (750).
Περίπου 100 χρόνια πριν γεννηθεί ο Φερντοουσί, τοποθετείται ιστορικά ο κολοφώνας της ισχύος του Αβασιδικού Χαλιφάτου (750-1258), κι έκτοτε αρχίζει μια αργή αποδυνάμωση και παρακμή.
Το πραγματικό όνομα του Φερντοουσί είναι Αμπού ‘λ Κάσεμ Τουσί, δεδομένου ότι είχε γεννηθεί στο Τους του βορειοανατολικού Ιράν.
Συχνά απεκαλείτο και Χακίμ, δηλαδή ‘φιλόσοφος’ (ή πιο σωστά ‘σοφός’). ‘Φερντοουσί’ είναι αυτό που θα λέγαμε σήμερα ‘καλλιτεχνικό ψευδώνυμο’ ή ‘παρατσούκλι’ (φαρσί και αραβ. ‘λακάμπ’).
Σημαίνει κυριολεκτικά ‘Παραδεισένιος’ (η λέξη ‘φερντόους’ στα φαρσί προέρχεται από την αρχαία ιρανική λέξη ‘παραντιζά’ η οποία, όπως και η αντίστοιχη αρχαία ελληνική λέξη, προέρχεται από την ασσυροβαβυλωνιακή λέξη ‘παραντιζού’ που σημαίνει ‘παράδεισος’).
Ο Φερντοουσί ολοκλήρωσε την συγγραφή του Σαχναμέ ακριβώς στις 8 Μαρτίου 1010.
Η συγγραφή του Σαχναμέ, του μεγαλύτερου επικού ποιήματος όλων των εποχών, διήρκεσε 33 χρόνια (977-1010) και ήταν η κύρια απασχόληση του Φερντοουσί κατά την ζωή του.
Κατά μία παράδοση, ο Σουλτάνος Μαχμούντ του Γαζνί (η δυναστεία Γαζνεβιδών έλεγχε εκτάσεις στα σημερινά κράτη Αφγανιστάν, Τατζικιστάν, Κιργιζία, Πακιστάν και βόρεια Ινδία) του υποσχέθηκε κατά την παράδοση τόσα χρυσά νομίσματα όσα κι οι στίχοι.
Στην καταβολή 60000 χρυσών νομισμάτων αντιτάχθηκε ο κορυφαίος αυλικός του σουλτάνου (που θεωρούσε τον Φερντοουσί αιρετικό μουσουλμάνο ή ακόμη και παρσιστή), οπότε απεστάλησαν 60000 αργυρά νομίσματα – εν αγνοία του σουλτάνου.
Ο Φερντοουσί αρνήθηκε να τα παραλάβει, αυτό εξαγρίωσε τον σουλτάνο (που δεν ήξερε τι ακριβώς συνέβη), κι ο ποιητής έφυγε στην εξορία για να γλυτώσει.
Όταν τελικά ο σουλτάνος έμαθε τι έκανε εν αγνοία του ο αυλικός, τον εσκότωσε, και απέστειλε 60000 χρυσά νομίσματα στον Φερντοουσί, ο οποίος είχε μόλις επιστρέψει στην γενέτειρά του, Τους.
Όμως, το καραβάνι που μετέφερε το ποσό έφθασε στην πύλη της πόλης, όταν έβγαινε η νεκρώσιμη πομπή με κατεύθυνση το νεκροταφείο, επειδή ο ποιητής είχε μόλις πεθάνει (1020).
Σημειώνω εδώ ότι αποδόσεις του ονόματος στα ελληνικά ως Φερδούσι ή Φιρδούσι είναι λαθεμένες, οφείλονται σε άγνοια των φαρσί (συγχρόνων περσικών), και δείχνουν επιφανειακό κι επιπόλαιο διάβασμα αγγλικών κειμένων για το θέμα.
=======================
Οι πολλές ιστορίες του Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου) στο Σαχναμέ του Φερντοουσί
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) και το Ομιλούν Δένδρον
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) και το Ομιλούν Δένδρον
Δείχνουν στον Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο) το πορτρέτο του.
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλος Αλέξανδρος) στο νεκρικό κρεβάτι του
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλος Αλέξανδρος) επισκέπτεται το ιερό Κααμπά στην Μέκκα φορώντας ενδύματα προσκυνητή (χατζή).
=========================
Διαβάστε:
Ferdowsi Abu’l-Qāsem (حکیم ابوالقاسم فردوسی)
Life
Apart from his patronymic (konya), Abu’l-Qāsem, and his pen name (taḵallosá), Ferdowsī, nothing is known with any certainty about his names or the identity of his family. In various sources, and in the introduction to some manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, his name is given as Manṣūr, Ḥasan, or Aḥmad, his father’s as Ḥasan, Aḥmad, or ʿAlī, and his grandfather’s as Šarafšāh (Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 458-59). Of these various statements, that of Fatḥ b. ʿAlī Bondārī, who translated the Šāh-nāma into Arabic in 620/1223, should be considered the most creditable. He referred to Ferdowsī as “al-Amīr al-Ḥakīm Abu’l-Qāsem Manṣūr b. al-Ḥasan al-Ferdowsī al-Ṭūsī” (Bondārī, p. 3).
It is not known why the poet chose the pen name Ferdowsī, which is mentioned only once in text and twice in the satire (ed. Khaleghi, V, p. 275, v. 3, ed. Mohl, I, p. lxxxix, vv. 4, 6). According to a legend recorded in the introduction to the Florence manuscript, during the poet’s visit to the court of the Ghaznavid Sultan Maḥmūd, the latter, pleased with his poetry, called him Ferdowsī “[man] from paradise” (Khaleghi, 1988, p. 92), which became his sobriquet. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, p. 75, comm., p. 234) his birthplace was a large village named Bāž (or Pāz, Arabicized as Fāz), in the district of Ṭābarān (or Ṭabarān) near the city of Ṭūs in Khorasan.
All sources agree on his being from Ṭūs, the present-day Mašhad. The precise date of his birth was not recorded, but three important points emerge from the information the poet gives on his own age. First, in the introduction to the story of Kay Ḵosrow’s great war Ferdowsī says about himself that he became a poor man at the age of 65, and he twice repeats this date; he then states that when he was 58 and his youth was over Maḥmūd became king (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleqi, IV, p. 172, vv. 40-46).
This statement is a more reliable guide than the three occasions on which the poet refers to himself as 65 or 68 years old; and since Maḥmūd succeeded to the throne in 387/997, the poet’s birth date was 329/940. Second, a point occurs in the story of the reign of Bahrām III (q.v.), when the poet refers to himself as being 63, and approximately 730 lines later repeats this reference to his age as 63, adding that Hormazd-e Bahman (the first of the month of Bahman) fell on a Friday (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59).
According to the research of Shapur Shahbazi (1991, pp. 27-29), during the years which concern us, only in the Yazdegerdi year 371, that is 1003 C.E., did the first of Bahman fall on a Friday. If we subtract 63 from this date, we arrive at 329/940 as the poet’s birth date. The third point occurs at the end of the book when the poet refers to his own age as being 71, and to the date of the Šāh-nāma’s completion as the day of Ard (i.e., 25th) of Esfand in the year 378 Š. (400 Lunar)/8 March 1010 (see calendar), which again establishes his birth date as 329/940 (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82; see further Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 459-62; idem, Ḥamāsa, p. 172, n. 1; Shahbazi, pp. 23-30).
We have little information on the poet until he began writing the Šāh-nāma in approximately 367/977, apart from the fact that he had a son who was born in 359/970 (see below). Therefore the poet must have married in the year 358/969 or earlier. No information concerning his wife has come down to us. Some commentators, e.g., Ḥabīb Yāḡmāʾī (p. 30), Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (p. 39), and Ḏabīḥ-Allāh Ṣafā (Ḥamāsa, p. 178), have considered the woman referred to in the introduction to the story of Bēžan/Bīžan and Manēža /Manīža (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 303-6) to be the poet’s wife.
If this conjecture is correct, it is probable that his wife was both literate and able to play the harp, that is, she, like the poet himself, was from a landed noble family (dehqān; q.v.) and had benefited from the education given to girls by such families, including learning to read and write and the acquisition of certain of the fine arts (cf. the story of the daughters of the dehqān Borzēn, Šāh-nāma, Moscow, VII, pp. 343-44; Khaleghi, 1971, pp. 102-3, 129, 200-2; Bayat-Sarmadi, pp. 188-89).
Another point which emerges from the introduction to the story of Bēžan and Manēža is that in his youth the poet was relatively wealthy. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, p. 75) also confirms this detail. Not only the content of this introduction, but also the diction and the less skillful poetry of the story itself, as compared to the rest of the Šāh-nāma, clearly indicate that it was a product of the poet’s youth, which he later included in the Šāh-nāma (Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 68-70; Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 462-64; idem, Ḥamāsa, pp. 177-79). This story, however, cannot have been the only literary work produced by the poet before 367/977, when he was thirty-eight years years old. Up to this time the poet must have produced poetry which has since been lost.
The poems (in the qaṣīda, qeṭʿa, and robāʿī forms) attributed to him in biographical dictionaries (taḏkeras), some of which may well not be by him, are probably from this period. Hermann Ethé (q.v.) collected these poems in the last century and printed them with a German translation (see also Taqīzāda, pp. 133-34; Šērānī, pp. 130-35). The narrative poem Yūsof o Zolayḵā is certainly not by Ferdowsī (Qarīb; Šērānī, pp. 184-276; Mīnovī, 1946; idem, 1967, pp. 95-125; Nafīsī, 1978, pp. 4-5; Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 488-92; idem, Ḥamāsa, pp. 175-76; Storey/de Blois, V, 576-84). According to legends found in the introductions to a number of Šāh-nāma manuscripts, the poet had a younger brother, whose name was Masʿūd or Ḥosayn (see Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, editor’s Intro., p. xxxiii).
At all events, according to his own statement, the poet began work on the composition of the Šāh-nāma after 365/975 (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, IX, p. 381, v. 843), and since Ferdowsī specified in the exordium to the poem that he began this task after the death of Abū Manṣūr Daqīqī (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13) the composition of the poem must have begun in 366-67/976-77.
At first the poet intended to travel to the Samanid capital Bokhara (q.v.; ibid., I, p. 13, vv. 135-36) in order to continue Daqīqī’s work, using the copy of the prose Šāh-nāma of Abū Manṣūr b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq (q.v.), which had been used by Daqīqī (qq.v.), and which probably belonged to the court library; but since a friend (identified as Moḥammad Laškarī in the introduction to Bāysonḡorī Šāh-nāma, q.v.) from his own city placed a manuscript of this work at his disposal (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, vv. 140-45), he gave up this idea and started work in his own town, where he also benefited from the support of Manṣūr the son of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad.
According to the poet himself, this man was extremely generous, magnanimous, and loyal; he had a high opinion of the poet and gave him considerable financial help (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 14-15; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1967, pp. 332-58; idem, 1977, pp. 197-215; also, after the death of Īraj [ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 121, vv. 513-14], where Ferdowsī moralizes and reproaches the killer of an innocent king, it is probably that by such a king he means Manṣūr). In the whole of the Šāh-nāma this is the only moment at which the poet speaks explicitly of having received financial help from anyone, and since he wrote this after the death of Manṣūr, there is no reason to believe that it was written in order to please the object of his praise.
Further, that he did not remove his praise of Manṣūr from the Šāh-nāma even after he added that of Sultan Maḥmūd to the poem’s introduction indicates the extent of his attachment to Manṣūr (and before him to his father Abū Manṣūr), as well as his sympathy for the political and cultural tendencies of Abū Manṣūr (Khaleghi, 1977, pp. 207-11). The year 377/987, in which Manṣūr was arrested in Nīšāpūr and taken to Bokhara, where he was then executed, was a turning point in Ferdowsī’s life; in the Šāh-nāma from this moment onward there is no mention of anything to indicate either physical comfort or peace of mind, rather we find frequent complaints concerning his old age, poverty, and anxiety.
Nevertheless, Ferdowsī was able to complete the first version of the Šāh-nāma by the year 384/994, three years before the accession of Maḥmūd (tr. Bondārī, II, p. 276; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 378-406; idem, 1986, pp. 12-31). The poet, however, continued to work. In 387/997, when he was 58 or a little older, composed the story of Sīāvaḵš (ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 202, v. 12) and a year later wrote a continuation of the former narrative, the “Revenge for Sīāvaḵš” (“Kīn-e Sīāvaḵš”; ibid., ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 379, v. 7).
He was then a quite different poet from the pleasure-loving and wealthy young man depicted in the introduction to the story of Bēžan and Manēža. He complained of poverty, old-age, failing sight, and pains in his legs and looked back on his youth with regret. Even so, he hoped to live long enough to bring the Šāh-nāma to its conclusion. In 389/999, he started work on the reign of Anōšīravān (q.v.) and once again complained of old age, pains in his legs, failing sight, and the loss of his teeth and looked back to his youth with regret (Moscow, VIII, p. 52). The poet was, nevertheless, very active during this year.
By the time he was 61, in 390/1000, he had composed almost 4,300 of the almost 4,500 verses of the story of Anōšīravān. The poet complained that at his age drinking wine gave no pleasure and he prayed that God would grant him sufficient life to finish the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, VIII, pp. 303-4, vv. 4277-86). Two years later, in 392/1002, the poet was busy writing the narrative of the reigns from Bahrām III to Šāpūr II (four reigns in all, covering 76 years in little more than 700 verses). It is not clear what occurred during this year to make the poet more content, as both at the opening of the first reign and also at the end of the fourth reign he expresses the desire to drink wine (Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59; in the first of these verses the word rūzbeh is used, which can be interpreted as either “fortunate” or as a person’s name, and which appears in the Šāh-nāma with both meanings. In the second case Rūzbeh is probably the name of Ferdowsī’s servant). This period of happiness passed quickly.
Two years later, in 394/1004, at the beginning of the story of Kay Ḵosrow’s great war, during the course of a panegyric on Maḥmūd, he complains in accents of despair of his poverty and weakness; he points out the value of his work to Maḥmūd and asks Maḥmūd’s vizier, Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī (q.v.), to intercede on his behalf so that some help may be forthcoming from Maḥmūd (ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 169-74).
The year 396/1006, when the poet was 67, was the worst period of his life. In this year his 37-year-old son died. The poet describes his grief in extremely simple and personal language, complaining to his son that he has gone on ahead and left his father alone, and asks God’s forgiveness for him (Moscow, IX, pp. 138-39, vv. 2,167-84). What is most striking in this elegy is the hemistich: hamī būd hamvāra bā man dorošt (“He was always rude to me”; ibid., v. 2,175). Was there a disagreement between father and son? And if so over what? No answer to this question can now be given.
The poet inserts this elegy into the narrative of the reign of Ḵosrow Parvēz. Approximately 1,500 lines further on, at the end of this reign, he writes that he has now completed his sixty-sixth year (Moscow, p. 230, v. 3681). This does not seem to accord with his previous statement, but if one takes into account the exigencies of rhyme and the fact that the poet was not always 100 percent accurate over figures, even in such a case, one can draw the conclusion that the reign of Ḵosrow Parvēz (a little more than four thousand verses) was written during the years 395-96/1005-6, when the poet was 66 or 67 years old. This obvious contradiction over the exact age of the poet, however, is not found in the variant “I was sixty five and he was thirty-seven” (marā šast o banj o verā sī o haft) found in certain manuscripts.
In the course of the history of Ḵosrow Parvēz, the poet complains that, due to the calumny of rivals, Maḥmūd has not given his attention to the stories of the Šāh-nāma, and the poet asks the king’s sālār (general), Maḥmūd’s younger brother Naṣr, to intercede for him and turn Maḥmūd’s attention toward the poet (Moscow, IX, p. 210, vv. 3,373-78). From this it is clear firstly that no payment from Maḥmūd had ever reached Ferdowsī, and secondly that Ferdowsī had sent some of the narratives of the Šāh-nāma separately, before he either took or sent the whole poem to Ḡazna (q.v.).
The poet mentions his poverty many times during the course of the Šāh-nāma, and frequently praises Maḥmūd, his brother Naṣr, and his governor of Ṭūs, who would seem to have been Abu’l-Ḥāreṯ Arslān Jāḏeb (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 25-27; Eqbāl), but there is nowhere any suggestion that he had ever received any assistance from these individuals.
On the contrary, as has been indicated, he everywhere complains of the king’s indifference to his work. At the end of the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, IX, p. 381) he also writes that the powerful came and copied out his poetry for themselves, and the sole profit to the poet from them was their saying “well done” (aḥsant). He only mentions two individuals, ʿAlī Deylam Bū Dolaf and Ḥoyayy b. Qotayba, who helped him. In certain manuscripts, ʿAlī Deylam and Bū Dolaf are mentionedd as the names of two people, which agrees with the statement of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 77-78, comm. pp. 465-66) that the first was a copyist of the Šāh-nāma and the second its reciter (rāwī).
If this statement of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s is correct, then these two individuals did not give the poet any monetary assistance. Instead, as a copyist and reciter of sections of the Šāh-nāma for the nobility of the town of Ṭūs, they each profited from the poet’s work. In this case line 849 (Moscow, IX, p. 381) of the Moscow edition is incorrect and should be mended according to the variant readings of the line and the reference in the Čahār Maqāla. Ḥoyayy b. Qotayba, in his capacity as financial controller of Ṭūs, sometimes remitted the poet’s taxes.
Finally, in his seventy-first year, on 25 Esfand 400/8 March 1010, Ferdowsī finished the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82). According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 75) and Farīd-al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (Elāhī-nāma, p. 367; Asrār-nāma, p. 189, v. 3,204), the total time spent on the composition of the Šāh-nāma was twenty-five years. In the satire, however, there is thrice mention of thirty years and once of thirty-five years (ed. Mohl, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 11, p. xc, vv. 11, 20, p. xci, v. 4).
If we place the beginning of work on the Šāh-nāma in 367 and its completion in 400 the time spent on its composition is thirty-three years, and if we extend the poet’s work to the period before 367—the composition of Bēžan and Manēža—and add to this time spent on revision after 400, the figure of thirty-five years is closer to the truth.
There are lines in the Šāh-nāma which, according to some scholars, refer to events of the year 401/1011 (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 18-20; Taqīzāda, 1983, p. 100, n. 3; Mīnovī, 1967, p. 40). Aḥmad Ateş has gone even further than this and claims that since Ferdowsī, during the course of his praise of Maḥmūd in the introduction to the Šāh-nāma, mentions Kašmīr and Qannūj among his territories, and since Maḥmūd first conquered these regions in 406/1015 and 409/1018, Ferdowsī must have made the final revision of the Šāh-nāma and sent it to Ḡazna in 409/1018 or 410/1019.
He also draws the conclusion that Maḥmūd sent the poet a financial reward but that this reached Ṭūs in 411/1020, after the poet’s death (Ateş, 159-68). The names Kašmīr and Qannūj, which appear in this panegyric beside other names such as Rūm (the West), Hend (India), Čīn (China), etc. and which occur many more times throughout the Šāh-nāma, is no indication of a conquest by Maḥmūd of these two areas. Their occurance in the panegyric is simply due to poetic license and leads to no historical conclusions.
Our information on the poet’s life after 400/1010 is limited to the matters reported by Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 75-83). According to him, after the completion of the Šāh-nāma, ʿAlī Deylam prepared a manuscript of it in seven volumes and Ferdowsī went to Ḡazna with his professional reciter Abū Dolaf. There, with the help of Maḥmūd’s vizier Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī he presented the book to Maḥmūd, but because of the calumny of those who envied him, and the poet’s religious orientation, it was not favorably received by the king. Instead of 60,000 dinars (q.v.), payment was fixed at 50,000 dirhams (q.v.), and finally at 20,000 dirhams.
Ferdowsī was extremely upset by this and went to a bathhouse; upon leaving the bathhouse he drank some beer and divided the king’s present between the beer seller and the bath attendant. Then, fearing punishment by Maḥmūd, he fled from Ḡazna by night. At first he hid for six months in Herāt in the shop of Esmāʿīl Warrāq, father of the poet Azraqī (q.v.), and then he took refuge in Ṭabarestān with Espahbad Šahrīār, a member of the Bavandid dynasty (the report of the poet’s journey to Baghdad, which appears in the introductions to the a number of manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, is merely a legend; similarly, the story of the poet’s journey to Isfahan is based on interpolated passages; see Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 474-76; Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 96-98; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 233-36).
While in Ṭabarestān, the poet composed 100 lines satirizing Maḥmūd, but the amir of Ṭabarestān bought the satire for 100,000 dirhams and destroyed it, so that only six lines survived by word of mouth, and these Neẓāmī ʿArūżī recorded. Later, due to events described by Neẓāmī ʿArūżī, Maḥmūd regretted his behavior toward the poet and on the recommendation of the above mentioned vizier had camel loads of indigo to the value of 20,000 dinars sent to Ferdowsī, but as the camels were entering Ṭūs by the Rūdbār gate Ferdowsī’s corpse was being borne out of the city by the Razān gate.
In the cemetery the preacher of Ṭābarān prevented his being buried in the Muslim cemetery on the grounds that Ferdowsī was a Shiʿite, and so there was no choice but to bury the poet in his own orchard. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī tells how he visited the poet’s tomb in 510/1116 (on this site, see Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 120-21). According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (pp. 47-51), Ferdowsī left only one daughter, and the poet had wanted the king’s payment as a dowry for her.
But after the poet’s death, his daughter would not accept the payment and, on Maḥmūd’s orders, the money was used to build the Čāha caravansary near Ṭūs, on the road which goes from Nīšāpūr to Marv. The year of the poet’s death is given by Dawlatšāh Samarqandī (ed. Browne, p. 54) as 411/1020, and by Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfī (p. 743) and Faṣīḥ Ḵᵛāfī (p. 129) as 416/1025. According to the first date, Ferdowsī was eighty-two years old when he died, and according to the second report he was eighty-seven.
Many details of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s account are inaccurate or even merely legendary (see, e.g., Qazvīnī’s introducton to Čahār maqāla, pp. xiv ff.). For example, he claims that only six lines survived of the satire, but in some manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma the number of lines is as many as 160. Some scholars considered the satire to be genuine (Nöldeke, pp. 29-31; Taqīzāda, pp. 114-16).
But Maḥmūd Šērānī established that many of the lines are spurious or are taken from the Šāh-nāma itself, and he therefore rejected the authenticity of the satire. The spuriousness of many lines in the satire, however, does not establish that the satire never existed at all. Besides, there are excellent lines in the satire which are not taken from the Šāh-nāma. Generally, it appears that in his article Šērānī was mainly seeking to vindicate Maḥmūd (Khaleghi, 1984, p. 121; Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 97-103).
There is a line in the satire (Mohl’s edition, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 10) in which the poet refers to his age as being almost eighty. According to this line, the poet composed the satire before 409/1018. But it is very probable that the vizier who was Ferdowsī’s benefactor was Abu’l-ʿAbbās Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī, whom Ferdowsī praised in the Šāh-nāma, and not, as Neẓāmī ʿArūżī writes (p. 78), Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī.
The latter, although holding an important position at Maḥmūd’s court, is never mentioned in the Šāh-nāma. In the legends written in some of the introductions to Šāh-nāma’s manuscripts, Meymandī has been mentioned among Ferdowsī’s adversaries at Maḥmūd’s court. This vizier was a fanatical Sunni, strongly opposed to heretics and the Qarmaṭīs, and it is possible that he was influential in the removal of Esfarāyenī from office in 401/1011 and his murder in 404/1014, and also in the execution of Ḥasanak Mīkāl in 422/1031, who was accused of harboring qarmaṭī tendencies.
In like fashion, after he became vizier in Esfarāyenī’s place in 401/1011, he directed that the language of the court records, which Esfarāyenī had caused to be kept in Persian, be changed back to Arabic. Meymandī was vizier until 412/1025. He was then removed from office and imprisoned, and the vizierate was transferred to Ḥasanak Mīkāl. Thus the vizier who is said to have caused Maḥmūd to regret his treatment of Ferdowsī, if the story is to be believed, was probably Ḥasanak and not Meymandī. If Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s story is true, 416/1025 is therefore the more probable date of Ferdowsī’s death (see Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 111-13).
Certain other details of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s version of events are confirmed by various sources. For example, the author of the Tārīḵ-e Sīstān (ed. Bahār, pp. 7-8) also gives a report of Ferdowsī’s journey to Ḡazna and his encounter with Maḥmūd. Similarly, Neẓāmī Ganjavī (Haft Peykar, p. 15, v. 47; idem, Eqbāl-nāma, p. 22, v. 14; idem, Ḵosrow o Šīrīn, pp. 24-25, vv. 21-22) and ʿAṭṭār (Elāhī-nāma, p. 367, vv. 11-13; Asrār-nāma, pp. 188-190, vv. 3,203-26; Moṣībat-nāma, p. 367, v. 8) frequently refer to the differences between the poet and the king, to Maḥmūd’s ingratitude toward Ferdowsī, and even to the incident of the poet’s drinking beer and giving the king’s gift away.
ʿAṭṭār also refers to the preacher’s refusing to say prayers over the body of Ferdowsī. Further, in the introduction to the Bāysonḡorī Šāh-nāma, a statement in Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow’s Safar-nāma is quoted to the effect that in 437/1045 on the road from Saraḵs to Ṭūs, in the village of Čāha, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow saw a large caravansary and was told that this had been built with the money from the gift that Maḥmūd had sent to the poet, which, since he had already died, his heir refused to accept.
This report is absent from extant manuscripts of the Safar-nāma, but Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda (1983, pp., 120-21) is of the opinion that it is probably genuine. Theodore Nöldeke (1920, p. 33) at first considered it spurious but later changed his mind (1983, p. 63, n. 1). Although it is possible to doubt some of the details in Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s account, we do not at the moment have any absolute reasons to reject all the particulars in his narrative.
Social background
In the introductions to various manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, Ferdowsī’s father is referred to as a dehqān (q.v.) who was a victim of oppression by the financial controller of Ṭūs. Even though this account may be no more than a legend, there is no doubt that Ferdowsī belonged to the landed nobility, or dehqāns. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (p. 75), Ferdowsī was one of the dehqāns of Ṭūs and in his own village “had considerable possessions, such that with the income from his properties he was able to live independently of others help.”
According to the same account (p. 83), “within the city gate there was an orchard belonging to Ferdowsī,” where he was buried (see further, Bahār, pp. 148-49). The dehqāns were preservers of traditional civilization, customs, and culture, including the national legends (see Mohl’s introduction to the Šāh-nāma, p. vii; Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, p. 440; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, pp. 62-64).
On the one hand, in the Šāh-nāma dehqān appears along with the āzāda (freeborn) with the meaning of “Iranian,” and, on the other, beside mōbad (Zoroastrian priest), with the meaning of “preserver and narrator of the ancient lore.” In the Šāh-nāma, a legend concerning a dehqān by the name of Borzēn (Moscow, VII, pp. 341-46) gives us an opportunity to glimpse, to some extent, the nature of the life of this class. By comparing this with the story of a farmer’s wife in the same reign (ibid., pp. 380-84), the difference between the life of a dehqān and that of a simple farmer is apparent.
At all events, Ferdowsī belonged to one of these reasonably wealthy dehqān families, which in the second and third centuries of the Islamic era accepted Islam mainly as a way of preserving their own social position, and for this reason, contrary to what is usually the case with new converts, not only did they not turn their backs on the culture of their forefathers but made its preservation and transmission the chief goal of their lives.
The basis of Ferdowsī’s character and the national spirit of his work were founded in the first place on this class consciousness of the poet and the milieu in which his genius was nurtured. Khorasan had been a center of political, religious, national, and cultural movements at least since the rise of Abū Moslem (q.v.; killed in.137/755).
With the compilation and translation of the prose Šāh-nāma known as the Šāh-nāma-ye abū manṣūrī, which later became Ferdowsī’s major source, on the orders of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq in 346/957, the national language and culture, which had been lacking in previous movements in Khorasan, found a special place in Abū Manṣūr’s political ambition (Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 52-55).
The young Ferdowsī, who was no more than seventeen years old when the Šāh-nāma of Abū Manṣūr was completed, must have been profoundly affected by this national and cultural movement. It was in these years that the education of a dehqān together with the poet’s national sentiment were able to mature in a congenial environment and to take shape, and thus become the foundation of the whole of his poem, so that, as Nöldeke put it (1920, pp. 36, 40-41), the poet’s attachment to Iran is clear in every line of the Šāh-nāma.
The effects of Ferdowsī’s love for Iran must be considered not only in the transmission of the culture, mores, customs, and literature of ancient Iran to Islamic Persia but also in the spread of Persian as the national language. In this way the struggle for the preservation of Iranian identity while Persia was in danger of being Arabized in the name of the Islamic community—although the movement had begun before Ferdowsī’s time with the Šoʿūbīya movement—finally bore fruit through Ferdowsī’s efforts. In this way Persia is deeply indebted to Ferdowsī, both as regards its historical continuity and its national and cultural identity.
Education
Since Ferdowsī, unlike many other poets, did not make his work a showcase for his own erudition, discussion of his education is a difficult matter. On the other hand, the intellectual quality of the Šāh-nāma shows that we do not deal simply with a great poet but with someone who judges many of the vicissitudes of life with wisdom and understanding, and this would not have been possible if he had not been in possession of a knowledge of the sciences of his time.
However, Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) thought that Ferdowsī had not received formal education in the sciences of his time, especially in scholastic theology, but considered him simply to be a reasonably educated person in such matters (for Ferdowsī’s world view, see Ḵāleḡī Moṭlaq, 1991, pp. 55-70).
Nöldeke also believed that Ferdowsī did not know Pahlavi (1920, p. 19, n. 1). Taqīzāda (p. 126) and Šērānī (pp. 170-71), on the other hand, believe that Ferdowsī was completely conversant with the sciences of his own time. Badīʿ-al-Zamān Forūzānfar (q.v.; pp. 47-49) and Aḥmad Mahdawī Dāmˊḡānī (p. 42) believe that Ferdowsī even had a thorough knowledge of Arabic prose and verse.
Similarly, Saʿīd Nafīsī (1978, pp. 9-10), Ḥabīb Yāḡmāʾī (p. 6), and Lazard (pp. 25-41) believe that Ferdowsī knew Pahlavi. However, Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (pp. 96-135) and Shapur Shahbazi (pp. 39-41) agree with Nöldeke on the matter of Ferdowsī’s knowledge of Pahlavi.
In a later article on Ferdowsī, Nöldeke, following Taqīzāda, wrote that he had previously underestimated the poet’s knowledge of Arabic (1983, p. 63), but it appears that he did this mainly to satisfy the amour-propre of Persians. Certainly, it is probable that Ferdowsī learnt Arabic in school. The problem of Pahlavi in his time and for a person like him lay mainly in the difficulty of its script; thus if a person read a text in this language to the poet, he could probably understand it in the main. But in the Šāh-nāma there is nowhere any direct indication that Ferdowsī knew either Arabic or Pahlavi. In the exordium to the story of Bēžan and Manēža, he says that his “loving consort” (mehrbān yār) read a “Pahlavī book” (daftar-e pahlavī; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 305, v. 19, p. 306, v. 22). But Ferdowsī refers to Šāh-nāma-yeabū manṣūrī as being in Pahlavi (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, v. 143), and thus it could be interpreted as meaning “Pahlavānī” or “eloquent/heroic Persian.” There is, however, no evidence in the Šāh-nāma to indicate that Ferdowsī could read Pahlavi.
Religion
Ferdowsī was a Shiʿite Muslim, which is apparent from the Šāh-nāma itself (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 1o-11) and confirmed by early accounts (Neẓāmī ʿArūżī, text, pp. 80, 83; Naṣīr-al-Dīn Qazvīnī, pp. 251-52). In recent times, however, some have cast doubt on his religion and his Shiʿism. Some have simply called him a “Shiʿite” (Yāḡmāʾī, pp. 23, 28); others, such as Bahār (p. 149), have raised the question of whether Ferdowsī was an adherent of Zaydī Shiʿism, Ismaiʿli Shiʿism, or Twelver Shiʿism. Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) believed that he was a Shiʿite but did not consider him to be a member of any of the extremist Shiʿites (ḡolāt; q.v.). Šērānī (pp. 111-26) called Ferdowsī a Sunni or Zaydī Shiʿite, but Šērānī was mainly concerned with defending Maḥmūd’s Sunnism. Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī (pp. 233-40) also considered Ferdowsī to be a Zaydī Shiʿite. ʿAbbās Zaryāb Ḵoʾī (pp. 14-23) argued that he was an Ismaʿili Shiʿite, while Aḥmad Mahdawī Dāmˊḡānī (pp., 20-53) believed him to be a Twelver Shiʿite (see also, Shahbazi, pp. 49-53).
The basic supporting evidence for the view that Ferdowsī was a Sunni or Zaydī Shiʿite has been the lines that appear in many manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, in the exordium to the book, in praise of Abū Bakr, ʿOmar, and ʿOṯmān, but these lines are later additions, as is apparent for lexicographic and stylistic reasons, and also because they interrupt the flow of the narrative (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39; Yāḡmāʾī, p. 27; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1986, pp. 28-31); with the excision of these lines no doubt remains as to Ferdowsī’s Shiʿism.
One must also take into account the fact that Ṭūs had long been a center of Shiʿism (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39) and that the family of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq were also apparently Shiʿites (Ebn Bābawayh, II, p. 285). On the one hand, Ferdowsī was lenient as regards religion. As Nöldeke remarks, Ferdowsī remembered the religion of his forbears with respect, and, at the same time, nowhere did he show any signs of a deep Islamic faith.
Indeed, to the contrary, here and there are moments in the Šāh-nāma (e.g., Moscow, IX, p. 315, v. 56) which, even if they were present in his sources, should not strictly have been given currency by the pen of a committed Muslim (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 38-39). On the other hand, however, Ferdowsī showed a prejudice in favor of his own sect and, as is apparent from the exordium to the Šāh-nāma, considered his own sect to be the only true Islamic one.
The explanation for this contradiction, in the present writer’s opinion, lies in the fact that during the first centuries of Islam, in Persia, Shiʿism went hand in hand with the national struggle in Khorasan, or very nearly so, such that the caliphate in Baghdad and its political supporters in Persia never made any serious distinction between the “Majūs” (i.e., Zoroastrians), “Zandīq” (i.e., Manicheans), “Qarmaṭīs” (i.e., adherents of Ismaʿili Shiʿism), and Rāfeẓīs (i.e., Shiʿites in general; see Baḡdādī, tr. pp. 307 ff.).
Ferdowsī was, as Nöldeke remarks, above all a deist and monotheist who at the same time kept faith with his forbears (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 36-40; Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 124-25). Ferdowsī attacks philosophy and those who attempt to prove the reality of the Creator, believing that God can be found neither by the eye of wisdom, nor of the heart, nor of reason, but that His existence, unity, and might are confessed only by the existence of His creation; thus he worshipped Him, remaining silent as to the whys and wherefores of faith (khaleghi-Motlagh, 1975, pp. 66-70; idem, 1991, pp. 55-57).
According to his beliefs, everything, good or evil, happens to an individual only through the will of God, and every kind of belief in the benign or evil influence of the stars is a derogation of the reality, unicity, and might of God. This absolute faith in the unicity and might of God is disturbed in the Šāh-nāma by a fatalism that is possibly the result of Zurvanite influences from the Sasanian period, and this, here and there, has produced a self-contradictory effect (Khaleghi, 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; idem, 1991, pp. 55-68; 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; Banani, pp. 96-119; Shahbazi, pp. 49-59).
Due to his upbringing as a dehqān, Ferdowsī was acquainted with the ancient culture and customs of Iran, and he deepened this knowledge by his study of ancient lore so that they became part of his poetic world view. There are many instances of this in the Šāh-nāma, and here as an example one can mention the custom of drinking wine. According to the poet, in accordance with Iran’s ancient beliefs, wine shows the essence of a man as he really is (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 3-4); one must drink at times of happiness (ibid., Moscow, VII, p. 192, vv. 658-59), but it is happiness that is to be sought in drinking wine, not drunkenness (ibid., Moscow, VIII, p. 109, vv. 964-65), and he reproaches the Arabs who are strangers to the custom of drinking wine (ibid., Moscow, IX, p. 320, v. 113).
The most important of the poet’s ethical attitudes include maintaining a chastity of diction (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 55, n. 2), honesty (ed. Khaleqi, III, p. 285, vv. 2,879-80; Moscow, VIII, p. 206, vv. 2,626-27; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, p. 203; Yāḡmāʾī, pp. 14-15), gratitude toward his predecessor Daqīqī and, at the same time, frank criticism of his poetry (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13, V, pp. 75-76, 175-76). With the same kind of frankness the poet admonishes kings to act justly (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 29-31; VIII, p. 62, vv. 161-66). His belief in the permanence of a good reputation (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 156-57, vv. 1,061-62), in fine speech (ibid., II, p. 164, vv. 574-76), and in fairness toward enemies (ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 163, vv. 937-38, IV, p. 64, v. 1,014) in so far as this is compatible with the heroic code of behavior, are all apparent.
But when it comes to the domination of Iran by her enemies, especially at the end of the Šāh-nāma, he is violently opposed to both Arabs and Turks (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 37, 41). Certainly, these attitudes were in the poet’s sources, but he incorporated them into his work with complete conviction. Generally, it seems as though the ethical values of the poet’s sources and of the poet himself reciprocally acted on one another.
In this way, certain ethical values of the Šāh-nāma, such as praise for effort, condemnation of laziness, recommendation of moderation, condemnation of greed, praise for knowledge, encouragement of justice and tolerance, kindness towards women and children, patriotism, racial loyalty, the condemnation of haste and the recommendation of deliberation in one’s actions, praise for truthfulness and condemnation of falsehood, the condemnation of anger and jealousy, belief in the unstableness of the world, which is everywhere evident throughout the Šāh-nāma especially at the ends of the stories, and so forth, are considered also to be values held by the poet himself (see adab; Eslāmī, pp. 64-73).
Other opinions of the poet are his belief in the genuineness of the narratives in his sources (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 12, vv. 113-14) and his strong belief in the lasting values of his own work, a subject referred to frequently in the Šāh-nāma (e.g., ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 173-74, vv. 66-68; for other examples, see Yaḡmāʾī, pp. 15-17; Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 34-35).
Finally it seems as though he was a man who was fond of pleasantries and witticisms (e.g., concerning Rūdāba, see ed. Khaleghi, p. 243, v. 1,158; Manūčehr’s joking with Zāl, ibid., p. 253, vv. 1,283-88; Sām’s and Sīndoḵt’s joking with each other, ibid., p. 262, vv. 1,407-9; the joking of the young shoemaker’s mother before the king, Moscow, VII, p. 325, vv. 336-46). The sum of such heartfelt, mature, and eloquently expressed views and ethical precepts regarding the world and mankind have led to his being referred to, from an early period, as ḥakīm (philosopher), dānā (sage), and farzāna (learned); that is, he was considered a philosopher, though he was not attached to any specific philosophical school nor possessed a complete knowledge of the various philosophical and scientific views of his time.
Ferdowsī and Sultan Maḥmūd
In various places in his work the poet devoted in all some 250 lines—some of which are very hyperbolic—to the praise of Maḥmūd, and the name Maḥmūd and his patronymic Abu’l-Qāsem are mentioned almost thirty times; but that sincerity which is apparent in the ten lines Ferdowsī wrote in praise of Manṣūr in his introduction to the Šāh-nāma is never visible in the lines on Maḥmūd, though in many places he either directly or by implication offers Maḥmūd moral advice (e.g., Moscow, VII, pp. 114-15, vv. 29-40; VIII, pp. 153-54, vv. 1,700-04, p. 292, vv. 4,080-81).
The climactic point of these allusions addressed to Maḥmūd must be considered to occur at the end of the Šāh-nāma in the letter of Rostam, the Sasanian general, to his brother on the eve of the battle of Qādesīya. In particular, the line in which it is prophesied that a talentless slave will become king (Moscow, IX, p. 319, v. 103) is like a bridge that takes us from the hyperbolic praise of Maḥmūd in the Šāh-nāma to the hyperbolic contempt for him of the satire.
The poet’s hopes of a monetary reward from Maḥmūd must be considered one reason for his praise of Maḥmūd (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 34), but, as indicated above, there is no sign anywhere in the Šāh-nāma that any assistance from Maḥmūd ever reached the poet (Nöldeke, pp. 27-29). The praise of Maḥmūd must be considered an entirely calculated gesture, forced on the poet by his poverty (Eslāmī, pp. 59-60). With Maḥmūd’s assumption of power in Khorasan, the Shiʿite Ferdowsī had, at the least, until he had finished work on the Šāh-nāma, to include him in the poem.
This being the case he could not, according to the usual custom in Persian narrative poems, wait until the end of the poem and then write a single panegyric to be used in the preface, but was forced to compose separate passages of praise, or to place them at the head of a story that was then sent to Ḡazna. Other passages of praise may well have been placed at the beginning of sections of the seven-volume Šāh-nāma. But the closer he got to the end of the Šāh-nāma, with there still being no sign of Maḥmūd’s paying him any attention, the more pointed his sarcastic allusions to Maḥmūd became, until finally in the satire he took back virtually all his praise.
In the satire the poet frequently speaks “of this book” (az in nāma) and this led Nöldeke (1920, p. 29) to conclude that the satire was composed as a supplement to the Šāh-nāma and that the poet’s intention was to take back his praise of Maḥmūd with this satire, that is, the Šāh-nāma was no longer dedicated to Maḥmūd, as the poet himself states in the satire (Mohl’s Intro., p. lxxxix, vv. 3-4). Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 49-50), also makes the same statement (see also Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 83-105)
Ferdowsī the poet and storyteller
The Šāh-nāma has not received its rightful attention in works written in Persian on the art of poetry (e.g., al-Moʿjam of Šams-al-Dīn Rāzī), which works consider eloquence and poetic style largely as a matter of particular figures of speech. So far there has been little serious work on Ferdowsī’s poetic artistry, and our discussion of this subject will not therefore go beyond general principles.
In discussing Ferdowsī’s achievement one must consider, on the one hand, the totality of the Šāh-nāma as a whole and, on the other, his artistry as a storyteller. Throughout the entire Šāh-nāma, a balance is masterfully maintained between words and meaning, on the one hand, and passion and thought, on the other. Ferdowsī’s poetic genius in creating a lofty, dynamic epic language that is brief but to the point and free from complexity greatly contributes to the strength of his style.
The most important figures of speech in the Šāh-nāma include: hyperbole, paronomasia, repetition, comparisons (similes and metaphors), representative images, proverbial expressions, parables, and moral advice. Hyperbole, which is the most important principle of epic language, is present in order to increase the reader’s emotional response. Some kinds of paronomasia are used to create a verbal rhythm that is to increase linguistic tension by acoustic means.
The most commonly used kinds of paronomasia include those that involve a complete identity of two words (be čang ār čang o may āḡāz kon “Bring in your hand [čang] a harp [čang] and set out the wine”; Moscow, V, p. 7, v. 19) and those that involve alliteration (šod az raḵš raḵšān o az šāh šād “He became radiant [raḵšān] because of Raḵš [the name of Rostam’s horse] and happy [šād] because of the king [šāh]”; ed. Khaleghi, II , p. 125, v. 93; kolāh o kamān o kamand o kamar “Cap and bow and lariat and belt”; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 147, v. 676).
This effect is sometimes achieved by the repetition of one word (bed-ū goft narm ay javānmard, narm! “He said to him: Gently o young man, gently!”; ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 222, v. 683; makon šahrīārā javānī, makon! “Do not, o prince, do not act childishly!; ed. Khaleghi, p. 363, v. 846).
There are also comparisons used to render the language representational, that is, to construct an image visually. Among the kinds of comparison used in the Šāh-nāma one must mention short comparisons which do not use words that indicate a comparison is being made (brief metaphors) and explicit comparisons (i.e., similes; For other examples, see Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 69-71; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, pp. 267-77).
Sometimes Ferdowsī uses personification as an image (be bāzīgar-ī mānad īn čarḵ-e mast “This drunken wheel [i.e., of the firmament] is like a juggler; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 56, v. 474), sometimes proverbial expressions (hamān bar ke kārīd ḵod bedravīd “As you sow so shall you reap!”; ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 114, v. 383), and sometimes parables, that is, the explanation of a situation by another exemplary situation (e.g., ibid., p. 216, vv. 770-73). In each of these three figures of speech, the image is constructed by reason.
Another example of this is the elaboration of language as moral maxims (tavānā bovad har ke dānā bovad! “knowledge is power”; ibid., p. 4, v. 14). On the other hand, Ferdowsī avoids those figures of speech which involve complex language or which take language far from the intended meaning. For this reason, complex metaphors, ambiguities of grammatical construction, riddles, and academic phraseology are rarely found in his work (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 64-65). Metaphors such as “dragon” for a “sword”; “narcissus” and “magician” for “eyes”; “coral,” “garnet,” and “ruby” for “lips”; “tulip” for “a face”; “pearls” for “tears,” “teeth,” and “speech”; “cypress” for “stature”; and so on, that have since been parts of the conventional themes, motives, and images used in Persian poetry.
The most important descriptive passages of the Šāh-nāma are descriptions of war, the beauty of people, and the beauty of nature. Although Ferdowsī himself had probably never taken part in a battle and the descriptions of scenes of warfare are in the main imaginary, as Nöldeke says (1920, p. 59), they are described so variously, with such liveliness and to so stirring an effect that, despite their brevity, the reader seems to see them pass before his eyes. The story of Davāzdah Roḵ (q.v.; ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 3-166) is particularly a case in point (Nöldeke, ibid). Ferdowsī does not simply introduce his heroes, he lives with them and shares their sorrows and joys.
He grieves at the death of Iranian heroes, but he does not rejoice at the demise of Iran’s enemies; his sincerity conveys his own emotions to the reader. When he describes the beauty of people, he is at his best when the subject is a women (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 183-84, vv. 287-93). As a dehqān, Ferdowsī lived in close contact with nature; for this reason the descriptions of nature in his poetry have the lively coloring of nature itself, not the coloring of decorative effects as in the poetry of Neẓāmī.
Of his descriptions of nature particularly noticeable are those concerned with the rising and setting of the sun and moon, placed at the opening of many sections of individual stories, and of the seasons of the year, in particular of spring, situated in the introductions to stories (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 219-20, vv. 1-9).
Ferdowsī’s poetic artistry go hand in hand with his skill as a storyteller. Major stories usually begin with a preamble (ḵoṭba) which includes moral advice, a description of nature, or an account of the poet himself. In the examples that involve moral advice there is normally a connection between the contents of the preamble and the subject of the story that follows, as in the introductions to the stories of Rostam and Sohrāb, of Kāvūs’ expedition to Māzandarān, and of Forūd (q.v.), the son of Sīāvaḵš.
Such a connection is sometimes also found in introductions containing descriptions of nature (Ḵāleqī Moṭlaq, 1975, pp. 61-72; idem, 1990, pp. 123-41). Thereafter begins the story and proceeds quickly. In the important stories of the Šāh-nāma, events are neither given in so direct a manner as to join the opening of the story to its conclusion in the shortest possible manner, nor with such ramifications that the main story line is lost.
But the attention of the poet to certain details of the incidents described, without the story ever straying from its main path, fills the narrative with action and variety (e.g., see the quarrel between the gatekeeper of Mehrāb’s castle and Rūdāba’s maids in Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 196, vv. 468-77; Nöldeke, 1920, p. 17).
Many of the narrative poets who followed Ferdowsī were more interested in the construction of individual lines than of their stories as a whole.
In such narrative poems, the poet himself speaks much more than the characters of his poem, and even where there is dialogue, there is little difference between the attitudes of the various characters of the story, so that the speaker is still the author, who at one moment speaks in the role of one character and the next moment speaks in the role of another.
The result is that in such poems, with the exception of Faḵr-al-Dīn Gorgānī’s Vīs o Rāmīn and to some extent the poems of Neẓāmī, the characters in the story are less individuals than types.
In contrast, the dialogues in the Šāh-nāma are realistic and frequently argumentative, and the poet uses them to good effect as a means of portraying the inner life of his characters.
This is so to such an extent that it is as if many of the characters of the Šāh-nāma lived among us and we knew them well.
Since these characters are developed as distinct, genuine individuals, it is inevitable that sometimes differences between them should lead to conflicts that make each episode extremely dynamic and dramatic.
An instance is the conflict in the story of Rostam and Esfandīār (q.v.), which has been described as “the deepest psychological struggle in the whole of the Šāh-nāma, and one of the deepest examples of its kind in the whole of world epic” (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 59).
Ferdowsī is also very skillful in creation of tragic and dramatic moments, such as the dialogue between Sohrāb and his father, Rostam, when Sohrāb is on the point of death (ed. Khaleghi, II, pp. 185-86, vv. 856-65), Sām’s reaction upon receiving Zāl’s letter (ibid., I, p. 208, vv. 656-66), the disobedience of Rostam’s loyal horse, Raḵš, and his risking his life for Rostam (ibid., II, pp. 26-27, v. 345-46, the anger of the natural world when Sīāvaḵš’s blood is spilled (ibid., II, pp. 357-58, vv. 2,284-87), the minstrel Bārbad’s cutting off his fingers and burning his instruments while mourning for Ḵosrow II Parvēz (Moscow, IX, pp. p. 280, vv. 414-18), and so on.
The final part of Ferdowsī’s elegy for his son and the Bārbad’s elegy on the death of Ḵosrow II Parvēz together with certain of the preambles to various stories and other descriptive passages show that Ferdowsī was also a master as a lyric poet (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 64).
Such moments in the Šāh-nāma distinguish it from other epics of the world (ibid., p. 63); due to their simplicity and brevity, however, they do not harm the epic spirit of the poem, rather they give it a certain musicality and tenderness; in particular, due to the descriptions of love in the poem, these lyric moments take it beyond the world of primary epic (ibid., p. 54, n. 2).
Since the greater part of the epic poetry before Ferdowsī’s time, and even his own main source, the Šāh-nāma-ye abū manṣūrī, have disappeared, it is difficult to judge how far Ferdowsī’s artistry is indebted to his predecessors.
From the thousand lines of Daqīqī in the Šāh-nāma, from certain other scattered lines by poets who had preceded him, and also from the Arabic translation of Ṯaʿālebī, it can be seen that Ferdowsī was not an innovator but rather someone who continued an extant tradition, both in his epic style and in his narrative method.
At the same time, as Nöldeke has said (1920, pp. 22-23, 41-44), it can be shown by reference to these same works that Ferdowsī not only succeeded in preserving his poetic independence, but also that Persian epic poetry is indebted to him for its finest flowering.
Τις βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές θα βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ferdowsi-i
Η Αυλή του Κεϋουμάρς, του πρώτου Ανθρώπου-Βασιλέα
===============================
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250648457
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/ferdowsi_the_paradisiacal.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620833300
https://www.docdroid.net/tbVc1r6/ferntooysi-o-paradeisenios-ethnikos-poiitis-iranwn-kai-toyranwn-themeliotis-toy-newteroy-efrasiatikou-politismou-docx
Τουρκμένοι της Σάχρα στο ΒΑ Ιράν: η Ζωή τους κι η Διαφορά τους από την Ισλαμική Τρομοκρατία
The Turkmen of Sahra in NE Iran: their Life and their Clash with Islamic Terrorism
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 30η Απριλίου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αναφέρεται σε δημοσιεύσεις μου αναφορικά με τον χαρακτήρα του σύγχρονου (μετά το 1925) Ιράν και αναπαράγει τμήμα ομιλίας μου σχετικά με το Ιράν και το Τουράν (: Κεντρική Ασία) την οποία έδωσα τον Ιανουάριο του 2018 στην Νουρσουλτάν του Καζακστάν.
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/τουρκμένοι-της-σάχρα-στο-βα-ιράν-η-ζωή/ =====================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Η αρχαία Υρκανία ήταν η περιοχή γύρω από τα νοτιοανατολικά άκρα της Κασπίας Θάλασσας και σε αρκετό βάθος προς τα ανατολικά. Ήταν το αρχικό επίκεντρο των Πάρθων που μετά από τους Αχαιμενιδείς (Χαχαμανεσιάν: 550-330 π.Χ.) και πριν από τους Σασανιδείς (Σασανιάν: 224-651 μ.Χ.) έδωσαν στο προϊσλαμικό Ιράν την μακροβιώτερη δυναστεία: τους Αρσακιδείς (Ασκανιάν: 250 π.Χ. – 224 μ.Χ.).
Η ελληνική ονομασία είναι παραφθορά του αρχαίου περσικού ονόματος Βαρκάνα της περιοχής που ήταν μια αχαιμενιδική σατραπεία, αλλά η περιοχή ήταν ήδη γνωστή από ασσυροβαβυλωνιακά κείμενα (Ουρκανάνου) του 7ου προχριστιανικού αιώνα. Το όνομα αυτό διασώζεται σήμερα σ’ αυτό της μεγαλύτερης πόλης της περιοχής: Γκουργκάν.
Ανατολικά της Υρκανίας βρισκόταν η Μαργιανή κι ακόμη πιο πέρα στα νοτιοανατολικά η Βακτριανή (βόρειο Αφγανιστάν) και στα βορειοδυτικά η Σογδιανή (Ουζμπεκιστάν). Νότια της Υρκανίας βρισκόταν η καθαυτό Παρθία της οποίας τα σύνορα οριενταλιστές κι ιρανολόγοι έχουν πολύ συχνά σύρει κατά το δοκούν δημιουργώντας σύγχυση.
Αχαιμενιδικές σατραπείες
Βόρεια της Υρκανίας ζούσαν οι Δάαι ή Δάοι ή Δάσαι των αρχαίων Ελλήνων κι αυτούς οι Πέρσες καλούσαν Νταχάν, οι Κινέζοι Νταγί, κι οι Ρωμαίοι Dahae. Κι ακόμη πιο βόρεια εκτεινόταν η Χωρασμία, στα βορειοανατολικά παράλια της Κασπίας και σε όλη την έκταση μέχρι τα νότια παράλια της Αράλης.
Μερικές πολύ σημαντικές παρθικές πόλεις βρίσκονταν στην Υρκανία και σε μέρη της Παρθίας κοντά στην Υρκανία, και κει είχε σταθεί ο Μεγαλέξανδρος, όπως στην Εκατόμπυλο (σήμερα Κουμίς).
Η Νίσα (μεταγενέστερα Μιτραντάτ-κερτ: πόλη του Μιθριδάτη Α’ της Παρθίας, 171-138 π.Χ.) ήταν το σημαντικώτερο παρθικό εμπορικό κέντρο και καραβανούπολη πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού.
Έντονες σελευκιδικές επιδράσεις διακρίνονται στην τέχνη των μνημείων που έχουν εκεί ανασκαφεί και ο αρχαιολογικός χώρος, κοντά στην πρωτεύουσα Ασγκαμπάτ του Τουρκμενιστάν και σχεδόν πάνω στην ιρανική μεθόριο, είναι ο σημαντικώτερος της χώρας.
Η περιοχή της Υρκανίας ήταν φημισμένη για την άγρια φύση και τα άγρια ζώα της αλλά αποτέλεσε τον στόχο πολλών ουραλο-αλταϊκών (: τουρκο-μογγολικών) φύλων με πρώτους του Εφθαλίτες Ούννους που εγκαταστάθηκαν στην περιοχή ήδη στα σασανιδικά χρόνια (και πιο συγκεκριμένα στο δεύτερο μισό του 5ου χριστιανικού αιώνα).
Για να υπερασπιστούν τα σημαντικά εμπορικά κέντρα τους από τις αυξανόμενες ουννικές, τουρκικές και μογγολικές επιδρομές, οι Σασανιδείς ανήγειραν σειρά μακρών τειχών και τάφρων που στο σύνολό τους είναι το δυτικό ασιατικό αντίστοιχο του Σινικού Τείχους.
Κοντά στο Γκοργκάν σώζονται τα ερείπια ενός τμήματος των σασανιδικών τειχών που έχει περίπου 200 χμ μήκος.
Η μέγιστη επέκταση του σασανιδικού Ιράν το 614 μ.Χ. πριν την αντεπίθεση του Ηράκλειου
Αργότερα, τον 8ο αιώνα εγκαταστάθηκαν στην περιοχή οι πρώτοι, ‘δυτικοί’, Ογούζοι (Ούζοι) Τούρκοι (πρόγονοι των Ουζμπέκων), κι από τον 10ο αιώνα χρησιμοποείται ο όρος ‘Τουρκμέν’ για όσους Ογούζους αποδέχονταν το Ισλάμ.
Σημειώνω ότι πρόκειται για ‘ανατολικούς’ Ογούζους, φύλα πολύ κοντινά στους Κινίκ από τους οποίους προήλθαν οι Σελτζούκοι.
Οι Τουρκμένοι διακρίθηκαν ως πολεμιστές των Σελτζούκων έως ότου ανέτρεψαν τις σελτζουκικές δυναστείες.
Σε μεταγενέστερες εποχές κάποιοι Τουρκμένοι εγκαταστάθηκαν στον Καύκασο, την Μεσοποταμία και την Ανατολία.
Κι η ευρύτερη περιοχή της Υρκανίας έμεινε γνωστή στα ισλαμικά χρόνια ως Ταμπαριστάν, όντας έτσι τμήμα μιας ευρύτερης περιοχής που περιλάμβανε και όλα τα νότια παράλια της Κασπίας σε μικρό όμως βάθος (εφόσον η οροσειρά Ελμπούρζ χωρίζει την Κασπία από το ιρανικό οροπέδιο).
Στο Ταμπαριστάν, ο εξισλαμισμός ήταν μια πολύ αργή διαδικασία και μέχρι τις αρχές του 11ου αιώνα η πλειοψηφία των εκεί εθνών δεν είχε ακόμη αποδεχθεί το Ισλάμ.
Από τα ανατολικά άκρα της Ρωμανίας μέχρι την Κεντρική Ασία γύρω στο έτος 1000.
Τα σημερινά σύνορα του Ιράν με το Τουρκμενιστάν είναι ολότελα ψεύτικα κι αποτελούν το ιστορικό κατάλοιπο της τσαρικής ρωσσικής επέκτασης στην Κεντρική Ασία. Μόνο το 1881 έφθασαν οι Ρώσσοι στην σημερινή μεθόριο που ουσιαστικά ήταν ουσιαστικά τα σύνορα του Ιράν με το Χανάτο της Χίβα, δηλαδή του ενός από τα τρία πιο σημαντικά ισλαμικά βασίλεια της Κεντρικής Ασίας (τα άλλα δύο ήταν το Χανάτο της Μπουχάρα και το Χανάτο της Κοκάντ).
Οι Ρώσσοι θα προχωρούσαν και κατά του Ιράν αλλά παρενέβησαν οι Άγγλοι κι οι Γάλλοι για να τους σταματήσουν. Σημειωτέον ότι οι ρωσσικές επιθέσεις ξεκινούσαν από τα δυτικά, δηλαδή από τα ανατολικά παράλια της Κασπίας Θάλασσας τα οποία είχαν πρώτα καταλάβει.
Το Χανάτο της Χίβα που κατέκτησε στον 19ο αιώνα η Τσαρική Ρωσσία
Και στην συνέχεια, οι αντι-τσαρικές εξεγέρσεις όλων των κεντρασιατικών εθνών συνεχίστηκαν και στα πρώιμα σοβιετικά χρόνια.
Μόνον μετά το 1935, τρομερές αιματοχυσίες και μεγάλεις μετακινήσεις πληθυσμών (προς Ιράν, Αφγανιστάν και βρεταννικές Ινδίες), ηρέμησε κάπως η Κεντρική Ασία.
Τσαρική διοικητική υποδιαίρεση της μόλις κατακτημένης Κεντρικής Ασίας το 1900
Αποτέλεσμα αυτών των εξελίξεων ήταν ότι σήμερα οι Τουρκμένοι ζουν διαιρεμένοι στο Τουρκμενιστάν και στο Ιράν. Στο βορειοανατολικό άκρο του Ιράν μια μεγάλη περιοχή, γνωστή ως Τουρκμέν Σάχρα (: τουρκμενική στέππα), κατοικείται σχεδόν εξ ολοκλήρου από Τουρκμένους οι οποίοι ζουν υπό διπλή, εθνική και θρησκευτική, καταπίεση. Οι Τουρκμένοι είναι σουνίτες, ενώ το σημερινό Ιράν είναι μια σιιτική θρησκευτική δικτατορία.
Από την άλλη, μέχρι το τέλος της δυναστείας Κατζάρ (1925), όλες οι ισλαμικές εξουσίες του Ιράν αποτελούσαν τυπικούς αυτοκρατορικούς θεσμούς και στις εκτάσεις αυτών των κρατών όλα τα έθνη απολάμβαναν ισονομία και ευθυδικία. Επειδή απουσίαζε κάθε έννοια δυτικού εθνικισμού, στο αυτοκρατορικό Ιράν, Πέρσες (Φαρσί), Αζέροι, Τουρκμένοι, Σοράνι, Μπαλούτς και πολλά άλλα έθνη ζούσαν χωρίς διακρίσεις διότι κανένα δεν επιβαλλόταν στα υπόλοιπα αλλά συνυπήρχαν υπό αυτοκρατορική ισλαμική σιιτική εξουσία. Ο εκάστοτε σάχης θα μπορούσε να προέρχεται και προερχόταν από οποιοδήποτε έθνος.
Αντίθετα, με την άνοδο της ψευτοδυναστείας των Παχλεβί που οφείλεται σε αγγλική αποικιοκρατικού χαρακτήρα παρέμβαση (οι Άγγλοι έκαναν ‘σάχη’ ένα άθλιο στρατιωτικό, προδότη της χώρας του και του βασιλιά του), το Ιράν μετά το 1925 υπήρξε ένα εθνικιστικό βασίλειο που το πραγματικό του όνομα θα έπρεπε να είναι Περσία (Φαρς) διότι μόνον Πέρσες διοικούσαν την χώρα, κι όλα τα άλλα έθνη τέθηκαν υπό διωγμόν και καταπιέζονταν επειδή θεωρήθηκαν εχθρικά.
Η άνοδος της ισλαμικής ψευτο-θεοκρατίας το 1979 δεν άλλαξε τίποτα. Όλες οι άλλες γλώσσες απαγορεύονταν και πάλι, τα περσικά παρέμειναν ως η μόνη επίσημη γλώσσα, αν και γλώσσα μιας μειοψηφίας (οι Περσες είναι λιγώτεροι του 50% του πληθυσμού), και κάθε απόπειρα διεκδίκησης αυτονομίας πνίγηκε και πνίγεται στο αίμα.
Οι Τουρκμένοι, όπως κι οι Αζέροι στο Ιράν, σήμερα αποτελούν την πιο σημαντική απειλή για την εξουσία των Αγιατολάχ. Τηρούν τις παραδόσεις τους αλλά δεν έχουν καμμιά σχέση με τον παραδοσιακό – και καταγραμμένο μέσα στους αιώνες – θρησκευτικό φανατισμό των Σιιτών Περσών που στην γιορτή Άσουρα χτυπιούνται με μανία και ματώνουν για να ‘συμπάσχουν’ με το δραματικό τέλος του Χουσεΰν, τρίτου ιμάμη του Ισλάμ, στην Κερμπαλά.
Εδώ, ωστόσο, πρέπει να σημειωθεί κάτι το καθοριστικό: ο σιιτικός θρησκευτικός φανατισμός είναι μια προσωπική συμμετοχή σε πάθος και δεν έχει τίποτα να κάνει με εχθρότητα, μίσος και εκδίκηση εις βάρος άλλων. Δεν έχει μάλιστα ίχνος πολιτικών διεκδικήσεων, εθνικών αντεκδικήσεων, διάθεση επιβολής του Ισλάμ επί άλλων ή απόπειρα επιβολής ισλαμικού νόμου πάνω σε μη μουσουλμάνους.
Ο σιιτικός θρησκευτικός φανατισμός είναι περισσότερο μια λατρευτική διαδικασία και μια απόπειρα να οδηγηθεί ο πιστός σε έκσταση και σε αντίληψη του ψυχικού κόσμου διά του φρικτού πόνου στον οποίο αυθυποβάλλεται ο κάθε σιίτης. Ως πίστη και ως πράξη δεν στρέφεται κατά άλλων.
Από την άλλη, οι Τουρκμένοι του Ιράν, όπως επίσης και εκείνοι του Τουρκμενιστάν, ήταν πάντοτε πολύ δεμένοι με την γη τους. Έτσι, δεν εκτέθηκαν ποτέ σε αγγλική, γαλλική ή αμερικανική αποικιοκρατία.
Αυτό σημαίνει ότι ανάμεσα στους Τουρκμένους δεν έχουν καθόλου διαδοθεί είτε το πολιτικό ισλάμ (που παρασκευάσθηκε από Γάλλους κι Άγγλους οριενταλιστές κι ισλαμολόγους στην αποσπασμένη οθωμανική επαρχία Αίγυπτο κατά την διάρκεια του 19ου αιώνα κι εκείθεν διαδόθηκε σε άλλες αποικίες της Γαλλίας και της Αγγλίας, όπως η Αλγερία, το Σουδάν, η Υεμένη, η Σομαλία, η Συρία, το Πακιστάν, κλπ), είτε ο ουαχαμπισμός των Σαουδαράβων.
Οι Τουκρμένοι βρίσκονται λοιπόν στους αντίποδες όλων αυτών που η σιωνιστική και ψευτο-μασωνική ελίτ που κυβερνάει την Δυτική Ευρώπη και την Βόρεια Αμερική σκορπίζει ως ισλαμιστές, τρομοκράτες, εξτρεμιστές, φονταμενταλιστές, κλπ ανά τον κόσμο για να προωθήσει την ατζέντα της.
Αυτό φαίνεται ανάγλυφα σε ένα βίντεο της Deutsche Welle που δείχνει πως η παράδοση και η μοντέρνα ζωή συνδυάζονται ανάμεσα στους Τουρκμένους του Ιράν. Βέβαια το βίντεο δεν παρουσιάζει τις εθνικές διεκδικήσεις των Τουρκμένων της Σάχρα και κάνει τα αδύνατα δυνατά να αποφευχθεί η όποια πολιτική κριτική εναντίον του καθεστώτος των Αγιατολάχ. Σημειώνω ότι όλη η συζήτηση με τους Τουρκμένους που παρουσιάζονται στο βίντεο έγινε στα φαρσί (περσικά), ενώ τουρκμενικά ακούγονται να μιλούνται μόνον ανάμεσα στους Τουρκμένους.
Ωστόσο, το βίντεο αυτό δίνει μια αίσθηση του πως βιώνεται το Ισλάμ σήμερα από τους πραγματικούς σύγχρονους μουσουλμάνους κι όχι από τα σαουδο-‘σπουδαγμένα’ παρανοϊκά απόβλητα της Αλγερίας, της Τυνησίας, του Μαρόκου, του Πακιστάν ή τους άξεστους ιμάμηδες ‘φοιτητές’ του ψευτο-πανεπιστημίου Αλ Άζχαρ της Αιγύπτου όπου οι Αμερικανοί, Άγγλοι και Γάλλοι διπλωμάτες πιέζουν τους πολιτικούς πολλών χωρών (ανάμεσα στις οποίες κι η Ελλάδα) να στέλνουν τους μουσουλμάνους να σπουδάζουν ‘θεολογία’ και να επιστρέφουν ως υστερικοί τρομοκράτες.
Από το βίντεο αυτό βγαίνει αβίαστα το συμπέρασμα ότι η ισλαμική τρομοκρατία, το αντιδυτικό μίσος, οι βιαιοπραγίες και το μυστικό σχέδιο κατάκτησης της ‘άπιστης’ Δύσης εκ των ένδον και υπό προσωπείο λαθρομετανάστου είναι όλα δυτικής, σιωνιστικής και ψευτο-μασωνικής επινόησης.
Υπάρχει κάτι το πολύ απλό που, αν το πείτε στα σατανικά κι αντίχριστα καθεστώτα της Αμερικής, της Αγγλίας, της Γαλλίας, του Ισραήλ και μερικών άλλων χωρών που διεκπεραιώνουν την ατζέντα, θα τα κάνετε να πάθουν αμόκ:
– Εάν θέλετε φτηνά εργατικά χέρια στην Ευρώπη, φέρτε Τουρκμένους, Αζέρους, Καζάκους, Τάταρους από τη Ρωσσία κι εν γένει μουσουλμάνους που ακολουθούν τον κεμαλισμό και που δεν έχουν φοιτήσει σε Αίγυπτο και Σαουδική Αραβία!
– Εάν θέλετε να σταματήσετε την Ισλαμική Τρομοκρατία, απαγορέψτε τις σπουδές ξένων μουσουλμάνων σε Σαουδική Αραβία κι Αίγυπτο!
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrcania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorasmia_(satrapy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisa,_Turkmenistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumis,_Iran
http://www.ocamagazine.com/bronze-age-archaeology-in-turkmenistan
https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/daheansmargiana.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_Gorgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_defense_lines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonbad-e_Kavus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonbad-e_Qabus_(tower)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qabus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziyarid_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabaristan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapur_tribe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate_of_Khiva
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate_of_Bukhara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Geok_Tepe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmachi_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala
Το Ιράν των Αγιατολάχ: ένα Μασωνικό Παρασκεύασμα- αποκαλύπτει ο Έλληνας Ιρανολόγος καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτης
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/το-ιράν-των-αγιατολάχ-ένα-μασωνικό-παρ/
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Туркменская свадьба в Иране – Повседневная жизнь и современные мусульмане в оккупированной Туркменистане Сахре
https://ok.ru/video/1352623131245
A Turkmen wedding in Iran – Daily Life & Modern Muslims in Occupied Turkmenistan Sahra
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240148
Τουρκμενικός Γάμος στο Ιράν – Καθημερινή Ζωή και Σύγχρονοι Μουσουλμάνοι στο Κατεχόμενο Τουρκμενιστάν
Περισσότερα:
AMAZING IRAN – A TURKMEN WEDDING (DW Documentary)
Original Title: Eine turkmenische Hochzeit – Unterwegs in Irans Nordosten
Film by: Sebastian Kentner
The Turkmen Steppe, the country of a thousand mountains, is a tribute to the hidden treasure that is Iran.
Home to a proud nation with a majestic history, we show the freedom of a nomadic life, encounter the wild nature of the people and discover old traditions like the Turkmen wedding. Breathtaking sceneries create a mysticism that transports viewers into the realm of divinity while exposing a world caught between tradition and modernity – nomadism and sedentarism. https://www.autentic-distribution.com/68/pid/726/Amazing-Iran-%E2%80%93-A-Turkmen-Wedding.htm
More: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Туркменская_степь https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_Sahra
------------------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250641558
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/the_turkmen_of_sahra_in_ne_iran.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620636053
https://www.docdroid.net/c3jZvlF/toyrkmenoi-tis-sakhra-sto-ba-iran-i-zoi-toys-ki-i-diafora-toys-apo-tin-islamiki-docx
Πόλο, Πόλεμος, το Τζυκανιστήριον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού κι οι Τουρανικές – Ιρανικές Βάσεις της Ρωμιοσύνης
Polo Games, War Games, the Tzykanisterion of Constantinople, the Silk Roads, and the Turanian-Iranian Foundations of Romiosyni, i.e. today's Eastern Romans (falsely denigrated as 'Greeks')
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 4η Μαΐου 2019.
Αναπαράγοντας τμήμα ημερησίου σεμιναρίου, το οποίο είχα παρουσιάσει στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 σχετικά με ορισμένα σύγχρονα ψευδο-έθνη της Ασίας, της Ευρώπης και της Αφρικής, τα οποία έχουν παρασκευασθεί από τους δυτικούς αποικιοκράτες, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης, στο κείμενό του αυτό, απαριθμεί μία σειρά ιστορικών θεμάτων σχετικών με την παρασκευή της ψευδέστατης ταυτότητας των δήθεν Νεο-ελλήνων και την σύσταση της ψευδοϊστορίας που διδάσκεται στην δήθεν 'Ελλάδα'. Είναι φυσικό ότι όλα αυτά τα θέματα, τα τόσο καθοριστικά για το παρελθόν και την ταυτότητα της Ρωμιοσύνης, ολοσχερώς αγνοούνται από τους σημερινούς ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες του επάρατου νοτιο-βαλκανικού κρατιδίου, επειδή αυτοί έχουν πέσει θύματα αμορφώτων και τρισαθλίων παραχαρακτών, δηλαδή των 'ελληνιστών' και των 'βυζαντινολόγων'. Έτσι, τυφλοί και άχρηστοι οι σημερινοί ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες, έχοντας απωλέσει την ρωμέικη ορθόδοξη ταυτότητά τους, βρίσκονται σε κατάσταση δουλείας ασυγκρίτως χειρότερης εκείνης της οθωμανικής περιόδου.
-----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/πόλο-πόλεμος-το-τζυκανιστήριον-κωνστ/ ======================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αμόρφωτοι κι ανιστόρητοι οι διάφοροι Νεοέλληνες εθνικιστές ή προπαγανδιστές ελληνοκεντρισμού, ελληνισμού κι αρχαιολατρείας θέλουν να ξεχνούν ότι στα χρόνια της Χριστιανικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας, οι Ρωμιοί ένοιωθαν αποστροφή για τους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες της Αρχαιότητας αλλά ελάτρευαν κι έπαιζαν μετά μανίας το Τζυκάνιον.
Αν θέλετε να τιμήσετε τον Κωνσταντίνο ΙΑ’ Παλαιολόγο, αν θέλετε να πιστεύετε ότι πάλι με χρόνια με καιρούς πάλι δικά μας θάναι, αν σέβεστε την θρησκεία των προγόνων σας, αν είστε Χριστιανός Ορθόδοξος, τότε πρέπει να ξέρετε ότι τζυκανιστήρια (τεράστια στάδια όπου έπαιζαν το τζυκάνιον) υπήρχαν σ’ αρκετές πόλεις της Ρωμανίας – όχι μόνον στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.
Κι’ αυτό συνέβαινε για τον πολύ απλό λόγο ότι αυτό το τουρανικής – ιρανικής καταγωγής άθλημα που από την σασανιδική ιρανική αυλή του 5ου αιώνα μεταδόθηκε στην Βασιλεύουσα του Θεοδοσίου Β’ βοηθάει πολύ στην εξάσκηση του αυτοκρατορικού ιππικού. Το τζυκάνιον είναι αυτό που λέμε σήμερα πόλο.
Οι Ακρίτες κι η ακριτική παράδοση το τίμησαν, ο Βασίλειος Α’ Μακεδών το λάτρευε, ο ‘αὐτοκράτωρ πιστὸς εὑσεβὴς βασιλεὺς’ Αλέξανδρος Γ’ που βασίλευσε 13 μήνες το 912-913 σκοτώθηκε παίζοντας τζυκάνιον, και πολλοί Ρωμιοί ιστορικοί όπως ο Ἰωάννης Κίνναμος έγραψαν γι’ αυτό. Η Άννα Κομνηνή διασώζει κι αυτή πληροφορίες για τα θρυλικά τζυκανιστήρια της αυτοκρατορίας.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_(Byzantine_emperor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kinnamos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
Ενδεικτικό του πως γράφεται και ποια είναι η πραγματική Ιστορία που είναι απαγορευμένη στο νεοελληνικό ψευτοκράτος των θεόστραβων κι αργόσχολων μονιμάδων του Δημοσίου, τζυκανιστήρια αναφέρονται ότι υπήρχαν στην Σπάρτη και στην Αθήνα, πόλεις-εμβλήματα της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας που συμμετείχαν στους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες αλλά στα χριστιανικά χρόνια προτιμούσαν αθλήματα τουρανικής κι ιρανικής προέλευσης.
Ειρωνεία της Ιστορίας κι εκμηδενισμός των ανεγκέφαλων κι αμόρφωτων της ΕΣΤΙΑ TV κι άλλων ψευτομασωνικών, φιλοσιωνιστικών και νεο-ναζιστικών ομάδων που με τακτική Γκαίμπελς επαναλαμβάνουν το αισχρό κι αυτοκαταστροφικό ψέμμα του ‘διαχρονικού ελληνικού πολιτισμού’…..
Σε Αθήνα και Σπάρτη πριν από 1000 χρόνια, οι Ρωμιοί προτιμούσαν την τουρανική και την ιρανική πολιτισμική κληρονομιά, το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα της θρυλικής δυναστείας των Καϋανιδών που περιγράφει ο Φερντοουσί στο Σαχναμέ, κι απολάμβαναν το τζυκάνιον μιμούμενοι τον Σιγιαβάς, θρυλικό ήρωα του Ιράν, και τον Αφρασιάμπ, μυθικό βασιλιά του Τουράν (που το όνομά του είναι το παραδοσιακό όνομα της Σαμαρκάνδης). Κι όλα αυτά για αιώνες πολλούς πριν το Μαντζικέρτ και πριν να φανούν στον ορίζοντα οι Σελτζούκοι.
Αυτό ήταν μία μόνο διάσταση των πολιτισμικών ανταλλαγών που έγιναν χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού – ένα θέμα που οι Έλληνες ψευτο-πανεπιστημιακοί είχαν εξοστρακίσει κι απαγορεύσει από τον φόβο τους ότι η αληθινή Ιστορία θα ισοπέδωνε τα βρωμερά, ψευτο-μασωνικά, σιωνιστικά, ρατσιστικά, φασιστικά, νεο-ναζιστικά ψέμματά τους περί της τάχα ‘ανωτερότητος του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού’ – κάτι που έμπρακτα οι απόγονοι των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων έδειξαν ότι δεν πίστευαν.
Τώρα όμως που η Κίνα επιβάλλει παγκοσμίως την θεματολογία των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, η αληθινή Ιστορία θα σβύσει το ψέμμα του ‘ελληνισμού’ που κατέστρεψε την Ρωμιοσύνη και την Ορθοδοξία, ξεφτιλίζοντας την Ελλάδα σαν ένα ανίκανο και χρεωκοπημένο κρατίδιο.
Το πόλο λοιπόν παραπέμπει στους ιρανικούς θρύλους και συμβολισμούς, καίριο ηρωϊκό πρόσωπο των οποίων είναι ο Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’. Ο πόλεμος μεταξύ του Σιγιαβάς, διαδόχου του θρόνου του Ιράν, και του Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, ήταν μια τρομερή σελίδα του ιρανικού-τουρανικού θρύλου που γράφηκε με φόντο το τζυκάνιον (πόλο) και που πρέπει να ξέρουμε πολύ καλύτερα από τις ιστορίες του εμφυλίου των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων που γράφει ο Θουκυδίδης.
Γιατί οι θρύλοι είναι προτύπωση των εσχάτων με συμβολικούς όρους, ενώοι ιστορίες του παρελθόντος δεν αφορούν ούτε το παρόν ούτε το μέλλον.
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Поло в Гилгите, Северный Пакистан – Как древний имперский спорт распространился из Турана и Ирана через Великий шелковый путь
https://ok.ru/video/1357665602157
Polo at Gilgit, North Pakistan – How an Ancient Imperial Sport spread from Turan & Iran across the Silk Road
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240156
Πόλο στο Γκιλγκίτ, Πακιστάν – Διάδοση ενός Πανάρχαιου Αθλήματος πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού
Περισσότερα:
Το πόλο – αρχικά γνωστό σε αρχαία ιρανικά κείμενα ως τσαουκάν – είναι ένα τουρανικό – ιρανικό άθλημα του οποίου οι απαρχές χάνονται στην Κεντρική Ασία της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας. Αν η θήρα λεόντων ήταν το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα των Ασσυρίων μοναρχών κι αν η θήρα ιπποποτάμων ήταν το βασιλικό άθλημα των Αιγυπτίων φαραώ, το κατ’ εξοχήν άθλημα των Αχαιμενιδών σάχηδων κι όλων των διαδόχων τους μέχρι τα μέσα ισλαμικά και τα νεώτερα χρόνια ήταν το πόλο (τσαουκάν σε μέσα περσικά και τσοβγάν σε νέα περσικά).
Καθώς το άθλημα αγαπήθηκε στο Θιβέτ, στην Κίνα, στην Ινδία. και στην Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία, ήταν ένα ακόμη τουρανικό – ιρανικό πολιτισμικό στοιχείο που χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού διαδόθηκε σε όλες τις μεγάλες χώρες του προαναγεννησιακού κόσμου.
Το όνομα, με το οποίο το έμαθαν οι Άγγλοι στην Ινδία και στην συνέχεια το διέδωσαν σε άλλα μέρη του κόσμου, είναι ωστόσο όχι το τουρανικό – ιρανικό όνομά του αλλά το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος. Πούλου σημαίνει μπάλα στην θιβετιανή γλώσσα Μπαλτί που ομιλείται και στο Γκιλγκίτ, στα βόρεια άκρα του Πακιστάν.
Το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος διέδωσαν στην Ινδία Τούρκοι και Μογγόλοι που συχνά από στρατιώτες και στρατηγοί έγιναν αυτοκράτορες στο Δελχί. Ένας απ’ αυτούς μάλιστα σκοτώθηκε σε αγώνα πόλο – ο Κουτμπουντίν Αϊμπάκ που βασίλεψε ως σουλτάνος στο Δελχί από το 1206 μέχρι το 1210.
Το πόλο έγινε αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα επίσης στην Κίνα ήδη από την εποχή της δυναστείας Τανγκ (7ος – 10ος αι) και σε αυτοκρατορικούς τάφους βρίσκονται αγαλματίδια αθλητών πόλο είτε ανδρών είτε γυναικών. Συνέβαλε στην διάδοση του πόλο στην Κίνα η παρουσία των εκεί καταφυγόντων μελών της ιρανικής σασανιδικής δυναστείας που δεν αποδέχθηκαν την κατάκτηση του Ιράν από τους πρώιμους μουσουλμάνους στρατιώτες.
Στην Κωνσταντινούπολη το πόλο διαδόθηκε αρκετά νωρίς και στα χρόνια του Θεοδοσίου Β’ (408-450) αναγέρθηκε ολόκληρο Τζυκανιστήριο ώστε να παίζουν οι ευγενείς Ρωμιοί το … Τζυκάνιον (παραφθορά του περσικού τσαουκάν). Τζυκανιστήρια υπήρχαν επίσης στην Τραπεζούντα, την Έφεσο και αλλού. Ο λόγος που το άθλημα λατρεύθηκε από αριστοκρατίες και αυλές είναι απλός: αποτελεί εξαιρετική εκπαίδευση και προετοιμασία για το αυτοκρατορικό ιππικό μιας χώρας.
Ωστόσο, πουθενά αλλού το άθλημα δεν λατρεύτηκε περισσότερο από όσο ανάμεσα στους Πέρσες του Ιράν και τους Τουρανούς της Κεντρικής Ασίας. Ο λόγος είναι απλός: οι καταβολές του είναι από εκεί κι ανάμεσα σε Τουρανούς κι Ιρανούς το πόλο έγινε αντικείμενο μακροσκελέστατων επικών συνθέσεων. Ο εθνικός ποιητής του Ισλαμικού Ιράν Φερντοουσί κάνει λόγο για το πόλο που έπαιζε ένας από τα πιο σημαντικά πρόσωπα του ιρανικού θρύλου: ο Σιγιαβάς, γιος του Σάχη Κεϊκαούς.
Η ιστορία του Σιγιαβάς, Ιρανού διαδόχου του θρόνου που για να αποδείξει την αθωότητά του πρέπει να καταφύγει στον Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, είναι από τα σημαντικώτερα σημεία του Σαχναμέ,του τεράστιου επικού ποιήματος του Φερντοουσί.
Ωστόσο οι εναλλαγές κι οι αντικατοπτρισμοί είναι έντονοι και το Καλό και το Κακό παίζουν περίεργα παιχνίδια ενοχής κι αθωότητας για τους ήρωες της Καϋανικής Δυναστείας που μέσα στο έργο του Φερντοουσί προηγείται της Αρσακιδικής Δυναστείας (Ασκανιάν) αλλά δεν μπορεί να ταυτιστεί με την ιστορική δυναστεία των Αχαιμενιδών που όντως στην Ιστορία προηγήθηκαν των Αρσακιδών. Ο συμβολικός χρόνος στο έργο του Φερντοουσί έχει τελείως άλλη υπόσταση και χρησιμεύει ώστε να περιγράφονται αποκαλυπτικά κι εσχατολογικά στοιχεία ως υπόθεση του παρελθόντος αν και ανήκουν ουσιαστικά στο μέλλον.
Έτσι ο Αφρασιάμπ σκοτώνει τον Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα αρχικά σήμαινε κυριολεκτικά “αυτός με το μαύρο άλογο” αλλά κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siyâvash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_K%C4%81vus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Khosrow
-------------------------------
Η ιστορία του Αρχαίου Αθλήματος Τσαουκάν – Τζικάνιον:
The game first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 5th century BC, or much earlier, to the 1st century AD and originated there, polo was at first a training game for cavalry units, usually the king’s guard or other elite troops. To the warlike tribesmen, who played it with as many as 100 to a side, it was a miniature battle. In time polo became an Iranian national sport played normally by the nobility.
Women as well as men played the game, as indicated by references to the queen and her ladies engaging King Khosrow II Parviz and his courtiers in the 6th century AD. Certainly Persian literature and art give us the richest accounts of polo in antiquity. Ferdowsi, the famed Iranian poet-historian, gives a number of accounts of royal polo tournaments in his 9th century epic, Shahnameh (the Epic of Kings). In the earliest account, Ferdowsi romanticizes an international match between Turanian force and the followers of Siyâvash, a legendary Iranian prince from the earliest centuries of the Empire; the poet is eloquent in his praise of Siyâvash’s skills on the polo field.
Ferdowsi also tells of Emperor Shapur II of the Sassanid dynasty of the 4th century who learned to play polo when he was only seven years old. Naqsh-i Jahan Square in Isfahan is in fact a polo field which was built by king Abbas I in 17th century. Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan is the site of a medieval royal polo field.
Sultan Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the Turkic Emperor of North India, ruled as an emperor for only four years, from 1206 to 1210 but died accidentally in 1210 playing polo. While he was playing a game of polo on horseback (also called chougan in Persia), his horse fell and Aibak was impaled on the pommel of his saddle. He was buried near the Anarkali bazaar in Lahore (which is now in Pakistan). Aibak’s son Aram, died in 1211 CE [2], so Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, another ex-slave of Turkic ancestry who was married to Aibak’s daughter, succeeded him as Sultan of Delhi.
From Persia, in medieval times polo spread to the Byzantines (who called it tzykanion), and after the Muslim conquests to the Ayyubid and Mameluke dynasties of Egypt and the Levant, whose elites favored it above all other sports. Notable sultans such as Saladin and Baybars were known to play it and encourage it in their court. Polo sticks were features on the Mameluke precursor to modern day playing cards.
A Persian miniature from the poem Guy-o Chawgân (“the Ball and the Polo-mallet”) during Safavid dynasty of Persia, which shows Persian courtiers on horseback playing a game of polo, 1546 AD
Later on Polo was passed from Persia to other parts of Asia including the Indian subcontinent and China, where it was very popular during the Tang Dynasty and frequently depicted in paintings and statues. Valuable for training cavalry, the game was played from Constantinople to Japan by the Middle Ages, known in the East as the Game of Kings. The name polo is said to have been derived from the Tibetan word “pulu”, meaning ball. https://royalpoloclubrasnov.ro/history-of-polo/
Επίσης:
https://irandoostan.com/polo-or-chogan-the-unesco-intangible-cultural-heritage-of-persia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo#Origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
-----------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250620160
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/polo_games_war_games_the_tzykanisterion_of_const
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620278896
https://www.docdroid.net/LUrtK69/polo-polemos-to-tzikanistirion-konstantinoypoleos-oi-dromoi-toy-metaksiou-ki-oi-toyranikes-iranikes-baseis-tis-romiosynis-pdf