^{page 275 note 1} For parts I–III see BSOAS, xi, 4, 1946, 741–63; xII, 1, 1947, 20–35; xvi, 1, 1954, 91–2.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 1} To the guess in this direction found in Tārīkh-i guzīda he adds the similar utterings of Ḥajjī Khalifa and the Haft iqlīm.

^{page 275 note 3} Minūchihr 403–20/1012–29; Anūshirvān 420–41/1029–49; Dārā(one year). The Seljūqid Toghrïl appeared in Gurgān already in 433/1041, Ibn al-Athīr, ix, 340, and Kāy Kavus b. Dārā, who was considered as a ruler in 441–62/1049–69, and died circa 475/1082, led the life of a knighterrant fighting infidels first on the Indian, and then on the Transcaucasian front.

^{page 276 note 1} cf. M. Mo'īn in his commentary on Chahār-maqāla, Tehran, 1336/1957, 197Google Scholar.

^{page 276 note 2} The words quoted in the poem seem to belong to the archaic stock of terms surviving in Zoroastrian circles rather than to the actual speech in southern Persia circa A.D. 800. Cf. Henning, , ‘Mitteliranisch’, in Handbuch der Orientalistik, iv, 1, 1958, 86Google Scholar, ‘seltene und altertümliche Wörter’.

^{page 276 note 3} Sharwīn was the ruler, or governor, of Dastabī (apparently *Dasht-pey ‘the edge of the plain’), as was called the region between Qazvin and Hamadān. The Muslim authors referred to by Minovi (Dīnāvarī, Ḥamza, Ibn al-Faqīh, and the Mujmal al-tawārīkh) somewhat vaguely describe the background of Sharwīn's adventures. Much clearer is Procopius, De bello persico, I, ch. ii, who confirms that the Byzantine emperor Arcadius during his fatal illness placed his infant son Theodosius under the protection of Yezdegerd I who honestly discharged his obligations. Arcadius died in A.D. 408, and Yezdegerd I (‘the Sinner’) ruled A.D. 399–421. It is quite possible that Sharwīn acted in Byzantium as a representative of his king and that popular lore embellished his exploits. Cf. Bury, , The history of the later Roman Empire, 1923, II, 2Google Scholar; Christensen, , L'lran sous les Sassanides, 1944, 355Google Scholar; Vasiliev, A., History of the Byzantine Empire, Madison,1952, 96Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 1} Somewhat free is the interpretation of Abū Nuwās by his early commentator Ḥamza of Iṣfahān (b. towards 280–90/833–902, d. towards 350–60/961–71) who says that the exploits of Sharwīn were ‘sung’ and that the farjardāt of Vīs and Rāmīn were like qaṣīdas, which would suggest that they formed a series of poetical‘odes, or ballads’. Still more vague are the Arabic verses attributed to a poet of Iṣfahān and quoted in the anthology (Muḥaḍarāl al-udabā) of Rāghib Iṣfāhanī who died in 502/1108 (Brockelmann, GAL, I, 1943, 2nd ed., 343): a company of noble Arabs asks a slave (ghulām) to sing to them in Persian and to pour out for them wine of the kind which Vīs and Rāmīn drank in the morning and in the evening.

^{page 277 note 2} First published by Muqarrabi, M. in Farhang-i Irān-zamīn, Iv, 1–2, 1335/1956, 3–73Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 3} A copy of this MS was obtained by Minovi soon after the publication of his text.

^{page 278 note 1} See Suichan, ix, 10, 1337/1958, 1015–18.

^{page 278 note 2} This is not exact with regard to Firdausī and Z.-k. himself makes admissions to this effect.

^{page 278 note 3} Z.-k. refers to al-Fihrist, ed. Flügel, p. 13. Cf. also Yāqūt, III, 925, who names as his authority the book of Ḥamza called al-Tanbīh (now lost). Yāqūt gives another quotation from Shīrawayh b. Shahriyār (d. 509/1115) who this time definitely excludes from Fahla such regions as Rayy, Iṣfahān, etc. Cf. also the changed toponymy of al-Jabal (Māh, Media) in I. Rusta (beginning of the tenth century), p. 106. The problem of the history of the term Pahlavī was considered by Professor Ohlshausen, in ‘Parthava und Pahlav’, in Monatsberichte der Preuss.Akad., 1877, 727Google Scholar–83), but since then a mass of new material has awaited a new examination. The classification of languages by I. Muqaffa‘still remains obscure. Nöldeke called it a ‘leider seltsame Systematik’ and supposed some lacuna in the text, see his ‘Pehlevi’ in Aufsātze z.persischen Geschichte, 1887,150Google Scholar. Henning, op. cit., 95, thinks that Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ referred to the lands occupied by the Arsacids, but the names of ‘Parthia proper’ fell out of the enumeration. In any case I. al-Muqaffa‘ must have had in view the ‘Middle Iranian’ period and the language of the official classes for the local idioms of Parthia and Media could not have been the same.

^{page 279 note 1} One can understand such a nostalgic tendency at the time of Arab and Turkish invasions.

^{page 279 note 2} The Georgian version, see 0. Wardrop's translation, p. 14, is free: ‘There is no need to adorn the bride. God Himself has adorned her. Neither should there be any dowry (reading mahr for muhr-i mobad) …. Shahrō placed their hands one in the other and began to prepare for the wedding’ (in Persian text: mihmanī ‘banquet, reception’).

^{page 280 note 1} cf. Sir Coyajee, J. C. in ‘The house of Gotarzes, a chapter of Parthian history in the Shahnameh’, JASB, NS, xxvIII, 1932, No. 10, 207Google Scholar–24.

^{page 280 note 2} Apart from the reference to the Pahlavi original Gurgānī (Min., 28, Mah., 21) begins his narrative with a difficult verse hinting at some additional (?) versions: ‘I have found written (for ?) evening entertainments (samarhā), among the words of the narrators (rāviyān) in (their) reports (khabarhā)’ that there was a king, etc. This passage would be clearer if one could change the places of the rhymes: ‘I have found written in the reports (khabarhā) on what was said by narrators during the evening entertainments’.

^{page 280 note 3} See, for example, the references to ‘Khusrau’. Even if some of the sayings ought to be attributed to the mythical Kay-Khusrau (Minovi, pp. 129, 504), at least one of the references (ch. xciii, v. 14) in a simile (due apparently to Gurgānī himself) quotes the names of the Sasanian Khusrau and Shīrīn. Cf. ch. ciii, v. 4: Nūsharvān.

^{page 280 note 4} In Z.-k. wrongly: Ābān.

^{page 280 note 5} This computation is based on the principle that in applying the era of Yezdegerd (A.Y.) backwards (B.Y.) one has to take it that in every fourth year the year began one day later. Thus the beginning of the era (1 Farvardīn) was on 16 June 632, while the year 4 B.Y. began on 17 June. Cf. Taqizadeh, S. H., Old Iranian calendars, 1938, 6Google Scholar, and his letter of 26 October 1961.

^{page 281 note 1} See Wroth, Coins of Parthia, 190, p. lxv (dates and eras); Minns, , ‘Parchments of the Parthian era from Avroman’, Journal of Hellenistic Studies, xxxv, 1, 1915, 36–42Google Scholar (on dating); Neugebauer, , ‘Hilfstafeln zur technischen Chronologie’, in Astronomische Nachrichten, Kiel, 1937Google Scholar, Nos. 6250 and 6262; Henning, W. B., ‘Mitteliranisch’, in Handbuch der Orientalistik, Iv, 1,1958, 28Google Scholar–9 (references); I. Dyakonov and V. Livshitz, Dokumentï iz Nisï, 1960. According to Henning, , Zoroaster, 1951, 31Google Scholar, the Seleucid era was used even under the earlier Sasanians.

^{page 281 note 2} See Mo‘in's ed., I, 22: ‘the name of the first month of spring of the year of the Rūmīs when the sun stands in the zodiac of Pisces (Ḥūt)’.

^{page 281 note 3} Or some misunderstanding in Gurgānī's sources.

^{page 281 note 4} Professor J. B. Segal kindly writes to me (11 March 1962)‘Adar has been derived from Akkadian “be darkened, eclipsed”. But the more satisfactory derivation is from the term for “threshing floor”, which is its connotation in Aramaic and Syriac. It must at one time, then, have occurred at the season of threshing, in, that is, the early summer. But from early times-well before 1000 B.C.-Adar is used of the month which normally falls before the month of the spring equinox’.

^{page 281 note 5} Some further precision might be derived by specialists from Gurgānī's indication that the day of Ādhur-māh was called Dey. In the Zoroastrian calendar this name (in Middle Persian spelt Dadv) was applied to the 8th, 15th, and 23rd days of each month. As is known, however, the Zoroastrian canon was established first under the Arsacids. The Georgian translation by O. Wardrop, pp. 14–16, only says that the day of betrothal was chosen by astrologers.

^{page 281 note 6} Much less sophisticated is the description of a stormy night in Firdausī's introduction to the story of Bizhan and Manīzha (Tehran ed., Iv, 1055).

^{page 282 note 1} In the subsequent explanations this point is not further touched upon.

^{page 282 note 2} In the verse quoted at this occasion: ba daulat shāh-i shāhān shud chu Jamshēd there is no iḍafat after daulat, and instead of ‘il partit pour l’empire du roi des rois comme Jamshed’, one should translate: ‘by a fortunate chance he became a king of kings like Jamshēd’.

^{page 283 note 1} He uses the recent works of Cl. Cahen (1948) and B. Spuler (1952). Somewhat inexactly he calls Arslān-khān (who sent an embassy to Toghrïl) ‘Arslan le Tatare’. This Qara-khānid ruler was identified by Badi‘ al-zamān who quoted Ibn al-Athīr, sub anno A.H. 408. On this ruler of Kāshghar see in more detail Barthold, Semirechyé, Engl. tr. 96, who assigns to his reign the years 423–8/1032–56.

^{page 283 note 2} Here the memory is omitted of the Parthian empire which G. Kawlinson in 1873 called ‘The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy’.

^{page 283 note 3} cf. Xiẓāmī's dedications and the subjects of his poems.

^{page 284 note 1} See my remarks in Göttingenische Gelehrte Anzeigen, ccvII, 3–4, 1953, 197Google Scholar.

^{page 284 note 2} His nearness to the Sultan should not be exaggerated, as M. Molé does when he translates the verse describing the poet's conversation with his real patron, the ‘Amīd who pursīd az khudāvandī rahī-rī ‘il interrogea l’esclave SUR le maître’, instead of‘because of his (the ‘Amīd's) lordliness he asked (his) slave (i.e. Gurgānī)’, etc.

^{page 284 note 3} This campaign is not recorded by the historians, though it may have been required by some disobedience of Toghrïl's half-brother Ibrāhīm Yināl for whom M. Molé does not seem to have an opposite number in the poem.