دو روایت از دو تدوین خدای نامه در منابع حمزه اصفهانی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
کتاب خدای نامه ( خودای نامگ ) یکی از منابع تاریخی ایران باستان به شمار می رود که در اوایل دوره اسلامی بارها از پهلوی به عربی ترجمه شده است. تاریخ نگاران دوره اسلامی از ترجمه های عربی این کتاب برای نگارش تاریخ پادشاهان ایران استفاده کرده اند. از خدای نامه مطالب متفاوتی در متن های تاریخی دیده می شود که دو دیدگاه متفاوت را درباره این کتاب به وجود آورده است: دیدگاه نخست، خدای نامه را اثری مفصّل با تحریرهای گوناگون (شاهی، دینی و پهلوانی) می داند؛ درحالی که دیدگاه دوم، آن را کتابی مختصر و محدود به فهرست شاهان و روایت های کوتاه تاریخی به شمار می آورد که نسخه های خطی بسیاری داشته است. با در نظر گرفتن این دو دیدگاه، در این پژوهش به روش تحلیل اسناد، سال شمار شاهان ساسانی در متن های تاریخی چهار قرن نخست اسلامی مقایسه شده و با تمرکز بر روایت حمزه اصفهانی در کتاب تاریخ سنی ملوک الأرض و الأنبیاء کوشش شده است تا به پرسش های زیر پاسخ داده شود: آیا سال شمار شاهان ساسانی در کتاب های دوره اسلامی برگرفته از خدای نامه پهلوی بوده است؟ تفاوت سال شمار شاهان ساسانی ناشی از تحریرهای مختلف خدای نامه بوده یا ناشی از تفاوت در نسخه های خطی این کتاب بوده است؟ مقایسه سال شمارهای شاهان ساسانی در متن های تاریخی نشان می دهد که این سال شمارها به چهار گروه و سه روایت مختلف تقسیم می شود. روایت نخست، به خدای نامه ای مربوط می شود که در زمان خسرو انوشیروان تدوین شده و تا دوره اسلامی با افزودن بخش های تازه ای نسخه برداری شده است. روایت دوم به تحریر دیگری از خدای نامه مربوط می شود که احتمالاً نزدیک به دوره اسلامی یا در قرن اول اسلامی تدوین شده است. منابع حمزه اصفهانی ترکیبی از این دو روایت را نشان می دهد، هرچند تأثیر تدوین دوم خدای نامه در آن بیشتر بوده است.Two Narratives of Two Redactions of the Khwadāynāmag in the Sources of Hamza al-Isfahani
The Khwadāynāmag was translated multiple times from Middle Persian to Arabic during the early Islamic period. Islamic historians used these Arabic translations to document the history of Iranian kings. Various excerpts from the Khwadāynāmag appear in historical texts, leading to two contrasting perspectives about the book. The first considers it a detailed work with multiple versions, while the second sees it as a concise book limited to a list of kings and brief historical narratives, with several manuscript copies. Considering these two views, the present study analyzes the chronology of Sassanid kings as presented in historical texts from the first four centuries of Islam. By focusing on Hamza al-Isfahani’s Ta’rīkh sinī mulūk al-arḍ wa’l-anbiyā , it aims to address the following two research questions: 1) Was the chronology of Sassanid kings in Islamic-era texts derived from the Middle Persian Khwadāynāmag ? 2) Were the differences in the chronologies due to varied versions of the Khwadāynāmag or discrepancies in its manuscripts? Comparing the Sassanid king lists in historical texts reveals four groups and three distinct narratives. The first narrative corresponds to a Khwadāynāmag compiled during Khosrow Anushirwan’s reign and later copied with additional content up to the Islamic period. The second narrative pertains to another version of the Khwadāynāmag , likely compiled near the advent of Islam or during the first Islamic century. Hamza al-Isfahani’s sources reflect a combination of both narratives, although the second version appears more influential.
Keywords: Khwadāynāmag ; Siyar mulūk al-Furs ; Chronology of the Sassanid Kings; Hamza al-Isfahani; Ta’rīkh sinī mulūk al-arḍ wa’l-anbiyā
Introduction
One of the main sources for historians to refer to the history of ancient Iran has been the Khwadāy-nāmag . It seems that for the first time, Abdullah ibn al-Muqaffa' (d. 142 AH) translated this book from Pahlavi into Arabic and titled it Siyar mulūk al-Furs or Khodāynāmeh fi al-Siyar . Hamza al-Isfahani (d. 360 AH) also mentioned other translators, who most likely translated the Khwadāynāmag from Pahlavi into Arabic, including Siyar mulūk al-Furs translated by Muhammad ibn Jahm al-Barmaki, Tārīkh mulūk al-Furs extracted from the treasury of al-Ma'mun, Siyar mulūk al-Furs translated by Zādūyah ibn Shāhwayh al-Isfahani, Siyar mulūk al-Furs translated or compiled by Muhammad ibn Bahrām ibn Matyār al-Isfahani, Tārīkh mulūk Bani Sāsān translated or compiled by Hishām ibn Qāsim al-Isfahani, and the book Tārīkh mulūk Bani Sāsān edited by Bahrām ibn Mardānshāh. This narrative by Hamza al-Isfahani is particularly significant, as evidence suggests that he directly used the Siyar Mulūk al-Furs without intermediaries to compile the chronology of Iranian kings. Therefore, by carefully examining the narrative of Hamza al-Isfahani and the chronologies he included in his book Tārīkh Sinī Mulūk al-Arḍ wa al-Anbiyā , valuable information about the Khwadāynāmag in Pahlavi and its translations can be obtained.
Materials and Methods
The present study employs the document analysis method, comparing the chronology of the Sassanid kings in historical books from the first four centuries of the Islamic period. This comparison reveals four groups and three distinct narratives. Based on this classification and considering different viewpoints regarding the Khwadāynāmag in Pahlavi, the following two research questions were addressed: 1) Was the chronology of the Sassanid kings in the books of the first four centuries of the Islamic period derived from the Khwadāynāmag in Pahlavi? 2) Were the differences in the chronology of the Sassanid kings due to different versions of the Khwadāynāmag , or were they the result of differences in the manuscripts of this book? To answer these questions, the author focused on the first narrative (Bahrām Mōbad, Ya'qūbī, Ṭabarī), the second narrative (Ibn Qutayba, Eutychius, al-Maqdīsī, Abū al-Faraj al-Zanjānī), and a combination of the first and second narratives (al-Mas'ūdī, Hamza al-Isfahani, al-Bīrūnī).
Research Findings
The First Narrative
Ṭabarī provides several chronologies for the Sassanid kings, one of which aligns with the narratives of Ya'qūbī and Bahrām Mōbad. The similarities and differences between Ṭabarī’s and Bahrām Mōbad’s narratives suggest that Ṭabarī did not use Bahrām Mōbad’s method directly but rather relied on a translation of a source that was also accessible to Bahrām Mōbad. A noteworthy point is the similarity between the chronologies of Bahrām Mōbad, Ya'qūbī, and Ṭabarī and the narrative of Agathias (532-580 CE). Agathias, based on a translation by Sergius of Armenia of Khosrow Anushirvan’s royal annals, refers to the chronology of the Sassanid kings. Since these chronologies are drawn from official Sassanid state documents, and the narratives of Bahrām Mōbad, Ya'qūbī, and Ṭabarī closely resemble them, it can be concluded that a version of these documents was present in the Pahlavi Khwadāynāmag , which subsequently made its way into Bahrām Mōbad’s book, the Arabic translation of the Khwadāynāmag , and later into Ya'qūbī and Ṭabarī’s works.
The Second Narrative
The similarity between the chronologies of Ibn Qutayba and Sa'īd ibn Batriq (Eutychius) indicates that both authors used the same source. Similarly, the narratives of al-Maqdīsī and Abū al-Faraj al-Zanjānī also resemble those of Ibn Qutayba and Eutychius, suggesting that al-Maqdīsī and Abū al-Faraj al-Zanjānī either extracted the Sassanid king chronologies from Ibn Qutayba’s Al-Ma'ārif or from a source that was available to Ibn Qutayba.
A Combination of the First and Second Narratives
The chronology of the Sassanid kings in the works of al-Mas'ūdī, al-Bīrūnī, and Hamza al-Isfahani combines elements from both the first and second groups. Among the authors of this group, Hamza al-Isfahani’s narrative is particularly important because it includes a mixture of the first group (Bahrām Mōbad, Ya'qūbī, Ṭabarī) and the second group (Ibn Qutayba, Eutychius, al-Maqdīsī, Abū al-Faraj al-Zanjānī). This shows that both narratives existed in the Siyar mulūk al-Furs and, consequently, were both present in the Pahlavi Khwadāynāmag manuscripts.
Discussion of Results and Conclusions
Most of Hamza’s sources (the Siyar al-Mulūk ) were translations of the Pahlavi Khwadāynāmag . The first group’s narrative strongly resembles the chronologies in Agathias’ narrative, and it can be inferred that this narrative is associated with a version of the Khwadāynāmag compiled during the political, cultural, and social climate of Khosrow Anushirvan’s reign. After Khosrow Anushirvan's reign, the Zoroastrian priests added the stories and narratives of the reigns of Hormizd, Khosrow Anushirvan's son, through to Yazdgerd III, and manuscript copies of this version were made until the Islamic period. During the Islamic period, Bahrām ibn Mardānshāh, the Zoroastrian priest from the province of Fars, obtained copies of this Khwadāynāmag and, using it, corrected the chronology of the Iranian kings. Additionally, Ya'qūbī and Ṭabarī used the Arabic translation of this Khwadāynāmag to record the reign years of the Sassanid kings.
The second group’s narrative likely pertains to a later compilation of the Khwadāynāmag , probably created near or during the early Islamic period. This later compilation was probably revised based on the previous edition and adjusted according to the social and political conditions and needs at the end of the Sassanid Empire or the early Islamic period. Since the chronologies in Hamza al-Isfahani's work mostly align with this group, it can be deduced that many authors of the Siyar al-Mulūk used manuscripts of this version of the Khwadāynāmag . Therefore, the number of manuscripts of this version of the Khwadāynāmag must have been greater in the early Islamic period, and translators likely relied more on this later edition for their translations.
تبلیغات
