Shápúr is born Sháh. In his youth he builds a bridge at Taisafún and punishes the Arabs for their raids during his minority. Later on he goes to Rúm in disguise, is imprisoned, but escapes, defeats the Rúmans, takes Cæsar prisoner, and dictates terms of peace, which include the cession of Nasíbín (Nisibis). The poet then tells of the heresiarch Mání, his doctrine and death. Shápúr appoints his brother Ardshír regent, and dies soon after.

The duration of the reign of Shápúr (Sapor II., A.D. 309-379), as given by Firdausí, is correct. He was Sháh all his life, con­temporary with ten Roman Emperors, and one of the greatest of Sásánian rulers.

As has been stated already, some of the events attributed in the Sháhnáma to the reign of this Sháh really belong to that of his predecessor, the first of his name.*

§ 1. The story of the building of the bridge over the Tigris at Taisafún (Ctesiphon) is told also by Tabarí, who says that the additional bridge was constructed by sunset on the same day as that on which the command for its erection was given!*

Shápúr's chief places of residence were in Susiana and Meso­potamia, not in Párs as Firdausí states.

§§ 2, 3. Two Shápúrs (Sapor I. and Sapor II.) and much history are confused in this account, in which the taking of Hatra in the early days of the Sásánian dynasty and probably by Shápúr, son of Ardshír, is bound up artificially by a romantic incident with the expedition made by Shápúr, son of Urmuzd, into Arabia to avenge the Arab incursions into Persian territory that had taken place during his minority. Hatra or Al Hadr was the capital of a small principality which had become independent during the later days of Parthian rule. It grew up in the Mesopotamian desert, some forty miles west of the Tigris, in an oasis formed by the river Tharthar. Its magnificent ruins stand some forty miles south of Mosul and some two hundred north of Baghdád which is itself some twenty miles higher up the Tigris than the sites of the twin cities of Ctesiphon and Seleucia. The ruins form a complete circle surrounding a central square. The circle has a diameter of a little over a mile and is made up as follows. Outside of all is a broad rampart; within this is a deep moat, now dry, and within this again an immense stone wall with towers at intervals. Within the wall are the ruins of what was once the city. The dwellings of the inhabitants now are repre­sented for the most part by mounds of earth, but in the centre of the area surrounded by the city wall is a square walled enclosure with bastions or towers similar to those of the city wall itself. The four sides of this enclosure front to the four cardinal points, and each side measures 340 yards in length. This enclosure may be regarded as the citadel, and within it were the palace and the temple of both of which the ground-story, consisting of vaulted halls and other buildings, is still upstanding. The whole of the remains, walls, bastions, and all, are of coarse limestone beautifully fitted, every stone also being marked with a letter or number and often carved to represent human faces, foliage, birds, griffins, and other monsters.*

The place, as will have been seen from the above description, was immensely strong, its inhabitants were warlike, it was only a little over two hundred miles from Ctesiphon and Seleucia—attractions that, as experience was to show, were not beyond the reach of raids from the more distant Palmyra*—

and Ardshír Pápakán not unnaturally desired its reduction. This he, or his son Shápúr, actually achieved. The stronghold had withstood successfully sieges by the Emperors Trajan and Severus. It fell at last through treachery. Àccording to the story the Arabs had made a successful foray in the neighbourhood of Ctesiphon and Seleucia during the absence of Shápúr. The leader of this raid was a certain Daizan or, as Firdausí calls him, Táír, and there may be here some reminiscence of the capture by Odenathus of some of Shápúr's harem after the war with Valerian.*

At all events the raider was some Arab chief, but in our story was the king of Hatra. Shápúr, informed of what had happened, beleaguered the city. Now Daizan had a daughter, the Málika of Firdausí, and it so happened that in the course of the siege, which lasted four years, she and Shápúr fell in love with one another, and he promised, if she would get him possession of Hatra, to make her his queen. This she accomplished, her father was put to death, and Shápúr married the traitress. Now she had a very delicate skin, and, when she was reposing on silk stuffed with raw silk, complained of discomfort. It was found that a myrtle-leaf was pressing against her! Shápúr asked her on what her father had fed her. She told him on cream, marrow, the honey of virgin bees, and the finest wine. “And yet,” he said, “though you have known me only a short time you love me better than your father who gave you such food!”*

He had her bound by the hair to the tail of a wild horse and dashed to death. By rights this story should come under the reign of Shápúr, son of Ardshír, or of Ardshír himself; it has been brought, however, into connexion with that of Shápúr, son of Urmuzd, by the romantic addition, found in Dínawarí and Firdausí, that the treacherous daughter—the Málika of the Sháhnáma—was the child of the king of Hatra by the daughter of Narsí— Dukhtnúsh in Dínawarí and Núsha in Firdausí—whom he had made captive in the raid above mentioned. Now Shápúr, son of Urmuzd, was noted far more than his predecessor, Shápúr, son of Ardshír, for his dealings with the Arabs, and is said to have acquired his title of “Zu'l Aktáf” on account of the severity with which he treated them. Zu'l Aktáf has been explained to mean that he dislocated their shoulders, or removed their shoulder-blades, or strung his captives together in couples by boring their shoulders and passing a ring through them. Origi­nally, however, the title may have been one of honour only, “the broad-shouldered” like Dirázdast “the long-handed.”*

Be this as it may, the above story was adapted in Íránian legend to make it applicable to the better known of the two first Shápúrs and the one whose dealings with the hated Arabs redounded most to the credit of the empire. It is, as will be seen, softened somewhat in the adapted version. The half Persian descent of Málika is meant to account for and excuse her treachery,*

and Shápúr's conduct to her is not brutal. A trace of the earlier and harsher version may survive in the words of Táír,*

where he says in effect, anticipating those of Brabantio to Othello:—

But we are not told that Shápúr acted on the hint.

The scene of the story is laid by Firdausí in distant Yaman, the 'Ínánians, of whom Táír is made the king, being a tribe in that region.

In one place Firdausí refers to Núsha as the “daughter of Bahrám.”*

She was the granddaughter.

§§ 4-10. Here we have another historical confusion but on a larger scale. Sháhs, Emperors, times, and events are con­founded and transformed so into terms of romance that it is not easy to “disentangle from the puzzled skein the threads of” history.

First, Shápúr, son of Ardshír, is confused with Shápúr, son of Urmuzd.

Secondly, the Emperor Valerian is mixed up with the Arab prince Odenathus and with the Emperors Julian and Jovian. The Bazánúsh of the Sháhnáma, who in the reign of Shápúr, son of Ardshír, represented Valerian, here represents Jovian, and Julian, the Yánus of Firdausí, leads, not as Cæsar but as Cæsar's brother, an expedition against Persia.

Thirdly, a few dates are instructive. Shápúr, son of Ardshír, reigned A.D. 241-272. Shápúr, son of Urmuzd, reigned A.D. 309-379. The Emperor Valerian was taken prisoner in A.D. 258. Julian died, and Jovian made his treaty with Persia, in A.D. 363. Odenathus, prince of Palmyra, was assassinated in A.D. 267.

Fourthly, the historical events here confused are:—

The second war of Shápúr, son of Ardshír, against Rome in which the Emperor Valerian was taken prisoner and died, some years later, in captivity.

The ensuing war of Odenathus, prince of Palmyra, against the conqueror of Valerian, in the course of which he captured part of the great king's harem, and marched up to the gates of Ctesiphon.

The expedition of the Emperor Julian against Shápúr, son of Urmuzd, which ended in a disastrous retreat, his own death, and the humiliating treaty made by his successor Jovian.

§ 4. Already we have had instances of kings and chiefs going in disguise to spy out the enemy. So Rustam made his way into the camp of Suhráb,*

and Sikandar to that of Dárá,*

to the court of queen Kaidáfa,*

and to the palace of the Faghfúr.*

We shall find too Bahrám Gúr, in the next volume, going as his own ambassador to Shangul, king of Hind. The exploits of Odenathus in connexion with Shápúr, son of Ardshír, and the capture of the great king's harem, seem to be adumbrated here in the capture and misfortunes of the second Shápúr at the court of Cæsar. Valerian, whose own capture is here post-dated, is credited with the successes of the Arab chieftain. Shápúr's misfortunes are ante-dated as a foil to his final triumph later on.*

The denouncer of Shápúr at the court of Cæsar may be iden­tified perhaps, historically, with the Persian prince Urmuzd (Hormisdas) who was imprisoned by the nobles after the death of his father Urmuzd, son of Narsí, and after a long captivity escaped in A.D. 323 to the Romans, by whom he was held in high honour, and accompanied Julian in his campaign to the East.*

We have had an instance already in the case of Garsíwaz of the punishment of being sewn up in fresh raw hide, which contracts and stiffens as it dries, and is very painful if not always fatal. According to some accounts the Khalífa Walíd (A.D. 705-715), under a misapprehension, had his great general Muhammad Kásim put to death in this fashion,*

but this does not seem to be historically correct.

§ 5. Sympathetic damsels are much in evidence in this portion of the Sháhnáma as aids to embarrassed heroes. One helped Ardshír Pápakán,*

as did two more according to the Karnámak.*

Shápúr is aided thus here for the second time.*

Such scenes of lowly life as that between Shápúr and the gardener become more frequent in the latter part of the poem.

§ 7. Here we have, for the second time, the account of the capture of Valerian, post-dated by more than a century. His treatment in captivity is represented as being much more severe in this version on account of his rough usage of the Sháh which, historically, represents the successes gained by Odenathus over Shápúr, son of Ardshír, after the defeat of Valerian. The proposed terms of peace similarly are more stringent. Their parallel is the building of the bridge at Shúshtar.*

§ 8. This appears to be an account of Julian's expedition to the East in A.D. 362-3. It will be seen that he is not regarded as an Emperor but as the Emperor's brother. This was necessary owing to the form that the story took in Firdausí's authorities. Cæsar (Valerian) was supposed to be still alive though a captive and was engaged in collecting all the ransom that was possible from Rúm.*

The throne was not technically vacant, so Yánus could not be Emperor. Later on the troops of Rúm make a new choice alto­gether and elect Bazánúsh (Jovian). The repetition of the story of Valerian has the effect of dwarfing the more historically placed expedition of Julian, and Julian's status suffers accordingly.

§ 9. Here, after the overthrow of Yánus (Julian) Bazánúsh (Jovian) is elected Emperor in succession, romantically, to Cæsar (Valerian), historically, to Julian. Historically, too, the negotia­tions for peace were begun a few days after the death of Julian, and during the retreat of the Roman army, not by the newly elected Emperor Jovian but by Shápúr, who took that stop to delay the retirement of the Romans till some definite agreement had been arrived at. The result was a great triumph for Persian diplomacy.

§ 10. That we have here a version of the historical treaty of peace between Jovian and Shápúr is clear from the stipulation for the cession of Nasíbín (Nisibis)—one of the most important pro­visions of the actual treaty. Shápúr had besieged it three times already without success. There was a stipulation that the Roman inhabitants of that and other places ceded should have liberty to withdraw. Tabarí tells us that in the case of Nisibis they were replaced by twelve thousand natives of Istakhr and elsewhere.*

Both the accounts of Valerian in the Sháhnáma agree that he ended his days in captivity, and the general consensus of historians is to the same effect. Whether he died a natural death or not is uncertain, but the former seems the more probable.*

Shápúr continued the ancient practice of transporting conquered populations to new homes, settling them in cities that he him­self had built, restored, or renamed. The two in Khúzistán mentioned in the text—Khurram Ábád and Kinám-i-Asírán—may be represented by the ruins of Karkh and Shús, now known as Iwán-i-Kerkh, not far from the ruins of Susa. Pírúz Shápúr is better known as Ambar, a city on the Euphrates.*

It served as the original capital of the 'Abbasid Khalífat but was superseded before long by Baghdád.

§ 11. There was so much in common between the first two Shápúrs—similarity of name, wars with the Arabs and the Romans, religious excitement and consequent persecution, and, in addition to all this, the fact that the six intervening Sháhs had failed to impress their personalities on the popular mind and consequently left hardly any trace of themselves in popular tradition—that it was only natural for events properly belonging elsewhere to gravitate towards the later, longer, and more important reign of the two. We have had several instances of this tendency already, and here we have another in the case of the famous heresiarch, Mání, whose career, historically speaking, ended before the second Shápúr was born. Mání's life seems wholly to have been included within the third century A.D.—a period when new religious ideas were being disseminated broadeast, and old religions were passing through a season of revival. In the Sásánian empire Zoroastrianism, Christianity with its many gnostic offshoots, and Judaism, were striving to assert themselves, and in the midst of the ferment Mání was born A.D. 215-16. He is said to have begun his public career as a religious teacher on Sunday, March 20th A.D. 242—the day apparently of the coronation of Shápúr, son of Ardshír.*

Shápúr, at first disposed to listen to the new teacher, afterwards banished him, and he romained in exile till he was allowed to return by Shápúr's successor, Urmuzd, who allowed him evangelical freedom and presented him with a place of residence. Urmuzd's reign, however, proved to be a very brief one, and under the next Sháh, his son or brother, Bahrám, Mání is said to have been flayed alive, and his body, stuffed with straw, exposed on one of the gates of Gund-i-Shápúr, which gate consequently became known as “the Mání gate.” According to some accounts Mání was recalled by Bahrám and afterwards put to death by him or by his son and successor, but at all events the great gnostic died before the time of Shápúr, son of Urmuzd. Mání's followers of course were persecuted.

Mání's teaching was an eclectic one, and the materials for it were drawn from the various Faiths amid which he grew up or with which he came into contact later on. No doubt in his enthusiasm he hoped to find a formula that would reconcile them all. In the result he was regarded by the orthodox of each as the false friend who is worse than the open enemy, and suffered accordingly. His chief opponents were the priests of the state-religion—Zoroastrianism—just then in the flowing tide of its revival, but the arguments put into the high priest's mouth by Firdausí are more Mohammedan than Zoroastrian. Mání's offence, so far as his doctrine was distinguished from Christianity, lay in his high and pure asceticism, which was antagonistic to the somewhat self-indulgent Faith of Zoroaster. The Zoroastrian was a family man, a flesh-eater, and a wine-drinker. The Manichæan was not per­mitted to injure any living thing, whether animal or plant, for the sake of obtaining food, and was a celibate, a vegetarian, and a rechabite.

The followers of Mání were famous for the neatness and ornamentation of their sacred books, and this gave rise to the notion that Mání himself had been a painter. There are allusions to him in that capacity in the Sháhnáma.*

§ 12. For Ardshír see the next reign.