Kai Khusrau succeeds to the throne during the lifetime of his grandfather, Sháh Kai Káús, and swears to him to avenge the death of Siyáwush. This he achieves after long wars and vicissi­tudes of fortune; and then, fearing that, like Jamshíd, he too may fall away from holiness by reason of his great successes and half descent from Túr, prays that he may be taken from the world, its temptations, and its evil. His prayers are granted, and, having appointed his successor, he is caught up alive to heaven. In the course of the reign the poet tells two episodic stories, that of the dív Akwán, and that of Bízhan and Manízha.

Kai Khusrau is the last of the Sháhs in whose names we can trace a connexion with Indian mythology. In the Vedas he appears as Sushrávas. In the Zandavasta he is Kavi Husravah and is mentioned often. Like his grandfather Kai Káús he originated in the ancient nature-worship of the Aryan race, and a trace of his divine origin still clings to him in the Sháhnáma, as is shown by his exemption from death. The story of his birth and youth will be found in the reign of Kai Káús, Parts IV. and V.*

The reign of Kai Khusrau is the longest in the Sháhnáma and forms more than a fifth of the whole poem. It is nearly twice as long as “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained” combined. It is divided into seven Parts, of which Parts IV. and V. are episodic. The others carry on and bring to a conclusion the story of the old epic cycle of Írán, the deaths of Íraj, Naudar, Ighríras, and Siyáwush are avenged, and the royal house of Túrán becomes extinct. Early in the reign a new motive of great importance is introduced, that of the slaughter of the descendants of Gúdarz, who in Part VI. has his revenge on Pírán, just as in Part VII. Kai Khusrau avenges himself on Afrásiyáb. By the end of the reign a clean sweep has been made on the Túránian side, while on the Íránian a great clearance has been effected. Many heroic names drop out of sight, Kai Khusrau and his half-brother Farúd leave no issue,*

and in the next reign the curtain rises on a complete change of scene and motive. Only Zál and his de­scendants—great relics of the heroic past—still continue to play their part among “new faces, other minds.”

The story is one of almost unceasing warfare, for even the episodes end with battles against Afrásiyáb. Omitting these, four campaigns are fought, the first in Part I., the second in Parts II. and III., the third in Part VI., and the fourth in Part VII. The successive campaigns become more and more elaborate in the method of their presentation, and set forth the gradual progress of the Íránian arms from total defeat to absolute triumph.

In the course of the reign we find a mass of subject-matter of comparatively late growth. It is only in Part VII. that the older legendary strata crop up, and we again find ourselves in touch with the Zandavasta, while it is not till the concluding scenes of all that we come upon the ancient legend which may be regarded as the bed-rock of the whole. Another version of it occurs near the end of the great Indian epic, the Mahábhárata.*

This will be given in the Introductory Note to Part VII. in Vol. IV. of this translation, where it may be compared most conveniently with its Íránian equivalent.

It was stated in the Introduction*

that the Sháhnáma was divisible into two periods—a mythic and a historic—and the distinction was based not so much on the nature of the subject-matter as on the names of the chief characters which at a certain point cease to be mythic and become historic. As regards the names of the Sháhs, which were there referred to, this is correct. We are still far from the point in the poem at which such names begin to appear in their proper historic connexion of time and place, but it does not follow that all the names occurring before that point is reached are wholly mythical. Real dynastic, family, and personal names are found thrown back upon and incorporated with a mythical past with which they have no connexion what­ever. The dynastic title of Cæsar, for instance, occurs in the reign of Minúchihr,*

while the personified name—Káran—of a family famous in Ashkánian (Parthian) and Sásánian times is very prominent in the Pishdádian dynasty. The most striking in­stances of personal names and personalities being thus thrown back occur in the Kaiánian dynasty and in the reigns of Kai Káús and Kai Khusrau. These we will now proceed to con­sider.

About A.D. 40 the Parthian king Artabanus III. died. He left at least two sons living at his death—Vardanes, who suc­ceeded him, and Artabanus. Shortly afterward, and during the absence of Vardanes from the capital, a certain Gotarzes assumed the supreme power and caused Artabanus with his wife and son to be murdered. The relationship of Gotarzes to Artabanus III. has been a matter of considerable difference of opinion, but seems fairly settled now by two pieces of contemporary evidence. On the rock of Bihistún, some three hundred feet below the inscrip­tion of the great Darius, Gotarzes has left a memorial tablet of himself. Unfortunately it is now almost defaced,*

but when the late Sir Henry Rawlinson examined it in 1836 he made out, in addition to the name Gotarzes, which is still legible,*

the word Mithrates, and Gotarzes' description of himself as “Satrap of Satraps.” In one corner of the tablet the words “Gotarzes Geopothros” () were also found. Sir Henry Rawlinson's account was read before the Royal Geographical Society in January 1838.*

In the first element in the word “Geopothros” we have, as now seems generally admitted, the historical original of the Gív of the Sháhnáma. In the second element we have the old Persian word “puthra,” which means “son.” The whole word therefore means “son of Gív.” This historical Gív seems to have been prince of Hyrcania and the father-in-law of Artabanus III.*

He was also, if we accept the evidence of the inscription, the father of Gotarzes.

The second piece of contemporary evidence is a very rare coin of Gotarzes in the corrupted legend on which he is described as “the king of kings, the Arsacid, the adopted son of Artabanus” ().*

It appears therefore that Gotarzes was closely connected with the reigning Parthian family both by marriage and adoption, but was not really one of the sons of Artabanus III. as was formerly supposed.

Vardanes, on hearing of Gotarzes' usurpation of the kingdom, hurried back and expelled him. Gotarzes withdrew into his hereditary principality of Hyrcania, where, with the assistance of the Dahae, who dwelt between the Caspian and the Aral, he prepared to renew the struggle. The opposing forces met on the Bactrian plains, but hostilities were averted. Gotarzes had discovered a plot, on the part of the Parthian nobles on both sides, to kill him and Vardanes, and set up a new king in their place. He informed Vardanes of this, and the two combined against the common enemy. Gotarzes then withdrew to Hyrcania and Vardanes retained the crown. Subsequently another war broke out between the two and several battles were fought. Tacitus, the chief authority for this part of history, tells us*

that Vardanes advanced to meet Gotarzes as far as the river Erinde,*

at the passage of which severe fighting took place in which Vardanes was victorious, who then in several successful engagements subdued all the nations between that river and the river Sinde, which divided the Dahae and the Aryans.*

He returned in triumph, but shortly afterward was assassinated while hunting, A.D. 46. Upon this Gotarzes became king, but his ferocity and self-indulgence speedily rendered him unpopular, and a Parthian deputation arrived in Rome in A.D. 49 for the purpose of obtaining from the Emperor Claudius permission for Meherdates, who resided there, to accompany them back to Persia. Meherdates was the son of a former Parthian king, Vonones I. As was to be expected in the circumstances the character of Gotarzes was depicted in very unfavourable colours by the envoys. He had killed all his relations, whether near or distant, with their wives and children; he was sluggish at home, unfortunate in war, and sought to cloak his sloth by cruelty.*

Meherdates was sent accordingly, but was defeated and taken prisoner by Gotarzes, who, however, rather belied his character for ferocity on this occasion. He spared the life of Meherdates and merely cut off his ears—a mutilation that dis­qualified him for the Parthian crown. It was to commemorate this victory that Gotarzes had the bas-relief already referred to carved on the rock of Bihistún, in the neighbourhood of which the battle probably was fought. Gotarzes is represented as charging at the head of his troops, while above him a winged Victory is setting the crown upon his head.*

He died in A.D. 51.

In the lists of the kings of the Ashkánian (Parthian) dynasty, compiled by oriental historians,*

the name Gúdarz occurs in several connexions. We also find the name Bízhan given as the son of one Gúdarz and as the father of another. We also find the name Bahrám. Firdausí, when he reaches Ashkánian times, includes the above three names in his very scanty list of the kings of that dynasty. He admits that he knows nothing about any of them, being wholly unaware, as naturally he would be, of their identity with some of his own most favourite heroes.

In the Sháhnáma Gotarzes becomes Gúdarz, who is represented as being the father, not the son, of Gív. Vardanes becomes Bahrám and is the son, not the adopted brother, of Gúdarz. Bízhan becomes the son of Gív and the grandson of Gúdarz. Similarly other names of the Parthian period appear in the poem. Meherdates (Mithradates, Mithrates, Mithradát, Mihrdát) appears as Mílád, the father of Gurgín, who plays such a prominent part in the story of Bízhan and Manízha, (Part V.). Phraates—a common Parthian name—becomes Farhád, and there are other instances.*

Some of the names thus transplanted have flourished amazingly, and Gotarzes' reputation has not suffered by the change.

We conclude this note with a few instances in which the events of Parthian history summarized above may be traced in a distorted form in the Sháhnáma. In the war between Gotarzes and Vardanes we seem to have the origin of the campaigns of Tús against Túrán in Parts I. and II. The scene of operations is the same in both cases, and the battle at the river Erinde seems reproduced in that of the river Shahd.*

The assassination of king Vardanes on the hunting-field is reproduced in the episode in which Bahrám, having lost his whip on the battlefield, insists on returning to look for it, and is, after a gallant defence, mortally wounded by the enemy.*

It is because Meherdates, after march­ing through Armenia to attack Gotarzes,*

is let off after his defeat with a slight mutilation that, in the story of Bízhan and Manízha, Gurgín the son of Mílád and Bízhan the grandson of Gúdarz set forth together on an expedition to Irmán, that Gurgín treats Bízhan badly and, after having brought him into deadly peril, is lightly punished, then pardoned, and in the end forgiven by Bízhan himself,*

while lastly it may be noted that the battle with Afrásiyáb, consequent on the release of Bízhan, is stated to have taken place in the neighbourhood of Mount Bístún.*