Kubád on his accession sends two chiefs to accuse of mis­government the fallen and imprisoned Sháh, Khusrau Parwíz, who justifies himself at great length. His fall is made the subject of a lament by Bárbad, the minstrel, who afterwards mutilates himself. The chiefs, noticing symptoms of remorse in Kubád, insist upon the death of Khusrau Parwíz who is killed with all his other sons. Kubád falls in love with, and wishes to marry, Shírín, who poisons herself rather than consent, and Kubád himself is poisoned soon afterwards.

The days of the reign of Kubád (Kobad II., Feb.-Sept., A.D. 628) were few and evil. Tradition already had prepared the ground for this in the unfavourable account given of his early years.*

The murder of his father was followed by that of all his brothers, and by the tragic death of Shírín, while in addition to all these horrors a frightful pestilence broke out in his reign and the great mortality that ensued still further weakened the resources of an already almost exhausted country and helped to pave the way for the suc­cessful Arab invasion of a few years later on. Kubád is represented in the poem as a loutish, uneducated youth,*

but even if his abilities had been great it is difficult to see how he could have extricated himself from the coil in which he found himself involved without mishap to himself or others. He owed his release from prison and perhaps his life to the very conspirators that subsequently demanded of him for their own security the death of his father. To have refused would have been fatal to himself, while in all probability his father and his brothers, with the exception of one who would have been made Sháh, would have perished all the same. It is inconceivable that the conspirators would have run the risk to themselves of restoring Khusrau Parwíz, with his black record of ingratitude as instanced by his treat­ment of Bandwí and Gustaham,*

to his former position as ruler. With the exception of his infatuation for Shírín, which hardly can be regarded as historical, Kubád throughout his short reign was the victim of circumstances.

§§ 1 and 2. Kharrád, son of Barzín, was one of the most trusted ministers of Khusrau Parwíz and planned the assassina­tion of Bahrám Chúbína.*

According to Tabarí he fell at the battle of Dhú Kár.*

As the epoch of the Sásánian Dynasty draws to an end through scenes of deepening tragedy the legitimist leanings of the tradition seem to become more and more pronounced and we have an instance here. It is hardly to be supposed, historically speaking, that formal charges of misgovernment were drawn up against, and as formally answered by, Khusrau Parwíz, but rather that someone, desirous of vindicating that Sháh's memory and conversant with the circumstances of the time, soon after his death drew up the charges and the replies thereto. Versions of them are given in both the Arabic and Persian Tabarí and elsewhere. Four of the charges are found in both the Tabarís as well as in the Sháh-náma. *

They are:—

1. The murder by Khusrau Parwíz of his father Hurmuzd.

2. The illegitimate accumulation of treasure as a result of the financial oppression of the people.

3. The harsh treatment of the royal princes.

4. The refusal to restore the True Cross.

To these the Arabic Tabarí adds:—

1. The general ill-treatment of all prisoners.

2. Enforced recruiting for the royal Haram even of women already married.

3. The keeping of the troops for a long period absent from home.

The Persian Tabarí adds:—

1. The imprisonment of the troops defeated by the Arabs at Dhú Kár and by Heraclius.

2. The exactions of arrears of tribute for the previous twenty or thirty years.

3. The attempt to slay the youthful Yazdagird (after­wards the last Sásánian Sháh).

4. The deposition of Nu'mán, prince of Híra.*

5. The mutilation and subsequent execution of Mardán-sháh. *

In the Arabic Tabarí eight charges are made against Khusrau Parwíz two of which—those relating to the royal Haram and the refusal to restore the “True Cross”—are left unanswered.

In the Persian Tabarí eleven charges are formulated to each of which in the same order an answer is made. Some of the charges, however, must be regarded as later additions while that relating to Nu'mán is not likely to have suggested itself to a Persian and must come from an Arab source. In the Sháhnáma there are eight charges, all of which are more or less answered, but not in the same order as they are pre­ferred, but in the following:—1, 6, 7, 8, 2, 5, 3, 4. Thus Khusrau Parwíz replies to the most serious accusations— those of offences against persons—first. The Sháhnáma agrees most closely with the Arabic Tabarí, supplies the missing answer with regard to the “True Cross,” but does not deal with the gravamen of the royal Haram question, as that par­ticular charge is not one of those mentioned in the poem.

Galínúsh subsequently served in the war against the Arabs, fought at the Battle of the Bridge, and was perhaps slain at Kádisiya.*

§ 5. Indignant legitimate tradition is naturally very wroth with Mihr Hurmuzd, the murderer of Khusrau Parwíz, whom it describes as the lowest of the low and vilest of the vile. According to Tabarí, however, Mihr Hurmuzd was the son of Mardánsháh, the governor of Nímrúz and one of the most obedient and faithful of Khusrau Parwíz' officials. In the Persian Tabarí's version of the Romance of Bahrám Chúbína that hero's brother, Yalán-sína in the Sháhnáma, is called Mardánsháh. Yalán-sína is always represented as being one of Bahrám Chúbína's most loyal adherents just as the other brother, Gurdwí, was a firm supporter of Khusrau Parwíz, while their sister Gurdya held an intermediate position, faithful to Bahrám Chúbína, but opposing his kingly ambition in every way in her power. Later on when married to Gus-taham, the maternal uncle of Khusrau Parwíz, she agreed, on condition that she should become the Sháh's wife and that a full amnesty should be given to all her adherents, to murder her husband and did so. There would be nothing strange therefore in Mardánsháh, if identical with Yalán-sína, becoming reconciled to, and receiving high office from, Khusrau Parwíz. He would serve one master as faithfully as he served the other. In the circumstances the strange thing would have been for the treacherous Sháh not to have taken the first convenient occasion against him. According to the story the Sháh, two years before his deposition, consulted the astrologers who informed him that his death would come from Nímrúz. He therefore began to suspect and summoned Mardánsháh, but finding no pretext for putting him to death, as he was perfectly loyal and withal an aged man, determined merely to cut off his right hand and make him a large present of money as compensation. The sentence was carried out. Mardán-sháh regarded such a mutilation as worse than death and, when shortly afterwards the Sháh was good enough to send and express his regret for what had occurred, asked the Sháh to grant him a boon. The Sháh swore to do so, on which Mardánsháh requested that his head should be struck off in order to wipe out the disgrace put upon him. The Sháh, bound by his oath, felt himself obliged to consent and the execution took place accordingly. The Shah wished to make Mardánsháh's son governor of Nímrúz, but he refused and withdrew from the army.*

He joined the conspiracy against Khusrau Parwíz*

and by avenging his father on the Sháh justified the prediction of the astrologers.

The account given by Theophanes of the last days of the Sháh is different. As a general rule it is not prudent to put faith in stories of what occurred in Oriental palaces or prisons, but owing to the special circumstances of the case his in­formation may be good in this instance, as it appears to be based on letters written by Heraclius. After the capture of Khusrau Parwíz by the conspirators, he was bound and confined in the “House of Darkness,” which he had himself built as a stronghold for his treasures. Here he was sparingly fed on bread and water for, said Shírwí: “Let him eat the gold that he has vainly amassed, and for whose sake he has starved many, and made the world itself a desert.” Shírwí also sent satraps to revile and spit upon him, had his son Mardásas, whom he had wished to crown, slain before his eyes, and all his other sons as well, sent his enemies to beat and spit upon him, and, after five days of such treatment, had him put to death with arrows. Shírwí then wrote to Heraclius to announce the death of the detested Khusrau Parwíz, arranged terms of peace, released all the captives, and restored the “True Cross.”*

With regard to these latter statements of Theophanes it should be observed that peace was not concluded, and the “True Cross” restored, till after the death of Shírwí.*

According to Tabarí Kubád had Mihr Hurmuzd put to death.*

§ 6. The association of Khusrau Parwíz and Shírín began, it would seem,*

before his accession to the throne, and he reigned for thirty-eight years. If Shírwí really wished to marry Shírín it must have been for political motives and because she had been so much in his father's confidence and might furnish useful information. For a son to marry his father's wives was, according to Persian ideas, quite the correct procedure in the circumstances.

Kubád is said to have been bitterly reproached by his two sisters, Púrándukht and Ázarmdukht, for his share in the deaths of his father and brothers, and to have suffered much from sickness and remorse. He died at Dastagird, but from what cause is uncertain.*

The plague was very virulent at the time. Poison was often made to account for what was really due to disease.