Kubád ascends the throne and harangues the chiefs. Súfarai continues for a time at the head of affairs and then is disgraced and executed. The Íránians revolt in consequence, hand Kubád over to Súfarai's son, Rizmihr, and make Kubád's brother, Jámásp, Sháh. Rizmihr acts with extreme loyalty, protects Kubád, and escapes with him to the Haitálians. On the way thither Kubád marries a thane's daughter who becomes the mother of Kisrá. Provided with an army by the king of the Haitálians Kubád regains the throne. He wars against Rúm, builds cities, and be­comes a convert to the teaching of Mazdak who, however, is worsted in a public disputation by Kisrá and put to death with his followers. Kubád appoints Kisrá, to whom the folk give the name of Núshírwán, his successor and dies.

According to Mír Khánd, Kubád (Kobad, A.D. 488-531) was known as “the well-intentioned.”*

Historically the events of his reign, as set forth in the Sháhnáma, may be revised as follows. Súfarai remained at the head of affairs until the revolt occurred that drove the Sháh to take refuge with the Haitálians. This revolt was brought about by the conversion of Kubád to the doctrines of the heresiarch Mazdak, who had a large and increasing following. Kubád seems to have been sincere in his adoption of Mazdakism, but at the same time used its subversive principles as a means of reducing the power of, and of humbling, the great nobles. The official hierarchy, however, took alarm, Kubád was dethroned and shut up in the “Castle of Oblivion” in Susiana, and Jámásp, his brother, reigned in his stead. Kubád, however, by the help of his sister, wife, or both, or of Súfarai himself, managed to make good his escape to the Haitálians with whom he had stayed for some two years as a hostage during the lifetime of his father.*

During his second sojourn among them he married his own niece—the offspring, by the Haitálian king, of the captive daughter of Pírúz.*

Helped by his royal father-in-law Kubád managed to recover his throne and placed Súfarai again at the head of affairs, but at length, finding him too powerful, called in the aid of his rival—Shápúr of Rai, the captain of the host—and had him put to death. Kubád never seems to have abandoned his personal regard for Mazdakism, in spite of the fact that it had cost him the temporary loss of his crown, until nearly the end of his long reign. Probably after his restoration he was content to hold it as a pious opinion only, no longer as a weapon to be used against the nobility or in a manner provocative of the Magi. The Maz-dakites, however, not unnaturally became concerned about the future—what would happen on Kubád's death? Accordingly they attempted to secure the succession for one of Kubád's sons whom they knew that they could trust. Kubád, however, had made up his mind already in favour of another heir, and a great massacre of Mazdakites ensued. This seems to have taken place at the end of A.D. 528 or the beginning of A.D. 529. Kisrá in consequence of the share that he took in exterminating the Communists received the name of Núshírwán.*

This account, from which all irrevelant history has been omitted, differs widely, as will be seen, from that given in the Sháhnáma: Mazdak and his evangel have been replaced in their proper his­torical context, the story of the birth of Kisrá has been omitted, and so has all reference to Rizmihr, Súfarai's son.

§§ 2 and 3. Tabarí tells us that when, at the instance of Kubád, Shápúr of Rai overthrew Súkhrá (Súfarai), a saying, which became a proverb, grew current and ran thus: “Súkhrá's wind is gone; now a wind has risen for Mihrán.” Mihrán was the name of one of the great Arsacid families that played an important rôle, and held high office, in Sásánian times, and its employment in the above proverb has led Nöldeke to suspect that “Súkhrá” also must be the title of a family, not the name of an individual, as otherwise the two halves of the proverb would not have balanced properly. He is inclined therefore to the opinion that Súkhrá and Zarmihr— the Rizmihr of Firdausí—were not two individuals standing in the relation of father and son to each other, but one and the same person—Zarmihr of the family of Súkhrá of the house of Káran.*

This house, like that of Mihrán, was probably of Arsacid descent, but in Íránian tradition, as we learn from the Sháhnáma, claimed a much older origin and looked upon Káwa, the smith, who raised the standard of revolt against the tyranny of Zahhák, as the founder of its fortunes.*

However this may be, the rivalry between two great families, and the employment by the Sháh of one of them to deliver himself from the overgrown authority of the other would be natural enough. It is to be noted that Shápúr of Rai is described in the poem as being descended from Mihrak—the mortal enemy of Ardshír Pápakán and evidently for some reason or other a very important personage in Íránian legend. He is said to have been of Jahram in Párs, while Rai, with which his descendant Shápúr is associated, was the centre of Arsacid power in popular tradition.*

Not very long ago we had a Mihrán as treasurer to Yazdagird son of Shápúr,*

quite lately we found another—Ruhhám—helping Pírúz in his struggle against his brother Hurmuz,*

presently we shall come upon a third as the opponent of Belisarius,*

a fourth as a general in Núshírwán's host,*

while a fifth—Mihrán Sitád—goes on a mission to the Khán.*

In Kubád's plans for escape to the Haitálians he associates him­self with six others. Seven is a favourite number in Persian story. We have the Seven Climes, the Seven Courses or Stages of Rustam and Asfandiyár, the Fight of the Seven Warriors, the Seven Feasts of Núshírwán, and other instances.*

§ 4. According to Tabarí, Kubád fled twice to the Haitálians, once on the occasion of his unhistorical contention with Balásh*

and again, historically, here. On both occasions he is said to have contracted a marriage on his journey and to have been accompanied by Zarmihr (Rizmihr). This is stated by Tabarí with regard to the first flight and by Dínawarí and Firdausí as to the second.*

§ 5. In the above accounts the birth of Kisrá is chronicled in connection with both flights. This duplication does not make the story any the more probable, and, as a matter of fact, Kisrá appears to have been the son of the sister of one of Kubád's generals who served in the Roman war, A.D. 502-506.*

In view of the subsequent importance of Kisrá it was incumbent that Kubád should ask and receive satisfactory assurances as to the descent of the mother of his son. The name Kisrá is the Arabic form of the Persian Khusrau which, with the exception of twelve years, was the name of the Sháhs from A.D. 531 to A.D. 627, if we leave out of account the usurper Bahrám Chubína.

Jámásp who, according to Mír Khánd, was known as “the proud,”*

appears to have reigned for two years, A.D. 496-498, and it is to be feared that his brother's treatment of him after his deposition was not so amiable as Firdausí would have us believe. The same remark would apply to Jámásp's adherents, whom also the poet tells us were pardoned. One account at all events states that Kubád “killed the Great” when he regained the throne.*

According to Tabarí, Zarmihr (Rizmihr) was put to death by Kubád some time after his restoration.*

The story of the Sháh's ingratitude to the father is duplicated in the case of the son, which in itself is suspicious, as is the almost superhuman loyalty displayed by the latter in § 3. It may be laid to the account of the legitimist view that obtains in this part of the poem.*

If Súfarai be the Persian commander-in-chief called Seoses in Procopius he was not put to death till about A.D. 519.*

Until war broke out in A.D. 502 there had been, with one slight exception in the reign of Yazdagird son of Bahrám Gúr,*

a period of peace for eighty years between the Persian and Eastern Roman Empires. To both the defence of the passes in the Caucasus against the incursions of northern Barbarians was equally important, and the understanding was that both should contribute equally to that end. This arrangement formed one of the terms of the peace concluded by Yazdagird with the younger Theodosius after the brief war, above mentioned, in A.D. 442. The Romans, however, were very remiss in carrying out their part of the undertaking, and their money contribution was in arrear. Both parties seem to have been inclined to look upon the money as tribute to be exacted or refused according to circumstances, and this added to the difficulty of an agreement which probably is responsible for the notion often found in Íránian legend that Rúm was tributary to Írán. Kubád, after his restoration, found himself in want of money to pay his Haitálian allies and applied to the Emperor Anastasius for the arrears due for the defence of the passes. Anastasius refused, his motive being, it is said, the hope of embroiling Kubád with his northern mercenaries, and the Sháh declared war. At first he was very successful, taking Theodosiopolis in Roman Armenia and Amida in northern Mesopotamia, but the generals whom he left to carry on the war, when he himself was called off to resist an Haitálian invasion, were less successful, and Kubád commissioned his brother-in-law, the uncle of Kisrá, to negotiate a peace.*

The Persians received a lump sum and gave up the captured cities. Towards the end of Kubád's reign war again broke out, A.D. 526, and lasted till his death. It was in this war that Belisarius rose to fame and fought twice with one of the Mihráns named Pírúz.*

Procopius, who had become secretary to Belisarius in A.D. 527, gives a correspondence purporting to have passed between the two generals.*

Hulwán was situated north-west of Kirmánsháh at Sar-i-pul-i-Zohab. *

Kubád merely renamed it as he also renamed a town called Aragán on the borders of Ahwáz and Párs not far from the present Bihbihán. He changed Aragán to Rámkubád.*

§§ 6 and 7. In the Vendídád there is a reference to “the ungodly fasting Ashemaogha” (heretic), to which the Pahlaví commentary on the Zandavasta adds: “like Mazdak, son of Bámdát.”*

In the late Pahlaví Text known as the Bahman Yasht the names are given of six priests whom Núshírwán summoned to his aid in his disputa­tion with Mazdak.*

Two of them are recognisable in Firdausí's Hurmuzd and Mihr-Ázar. Mazdak's place of birth is quite uncer­tain, and his historical importance began and ended with the reign of Kubád. The poet omits to mention two of Mazdak's principles —the prohibition of bloodshed and of flesh-eating—but in other respects his account of that heresiarch's doctrines seems to be sub­stantially correct—Zoroastrianism with private property and the family abolished. To this anarchical Faith doubtlessly he did his best to win over Kubád's recognised heir, failing in which he schemed to alter the succession and perished in the attempt. This seems to be the obvious explanation of the catastrophe. Mání and his followers in their time fared no better.*

Núshírwán was far too able and practical to be led away by Mazdak, and on coming to the throne tried his best to repair the mischief that had been done.*