Fakhru'd-Dín As'ad of Jurján (or Gurgán) is scarcely known to us except as the author of the romantic poem of Wís and
Fakhru'd-Dín As'ad of Gurgán. Rámín, a romance said to be based on an old Pahlawí original, * and compared by Ethé (op. cit., p. 240) to that of Tristan and Iseult.) Even 'Awfí (vol. ii, p. 240) says that, apart from this poem, he had only met with five verses by this poet. These verses, which he cites, contain an expression of the poet's disappointment at the lack of appreciation shown by his patron, Thiqatu'l-Mulk Shahriyár, in spite of the “much poetry” which he had composed and recited to him; and, with two very abusive lines, in which, after observing that he “had never seen or heard of a man who was more of a cow than him,” he loads him with coarse invective. Dawlatsháh makes no mention of this poet, and ascribes the poem of Wís and Rámín to Nidhámí-i-'Arúḍí of Samarqand (p. 60), adding (p. 130) that others attribute it to Nidhámí of Ganja. It was composed about A.D. 1048, after Ṭughril's victory over the “Romans,” and is dedicated to his Minister, 'Amídu'd-Dín Abu'l-Fatḥ Mudhaffar of Níshápúr, and was published (from a manuscript unfortunately defective) in the Bibliotheca Indica Series in 1865. Its importance, as Dr. Ethé points out, lies in the fact that with it begins the differentiation of the romantic from the heroic variety of mathnawí, and the consecration of the hazaj metre to the former as of the mutaqárib to the latter. The following slightly expanded translation of four verses of the Song of Rámín (p. 142, ll. 11-14) may suffice as a specimen:—“O happy, happy Wísa, who dost lie
At Rámín's feet, and with bewitchéd eye
Gazest on him, as partridge doomed to die
Its gaze upon the hawk doth concentrate!“O happy, happy Wísa, who dost hold
Clasped in thy hand the jewelled cup of gold,
Filled to the brim with nectar rare and old,
Which like thy beauty doth intoxicate!“O happy Wísa, whose red lips confess
With smiles their love, ere Rámín's lips they press,
Whom with desire's fulfilment Heaven doth bless,
And Múbad's fruitless passion doth frustrate!”
The Romance of Wámiq and 'Adhrá, first versified in Persian The Romance of Wámiq and 'Adhrá. by 'Unṣurí, and later (after A.D. 1049) by Faṣíḥí of Jurján, is also said to be based on a Pahlawí original, concerning which Dawlatsháh (p. 30, ll. 3-12) writes as follows:—
“They likewise relate that the Amír 'Abdu'lláh b. Ṭáhir (A.D. 828-844), who was Governor of Khurásán in the time of the 'Abbásid Caliphs, was residing at Níshápúr when one day a man brought a book and offered it to him as a present. He inquired what book it was. The man replied that it was the Romance of Wámiq and 'Adhrá, a pleasant tale which wise men had compiled for King Núshirwán. The Amír said: ‘We are men who read the Qur'án, and we need nothing beside the Qur'án and the Traditions of the Prophet. Of such books as this we have no need, for they are compilations of the Magians, and are objectionable in our eyes.’ Then he ordered the book to be thrown into the water, and issued orders that wherever in his dominions there should be any books composed by the Persians and Magians, they should all be burned. Hence till the time of the House of Sámán, no Persian poems were seen, and if now and then poetry was composed [in Persian], it was not collected.”
All the six versions of this poem enumerated by Ethé (p. 240)
as having been composed in Persian seem to be lost, and its
contents are only known from the Turkish version by Lámi'í
of 'Unṣurí's redaction, which latter (the earliest) is merely
mentioned by 'Awfí (vol. ii, p. 32, l. 9). Dawlatsháh (p. 69),
in his brief notice of Faṣíḥí of Jurján, says that he had seen a
few mutilated leaves of the version made by that poet, from
which he quotes one verse, written in the same metre as the
Sháhnáma (the hexameter mutaqárib), and endeavours to make
up for the scantiness of his information concerning the poet by
giving a short account of his patron, 'Unṣuru'l-Ma'álí Kay-
The Qábús-náma is a book of moral precepts and rules of
conduct, composed in A.D. 1082-83 by the above-mentioned
The
Qábús-náma.
Kay-ká'ús, then sixty-three years of age, for his
son Gílánsháh. Manuscripts of it exist in the
British Museum (Or. 3,252), Leyden, and Berlin;
the text has been lithographed in Ṭihrán by Riḍá-qulí Khán in
A.H. 1285 (= A.D. 1868-69); and there is a French translation
by Querry (Paris, 1886), and three Turkish versions (the oldest
apparently lost), discussed by Dr. Rieu at p. 116 of his Turkish
Catalogue The book, therefore, has enjoyed a pretty wide
popularity, which it unquestionably deserves; for it is full of
wit and wisdom, rich in anecdote and illustration, and withal a
royal book, written with a frank directness out of a ripe
experience; and, in this respect, comparable to the Siyásat-
The Qábús-náma contains forty-four chapters, preceded by a
preface, in which the royal author laments the decline of filial
Contents of the
Qábús-náma.
obedience, and exhorts his son to live virtuously,
remembering that on his father's side he is descended
from the old Persian King of Gílán, Argh-
Incidentally the Qábús-náma contains, like the Siyásat-náma,
numerous (about fifty) anecdotes, introduced to illustrate his
counsels, and largely drawn from his personal recollections. A
good many of these commonly found in collections of Persian
stories (such as that contained in Forbes' Persian Grammar) in
a vague and impersonal form are here ascribed to definite
persons, and vice versâ, some here told indefinitely having been
appropriated by later writers to some famous man. Of the
first class I will only mention the anecdote (pp. 143-146 of the
Ṭihrán lithograph) of the Qáḍí Abu'l-'Abbás Rúyání's
sagacity, and how he cites a tree as witness, which occurs also,
told of the same personage, in Ibn Isfandiyár's History of
Ṭabaristán (India Office MS. No. 1,134, f. 59a), and, in an
impersonal and garbled form, in Forbes' Grammar (No. 71 of
the Persian stories, pp. 28-29 of the texts). Of the second
class, I may cite the allusion (p. 210) to an alleged rule adopted
by the Greeks that none might strike one whom their King
had smitten, out of respect for the subject of such royal
chastisement, which practice Dawlatsháh (p. 7 of my edition)
attributes to the Court of Sulṭán Maḥmúd of Ghazna. Daw-