TheShahnama: Between the Samanids and the Ghaznavids

Abstract

The paper reconsiders the apocryphal stories regarding theShahnama's initial reception to propose that it was only after long narrative poems gained currency that theShahnamawas recognized as a masterpiece. The paper analyzes the structure and themes of several histories written before and during the Samanid period and compares them with theShahnamaand the content of histories and epics produced immediately afterwards, to argue that the initial reception of theShahnamadid not depend on Sultan Mahmud Ghazni alone. It further argues that theShahnama's aim, content, and execution differed from the histories and poetry produced in the decades immediately preceding and succeeding it, which would account for the lag in its acceptance and popularity. This led later biographers to superimpose their regret over Firdausi's treatment onto Sultan Mahmud Ghazni, who by their accounts denied him the fame and glory he deserved in his lifetime.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.