The Classical Kufic Script Of The Blue Quran, By Unknown, North Africa Or Southern Spain, 9th Or 10th
The classical Kufic script of the Blue Quran, by unknown, North Africa or Southern Spain, 9th or 10th Century CE.
More Posts from S-afshar and Others
The Stele of Roma the Doorkeeper, Dedicated of the Goddess Astarte
The Egyptians almost never depicted illness. This instance is one of the exceptions. One of the man’s legs is withered and the foot only supports itself on the toes. It is the opinion of quite a number of doctors that these deformities are due to polio. This may be the world’s oldest representation of that disease.
New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, ca. 1401-1363 BC. Now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. ÆIN 134
The Collective West, its Mysteries, Illusions and Threats against the Mankind
Contents
Introduction
I. Colonization: worldwide imposition of the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model
II. The Western world: an abnormal self-denial and a terrorist rebuff of the History of mankind
III. The interminable internecine wars of the West, its composite nature, and the ensuing concerns for the rest of the world
IV. Westernization is not 'à la carte'
V. Westernization is part of eschatological agendas
De-Westernization for Russia, Africa, the Muslim world, India, China and Latin America means a) replacement of the fallacious 'Greco-Roman' and 'Judeo-Christian' material from academic curricula and educational manuals and b) substitution of the past documentation with major specimens of Asiatic and African Art, which bear witness to the historical interaction of the world's major civilizations. Example: back panels from the couch found in the tomb of the Sogdian merchant and nobleman An Jia (安伽), who was buried in Chang'an (長安), today's Xi'an (西安市), great Chinese capital, in 579 CE, founding year of the Daxiang (大象) era, during the reign of Emperor Jing; currently in the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology; the representations of few significant moments of the deceased nobleman's life involve scenes of cult, meetings with nomad leaders, and conclusion of agreements.
In a previous article published few days ago under the title "World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them", I made it clear that every sectarian thought does not only constitute a sin, but it also leads to misunderstanding, ultimately plunging the foolish guy, who thinks in this manner, into a delusion. From such traps there is usually no comeback.
Simple people and world-known statesmen are equally concerned in this regard, but the latter may destroy their respective countries in the process. You can read the article here: https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2024/05/16/world-politics-as-black-white-iran-and-israel-or-how-people-fall-victims-of-delusions-intentionally-projected-on-them/
There are many foolish guys worldwide, who persistently do not see the historical truth in Palestine; they believe a genocide that they never saw and they don’t believe a genocide that they see with their own eyes. And there are numerous inane people, who imagine that the ongoing war in Ukraine has -practically speaking- ended with the victory of Russia. More advanced daydreamers are convinced that the "collective West" has collapsed and that the BRICS+ are about to establish a new world order – or, if this expression embarrasses you, a multipolar world community. There is nothing more delusional than this.
I must however admit that a large part of my readers have been accustomed (and pleased) to reading my devastating attacks, denunciations and rejections of the colonial deeds of the maritime kingdoms which are -exclusively- responsible for every single problem that occurs in the world nowadays. But …….
Because I totally, overwhelmingly and comprehensively decry the evildoing of the colonial powers across the Earth, this does not mean that I expect their opponents to prevail anytime soon. Not at all! At least, not without major changes coming from the side of the BRICS+!
Introduction
Actually, my personal evaluation of the current situation is very negative; I am convinced that the world affairs are very ambiguous, very grim and very ominous, because the major continental states, their elites, and their governments are unable to accurately assess where the overall problem lies and to subsequently find the correct remedy.
It is correct to conclude nowadays that the "collective West" is in disarray, discord, disorder and decay. But so they were in 1492, in 1520, and in 1532, when they sailed to the so-called 'New World' (which was already known for thousands of years to ancient Oriental nations) and, in the name of the Satanic Anti-Christ of the Catholic Church, they intentionally performed the first two of a really long series of abhorrent genocides against the highly civilized Aztecs and Incas, also enslaving numerous other nations and ethnic-religious groups in the process.
All the same; this has always been the fate of the 'West', which consists in an abysmal anomaly in the History of Mankind. The barbarians of Western Europe always exported their problems to the rest of the world in order to survive. As a matter of fact, the Western elites accept as 'civilized nations' only the slaves of their fabrication, i.e. the so-called 'Western Civilization'.
When it comes to the non-Western world, the perverse idiots, who believe in the existence of a so-called Western Civilization, are the worst enemies of mankind and the most unrepentant traitors of their nations.
All the same, the so-called 'Western Civilization' is a villainous fabrication of the Western European barbarians, which was incessantly propagated, tyrannically imposed, preached as the 'sole civilization', praised as an all-human acquisition, declared as 'universal', and therefore meant (or hinted) as 'compulsory for every civilized human being'. This is of course entirely racist, but this is still a minor issue.
In fact, if the fabrication 'Western Civilization' stayed only within the circumference of the 15th–16th c. Western European states, it would never become a worldwide problem and, even more happily for the rest of the world, it would soon disintegrate, driving the Western European nations to extinction. When it comes to the vicious and premeditated propagation, imposition and acclamation of this construct, people all over the world must take into account the following five crucial aspects of the phenomenon:
a. Colonization is tantamount to Westernization;
b. The 'Western world' is first, an abnormal self-denial and second, a terrorist rebuff of the historical evolution of mankind;
c. The permanent internecine wars of the West demonstrate its composite nature;
d. Westernization cannot be 'à la carte' for anyone anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever; and
e. Westernization is part of eschatological agendas - not an intellectual caprice, an academic arrogance, a moral deviation or a mental degeneration
I. Colonization: worldwide imposition of the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model
Extensively but deliberately propagated as an economic affair, colonization is basically the premeditated exportation and the brutal imposition of the inhuman Western European civilizational model on the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, Colonization is Westernization. The first crucial aspect of the nefarious phenomenon is that, by means of military, political, economic, educational, religious, spiritual, intellectual, academic, scientific, cultural, technological, socio-behavioral and mental colonization, the aforementioned construct was repressively imposed worldwide.
After five centuries of persistent, mendacious, and oppressive effort, Westernization became finally inherent (in different degree) to everyone - with the only exception of the blessed people who happened to live in remote areas and remained unaffected from or immune to it.
The calamitous process started in Western Europe (namely the territories of today's Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, England, Scotland, and Ireland) and then it was transferred / relocated to the Occupied Territories which conventionally are now called 'USA', 'Canada' and 'Australia'; for this reason, all these lands (along with French Polynesia, New Caledonia, New Zealand, etc.) are called the 'Collective West'. It was from those lands that emanated the multifaceted and multilayered colonization process that can also be called 'Westernization'.
Quite contrarily, Latin America -from Mexico to Argentina and Chile- is not part of the 'Collective West', although undoubtedly many Western Europeans settled there. The continent where the great civilizations of the Mayas, the Aztecs and the Incas had grown is a colonized continent, and the indigenous populations which de facto constitute the majority of the people must take their land back, impose their culture, religions and values, and terminate the colonial shame that started before 500 years.
Decolonization-de-Westernization is necessary to Latin America too.
Similarly and more critically, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and the Scandinavian Peninsula do not truly constitute part of the 'Collective West; it is well-known that Austria-Hungary was aptly dragged by the Catholic Church into interminable wars against the Ottoman Empire, but this fact was the mistake of both imperial administrations which failed to assess the ignominious plans elaborated by the Anti-Christian Church of Rome against Constantinople and Vienna at the same time.
Later, Imperial Germany became also the victim of the papal plots, entering into academic, intellectual, economic and military competition with the then 'Collective West'; but this was exactly the trap! Attempting to acquire material gains against the English and the French, Germany started becoming part of the 'Club of the Evil', whereas it would be pertinent for the interests of the German Nation to fully oppose it. As a matter of fact, by competing with the Westerners in any sense, you simply get westernized, i.e. colonized – without even understanding it. Clearly, decolonization-de-Westernization is necessary to those parts of Europe too.
For the above reasons and due to many other parameters, it is safe to claim that every discussion about the 'economic motives' and the 'political predominance' of the colonial powers is merely a smokescreen. The same is valid for the often evoked 'missionary work'; it was only the camouflage. In fact, the Western countries invaded most of the other nations, lands and continents only to impose their construct, namely the inhuman Western European civilizational model.
Establishing an oligarchical economic system of social exploitation and arbitrarily imposing a parliamentary system of social deception in one colonized land are not enough for the devilish and criminal elites of the 'Collective West'! The colonized countries must always be in phase with the Western metropolises, when it comes to educational, religious, spiritual, intellectual, academic, scientific, cultural, technological, socio-behavioral matters.
II. The Western world: an abnormal self-denial and a terrorist rebuff of the History of mankind
The second crucial aspect concerns the formation of the West itself. This is a most concealed topic, as a systematic, comprehensive and monstrous misinterpretation of the historical facts was composed and propagated to compactly confuse people in the West and in the rest of the world. Because Western universities and museums, libraries, mass media, intellectuals and governments gave to the 'Collective West' a fallacious historicity, numerous explorers, investigators, commentators and historians were driven to the confusion that the divide between East and West existed always. This is entirely wrong.
The appellation "Ancient Oriental Empires" is the beginning of the historical fallacy. The great civilizations of Mesopotamia (Sumer, Elam, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Hurrians, Aramaeans, etc.), the Nile Valley (Egypt/Kemet, Cush/Sudan), Anatolia (Hittites, Hatti, Luwians, etc.), Syria-Palestine (Canaanites, Phoenicians, Philistines, Hebrews, etc.), the Iranian plateau, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia, the African Atlas (Berbers, Carthaginians, etc.), India, Bengal, the Deccan, and China were all "central to the world", according to their own standards, sources and world conceptualization.
Designating these civilizations, peoples and empires as "Oriental" necessitates the preposterous anticipation that the center of the world was situated elsewhere and these entities were located east of the center. Limiting considerations at the purely natural and geographical level is certainly normal, and it was done by all in the Antiquity. But extending the geographical notion to the cultural-civilizational level constitutes an absurd categorization and a discriminatory distinction. And on this racist foundation has been built the pseudo-historical dogma of the 'Collective West'. But in order to be close to factual data, I have to continue.
What is now called 'Ancient Greece' was an unimportant, marginal and mostly uncivilized circumference to the Ancient so-called 'Oriental' world; the distinctive tribes that are now conventionally called 'Ancient Greeks' failed to establish an empire of universal vocation. Culturally, morally and spiritually different from them, Alexander the Great of Macedonia invaded part of Greece and forced some of the local worthless states to contribute to the exploit of substituting the ailing Achaemenid Iran with a more genuine universal empire.
Ancient Rome was also a peripheral and insignificant city that was transformed from kingdom to 'res publica' and later to empire; the Roman expansion was mainly due to the rivalry with Carthage, which was the ancient world's most democratic and most republican state. However, after the disintegration of the shameful 'res publica', the Romans failed to build a genuine and universal empire after the example of Egypt, Babylonia or Assyria, despite Rome's unprecedented contest and endless wars with the Arsacid and the Sassanid empires of Iran. These wars lasted almost 700 years (54 BCE – 628 CE), but their echo lasted until 1453, as Mehmet II the Conqueror viewed in himself an Iranian vanquisher of the Romans.
The Christianization of the Roman Empire demonstrated its limits; in fact, despite of a very sophisticated administrative-military organization, the state could not hold together. The main reason for this situation was the fact that no empire can possibly be created around a sea; there was never an empire around the Black Sea or the Caspian Sea. And when all the coastlands of the Red Sea belonged to the Islamic Caliphates, the gravitational center of all these different states (Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Mamluk, and Ottoman) was not situated in the Red Sea region.
However, due to the universal or ecumenical vocation of the Christian faith as per the Fathers of the Christian Church, following the division of the Christian Roman Empire (395 CE), the Eastern Roman Empire developed an ecumenical character that it retained for several centuries. But the terms used for the division of the Roman Empire were purely geographical, having no cultural-civilizational meaning. The same was also valid after the schisms (Photian: 863-867; final: 1054); the differences between the Eastern Roman Empire (Orthodox Christianity) and the Catholic Church were only religious, canonical and imperial, because the Roman pope interfered in the various states of Western Europe in order to generate opponents to the Eastern Roman Emperor. And it so continued until the Fall of Constantinople (1453) to the Ottomans.
In other words, prior to the Renaissance, there was never a cultural-civilizational differentiation between 'East' and 'West', because the Western Europeans, like all the civilized humans across the Earth, viewed the world civilizations across the Earth as a unitary phenomenon.
It is the entire Renaissance phenomenon that changed the Western Europeans, but as such, it first led them to an absurd self-denial. In its nucleus, Renaissance is an arbitrary approach to the Western Europeans' pre-Christian past, involving a deliberate idealization of the daily life and the activities of the pagan ancestors of the 14th, 15th and 16th c. Western Europeans. In real terms, it is an illusion that they produced and believed, before exporting it to the unfortunate others. But this totally ahistorical illusion was at the same time a full and complete rejection of the Western Europeans themselves, i.e. of their own Christian identity.
The progressive imposition of the illusory Antiquity on the 14th, 15th and 16th c. Western Europeans was carried out by different mystical, religious, intellectual and academic elites in a way that worsened the trouble caused because of the apparent detachment from reality. Rejecting their true, Christian identity and adopting an unreal ideal, the Renaissance elites went from disbelief to degeneracy, from deviation to corruption, from paranoia to madness, from delusion to disorder, and from being to non-being. Viewed in terms of massive social phenomenon, Renaissance is the only true Holocaust in the History of Mankind. It consists in a most comprehensive spiritual genocide that the then Western European ruling classes performed against themselves and their own peoples.
Being cut off from their identity and recent past which they 'excommunicated', the sick elites of Western European Renaissance were left with only one option: they had to
a) unquestionably, inevitably, and unrepentantly conquer and massacre the others,
b) forcefully change the identity of the survivors (: make them look like 'copies' of Western Europeans), and
c) flee ahead to even more unreal, more inhuman, and more absurd notions.
This means that they subsequently produced even more unrealistic schemes, lunatic concepts, illusory descriptions, and delusional suggestions, which ultimately led to worse types of colonization, repression, bloodshed, cruelty, and wars.
It goes without saying that these elites will inevitably resort to nuclear conflagration and total annihilation of mankind if they fail to materialize the incessantly more unrealistic projects, which are mere paragraphs of their ominous agendas.
We can therefore easily understand that the East-West (Orient vs. Occident) dilemma is a forgery; in fact, what we call nowadays the 'Collective West' consists in
1) the corruption of a part of the Mankind (namely the Western Europe),
2) the subsequent secession of that part of the world from the rest, and
3) the opposition to, and denial of, the rest of mankind, which is indiscriminately and pejoratively labeled as 'Orient'.
III. The interminable internecine wars of the West, its composite nature, and the ensuing concerns for the rest of the world
Many people are nowadays impressed because of the collapse of the so-called Franco-German axis within European Union (EU); but what is there to be possibly impressed with? Personally, I rather tend to believe that the so-called Berlin-Paris axis lasted for long. Taking into consideration the past that Western Europe has had after the Christianization of the Roman Empire (313-380 CE) and its final division into two parts (395 CE), we have to find the present divisions within EU as quite normal.
Contrarily to what happened in the Eastern Roman Empire with the prevailing Caesaropapism (which is tantamount to absolute prevalence of the emperor over the patriarch), in the ill-fated and short-lived Western Roman Empire, the pope of Rome prevailed over the local emperor by means of a well-orchestrated deception (and this is called Papo-Caesarism). Even worse, the papal authority devised an ignominious plan as per which barbarian 'kingdoms' ruled by idiotic thugs would supplant the Western Roman Empire as an imperial institution, thus leaving the pope as the sole ruler of Western Europe.
By ceaselessly pursuing divisive tactics and by keeping a balance among the barbarian rulers, the counterfeit administration of Anti-Christian Rome, while fervently fighting against the Eastern Roman Empire, implemented systematically a devilish policy of acculturation during the long process of Christianization of the uncivilized migrant tribes in the lands of today's Northern Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, England and Ireland. This means that in fact all these populations never became truly Christian, but believed that they were Christian while remaining pagan, cruel and incestuous.
Quite contrarily, in the truly Christian Eastern Roman Empire, the emperor and the patriarch implemented methodically different approaches to the successive waves of migrating nations, i.e. religious integration, cultural assimilation and administrative incorporation. The alternative solution was always military victory, expulsion and dispersion of the enemy. For this reason, in the Eastern Roman Empire there were few religious quarrels and conflicts, whereas in Western Europe there were endless tribal, feudal and later monarchical hostilities, which were always wars of plunder.
Consequently, spiritual, religious, doctrinal and theological opposition went extinct in the Eastern Roman Empire after the 9th c., but across Western Europe, numerous groups survived in clandestine form from the times of Late Antiquity until the 15th c. The Eastern Roman Emperors never faced an opponent like the Knights Templar; but the papal power, which was never counterbalanced by any royal (and the exceptions only confirm the rule), was unable to uproot secret movements and doctrinal factions that challenged its authority in later periods, because they had aptly managed to penetrate several religious orders and the papal hierarchy.
With the gradual arrival of Ashkenazi 'Jews' in Northern and Central Europe (9th–10th c.), the admixture (or if you prefer the circulation) of elites that formed the modern Western world (also known as the 'Collective West') was ready. Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) understood it quite well. Consequently, it was only normal for Western Europeans to experience interminable internecine wars, while expanding colonially. This fact only reveals the composite nature of Western Europe; it also explains the present conjuncture.
Originating from diverse religious societies of the Late Antiquity, the three main forces, which composed Modern Europe and controlled the world by means of colonization, always managed to make compromises for their reciprocal interests in spite of the enormous differences that their eschatological agendas comprise. The three most influential groups (or 'nebulae' if you prefer) are the following: the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists. About their agendas and remote antiquity, you can find general information in my earlier publications:
and
Quite interestingly, I read only recently a compelling article about the intentions toward Russia that three major groups of the Collective West have; it was first published before one year (8 May 2023). Titled Шахматы войны (Chess of War), the article was authored by the world-known Russian intellectual Alexander Dugin (https://katehon.com/ru/article/shahmaty-voyny). For an English translation (by Lorenzo Maria Pacini): https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/chess-war
The article was written after a chess-like style and that is why the 'Collective West' is designated as "Black", meaning a black set of chess. In his second part (Black's centers), A. Dugin makes the following distinction:
«With Black we can distinguish three main macro-figures, which are not symmetrical with each other, but each of them has a sufficient degree of sovereignty to actively influence the course of the entire confrontation. We have named them as follows:
The party of complete and immediate victory over Russia
The party of delayed victory over Russia
The party of indifference to Russia».
In fact, the first 'party' represents the Zionists; the second 'party' corresponds fully to the Jesuits, their world conceptualization, mentality, attitude, and agenda. And the third 'party' can clearly be identified with some leading Freemasonic lodges (at this point, I have to clarify that there is an ongoing fierce dispute among several apostate lodges).
Further expanding upon "the party of total and immediate victory over Russia", Alexander Dugin identifies it as the "most radical part of the globalists", stating more specifically that it consists of "the British secret services, which act in close connection with certain US neo-conservative centers (Kagan, Nuland, Kristol) and with the Pentagon and CIA circles close to them".
Focusing on "the party of delayed victory over Russia" (i.e. the second of the three groups), A. Dugin exemplifies the group with the Roman Catholic General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, a ferocious enemy of former US President Donald Trump. While explaining the geopolitical positions of this group, the Russian intellectual adds current US President Biden in the picture: "This is the position of Biden himself and most of his administration".
When it comes to the third party (or "The indifference’s party"), A. Dugin draws the political portrait of Donald Trump: "the position of those American political forces that do not identify US interests with globalism, do not rely on the rules of Atlanticist geopolitics (where the main goal of the Anglo-Saxon civilisation of the sea is an overwhelming victory over the Eurasian civilisation of the land, i.e. sovereign Russia), and are therefore indifferent to Russia, which, on a soberly pragmatic analysis, does not threaten US national interests - neither in the military nor in the economic field - in general". He then epitomizes it by adding that "this is exactly the position expressed by former US President Donald Trump. His claims, that if he becomes US President again the conflict in Ukraine will immediately cease, are not boastfulness, but pure realism".
The composite nature of the 'Collective West' and the total control that the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists exercise over the governments and the societies of Western Europe and North America (and through them over the rest of the world) are indeed very preoccupying issues and quite determinant factors for the rest of the world. This is so for the following four reasons:
a) the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model that Western European elites imposed first locally and then worldwide is similarly a composite corpus of notions; it contains gravely divergent concepts that were finally adopted after many gradual, trilateral compromises.
b) in the same manner, the bogus-historical dogma, which was elaborated by Western European academics and then colonially imposed worldwide, is also a composite patchwork. This can be attested in several terms, which are meaningless for the rest of the world, but in fact, they are the result of compromises. Examples:
'Greco-Roman world', 'Hellenistic and Roman' times, 'Judeo-Christian' culture, 'Helleno-Christian' civilization, 'Helleno-Orthodox' doctrine, etc.
c) at any given moment during the last 500 years, the flee ahead to even more unreal notions, ideas or theories led always to final compromises, modifications, and new composite constructs, which had Jesuit, Freemasonic and Zionist components and dimensions. The same is also valid for the conflicts ensued and the treaties signed at the end.
d) even more importantly, the penetration of the Western elites into the rest of the world was also composite; this means that countries, parts and/or sectors of the non-Western world are controlled at all levels by representatives of the three groups of power. Due to this phenomenon, the internecine wars of the Western World have spread across the Earth, making of any potential disentanglement a very difficult and very dangerous option.
IV. Westernization is not 'à la carte'
Due to the situation described as per above, it is impossible for any non-Westerner to stand opposite to the 'Collective West', selecting only some of the theoretical systems, philosophical maxims, intellectual approaches, academic considerations, political ideologies, and governmental practices produced and implemented by the Western world. Although this attitude is not straightforwardly opposite to the Western world, it is considered as gravely inimical by the paranoid rulers of UK, US, EU, NATO and their satellites.
It is actually misplaced to attempt to view the modern Western world as a diachronic entity, because it was never such and it was not geared to be anything of the kind. You don't have the option to possibly accept 'this' and reject 'that'. It is true that, in every historical period after Renaissance, the Western elites came up with several theoretical options, governmental concepts, social ideals and philosophical concepts, which were entirely fallacious and still opposite to one another; at a later date, one of the conflicting poles may have subsided or eventually both were brought together, and a new -always delusional and inhuman- environment appeared. Many scholars described this type of developments as 'Hegelian', but in reality they were entirely Manichaean.
However, average people everywhere, either in the Western colonial metropolises or in the colonized peripheries, were always asked to promptly, duly and fully cope with the new environment. No feudal state was tolerated in the 19th c.; no imperial state was accepted in the 20th c.; and no Communist state is permitted in the 21st c. The 'logic' (truly speaking: the 'absurdity') of the conflicting Jesuit, Freemasonic and Zionist agendas that have formed the historical developments over the past 500 years is 'permanent update'. For this reason, the concept of 'evolution' (spread as delusion among people worldwide) was necessary to all major societies that rule the Western world: those who supported and promoted notions relating to Darwinism and those who opposed this theory.
The 'permanent updates' to which all have to concur every now and then have been scaled over the past five centuries, because in reality every delusion made, every change occurred, every development introduced, and every scheme implemented were either a distinct paragraph of one of the aforementioned agendas or the ultimate compromise between the divergent paragraphs of two among them.
The Westernization project that was launched since the first days of the Renaissance is a compact eschatological program of which no one can possibly accept only a part without signing his death warrant. This is true for anyone anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever; for this reason, every selective approach to the inhuman scheme of worldwide Westernization would inevitably constitute a certain opposition to the provisions of one of the existing agendas.
This fact is not understood by several statesmen, politicians, diplomats, academics, intellectuals and religious authorities in countries other than the 'Collective West'; similarly, average people, who live in the Western world but still value their own cultural heritage, ancestral traditions, faith, moral, and spirituality, fail to grasp the true nature of the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model and the ensuing Westernization of the world. They mistakenly think that 'only now' or 'only recently' the Westerners started 'forgetting' their past and values. However, this approach is shortsighted, narrow-minded, and totally false.
The error is due to the fact that all those, who find the so-called 'woke culture' or 'cancel culture' as a drastically different from the earlier Western norms, values and standards, have beforehand developed a diachronic view of the modern Western world. But this is very wrong. Over the past 500 years, people in the West passed through several, different from one another, stages; every stage was diverse from the previous and constituted (for the Western elites) an 'advanced step' if compared with earlier conditions of life.
The so-called 'woke culture' or 'cancel culture' looks very different from the average culture of Westerners in either Western Europe of North America in the 1930s, and this is true. But if we add to the equation few turning points or moments of upheaval like the May 1968 protests, the 1969 Woodstock festival, the lawless legalization of the abortion (1975 in France / "la Loi Veil"), and the evil decriminalization of the adultery (1987 in Belgium; 2006 in Romania), we understand that nothing happened suddenly or abruptly. Every step of moral degradation and social corruption of the Western societies was small enough and it was made slowly enough in order to be accepted over a period of time that was accorded to it.
Consequently, to the eyes of today's Western statesmen, academics and intellectuals (i.e. the puppets of the devilish Western elites) it appears as 'hypocritical' or 'absurd' or 'crazy' that statesmen, who reject today's Collective West, like President Putin of Russia, refer to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, admire Peter the Great (who attempted to emphatically westernize Russia), state publicly that they were inspired by Catherine the Great (who opened Russia to Western philosophers), and expect their approach to possibly please their eventual Western interlocutors or disreputable haters or to create a feeling of cultural-historical familiarity. The following articles are only indicative in this regard:
Putin, Citing Roosevelt, Hints at a 3rd-Term Bid
Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands
How Catherine the Great may have inspired Putin’s Ukraine invasion
Vladimir Putin justifies his imperial aims in Tucker Carlson interview
However, President Putin was undoubtedly responsible for the 'mistakes'; the reason for this conclusion is due to the fact that the Westerners do not view their modern world as a diachronic entity but as a series of successive stages through which they reached the present status. Consequently, to the Western elites of today, Reagan, Roosevelt, Clemenceau, Napoleon, Louis XIV, and Charles V, pretty much like Hegel, Kant, Rousseau, Voltaire, Pascal, Shakespeare, du Bellay, Rabelais, and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola had a certain value but only as fully functioning factors of their times – not diachronically. Their importance (as it is viewed by the present Western elites) is their contribution to the developments of their time, but Rabelais (or any other 16th c. Western European intellectual) had become obsolete and meaningless at the time of Karl Marx, and subsequently, the latter is -in turn- truly excoriated today. The same approach applies to music, literature, art, theater, law, science, and -last but not the least- the manner of living.
It is crystal clear that this situation causes terrible troubles to the rest of the world, i.e. the colonized periphery; this is so because of the complex manner through which the colonization / Westernization process was carried out. Different countries in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America accepted diverse stages and aspects of the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model in distinct moments and junctures. This automatically makes of them the disparate members of a group that exists only in one dimension: that of being irrelevant to 15th-16th c. Western Europe.
Then, the fact that notable historical persons or a restricted elite from the past of one non-Western country may have accepted in their time a certain stage or an aspect of the Westernization project (which was later widely propagated across the nation in question) makes today the de-Westernization effort a very strenuous task for the said country to undertake. But this is another issue, because it concerns the non-Western world. Example: Western Theater was alien to the average Russian society of the time of Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584; reign after 1547); however, it was initially supported by the 18th c. royal elite, and it became gradually accepted by more people (mainly the nobles and the then rising Russian bourgeoisie). The Bolshoi Theater was built in Moscow before two centuries (1825), but it is a monument of Russia's Westernization. Many Russians, Christian or Muslim, rejected the Western notion of Theater at the time as an Anti-Russian abomination. All the same, if today's Russians want to reach out to the spiritual concept and imperial ideal of Holy Rus (Святая Русь), they will certainly have to allow their de-Westernization effort to cover that sector too.
As a matter of fact, it is certainly noteworthy that across the Earth numerous aspects of Westernization were accepted subliminally, and this situation will apparently necessitate an enormous effort during the process of liberation (de-Westernization) that those countries have definitely to launch.
V. Westernization is part of eschatological agendas
For the leading internal forces of the West, Westernization is the process needed for the implementation of variant eschatological agendas; in other words, the inhuman Western European 'civilizational' model was not an intellectual caprice, an academic arrogance, a moral deviation or a mental degeneration. It was the basic means that these forces have used to fool, corrupt and enslave their populations and the rest of the world, and -more importantly- to impose on them their eschatological agendas.
The sinister Renaissance -with all its attributes and paraphernalia- was evidently conceived as the foreclosure of History. I can only admit that it simply failed to fully impose its barbarous, inhuman and evil scope and to comprehensively enforce its blasphemous delusion across the Earth in only 500 years. But the abysmal attempt to terminate History does not start with the infinitesimal, petty propagandist Francis Fukuyama and his absurd and nonsensical book.
It started with the ominous specter that the devilish Western European monks, priests, mystics, academics, intellectuals, artists, and statesmen devised before 500-600 years; this is the true, atrocious face of Renaissance, which still threatens all historical nations with spiritual and material extinction, having the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the entire mankind. Actually, the conflagration was envisioned by Mani, the Iranian founder of Manichaeism, before almost 1800 years as the right and proper eschatological end of mankind. Lenore Marshall's essay "The Nuclear Sword of Damocles" (1971) came only too late for readers interested to discover their fate (https://energyhistory.yale.edu/lenore-marshall-the-nuclear-sword-of-damocles-1971/).
It is really foolish for theoreticians like Miriam Leonard to come to the conclusion that «Heidegger and Loraux articulate how the historical can and should act to disrupt the "final repression" of history. If difference "alone is historical through and through and from the start" it is also crucially able to resist the foreclosure of history». {The Uses of Reception Derrida and the Historical Imperative, p. 116-136 (see the last page); in: Classics and the Uses of Reception, Editor(s): Charles Martindale, Richard F. Thomas, 1 January 2006, Blackwell Publishing Ltd (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470774007)}
This is so because the concept of 'classics' is fallacious, ahistorical and intentionally delusional, whereas Western Europeans first and their colonized victims (starting from later dates) have already lived «the "final repression" of history» in the lapse of time between the diffusion of the Renaissance concepts and notions among them and the present moment. The atemporal period in which post-Renaissance people live is the disruption of history of which today's theoreticians are purposelessly afraid of; this is actually the final deception which was inevitably stated in the New Testament (2 Thessalonians 2:11/ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πέμψει αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει,/ Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio,/For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.).
The elaboration of eschatological agendas by the 'venerable elders' of the hierarchical societies that constitute the ruling elites of our world is something natural, normal and even intrinsic; average people today find it difficult to believe but it is not. One must never forget that these groups originate from diverse religious societies of the Late Antiquity. There is no religion without a version of Cosmogony, a description of Cosmology, and a salvatory narrative of Eschatology, i.e. 'Soteriology'. In fact, the secular appearance of those societies in our times constitutes only their smokescreen; but their members are in reality 'priests'.
Even more importantly, I have to point out here that several theories, philosophical systems, and ideologies conceived and propagated by members of the said societies are purely of eschatological content, although this is somewhat dissimulated. In fact, modern sciences, academic theories, philosophical systems, political ideologies, and even art movements are in reality dissimulated forms of eschatology. And there is no Cosmogony, Cosmology and Eschatology without an underlying notion of religion and spirituality.
That is why the Collective West and the colonized world have been submerged over the past 200 years in particular with (unidentified as such) eschatological narratives and systems. Utopian Socialism, Marxism-Leninism, Darwinism, Impressionism, Monism, Anarchism, Atheism, Fascism, Nazism, Materialism, Eugenics & Scientific Racism, Abstract Art, Robotism, Islamism, Christian Zionism, Liberalism, Leftism, Consumerism, and a multitude of other similar systems or subsystems are in reality Westernization-promoting parts of the eschatological agendas of the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists.
If the evangelized societies and the salutatory orations appear to be so distressing, gloomy and calamitous, and if many people across the Earth start discovering that these promises are totally dystopian and hellish, this is due to the totally evil nature of the ruling societies and the world elites. Not only are the initiated members of those organizations degenerate enough to see the Hell as an optimal choice, but their secret spiritual doctrines are counterfeit versions of religions.
To many it may appear odd that atheism, materialism and consumerism can be considered as forms of eschatology, but this is only the result of the deception carried out. People have been fooled up to the point of being unable to understand that, even if someone expresses the idea that the present society is perfect and makes the wish that it always stays the same, this is already a form of eschatology.
However, the inevitability of the final conflagration is only underscored by the fact that every eschatological narrative includes an unprecedented clash. And this is something that the evil high priests of these societies intend to bring about anytime soon. For this reason, it is foolish to take their supposed rationalism for granted.
Reason, reasoning and rationality have been propagated only to fool, distract and divert the rest: the Russians, the Indians, the Africans, the Latin Americans, the Chinese, and the Muslims. But only insanity, lunacy, paranoia and chaos prevail in the backside of the evil minds and the dark bottom of the venomous hearts of the ruling Western elites.
The advantage of the first (nuclear) strike is the 'privilege' that the inhuman rulers of the Western world reserve for themselves; that's why they must be stripped of this prerogative. For this reason, it will be totally disastrous for the rest of the world not to isolate the Collective West. Instead of the nuclear conflagration that the evil elites of the West intend to cause in order to materialize their nauseating wickedness, a domestic implosion, a social explosion, and a final disintegration must be forcefully adjusted to European Union, UK, Canada, Australia, and the US.
All the same, de-Westernization is imperative and inevitable to all; otherwise, even if the Collective West disappears supernaturally, the non-de-Westernized states of BRICS+ will only function like Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, France, Italy, England, America and Japan on the eve of WWI. Then, the same cycle of wars and bloodshed will be lamentably repeated, the empires will be merely substituted by others, and the humans will be taken in the maelstrom of Tiamat.
==============
Download the article in PDF:
Right wing of the 1st pylon, Temple of Isis, Philae, early 20th century.
Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in Northwestern Sassanid Iran
Μιθραϊσμός και Ζωροαστρισμός στη Βορειοδυτική Σασανιδική Περσία, in: Βυζαντινός Δόμος 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Митраизм и зороастризм в Северо-Западном Сасанидском Иране, в: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Zoroastrismus und Mithraismus im nordwestlichen Iran während der Sassanidenzeit, in: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Kuzeybatı Sasani İran'ında Mitraizm ve Zerdüştlük, bilimsel süreli Byzantinos Domos'ta 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Domos Byzantinos آیین میترا و زرتشت در شمال غربی ایران در دوره ساسانیان : در مجله علمی ( در صفحه 13 - 52 ) ,1990 (4) Mithraïsme et zoroastrisme dans le nord-ouest de l'Iran sassanide, dans le Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 الميثرائية والزرادشتية في شمال غرب إيران خلال العصر الساساني : في المجلة العلمية (1990) 4 على الصفحة 13 - 52 ,Domos Byzantinos في المجلة العلمية Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in Northwestern Sassanid Iran, in: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52
------------------------
--------------
Download the article in PDF:
![Μιθραϊσμός και Ζωροαστρισμός στη Βορειοδυτική Σασανιδική Περσία - [PDF Document]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/c51c682b5071a922ce93b3f6a64e73f4/343eb72f2b179cdb-7f/s1280x1920/1bbef1c67fd45bb9e351306e8002b7986549c05d.jpg)
Cosmopolitan Legacy of Iran’s Qajar Dynasty
... mosaic ...
The splendid mosaic floor in the atrium of the House of Paquius Proculus, Pompeii.
The Sennacherib prism, commissioned by the Assyrian king in the 600s BCE. Its ten sides contain records of his conquests and achievements in cuneiform. The record culminates with Sennarcherib's 15-month siege and destruction of Babylon.
{WHF} {Ko-Fi} {Medium}
Φερντοουσί, ο Παραδεισένιος: Εθνικός Ποιητής Ιρανών και Τουρανών, Θεμελιωτής του Νεώτερου Ευρασιατικού Πολιτισμού
Ferdowsi, the Paradisiacal: National Poet of all Iranians and Turanians, Founder of Modern Eurasiatic Civilization
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 28η Αυγούστου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παραθέτει στοιχεία από ημερήσιο σεμινάριο στο οποίο παρουσίασα (Πεκίνο, Ιανουάριος 2018) τα θεμέλια της ισλαμικής και νεώτερης παιδείας και πολιτισμού όλων των Τουρανών, Ιρανών και πολλών άλλων, μουσουλμάνων και μη, Ασιατών.
-------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/φερντοουσί-ο-παραδεισένιος-εθνικός-π/ ============
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Πολύ λίγοι αντιλαμαβάνονται ότι, αν ο γνωστός Αλβανός χριστιανός και μετέπειτα μουσουλμάνος ηγεμόνας Γεώργιος Καστριώτης επονομάσθηκε από τους Οθωμανούς Σκεντέρμπεης (1405-1468), αυτό οφείλεται στον Πέρση Φερντοουσί, τον εθνικό ποιητή Ιρανών και Τουρανών που αφιέρωσε κάποιες από τις ιστορίες που αφηγήθηκε στον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο – ή μάλλον στο τι από τον Αλέξανδρο (ποια πλευρά του χαρακτήρα του βασιλιά) παρουσίασε μέσα στο έπος του.
Αυτές οι ιστορίες έτυχαν περαιτέρω επεξεργασίας και αναπτύχθηκαν περισσότερο μέσα σε έπη μεταγενεστέρων ποιητών, όπως ο Αζέρος Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί, για να διαδοθούν απ’ άκρου εις άκρον του ευρασιατικού χώρου.
Αυτή ήταν η αξία του μύθου: επηρέασε μακρινούς λαούς και μεταγενέστερες περιόδους, μέσω των ηθικών προτύπων και των συμβολισμών, πολύ περισσότερο από όσο η θρησκεία και η ιστορία.
Μέσω του Σαχναμέ του Φερντοουσί, το οποίο είναι το μακροσκελέστερο έπος όλων των εποχών (μεγαλύτερο από όσο η Ιλιάδα κι η Οδύσσεια μαζί), οι Οθωμανοί αλλά και πολλοί άλλοι, Γεωργιανοί, Μογγόλοι, Ινδοί, Αρμένιοι, Κινέζοι, Τουρανοί (Turkic) και Πέρσες, Τάταροι και Ρώσσοι, όπως και πολλοί βαλκανικοί λαοί έμαθαν ένα πλήθος από ηρωϊκά πρότυπα των οποίων φέρουν οι ίδιοι τα ονόματα ως προσωπικά και τα ανδραγαθήματα ως πρότυπο ζωής.
Οι ιστορίες του Σαχναμέ έγιναν παραμύθια για τα μικρά παιδιά, διδακτικές ιστορίες για τα σχολεία, και παραδείγματα για τους προετοιμαζόμενους στρατιώτες, έτσι διαπερνώντας την λαϊκή παιδεία σχεδόν όλων των εθνών της Ασίας, μουσουλμάνων και μη.
Τα ονόματα των ηρώων του Φερντοουσί που είναι τουρανικά κι ιρανικά βρίσκονται σήμερα ως προσωπικά ονόματα ανάμεσα σε Βόσνιους κι Ινδονήσιους, Μογγόλους της Ανατολικής Σιβηρίας κι Ινδούς, Τατάρους της Ρωσσίας και Πέρσες, κοκ.
Το να γνωρίζεις τις ιστορίες του Φερντοουσί είναι απόδειξη ανώτερης παιδείας είτε βρίσκεσαι στο Αζερμπαϊτζάν, είτε είσαι στο Μπάνγκλα Ντες, είτε ζεις στο Καζάν, είτε μένεις στην Ανατολική Σιβηρία.
Πόσες είναι οι ιστορίες του έπους; Σχεδόν 1000!
Η παραπάνω αναφορά στον Σκεντέρμπεη είναι ένα μόνον από τα πάμπολλα παραδείγματα της απέραντης, υστερογενούς επίδρασης του Φερντοουσί η οποία εξικνείται σε πολύ μακρινά σημεία της γης και ανάμεσα σε λαούς που δεν είχαν καν διαβάσει το τεράστιο έπος.
Αλλά οι αναγνώστες του έπους είχαν επηρεαστεί πολύ περισσότερο όσο υψηλά και αν ευρίσκονταν.
Γράφοντας στον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ στις παραμονές της μάχης του Τσαλντιράν (1514), δηλαδή σχεδόν 500 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Φερντοουσί, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ περιέγραψε τον εαυτό του ως ‘θριαμβεύοντα Φερεϊντούν’, κάνοντας έτσι μια αναφορά σε ένα από τους πιο σημαντικούς και πιο θετικούς ήρωες του Σαχναμέ.
.Το δείπνο που παρέθεσε στον γιο του Φερεϊντούν ο βασιλιάς της Υεμένης. Από σμικρογραφία χειρογράφου
Για να αναφερθεί στον αντίπαλό του, Ιρανό Σάχη, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ έκανε περαιτέρω χρήση των ιστοριών του ιρανικού – τουρανικού έπους:
απεκάλεσε τον θεμελιωτή της δυναστείας των Σαφεβιδών “σφετεριστή της εξουσίας Δαρείο των καιρών μας” και “κακόβουλο Ζαχάκ της εποχής μας”.
Και αυτοί οι όροι παραπέμπουν σε κεντρικά πρόσωπα των ιστοριών του Σαχναμέ, έπος στο οποίο ο Φερντοουσί αναμόχλευσε και ανασυνέθεσε την Παγκόσμια Ιστορία κάνοντάς την να περιστρέφεται όχι γύρω από περιστασιακά ιστορικά πρόσωπα (όπως αυτά έχουν μείνει γνωστά) αλλά γύρω από διηνεκείς χαρακτήρες οι οποίοι, καθώς επαναλαμβάνονται από το ένα ιστορικό πρόσωπο στο άλλο και ενόσω κυλάνε οι αιώνες, αποκτούν πολύ μεγαλύτερη σημασία ως ηθικοί παράγοντες ενός αέναου παρόντος
Ο Φερεϊντούν συντρίβει τον Ζαχάκ.
Θα αναφερθώ στον Φερντοουσί και στο Σαχναμέ σε πολλά επόμενα κείμενα. Εδώ όμως παρουσιάζω ένα βίντεο – εκλαϊκευτική συζήτηση (στα αγγλικά) ειδικών για το έπος Σαχναμέ (ανεβασμένο σε τρία σάιτ με εισαγωγικό σημείωμα σε αγγλικά, ρωσσικά κι ελληνικά) και μια βασική ενημέρωση (στα αγγλικά) για την ζωή του Φερντοουσί, του οποίου το έργο απετέλεσε την κοινή ιστορική δεξαμενή αξιών και ηθικών αρχών της ευρασιατικής παράδοσης και την πολιτισμική βάση πάνω στην οποία βρίσκονται όλα τα έθνη κατά μήκος των ιστορικών Δρόμων του Μεταξιού.
Ο σφετεριστής της εξουσίας Δαρείος κάθεται στον θρόνο και από τα χέρια ενός αυλικού δέχεται το στέμμα που του εξασφάλισε η μητέρα του.
Σχετικά με τις σμικρογραφίες ενός χειρογράφου του Σαχναμέ, διαβάστε:
Το Σαχναμέ του Σάχη Ταχμάσπ (1524-1576): οι πιο Όμορφες Σμικρογραφίες Χειρογράφου στον Κόσμο
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/το-σαχναμέ-του-σάχη-ταχμάσπ-1524-1576-οι-πιο-όμ/
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Ferdowsi, the National Poet of Iran and Turan – Shahnameh, the Book of the Kings
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240281
Ferdowsi was a Persian Iranian. I make this clarification here because there has never been an Iranian nation; Iran, both in pre-Islamic and Islamic times was composed of many different nations. And so it is today. As a matter of fact, the Azeris and the Persians are the most populous nations currently living in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Ferdowsi was born around 940, just over 300 years after Mohammed’s death in Medina (632) and some 200 years after the rise of the Abbasid dynasty, the foundation of Baghdad, and the transfer of the Islamic Caliphate’s capital from Damascus to Baghdad (750). About 100 years before Ferdowsi was born, the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258) had reached its historical peak, and then a slow decline began.
Ferdowsi’s real name is Abu ‘l Qassem Tusi, since he was born in Tus, northeastern Iran. He was often called “hakim” (‘philosopher’ or more correctly ‘the wise man’). ‘Ferdowsi’ is what we today would call ‘pen-name’ or ‘nickname’ (Farsi and Arabic. ‘lakab’). It literally means ‘Paradisiacal’ (the word ‘Ferdows’ in Farsi comes from the ancient Iranian word ‘paradizah’ which, like the corresponding ancient Greek word, comes from the Assyrian Babylonian word ‘paradizu’ which means ‘paradise’). Ferdowsi completed the writing of Shahnameh on March 8, 1010.
The composition of Shahnameh (the Book of the Kings), the greatest epic poem of all time, lasted 33 years (977-1010) and was Ferdowsi’s main occupation in life. As per one tradition, the Sultan Mahmud of Gazni (the Gaznevid dynasty controlled lands in today’s Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and northern India) promised Ferdowsi as many gold coins as the verses he would deliver.
The payment of 60,000 gold coins was opposed by the sultan’s top courtier (who considered Ferdowsi a heretical Muslim or even a Parsi), and so 60,000 silver coins were sent instead – unbeknownst to the sultan. Ferdowsi refused to receive them, and this reaction enraged the sultan, who did not know what exactly had happened. Then, the poet went into exile to escape. When the sultan finally found out what the courtier had done, he executed him and sent 60,000 gold coins to Ferdowsi, who had just returned to his hometown, Tusi. However, the caravan carrying the sum reached the city gate when the funeral procession headed for the cemetery because the poet had just died (1020).
————————————
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Фирдоуси, Национальный поэт Ирана и Турана – Шахнаме, Книга Царей
https://www.ok.ru/video/1490059004525
Фирдоуси был персом из Ирана. Я делаю это разъяснение здесь, потому что никогда не было иранской нации; Иран, как в доисламский, так и в исламский период, состоял из множества разных народов. И так сегодня. На самом деле, азербайджанцы и персы – самые густонаселенные народы, в настоящее время живущие в Исламской Республике Иран.
Фирдоуси родился около 940 года, немногим более 300 лет после смерти Мухаммеда в Медине (632 год) и примерно через 200 лет после подъема династии Аббасидов, основания Багдада и переноса столицы Исламского халифата из Дамаска в Багдад (750). , Приблизительно за 100 лет до того, как Фирдоуси родился, Халифат Аббасидов (750-1258) достиг своего исторического пика, и затем начался медленный спад.
Настоящее имя Фирдоуси – Абу Кассем Туси, так как он родился в Тусе на северо-востоке Ирана. Его часто называли «хаким» («философ» или, точнее, «мудрец»). «Ferdowsi» – это то, что мы сегодня называем «псевдоним» (фарси и арабский. «Лакаб»). Это буквально означает «райский» (слово «Фердоус» на фарси происходит от древнего иранского слова «парадизах», которое, как и соответствующее древнегреческое слово, происходит от ассирийского вавилонского слова «парадизу», что означает «рай»). Фирдоуси завершил написание Шахнаме 8 марта 1010 года.
Шахнаме (Книга Царей) – величайшая эпическая поэма всех времен. Написание эпопеи длилось 33 года (977-1010) и было главным занятием Фирдоуси в жизни. Согласно одной из традиций, султан Махмуд Газни (династия Газневидов контролировала земли в сегодняшнем Афганистане, Таджикистане, Кыргызстане, Пакистане и северной Индии) обещал Фирдоуси столько золотых монет, сколько стихов, которые он напишет.
Оплате 60 000 золотых монет воспротивился высший придворный султана (который считал Фирдоуси еретиком-мусульманином или даже парсом), и поэтому вместо этого было отправлено 60 000 серебряных монет – без ведома султана. Фирдоуси отказался их принимать, и эта реакция разозлила султана, который не знал, что именно произошло. Затем поэт отправился в изгнание, чтобы сбежать. Когда султан наконец узнал, что сделал придворный, он казнил его и отправил 60 000 золотых монет Фирдоуси, который только что вернулся в свой родной город Туси. Однако караван с суммой достиг городских ворот, когда похоронная процессия направилась на кладбище, потому что поэт только что умер (1020).
———————————–
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Φερντοουσί / Ferdowsi, Εθνικός Ποιητής του Ιράν & Τουράν – Σαχναμέ / Shahnameh, Βιβλίο των Βασιλέων
Ο Φερντοουσί ήταν Πέρσης Ιρανός. Σημειώνω εδώ ότι δεν υπήρξε ποτέ ιρανικό έθνος κι ότι το Ιράν, και στα προϊσλαμικά και στα ισλαμικά χρόνια, όπως άλλωστε και σήμερα, απετελείτο κι αποτελείται από πολλά και διαφορετικά έθνη.
Σήμερα, οι Αζέροι κι οι Πέρσες είναι τα πολυπληθέστερα έθνη που κατοικούν την Ισλαμική Δημοκρατία του Ιράν.
Ο Φερντοουσί γεννήθηκε γύρω στο 940, δηλαδή λίγο περισσότερο από 300 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Μωάμεθ στην Μεδίνα (632) και περίπου 200 χρόνια μετά την άνοδο της δυναστείας των Αβασιδών στο Ισλαμικό Χαλιφάτο, την θεμελίωση της Βαγδάτης και τη μεταφορά της πρωτεύουσας του χαλιφάτου από την Δαμασκό στην Βαγδάτη (750).
Περίπου 100 χρόνια πριν γεννηθεί ο Φερντοουσί, τοποθετείται ιστορικά ο κολοφώνας της ισχύος του Αβασιδικού Χαλιφάτου (750-1258), κι έκτοτε αρχίζει μια αργή αποδυνάμωση και παρακμή.
Το πραγματικό όνομα του Φερντοουσί είναι Αμπού ‘λ Κάσεμ Τουσί, δεδομένου ότι είχε γεννηθεί στο Τους του βορειοανατολικού Ιράν.
Συχνά απεκαλείτο και Χακίμ, δηλαδή ‘φιλόσοφος’ (ή πιο σωστά ‘σοφός’). ‘Φερντοουσί’ είναι αυτό που θα λέγαμε σήμερα ‘καλλιτεχνικό ψευδώνυμο’ ή ‘παρατσούκλι’ (φαρσί και αραβ. ‘λακάμπ’).
Σημαίνει κυριολεκτικά ‘Παραδεισένιος’ (η λέξη ‘φερντόους’ στα φαρσί προέρχεται από την αρχαία ιρανική λέξη ‘παραντιζά’ η οποία, όπως και η αντίστοιχη αρχαία ελληνική λέξη, προέρχεται από την ασσυροβαβυλωνιακή λέξη ‘παραντιζού’ που σημαίνει ‘παράδεισος’).
Ο Φερντοουσί ολοκλήρωσε την συγγραφή του Σαχναμέ ακριβώς στις 8 Μαρτίου 1010.
Η συγγραφή του Σαχναμέ, του μεγαλύτερου επικού ποιήματος όλων των εποχών, διήρκεσε 33 χρόνια (977-1010) και ήταν η κύρια απασχόληση του Φερντοουσί κατά την ζωή του.
Κατά μία παράδοση, ο Σουλτάνος Μαχμούντ του Γαζνί (η δυναστεία Γαζνεβιδών έλεγχε εκτάσεις στα σημερινά κράτη Αφγανιστάν, Τατζικιστάν, Κιργιζία, Πακιστάν και βόρεια Ινδία) του υποσχέθηκε κατά την παράδοση τόσα χρυσά νομίσματα όσα κι οι στίχοι.
Στην καταβολή 60000 χρυσών νομισμάτων αντιτάχθηκε ο κορυφαίος αυλικός του σουλτάνου (που θεωρούσε τον Φερντοουσί αιρετικό μουσουλμάνο ή ακόμη και παρσιστή), οπότε απεστάλησαν 60000 αργυρά νομίσματα – εν αγνοία του σουλτάνου.
Ο Φερντοουσί αρνήθηκε να τα παραλάβει, αυτό εξαγρίωσε τον σουλτάνο (που δεν ήξερε τι ακριβώς συνέβη), κι ο ποιητής έφυγε στην εξορία για να γλυτώσει.
Όταν τελικά ο σουλτάνος έμαθε τι έκανε εν αγνοία του ο αυλικός, τον εσκότωσε, και απέστειλε 60000 χρυσά νομίσματα στον Φερντοουσί, ο οποίος είχε μόλις επιστρέψει στην γενέτειρά του, Τους.
Όμως, το καραβάνι που μετέφερε το ποσό έφθασε στην πύλη της πόλης, όταν έβγαινε η νεκρώσιμη πομπή με κατεύθυνση το νεκροταφείο, επειδή ο ποιητής είχε μόλις πεθάνει (1020).
Σημειώνω εδώ ότι αποδόσεις του ονόματος στα ελληνικά ως Φερδούσι ή Φιρδούσι είναι λαθεμένες, οφείλονται σε άγνοια των φαρσί (συγχρόνων περσικών), και δείχνουν επιφανειακό κι επιπόλαιο διάβασμα αγγλικών κειμένων για το θέμα.
=======================
Οι πολλές ιστορίες του Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου) στο Σαχναμέ του Φερντοουσί
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) και το Ομιλούν Δένδρον
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) και το Ομιλούν Δένδρον
Δείχνουν στον Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο) το πορτρέτο του.
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλος Αλέξανδρος) στο νεκρικό κρεβάτι του
Ο Εσκαντέρ (Μεγάλος Αλέξανδρος) επισκέπτεται το ιερό Κααμπά στην Μέκκα φορώντας ενδύματα προσκυνητή (χατζή).
=========================
Διαβάστε:
Ferdowsi Abu’l-Qāsem (حکیم ابوالقاسم فردوسی)
Life
Apart from his patronymic (konya), Abu’l-Qāsem, and his pen name (taḵallosá), Ferdowsī, nothing is known with any certainty about his names or the identity of his family. In various sources, and in the introduction to some manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, his name is given as Manṣūr, Ḥasan, or Aḥmad, his father’s as Ḥasan, Aḥmad, or ʿAlī, and his grandfather’s as Šarafšāh (Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 458-59). Of these various statements, that of Fatḥ b. ʿAlī Bondārī, who translated the Šāh-nāma into Arabic in 620/1223, should be considered the most creditable. He referred to Ferdowsī as “al-Amīr al-Ḥakīm Abu’l-Qāsem Manṣūr b. al-Ḥasan al-Ferdowsī al-Ṭūsī” (Bondārī, p. 3).
It is not known why the poet chose the pen name Ferdowsī, which is mentioned only once in text and twice in the satire (ed. Khaleghi, V, p. 275, v. 3, ed. Mohl, I, p. lxxxix, vv. 4, 6). According to a legend recorded in the introduction to the Florence manuscript, during the poet’s visit to the court of the Ghaznavid Sultan Maḥmūd, the latter, pleased with his poetry, called him Ferdowsī “[man] from paradise” (Khaleghi, 1988, p. 92), which became his sobriquet. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, p. 75, comm., p. 234) his birthplace was a large village named Bāž (or Pāz, Arabicized as Fāz), in the district of Ṭābarān (or Ṭabarān) near the city of Ṭūs in Khorasan.
All sources agree on his being from Ṭūs, the present-day Mašhad. The precise date of his birth was not recorded, but three important points emerge from the information the poet gives on his own age. First, in the introduction to the story of Kay Ḵosrow’s great war Ferdowsī says about himself that he became a poor man at the age of 65, and he twice repeats this date; he then states that when he was 58 and his youth was over Maḥmūd became king (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleqi, IV, p. 172, vv. 40-46).
This statement is a more reliable guide than the three occasions on which the poet refers to himself as 65 or 68 years old; and since Maḥmūd succeeded to the throne in 387/997, the poet’s birth date was 329/940. Second, a point occurs in the story of the reign of Bahrām III (q.v.), when the poet refers to himself as being 63, and approximately 730 lines later repeats this reference to his age as 63, adding that Hormazd-e Bahman (the first of the month of Bahman) fell on a Friday (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59).
According to the research of Shapur Shahbazi (1991, pp. 27-29), during the years which concern us, only in the Yazdegerdi year 371, that is 1003 C.E., did the first of Bahman fall on a Friday. If we subtract 63 from this date, we arrive at 329/940 as the poet’s birth date. The third point occurs at the end of the book when the poet refers to his own age as being 71, and to the date of the Šāh-nāma’s completion as the day of Ard (i.e., 25th) of Esfand in the year 378 Š. (400 Lunar)/8 March 1010 (see calendar), which again establishes his birth date as 329/940 (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82; see further Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 459-62; idem, Ḥamāsa, p. 172, n. 1; Shahbazi, pp. 23-30).
We have little information on the poet until he began writing the Šāh-nāma in approximately 367/977, apart from the fact that he had a son who was born in 359/970 (see below). Therefore the poet must have married in the year 358/969 or earlier. No information concerning his wife has come down to us. Some commentators, e.g., Ḥabīb Yāḡmāʾī (p. 30), Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (p. 39), and Ḏabīḥ-Allāh Ṣafā (Ḥamāsa, p. 178), have considered the woman referred to in the introduction to the story of Bēžan/Bīžan and Manēža /Manīža (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 303-6) to be the poet’s wife.
If this conjecture is correct, it is probable that his wife was both literate and able to play the harp, that is, she, like the poet himself, was from a landed noble family (dehqān; q.v.) and had benefited from the education given to girls by such families, including learning to read and write and the acquisition of certain of the fine arts (cf. the story of the daughters of the dehqān Borzēn, Šāh-nāma, Moscow, VII, pp. 343-44; Khaleghi, 1971, pp. 102-3, 129, 200-2; Bayat-Sarmadi, pp. 188-89).
Another point which emerges from the introduction to the story of Bēžan and Manēža is that in his youth the poet was relatively wealthy. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, p. 75) also confirms this detail. Not only the content of this introduction, but also the diction and the less skillful poetry of the story itself, as compared to the rest of the Šāh-nāma, clearly indicate that it was a product of the poet’s youth, which he later included in the Šāh-nāma (Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 68-70; Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 462-64; idem, Ḥamāsa, pp. 177-79). This story, however, cannot have been the only literary work produced by the poet before 367/977, when he was thirty-eight years years old. Up to this time the poet must have produced poetry which has since been lost.
The poems (in the qaṣīda, qeṭʿa, and robāʿī forms) attributed to him in biographical dictionaries (taḏkeras), some of which may well not be by him, are probably from this period. Hermann Ethé (q.v.) collected these poems in the last century and printed them with a German translation (see also Taqīzāda, pp. 133-34; Šērānī, pp. 130-35). The narrative poem Yūsof o Zolayḵā is certainly not by Ferdowsī (Qarīb; Šērānī, pp. 184-276; Mīnovī, 1946; idem, 1967, pp. 95-125; Nafīsī, 1978, pp. 4-5; Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 488-92; idem, Ḥamāsa, pp. 175-76; Storey/de Blois, V, 576-84). According to legends found in the introductions to a number of Šāh-nāma manuscripts, the poet had a younger brother, whose name was Masʿūd or Ḥosayn (see Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, editor’s Intro., p. xxxiii).
At all events, according to his own statement, the poet began work on the composition of the Šāh-nāma after 365/975 (Šāh-nāma, Moscow, IX, p. 381, v. 843), and since Ferdowsī specified in the exordium to the poem that he began this task after the death of Abū Manṣūr Daqīqī (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13) the composition of the poem must have begun in 366-67/976-77.
At first the poet intended to travel to the Samanid capital Bokhara (q.v.; ibid., I, p. 13, vv. 135-36) in order to continue Daqīqī’s work, using the copy of the prose Šāh-nāma of Abū Manṣūr b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq (q.v.), which had been used by Daqīqī (qq.v.), and which probably belonged to the court library; but since a friend (identified as Moḥammad Laškarī in the introduction to Bāysonḡorī Šāh-nāma, q.v.) from his own city placed a manuscript of this work at his disposal (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, vv. 140-45), he gave up this idea and started work in his own town, where he also benefited from the support of Manṣūr the son of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad.
According to the poet himself, this man was extremely generous, magnanimous, and loyal; he had a high opinion of the poet and gave him considerable financial help (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 14-15; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1967, pp. 332-58; idem, 1977, pp. 197-215; also, after the death of Īraj [ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 121, vv. 513-14], where Ferdowsī moralizes and reproaches the killer of an innocent king, it is probably that by such a king he means Manṣūr). In the whole of the Šāh-nāma this is the only moment at which the poet speaks explicitly of having received financial help from anyone, and since he wrote this after the death of Manṣūr, there is no reason to believe that it was written in order to please the object of his praise.
Further, that he did not remove his praise of Manṣūr from the Šāh-nāma even after he added that of Sultan Maḥmūd to the poem’s introduction indicates the extent of his attachment to Manṣūr (and before him to his father Abū Manṣūr), as well as his sympathy for the political and cultural tendencies of Abū Manṣūr (Khaleghi, 1977, pp. 207-11). The year 377/987, in which Manṣūr was arrested in Nīšāpūr and taken to Bokhara, where he was then executed, was a turning point in Ferdowsī’s life; in the Šāh-nāma from this moment onward there is no mention of anything to indicate either physical comfort or peace of mind, rather we find frequent complaints concerning his old age, poverty, and anxiety.
Nevertheless, Ferdowsī was able to complete the first version of the Šāh-nāma by the year 384/994, three years before the accession of Maḥmūd (tr. Bondārī, II, p. 276; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 378-406; idem, 1986, pp. 12-31). The poet, however, continued to work. In 387/997, when he was 58 or a little older, composed the story of Sīāvaḵš (ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 202, v. 12) and a year later wrote a continuation of the former narrative, the “Revenge for Sīāvaḵš” (“Kīn-e Sīāvaḵš”; ibid., ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 379, v. 7).
He was then a quite different poet from the pleasure-loving and wealthy young man depicted in the introduction to the story of Bēžan and Manēža. He complained of poverty, old-age, failing sight, and pains in his legs and looked back on his youth with regret. Even so, he hoped to live long enough to bring the Šāh-nāma to its conclusion. In 389/999, he started work on the reign of Anōšīravān (q.v.) and once again complained of old age, pains in his legs, failing sight, and the loss of his teeth and looked back to his youth with regret (Moscow, VIII, p. 52). The poet was, nevertheless, very active during this year.
By the time he was 61, in 390/1000, he had composed almost 4,300 of the almost 4,500 verses of the story of Anōšīravān. The poet complained that at his age drinking wine gave no pleasure and he prayed that God would grant him sufficient life to finish the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, VIII, pp. 303-4, vv. 4277-86). Two years later, in 392/1002, the poet was busy writing the narrative of the reigns from Bahrām III to Šāpūr II (four reigns in all, covering 76 years in little more than 700 verses). It is not clear what occurred during this year to make the poet more content, as both at the opening of the first reign and also at the end of the fourth reign he expresses the desire to drink wine (Moscow, VII, p. 213, v. 9, p. 256, vv. 657-59; in the first of these verses the word rūzbeh is used, which can be interpreted as either “fortunate” or as a person’s name, and which appears in the Šāh-nāma with both meanings. In the second case Rūzbeh is probably the name of Ferdowsī’s servant). This period of happiness passed quickly.
Two years later, in 394/1004, at the beginning of the story of Kay Ḵosrow’s great war, during the course of a panegyric on Maḥmūd, he complains in accents of despair of his poverty and weakness; he points out the value of his work to Maḥmūd and asks Maḥmūd’s vizier, Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī (q.v.), to intercede on his behalf so that some help may be forthcoming from Maḥmūd (ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 169-74).
The year 396/1006, when the poet was 67, was the worst period of his life. In this year his 37-year-old son died. The poet describes his grief in extremely simple and personal language, complaining to his son that he has gone on ahead and left his father alone, and asks God’s forgiveness for him (Moscow, IX, pp. 138-39, vv. 2,167-84). What is most striking in this elegy is the hemistich: hamī būd hamvāra bā man dorošt (“He was always rude to me”; ibid., v. 2,175). Was there a disagreement between father and son? And if so over what? No answer to this question can now be given.
The poet inserts this elegy into the narrative of the reign of Ḵosrow Parvēz. Approximately 1,500 lines further on, at the end of this reign, he writes that he has now completed his sixty-sixth year (Moscow, p. 230, v. 3681). This does not seem to accord with his previous statement, but if one takes into account the exigencies of rhyme and the fact that the poet was not always 100 percent accurate over figures, even in such a case, one can draw the conclusion that the reign of Ḵosrow Parvēz (a little more than four thousand verses) was written during the years 395-96/1005-6, when the poet was 66 or 67 years old. This obvious contradiction over the exact age of the poet, however, is not found in the variant “I was sixty five and he was thirty-seven” (marā šast o banj o verā sī o haft) found in certain manuscripts.
In the course of the history of Ḵosrow Parvēz, the poet complains that, due to the calumny of rivals, Maḥmūd has not given his attention to the stories of the Šāh-nāma, and the poet asks the king’s sālār (general), Maḥmūd’s younger brother Naṣr, to intercede for him and turn Maḥmūd’s attention toward the poet (Moscow, IX, p. 210, vv. 3,373-78). From this it is clear firstly that no payment from Maḥmūd had ever reached Ferdowsī, and secondly that Ferdowsī had sent some of the narratives of the Šāh-nāma separately, before he either took or sent the whole poem to Ḡazna (q.v.).
The poet mentions his poverty many times during the course of the Šāh-nāma, and frequently praises Maḥmūd, his brother Naṣr, and his governor of Ṭūs, who would seem to have been Abu’l-Ḥāreṯ Arslān Jāḏeb (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 25-27; Eqbāl), but there is nowhere any suggestion that he had ever received any assistance from these individuals.
On the contrary, as has been indicated, he everywhere complains of the king’s indifference to his work. At the end of the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, IX, p. 381) he also writes that the powerful came and copied out his poetry for themselves, and the sole profit to the poet from them was their saying “well done” (aḥsant). He only mentions two individuals, ʿAlī Deylam Bū Dolaf and Ḥoyayy b. Qotayba, who helped him. In certain manuscripts, ʿAlī Deylam and Bū Dolaf are mentionedd as the names of two people, which agrees with the statement of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 77-78, comm. pp. 465-66) that the first was a copyist of the Šāh-nāma and the second its reciter (rāwī).
If this statement of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s is correct, then these two individuals did not give the poet any monetary assistance. Instead, as a copyist and reciter of sections of the Šāh-nāma for the nobility of the town of Ṭūs, they each profited from the poet’s work. In this case line 849 (Moscow, IX, p. 381) of the Moscow edition is incorrect and should be mended according to the variant readings of the line and the reference in the Čahār Maqāla. Ḥoyayy b. Qotayba, in his capacity as financial controller of Ṭūs, sometimes remitted the poet’s taxes.
Finally, in his seventy-first year, on 25 Esfand 400/8 March 1010, Ferdowsī finished the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, IX, pp. 381-82). According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 75) and Farīd-al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (Elāhī-nāma, p. 367; Asrār-nāma, p. 189, v. 3,204), the total time spent on the composition of the Šāh-nāma was twenty-five years. In the satire, however, there is thrice mention of thirty years and once of thirty-five years (ed. Mohl, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 11, p. xc, vv. 11, 20, p. xci, v. 4).
If we place the beginning of work on the Šāh-nāma in 367 and its completion in 400 the time spent on its composition is thirty-three years, and if we extend the poet’s work to the period before 367—the composition of Bēžan and Manēža—and add to this time spent on revision after 400, the figure of thirty-five years is closer to the truth.
There are lines in the Šāh-nāma which, according to some scholars, refer to events of the year 401/1011 (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 18-20; Taqīzāda, 1983, p. 100, n. 3; Mīnovī, 1967, p. 40). Aḥmad Ateş has gone even further than this and claims that since Ferdowsī, during the course of his praise of Maḥmūd in the introduction to the Šāh-nāma, mentions Kašmīr and Qannūj among his territories, and since Maḥmūd first conquered these regions in 406/1015 and 409/1018, Ferdowsī must have made the final revision of the Šāh-nāma and sent it to Ḡazna in 409/1018 or 410/1019.
He also draws the conclusion that Maḥmūd sent the poet a financial reward but that this reached Ṭūs in 411/1020, after the poet’s death (Ateş, 159-68). The names Kašmīr and Qannūj, which appear in this panegyric beside other names such as Rūm (the West), Hend (India), Čīn (China), etc. and which occur many more times throughout the Šāh-nāma, is no indication of a conquest by Maḥmūd of these two areas. Their occurance in the panegyric is simply due to poetic license and leads to no historical conclusions.
Our information on the poet’s life after 400/1010 is limited to the matters reported by Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 75-83). According to him, after the completion of the Šāh-nāma, ʿAlī Deylam prepared a manuscript of it in seven volumes and Ferdowsī went to Ḡazna with his professional reciter Abū Dolaf. There, with the help of Maḥmūd’s vizier Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī he presented the book to Maḥmūd, but because of the calumny of those who envied him, and the poet’s religious orientation, it was not favorably received by the king. Instead of 60,000 dinars (q.v.), payment was fixed at 50,000 dirhams (q.v.), and finally at 20,000 dirhams.
Ferdowsī was extremely upset by this and went to a bathhouse; upon leaving the bathhouse he drank some beer and divided the king’s present between the beer seller and the bath attendant. Then, fearing punishment by Maḥmūd, he fled from Ḡazna by night. At first he hid for six months in Herāt in the shop of Esmāʿīl Warrāq, father of the poet Azraqī (q.v.), and then he took refuge in Ṭabarestān with Espahbad Šahrīār, a member of the Bavandid dynasty (the report of the poet’s journey to Baghdad, which appears in the introductions to the a number of manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, is merely a legend; similarly, the story of the poet’s journey to Isfahan is based on interpolated passages; see Ṣafā, Adabīyāt, pp. 474-76; Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 96-98; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1985, pp. 233-36).
While in Ṭabarestān, the poet composed 100 lines satirizing Maḥmūd, but the amir of Ṭabarestān bought the satire for 100,000 dirhams and destroyed it, so that only six lines survived by word of mouth, and these Neẓāmī ʿArūżī recorded. Later, due to events described by Neẓāmī ʿArūżī, Maḥmūd regretted his behavior toward the poet and on the recommendation of the above mentioned vizier had camel loads of indigo to the value of 20,000 dinars sent to Ferdowsī, but as the camels were entering Ṭūs by the Rūdbār gate Ferdowsī’s corpse was being borne out of the city by the Razān gate.
In the cemetery the preacher of Ṭābarān prevented his being buried in the Muslim cemetery on the grounds that Ferdowsī was a Shiʿite, and so there was no choice but to bury the poet in his own orchard. Neẓāmī ʿArūżī tells how he visited the poet’s tomb in 510/1116 (on this site, see Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 120-21). According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (pp. 47-51), Ferdowsī left only one daughter, and the poet had wanted the king’s payment as a dowry for her.
But after the poet’s death, his daughter would not accept the payment and, on Maḥmūd’s orders, the money was used to build the Čāha caravansary near Ṭūs, on the road which goes from Nīšāpūr to Marv. The year of the poet’s death is given by Dawlatšāh Samarqandī (ed. Browne, p. 54) as 411/1020, and by Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfī (p. 743) and Faṣīḥ Ḵᵛāfī (p. 129) as 416/1025. According to the first date, Ferdowsī was eighty-two years old when he died, and according to the second report he was eighty-seven.
Many details of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s account are inaccurate or even merely legendary (see, e.g., Qazvīnī’s introducton to Čahār maqāla, pp. xiv ff.). For example, he claims that only six lines survived of the satire, but in some manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma the number of lines is as many as 160. Some scholars considered the satire to be genuine (Nöldeke, pp. 29-31; Taqīzāda, pp. 114-16).
But Maḥmūd Šērānī established that many of the lines are spurious or are taken from the Šāh-nāma itself, and he therefore rejected the authenticity of the satire. The spuriousness of many lines in the satire, however, does not establish that the satire never existed at all. Besides, there are excellent lines in the satire which are not taken from the Šāh-nāma. Generally, it appears that in his article Šērānī was mainly seeking to vindicate Maḥmūd (Khaleghi, 1984, p. 121; Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 97-103).
There is a line in the satire (Mohl’s edition, Intro., p. lxxxix, v. 10) in which the poet refers to his age as being almost eighty. According to this line, the poet composed the satire before 409/1018. But it is very probable that the vizier who was Ferdowsī’s benefactor was Abu’l-ʿAbbās Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī, whom Ferdowsī praised in the Šāh-nāma, and not, as Neẓāmī ʿArūżī writes (p. 78), Aḥmad b. Ḥasan Meymandī.
The latter, although holding an important position at Maḥmūd’s court, is never mentioned in the Šāh-nāma. In the legends written in some of the introductions to Šāh-nāma’s manuscripts, Meymandī has been mentioned among Ferdowsī’s adversaries at Maḥmūd’s court. This vizier was a fanatical Sunni, strongly opposed to heretics and the Qarmaṭīs, and it is possible that he was influential in the removal of Esfarāyenī from office in 401/1011 and his murder in 404/1014, and also in the execution of Ḥasanak Mīkāl in 422/1031, who was accused of harboring qarmaṭī tendencies.
In like fashion, after he became vizier in Esfarāyenī’s place in 401/1011, he directed that the language of the court records, which Esfarāyenī had caused to be kept in Persian, be changed back to Arabic. Meymandī was vizier until 412/1025. He was then removed from office and imprisoned, and the vizierate was transferred to Ḥasanak Mīkāl. Thus the vizier who is said to have caused Maḥmūd to regret his treatment of Ferdowsī, if the story is to be believed, was probably Ḥasanak and not Meymandī. If Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s story is true, 416/1025 is therefore the more probable date of Ferdowsī’s death (see Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 111-13).
Certain other details of Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s version of events are confirmed by various sources. For example, the author of the Tārīḵ-e Sīstān (ed. Bahār, pp. 7-8) also gives a report of Ferdowsī’s journey to Ḡazna and his encounter with Maḥmūd. Similarly, Neẓāmī Ganjavī (Haft Peykar, p. 15, v. 47; idem, Eqbāl-nāma, p. 22, v. 14; idem, Ḵosrow o Šīrīn, pp. 24-25, vv. 21-22) and ʿAṭṭār (Elāhī-nāma, p. 367, vv. 11-13; Asrār-nāma, pp. 188-190, vv. 3,203-26; Moṣībat-nāma, p. 367, v. 8) frequently refer to the differences between the poet and the king, to Maḥmūd’s ingratitude toward Ferdowsī, and even to the incident of the poet’s drinking beer and giving the king’s gift away.
ʿAṭṭār also refers to the preacher’s refusing to say prayers over the body of Ferdowsī. Further, in the introduction to the Bāysonḡorī Šāh-nāma, a statement in Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow’s Safar-nāma is quoted to the effect that in 437/1045 on the road from Saraḵs to Ṭūs, in the village of Čāha, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow saw a large caravansary and was told that this had been built with the money from the gift that Maḥmūd had sent to the poet, which, since he had already died, his heir refused to accept.
This report is absent from extant manuscripts of the Safar-nāma, but Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda (1983, pp., 120-21) is of the opinion that it is probably genuine. Theodore Nöldeke (1920, p. 33) at first considered it spurious but later changed his mind (1983, p. 63, n. 1). Although it is possible to doubt some of the details in Neẓāmī ʿArūżī’s account, we do not at the moment have any absolute reasons to reject all the particulars in his narrative.
Social background
In the introductions to various manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, Ferdowsī’s father is referred to as a dehqān (q.v.) who was a victim of oppression by the financial controller of Ṭūs. Even though this account may be no more than a legend, there is no doubt that Ferdowsī belonged to the landed nobility, or dehqāns. According to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (p. 75), Ferdowsī was one of the dehqāns of Ṭūs and in his own village “had considerable possessions, such that with the income from his properties he was able to live independently of others help.”
According to the same account (p. 83), “within the city gate there was an orchard belonging to Ferdowsī,” where he was buried (see further, Bahār, pp. 148-49). The dehqāns were preservers of traditional civilization, customs, and culture, including the national legends (see Mohl’s introduction to the Šāh-nāma, p. vii; Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, p. 440; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, pp. 62-64).
On the one hand, in the Šāh-nāma dehqān appears along with the āzāda (freeborn) with the meaning of “Iranian,” and, on the other, beside mōbad (Zoroastrian priest), with the meaning of “preserver and narrator of the ancient lore.” In the Šāh-nāma, a legend concerning a dehqān by the name of Borzēn (Moscow, VII, pp. 341-46) gives us an opportunity to glimpse, to some extent, the nature of the life of this class. By comparing this with the story of a farmer’s wife in the same reign (ibid., pp. 380-84), the difference between the life of a dehqān and that of a simple farmer is apparent.
At all events, Ferdowsī belonged to one of these reasonably wealthy dehqān families, which in the second and third centuries of the Islamic era accepted Islam mainly as a way of preserving their own social position, and for this reason, contrary to what is usually the case with new converts, not only did they not turn their backs on the culture of their forefathers but made its preservation and transmission the chief goal of their lives.
The basis of Ferdowsī’s character and the national spirit of his work were founded in the first place on this class consciousness of the poet and the milieu in which his genius was nurtured. Khorasan had been a center of political, religious, national, and cultural movements at least since the rise of Abū Moslem (q.v.; killed in.137/755).
With the compilation and translation of the prose Šāh-nāma known as the Šāh-nāma-ye abū manṣūrī, which later became Ferdowsī’s major source, on the orders of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq in 346/957, the national language and culture, which had been lacking in previous movements in Khorasan, found a special place in Abū Manṣūr’s political ambition (Mīnovī, 1967, pp. 52-55).
The young Ferdowsī, who was no more than seventeen years old when the Šāh-nāma of Abū Manṣūr was completed, must have been profoundly affected by this national and cultural movement. It was in these years that the education of a dehqān together with the poet’s national sentiment were able to mature in a congenial environment and to take shape, and thus become the foundation of the whole of his poem, so that, as Nöldeke put it (1920, pp. 36, 40-41), the poet’s attachment to Iran is clear in every line of the Šāh-nāma.
The effects of Ferdowsī’s love for Iran must be considered not only in the transmission of the culture, mores, customs, and literature of ancient Iran to Islamic Persia but also in the spread of Persian as the national language. In this way the struggle for the preservation of Iranian identity while Persia was in danger of being Arabized in the name of the Islamic community—although the movement had begun before Ferdowsī’s time with the Šoʿūbīya movement—finally bore fruit through Ferdowsī’s efforts. In this way Persia is deeply indebted to Ferdowsī, both as regards its historical continuity and its national and cultural identity.
Education
Since Ferdowsī, unlike many other poets, did not make his work a showcase for his own erudition, discussion of his education is a difficult matter. On the other hand, the intellectual quality of the Šāh-nāma shows that we do not deal simply with a great poet but with someone who judges many of the vicissitudes of life with wisdom and understanding, and this would not have been possible if he had not been in possession of a knowledge of the sciences of his time.
However, Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) thought that Ferdowsī had not received formal education in the sciences of his time, especially in scholastic theology, but considered him simply to be a reasonably educated person in such matters (for Ferdowsī’s world view, see Ḵāleḡī Moṭlaq, 1991, pp. 55-70).
Nöldeke also believed that Ferdowsī did not know Pahlavi (1920, p. 19, n. 1). Taqīzāda (p. 126) and Šērānī (pp. 170-71), on the other hand, believe that Ferdowsī was completely conversant with the sciences of his own time. Badīʿ-al-Zamān Forūzānfar (q.v.; pp. 47-49) and Aḥmad Mahdawī Dāmˊḡānī (p. 42) believe that Ferdowsī even had a thorough knowledge of Arabic prose and verse.
Similarly, Saʿīd Nafīsī (1978, pp. 9-10), Ḥabīb Yāḡmāʾī (p. 6), and Lazard (pp. 25-41) believe that Ferdowsī knew Pahlavi. However, Moḥammad-Taqī Bahār (pp. 96-135) and Shapur Shahbazi (pp. 39-41) agree with Nöldeke on the matter of Ferdowsī’s knowledge of Pahlavi.
In a later article on Ferdowsī, Nöldeke, following Taqīzāda, wrote that he had previously underestimated the poet’s knowledge of Arabic (1983, p. 63), but it appears that he did this mainly to satisfy the amour-propre of Persians. Certainly, it is probable that Ferdowsī learnt Arabic in school. The problem of Pahlavi in his time and for a person like him lay mainly in the difficulty of its script; thus if a person read a text in this language to the poet, he could probably understand it in the main. But in the Šāh-nāma there is nowhere any direct indication that Ferdowsī knew either Arabic or Pahlavi. In the exordium to the story of Bēžan and Manēža, he says that his “loving consort” (mehrbān yār) read a “Pahlavī book” (daftar-e pahlavī; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 305, v. 19, p. 306, v. 22). But Ferdowsī refers to Šāh-nāma-yeabū manṣūrī as being in Pahlavi (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 14, v. 143), and thus it could be interpreted as meaning “Pahlavānī” or “eloquent/heroic Persian.” There is, however, no evidence in the Šāh-nāma to indicate that Ferdowsī could read Pahlavi.
Religion
Ferdowsī was a Shiʿite Muslim, which is apparent from the Šāh-nāma itself (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 1o-11) and confirmed by early accounts (Neẓāmī ʿArūżī, text, pp. 80, 83; Naṣīr-al-Dīn Qazvīnī, pp. 251-52). In recent times, however, some have cast doubt on his religion and his Shiʿism. Some have simply called him a “Shiʿite” (Yāḡmāʾī, pp. 23, 28); others, such as Bahār (p. 149), have raised the question of whether Ferdowsī was an adherent of Zaydī Shiʿism, Ismaiʿli Shiʿism, or Twelver Shiʿism. Nöldeke (1920, p. 40) believed that he was a Shiʿite but did not consider him to be a member of any of the extremist Shiʿites (ḡolāt; q.v.). Šērānī (pp. 111-26) called Ferdowsī a Sunni or Zaydī Shiʿite, but Šērānī was mainly concerned with defending Maḥmūd’s Sunnism. Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī (pp. 233-40) also considered Ferdowsī to be a Zaydī Shiʿite. ʿAbbās Zaryāb Ḵoʾī (pp. 14-23) argued that he was an Ismaʿili Shiʿite, while Aḥmad Mahdawī Dāmˊḡānī (pp., 20-53) believed him to be a Twelver Shiʿite (see also, Shahbazi, pp. 49-53).
The basic supporting evidence for the view that Ferdowsī was a Sunni or Zaydī Shiʿite has been the lines that appear in many manuscripts of the Šāh-nāma, in the exordium to the book, in praise of Abū Bakr, ʿOmar, and ʿOṯmān, but these lines are later additions, as is apparent for lexicographic and stylistic reasons, and also because they interrupt the flow of the narrative (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39; Yāḡmāʾī, p. 27; khaleghi-Motlagh, 1986, pp. 28-31); with the excision of these lines no doubt remains as to Ferdowsī’s Shiʿism.
One must also take into account the fact that Ṭūs had long been a center of Shiʿism (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 39) and that the family of Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq were also apparently Shiʿites (Ebn Bābawayh, II, p. 285). On the one hand, Ferdowsī was lenient as regards religion. As Nöldeke remarks, Ferdowsī remembered the religion of his forbears with respect, and, at the same time, nowhere did he show any signs of a deep Islamic faith.
Indeed, to the contrary, here and there are moments in the Šāh-nāma (e.g., Moscow, IX, p. 315, v. 56) which, even if they were present in his sources, should not strictly have been given currency by the pen of a committed Muslim (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 38-39). On the other hand, however, Ferdowsī showed a prejudice in favor of his own sect and, as is apparent from the exordium to the Šāh-nāma, considered his own sect to be the only true Islamic one.
The explanation for this contradiction, in the present writer’s opinion, lies in the fact that during the first centuries of Islam, in Persia, Shiʿism went hand in hand with the national struggle in Khorasan, or very nearly so, such that the caliphate in Baghdad and its political supporters in Persia never made any serious distinction between the “Majūs” (i.e., Zoroastrians), “Zandīq” (i.e., Manicheans), “Qarmaṭīs” (i.e., adherents of Ismaʿili Shiʿism), and Rāfeẓīs (i.e., Shiʿites in general; see Baḡdādī, tr. pp. 307 ff.).
Ferdowsī was, as Nöldeke remarks, above all a deist and monotheist who at the same time kept faith with his forbears (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 36-40; Taqīzāda, 1983, pp. 124-25). Ferdowsī attacks philosophy and those who attempt to prove the reality of the Creator, believing that God can be found neither by the eye of wisdom, nor of the heart, nor of reason, but that His existence, unity, and might are confessed only by the existence of His creation; thus he worshipped Him, remaining silent as to the whys and wherefores of faith (khaleghi-Motlagh, 1975, pp. 66-70; idem, 1991, pp. 55-57).
According to his beliefs, everything, good or evil, happens to an individual only through the will of God, and every kind of belief in the benign or evil influence of the stars is a derogation of the reality, unicity, and might of God. This absolute faith in the unicity and might of God is disturbed in the Šāh-nāma by a fatalism that is possibly the result of Zurvanite influences from the Sasanian period, and this, here and there, has produced a self-contradictory effect (Khaleghi, 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; idem, 1991, pp. 55-68; 1983, 2/1, pp. 107-14; Banani, pp. 96-119; Shahbazi, pp. 49-59).
Due to his upbringing as a dehqān, Ferdowsī was acquainted with the ancient culture and customs of Iran, and he deepened this knowledge by his study of ancient lore so that they became part of his poetic world view. There are many instances of this in the Šāh-nāma, and here as an example one can mention the custom of drinking wine. According to the poet, in accordance with Iran’s ancient beliefs, wine shows the essence of a man as he really is (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 3-4); one must drink at times of happiness (ibid., Moscow, VII, p. 192, vv. 658-59), but it is happiness that is to be sought in drinking wine, not drunkenness (ibid., Moscow, VIII, p. 109, vv. 964-65), and he reproaches the Arabs who are strangers to the custom of drinking wine (ibid., Moscow, IX, p. 320, v. 113).
The most important of the poet’s ethical attitudes include maintaining a chastity of diction (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 55, n. 2), honesty (ed. Khaleqi, III, p. 285, vv. 2,879-80; Moscow, VIII, p. 206, vv. 2,626-27; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, p. 203; Yāḡmāʾī, pp. 14-15), gratitude toward his predecessor Daqīqī and, at the same time, frank criticism of his poetry (ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 13, V, pp. 75-76, 175-76). With the same kind of frankness the poet admonishes kings to act justly (Moscow, VII, p. 114, vv. 29-31; VIII, p. 62, vv. 161-66). His belief in the permanence of a good reputation (ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 156-57, vv. 1,061-62), in fine speech (ibid., II, p. 164, vv. 574-76), and in fairness toward enemies (ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 163, vv. 937-38, IV, p. 64, v. 1,014) in so far as this is compatible with the heroic code of behavior, are all apparent.
But when it comes to the domination of Iran by her enemies, especially at the end of the Šāh-nāma, he is violently opposed to both Arabs and Turks (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 37, 41). Certainly, these attitudes were in the poet’s sources, but he incorporated them into his work with complete conviction. Generally, it seems as though the ethical values of the poet’s sources and of the poet himself reciprocally acted on one another.
In this way, certain ethical values of the Šāh-nāma, such as praise for effort, condemnation of laziness, recommendation of moderation, condemnation of greed, praise for knowledge, encouragement of justice and tolerance, kindness towards women and children, patriotism, racial loyalty, the condemnation of haste and the recommendation of deliberation in one’s actions, praise for truthfulness and condemnation of falsehood, the condemnation of anger and jealousy, belief in the unstableness of the world, which is everywhere evident throughout the Šāh-nāma especially at the ends of the stories, and so forth, are considered also to be values held by the poet himself (see adab; Eslāmī, pp. 64-73).
Other opinions of the poet are his belief in the genuineness of the narratives in his sources (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 12, vv. 113-14) and his strong belief in the lasting values of his own work, a subject referred to frequently in the Šāh-nāma (e.g., ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 173-74, vv. 66-68; for other examples, see Yaḡmāʾī, pp. 15-17; Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 34-35).
Finally it seems as though he was a man who was fond of pleasantries and witticisms (e.g., concerning Rūdāba, see ed. Khaleghi, p. 243, v. 1,158; Manūčehr’s joking with Zāl, ibid., p. 253, vv. 1,283-88; Sām’s and Sīndoḵt’s joking with each other, ibid., p. 262, vv. 1,407-9; the joking of the young shoemaker’s mother before the king, Moscow, VII, p. 325, vv. 336-46). The sum of such heartfelt, mature, and eloquently expressed views and ethical precepts regarding the world and mankind have led to his being referred to, from an early period, as ḥakīm (philosopher), dānā (sage), and farzāna (learned); that is, he was considered a philosopher, though he was not attached to any specific philosophical school nor possessed a complete knowledge of the various philosophical and scientific views of his time.
Ferdowsī and Sultan Maḥmūd
In various places in his work the poet devoted in all some 250 lines—some of which are very hyperbolic—to the praise of Maḥmūd, and the name Maḥmūd and his patronymic Abu’l-Qāsem are mentioned almost thirty times; but that sincerity which is apparent in the ten lines Ferdowsī wrote in praise of Manṣūr in his introduction to the Šāh-nāma is never visible in the lines on Maḥmūd, though in many places he either directly or by implication offers Maḥmūd moral advice (e.g., Moscow, VII, pp. 114-15, vv. 29-40; VIII, pp. 153-54, vv. 1,700-04, p. 292, vv. 4,080-81).
The climactic point of these allusions addressed to Maḥmūd must be considered to occur at the end of the Šāh-nāma in the letter of Rostam, the Sasanian general, to his brother on the eve of the battle of Qādesīya. In particular, the line in which it is prophesied that a talentless slave will become king (Moscow, IX, p. 319, v. 103) is like a bridge that takes us from the hyperbolic praise of Maḥmūd in the Šāh-nāma to the hyperbolic contempt for him of the satire.
The poet’s hopes of a monetary reward from Maḥmūd must be considered one reason for his praise of Maḥmūd (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 34), but, as indicated above, there is no sign anywhere in the Šāh-nāma that any assistance from Maḥmūd ever reached the poet (Nöldeke, pp. 27-29). The praise of Maḥmūd must be considered an entirely calculated gesture, forced on the poet by his poverty (Eslāmī, pp. 59-60). With Maḥmūd’s assumption of power in Khorasan, the Shiʿite Ferdowsī had, at the least, until he had finished work on the Šāh-nāma, to include him in the poem.
This being the case he could not, according to the usual custom in Persian narrative poems, wait until the end of the poem and then write a single panegyric to be used in the preface, but was forced to compose separate passages of praise, or to place them at the head of a story that was then sent to Ḡazna. Other passages of praise may well have been placed at the beginning of sections of the seven-volume Šāh-nāma. But the closer he got to the end of the Šāh-nāma, with there still being no sign of Maḥmūd’s paying him any attention, the more pointed his sarcastic allusions to Maḥmūd became, until finally in the satire he took back virtually all his praise.
In the satire the poet frequently speaks “of this book” (az in nāma) and this led Nöldeke (1920, p. 29) to conclude that the satire was composed as a supplement to the Šāh-nāma and that the poet’s intention was to take back his praise of Maḥmūd with this satire, that is, the Šāh-nāma was no longer dedicated to Maḥmūd, as the poet himself states in the satire (Mohl’s Intro., p. lxxxix, vv. 3-4). Neẓāmī ʿArūżī (text, pp. 49-50), also makes the same statement (see also Shahbazi, 1991, pp. 83-105)
Ferdowsī the poet and storyteller
The Šāh-nāma has not received its rightful attention in works written in Persian on the art of poetry (e.g., al-Moʿjam of Šams-al-Dīn Rāzī), which works consider eloquence and poetic style largely as a matter of particular figures of speech. So far there has been little serious work on Ferdowsī’s poetic artistry, and our discussion of this subject will not therefore go beyond general principles.
In discussing Ferdowsī’s achievement one must consider, on the one hand, the totality of the Šāh-nāma as a whole and, on the other, his artistry as a storyteller. Throughout the entire Šāh-nāma, a balance is masterfully maintained between words and meaning, on the one hand, and passion and thought, on the other. Ferdowsī’s poetic genius in creating a lofty, dynamic epic language that is brief but to the point and free from complexity greatly contributes to the strength of his style.
The most important figures of speech in the Šāh-nāma include: hyperbole, paronomasia, repetition, comparisons (similes and metaphors), representative images, proverbial expressions, parables, and moral advice. Hyperbole, which is the most important principle of epic language, is present in order to increase the reader’s emotional response. Some kinds of paronomasia are used to create a verbal rhythm that is to increase linguistic tension by acoustic means.
The most commonly used kinds of paronomasia include those that involve a complete identity of two words (be čang ār čang o may āḡāz kon “Bring in your hand [čang] a harp [čang] and set out the wine”; Moscow, V, p. 7, v. 19) and those that involve alliteration (šod az raḵš raḵšān o az šāh šād “He became radiant [raḵšān] because of Raḵš [the name of Rostam’s horse] and happy [šād] because of the king [šāh]”; ed. Khaleghi, II , p. 125, v. 93; kolāh o kamān o kamand o kamar “Cap and bow and lariat and belt”; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 147, v. 676).
This effect is sometimes achieved by the repetition of one word (bed-ū goft narm ay javānmard, narm! “He said to him: Gently o young man, gently!”; ed. Khaleghi, II, p. 222, v. 683; makon šahrīārā javānī, makon! “Do not, o prince, do not act childishly!; ed. Khaleghi, p. 363, v. 846).
There are also comparisons used to render the language representational, that is, to construct an image visually. Among the kinds of comparison used in the Šāh-nāma one must mention short comparisons which do not use words that indicate a comparison is being made (brief metaphors) and explicit comparisons (i.e., similes; For other examples, see Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 69-71; Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa, pp. 267-77).
Sometimes Ferdowsī uses personification as an image (be bāzīgar-ī mānad īn čarḵ-e mast “This drunken wheel [i.e., of the firmament] is like a juggler; ed. Khaleghi, III, p. 56, v. 474), sometimes proverbial expressions (hamān bar ke kārīd ḵod bedravīd “As you sow so shall you reap!”; ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 114, v. 383), and sometimes parables, that is, the explanation of a situation by another exemplary situation (e.g., ibid., p. 216, vv. 770-73). In each of these three figures of speech, the image is constructed by reason.
Another example of this is the elaboration of language as moral maxims (tavānā bovad har ke dānā bovad! “knowledge is power”; ibid., p. 4, v. 14). On the other hand, Ferdowsī avoids those figures of speech which involve complex language or which take language far from the intended meaning. For this reason, complex metaphors, ambiguities of grammatical construction, riddles, and academic phraseology are rarely found in his work (Nöldeke, 1920, pp. 64-65). Metaphors such as “dragon” for a “sword”; “narcissus” and “magician” for “eyes”; “coral,” “garnet,” and “ruby” for “lips”; “tulip” for “a face”; “pearls” for “tears,” “teeth,” and “speech”; “cypress” for “stature”; and so on, that have since been parts of the conventional themes, motives, and images used in Persian poetry.
The most important descriptive passages of the Šāh-nāma are descriptions of war, the beauty of people, and the beauty of nature. Although Ferdowsī himself had probably never taken part in a battle and the descriptions of scenes of warfare are in the main imaginary, as Nöldeke says (1920, p. 59), they are described so variously, with such liveliness and to so stirring an effect that, despite their brevity, the reader seems to see them pass before his eyes. The story of Davāzdah Roḵ (q.v.; ed. Khaleghi, IV, pp. 3-166) is particularly a case in point (Nöldeke, ibid). Ferdowsī does not simply introduce his heroes, he lives with them and shares their sorrows and joys.
He grieves at the death of Iranian heroes, but he does not rejoice at the demise of Iran’s enemies; his sincerity conveys his own emotions to the reader. When he describes the beauty of people, he is at his best when the subject is a women (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 183-84, vv. 287-93). As a dehqān, Ferdowsī lived in close contact with nature; for this reason the descriptions of nature in his poetry have the lively coloring of nature itself, not the coloring of decorative effects as in the poetry of Neẓāmī.
Of his descriptions of nature particularly noticeable are those concerned with the rising and setting of the sun and moon, placed at the opening of many sections of individual stories, and of the seasons of the year, in particular of spring, situated in the introductions to stories (see, e.g., ed. Khaleghi, V, pp. 219-20, vv. 1-9).
Ferdowsī’s poetic artistry go hand in hand with his skill as a storyteller. Major stories usually begin with a preamble (ḵoṭba) which includes moral advice, a description of nature, or an account of the poet himself. In the examples that involve moral advice there is normally a connection between the contents of the preamble and the subject of the story that follows, as in the introductions to the stories of Rostam and Sohrāb, of Kāvūs’ expedition to Māzandarān, and of Forūd (q.v.), the son of Sīāvaḵš.
Such a connection is sometimes also found in introductions containing descriptions of nature (Ḵāleqī Moṭlaq, 1975, pp. 61-72; idem, 1990, pp. 123-41). Thereafter begins the story and proceeds quickly. In the important stories of the Šāh-nāma, events are neither given in so direct a manner as to join the opening of the story to its conclusion in the shortest possible manner, nor with such ramifications that the main story line is lost.
But the attention of the poet to certain details of the incidents described, without the story ever straying from its main path, fills the narrative with action and variety (e.g., see the quarrel between the gatekeeper of Mehrāb’s castle and Rūdāba’s maids in Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 196, vv. 468-77; Nöldeke, 1920, p. 17).
Many of the narrative poets who followed Ferdowsī were more interested in the construction of individual lines than of their stories as a whole.
In such narrative poems, the poet himself speaks much more than the characters of his poem, and even where there is dialogue, there is little difference between the attitudes of the various characters of the story, so that the speaker is still the author, who at one moment speaks in the role of one character and the next moment speaks in the role of another.
The result is that in such poems, with the exception of Faḵr-al-Dīn Gorgānī’s Vīs o Rāmīn and to some extent the poems of Neẓāmī, the characters in the story are less individuals than types.
In contrast, the dialogues in the Šāh-nāma are realistic and frequently argumentative, and the poet uses them to good effect as a means of portraying the inner life of his characters.
This is so to such an extent that it is as if many of the characters of the Šāh-nāma lived among us and we knew them well.
Since these characters are developed as distinct, genuine individuals, it is inevitable that sometimes differences between them should lead to conflicts that make each episode extremely dynamic and dramatic.
An instance is the conflict in the story of Rostam and Esfandīār (q.v.), which has been described as “the deepest psychological struggle in the whole of the Šāh-nāma, and one of the deepest examples of its kind in the whole of world epic” (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 59).
Ferdowsī is also very skillful in creation of tragic and dramatic moments, such as the dialogue between Sohrāb and his father, Rostam, when Sohrāb is on the point of death (ed. Khaleghi, II, pp. 185-86, vv. 856-65), Sām’s reaction upon receiving Zāl’s letter (ibid., I, p. 208, vv. 656-66), the disobedience of Rostam’s loyal horse, Raḵš, and his risking his life for Rostam (ibid., II, pp. 26-27, v. 345-46, the anger of the natural world when Sīāvaḵš’s blood is spilled (ibid., II, pp. 357-58, vv. 2,284-87), the minstrel Bārbad’s cutting off his fingers and burning his instruments while mourning for Ḵosrow II Parvēz (Moscow, IX, pp. p. 280, vv. 414-18), and so on.
The final part of Ferdowsī’s elegy for his son and the Bārbad’s elegy on the death of Ḵosrow II Parvēz together with certain of the preambles to various stories and other descriptive passages show that Ferdowsī was also a master as a lyric poet (Nöldeke, 1920, p. 64).
Such moments in the Šāh-nāma distinguish it from other epics of the world (ibid., p. 63); due to their simplicity and brevity, however, they do not harm the epic spirit of the poem, rather they give it a certain musicality and tenderness; in particular, due to the descriptions of love in the poem, these lyric moments take it beyond the world of primary epic (ibid., p. 54, n. 2).
Since the greater part of the epic poetry before Ferdowsī’s time, and even his own main source, the Šāh-nāma-ye abū manṣūrī, have disappeared, it is difficult to judge how far Ferdowsī’s artistry is indebted to his predecessors.
From the thousand lines of Daqīqī in the Šāh-nāma, from certain other scattered lines by poets who had preceded him, and also from the Arabic translation of Ṯaʿālebī, it can be seen that Ferdowsī was not an innovator but rather someone who continued an extant tradition, both in his epic style and in his narrative method.
At the same time, as Nöldeke has said (1920, pp. 22-23, 41-44), it can be shown by reference to these same works that Ferdowsī not only succeeded in preserving his poetic independence, but also that Persian epic poetry is indebted to him for its finest flowering.
Τις βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές θα βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ferdowsi-i
Η Αυλή του Κεϋουμάρς, του πρώτου Ανθρώπου-Βασιλέα
===============================
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250648457
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/ferdowsi_the_paradisiacal.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620833300
https://www.docdroid.net/tbVc1r6/ferntooysi-o-paradeisenios-ethnikos-poiitis-iranwn-kai-toyranwn-themeliotis-toy-newteroy-efrasiatikou-politismou-docx
The Fake Texts of Ancient Greek 'Historians': the Behistun Inscription, Ctesias, Diodorus Siculus, Darius I the Great, and Semiramis
In a previous article published under the title 'Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments', I wholeheartedly supported the position taken by the prominent Chinese Prof. Jin Canrong about Aristotle and I explained why Aristotle never existed as he is known today and most of his texts were not written by him, but by the pseudo-Christian Benedictine monks of Western Europe for the purpose of the ferocious imperial and theological battle that Rome carried out against New Rome-Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. You can find the table of contents and a link to the publication at the end of the present article.
Contents
Introduction
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
III. The deceitful presentation
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make 'History'.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the 'Ancient Greek sources'
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
The Behistun inscription
Introduction
In the present article, I will offer a typical example of text falsification carried out by the Catholic monks, who did not 'copy and preserve' manuscripts of ancient Greek and Latin texts, as it has been mendaciously said by Western European and North American academics and lying scholars, but they purposefully falsified, distorted, concealed, destroyed and/or contrived numerous texts.
This enormous forgery took place in Western Europe between the 2nd half of the 8th century and the 1st half of the 15th century; the colonial era was launched exactly afterwards. For this reason, few manuscripts with Ancient Greek and Roman texts date before the 8th c.; in fact, most of them have been either distorted and replaced or hidden in the vast libraries still owned, controlled and administered that the anti-Christian Roman Catholic Church.
The purpose of this devious and evil effort was the fabrication of a fake narrative about the forged antiquity and the supposed importance of the Western Europeans according to the needs of world conquest, prevalence and preponderance of the pseudo-Christian Roman Catholic Church; this bogus-historical dogma, as direct opposition to and ultimate rejection of Orthodox Christianity, would be initially imposed as the 'scientific discipline of History' in Western Europe and subsequently projected onto the rest of the world by means of colonial invasion, indigenous identity destruction, moral integrity demolition, cultural heritage disintegration, educational subordination, economic exploitation, military subjugation, and socio-political domination.
In other words, the monastical scribes and copyists created an entirely fake Euro-centric past, which became the rotten foundation of Western Europe. This fallacy became known as Judeo-Christian world and Greco-Roman civilization. However, the decipherment of ancient languages (Egyptian hieroglyphic, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hittite, Urartu, Ugaritic, etc) and the study of millions of original texts, which were not copies of earlier sources but contemporaneous to the events that they narrated, sounded the death knell of the era of history fabrication programs.
With the post-Soviet rise of the great continental powers (China, India, Russia, etc.), the economic-military-political-ideological-educational-academic-cultural tyranny of the Western World started being overthrown throughout the earlier colonized world. The historical forgery that the colonial rulers imposed collapsed, the falsehood of the Eurocentric dogma of World History started being revealed and rejected, and an overwhelming project of total de-Westernization appeared as a prerequisite for the liberation of the Mankind from the lies of the European Renaissance, the Western Humanities, the White Supremacism, the Western European colonialism and racism, as well as from the falsehood of numerous subsystems of the construct, such as Classicism, Hellenism, Orientalism, etc.
In our days, it is imperative for anti-colonial scholars to unveil the distortions applied to Ancient Greek and Latin texts by the medieval monks. Consequently, historians from all over the world have to work together in order to denounce and obliterate the Western fraud and the fake History of the Western Man, which consists in arbitrarily taking 14th c. CE manuscripts as authentic narratives of Ancient History.
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
Apparently, the present brief article cannot be an exhaustive presentation of the Western fraud, and of the historical forgery that the Western monks, manuscript copyists, collectors, academics and propagandists attempted to impose worldwide through colonial conquests, massacres and tyrannies. However, I can still enumerate the major founding myths of the Western World.
Two thematic circles of historical distortions and fraudulent claims made by the Western academia revolve around the following two entirely fabricated entities, which have conventionally but erroneously been called
a) "the Greco-Roman world" and
b) "Biblical Israel" and "Judeo-Christian civilization".
These ahistorical entities never existed. The original concept of those notions is purely fictional, and it therefore remains always unquestioned in the fraudulent Western universities. In this regard, the sources that the Western academics evoke to support their claims are posterior, untrustworthy, forged and therefore worthless.
At times, some of those texts represent merely ancient authors' misperceptions of earlier texts and authors; however, more often, the ancient texts have been tampered with. On other occasions, ancient texts that refute the lies of other historical sources are hidden from the general public and conventionally discussed among the Western academic accomplices.
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
The entire construct hinges on the deceitful presentation of several types of material forged, collected, concealed, interpreted, contextualized, narrated, repeatedly but intentionally discussed, supposedly questioned, and selectively popularized; this was due to the fact that the said material was incessantly utilized for the colonial needs and targets of the Western European powers (England, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and more recently the US). In fact, the Western World's fake History was created as the ultimate support of all colonial claims.
This process happened within a system in which posterior textual sources (preserved in medieval manuscripts) have occupied the central position, whereas the ancient epigraphic material, which was contemporaneous to the historical events under study, has been deliberately disregarded.
All later discovered data and pieces of information were either adjusted to the construct or methodically hidden; this is how the original concept, pathetically believed almost as a religious dogma, remained totally unchallenged down to our days.
III. The deceitful presentation
The quintessence of the deceitful presentation involves a vicious trick; people (pupils and students, but also scholars and intellectuals, as well as the general public) are taught and made accustomed to care mainly about the absolutely insignificant dates of birth and death of historical persons (authors, rulers, etc.), and not about the dates of the manuscripts in which these individuals are mentioned as supposed authors; this situation turns readers, students and scholars into pathetic idiots.
Subsequently, we cannot seriously afford to describe Herodotus as a 5th c. BCE writer, because there is no manuscript with texts attributed to him, dating before the 10th c. CE. In addition, if we take into account the enormous number of other ancient authors decrying, denigrating and rejecting Herodotus' absurdities and malignancy, we have to permanently and irrevocably obliterate Herodotus from the History of Mankind and consider his false, paranoid and racist texts as a double Crime against the Mankind:
first, with respect to the original narrative (to which we don't have access as it was distorted by medieval monastical scribes and copyists) because the author attempted to disparage the superior Iranian civilization and the majestic Achaemenid universalist empire, while undeservedly praising the South Balkan barbarians, and
second, as regards the currently available text, which was forged as per the discriminatory intentions of the monks who altered and distorted it in their effort to fabricate the fake, modern divide (or dichotomy) East-West, and to offer a shred of historicity to it.
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make 'History'.
People get therefore addicted to considering as a true and original 'work' (of an ancient author) the manuscript (or manuscripts) in which the specific treatise, essay or book was copied perhaps 10 or 15 centuries after the author composed it. Due to a long chain of intermediaries (namely library copyists, librarians, scholars, monks, collectors, purchasers and/or statesmen), the transmitted text may have been partly or totally changed.
There is absolutely no guarantee as regards the honesty, the good intentions, the unbiased attitude, and the benevolent character of the perhaps 5, 10, 20 or 50 persons who -living in different eras and without knowing one another- may have constituted the chain of (unknown to us) intermediaries between the hand of the author and that of the last copyist whose manuscript was preserved down to our times.
Example: very little matters today whether the ancient author Diodorus Siculus or Siceliotes (西西里的狄奧多羅斯) actually lived in the 1st c. BCE or in the 3rd c. CE; quite contrarily, what is important for history-writing is the fact that the earliest known manuscript of his famous 'Bibliotheca Historica' (世界史) dates back to the 10th c. CE.
Consequently, the first piece of information that should be stated after the name of any 'ancient' Anatolian, Macedonian, Thracian, Greek, Roman and other author is the date of the earliest extant manuscript of his works.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
An extraordinarily high number of original sources excavated in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Canaan, Iran and elsewhere, and subsequently deciphered, can be dated with accuracy; example: the Annals of great Assyrian emperor Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) were written during his reign. They are contemporaneous and therefore original.
However, in striking contrast to them, almost all the manuscripts with the works of ancient Greek and Roman authors whose texts have formed the backbone of the fraudulent historical dogma of the Western academia are not contemporaneous but posterior by, at times, 1500 or 2000 years.
Even worse, numerous ancient Greek authors' texts were not preserved through a manuscript tradition at all; they were saved as references in posterior authors' works. This concerns, for instance, Ctesias (克特西亞斯), an Ancient Carian (Anatolian) physician and erudite scholar, who lived and worked in the court of the Achaemenid Iranian emperor Artaxerxes II in the 5th c. BCE.
Later, willing to offer potential guidebooks to Iran and India for the use of various peripheral peoples and tribes of the Balkan region, Ctesias elaborated in Ancient Ionian (愛奧尼亞希臘語) two treatises to describe the state of things in Iran and in India. To the Western academic bibliography, his works are known (in Latin) as 'Persica' and 'Indica'.
These texts were not saved integrally in manuscripts copied for the purpose of preserving Ctesias' works, but they were preserved in Diodorus Siculus' 'Bibliotheca Historica'. Although he is not known through authentic and contemporaneous Iranian sources, we can deduce that Ctesias certainly spoke fluently the official language of the Empire and read Old Achaemenid cuneiform. Eventually, he may have also studied and learned Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform, namely two ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform languages and writings the use of which was maintained by Iranian scribes.
Apparently, Ctesias had a firsthand insight, as he lived for many years in Parsa (Persepolis), the capital of the Achaemenid Empire and he also traveled extensively along with the Iranian emperor. But, unfortunately, the following ordeal was produced.
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
One century before Ctesias served Artaxerxes II, the empire of Iran was saved by Darius I the Great (大流士一世; reign: 522-486), who overthrew a usurper, namely the Mithraic (密特拉教祭司) magus Gaumata (高墨达), and by so doing, preserved on the throne a dynasty of faithful Zoroastrian (瑣羅亞斯德教徒) monarchs.
To commemorate his great victory and the consolidation of the his dynasty, Darius I the Great had an enormous rock relief and a monumental inscription (貝希斯敦銘文) engraved on the rocks of Mount Behistun (貝希斯頓山), at a distance of 150 km west of Hamadan (哈马丹; Ekbatana/埃克巴坦那) in Western Iran (15 m high by 25 m wide and 100 m up the cliff). As it can be easily understood, these events occurred after the assassination of Cambyses, at the very beginning of Darius I the Great's reign.
It goes without saying that the successors of Darius I the Great and the imperial Iranian administration knew perfectly well the historical details and were fully aware of the imperial inscription that immortalized the event, which had obviously become the cornerstone of the imperial education.
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the 'Ancient Greek sources'
However, one century later, when Ctesias lived in Iran, served the Iranian Emperor, and spoke Old Achaemenid Iranian (and if not, he was surrounded by the Empire's top interpreters and advisers), something disastrously odd 'happened'.
According to Diodorus Siculus, who explicitly stated that he extensively quoted from Ctesias' text (Bibliotheca Historica, II 13), the imperial Carian physician and author appears to have attributed the Behistun inscription and the rock reliefs to none else than the Assyrian Queen Shammuramat (薩穆-拉瑪特), who was the queen consort of the Assyrian Emperor Shamshi Adad V (沙姆什·阿達德五世; reign: 824-811) and co-regent (811-805) during the first years of reign of her son Adad Nirari III (阿达德尼拉里三世; reign: 811-783)!
Furthermore, in the 'Ancient Greek' text of Diodorus Siculus, the monumental inscription was said to be written in Assyrian cuneiform (Συρίοις γράμμασιν)! Even worse, in the same text (as preserved today), it was also stated that, in the rock relief, there was also a representation of the Assyrian queen!
Ctesias' text, as preserved by Diodorus Siculus, is truly abundant in information, but it is historically impossible and therefore entirely forged. Due to this and many other texts, an enormous chasm was unnecessarily formed between
a) the historical queen Shammuramat of Assyria, whose historicity is firmly undeniable, due to the existence of several contemporaneous cuneiform sources excavated in Assyria, and subsequently deciphered and published,
and
b) the purely fictional Assyrian queen Semiramis (沙米拉姆) of the posterior Ancient Greek textual sources that were supposedly 'preserved' (but in reality deliberately distorted and forged) in the Benedictine manuscripts of Western Europe's monasteries.
However, if we examine closely the facts, we will surely understand what truly occurred in this case; then, we will be able to fathom how the fake History of the Western world was fabricated.
The Behistun inscription is trilingual, as it was written in Old Achaemenid Iranian (the earliest form of written Iranian languages), Babylonian, and Elamite; this was a very common practice during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE). The main figure of the associated rock relief is Darius I the Great, evidently the representation of a male royal.
One way or another, with respect to the Behistun inscription and rock relief, Ctesias certainly knew everything that we know today after the successive decipherments of the Old Achaemenid, Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform writings, or perhaps even more, due to the then extant oral tradition.
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
The Behistun inscription is not Assyrian; the representation is not that of female royal; and the monument is totally unrelated to Shammuramat, who had lived 300 years before Darius I the Great and 400 years before Artaxerxes II's physician Ctesias. More importantly, by that time, the Assyrian Empire did not occupy the lands surrounding Behistun. Accompanied by Iranian imperial officers and his associates, Ctesias certainly learned all the details of the monumental inscription that we can now read in articles, courses, lectures, books and encyclopedias.
The narrative was a triumph for Darius I the Great and a spectacular rebuttal of the vicious Mithraic Magi who had supported the defeated evil sorcerer and villain Gaumata. Apparently, writing a guidebook for Iran to help marginal people of the Empire's Balkan periphery, Ctesias did not have any reason to say lies. Moreover, we don't have any reason to believe that Diodorus Siculus needed to distort the truth to that extent, when copying and thus preserving Ctesias' masterpiece for the posterity.
However, the transmission of the details about the Behistun inscription embarrassed the Benedictine copyists who wanted to denigrate Darius I the Great and to portray his great empire in a most derogatory manner. They had already proceeded in this manner, distorting other manuscripts, forging texts, and fabricating their pseudo-historical narratives at will.
That is why Ctesias' pertinent text, which had certainly been preserved in its original form within Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca Historica, was intentionally distorted by the Benedictine 'Holy Inquisition of Libraries', which fabricated the myths of today's Western world some time after the middle of the 8th c. CE. To be accurate, Ctesias' historical description was entirely replaced by a fictional and historically nonsensical account.
The unbelievable lies -invented and included in Diodorus Siculus' quotations from Ctesias- risked making of the fictional queen Semiramis a world ruler! Whereas the Assyrian Empire at the end of the 9th c. BCE did not control even the western half of today's Iranian territory, the unequivocally mythicized Semiramis had supposedly sent her armies up to India where those fictitious Assyrian soldiers were trampled by the elephants. This worthless narrative that replaced Ctesias' original text may very well have been invented as a 'historical' excuse for Alexander the Great's failure to advance deep inside India.
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
But if the fictional Semiramis' Indian campaign is entirely false, so are then the preposterous narratives of Herodotus about Darius I the Great's and Xerxes I the Great's campaigns in the insignificant and barbarian circumference of South Balkans. These texts involved evil purposes, heinous anti-Iranian biases, fictional battles, racist discourses, vicious lies, incredibly large number of the Iranian armies, and absurdly high number of Iranian casualties.
The mendacious but idiotic Benedictine monks, who wrote those slander tales did not apparently expect that, sometime in the future, excavations would bring to light splendid Iranian antiquities, original cuneiform documentation, and trustworthy contemporaneous historical sources, whereas a systematic effort of decipherment would offer to people all over the world direct access to historical texts written in dead languages, thus irrevocably canceling Herodotus' nonsensical report and, even more importantly, the later distortions that the Benedictine monks made on their worthless manuscripts.
In any case, had those fictional campaigns against 'Greece' had a shred of truth to them, they would have certainly been documented one way or another in various Old Achaemenid, Babylonian, Elamite, Imperial Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphic or other sources; but they were not.
Even worse, the meaningless and ludicrous battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and their likes would have been commemorated by the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Attalids all the way down to the Romans and the Eastern Romans. But we know quite well that the nonexistent, fictional past of the so-called Ancient Greek world was absolutely irrelevant to them: precisely because it had not yet been fabricated.
===================
Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments
Contents
I. Aristotle: a Major Founding Myth of the Western World
II. When, where and by whom was the Myth of Aristotle fabricated?
III. The Myth of Aristotle and its first Byproducts: Scholasticism, East-West Schism, the Crusades & the Sack of Constantinople (1204)
IV. Aristotelization: First Stage of the Westernization and the Colonization of the World
V. Aristotelization as Foundation of all the Western Forgeries: the so-called Judeo-Christian Heritage and the Fraud of Greco-Roman Civilization
VI. The Modern Western World as Disruption of History
VII. The Myth of Aristotle and the Monstrosity of Western Colonialism
======================
Download the article in PDF:
-
finndiseicla liked this · 3 weeks ago -
queerhistorymajor reblogged this · 3 weeks ago -
opaltriangle liked this · 4 weeks ago -
s-afshar reblogged this · 1 month ago -
s-afshar liked this · 1 month ago
-
queerhistorymajor reblogged this · 1 month ago
-
3nedolena liked this · 1 month ago -
barbarousaesthete liked this · 1 month ago -
hartgekochte liked this · 1 month ago -
onemoretime liked this · 1 month ago -
leafysky liked this · 1 month ago -
polymorphousculturevulture reblogged this · 1 month ago -
the-entangler reblogged this · 2 months ago -
the-entangler liked this · 2 months ago
-
humblespice reblogged this · 2 months ago -
sadeer84 liked this · 2 months ago -
gunsnrage liked this · 2 months ago -
athemostfundamentalevels reblogged this · 2 months ago -
prophetofblank liked this · 2 months ago -
negromameswey liked this · 2 months ago -
ktaps liked this · 2 months ago -
luizaoyer liked this · 3 months ago -
turbulindo reblogged this · 3 months ago -
turbulindo liked this · 3 months ago
-
daemondamian liked this · 3 months ago -
guy60660 liked this · 3 months ago -
its-hercollectionkoala reblogged this · 3 months ago -
its-hercollectionkoala liked this · 3 months ago
-
elisabethrogg liked this · 3 months ago
-
wowthatssoamazing reblogged this · 3 months ago -
wolfsschwester-blog liked this · 3 months ago -
yungmannn liked this · 3 months ago -
potnialabyrinthoio95 liked this · 3 months ago -
wendelsae liked this · 3 months ago -
dew-and-the-rope reblogged this · 3 months ago -
along-the-silkroad reblogged this · 3 months ago
