نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار دانشکدۀ تمدّن و مطالعات جهان، واحد دزفول، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، دزفول، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Introduction
Zahhak (Aži Dahāka / Azi Dahāk) is one of the most complex characters in Iranian mythology and Persian epic literature. He has consistently symbolized evil deeds, heresy, and tyranny, and may be seen as a figure onto whom many of the negative traits of monarchs in Iranian history or associated with Iranian cultural memory have been projected. This has made his story and character receptive to multiple layers of mythological and historical interpretation, and his traits have often aligned with various mytho-historical figures within Iranian tradition. Consequently, scholars have compared Zahhak with a number of other personalities and found meaningful parallels.
Methodology
This article, employing a comparative-explanatory approach and utilizing analysis of library documents, compares the character of Zahhak in Iran's national epic with Ashoka, the powerful historical king of India.
Discussion
Zahhak aligns with many mythological and historical figures connected to Iranian culture. This has led researchers to compare Zahhak with figures such as the Avestan Aži Dahāka, the Vedic Viśvarūpa, the Median Deioces and Astyages, the Mesopotamian Tiamat, Kingu, Nergal, and Nin-gish-zida, the Greek Gorgon, the Armenian Artavazd, Loki, and others, finding many shared characteristics among them. In this research, the author also explored the similarities between Zahhak and Ashoka, one of the kings of the Maurya dynasty in India, highlighting several common features between them. As we observed:
It seems the Mauryan kings were originally Scythians who later settled in India and established their rule there. Zahhak, too, was most likely of Scythian origin and from India; according to Tarikh-i Bal'ami, he rose from the East, and Mehrab Kaboli, who ruled in India and Kabul, was one of his descendants. Kakui or Kerkui, also a descendant of Zahhak, was the name of a place in the East.
Ashoka attacked his father's capital and usurped his rule after his father fell ill. Similarly, Zahhak killed his father and ended his reign.
Ashoka was known for his bloodthirstiness and tyranny, just as Zahhak was called tyrannical, bloodthirsty, and wicked, and "would sever the heads of a thousand innocents."
Despite being ruthless and tyrannical, Ashoka was called "kind-eyed towards all" and enjoyed popularity among the people because he believed in a communal economy and did not collect taxes from farmers. This characteristic is also seen in Zahhak. According to the Shahnameh, he pardoned profits and losses (taxes) for a segment of the people (the Arabs). According to Moses of Chorene and Biruni, he declared everything public, and seemingly gained popularity through this.
Ashoka had a highly influential advisor named Kumara who managed all affairs in the king's absence. Zahhak also had a successor like Kandru, who administered the country when Zahhak was not present in Iran.
Just as Ashoka promoted the Buddhist religion, Zahhak became a promoter of idolatry. The Persian word "bot" (idol) is derived from the word "Buddha." Since Buddhists depicted Buddha in statues and revered him as a god, Iranians perceived Buddhism as idolatry; therefore, Zahhak's idolatry can be considered a focus on Buddha and Buddhism.
After much oppression, Ashoka eventually moderated and, to some extent, reformed his tyranny by converting to Buddhism. Zahhak does not possess such a characteristic; however, his nephew or descendant, Kush-e Pil-Dandan, who also ruled in the eastern lands, changed his ways after meeting a wise elder. Like Ashoka, who provided water for the people, built hospitals, abandoned carnal desires, constructed pools for treating epileptics, avoided illicit sexual relations with women and children, and refrained from seizing people's property – in short, abandoned "the bad path and wolfish nature.
Conclusion
Continuing this line of comparison, the author explores the similarities between Zahhak and one of the kings of the Maurya dynasty in India — Ashoka — and concludes that both figures may trace their origins to the Scythians who settled in India. Both have fathers with ascetic tendencies — Merdas and Chandragupta —whose rule they seize and bring to an end. Both are known for bloodthirstiness and fearlessness, and yet, despite their tyranny, they enjoy popularity among certain segments of the population. During their absences from their respective countries, each entrusts governance to loyal deputies: Kondrow and Kumar. Both also promote Indian religious traditions — idolatry in Zahhak’s case and Buddhism in Ashoka’s. Ashoka, after a period of intense cruelty, ultimately chooses a religious path and turns to helping the people. Zahhak, by contrast, shows no such transformation; however, his nephew or grandson — Kush-e Pīl-Dandān ("Kush the Elephant-Tusked") — exhibits similar traits, which brings his character closer to that of Ashoka.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)