Fereydoon Answers His Sons
Fereydoon answers coercion with moral argument, but Iraj chooses a more radical response: surrendering power to recover brotherhood.
The chapter in five texts
| Text | Chapter treatment and distinctive choices |
|---|---|
| F&R English | Seventy-one couplets combine the father’s answer, private warning and Iraj’s deliberate rejection of retaliatory power. |
| Moscow | The royal answer and the father–son discussion remain distinct movements of the dispute. |
| Mohl | Pp 74–77 sustain the moral argument, practical danger and Iraj’s peace proposal. |
| Ganjoor | Sh6.78–111 and sh7 in full supply the reference; the English repartitions these continuous passages. |
| Khaleghi | The corresponding main text carries both the father’s defensive reasoning and Iraj’s divergent choice. |
Parallel text
English left · Persian right. Ganjoor is the reference except where a row names a printed source. Select a number to open the relevant note. G identifiers distinguish digital sections across chapter boundaries.
Narrative and poetic form
The translation stands particularly well when read as a dialogue between two coherent ethical positions. It gives Iraj’s renunciation enough space to be understood as a chosen policy with known danger, rather than ignorance of the danger.
Couplet commentary
Quoted text · evidence · interpretation1–9Anger disciplined into an answer
The king’s boiling anger is followed by a response acknowledging the envoy and condemning the sons. Time’s bending of his own body becomes a warning.
The English preserves both temper and judgment. Reading the whole answer as serene wisdom would remove its human pressure; reading it only as fury would miss its disciplined appeal to the same aging the sons used against him.
10–21The father defends the division
The source invokes God, sun, earth, throne, Venus and Moon, then wise counselors, astrologers and Mobads. Fereydoon denies arbitrary allocation.
This is the father’s defense of deliberation and right intent. It does not erase the differentiated characters established in the test, and it does not require the analyst to certify every territorial outcome as objectively equal.
22–31Greed enthroned over reason
The harvest maxim, lasting otherworldly home, greed on wisdom’s throne, dragon danger and preparation for judgment lead to the envoy’s departure.
Personified greed explains a moral mechanism. “Dragon” here is an image of consuming appetite, not a second literal apparition. The English keeps that register distinct from the father’s earlier embodied disguise.
32–41The warning to Iraj
The father reports the threat and warns that misplaced affection before a sword is perilous. The breakfast/supper image in G 11 figures acting first before being consumed by others. English 37 makes the pallor of G 7 explicitly death.
The meal image is tactical and proverbial, not an invitation to a literal feast. The dead face is an interpretive sharpening of faded color. A brother’s conditional loyalty is a bitter judgment spoken by a threatened father, not the epic’s universal definition of kinship.
42–51Mortality against possession
Iraj answers that the world passes like wind, treasure ends in grief, and a grave makes blood-fed vengeance pointless. He volunteers to go without an army.
The English maintains an argument of principle rather than simply timid reluctance to fight. Iraj sees that his offer cannot secure worldly possession; it is the renunciation of possession that gives the speech its weight.
52–60Changing the heart instead of taking revenge
Iraj plans to address his brothers affectionately, recalls Jamshid’s fall and prefers turning their hostile hearts to bringing vengeance. English 60 calls this the better “vengeance.”
That paradox means answering enmity by recovering kinship. It should not be cited as evidence that Iraj secretly intends retaliation. The expanded appeal makes the ethical alternative sustained and emotionally credible.
61–71Permission is not reassurance
The father praises the son’s brightness but compares the journey to entering a dragon’s mouth. He allows the decision, provides a few attendants and promises a letter.
“Without an army” is compatible with a modest traveling retinue. The English does not contradict itself here. The father’s permission remains anguished and conditional in feeling, not confidence that brotherhood will prevail.
New Naqqali