of the well, and then untwisting its tail from my
yasht hymn (“Songs of Praise”) collection of the
body went away 26
surviving Avestan texts, the earliest scriptures of
the ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, lists
Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār’s (b c 513/1119) hagiography
not only various types of legendary or mythical
Tadhkirat al-awliyāʾ (“Memoirs of Saints”) con-
“first man” or “first king,” but also dragon men
tains another image of a benign serpent, described
and killers of dragons, transmitted mainly from
as fanning the mystical lovers from time to time
the Indo-Iranian period 31 The later Zoroastrian
“with a branch of narcissus held in its mouth ”27
scriptures of the Vidēvdāt (Vendidād), perhaps
In Abū Ṭāhir Ṭarsūsī’s twelfth-century compila-
influenced by the customs of the Median priests,
tion of prose narratives, Dārāb-nāma (an Iranian
the Magi,32 contained a radically reconfigured
recension of the Alexander Romance), the hero,
view of the universe The “law against the daevas”
Dārāb (Darius), is confronted with a sympathetic
divided “creation into two mutually antagonistic
dragon which helps him to find his abducted
halves—the creatures of the Holy Spirit on the
mother, queen Humāy 28 The story of Ardashīr in
one hand and the creatures of the Destructive
the same epic begins with the tale of the origin of
Spirit on the other ”33 According to this under-
a dragon that evolved out of a worm in an apple,
standing serpents or dragons (Av azhi-, Pahl
perhaps representing a romanticised account of
azh-) were identified as creatures of the “hos-
the introduction of sericulture into Iran,29 when
the sight of silkworms transforming into spinning
tile spirit” Ahriman They were defined as evil,
cocoons must not have been uncommon Among
noxious, harmful to man and his animals and
the collection of fables entitled Marzubān-nāma
crops (Av khrafstra)34 and thus deserving of
(“Tales of Marzubān”) recorded by Saʿd al-Dīn
death 35
Warāwīnī in 607–22/1210–25, who presented his
This inherent ambiguity is exemplified in the
col ection to Abu ’l-Qāsim Rabīb al-Dīn, the vizier
demon Azhi Dahāka/Azhdahāk found in the
to the Ildeñizid/Eldigüzid atābeg of Azerbaijan
Avestan texts, the notorious dragon who tried to
(Ādharbyjān), Özbek ibn Muḥammad, there are
seize the khvarәnah- (Mid Pers khwarrah “glory,
five stories about serpents One of these accounts
God-given fortune, splendour”) of Iran’s Aryan
deals with a pious, generous serpent who has the
rulers of traditional history, attempting, in other
power to interpret dreams and who saves a weaver
words, to make himself ruler of the Aryans 36 After
from punishment by helping him to remind the
several great battles, he was overcome by the
king of his forgotten dreams It selflessly con-
dragon-fighter Thraētaona/Frēdōn (the Avestic
tinues to help the weaver even though the latter
counterpart of the Vedic dragon-slayer Indra)
deceives the serpent on two occasions 30 The sto-
Hence from an early time, variants of this epic
ries thus portray the serpent-dragon’s compas-
seem to have attributed to usurpers some traits
sion as a sign of innate benevolence, high merit
that seem to have been borrowed from the dragon-
or kindness, exemplifying human virtues
man 37 Long familiar as a monstrous tyrant,38 he
On the other hand, the awesome and terrifying
becomes in New Persian or Arabic narratives the
nature of the serpent-dragon forced humans into
Babylonian tyrant Ẓaḥḥāk (al-Ḍaḥḥāk)/Dahāk,
a subordinate, defensive role, thus for instance the
who belonged to the Pīshdādian, the early mythi-
by Abu ’l-Faraj (XXII, 85–6) as a “manifest fabrication ”
one hand—and the creatures of the Destructive Spirit on the
Cited after Kilpatrick, 2003, p 117
other Thus they can be regarded as the true authors of that
26 Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kubrā, tr Jayakar, 1906, vol 1,
rigid dualism that was to characterize the Zoroastrianism
p 58
of a later period, but which is only implicit in the Gāthās
27 Ed Nicholson, R A , Tehran, 1370/1991, pp 46, 184, as
[“songs”] of Zoroaster ”
33
cited in Gohrab, 2000, p 86 Cf al-Hujwīrī, Kashf al-Maḥjūb,
Zaehner, 1961, p 162
34
p 118; Gohrab, 2003, p 81
Boyce, 1975, repr 1996, pp 90–1 The special stick
28 Gohrab, 2000, p 85
used by the Zoroastrians to kill noxious creatures of vari-
29 yamamoto, 2003, p 75
ous kinds is called a mār-gan (“snake-killer”); Russell, 1987,
30 Tr Levy, pp 222–7
p 461 The custom of killing of khrafstra s is also mentioned
31 Christensen, 1931, tr 1993, p 23
by Plutarch ( De Iside et Osiride 46; De Invidia et Odio 3 537B;
32 According to Zaehner (1961, p 162): “ the extraor-
Questiones Conviviales 4 5 2 670D)
35
dinary zest with which the Magi are alleged to have killed
Vidēvdāt 14 5; 18 73
36
‘with their own hands’ flying and creeping things, can
Cf Christensen, 1931, tr 1993, p 26; Gershevitch,
scarcely be accounted for except on the supposition that
1959, p 59; Zaehner, 1961, pp 150–3; Sarkhosh Curtis and
they thought such creatures to be the handiwork of an
Stewart, eds , 2005, pp 102–3
37
evil power It is they, then, who would be responsible for
Christensen, 1931, tr 1993, p 27
38
the cut-and-dried division of creation into two mutually
yasht 5 29–30; 15 19
antagonistic halves—the creatures of the Holy Spirit on the
8