Turks have been influenced by the Šāh-nāma since the advent of the Saljuqs in Persia. Their last prince in Persia, Ṭoḡrel III, recited verses from the Šāh-nāma while swinging his mace in battle.




Turks have been influenced by the Šāh-nāma since the advent of the Saljuqs in Persia. Their last prince in Persia, Ṭoḡrel III, recited verses from the Šāh-nāma while swinging his mace in battle (Jovayni, II, p. 31). There is a great deal of evidence that this influence continued in a more powerful way in Anatolia in the 13th-14th centuries (Ebn Bibi, pp. 71-72, 126, 202; Riāḥi, tr. pp. 52, 55).

The oldest translation of the Šāh-nāma, rendered by an unknown author at the command of Sultan Morād II (r. 1421-51) in 1450-51, belongs to the period of the Ottoman Empire. Its second part is now kept in Istanbul, Vienna, Paris, and Ankara (Karatay, II, p. 58 no. 2154; Bağcı, p. 175 and 25; Flügel, I, p. 495-96, no. 505; Blochet, II, p. 220, no. 1279; Togan, p. 85, no. 44; Ankara Adnan Ötüken İl Halk Library, no. 06 Hk 3913). There is also a volume by an unknown translator in the library of the Topkapı Palace Museum (Hazine, no. 1116), which may be the first part of the translation done in the period of Morād II (Bağcı, p. 175 n. 25). It contains 320 folios and 6 miniatures, containing the part from the beginning of the Šāh-nāma to the war between Kay Ḵosrow and Afrāsiāb (Karatay, II, pp. 57-58, no. 2153; for other mss see. Blochet, II, p. 37, no. 702, pp. 93-94, no. 906-10; Flügel, I, p. 495).

The only known Turkish verse translation of the Šāh-nāma was made by Ḥosayn b. Ḥasan Šarif, known as Šarifi of Āmed (d. 1514), who later went to Egypt from Istanbul. He completed his translation at the command of Sultan Qānṣawh Ḡawri (r. 1501-16), the last Mamluk sultan, in Cairo in 1510, which took him ten years to accomplish. This translation has the characteristic features of the Anatolian Turkish language in the 15th century, and provides a significant textual Turkish document due to its richness of vocabulary and proverbs. An interpreted copy of this translation, prepared for Sultan Qānṣawh Ḡawri’s private library, consists of 56,506 couplets and is now kept in the library of Topkapı Palace Museum (Hazine, no. 1519/1-2; see. Karatay, II, pp. 58-59, no. 2155; for other mss of this tr. see. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Library, Hazine, no. 1520-22; Karatay, II, pp. 58-60, no. 2156-158; Fatih Millet Library, no. 1184; Süleymaniye Library, Damad İbrahim, no. 983 (M); Togan, p. 85, no. 46; British Museum, The Oriental India Office Collections, no. O/C Or. 7204, Or. 1126, see. Rieu, pp. 152-153; St. Petersburg, no. 380, see Simirnow, pp. 78-82; Uppsala University Library, no. 147, see Tornberg, pp. 92-93; New York Public Library, Spencer Collection, Turkish Ms. no. 1; see also Kütüral 1994; Beyreli 1994; Kütüral and Beyreli). The verse translation of Šarifi was later made into a more basic prose translation by an unknown author (Fatih Millet Library, Ali Emiri, Edebiyat, no. 269).

Another translation of the Šāh-nāma that has reached us in its complete form was made by Darviš Ḥasan (Mahdi or Madḥi) in the first half of the 17th century for Sultan ʿOṯmān II (r. 1618-22). Copies of this translation are kept in Paris, Gotha, Uppsala, and St. Petersburg (Blochet, I, pp. 314-15, no. 326; Pertsch, p. 207, no. 258; Simirnow, pp. 82-87; Tornberg, p. 93, no. 147; Abdullaeva, pp. 49-57). There also exists an incomplete translation of the Šāh-nāma in Eastern Turkic (Uzbek), held at the Bibliothīque Nationale in Paris (Supplément 1010; Blochet, II, p. 129).

Individual episodes in the Šāh-nāma were also translated into Turkish. A version of the story of Kay Ḵosrow and Goštāsb (Keyḵ-üsrev ve Guštāsba dāir ḥekāye) in old Anatolian Turkish, rendered by an unknown author, is kept at the library of Istanbul University in a manuscript copied by Moḥebb-al-Moḥarrami Yāzıjı in 1627 (no. TY 3287; see Bilgin, 2001).

Evliyā Çelebi (II, p. 186) reports that the Šāh-nāma used to be recited by the maddāḥs (professional storytellers and reciters of the Šāh-nāma) at coffeehouses in Bursa. In addition to Turkish translations that were originally done word for word directly from the Persian text, there were also other Turkish renderings that were done in a way that could be more easily understood in public meetings and at coffeehouses for the use of maddāḥs. An incomplete translation of three volumes (1,778 fols) for this type of meeting is kept at the library of Istanbul University (TY, no. 6131-6133; see. Gökyay, p. 48; Bağcı, p. 175, n. 39). The date and author of this translation, which also includes quotes from different texts besides the Šāh-nāma, are not known. The first eighty pages of this translation became the subject of three different master’s theses (Saadettin Şahin, 2000; Sema Demirel Şahin, 2001; Erhan Aktaş, 2005). This translation is especially significant as a source for the effect of the Šāh-nāma on Turkish folk literature.

The Bodleian Library in Oxford holds a 19th-century translation of the Šāh-nāma in Chaghatay Turkish by Šāh Hejrān Qalandar b. Ḵᵛāja Neẓām-al-Din at the order of Ḥażrat Ḵᵛāja Yaʿqub Ḵᵛājem (MS. Ind. Inst Turk. 2). It is done mainly in prose with some verses interspersed (Kut, pp. 159-60, no. 225).

In addition to the above-mentioned translations, there are others kept in various libraries, whose authors are not known (Chicago University Library, no. A 12082, see. Dānešpažuh, 1973, p. 9, no. 18; Cairo, no. 370, see. Ṭerāzi, I, p. 86; Monzawi, II, p. 993; Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Library: İsmail Saip Sencer, I, no. 3690; Muzaffer Özak, no. 1504, see. Anbarcıoğlu, p. 10; Süleymaniye Library, Hüsrev Paşa, no. 370; Millet Library, Ali Emiri, Edebiyat, no. 268-70; Gaziantep İl Halk Library, no. 27 Hk 3; Ankara Adnan Ötüken İl Halk Library, no. 06 Hk 2070). It, however, seems impossible now to determine which copy belongs to which translation, to make a connection between the copies of the Šāh-nāma kept in different libraries, or to come to definite conclusions concerning the Turkish translations until a collection of all of these manuscripts becomes available.

Lost translations of the Šāh-nāma: In addition to the translations that we possess, we have mentions in various records of Turkish translations that have apparently been lost. A Turkish translation of the Šāh-nāma is mentioned among the books kept in the catalogue dated 1503 in the private library of Sultan Bāyezid II (r. 1481-512), but there is no record of the translator’s name (Ketāb tarjama Šāh-nāma be’l-torkiya fi mojalladayn;see. Maróth, p. 123). Jalili ḤOāmedizāda (d. 1569) is reported to have attempted to translate the Šāh-nāma during the reign of Sultan Süleymān (Solaymān) I the Magnificent (r. 1520-66), but we do not have any definite information concerning it, and the entire story “is probably a myth” (ʿĀšeq Çelebi, fol. 66a; Gelibolulu Moṣṭafā ʿĀli, pp. 203-5; Kınalızāde, I, p. 258; Gibb, III, p. 159). An Ottoman poet, Ayyubi/Eyyubi, is also reported to have made a prose translation of the Šāh-nāma (Bursalı Meḥmed Ṭāhir, III, pp. 9-10). Šïbāni/Šaybāni Khan (r. 1494-510), the Uzbek ruler of Bukhara, wished to translate the Šāh-nāma into Chaghatay Turkish, but we do not have any information as to whether it was ever attempted (Köprülü, 1989, p. 163).

The Loḡat-e Šāh-nāma by ʿAbd-al-Qāder b. Bāyazid b. Aḥmad Baḡdādi (d. 1682) in 1659, and Moškelāt-e Šāh-nāma presented to Ebrāhim b. ḤOāfeẓ Żaʿefi, are among the leading works on the Šāh-nāma compiled in Ottoman territory (Öz, pp. 30-31).

Modern Turkish translations. Following the short translations by Muallim Cevdet in 1928 and Rıza Nur in 1934, Necati Lugal (d. 1964) embarked on a complete translation of the Šāh-nāma in six volumes, based on Johann A. Vuller’s version (Leiden, 1877-84). Only the first four volumes consisting of 20,000 couplets have so far been published (Istanbul, 1945-55). The short translation of Vasfi Bingöl in 1965 followed this work.


The effect of the Šāh-nāma on Turkish literature is not limited just to its translations. It also served as a model for a number of compositions. Bahāʾ-al-Din Aḥmad b. Maḥmud Qāneʿi Ṭusi composed a Šāh-nāma in Persian for Sultan ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Kayqobād I (r. 1219-37), the Saljuq sultan of Anatolia, which consisted of 300,000 couplets in 30 volumes, and Ḵᵛāja Dehhāni wrote a Šāh-nāma consisting of about 20,000 couplets in Persian, in the Ferdowsi style, about the Saljuq dynasty in the period of ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Kayqobād III (Köprülü, 1943, pp. 393-97). It is certain that this custom was continued by the Karamanids, evidenced by “the history of Karamanids” written by Yārjāni, who took the Šāh-nāma as his model in Persian at the command of ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Beg (Ṣekāri, pp. 8-9).

The prevalent influence of Persian language and literature in Anatolia ensured the continuation of this custom under the Ottoman sultans. During the period of Sultan Morād I (r. 1360-89), a poet at his court called Aḥmad read the Šāh-nāma to the sultan (ʿĀšeq Çelebi, fol. 19b). Moreover, Mawlānā ʿAli Çelebi Fenāri, who participated in the meetings of Sultan Meḥmed (Moḥammad) II (1451-81), would sometimes recite couplets from the Šāh-nāma of Ferdowsi to the sultan (Sehi Beg, p. 322). A record kept by Evliyā Çelebi demonstrates that this custom continued into the middle of the 17th century (Evliyā Çelebi, I, p. 317b).

The text called Ḡāzā-nāma-ye Rum, written in Persian verse by a poet called Kāšefi at the command of Abu’l-Fażl Aḥmad b. Wali-al-Din Pasha in the reign of Morād II (1421-51), is the oldest existing example of the style of the Šāh-nāma in Anatolia (on the manuscript see. Tauer, p. 94; Hāšempur Sobḥāni and Āqsu, pp. 601-2; Riāḥi, tr. p. 145). Šehdi turned the first known Ottoman Šāh-nāma into verse in Persian at the command of Meḥmed II by imitating the style of Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma (Sehi Beg, pp. 196-97; ḤOāji Ḵalifa, II, p. 288; Babinger, pp. 29-30). Unfortunately, the poet died after completing only 4,000 couplets of his work (ʿĀšeq Çelebi, fols. 253a-b; Gelibolulu Moṣṭafā ʿAli, pp. 138-39; Kınalızāde Ḥasan Çelebi, I, p. 528). In addition, Mir Sayyed ʿAli b. Możaffar Moʿāli Ṭusi wrote an Ottoman history called Ḥonkār-nāma in Persian in the reign of Sultan Meḥmed II. It was inspired by, and in the style of, Firdowsi’s Šāh-nāma (Anhegger, pp. 145-66; Balata, 1992).

Šāh-nāme-kᵛāni became an established type of civil service job in the period of Süleymān I the Magnificent (1520-66) in the Ottoman Empire. These Šāh-nāmas, inspired by the Šāh-nāma of Ferdowsi, and written to tell the deeds of the Ottoman sultans, were originally written in Persian verse by poets coming from Persia, or by Ottoman poets who had mastered Persian, but as time passed they also gradually began to be written in Ottoman Turkish. According to one document from the Ottoman archives dated 15 Muḥarram 1004/20 September 1595, there were two authors of the Šah-nāma (Šah-nāmaguy) in the Ottoman Empire during the latter part of the 16th century, the first of whom wrote in Persian and the other in Turkish (Afyoncu, p. 293, 301). This type of civil service worker, called Šāh-nāmaguy or Šah-nāma-ḵᵛān (later Šāh-nāmanevis, Šāh-nāmaji) continued until the beginning of the 17th century.

Among the best-known Ottoman Šah-nāma (Ottoman Turk. Šehnāme) authors are: Aḥmad Maḥrami (d. 1535); ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Ḡobāri (d. 1566), who composed an incomplete Šāh-nāma (Solaymān-nāma) in Persian verse; Fatḥ-Allāh ʿĀrefi (d. 1561-62), the author of Tawāriḵ--e/Šāh-nāma-ye Āl-e ʿOṯmān consisting of five volumes and about 60,000 couplets in verse; Eflāṭun b. Šervāni, who continued ʿĀrefi’s Honar-nāma; Sayyed Loqmān b. Ḥosayn ʿĀšuri Ḥosayni Ormavi (d. 1601), who was a well-known Šāh-nāme-ḵᵛān (Šehnāmeji) author in the Ottomon Empire and wrote five different Šāh-nāma works during the twenty-seven years of his official life; and Taʿliqizāda Meḥmed Ṣobḥi Çelebi (d. 1606), the author of two versified Šāh-nāmas and another one in prose. Ḥasan Ḥokmi was the last official Šāh-nāma-ḵᵛān in the Ottoman Empire. There were also authors who wrote Šāh-nāmas but were not officially employed as Šāh-nāma-ḵᵛān. These authors included Aṯiri/Etiri, who wrote his work in the period of Süleymān I the Magnificent; Šamsi Aḥmad Pasha, who wrote Šāh-nāma-ye Solṭān Morād in the reign of Morād III (1574-95); Netāri, author of a Šāh-nāma about the Egri war and the victory of Meḥmed III (1595-1603); Ḡanizāda Meḥmed Nāderi (d. 1627), who composed a Šāh-nāma at the command of ʿOṯmān II; and Ebrāhim Molḥemi (d. 1650). Šāh-nāma-ḵᵛāni lost its status in the middle of the 17th century after waqāyeʿ-nevisi became the official writing style of historical works in the Ottoman Empire. There are a few copies in existence today that were presented to the Ottoman sultans by the best artists of the period (Babinger, p. 180; Bağcı, p. 165).



Iraj Afšār, Ketāb-šenāsi-e Ferdowsi: Fehrest āṯār wa taḥqiqāt dar bāra-ye Ferdowsi wa Šāh-nāma, Tehran, 1974, pp. 176-78.

Edgar Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits Turcs de la Bibliothīque Nationale, 2 vols., Paris, 1932-33, I, pp. 314-1, no. 326; II p. 37 no. 702, pp. 93-94 nos. 906-10, p. 129 no. 1010, p. 220, no. 1279.

Kemal Çığ, “Türk İslâm Eserleri Müzesi’ndeki minyatürlü kitapların kataloğu,” Şarkiyat mecmuası 3, 1959, pp. 51-90.

Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh, “Nosḵ-ahā-ye fārsi o torki-e Dānešgāh-e Šikāgo [Chicago],” Nosḵ-ahā-ye Ḵaṭṭi 10, 1973, pp. 7-11.

Gustav Flügel, Die arabischen, persischen, türkischen Handschriften der kaiserlichen und königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien I, Vienna, 1865, pp. 495-96, no. 505.

Fehmi Edhem Karatay, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi Türkçe yazmalar kataloğu II, Istanbul, 1961, pp. 57-60, no. 2153-158.

Tawfiq Hāšempur Sobḥāni and Ḥosām-al-Din Āqsu (Hüsamettin Aksu), Fehrest-e nosḵ-ahā-ye ḵaṭṭi-e fārsi-e Dānešgāh-e Estānbul, Tehran, 1995, pp. 601-2.

Günay Kut, Supplementary Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library: With Reprint of the 1930 Catalogue by H. Ethé, Oxford, 2003, pp. 159-60, no. 225.

Naṣr-Allāh Mobaṣṣer Ṭerāzi, Fehrestal-maḵ-ṭuṭāt al-fārsiya I, Cairo, 1966, p. 86, no. 370.

Aḥmad Monzawi, Fehrestvāra-ye ketābhā-ye fārsi II, Tehran, 1996, p. 993.

Wilhelm Pertsch, Die orientalische Handschriften der herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha, Vienna, 1859; repr. Wiesbaden, 1971, p. 207, no. 258.

Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1888; repr. Osnabrück, 1978, pp. 152-53.

W. D. Simirnow, Manuscrits Turcs de l’institut des Langues Orientales, St. Petersburg, 1897; repr. Amsterdam, 1971, pp. 78-87, no. 380.

Felix Tauer, “Les manuscrits persans historiques des bibliothīques de Stamboul, IV: Histoire des états Turcs en Asie Mineure et de l’empire Ottoman,” Archiv Orientální 4, 1932, pp. 92-107.

Zeki Velidî Togan, “Kayseri ve Bursaδdaki bâzı yazmalar hakkında,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi [İÜEF] Tarih dergisi 1, 1949, pp. 67-88.

C. J. Tornberg, Codices Arabici, Persici et Turcici Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 1849; repr. Osnabrück, 1988, pp. 92-94, 323, no. CXLVII-CXLIX, DVIII.

Turkish translations (texts).

Erhan Aktaş, “XVII. Yūzyilda Yapilmiṣ Mensur Şehnâme tercümesi, (vr. 1202-1596),” M.A. thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü [MÜTAE], Istanbul, 2005.

Abdurrahman Bilgin, “Keyhusrev ve Guştâsb Hikâyesi,” M.A. thesis, MÜTAE, Istanbul, 2001.

Latif Beyreli, “Şerîfî Şehnâme tercümesi II/1: Giriş-metin II: Sözlük,” Ph.D. diss., MÜTAE, Istanbul, 1994.

Vasfi Bingöl, Şehnâme’den Hikâyeler, Istanbul, 1965.

Muallim Cevdet, Şark “İlyādā”sı: Şehnâme, Istanbul, 1928.

Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma, tr. Necati Lugal as Şehnâme, ed. Kenan Akyüz, 4 vols, Istanbul, 1945-55.

Zuhal Kütüral, “Şerîfî Şehnâme tercümesi I/1: Giriş-metin II: Sözlük,” Ph.D. diss., MÜTAE, Istanbul, 1994.

Zuhal Kütüral and Latif Beyreli, Şerîfî Şehnâme çevirisi, 4 vols, Ankara, 1999.

Rıza Nur, “Şeh-name, Turan-İran cenkleri,” Türk Bilik Revüsü/Revue de Turcoloqie I/4, 1934, pp. 1-276.

Sadettin Şahin, “Mensur Şehnâme tercümesi,”M.A. thesis, MÜTAE, Istanbul, 2000.

Sema Demirel Şahin, “Mensur Şehnâme tercümesi, 41a-80b,” M.A. thesis, MÜTAE, Istanbul, 2001.

Šāh-nāma-ḵᵛāni (texts).

Dündar Alikılıç, “Ganî-zâde Mehmed Nâdirî’nin Şehnâme-i Nâdirî’si,” M.A. thesis, MÜTAE, Istanbul, 1993.

Hatice Aynur, “Mahremî ve Şehnâmesi I. Kısım. Yavuz Sultan Selim dönemi: İnceleme-metin-sözlük-dizin” I-II, Ph. D. diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü [İÜSBE], Istanbul, 1993.

Refet Yalçın Balata,“Hunkâr-nâma (Tevârîh-i Âl-i ʿOsmân), Mîr Seyyid ʿAlî b. Muzaffer-i Maʿâlî,” Ph.D. diss., İÜEF Fars Dili ve Edebiyatı, Istanbul, 1992.

Vahid Çubuk, “Talikî-zâde Mehmed Subhî Efendi’nin Eğri Seferi Şehnâmesi,” Ph.D. diss., İÜSBE, Istanbul, 1986.

Davut Ebrahimî, “Arifî Fethullah Çelebi ve Fütûhât-ı Cemile’sinin tenkitli metni,” M.A. thesis, İÜSBE, Istanbul, 1991.

Hādi Enāl [Hadi İnal], “Šāh-nāma-ye Salim Ḵān ʿOtmāni, taʾlif-e Loqmān b. Ḥosayn ʿĀšuri al-Ormavi,” Ph.D. diss., Tehran University, Tehran, 1982.

Numan Külekçi, “Ganî-zâde Nâdirî: hayatı, edebî kişiliği, eserleri, divanı ve Şeh-nâmesi’nin tenkitli metni,” Ph.D. diss., Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum, 1985.

Saadet Şanlı, “Şehnâmeci Talikî-zâde’ye göre Osmanlı padişahlarının şairlikleri. Talikî-zâde Şehnâmesi (V. Hassa)’nin edisyon kritiği,” Ph.D. diss., İÜSBE, Istanbul, 1989.

Ahmad Pasha Šamsi (Šemsi), Şeh-nāme-i Sulṭān Murād, ed. Günay Kut and Nimet Bayraktar, Cambridge, Mass., 2003.

Moḥammad (Meḥmed) Taʿliqizāda, Šāh-nāma-ye homāyun, ed. Christine Woodhead as Taʿliḳī-zāde’s Şehnāme-i hümāyūn: A History of the Ottoman Campaign into Hungary 1593-94, Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 82, Berlin, 1983.

Primary sources.

Pir-Moḥammad ʿĀšeq Čelebi, Mašāʿer al-šoʿarāʾ,fac. ed. G. M. Meredith-Owens as Meşāʿir uş-şuʿarā, London, 1971, pp. 19b, 66a, 253a-b, 165a, 286b-87a.

Ebn Bibi, al-Awāmer al-ʿalāʾiya fi’l-omur al-ʿalāʾiya, facs. ed. Adnan Sadık Erzi, Ankara, 1956, pp. 71-72, 126, 202.

Evliyā Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 304 yazmasının transkripsiyonu-dizini I, ed. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, Istanbul, 1996, p. 317b; II, ed. Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman, and Yücel Dağlı, Istanbul, 1999, p. 18b.

Gelibolulu Moṣṭafā ʿĀli, Künhü’l-ahbâr’ın Tezkire kısmı, ed. Mustafa İsen, Ankara, 1994, pp. 138-39, 160-61, 203-5, 238-40.

ḤOāji Ḵalifa, Kašf al-ẓonun ʿan asāmi’l-kotob wa’l-fonun II, ed. Gustav Flügel, Leipzig, 1838, p. 288.

ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā Malek Jovayni, Tāriḵ--e jehāngošā, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, 3 vols., London, 1912-37, II, p. 31.

Kınālızāde (Qenālizāda) Ḥasan Çelebi, Taḏkerat al-šoʿarāʾ, ed. İbrahim Kutluk as Tezkiretü’ş-şuʿarā, 2 vols., Ankara, 1978-81, I, pp. 258, 528.

Šekāri, Karaman Oğulları tarihi, ed. M. Mesud Koman, Konya, 1946, pp. 8-9.

Sehi Beg, Hašt behešt, facs. ed. Günay Kut as Heşt bihişt: The Tezkere of Sehī Beg, Cambridge, Mass., 1978, pp. 196-97, 322.


Firuza I. Abdullaeva, “A Turkish Prose Version of Firdawsi’s Shāh-nāma in the Manuscripts Collection of the St. Petersburg State University Library,” Manuscripta Orientalia: International Journal for Oriental Manuscript Research III/2, 1997, pp. 49-57.

Erhan Afyoncu, “Talîkîzâde Mehmed Subhî’nin hayatı hakkında notlar,” Osmanlı araştırmaları XXI, 2001, pp. 285-306.

Hüsamettin Aksu, “Sultan III. Murad şehinşahnâmesi,” İÜEF Sanat tarihi yıllığı 9-10, 1981, pp. 1-22.

Ali Alparslan, “Gubârî Abdurrahmân,” in Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi [DVİA] XIV, pp. 167-69.

Meliha Anbarcıoğlu, “Šāh-nāma-ye Ferdowsi-e Ṭusi wa adabiyāt-e Tork,” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Doğu dilleri 2/4, 1981, pp. 1-10.

R. Anhegger, “Muʿâlî’nin Hunkâr-nâmesi,” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 1/1, 1949, pp. 145-66.

Necīb ʿĀṣım, “Otmānlı tāriḵ--nüvīsleri ve müverriḵ-leri: šehnāmeciler,” Tārīḵ--i`Otmānī encümeni mejmūžası 1, 1911, pp. 425-35, 498-99.

Nurhan Atasoy, “1510 Tarihli Memlük Şehnâmesinin minyatürleri,” İÜEF Sanat tarihi yıllığı 2, 1968, pp. 151-58.

Esin Atıl, “Ahmed Nakşî: An Eclectic Painter of the Early 17th Century,” in Géza Fehér, ed., Fift International Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 1978, pp. 103-21.

Idem, Süleymanname: The Illustrated History of Süleyman the Magnificent, Washington, D.C., and New York, 1986, pp. 55-77.

Hüseyin Ayan, “Hâmidî-zâde Celîlî (1487 M./893H-1569M./977H.),” Türk kültürü araştırmaları 17-21/1-2, 1983, pp. 15-45.

Franz Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke,tr. Coşkun Üçok as Osmanlı tarih yazarları ve eserleri, Ankara, 1992, pp. 35-36, 72, 132, 165, 180-87, 285-86.

Serpil Bağcı, “From Translated Word to Translated Image: The Illustrated Şehnâme-i Türkî Copies,” Muqarnas 27, 2000, pp. 162-76.

Meḥmed Ṭāhir Bursalı, ʿOtmānlı mü’ellifleri, 3 vols, Istanbul, 1133-42/1914-23, II, pp. 256-57; III, pp. 9-10.

Nimet Bayraktar, “Şemsî Ahmed Paşa: hayatı ve eserleri,” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 33, 1982, pp. 99-114.

Filiz Çağman, “Şehnâme-i Selim Han ve minyatürleri,” İÜEF Sanat tarihi yıllığı 5, 1973, pp. 411-41.

M. Uğur Derman, “Derviş Abdî-i Mevlevî,”in DVİA IX, pp. 190-91.

Barbara Flemming, “Šerīf, Sultan Gawrī und die žPerser’,” Der Islam 45/1-2, 1969, pp. 81-93.

E. J. W. Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, ed. Edward G. Browne, 6 vols., London, 1902, repr. London, 1958-67, II, pp. 390-93.

Orhan Şaik Gökyay, “Şehname ve Türkçe tercümeleri,” Yücel 1/4, 1950, pp. 61-63; repr. in Destursuz bağa girenler, Istanbul, 1982, pp. 45-49.

Clement Huart, Henri Massé, and V. L. Ménage, “Firdawsī,” in EI2 II, pp. 918-21.

Güner İnal, İstanbul Topkapı Sarayı Müzesindeki Şehnâme yazmalarının minyatürleri üzerinde analitik çalışma, Ass. Prof. Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, 1972.

Mehmet Kanar, “Firdevsî,” in DVİA XIII, pp. 125-27.

Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, “Meddâhlar: Türkler’de halk hikâyeciliğine âid bazı mâddeler,” Türkiyât mecmuası 1, 1925, pp. 1-45.

Idem, “Anadolu Selçukluları tarihinin yerli kaynakları,” Belleten 7/27, 1943, pp. 379-521.

Idem, Türk edebiyatı tarihi, Istanbul, 1980, pp. 271, 336-37, 374, 393, 398.

Idem, Edebiyat araştırmaları, Ankara, 1986, pp. 87, 187, 230, 395-98; II, Istanbul, 1989, p. 163.

Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Şehnâmeci Lokman,” in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na armağan, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 39-48.

Miklós Maróth, “The Library of Sultan Bayazit II,” in Éva M. Jeremiás, ed., Irano-Turkic Cultural Contacts in the 11th-17th Centuries, Piliscsaba, [2002] 2003, pp. 111-32.

Elhāma Meftāḥ and Wahhāb Wali, Negāh-i ba ravand-e nofuḏ wa gostareš-e zabān wa adab-e fārsi dar Torkiya, Tehran, 1995, pp. 134-37, 344-51.

Yusuf Öz, “Şeh-nâme tercümeleri ve sözlükleri,” Name-i aşina 4/3, 2002, pp. 25-38.

İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, “Abdurahman Gubarî’nin hayatı ve eserleri,” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 2, 1947, pp. 347-56.

Idem, “Yeni bir Şehnâme,” Belleten 46, no. 182, 1982, pp. 319-22.

Reżā Ḵosrovšāhi, Šiʿr wa adab-e fārsi dar Āsiā-ye Ṣaḡir tā sada-ye dahom-e hejri, Tehran, 1971, pp. 144, 152, 156, 160.

Aḥmed Refīk, “Bizde Şehnāmecilik, Seyyid Lokmān ve halefleri,” Yeni mejmuʿa 9, Istanbul, 1917, pp. 169-72.

Moḥammad-Amin Riāḥi, Zabān wa adab-e fārsi dar qalamrow-e ʿOtmāni, Tehran, 1990; Turk. tr. Mehmet Kanar as Osmanlı topraklarında fars dili ve edebiyatı, Istanbul, 1995, pp. 54-55, 152-57.

Hellmut Ritter, “Firdevsî,” in İA IV, pp. 643-49.

Ḏabiḥ-Allāh Ṣafā, Ḥamāsa-sarāʾi dar Irān, Tehran, 1995, pp. 225, 368-69.

Hanna Sohrweide, “Dicter und Gelehrte aus dem Osten im osmanischen Reich (1453-1600): Ein Beitrag zur türkisch-persischen Kulturgeschichte,” Der Islam 46/3, 1970, pp. 263-302.

Idem, “Luḳmān b. Sayyid ḤOusayn”, in EI2 V, pp. 813-14.

Christine Woodhead, “An Experiment in Official Historiography: The Post of Şehnāmeci in Ottoman Empire, c. 1555-1605,” WZKM 75, 1983, pp. 157-82.

Idem, “İbrâhim Mülhemî,” in DVİA 21, pp. 323-24.

Taḥsin Yāziji [Tahsin Yazıcı], Pārsinevisān-e Āsiā-ye Ṣaḡir, Tehran, 1992.

Idem, “Arifî Fethullah Çelebi,” in DVİA III, pp. 371-73.

Ananiasz Zajaczkowski, Turecka wersja Šāhnāme z Egiptu Mameluckiego, Warsaw, 1965.

Idem, “Şehnâme’de atasözleri,” in XI. Türk Dil Kurultayında okunan bilimsel bildiriler 1966, Ankara, 1968, pp. 1-8.

Idem, “Mısır Memluk Devleti Şehnâmesinin Türkçe en eski şiir çevirisi (XV-XVI. yüzyıl),” tr. Necdet Bingöl, in Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-Belleten, 1966, Ankara, 1967, pp. 65-76.

Ānāniyās Zāyāčkufski [Ananiasz Zajaczkowski], “Qadimitarin tarjama-ye Šāh-nāma ba-zabān-e Torki dar ʿaṣr-e mamālik (qarn-e 15 o 16),” tr. Māh-Monir Nafisi, MDAT 15/4, 1968, pp. 357-65.

(Osman G. Özgüdenli)

Originally Published: November 15, 2006

Last Updated: November 15, 2006