manner of things beneficial and good are ascribed to this king.

[Sidenote: Nature of the Khoday Nameh.]

The book of kings contains, as we said, the story of Persia from the
creation of the world to the fall of the last purely national
domination. It made no distinction between wholly mythical,
semi-fabulous, and fully historical dynasts, so that the Arabs and
Persians who drew upon it never suspected that e.g., Hoshang and Rustam
are not such historical persons as Shahpur I and Bahram Chobin. But in
the material itself we notice a conspicuous difference. The mythical
tales which in their crude nascent forms were already there at the
period of the Avesta were in course of time richly developed and under
the Sasanides were no doubt universally known. To these were joined
ecclesiastical speculation and traditions concerning the genesis of the
world, civilisation and the legislation of Zoroaster. There were also
several genealogical trees. In all these at the most a few proper names
were historical. Of the empires of the Medes and of Persians proper this
tradition had no knowledge. It is doubtful if it contained even quite a
feeble reflex of the last days of the Achaeminides. On to this ancient
autochthonous tradition was immediately joined the story of the last
Darius and Alexander emanating from a foreign source, the Greek romance
of Alexander. Not more than a few names was all that was preserved of
the long period covering the Macedonian and the Parthian supremacy. With
the Sasanides the national reminiscences became clearer. Round the
founder of the dynasty were accreted, on the one hand, legends wholly
fabulous and on the other, such as embodied excellent historical data.
But the latter seem to be inadequately represented in the main work, the
Khodayname. Again very few particulars were known of the reigns of the
succeeding sovereigns down to Yezdegerd I. In the chapters which
correspond to those of the old Book of Kings just this want of actual
information, it seems, the compilers strove to veil behind rhetorical
accounts of scenes of homage done to the rulers, imperial speeches from
the throne, etc. For the following ages on there was, in general, good,
partly very authentic information. But this entire presentment did not
concern itself solely with veracity. The Iranians who from very remote
antiquity extravagantly lauded truth, had in reality never any great
sense of it. The _Khoday Nameh_ and kindred productio