ISSN 0364-6505 print; ISSN 1477-2841 online/02/020177-18 © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0364650032000143238 Edebiy ˆ at, 2003, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177–198 Illustrated Persian Lithographic Editions of the Sh ˆ ahn ˆ ame 1 Ulrich Marzolph G¨ ottingen Considering the Shˆ ahnˆ ame’s importance as a monument of Persian literature as well as a work constitutive of Iranian national identity, the quality of bibliographical information available about the Shˆ ahnˆ ame’s printed editions is highly unsatisfactory. Research until quite recently has dealt predominantly with the work’s manuscript copies. Its goal has been either to establish a faithful and reliable text as close as possible to the author’s presumed original version or to praise the artistic merits of refined illumination. While the existence of printed editions was acknowledged as a convenient means of making the text available, the critical editions prepared by Western orientalist scholars were preferred over the indigenous production: the numerous Indian and Persian editions of the Shˆ ahnˆ ame have so far not been regarded as deserving attention in their own right. Even though Iranian scholars such as the indefatigable Iraj Afsh ˆ ar dedicated some effort to collecting the available information on printed editions, 2 still today neither the total number of different editions of the Shˆ ahnˆ ame ever published nor the exact nature of the known editions has been thoroughly explored. As recently as 1996, the Persian ethnographer Jav ˆ ad Safinezh ˆ ad, in an article devoted to a comparison of two early editions, lamented the lack of reliable information about the early history of printing in Iran. 3 As if to demonstrate this point, shortly afterwards a European sales catalogue considered the edition published in Bombay 1272/1855 to be the “fifth lithographed edition of the famous Persian epic” 4 (while reckoning the previous editions as Calcutta 1208, Paris 1217, Bombay 1849 and Teheran 1265–1267). Even though the quoted statement erroneously takes into account the Shˆ ahnˆ ame’s first two editions printed in movable type, ironically its evaluation may eventually prove to be correct (reckoning the lithographed editions Bombay 1262/1846, Bombay 1266/1849, Teheran 1265–67/1851–53 and an unidentified edition Bombay 1270/1853). Yet mistakes such as the one quoted show that a thorough bibliographical survey of the Shˆ ahnˆ ame’s printed editions is long overdue. Such a survey should take into account the available bibliographical data from various sources. Unfortunately, a number of the Shˆ ahnˆ ame’s Indian editions, particularly the later ones, are not listed in the available catalogues of major collections such as those in Istanbul, 5 London, 6 St Petersburg 7 or Islamabad. 8 At any rate, even the most extensive bibliographical documentation cannot replace an in situ examination necessary to determine to which degree, if any, the relevant lithographed copy diverges from other known copies of the same edition. In this respect, it