signifying "possessed of knowledge." It was easy for anyone who knew
from Firdausi that the landed nobility called the Dihkan constituted the
peculiar custodians of national lore to name a "learned Dihkan" as the
collector of the stones of kings.

The compilation prepared at the time had undoubtedly drawn upon written
documents without which It would have been impossible to give minute
particulars of a long by-gone past. Besides the brief notices
communicated by the Syrian Sergius to Agathias from the _Basilika
apomnemoneiumata_ are in the main in unison with our Arabo-Persian
stories. Thus then in Khushro's time there existed a general survey of
the history of Persia more or less in an official version. But otherwise
there is no need to lay stress on the mention of Khushrau here, for all
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