---

In the early human thought, the objects or person's names were consistent with his essence, because primitive man thought that the relationship between the name and object or person is not conventional, and the forces of evil can harm him through his name. This vision is not spatially bounded, and there is in all societies and to all of them has been imposed special rules as taboo naming. In Iranian folklore and Shahnameh, we can easily see the following statements: Sometimes the name is same person's essence. This kind of taboo is seen when Rostam speaks about Siavash murderers by Human. Another example of taboo is the choice of two names to escape the magic injury. We can see this kind of taboo in the southern coast of Iran and among Turkmens. In Shahnameh we can see this factor in the story of Ghobad and Shide. The third example of taboo naming is to not say the name in the battlefield. This can be seen in the following two ways in the Shahnameh: 1- to repudiate the name explicitly. 2- to avoid saying the name. The latest example of taboo naming is replacing or renaming, that were used for deceiving spirits and escape from their damage.

---

Pierre Bourdieu pioneered a new theory for analysis of texts in sociology of literature. According to his theory, everyone in his lifetime engages in economical, political, cultural and literal fields, and those movements happen in these fields-conscious or unconscious– will influences on his personality. Based on Bourdieu's theory however a literary work is affected by the various fields but when that most connected with the literary field will have a literary value and because the form is the most inner issue in the literary field, any work has more contact with form and less contact with other fields has more value. Kasraei′s Arash kamangir is the first and the most popular reproduction of this myth in literary field of Iran. Analysis of this poem in Bourdieu's approach shows that because we can see the traces of the poetʹs goals in this poem, and the poem in many parts slides up on to the other fields, its literary value is reduced. In some sections of poetry we can see words like “People” and “mass” and themes like “praise of work” and “life” that beside of the Metaphysically and nationalistically elements shows the effective of Marxism field in this work.

---

The book of Samnameh is one of the texts that its attribution to Khaju-Kermani and has been discussed since its composition. Recently, some researchers have come to the conclusion that Samnameh was written by Khaju ShahnamehKhan, and the reason for the difference in the number of verses and even the existence of short and long narrations is the shortening and lengthening of the story by the narrator. However, the current research, seeks to find another answer to the question of why the Samnameh manuscripts are fundamentally different from each other in terms of the number of verses and the type of narration. This research aims to compare the short and long narratives of Samnameh with the help of the elements of the Naqqali tradition and the opinion of prominent researchers in this field, and the result shows that the differences between different manuscripts of Samnameh are due to different texts that were written by different scroll writers over time, and not different versions of the same narration. According to this research, only one short narration, which is one of the shortest narrations of Samnameh, was written by Khaju Shahnamehkhan Karati.
 

---

The Shahnameh of Khamoushi is one of the translations of the Shahnameh into Uzbek- Turkish language, which was done by Mullah Khamoush or Khamoushi in 1164, and its narration is different from the narration of other Turkish scrolls. In this study, the authors intend to compare the Shahnameh of Khamoushi with the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi and show whether it is a translation of the Shahnameh as it is known or not. then specify what structure and type of translation features this work. The result of the research shows that, contrary to the researchers' beliefs, this work is not a translation of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, and its stories narratives are different from the Shahnameh in terms of short and long narratives, the names of the heroes and the type of events, etc. And even the narration of the satire is not in harmony with the previous narrations and it is considered a new narration. also for having some features like mentioning various stereotyped propositions in Persian, frequent use of Quranic verses and hadiths, References to Semitic prophets and sources, Use of Persian verses other than Shahnameh verses and etc, It seems that this work is a translation of one of the Shahnameh  scrolls, which the translator used the free translation method, and in some parts of the stories, Quranic verses and hadiths or his own or others verses have been added to the text.