Ferdowsi?s Sh?hn?ma ascribes the downfall of Jamshid to hubris, a moral failing that causes the loss of his royal Farr and ushers in the tyrannical reign of Zahh?k, himself duped by Eblis into the act of patricide, which moral depravity manifests itself upon his person in serpentine deformity. The Pishd?di?n kings therefore inhabit a morally charged universe, governed by a teleological or theodictic metanarrative that draws a correspondence (though never complete) between virtue and victory. Although this moral fabric is torn by unrighteous action, evil deeds are typically avenged in the subsequent generation and the moral order, with the Iranian king at the center, restored. Several major episodes of the Kayanid era, however ? such as those of Sohr?b, Si?vosh, Esfandi?r ? lack a coherent metanarrative that could offer consolation or give purposeful meaning to suffering and injustice. Instead, the impersonal and relentless workings of fate seem to amorally propel characters inexorably toward their peculiar destinies (often foretold by astrological prognostication). While hamartia is perceptible in the lead characters, moral judgment often seems muted. While the text upholds virtue, it is deontological; the actors, while not denied agency, seem unable to affect outcomes. Concerted moral action does not influence the ultimate outcome of history, and Time/Fate relentlessly grinds down both the virtuous and the villain. And yet, Ferdowsi?s narratorial interventions frequently assign moral culpability at various junctures, seeming to implicate one character, then another, in the unfolding events and their consequences. For example, Ferdowsi opens the tale of Rostam and Sohr?b asking whether Fate is just or unjust, suggesting that we cannot know the answer. But in the course of the tale, he points blame at Sohr?b, at Afr?si?b, at Rostam, at Hojir, at Sohrab & Rostam together, at Kay Kavus, and finally at Rostam. Is this then a postmodern text, deliberately denying us a metanarrative? Does Ferdowsi deliberately intend to spread the blame, or deny that human agency can influence the outcome of events? Do his sources contradict one another, encouraging his narratological voice to offer conflicting explanations? Or is Ferdowsi simply not in complete control of the material, or his emotions? This paper will consider how previous critics (Meskoub, Sirjani, Davis, Davidson, von Grunebaum, Omidsalar) have tried to resolve such questions, and propose a hermeneutic for reading the text.