Abstract In its course of evolution, the Sassanian rule accepted a change in temporal exigencies, condition and manner of governance of each ruler where more attention was paid to the institutional establishment, grades/ranking, titles, symbols and administrative hierarchy. In a way, the organizational manner, to a larger extent, could engulf the period into a curtain of ambiguity. One of those ranks was Vuzorg Farmzar that apart from having equivalents in different periods of time, with respect to its real application, encountered with sectional and temporal confusion as well. As such, an increase or decrease in jurisdiction of the above rank was influenced more by policies of each emperor. According to this fact, the issues which are to be dealt with in this article are: Which title was synonymous to the word “grand vizier” or “Vuzorg Farmzar” in the early Sassanid era? In which era of Sassanid dominion, the title “Vuzorg Farmzar” was addressed as “Hazarpat”? How was the factional evolution of the position of “Hazarpat”? This research is concerning to show that the word “Bidakhsh”, is a title thatin the early Sassanid era was employed to endow titles of person such as “grand vizier” or “Vuzorg Farmzar” and after some time it was completely forgotten. The word “Hazarpat” was one of the other titles which was equivalent to “Vuzorg Farmzar” in the middle Sassanid era and we can distinguish three Functional phases for it: It was a militaristic position in the early Sassanid era, a militaristic- civil jurisdictive position in the middle era and a militaristic position once again at the end at of Sassanid era. Taking into account historical sources and epigraphic records, the current research tries to find out the basis and essence of “Vuzorg Farmzar” and titles synonymous to it as well as their actual or the honorary functions during the era In order to clarify, the extent of governance and administration establishment, on the top of which was the “grand vizier” (Vuzorg Farmzar). To achieve this goal, the connections of the titles such as “Bidakhsh”,“Hazarpat”, “Vuzorg Farmzar” and “Sepahbad” are questioned, by determining the existence, primacy and recency of these titles in epigraphic records and also in the historical sources in which the functional jurisdiction of these titles mentioned,the accuracy or inaccuracy of these hypothesis would be distinguished.
