International Society for Iranian Studies

In the Dragon's Claws: The Story of Rostam and Esfandiyar from the Persian Book of Kings by Jerome W. Clinton Review by: Faridoun Farrokh Iranian Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 2000), pp. 445-449 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of International Society for Iranian Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4311392 . Accessed: 24/09/2012 04:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Society for Iranian Studies and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iranian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Reviews445

appear, in the case of Ivanow, a dyspeptic, peevish and superficial paranoiac and, in the case of Corbin, a simultaneouslydiplomaticand remote, bibliophilic philosopher, to whose wife falls, one assumes, the Christian duty of dealing from time to time with the avid correspondent.(Yet there are no letters from Mme. Corbinto Ivanow reproducedhere.) Jambetpoints out that the readerwill discover in this correspondencea debate that expresses a dilemma in religious studies. This is the question of how to read the primarysources-as history or phenomenology? Au fond, entre Henry Corbinet WladimirIvanow, le debat est la: les oeuvres sont-elles avant tout les elements d'une genealogie de l'experience religieuses et morale ou les temoins de representations ideologiques?(p. 9) Oureditor,to whom much thanksis owed for her diligence, taste, and acucan be a valid quesmen, would seem to ask us if in the end such an "either/or" tion. ToddLawson McGill University

In the Dragon's Claws: The Story of Rostam and Esfandiyarfrom the Persian Book of Kings, translationand introductionby JeromeW. Clinton, Washington, D.C.: Mage Publishers,1999, ISBN: 0-934211-56-6, paper, 114 pp., $17.95. Arguably,the Shahnamehis the best-loved and most influentialtext in the continuum of Persian literaryhistory. For the thousandyears since its composition, this verse epic, based partiallyon history but mostly on myth, has been the bulwark of Iraniannational identity and a link between Iraniansas a people with their ancient, pre-Islamicpast. Also, because of its wide currencyand popularity among the speakersof Persianthroughoutthe centuries, in both oral and written traditions,the Shahnamehis widely regardedas a vital factor in stabilizing the Persian language in its presentform. A majorportionof its vocabularyand syntax is readily accessible to contemporaryspeakersof the language and many of its verses, phrases, and tales have entered the language in common usage as proverbs, adages, and parables. Its author, Abu'l-Qasim Firdawsi, is popularly regardedas a nationalhero and an embodimentof wisdom, courage,and virtue. Historically, the Shahnameh has received relatively scant attention and patronage, in spite of its importance as a world-class literary monument. It is with no doctrinalgrounding understandable that a work such as the Shaihnameh, other than propagatinga non-sectarian value system by glorifying the mythology of a pagan (that is, pre-Islamic) heritage, was not likely to receive the support

446 Reviews and patronageof the strictlysectariancourts that ruled the peoples of the Iranian plateau until the early decades of the twentieth century. Very few kings, palatines, and noblemen in the past thousand years were prone to sponsor new manuscripteditions or treasureexisting ones in their libraries.Those who did, owes its are notable exceptions. It is fair to say, therefore,that the Shazhnameh survival as a work of art to its audiences among the masses with whom it forged bond since its advent as a landmarkin the literan emotional and transcendental ature of Persian language. Consequently,there is a paucity of reliable texts and formal studies of this work. What exists by way of researchand analysis is fairly recent and the result of the labor of only a handfulof scholars, Iranianand foreign, who have attemptedto place the Shahnameh and its authorin the proper perspective. That is why Professor Jerome Clinton is quite apropos in asserting that "[n]o elaboratejustification seems necessary for undertakinga new translation from a classic work; particularlywhen, like the ShAhnimeh,it has been neglected for so long" (139). Following this statement, in the afterword to In the Dragon's Claws, his translationof Rustamand Isfandiyar,one of the majorepisodes of the Persian epic, he gives, by way of furtherrationale,a succinct hisAmong tory of the ShAhnmeh in the hands of western scholars and translators. this groupClintonhas alreadycarveda niche for himself. In the Dragon's Claws is his second attemptat introducingthe immortalwork of Firdawsi to the general readership in English, his first being the translation of the Suhrab and Rustam sequence, a better-knownand more poignantchapterof the ShahnaJmeh, which appearedin 1987. The action of the Rustam and Isfandiyar episode is set in the context of dynastic succession, a backgroundcommon to many epics the world over. However, circumstancesthat give rise to the conflict in the plot of this episode are unique in the sense that they not only engage the reader's imagination with rousing displays of valor and physical courage, as epics are meantto do, but also confront them with the moral dilemmas and spiritualagonies that are invariably associated with tragedy. Consequently, the story of Isfandiyar and Rustam is simultaneouslyan epic (external action, victorious hero) and a tragedy(internal action, fallen hero). One of the major attractionsof Professor Clinton's edition for lay readers is that the dual characteristicof this work is explicated in the preface using the terminology and concepts currentin the western traditionsof literaryanalysis, arrivingat the conclusion that "the story of Rustam and Isfandiyar displays a surprisinglymodern skepticism about the values we associate with the epic" (13), "and a profound ambivalence about the demands of heroism" (14). Isfandiyar, the elder son of Gushtasp, the shah of Iran, is young, accomplished, brave, and skilled at war. His ancestry is impeccable and his future bright.He has alreadybeen creditedwith saving the crown and the countryonce from an attackby an enemy from the west. For this feat he has received universal praise, the most lavish of which has come from his father. Perhapsbecause of this he has something of a chip on his shoulderwhich translatesitself into a burning ambition to ascend the throne immediately, even before his father's

Reviews447 demise. This ambition has been fueled by his father's promise to step down in favor of his son should the latter returntriumphantfrom the campaign against foreign invaders. But the king, who is not exactly a paragon of sincerity and moral behavior, appearsto be evasive in the fulfillment of his promise. The son is filled with angry resentment and confides in his mother that he is intent on becoming king at any cost, even if it means forcing his father to abdicate. His mother's response-measured, wise, and logical-further highlights the impetuosity and brashnessof the young prince: "My son, you have enduredso much. And yet,/What worldly power is there that your heart/Still yearns to have? ... You know that when/He's gone, the crown and throne will both be yours,/As will his greatness, sovereignty and wealth./What is better than a lionhearted son/Wholoyally supportshis father'srule?"(31). Clinton notes, rightly, that in the Shahniimeh"challengesto royal authority invariablylead to the challenger's death, even when, as is true here, the threatis more rhetoricalthan real" (16). This and the fact that Isfandiyarfails to heed his mother's counsel and restrainhis temper, seals his fate as a tragic hero beset by hubris, a tragic flaw that sets him on a course of declining fortune and eventual destruction. The pathos, resulting from this implied foreshadowing, accompanies the balance of the action. In due course Isfandiyar's sentiment toward the king is exposed. He is capturedand put in prison, where he would likely remain until his dying day. But fate affords him a reprieve in the form of a renewed attack from Arjasp, Iran's old enemy, this time in unison with the Emperorof China, at a time when the king himself is visiting a distant province and his military forces are in disarrayin the absence of Isfandiyar.In the face of this threat,Gushtasphas no choice but to orderthe release of his son and his restoration to command. In the course of ensuing hostilities Isfandiyar demonstrates once more his exemplary military leadership and prowess in combat by inflicting an ignominious defeat on the enemy. He is once more received by his solicitous father who again promises him the throne, this time upon the completion of a special mission. The mission is for Isfandiyarto bring Rustam, the ancient hero and the acknowledgedsavior on several occasions of the Iranianthroneand territorial integrity, in cuffs and shackles before Gushtasp on trumped-up charges of violating some courtly protocol. The dilemma that faces the young prince is agonizing. On the one hand he is driven by the ambition,which by now has solidified into a sense of mission, to rule Iran;on the other he owes an allegiance to the old warriorwho has been his role model and source of inspiration. The fact that Isfandiyar eventually succumbs to his father's demand, argues Clinton, is not so much a matterof submission to his ambitionor the dissolution of his fealty toward Rustam. Following a brief exegesis of the Zoroastrian dogma with regard to the sanctity of kingship and the divine right of kings, Clinton concludes that Isfandiyar, as a pious Zoroastrian, "believes that the commandsof his father,the shah, have the force of divine decree. If he disobeys him, he will suffer eternal tormentsin the afterlife. Once Goshtasp has spoken, Isfandiyarhas no choice but to raise an armyand depart" (18). As expected, the final confrontationbetween Isfandiyarand Rustamends in the death of the former. When Rustam's fatal arrow finds its mark in Isfandi-

448 Reviews

yar's eye, and knocks him off his horse, there is an overwhelmingsense of loss and constemation, exacerbatedby a succession of scenes in which Isfandiyar's family and friends, including his father, grieve over his remains. The world Isfandiyarleaves behind is so much the worse for his loss. His father,now rid of a son that he considered ambitiousand meddlesome, is no better off. He comes to be regarded,in Clinton's words, as "a moral leper,"the first and only king to devise the murderof his own child. For that "he is condemnedby the nobles of his court and his own family" (22). The kingship itself does not wholly recover from the loss of Isfandiyar.His youthful son who succeeds Gushtasp,is "in no sense the man his father was" (22). In the following sequences of the the power and moral authority of the kings decline, leading ultiShahnaimeh mately to the downfall and slaying of Shah Yazdgerd III with which the Shahnamehends. Because of the nature of its plot and the manner in which the characters interactin this and several other episodes of the Shahndmeh,the majorthemes and the moral purportof the entire epic should be scrutinized.Concerningthe implicit message of the Shahnamehand its ideological underpinnings much has been said and written. One recalls the spate of recriminatorypamphlets and treatisespouringout of the seminariesand religious publishinghouses following the installationof the new regime in Irancondemningthe epic primarilybecause of its putative subject and some verses in the epilogue suggesting anti-Arabsentiments. Obviously such assumptions about the abiding message of the Shahniimehare false and proceed from superficialor biased readings.As it has been widely noted, the "Book of Kings" is not a book for or about kings. Cognizant of this fact, Clinton gives a perceptiveand articulatesummationof the thematic focus of the epic: Although the Divinity's supportfor the Iranianmonarchis a central its ideology is not a naive and enthusiasconstantof the Shiahnameh, tic monarchism.Ferdowsi was not a panegyristwho presentedidealizations of the rulerfor the admirationof the royal sponsorsand their followers. He was as realistic about the limitations of individual monarchsas was Shakespeare.Many of the greatesttales in the epic, like Rustam and Esfandiyar, explore the terrible consequences that resultwhen a bad or foolish shah sits uponthe throne(12). In fact, posits Clinton, this particular episode "seems meant to remindus of the terribleconsequencesof linking humanfrailtyto divine right"(22). Little need be said about the accuracy of the translationand the quality of the languagein the executionof In the Dragon's Claws. ProfessorClintonhas a

Reviews449

distinguished record as a textual editor, analyst, and interpreter of Persian poetry, as documentedin the tasteful and precise languageof his earlierwork on Firdawsi and Manuchihri. If anything, In the Dragon's Claws enhances that reputation. FaridounFarrokh TexasA&MInternationalUniversity

Persian Historiography: To the End of the Twelfth Century, Julie Scott Meisami, Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 1999. xii, 302 pp., appendix,bibliographyand index to p. 319. No price indicated. In a famously scathing comment, the tenth-centuryMuslim polymath Abu Rayhan Biruni dismissed Persian as a language unfit for serious scholarship and suited only for overblown fables and entertainingstories. Since then, medieval Persian historical writing has rarely received much respect, at least among Arabists and Orientalists, who have generally deemed it inferior to its Arabic counterpartin terms of both quality and reliability and agreed with H. A. R. Gibb's complaints about generationsof Persian historiansbeing lured "into the wastes of rhetoric."'Various articles and a few monographshave attemptedto correct this impression about individual authorsand works, but until now there has never been a substantial,detailed attemptto give a comprehensiveappraisal of this literatureas a whole nor to evaluate it in historiographicalterms instead of simply as a potentialmine of factual data. In this ground-breaking work, Julie Meisami attempts to set the record straight and put "Persianhistorical writing back on the map of Islamic historiography." The parametersfollowed in the study are indicatedsuccinctly at its conclusion (p. 298): "to survey the texts which have survived, within certain geographical and chronological limits, and to place them in a larger perspective with respect both to Islamicateand to other pre-modem historical writing."As befits such a pioneeringstudy, the emphasis of the volume is thus on the identification, description, and preliminaryanalysis of the corpus of works that make up this genre. They are arrangedby Meisami underthe rubricsof "the SamanidPeriod" (chapter 1, dealing with Abu Mansur Tusi's prose Shdhniamah, the "Persian Tabari,"and Firdawsi), "the Ghaznavid Period" (chapter 2, on cUtbi, Gardizi, Bayhaqi, and the Tartkh-iSistdn) and "the Saljuq Period"(chapter3, on Nizam al-Mulk, Ibn al-Balkhi, the Mujmalal-tawdrikh,Ibn Funduq,Zahiral-Din Nishapuri, Afdal al-Din Kirmani, Ravandi, and Jarbadhqani).It should be emphasized that this is an essentially chronologicalratherthan thematicframework,as some of the works studied have only the most tangentialconnection to the dynasty underwhich they are classified in terms of either theircontent or perspective. It is also interestingthat the names of neitherthe Buyids nor the Saffaridsappear
1. Encyclopaediaof Islam, FirstEdition,Supplement,"Ta'rikh," 242.