Category Archives: Iran

“The Duality of Life in Iran” — from Tehran Bureau

Posted on by
Reply

In The Dual­ity of Life in Iran, Tehran Bureau’s Cor­re­spon­dent at Large writes the following:

Life in Iran is split in halves: the half lived in the open and the half lived behind closed doors. And this dual­ity goes deep: every man and woman in Iran leads two lives, an exter­nal life that con­forms to the pres­sures and norms of the soci­ety and an inter­nal life gov­erned by the wants and needs of the person.

This is a con­tin­u­a­tion of the ways of tra­di­tional Iran­ian soci­ety, which has evolved into a mod­ern, com­plex form of dual­ity present at every level of social activ­ity. At the core of the old Iran­ian way of liv­ing were houses that were split into andarouni (lit­er­ally, “inter­nal,” and com­monly con­fused with harem, a sec­tion of an aristocrat’s cas­tle), in which peo­ple relaxed far from pub­lic scrutiny — women were not obliged to wear hejab, and singing and danc­ing was allowed. Out­side this safe haven, life changed — women were expected to be chador-clad and demure; men, for­mal and rigid.

The rit­ual of a domes­tic visit was a lay­ered one; you would start at the door, which was the far­thest that street ven­dors, gyp­sies, and for­tune tellers could come. The next step was the hashti, an octag­o­nal room filled with seats, where most vis­i­tors were greeted and enter­tained. If a per­son was to be allowed in fur­ther, a call was made inside the house, usu­ally some­thing like “Ya Allah,” still com­mon today when a stranger enters a res­i­dence. The call meant that the home’s inner sanc­tum was about to be breached and every­one assumed the roles assigned to them by social norms; again women were clad in hejab and men became for­mal. The lucky guests who were allowed fur­ther than the hashti were guided to the pan­j­dari or talar, a large room specif­i­cally designed for enter­tain­ing guests. But that was the fur­thest any out­sider could pen­e­trate the lay­ers of the house; still fur­ther, behind closed doors, was the liv­ing room, cen­ter­piece of the andarouni.

The whole piece is worth read­ing for one person’s insight into a cen­tral fact of Iran­ian cul­ture, the neces­sity of lead­ing a dual life under the cur­rent régime. The com­ments sec­tion is also worth reading./p

The Teller of Tales is Reviewed by Aria Fani on Tehran Bureau

Posted on by
Reply

Aria Fani has pub­lished on Tehran Bureau a review of my book, The Teller of Tales, which is a trans­la­tion of the first five sto­ries of Shah­nameh, The Book of Kings, also known as the Per­sian (or Iran­ian) national epic. Fani calls my trans­la­tion “delight­ful to read,” but what I like most about the review is that he places the book in the con­text of how the Shah­nameh has “dom­i­nated and shaped the national psy­che of Iran­ian;” and he gets the through-line of the sto­ries I chose to trans­late, point­ing out that “the nature of the social order is the cen­tral theme” of the book.

I didn’t do much to pro­mote the book when it came out in April because my life sim­ply did not per­mit it, but I will be start­ing to get the word out lit­tle by lit­tle. You can order the book from the pub­lisher, Junc­tion Press, and if you’re inter­ested in my giv­ing a reading/talk on my trans­la­tion, you can con­tact me here. The Shah­nameh is a book that would be of inter­est in the con­text of a wide range of artis­tic, schol­arly, intel­lec­tual and even polit­i­cal concerns.

I’ve posted a lit­tle bit about the Shah­nameh already. (Here, here and here.)

I am a Translator of Classical Iranian Poetry. Or Maybe I’m Not.

Posted on by
3

So I found out yes­ter­day that I was not elected sec­re­tary of my union. I ran not because I was eager to get into union work per se, but because there is seri­ous work that needs to be done on my cam­pus – we are fac­ing a real bud­get cri­sis and an admin­is­tra­tion that has been unam­bigu­ously hos­tile – and I thought the exec­u­tive com­mit­tee needed the skills I would have brought to the job. Clearly, my col­leagues thought oth­er­wise, since I lost by a mar­gin that could com­fort­ably be described as a land slide. While I’m dis­ap­pointed not to have won, of course, I don’t begrudge my oppo­nent the win; she is emi­nently qual­i­fied, and, to be hon­est, I am also a lit­tle bit relieved, since win­ning would have meant I’d have even less time than I do now to devote to writ­ing, and writ­ing is what I really want to be doing when I am not teach­ing, grad­ing papers, hav­ing an intel­lec­tual life, a fam­ily life, a mar­riage, a social life – not to men­tion being co-chair of the union’s Cri­sis Com­mit­tee and man­ager of the Google Group we set up so fac­ulty could com­mu­ni­cate with each other away from the col­lege email servers. (See, I am still pretty heav­ily involved in union work even though I did not get elected.)

My life, in other words, is already plenty crowded enough. The prob­lem is that my writ­ing life is also crowded. There are at least five projects scat­tered in files around my office and on my hard drive, each of which deserves my atten­tion. I am, for one, finally writ­ing poems again; there are drafts of essays on writ­ing that I’d like to com­plete; drafts of the essays I’ve been build­ing from the Frag­ments of Evolv­ing Man­hood series I started post­ing a while back; the begin­nings of a one man show based on my book of poems The Silence of Men that a direc­tor is inter­ested in work­ing on with me (I would per­form the show, which would be very cool); there is the next book of trans­la­tions, Ilahi Nama, by Farid al-Din Attar, which I have writ­ten about here, here and here; and there is the recent email I received from some­one inter­ested in turn­ing my Selec­tions from Saadi’s Gulis­tan, which is out of print, into an ebook. (This last project is not as sim­ple as it sounds, since I do not own the copy­right to the book and I would need to jump through a cou­ple of hoops in order to make sure that the rights to the ver­sion that gets turned into an ebook are entirely mine.) The one thing that sim­pli­fies choos­ing which project to work on is the fact that I am eli­gi­ble to apply for a sab­bat­i­cal in the 2012 – 2013 aca­d­e­mic year, and the most obvi­ously sabbatical-worthy project among those I just men­tioned is Ilahi Nama, pri­mar­ily because a uni­ver­sity press has expressed inter­est in see­ing the man­u­script once I am finished.

Because I would not have been able to take a sab­bat­i­cal if I’d won the elec­tion, and the first draft of the appli­ca­tion was due before the elec­tion results would be in, I handed in to the com­mit­tee in my depart­ment which reviews and approves (or does not approve) sab­bat­i­cal appli­ca­tions a very rough draft, com­prised mostly of pas­sages from both the last sab­bat­i­cal appli­ca­tion I sub­mit­ted, which was for a dif­fer­ent book of trans­la­tions, and unsuc­cess­ful grant appli­ca­tions I sub­mit­ted last year for fund­ing my work on Ilahi Nama. Now that I’ve lost the elec­tion, I’ve gone back to look at my draft appli­ca­tion to start fig­ur­ing out how to revise it, and I’ve been pon­der­ing whether or not to fol­low a spe­cific piece of my committee’s advice. They want me to cut entirely, or scale back sig­nif­i­cantly, the sec­tion I had to write the last time I applied explain­ing that the lit­er­ary trans­la­tion of poetry is often done by poets who are nei­ther flu­ent nor lit­er­ate in the source lan­guage – Ezra Pound, W. S. Mer­win, and Adri­enne Rich are three very well known exam­ples. I wrote this sec­tion because the first time I sub­mit­ted my pre­vi­ous sab­bat­i­cal appli­ca­tion it was rejected; the mem­bers of the college-wide Sab­bat­i­cal Com­mit­tee sim­ply did not believe that I could pro­duce the trans­la­tions I said I was going to pro­duce with­out being flu­ent and/or lit­er­ate in Per­sian. (Inter­est­ingly, there were peo­ple from my own depart­ment on that com­mit­tee who teach some of Ezra Pound’s trans­la­tions from the Chi­nese in their lit­er­a­ture classes and they did not know he made them based on some­one else’s lit­eral trans­la­tions and notes.)

Read­ing over again the sec­tion I wrote to respond to that doubt and dis­be­lief started me think­ing about the reac­tions I’ve received from peo­ple in the Iran­ian com­mu­nity, lit­er­ary and oth­er­wise, and how they reveal the pol­i­tics that are at stake in the work I’ve done – in terms both spe­cific to the trans­la­tion of clas­si­cal Iran­ian poetry and to the project of trans­la­tion in gen­eral. I’m going to list some of those reac­tions here, with­out com­ment, but there are a cou­ple of things you should know before you read them. First, my wife is from Iran; sec­ond, while I am not lit­er­ate in Per­sian, I under­stand the spo­ken lan­guage at what I would call an inter­me­di­ate level and I can speak it as well, though not quite as well as I under­stand it.

  • “Really,” she says after find­ing out that I’ve just pub­lished Selec­tions from Saadi’s Gulis­tan, “you mono­lin­gual West­ern­ers ought finally to get out of the way and let us bilin­gual Per­sians trans­late our own lit­er­a­ture. Haven’t you done enough damage?”
  • “Why do you call it Iran­ian lit­er­a­ture?” he lec­tures me accus­ingly. “It’s writ­ten in Per­sian, and Per­sian lit­er­a­ture was writ­ten in coun­tries other than Iran, like India.”
  • “Call­ing it Per­sian lit­er­a­ture,” he wrote, “only per­pet­u­ates both British impe­ri­al­ism and its Ori­en­tal­ist per­spec­tive. The name of the coun­try was and is Iran, and the Per­sian eth­nic group in Iran is not the only one to pro­duce Iran­ian lit­er­a­ture. So  Iran­ian lit­er­a­ture is what you should call it.”
  • For two years, every time she intro­duced me to her friends at a con­fer­ence or a read­ing, she would say, “…and this is Richard Jef­frey New­man, who trans­lates Per­sian lit­er­a­ture even though he does not speak Persian.”
  • I am not sug­gest­ing he doesn’t belong on our panel,” he writes in a pre-conference email exchange, “but if he doesn’t know Per­sian is he really a trans­la­tor? I mean, can we call trans­la­tion what peo­ple like Richard and Cole­man Barks do?”
  • “Let me tell you why I trust your trans­la­tions and why I use them in my class,” she says. “Because you’re hon­est about what you’re doing, that you’re not flu­ent in Per­sian, that this lim­its the kind of research you can do. Nei­ther Cole­man Barks nor a Daniel Ladin­sky are up front like that.
  • “I know Golestan-e Saadi by heart,” he says after a read­ing, refer­ring to my Selec­tions from Saadi’s Gulis­tan. “I learned it from my father and I’ve been study­ing it my whole life. It’s remark­able how close your trans­la­tions are [to the orig­i­nal], and you’re not Iran­ian and you’re not flu­ent in Per­sian. How did you do that?”
  • “You’ve done impor­tant work. No one will dis­pute that,” he says after I’ve given a talk about Saadi, “but if you’re not Iran­ian, you can’t really under­stand Saadi.”
  • “I used to be sus­pi­cious,” she wrote in an email, “of your love of all things Per­sian [refer­ring in part to the fact that my wife is Iran­ian], but now that I’ve read what you’ve done [as edi­tor of an Iran­ian lit­er­a­ture spe­cial issue of Arte East Quar­terly Mag­a­zine], I see there’s noth­ing to be sus­pi­cious about.”
  • He is read­ing the list of the lit­er­ary organization’s advi­sory board mem­bers. My name is on it. He asks the exec­u­tive direc­tor who I am, and when she reminds him that we’ve met, that I have trans­lated Saadi, he says, “Him? He’s on your board? The one who gets trans­la­tion help from his wife?”

Avant-Garde Theater in Iran — Art as Politics, The Politics of Art

Posted on by
Reply

To say that art is always polit­i­cal, even when it is not obvi­ously polit­i­cally engaged, is a tru­ism often used by artists who don’t want to do the dif­fi­cult work of fig­ur­ing out, or own­ing up to, the (usu­ally con­ser­v­a­tive, in the sense of con­tribut­ing to the sta­tus quo) pol­i­tics of their art. I hear this tru­ism most com­monly from poets who can think of no bet­ter response to the ques­tion of whether poetry should be polit­i­cally engaged, and I often think the response is rooted in their own guilt that they do not take on in their work the sig­nif­i­cant issues of the day. (Of course, there are also poets, not to men­tion aca­d­e­mics, pub­lish­ers, politi­cians and oth­ers, who are con­ser­v­a­tive, plain and sim­ple, who refuse to acknowl­edge that the impulse to poetry often emerges directly from pol­i­tics, such as those who would lion­ize a poet like Langston Hughes, but only as long as his work is pre­sented in its most dera­ci­nated form.)

Yet there are, of course, con­texts in which art is always polit­i­cal and the the Islamic Repub­lic of Iran is one of them. This video is of an exper­i­men­tal the­ater group called Naqsh is beau­ti­ful, I think, but what makes it espe­cially poignant, inter­est­ing and polit­i­cal – in addi­tion to its con­tent, because just think about what it means in Iran to show even as much of the con­tours of the female body as is shown here – is the fact that the group can only per­form in front of 10 or 15 per­son audi­ences in the home of the direc­tor Sahar Eftekharzade. (You can read the whole arti­cle over at Tehran Bureau.)

 


Norouz Pirouz! Eid Moborak! Happy Iranian New Year 2011 — An Auspicious Day to Announce My New Book, “The Teller of Tales: Stories from Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh”

Posted on by

I was, actu­ally, hop­ing to post this yes­ter­day, before the chang­ing of the year, which hap­pened some time between 6 and 7 PM, but I was very busy and didn’t get a chance to do it. So let me take this oppor­tu­nity to wish all the Ira­ni­ans I know, fam­ily and friends, and even those I don’t know, soleh noh mob­o­rak (Happy New Year!).

And just like the title says: It is, truly, an aus­pi­cious day offi­cially to announce my new book of trans­la­tions, The Teller of Tales: Sto­ries from Ferdowsi’s Shah­nameh, which has been pub­lished by Junc­tion Press. I will be launch­ing the book on Sat­ur­day, March 26th at Per­sian Arts Festival’s 5th Annual Arts Fes­ti­val. The book is not yet up on the publisher’s web­site or Ama­zon, but you can order it from Small Press Dis­tri­b­u­tion.

If you’d like to read a sam­ple from the book, Eklek­so­graphia pub­lished Zah­hak: We’d Need to Hear his Mother’s Story; you can read an early ver­sion of the story of Kayu­mars and Hushang in the Iran­ian lit­er­a­ture issue of Arte East Quar­terly that I edited a few years ago; and you can read the story of Jamshid, which includes the ori­gins of Norouz in the Norouz post I wrote last year.

We cel­e­brated last night at my wife’s aunt’s house, which was lovely, and I actu­ally thought I might be cel­e­brat­ing tonight at the United Nations. Last Fri­day, I actu­ally received a per­sonal invi­ta­tion from the Iran­ian mis­sion to the UN to attend an event that the woman to whom I spoke, Zahra, said would be tak­ing place this evening. In 2009, the UN declared Norouz part of humanity’s Intan­gi­ble Cul­tural Her­itage, and the event to which Zahra called to invite me, she said, would include rep­re­sen­ta­tives from all the coun­tries that cel­e­brate it. (The ones listed on the UN site are Azer­bai­jan, India, Iran, Kyr­gyzs­tan, Pak­istan, Turkey and Uzbek­istan, though there might be more.) The invi­ta­tion never arrived, and I have been won­der­ing all week if per­haps Zahra changed her mind and decided not to invite me, though it’s also pos­si­ble, since I can­not find the event on the UN’s cal­en­dar for today, that it was can­celed. I am dis­ap­pointed mostly for my son, for whom it would have been a very cool expe­ri­ence to cel­e­brate Norouz at the UN.

Persian Poetry Tuesday: The Prologue to the Story of Rostam and Sohrab in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh

Posted on by

Writ­ten in the 10th cen­tury by Abolqasem Fer­dowsi (NPR did a fea­ture on him not too long ago), the Shah­nameh (Book of Kings) is the national epic of Iran, telling the nation’s story by recount­ing the tales of its kings, from the first, myth­i­cal king Kayu­mars to Yazdegerd III, who ruled Iran just before the Mus­lim Arab con­quest in the 7th cen­tury. One of the best loved sto­ries in the Shah­nameh was given the title The Tragedy of Sohrab and Ros­tam by Jerome W. Clin­ton when he pub­lished his trans­la­tion of it in 1987. Ros­tam is a Hercules-like char­ac­ter whose role through­out the epic is to defend Iran and its kings; Sohrab is Rostam’s son, con­ceived with Tah­mine, a princess from one of Iran’s vas­sal king­doms. When Sohrab reaches puberty and dis­cov­ers who his father is, he decides that Ros­tam, the great­est war­rior in the world, should be the ruler of Iran, not Kay Kavus, the king who right­fully sat on the throne at the time. Sohrab sets off with a dual mis­sion, to find his father and to depose Kay Kavus.

Despite his youth, Sohrab is, like his father, a peer­less war­rior and when the Per­sians real­ize that none among them will be able to defeat him, they sum­mon Ros­tam. Ros­tam does not know he has a son and, in what is the most puz­zling aspect of the story, refuses to iden­tify him­self each of the sev­eral times that Sohrab asks who he is. The two war­riors fight three times and, in the end, Ros­tam is vic­to­ri­ous. As Sohrab lies dying, the true iden­ti­ties of the fight­ers are revealed and the story ends on a note of bit­ter sadness.

Matthew Arnold was so moved by this story, that he wrote his own ver­sion, “Sohrab and Rus­tum,” that is rec­og­nized by schol­ars to be an impor­tant turn­ing point in his career as a poet. There are sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences between Arnold’s ver­sion and the orig­i­nal, though, due largely to the fact that Arnold’s source was most like an inac­cu­rate sum­mary of the tale than an actual translation.

The pro­logue with which Fer­dowsi frames the story of Sohrab and Ros­tam is a med­i­ta­tion on fate. The idea of the just nature of death comes from a form of Zoroas­tri­an­ism which saw death as part of a realm that exists out­side this world, that peo­ple do not have access to, and that con­tains all events that are inher­ent in time and can­not be avoided. Thus, since death comes to every­one, it always comes at the proper time and is, by def­i­n­i­tion, fair and just. This ver­sion of the pro­logue is from Clinton’s trans­la­tion, which I men­tioned above:

What if a wind springs up quite sud­denly,
And casts a green unripened fruit to earth.
Shall we call this a tyrant’s act, or just?
Shall we con­sider it as right, or wrong?
If death is just, how can this not be so?
Why then lament and wail at what is just?
Your soul knows noth­ing of this mys­tery;
You can­not see what lies beyond this veil.
Though all descend to face that greedy door,
For none has it revealed its secrets twice.
Per­haps he’ll like the place he goes to bet­ter,
And in that other house he may find peace.
Death’s breath is like a fiercely rag­ing fire
That has no fear of either young or old.
Here in this place of pass­ing, not delay,
Should death cinch tight the sad­dle on its steed,
Know this, that it is just, and not unjust.
There’s no dis­put­ing jus­tice when it comes.
Destruc­tion knows both youth and age as one,
For noth­ing that exists will long endure.
If you can fill your heart with faith’s pure light,
Silence befits you best, since you’re His slave.
You do not under­stand God’s mys­ter­ies,
Unless your soul is part­ners with some div.
Strive here within the world as you pass through,
And in the end bear virtue in your heart.
Now I’ll relate the story of Sohrab,
And how he came to bat­tle with his father.

In his speeches, [Khameini] has often cited Lenin’s phrase that if an ideology is not supported by art it will die

Posted on by

From an arti­cle called “The Secrets of Khameini’s Life,” writ­ten by Iran­ian film­maker Mohsen Makhmal­baf. Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Ruler, cares deeply about poetry and what I find inter­est­ing in this brief pro­file is the account of how poetry and pol­i­tics mix at the high­est ech­e­lons of Iran’s author­i­tar­ian, theo­cratic régime. Makhmal­baf, who has been liv­ing in exile in France, has become the Iran­ian opposition’s main spokesman abroad since the dis­puted pres­i­den­tial elec­tion in 2009. He posted the arti­cle to his web­site on Mon­day, Decem­ber 28, 2009. The Eng­lish trans­la­tion from which I have taken this excerpt about Khameini’s inter­est in poetry is from Homylafayette’s blog:

Khamenei’s inter­est in poetry began at a young age and has been main­tained till today. He spent long hours at the poetry asso­ci­a­tion of Mash­had. He has writ­ten some poems. He is delighted when poets write poetry about him and expresses his sat­is­fac­tion through gifts to the poets. Sabze­vari and Ali Moallem, who are among the fawn­ing Mus­lim poets, are con­stantly cor­re­spond­ing with him. It is through them that he is informed of the prob­lems of artists affil­i­ated with the régime. At the start of his Lead­er­ship, he received the poet Mir Shakak, who was a manic depres­sive, sev­eral times. Khamenei became very proud of him­self when Mir Shakak upon say­ing good­bye would say, ‘Seyed zat ziad’ (Mean­ing ‘the honor is great’, which is a col­lo­quial prayer). Khamenei invites poets to his House­hold sev­eral times a year so that they may recite poems in his presence.

At the begin­ning of his pres­i­dency, he asked Akha­van Saless, whom he knew very well, to write a flat­ter­ing poem for the rev­o­lu­tion. Akha­van Saless (NB Mehdi Akha­van Saless, also known as M. Omid) responded, ‘We artists are above the gov­ern­ment, not with it.’ Khamenei was so incensed by this answer that he ordered that he stop being paid. (NB Akha­van Saless worked at the Acad­emy of Artists and Writ­ers). Akha­van Saless became unem­ployed after that. Gheysar Amin­pour has referred to this event in his arti­cle on Akhavan.

Khamenei intensely dis­liked Sham­lou (NB Ahmad Sham­lou, one of the most promi­nent Iran­ian poets of the last cen­tury) and referred to him with hatred. But he never dared arrest and pun­ish him, because he feared taint­ing his own name in his­tory. He has read much about kings who mis­treated poets. In his speeches, he has often cited Lenin’s phrase that if an ide­ol­ogy is not sup­ported by art it will die. He loves poetry so much that if he had not become active in reli­gion and pol­i­tics, he would prob­a­bly have turned to poetry and lit­er­a­ture. How­ever, because of his busy sched­ule, he some­times makes glar­ing mis­takes [in this regard]. Despite claim­ing to be knowl­edge­able about verse, when a young poet recited a poem in his pres­ence, he asked him, ‘Is this poem by you?’ To which the poet responded, ‘No, it is by Sohrab Sepehri.’ (Any school­child knows Sepehri’s work).

The People of Iran…

Posted on by

…took to the streets again, and the irony is not lost on me that while they were doing so I was proof­read­ing the man­u­script of The Teller of Tales, my trans­la­tion of the first five sto­ries in their national epic, the Shah­nameh. Noth­ing about lit­er­ary trans­la­tion, at least as I am prac­tic­ing it here, in the com­fort and safety of my home in the United States, even remotely approaches the courage and deter­mi­na­tion and com­mit­ment shown by the peo­ple who pre­sented their bod­ies in Tehran, Shi­raz, Isfa­han and else­where in protest of a régime that sees those bod­ies as not much more than dust that can be swept away if nec­es­sary; and yet it’s hard not also to be aware that the text I was cor­rect­ing is inex­tri­ca­bly con­nected to the aspi­ra­tions of the Iran­ian pro­test­ers, not in the sense of cause-and-effect inspi­ra­tion, but because the Shah­nameh, as Dick Davis put it in Epic & Sedi­tion, has been for cen­turies “one of the chief means by which both Per­sian rulers and the [Iran­ian] peo­ple have sought to define their iden­tity to them­selves and to the world at large.”

When Abolqasem Fer­dowsi wrote the Shah­nameh in the 10th cen­tury, Iran had been under Mus­lim Arab rule for around 300 years. Ara­bic, not Per­sian, was the lan­guage of the court, of lit­er­a­ture, of phi­los­o­phy; and the Mus­lim belief that every­thing before the com­ing of Islam was his­tor­i­cally, cul­tur­ally, polit­i­cally and of course the­o­log­i­cally irrel­e­vant had resulted over time in a grow­ing accep­tance among Mus­lim Ira­ni­ans that it might be pos­si­ble to rede­fine Iran’s his­tory and cul­ture in Islamic terms. A man named Tabari wrote a revi­sion­ist his­tory along these lines, iden­ti­fy­ing spe­cific char­ac­ters in Iran’s cul­ture with char­ac­ters who inhabit the world of the Quran. Jamshid, for exam­ple, the fourth king in the Shah­nameh, who is respon­si­ble for the emer­gence of what we would rec­og­nize as civ­i­lized soci­ety, is equated in Tabari’s book with King Solomon, while Kayu­mars, the Shahnameh’s first monarch, is said to be the same as Adam.

Not every­one accepted this assim­i­la­tion­ist approach, espe­cially Iran’s landed gen­try, the dehqan, who saw them­selves as respon­si­ble for pre­serv­ing Iran’s his­tory and cul­ture. Fer­dowsi was a dehqan and it was pre­cisely to pre­serve Iran’s pre-Islamic his­tory and cul­ture that he wrote the Shah­nameh. Yet Ferdowsi’s goal was nei­ther rev­o­lu­tion­ary nor hereti­cal. He was a devout Mus­lim who accepted com­pletely the monar­chy under which he lived. Rather, his goal was, as San­dra Mackey puts it in The Ira­ni­ans, to express “the sep­a­rate iden­tity within Islam that Ira­ni­ans [have always] felt.” For many, includ­ing some of his fel­low poets, this goal was hereti­cal. The poet Far­rokhi, for exam­ple, a con­tem­po­rary of Ferdowi’s, declared the Shah­nameh “untruth from the begin­ning to the end.” Abd-al-Jalil Qazvini accused Fer­dowsi of “recit­ing myths on the brav­ery and mag­nif­i­cance of Ros­tam and Kavus [two char­ac­ters from the Shah­nameh] in order [sin­fully] to counter the hero­ism and splen­dour of [Imam] Ali.” Still another poet, Mo’ezzi, sug­gested that Fer­dowsi would be pun­ished in the next world because of the untruths he told in the Shah­nameh. (These quotes are taken from A. Sha­pur Shahbazi’s Fer­dowsi: A Crit­i­cal Biography.)

The Islamic Repub­lic of Iran was, from its very begin­ning, also threat­ened by the Shah­nameh and its cel­e­bra­tion of pre-Islamic Iran­ian his­tory and cul­ture. Accord­ing to San­dra Mackey, for exam­ple, Aya­tol­lah Khome­ini “tried to erad­i­cate ves­tiges of Iran’s pre-Islamic cul­ture [by attack­ing] Fer­dowsi, discourag[ing] the use of Per­sian first names, and hint[ing] at an end to the obser­vance of No Ruz [the Per­sian New Year] by express­ing the hope that in the future the only hol­i­day cel­e­brated would be the Prophet’s birth­day.” Even as recently as 2009, the Islamic Republic’s behav­ior towards Fer­dowsi would seem to indi­cate that it still feels this threat very keenly. Accord­ing to an arti­cle posted on the web­site of the Cir­cle of Ancient Iran­ian Stud­ies (CAIS), all pro­grams in Iran planned by the Fer­dowsi Foun­da­tion to cel­e­brate Ferdowsi’s mil­le­nium in 2009 had to be can­celed because of a lack of coöper­a­tion from the rel­e­vant agen­cies of the Islamic Repub­lic. The same arti­cle reports that on June 14, 2009 – which is Ferdowsi’s com­mem­o­ra­tion day in Iran – the gov­ern­ment of the Islamic Repub­lic demol­ished, with­out pro­vid­ing any rea­son, the Foundation’s unfin­ished build­ing in Iran. Also in 2009, the blog­ger Pedes­trian reported that the Iran­ian jour­nal­ist Bah­man Ahmadi was sen­tenced to eight years in prison for pub­lish­ing part of the Shah­nameh dur­ing the protests against the con­tested elec­tions that kept Mah­moud Ahmanide­jad in power.

I don’t want to give the wrong impres­sion, though. It’s not that the Shah­nameh is banned in Iran, or that peo­ple can only talk about Fer­dowsi or quote from his epic in whis­pers because the gov­ern­ment would oth­er­wise throw them in jail. The Shah­nameh, how­ever, clearly seems to res­onate with the peo­ple of Iran in a way that their gov­ern­ment finds threat­en­ing and so bring­ing into Amer­i­can Eng­lish poetry the parts of the Shah­nameh that I have trans­lated res­onates within me as a small dec­la­ra­tion of sol­i­dar­ity, as I hope it will res­onate with the peo­ple who read my trans­la­tion when it comes out next month – or with those who read any of the trans­la­tions that are avail­able, from Dick Davis’ prose trans­la­tion of the entire epic to Jerome Clinton’s verse trans­la­tions of two of Rostam’s sto­ries.

The story I am up to in my proof­read­ing is the story of Tah­mures, the third king of the Shah­nameh, also known as “Demon Binder” because he bound Ahri­man, the devil fig­ure” and rode him around the earth like a horse. When the Black Demon led a force of demons and sor­cer­ers against Tah­mures for this insult to their leader, Tah­mures so thor­oughly defeated them that they only way he would agree to spare their lives was if they promised to teach him knowl­edge no one else pos­sessed. What they taught him was how to write:

They taught Tah­mures to shape each let­ter
and pro­nounce the sound it stood for,
and this new and prof­itable knowl­edge
lit a light in him like the sun.

Writ­ing so often plays such an impor­tant role in the top­pling of tyrants that I will leave you, sim­ply, with the irony that, in the Shah­nameh at least, it was the tyrants them­selves who taught human­ity how to do it.

Protests Have Begun in Iran

Posted on by

Unfor­tu­nately, I don’t have time to do more than note that the protests in Iran are hap­pen­ing, that peo­ple are com­ing out into the streets and that the gov­ern­ment is try­ing very hard to make sure the protests do not grow into some­thing like what we saw in Egypt and Tunisia or even what we saw in Iran after the 2009 elec­tions. There are some YouTube videos up on Tehran Bureau’s live blog of the protests, and it’s nice to see that The Wall Street Jour­nal and Reuters have filed reports about what’s going on. Al-Jazeera put this up on YouTube:


Persian Poetry Tuesday: Poetry and Moral Authority, “If The King Sleeps Well,” from Saadi’s Bustan

Posted on by

One of the things that con­sis­tently moved me when I was work­ing on my trans­la­tions of Saadi was the way in which he felt autho­rized as a poet to speak in a voice of moral instruc­tion to those in power. Saadi lived at a time, in other words, when poets and poetry had real moral author­ity and as a poet writ­ing and pub­lish­ing today that bog­gles my mind. It’s not that I think the rulers who were Saadi’s patrons nec­es­sar­ily changed their ways because of some­thing the poet wrote – though it is also true that it took courage to write poems that were crit­i­cal of such patrons – but rather that I find myself envi­ous of a time when there was an offi­cial cul­tural space for the pro­duc­tion of poems as polit­i­cal and overtly didac­tic as the one to which I have given the title “If The King Sleeps Well” and, more, that the rul­ing class was wil­ing to pay to have these poems writ­ten. A poet who wrote a poem like this today might think that her or his local polit­i­cal lead­ers ought to read it, might think that they would learn some­thing from read­ing it, might even send the poem to those local lead­ers with a note attached; but – just to think in terms of my city, NY – the idea that Mayor Michael Bloomberg might approach me and ask me to write a book of poems for him, part of the pur­pose of which would be to offer him guid­ance on how to be a good mayor is so ridicu­lous that it leaves me almost speech­less. One might argue that cer­tain kids of TV pro­gram­ming serves that pur­pose now – though the com­par­i­son would have to be unpacked a good deal more than I am going to do here to be really use­ful – but I still think there are things that good poetry can do that TV can’t. Any­way, here is “If The King Sleeps Well.”

A man whom other men of wis­dom fol­low
tells the story of Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz,
who owned a ring in which was set a stone
no jew­eler could prop­erly assess.
At night, you’d swear it was a ris­ing sun.
By day, it shone with a sin­gle pearl’s lus­ter.
One year, by God’s decree, Aziz’s rule
was plagued by drought. He watched his people’s faces
wane from full moons to nar­row cres­cents
and knew the royal com­fort he enjoyed,
unshared, would undo his man­hood in their eyes.
(When peo­ple are pour­ing poi­son down their throats,
who would dare drink sweet-water in their sight?)
He sold the stone for sil­ver, giv­ing it all
in just one week to orphans, strangers, the poor
and any­body else he saw in need.
The court gos­sips pounced, “You’ll never find
a pre­cious stone like that again!” I’ve heard
that when he answered tears poured down his cheeks
like can­dle wax. “A prince who wears such jew­els
in time of drought betrays his people’s trust.
This empty ring looks fine on me. Hunger’s
empti­ness enhances no one’s looks.”
Hap­pi­ness is in pro­vid­ing com­fort
to those who need it, not in own­ing gems
to dec­o­rate your hands. Those who cher­ish
virtue don’t buy joy with oth­ers’ sorrow.

///

If the shah sleeps well upon his throne,
I doubt the poor sleep eas­ily, but if
the shah lights up the night with watch­ful eyes,
those he rules will dream deeply, wak­ing
soothed. Praise God! The Atabeg,
Abu Bakr ibn Sa’d, is such a ruler.
The only signs of trou­ble plagu­ing Pars
are the women whose lunar beauty turns our heads.

A verse from our last party caught my ear:
“I held my moon-faced lover while she slept
and wanted noth­ing more from life than that,
but the sight of her so fully lost in sleep
moved me. ‘Your slen­der grace shames the cypress.
Wash this sweet slum­ber from your nar­cis­sus–
eyes, let the rose of your smile bloom
and free the nightin­gale song of your voice!
Your beauty sub­verts us all. Wake your­self
and bring the ruby wine you poured last night!’
She opened one indig­nant eye, ‘You say
I am sub­ver­sive, and still you choose to rouse me?’”
Under the rule of our enlight­ened king,
no other sub­ver­sion dares to stir.