Is it fate or free will that is foregrounded in Rostam’s heroic life? A major theme in the Shahnameh is destiny. Characters in the poem are subject to fate and destiny the day they are born. Although ultimately destiny dictates how events will unfold, people exhibit some degree of free will. In Rostam’s case, fate is clearly the major influence in his heroic life. Prior to his birth, the astrologers foresaw that Rostam would be the mightiest warrior that the world had ever seen, “Of cypress stature and mammoth might, Two miles will barely show his javelin’s flight.” (p.54). They also predicted that he would master all beasts of the world and conquer dragons, which turned out to happen in the story. Right from the start Rostam is granted by fate his natural gifts, making it inevitable for him to become a great warrior. More evidence that Rostam’s life is guided by fate is seen in his battle scenes. He continuously reiterates that whatever happens is always the will of God and according to destiny/fate. In his battle with Sohrab he does not fear death because he would accept it as fate’s doing. This same sentiment is seen in his tragic battle with Esfandiyar. Rostam tells Esfandiyar, “If fate has driven you and your men here, you will be destroyed by me.” (p.234). Despite his father’s advice, Rostam appeals to fate and says that he must kill Esfandiyar if fate has decided it (which it had, when the astrologers spoke to Goshtasp). Although Rostam has the ability to decide some aspects of his own destiny, some things he cannot change and fate is the main force guiding his life.
How does Rostam compare to Aeneas? These two epic heroes are an interesting pair to compare and contrast because of the differences between Western and Eastern literature. The most obvious similarity between these two characters is that their lives are guided by fate. No matter what, Aeneas’s destiny was to conquer Italy and found the new Trojan state. The God’s were on his side so he could not lose. Rostam was destined to be the strongest, fiercest warrior the world had ever seen. Not only was he backed by his own religion but also by the forces of nature. He was the only one who could ride Rakkash and the Simourgh also protected him. Both heroes also openly accepted their destinies and led their lives accordingly. Another similarity between the two is that they both exhibit pietas. Aeneas is loyal to his father and Rostam is loyal and also very proud of his strong heritage. A key difference between the heroes is that Rostam is a tragic hero whereas the ending of the Aeneid is a happy one. Rostam not only kills his own son but also dooms himself by murdering Esfandiyar. On the other hand, despite losses of friends and family, Aeneas ultimately fulfills his destiny and sets the stage for the birth of the great Roman Empire. Rostam also exhibits many questionable qualities, such as his trickery and staunch individualism. The story of Aeneas is one that also glorifies Augustus Caesar whereas Rostam does not always show loyalty to the throne. Although these two characters represent very different cultures, there are many similarities between them. This shows that there may not in fact be such a large divide between “Western” and “Eastern” literature.
Colin Moore HUMN 220 Themes and Characters in the Shahnameh
How is the father vs. son theme portrayed throughout the Shahnameh? The theme of fathers versus their sons is an important one throughout these stories of Sam, Zal, and Rostam. The first example of fathers versus sons was when Sam sent Zal to die in the mountains because he was born with white hair. This was the first conflict between a father and a son in the Shahnameh. Another example of fathers versus their sons was when Rostam killed his own son. Even though Rostam did not know that Sohrab was his son, Sohrab did know that Rostam was his father. Rostam was too blinded by his emotions to realize that the person he was fighting was his own son. The father vs. sons theme is important to this book because every generation in this family line is affected by it. Fathers and sons continually clash throughout this book whether it is about appearances or through hand to hand combat. The relationship between the father and his sons do receive some focus because in most cases the father and the sons conflict in some way.
How is Rakhsh important in the Shahnameh? Rakhsh is one of Rastom’s dearest friends throughout his life. Rakhsh was Rastom’s horse that protected and supported him through thick and thin. Rakhsh was also important because he helped Rostam through a few of the seven trials Rostam had to go through. Rakhsh completed the first trial when he killed the lion that was attempting to kill Rostam. The lion was killed before Rostam even woke up. Rakhsh also alerted Rostam when a dragon swooped down into the area. The horse also helped Rostam kill the dragon. Rakhsh was important because he was Rostam’s sidekick, and every hero needs a sidekick. Hercules had Pegasus, Batman had Robin, and Rostam had Rakhsh. Rakhsh was also important by means of Rastom’s fate. Fate decided everything for Rostam and Rakhsh was just a tool that supernatural powers used to complete Rostam’s fate.
How was the ending compared to other endings of epics in the past? In my opinion, the ending of this book was somewhat disappointing. I feel that Rastom died in a somewhat boring way. He fell into a pit lined with spears. I feel like a proper hero should go out in a proper, heroic way. This is different from other epics because other heroes either succeed or die in a heroic way. Aeneas in The Aeneid was successful in his quest to kill his competitor and begin a long line of successful rulers of Rome. I found the ending to the Shahnameh to be disappointing because his death was not heroic; he was killed in a somewhat cowardly way. He was tricked. However, it is an ironic death because Rostam was a trickster hero.
What can be the true symbol of Zal? Zal is born a child with white hair and very powerful. His dad wants nothing to do with because he has white hair. I think of this as just because this child is born differently then you may have thought he should have looked like does not mean he has a main purpose here in this world. I think Sam did not think about he would do by sending his newborn son away just because he is different. Sam does go back and rethink his decision but this is some time after. Zal being born differently I think made his dad try to understand his full potentially is to be. Just because his hair is different does not mean Zal will not be a good person. Sam going to the Sigmorh shows that he has remorse in what he done. For me I thought this was a very good thing for Sam to do. I think it by setting his son free it made him think about what he did and that even though his son is born different that made just because he has different colored hair that he is still his son and he must love him the same. How is Rostam seen as a hero? For me I think this starts back from when he is born. He is born like no other child before. I see this as a way of describing him in the future that he will be a figure of importance. He is also around the sigmorh which is how raised his dad Zal. He grows into a man very quickly because of a magic feather. For me this means that he is needed out in the world a lot quicker than he is to grow up normally. Being an adult means he can serve more as a hero figure. He always seems o be going into these battles and always comes out on top. He then finds himself a special horse named Rakkish who I think fits right in with him. They both stand out and each quality of them is balanced by the other. I see his horse as a side kick who is always there to help Rostam out when he needs it the most.
How are the relationships between fathers and sons shown? The relationships between the fathers and the sons of the Shahnameh are rocky. There are many example beginning with Sam and Zal. Just because Zal has white hair his father, Sam, casts him away. Rostam ends up killing his own son in battle when he doesn’t know that Sohrab is his son. Rostam tricks his son when Sohrab almost kills him by saying that you must fell someone twice before you kill them. Another example of the conflicts shown between fathers and sons is Esfandyar and his father, King Gostasp. The king orders Esfandyar to go bring back Rostam bound in chains. Esfandyar knows that his father is simply sending him there because the king knows Esfandyar will die and won’t be able to steal the crown from him. “You’re not pursuing Zal and Rostam-I,/ Your son, am singled out by you to die;/ Your jealous passion for your sovereignty/ Has made you want to rid the world of me.” (Pg. 170) The King was willing to have his son killed than take a chance that Esfandyar could take the throne. His daughters tell him, “Neither the Simorgh nor Rostam nor Zal killed [Esfandyar]: you killed him…Shame on your white beard, that you killed your son for the sake of greed.” (pg. 210) But there are also instances when the son avenges their fathers deaths such as Faramarz when Rostam dies and Bahman when he becomes king.
How do people deal with death in the book? Throughout the book astrologers and other wise men are called upon to show what fate has in store for the future. King Gostasp learns from astrologers that Esfandyar will be killed if he goes to meet with Rostam and yet he still orders him to go. Fathers so easily dismiss their youth. King Gostasp sends Esfandyar on an impossible task to keep his own throne, Sam leave Zal because he has white hair and Mehrah was going to kill his daughter, Rudabeh, when she wanted to marry Zal. When going into battle the people accept that if they are fated to die it must be so. “Death comes to all.”(pg. 137) “Who is immortal? We are all Death’s prey, both he who wears a helmet and he who wears the crown.” (pg. 136) Rostam seems almost immortal, he never loses in a fight and has lived through seven kings but even he succumbs to death in the end. In battle many people say something along the lines of “your mother will weep for you” when they are about to kill someone. When someone dies people smear dirt on their heads and tear at their hair as a sign of mourning. Both Bahman and Faramarz avenge their father’s death.
What role does God/Fate play in the book? God is mentioned many times throughout the book. Whenever anyone writes a letter to someone else they praise God at the beginning of the letter. In the fourth trial that Rostam faces a witch is disguised as a beautiful women. Rostam praises God and the witch cannot handle it or understand it and is revealed as her true ugly self. Sam repents to God after abandoning Zal but God had ordained that Zal be raised in the nest of the Simorgh. “No one can escape God’s justice….A warrior’s teeth can be like anvils…but still he must obey God’s will.” (pg. 37) Fate controls everything, everything happens as God wills it too. When the men go into the battle they rely on Fate. If they are fated to die, let it be so. It was Fate that Rostam would kill his son and Esfandyar. They were both evenly matched but Fate willed it that Rostam would live. Fate also claimed that whoever killed Esfandyar would have a doomed fate.
1. What can be considered the cultural legacy of the Shah Nameh?
After the Muslim conquest of Iran, the Persian people could’ve very much ended with the same fate of the Persians that were assimilated after Hellenic conquest of Anatolia - a total loss of cultural history, and the uniqueness that made those people definable in the first place. There’s nothing that could have stopped the wash of Arab culture over Persia, save the collective effort of the Persians that was exemplified by the creation of Ferdowsi’s Shah Nameh. This is the reason why, that after more than a thousand years being part of the Islamic world, people in Iran still consider themselves Persian, they speak Persian, and they will fight for their autonomy over foreign influence. This is, in my opinion, the reason why they were so resentful against western intervention in the form of installing Shah Pahlavi, because they saw it as an erosion (or westernization) of a Persian society that has survived uninterrupted since Antiquity. This Persian defiance has colored the entirety of recorded history, from the time where the Shah Nameh takes place, until today.
2. Why is it so key that Rostam pays respect to the kings of Persia, that they would challenge such a legendary figure?
The tributary system used in Persia was a rudimentary form of taxation that, when carried out according to it’s function, was the primary peace-keeping function used within the various empires that held court over Iran. It was meant to be a way of establishing the superiority of those who carried the title King of Kings. Instead of warring over political control, regional kings would pay a tribute to the ultimate King, to keep the proverbial gravy-train rolling, and everyone relatively happy. By defying the “respect” the kings were due by virtue of his legendary strength, Rostam threatened to upset the order of the empire, and set a poor precedent for other particularly strong vassals of the King of Kings. Esfandiyar’s mission to imprison Rostam then becomes an attempt to show the force and legitimacy behind the throne, and not just some weird petty feud between the King and his nation’s greatest protector. It was a matter of upholding the law of the land, as it were.
3. How can Rostam be compared to heroic figures in more recent, and more ancient western traditions?
The ancient Greek legends of Hercules, and his fantastic feats of strength and heroism are echoed constantly throughout Rostam’s adventures in the Shah Nameh. From his tremendous stature, strength, and furiously protective mount, Rostam and Hercules can find a lot of common ground with each other. Rostam also acts as a guardian of his native peoples against the supernatural and extremely dangerous, much like Hercules did for his ancient compatriots (compare the legend of the Hydra to that of Rostam’s fight with the White Demon - both were single-handedly vanquished by the hero). Leaping into time ahead of the Shah Nameh, the American folk tale of Paul Bunyan is yet another example of a hero who, along with incredible physical traits and occupational prowess, does feats of good and kindness to people who have nothing more in common than a homeland. It highlights the importance of a national identity in countries that are going through transitional periods: the relatively recent Muslim conquest of Iran, and the phenomenon of Manifest Destiny in the frontier of the United States. People in a fragile country look for common points of light, so as to unite culturally and succeed with that shared point of origin or pride.
What is Zoroastrianism and why is it important in Shahnameh? Zoroastrianism is a religious concept that deals with good and evil. The basic idea behind Zoroastrianism is that the universe is the result of a battle between good and evil and that there needs to be a balance between the two. In order to be a complete or well rounded person it is thought that a person needs to have a balance of good and evil also, just like the universe does. This concept is important in the book Shahnameh because it is exemplified in one of the main characters. Rostam is the personified example of Zoroastrianism because he is both good and bad. He is portrayed as the hero but he is also a trickster.
What is the significance of the color white in Shahnemeh? The color white stands for evil in the book Shahnemeh. This is demonstrated in the white devil that Rostam has to defeat. Sam's son, Zal is born with white hair and Sam quickly questions whether his son is evil. He wasted no time in abandoning his child who was raised by Simorgh. When Zal grew up he had a son, Rostam. He has shown to have a little bit of evil in him. Rostam comes from a somewhat evil background because of his father's white hair. This all relates to Zoroastrianism because good and evil will always exist to form some sort of balance. This also relates to fact that Ferdowsi is trying to establish a difference between Persians, who are darker skinned, and other middle eastern cultures who are lighter skinned.
Is it fate or free will that is foregrounded in Rostam's heroic life? I think that fate ultimately ruled Rostam's life but he had free-will as well. Rostam's life is very supernatural. When Rudabeh was giving birth to Rostam, Simorgh told Zal that his son would grow up to be a hero and a legend. During Rostam's life, he was a hero but he also made some poor decisions on his own. He was warned not to kill Esfandiyar because fate said that whoever killed him would be doomed to have a bad life. Rostam made his own decision and killed him anyway. So, fate does play a huge role in Rostam's life but he does have the power to make his own decisions.
While reading The Shahnameh I was annoyed with how Rostam treated his horse, Rakkash. Rostam and Rakkash were perfect companions and inseparable. However at times, Rostam felt that he was smarter and more superior then Rakkash. In the chapter, The Seven Trials of Rostam, Rakkash tried warning Rostam several times about the dragon that was going to attack them. Instead of trying to figure out why Rakkash was acting out, he just got angry with Rakkash for waking him up. However after Rakkash’s third warning, Rostam saw the dragon and then they both defeated it. Afterwards, I felt like Rostam didn’t fully appreciate Rakkash’s warnings, it seemed like he didn’t want to accept the fact that Rakkash saved his life. In the chapter, The Death of Rostam, Rakkash tried saving their lives but once again Rostam refused to listen. Rakkash knew that something was wrong and tried telling Rostam that the path was dangerous by rearing up and refusing to go any further. This was extremely out of character for Rakkash to act this way. Instead of listening to his horse, Rostam whipped him until he had no choice but to go. This lead to their death, the path had a pit with spears and swords sticking out, so when they fell in they were stabbed. I have been riding horses for most of my life. It didn’t take long for me to realize that horses are really smart. Their senses are stronger than ours; so they are able detect a dangerous situation before the rider even realizes that there is danger. If a horse has a connection to someone, it means they generally trust and want what is best for their rider. Therefore, the rider needs to be in tune to what the horse is trying to tell them. So I find it frustrating when riders like Rostam, beat the crap out of their horse because they are too arrogant to listen to them.
What are the father and son relationships like in the Shahnameh? In most literature, fathers protect and want what’s best for their sons; this is not the case in the Shahnameh. There are several examples through out the Shahnameh that illustrate how fathers do not always look out for their sons. One example is how, Rostam tricks and then kills his son Sohrab without knowing it. Through out the battle Sohrab kept saying that he was looking for his father, Rostam. Rostam was so caught up in the moment he didn’t listen to Sohrab, and didn’t realize that he was his son until it was too late. Sam banished and left his infant son Zal to die in the woods. Due to the fact that, he had white hair. Lastly, Esfandiyar’s father didn’t want him to have the throne, so he sent Esfandiyar on a mission to bring Rostam to their kingdom in chains. His father knew that Esfandiyar would die in battle, but he would rather have his son die than to take the throne from him. I found it shocking that so many fathers in the Shahnameh were so willing to see their sons die. Generally, fathers want to protect their sons and help them succeed, not kill them for their own selfish needs.
Question: Why do you think nations need epics such as Aeneid or the Shahnameh?
I believe there are various reason that nations need epics. One major reason is for a better view of the ancient history of a given culture (this is in regards to old epics that have come out of cultures that date back to antiquity). Epic such as Aeneid, Shahnameh, and Homer's epics, for example, give the readers insight into events, cultural traditions, and other happenings. They may also give somewhat historical accounts of events that might not be documented anywhere else in history. A great example of this is the battle of Troy between the Greeks and the Trojans, as primarily spoken of in Homer's epic poem The Iliad (and also more briefly spoken of in his poem Odyssey). Homer's epics are widely regarded as works of fiction, however, the story of Troy which originates from his epics has turned out to be a real ancient city and culture. As a matter of fact, Homer's accounts of some of the geography are so accurate in The Iliad that Dr. Heinrich Schliemann used them in 1870 to actually find the site of the ancient city of Troy! With the existence of Troy, and the geographical parts of The Iliad being proven as historically accurate, one must then question what else of Homer's epics are historically accurate? It is well documented that Dr. Heinrich Schliemann believed that The Iliad and Aeneid told stories of actual historical events. This line of thought extends to all of the other really old epics as well; what parts of these supposed fictional epics are rooted in actual historical events, even if to a very small degree? This question is why these epics are so precious to nations who have ancient history, because not only are they a view into their antiquated culture, but they may even be historical records of that culture!
What is the new national epic/s of the American culture?
There are many new national epics of the American culture. Some of those newer epics are: Moby Dick, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Star Wars. While all three are known of internationally, Star Wars is probably the most popular of the three. I wanted to point out that Star Wars has the theme of father and son constantly fighting (Luke and Vader) as Shahnameh has in many different parts which was brought up in class today.
Kelly Gilbert HUMN 220 Blog #7 3/26/13 The Love Between Zal and Rudabeh I found these tales to be intriguing and I felt very pulled in with all the action and drama Ferdowsi used in his stories. My favorite aspect of the book was the romance and love between couples such as Zal and Radubeh. I always love reading about love stories especially with a touch of magic and mythical ideology involved. Looking at Zal, he is such a strong and masculine character. He is this man who was thrown into such a horrible situation as a young boy, he was given up by his father for just having white hair and set in the woods to basically die, but a Simorgh saves him and raises him in her nest. Zal has obviously had a very unusual childhood. On the other hand, Radubeh is born of royalty and lives in her father’s kingdom. She is absolutely stunning and beautiful and according to her slave girls, is too good for any man. However, Radubeh falls for Zal the minute she hears of him, and same goes for Zal. They have no even met each other, yet they’re in love just hearing the description of each other, which seems strange because today, that would probably never happen. Today, it usually takes a physical interaction for a couple to fall for each other. I feel that this unusual storyline is what makes is so interesting to me, that it’s no unlike the norm. I really appreciated Radubeh being so persistent about her feelings for Zal, even after asking her slave girls for their opinion of what she should do. Although they thought that she shouldn’t do what she says she wants to and that what she’s feeling is not right, she is angered by them and wishes they would go to Zal and relay a message to him from her about her feelings and her wish to meet him. I admire her strength. When Zal and Radubeh finally meet, I find it magical, like a fairytale. It even does have a reference to Rapunzel, when Radubeh says she will let down her hair and zal can climb up it to her. Although Zal refuses to climb up her hair, this is a very romantic and cute little scene in the story of The Love of Zal and Radubeh.
What is the religious perspective that is dominant in the Shamnameh?
The religious perspective that is dominant in the Shamnameh is Zoroastrianism. This is also called Mazdaism and Magianism. It is from ancient Iranian philosophy. In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods into two opposing forces, the Ahura Mazda which was the illuminating wisdom and the Angra Mainyu which was the destructive spirit. These forces were always in conflict. In simpler terms this is basically a battle between the good in evil in human beings. Rostam is a perfect example of this because he has a dualistic perspective of himself. At some points in the story he can be portrayed as a good character and at other times as a villain. He has a trickery way to his personality and also to his battle tactics throughout the story which helps him survive.
Describe the importance of Simorugh in Zal’s life.
Simorugh is extremely important in Zal’s life. Without him Zal would have died. Sam, Zal’s father could not stand the sight of his old man looking white hair and had Zal taken away to survive on his own as a child. Simorugh was brought by God to save Zal and raise him like one of its own. He was raised in the nest with the rest of the birds. Once Zal got older and stronger people had spread rumors of him being alive which had reached Sam. Sam was surprised to hear the news and set off to find Zal and bring him home. Simorugh allowed this and told Zal whenever he needed him Simorugh would come to help. And Zal did need Simorugh to birth his child. Simorugh helped Rostam become part of this world and without Simorugh this would not have been possible. Simorugh also helped Rostam the son of Zal as well as best as he could whenever he was called upon.
How do you interpret the unusual characteristic of Zal within the overall framework of the Shahnameh?
In my opinion I felt that Zal felt unusual and out of place in the society he lived in. Having white hair was definitely an off-putting quality of his. He seemed alien to me and didn’t belong. Even though he was a strong warrior and kind people didn’t treat him with respect because of the way he looked. Only when they finally listened to his wishes about marrying the Princess did they treat him better. Also, when Sam started to be on Zal’s side people followed along with him which helped.
What are some of the similarities between the Aeneid and the Shahnameh? A similarity I noticed between the two texts was the theme of love. In the Aeneid, Dido falls in love with Aeneas. I enjoyed following their “love story” throughout the text. They both were willing to do anything to keep their love alive, until Aeneas was forced to leave. In the Shahnameh, I noticed a similar love story between Zal and Rudabeh. Their love was also stopped at a halt due to differences in cultural backgrounds. Both of these stories followed the romance between two people but was not continued due to problems with their prior obligations or cultural backgrounds.
What are some of the similarities between the Republic and the Shahnameh? I found that the way the society is built is very similar in both the Republic and the Shahnameh. In the Shahnameh, there is a separation of people into different classes; priests, warriors, farmers, manual laborers, etc. There is also no social mobility. In the Republic, there were the guardians, the auxiliaries and the producers. The priests are very similar to the guardians, the auxiliaries are similar to the warriors and the producers are similar to the farmers and manual laborers.
What is the status of women in the Shahnameh? I found it very interesting how the role of women was depicted in the Shahnameh. Most of the texts that we have covered in this class have portrayed women as inferior to men however, in the Shahnameh, women are very highly esteemed individuals in society. The men often look to the women for advice. There are several instances in which the man’s finals decision was based on the woman’s input. I find this very interesting given the time period.
What is a trickster hero, and how does Rostam fit these qualifications? A trickster is someone who plays tricks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and conventional behavior, and Rostam does both! He has contempt for the Monarchy, something which should not be done, as they are the absolute rulers. In combat, when it seems that there is a chance that he may be subdued, he uses trickery to escape death, and to overcome his adversary. He talked Sohrab into letting him go, and then turned around and fatally wounded him. This turned out poorly for Rostam, because it ended up being his son, but he was blinded by his passion for war. He escaped death from Esfandiyar by tricking him, coming back, and using a magic arrow to defeat this invincible man, which also came back to haunt him when his kin came to take over his land after he had died. Tricksters are also known for using Magic, which Rostam also does, with the aid of the Simourgh, multiple times in the epic.
How does Rostam react to swearing loyalty to kings? He does it formally. If he likes the king, and he’s treated well, he will defend them till his last. But there is an underlying tone to the whole book. Rostam is his own man. His service is given voluntarily and cannot be constrained, and that he is at no one’s beck and call, not even his king’s. He is loyal only if he chooses. He is on the “edge,” having complete contempt for boundaries, choosing his own path. He is called the “kingmaker,” and every king who tries to cross him ends badly.
This was by far my favorite thing we've read thus far in the class but I have little to respond on. I really liked how it was written and the imagery used. The imagery was a bit redundant in a lot of ways, like when anyone that is tall and handsome/beautiful is compared to a cypress tree like on pages 18, 19, 21, 38,40, 41, 53, and so on, but some of the lines were very elegant. Not an example of imagery but a very well-put line was "we have come here so that her ruby lips can become acquainted with the lips of Sam's son" (Ferdowsi 17). It was a clever line since they had never even seen each other and instead of just saying they wanted to meet, Ferdowsi made it more romantic. The most care was taken in describing the physical attributes of the characters or the emotions they felt. For example, when speaking of Mehrab "...his body trembled, his face darkened, blood surged in his heart, his lips were cold with sighs, and he said, '"I shall make a river of blood of Rudabeh this moment"'(Ferdowsi 31). I also appreciated the description of the dragon when Ferdowsi said, "I approached and saw it was like a great mountain, with its hair trailing on the ground, its tongue like a black tree, its gullet breathing fire, its eyes like bowls of blood" (37). I appreciated that he didn't describe the dragon as having a cypress tree black tongue however.
How does Rostam compare with other male leads? I would say that Rostam is a physically strong character that can perform amazings feats. He is also unforgiving when performing a task he believes to be right and isn't bothered by the trickery he has to use in order to survive. This makes him incredibly different from the usual male characters in stories; Rostam isn't afraid to do bad things in order to reach his goal. The usual male character usually avoids doing anything bad, unless it entails killing an evil being as in Beowolf; meanwhile Rostam kills his own son. I think Rostam is more interesting than other male lead characters because he is showing off his humanity and the combination of good and evil that he is.
I also thought that this is one of the better epics that I have been able to read. The words are precise and flow beautifully and there is continuous imagery. The italicized sections are phrased nicely and allow characters to be understandable as well as pointing out important breaks in the story. The entire story is interesting and connect to stories that I'm already familiar with while remaining unique.
After Sam abandoned his son Zal, it was the Simourgh that found him. The bird took Zal to its nest and raised Zal keeping him safe and fed. Then after Sam came back to retrieve his son the Simourgh gave Zal some of its feathers so that Zal could call if he ever needed help. If it were not for the Simourgh’s actions Zal would probably not have lived to make it home. Also, if not for the Simourgh, Zal would not have been able to father his son Rostam. Therefore if not for the Simourgh all of Rostam’s achievements would never have occurred.
What is the significance of the women’s role in Shahnameh?
One aspect of the story I noticed was how unique the role of women was in important matters. For instance after Zal and Rudabeh had fallen in love and Mehrab consulted with his wife on the issue. Also, when Sam and his army came Mehrab listened to the advice of his wife and sent her out to speak with Sam. There were also other aspects in the story where Kings would consult their wives regarding official matters. To me this represents a unique role that women represent as valued advisors to their husbands instead of just inferior partners.
What is Rakkash’s role in the story?
Rakkash is Rostam’s magnificent horse who serves as Rostam’s loyal companion. Out of all the other horses Rostam looked at Rakkash was the only one who could carry Rostam. Rakkash also looks out for Rostam’s safety by killing a lion that attempted to sneak up on them. Rakkash also warned Rostam several times of a dragon’s presence before the warrior was finally able to make out the dragon and kill it. I noticed however that Rostam seemed to treat Rakkash as an inferior on occasion. For instance Rostam instructed Rakkash to not challenge any threats, after the lion attacked, and instead to wake him since the horse might not be able to win such a battle. But when Rakkash attempted to wake his master about the dragon Rostam didn’t see the dragon and expressed irritation with the horse instead of believing him. However I believe that Rostam paid for his disregard for his horse when he fell into the pit. Since Rakkash had sensed the pit was there and it was Rostam’s stubbornness that led them into the pit to their deaths. In the end had Rostam had more belief in Rakkash he might not have died as he did.
Father and son The father son relationship of Shahnameh is very different than the relationship we see today in general society. In this story this relationship is adversarial in that it the fathers plot against there sons (successors seems to be the better word) and try to maintain their power. This story has two heroes and two kings whose story is almost identical. Sam the father of Zal casts his son out to die due to his white hair, and only saves him because he thinks it will keep him in power. While King Gostasp sends his son to bind Rostam and make him prisoner, knowing that this will kill his son. The king does this because he fears losing his crown. In these two cases the reoccurring theme is that the preservation of one’s own power is the greatest ideal. For the other father son relation there is Rostam and his two very different sons. Rostam ends up battling his son Sohrab, and killing him. Sohrab had Rostam beat and it is obvious that his son had inherited his father’s strength and not his mindset (genetics versus being raised without him). While his other son Faramarz has certainly learned his father mindset and gets revenge for the death of his father. An interesting thought is if Faramarz fought Rostam instead of Sohrab who would have won? Animal relations with Rostam The two main animals in this story are the Simorgh and Rakkash. They could be considered “spirit guides” that have physical form as well. Both of these animals care for their masters but when it comes time to listen to their advice they are tossed aside. The Simorgh in this story is characterized as good, it has raised Zal after his father left him to die and offered him protection. And with Rostam the Simorgh warns Rostam that whoever kills Esfendyiar will be doomed. His warning is brushed aside and Rostams fate sealed. Rakkash is the faithful steed of Rostam. Rakkash’s fate seems foreshadowed in the seven trials of Rostam. He saves Rostam from a lion while he sleeps, showing that he will protect Rostam. In another trial Rakkash stomps and makes the dragon disappear, but wakes up Rostam in the process. This angers Rostam, instead of trusting in his magnificent steed he is frustrated. This moment signifies that Rostams patience with his steed may be a key trial in his life. In the final part of Rakkash and Rostams relationship Rakkash tries to save Rostam from falling into a pit. But ultimately Rakkash is frustrated and whips Rakkash forcing Rakkash to dash into death. If Rostam was more willing to heed the warnings of animals he may have delayed his death. Pride Pride seems to be ones doom in the Shahnameh. King Gostasp is to prideful and arrogant to let his son succeed him and thus kills his son and ends up setting up his own death by revenge. Rostams pride seems to be most evident in this tale. Rostam refused to be led away in chains by Esfendyiar even though it would have cost him pride and may have brought shame it could have saved his life. Rostam was to prideful to let someone beat him or surrender and it ended up sealing his faith. One could even say that his pride in his family helped his death by not heeding Rakkashs warning because he was hasty to deal punishment for insult. Pride does not seem beneficial in the Shahnameh.
What is the role of women in Shanameh? How does it differ from other works we have read? How are they portrayed? Is Shanameh a feminist work, in comparison to other works of it’s time?
In Shanameh, specifically the stories of Rostam and his father Sam, women seem to play a very important role. Through out the story husbands go to their wives for help and council. It seems that women have a large sway over men and their opinions were much more valued than in other works. Sindokht, the queen of Kabol, was able to calm her husband down when he became furious with their daughter Rubadeh for consorting with Zal (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 30-31). Sindokht is able to calm her husband again when he finds that an army is coming to destroy his lands because Zal and Rubadeh are infatuated with each other and if the two joined their new kingdom would be unstoppable (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 38-39).
Women in Shanameh were also entrusted with more important tasks than in previous works we have read. One example of women taking on more important tasks is when Rubadeh’s slave girls were entrusted with messages from both Zal and Rubadeh (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 19-22). These messages were secret, unknown to the king of Kalob Mehrab and his queen Sindokht. The slave girls are also entrusted to ferry gifts from Zal to Rubadeh and vice-versa (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 28-30). The women in this work seem to be more equal to men than women in other works that we have read, although they are still subservient to men.
In the Bible there is a completely different role for women, they are often portrayed as weak willed and easily turned from god. In the story of Job, after Satan starts terrorizing Job, his wife tells him to denounce god and spurn his name. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the angels warned Lot and his family to not look back as they escape. While the cities are being destroyed Lot’s wife turns back to look and becomes a pillar of salt. These two stories show how the Bible portrays most of the women in its stories, weak willed and not as devote as men. In Plato’s Republic women are also described as subservient to men, in respect to their specific classes.
I would say that although through out Shanameh women are portrayed in a much better light than women in other works, it is still not a feminist work. It could be considered a feminist work at that time period, especially if you look at how Muslim women are treated today. Shanameh is miles ahead of other works of it’s times in terms of gender equality, they are generally more valued and respected. The women in Shanameh are still subservient to the men and seem to accept this lesser role.
It seems to me a national epic has two dual purposes. They serve to define and perhaps celibrate or glorify one specific national identity (the national part) as well as to deal with the broadest and most universal themes imaginable that all peoples and nations have had to deal with throughtout time: life and death, good and evil, justice and injustice, fate and independence (the epic part). In the Shahnameh (or at least the portions focusing on Rostam), these purposes are fulfilled. Ferdowsi defines Persian identity based on the ideal characteristics of Rostam: he is a brave warrior, a quick thinker and is loyal to the Persian royalty when they are deserving of his loyalty, so in this way he is just and fair. These are all qualities Ferdowsi seaks to idealize as the Persian way. One characteristic of Rostam that Ferdowsi perhaps wishes to discourage in Persians is the act of going against one's fate, as is implied by Rostam's death after he doesn't heed the warning of the mythical Simourgh. Through Rostam's adventures, Ferdowsi is able to deal with the broad, universal themes but demonstrate the Persian way of dealing with them; for instance, he shows Rostam to be a mix of heroic and demonic lineages, so the Persian perspective might be that all men must balance the good and evil within themselves.
What is the American national epic?
There are a lot of viable candidates for this title, but I would argue that if there has to be one national epic, it would be the Superman epic, as it has unfolded in various serialized comic books and novels since 1938. Superman's experience can be seen as the quintessential ideaized American experience: he is an immigrant (from Krypton), who is raised in the rural great plains by simple, hard working, compassionate people, and then goes to live in a bustling metropolis literally called Metropolis, a kind of representation of all aspects of post-industrial, urban America. He is impossibly strong, brave, quick witted, and yet still compassionate and humble, never forgetting his simple up bringing. And he fights directly in the most epic battle of all, the battle between good and evil. If Superman stands for the American Way, then those qualities must be the American Way. And Superman has also had the capability to change to fit the national mood at any given time, since he is part of an ever continuing story, beginning during the Depression as a fighter against corrupt politicians and crooked land lords, and then changing during World War II to an uber patriotic war bonds salesman. Superman is the first and most archetypical of the superheroes, an American invention, a man who is not constrained by any frontiers or limitations and has enormous power, yet chooses to use his power for the good of all mankind. He is everything America aspires to be, and so is the perfect candidate to be the hero in our national epic.
How can the audience view Ferdowsi writing Persian myths and legends in the Persian language as well as referencing Zoroastrian values when he was under Islamic rule? This aspect of the life and times of Ferdowsi should be an important consideration in the critical interpretation of his writings, which were done in a time that the Islamic Empire had been extremely dominant in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Ferdowsi was an Iranian which would place his homeland in between Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula, which are two of the most powerful and influential geographic areas in the rise and dominance of Islam. Iranian culture which included the Persian language, Zoroastrianism, and the myths and legends that accompany these aspects of Persian culture were being suppressed by Arabic, Islam, and the culture that is associated with being a Muslim. The answer to reconciling these differences is the plurality of culture and the different parts of life that define every member of any society; this plurality means that every person has different socio-cultural ideals and values that important to them. Using Ferdowsi as an example; he was a Muslim, but he was also an Iranian with deep ties to the older Persian culture. This means that while he would worship Allah and obey the laws of Islam he would also feel connected to older Persian legends, myths, historical figures, language and any other part of the Persian culture that defined Iran for centuries. Ferdowsi could be considered an Iranian who was also a Muslim, because these things are not exclusive or conflicting in nature. Applying this to other situations and individuals can bring this argument from tenth century Iran to today; many people claim to be American Communist, Muslims or Christians with progressive values, secular Jews, or people who strongly identify with the nation that they or their family have immigrated from as well as their new home of America. This raises the question of whether or not a child of immigrants from India who follows the religion of Hinduism and still speaks Punjabi at home could be considered a real American, the answer is yes. This individual is an Indian-American and a follower of Hinduism. These things do not restrict whether or not they are American, they are simply aspects of a plural and complex identity that this specific individual has. This can be applied once again to Ferdowsi, his pride and knowledge of Persian culture and traditions did not mean he was not a Muslim, but rather that he was a Muslim that had an Iranian heritage. Writing this massive anthology of the history of Iran and Persian culture was a rejection of Arab and Turkish influence that was dominating his culture, writing an epic tale of Persian history and culture was a way of reinforcing what he identified with as an Iranian. Ferdowsi disliking Arab influence and language instead of Persian influence and language did not make him a bad Muslim, but rather an Iranian with pride. Plurality is the ability to identify with different cultures and values, but not to be completely defined and restricted by these cultures and values.
Why are our heroes orphans? Harry Potter. Super Man. Spiderman. Batman. Luke Skywalker. Each a very famous orphan who came to define for a generation of Americans what being a hero is about. Other heroic orphans include Evey Hammond from V for Vendetta, the Boudelaire children from A Series of Unfortunate Events, the Elric brothers from Fullmetal Alchemist, and Naruto from the self-titled manga. Others still, like Zal of Shahnameh, were raised by animals, including Tarzan and Romulus. I can’t say with any certainty why orphans are so overrepresented in media, but I can propose a few possibilities. Heroes generally follow a path from weakness to strength, which requires a disadvantage in his/her background. However, many are born with an unearned gift, whether it is a family fortune, being strong with the force, or magical powers, indicating they are supposed to be special from birth. Another possibility is that we consider persevering through a tragedy to be a heroic trait: a testament to his/her strength. Being orphaned forces them to begin independently and acquire companions to help them. Why do so many heroes have daddy issues? Luke Skywalker. Sohrab. Oedipus. Perseus. Zeus. Jason. Once again, no one reason can fully explain it. Freud would attribute it to competition for his mother, but Freud would be wrong. Few of these heroes knew it was their fathers they had to fight or kill when they began their journeys. It could be that, again, the tragedy and emotional strife adds to our perception of their strength. Humans may innately view overtaking their parents as a rite of passage into adulthood. Regardless, the two above trends seem to suggest heroes have to come from broken families for them to be respected. Was Rustem being a good warrior when he tricked Sohrab? Rustem, after being beaten by his son Sohrab, tricked him into not killing him, allowing him to meet him again in combat and eventually kill Sohrab. As a warrior, was this trickery dishonorable? Is there a higher moral standard than simply trying to win the battle? Was his trickery simply using his experience as an advantage over an enemy who was using his youth against Rustem? In my opinion being able to deceive an enemy requires a talent, a strength to be utilized. Odysseus was known and respected for his clever tactics among the Greeks, so I see little reason why Rustem should be criticized for it. While his combat was different in that it was one-on-one and relied on mutual respect between the fighters, Rustem had every right to use whatever abilities he had at his disposal.
Fathers and sons... Zal said that a Man leaves behind two things, his fortune and his son. If a man feels the forboding presence of his own mortality and his own doomed fate weaving closer and closer to the end of their thread, they act in desperation. Sam, I believe abandoned a deformed son Zal, in fear of not just death but dying and having a son incapable of maintaining his legacy. This is a topic that is not talked about much because does anyone want to stare death in the face and think about those who will remember you and what they will remember you for. If Sam did not believe he would be remembered because the only person he would leave behind would one day "kill him" by letting him be forgotton or remembered wrongly, is it hard to believe he would do whatever was in his power to protect his own interests, including leaving his infant son to the animals?
Women in Persia My Great Grandmother granted this concept to her daughter-in-law and it was passed to my mother. Women might have been put on this planet to listen to and obey their husbands, but if they listen wisely, know them more intametly than anyone, and give well councel they can control their husband so well that they will never even know they were played. Have you ever heard the prase "make him think it was his idea?" Well this is a very well known concept to the women of the Middle East and one well known to my Lebanese Grandmother. If these stories are indication, it was well known by the Persian women as well. When Rudabeh's mother tells her daughter to dress in a beautiful gown and cry in front of her father, she is telling her daughter to trick her father into forgiveness. Nifty skill huh?
1) I’m going to begin my question with a short anecdote. When I saw on the syllabus we were reading Shahnameh this week I realized that I did not have a copy of the text. I then went to Milne Library only to find that there was not one copy of this epic in all of the library’s collection. Why is this the case, when almost every text we have read thus far has been readily available in the library? While I was able to find the text on the internet eventually, I was very surprised by the fact the library did not have it. But then I thought about it for a minute and it made much more sense. It all goes back to the idea of a “Western Humanities Canon,” and who is responsible for dictating this master list of literature. Shahnameh deals mostly with Middle-Eastern heroes and settings, so it is no surprise that it may have been skipped over by someone interested in “Western Humanities.” However, this text discusses many of the same issues as the “Classics” and provides new perspectives on humanity and/human nature.
2) Is Shahnameh comparable to other influential texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an? Why or why not? It would be a statement of fact to say that Shahnameh is as influential as the foundational religious texts mentioned above, but they are influential for different reasons. In their most basic elements, all of the aforementioned literature share many obvious similarities. From structure to subject matter, from the non-linear interpretation of time to the heroes that dominate the tales, the resemblances are hard to ignore. This can partly be attributed to the fact that Shahnameh is in fact a religious text, but it is not considered to be a pillar of faith like the Bible or the Qur’an. Also, once the religious implications are stripped away, all three of these examples of literature could be considered epic stories. We are able to view Shahnameh with an open mind unclouded by presuppositions of faith and religion, where as it is much more difficult to do this with the Bible or Qur’an. But the downside of this is that this text is not held in as high regard as the other two, and this fact makes Shahnameh incomparable to a work such as the two mentioned above. Shahnameh inspires to unite a nation, to bring together a specific group of people and to promote their culture and way of life. The other texts, however, seek to unite people under religious beliefs. Because of this, in more modern examples at least, Shahnameh can appear as more of an epic someone would read for pleasure. This is contrary to the Bible or the Qur’an, which provide people with a moral code many still abide by. Although the stories and subject matter are similar, Shahnameh cannot be compared to the Bible or Qur’an.
3) Shahnameh is a text that contains a great deal of Iranian cultural identity. Do any of the other texts we have encountered this semester have this same quality? The easy answer to this question would be no. No group or culture defines themself and take so much pride from a single work of literature than the Iranians with Shahnameh. The closest example to compare the text with would be the Kallipolis in Plato’s Republic, as both are centered on a core national identity.
While discussing Ferdowsi's tale of Rostam in class I began to question what the underlying moral of the story was. I found that could come to no immediate conclusion. My own hypothesis was that it must have something to do with the virtue of justice because what is the point in writing a history of your people and teaching poor values. Rostam does not place his loyalty directly with the several kings which reveals his anarchic nature and the reader is left with a open enterpretation of what justice is. This led me back to the argument that Thrasymachus makes about the definition of justice back in the republic. That justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. I felt that this was a core issue that is arisen in the tale of Rostam because Rostam is the strongest so he decides what is just. The good and evil that is deep within Rostam demonstrates why what Thrasymachus was saying has some tangibility. Having good and evil traits demonstrates balance and perhaps being the strongest itself means you set the par for what justice is. If your the strongest and you decide what justice is even if you were a tyrant it wouldn't matter because you would not be challenged and you could create a world where tyranny is the true way. Good and evil within you would automatically be balanced out because the world would be subjected to you the ruler. The most evil man in our eyes would be considered half good and bad to the people that rein under him because their perspectives would be shifted by his rule alone. The fact that Ferdowsi's Shahnameh was rejected by Mahmoud of Ghazni is proof that the most powerful decide what is just. Ferdowsi dies in poverty because the king decided that his book was not relevant because it focused on Persian rather than Islamic values. Or Janshid within the Shahnameh dividing people into major classes deciding that it was a just thing to do. This example is stronger because separate civilizations came to the same conclusion close to the same time. The greeks were doing the same thing in another part of the world with no outside influence so perhaps there is a grand design at work and both eventually reached justice because society inevitable evolves that way. Thinking about this for as long as I did brought me to Darwins theory of natural selection(or survival of the fittest) and proof that justice is determined by the most powerful because the winers write the history books.
Robert Lawton Shahnemeh Are certain stories universal? I was struck in reading the Shahnemeh how familiar some of the stories were, though I had never read them. The tragedy of Rostam would be very at home in a Greek or Roman myth. The Seven trials should make anyone familiar with mythology immediately think of Hercules. The assistance by animals and totem spirits would fit very accordingly also within Native American and South American mythology. The underlying themes of good and evil, questioning of the Gods and fate are all central to our archetypical heroic myths and l,egends. Some specific fairy tale stories such as Rapunzel are represented. When Zaul goes to meet Rabudeh she lets down her hair so that he may climb the wall. Of course, contrary to the European story we know, in this version the hero chooses not to debase or harm the woman, but instead uses his own might and shockingly a rope. The hero is not just strong and chivalrous, but also smart. The same cannot be said about all European heroes. Is this tale about violence? It is almost comical how quickly our society labels everything not ours as violent, while glossing over our own innate violence. When looking for electronic copies and commentaries there was one consistent word: violence. So much focus and emphasis was put on the deevs, and the violence of the heroes. Again, this is not so different from the heroes that we grew up learning. God turning an entire city to salt? Children being eaten by a witch? A witch being melted on screen, or having a house droppe don her? These are just some of the very violent, iconic tales we grew up with. Not so sure the Shahnemeh is that much worse.
In the Shahnameh, women are portrayed very differently than they were in most of the other texts we have covered. In the other texts, they tend to be portrayed either as inferior, or witch like. However, in the Shahnameh, women are held in high esteem. Men often consult them for help.
Fathers and Sons
The theme of fathers and sons in the Shahnameh is very complex. There are several instances in which fathers and sons are pitted against one another; Zal is sent to his death by his father, Sam, because he was born with white hair, the sign of a demon. Sohrab is killed by his father, Rostam, although Rostam does not know that Sohrab is his son. However, the interactions between father and son are not only violent. For instance, as soon as Sam learns of who Zal has become, he begs for forgiveness and acceptance from his son.
I am very curious why a father would leave his son abandoned to die, simply because he looks different. Supposedly a parent's love for their child is unconditional, yet his father readily left him to die because his hair was white, and was albino. I understand that being albino is an evil omen, but then wouldn't the first step taken be to try and purge whatever evil was within Zal? Or perhaps to try to change the way he looks in the thoughts that whatever demon consumed him may not recognize him? I feel that in that time period these would be thoughts considered, as minimal and improbable they would be. Instead, Sam took the easy route out and left his son to die. When Sam came back for his son, it was because he found out Zal was meant for great things, and that he was powerful and special. In my opinion, that is the most selfish thing in the world for a father to do. It is one thing if he really regretted his decision to abandon his son, but he went back because Zal is special. I personally would have loved to smack Sam for that. Maybe he regretted it a little bit, but not enough to go back before he found out how special Zal was. All of a sudden Zal had some value, and then all of a sudden his father wanted him back. It made me angry.
Another curiosity I found was when Rostam and Sohrab fought. I don't understand why Rostam did not tell Sohrab the truth about who he was. Sohrab asked him if he was Rostam, and he denied it. Rostam saw his own grandfather in Sohrab, said he was an image of Sam. Wouldn't he put the pieces together? Sohrab kept trying to guide him in the right direction with it. Sohrab had a feeling he was fighting Rostam, but was never very clear about it. This story frustrated me because of this.
Is it fate or free will that is foregrounded in Rostam’s heroic life?
ReplyDeleteA major theme in the Shahnameh is destiny. Characters in the poem are subject to fate and destiny the day they are born. Although ultimately destiny dictates how events will unfold, people exhibit some degree of free will. In Rostam’s case, fate is clearly the major influence in his heroic life. Prior to his birth, the astrologers foresaw that Rostam would be the mightiest warrior that the world had ever seen, “Of cypress stature and mammoth might, Two miles will barely show his javelin’s flight.” (p.54). They also predicted that he would master all beasts of the world and conquer dragons, which turned out to happen in the story. Right from the start Rostam is granted by fate his natural gifts, making it inevitable for him to become a great warrior. More evidence that Rostam’s life is guided by fate is seen in his battle scenes. He continuously reiterates that whatever happens is always the will of God and according to destiny/fate. In his battle with Sohrab he does not fear death because he would accept it as fate’s doing. This same sentiment is seen in his tragic battle with Esfandiyar. Rostam tells Esfandiyar, “If fate has driven you and your men here, you will be destroyed by me.” (p.234). Despite his father’s advice, Rostam appeals to fate and says that he must kill Esfandiyar if fate has decided it (which it had, when the astrologers spoke to Goshtasp). Although Rostam has the ability to decide some aspects of his own destiny, some things he cannot change and fate is the main force guiding his life.
How does Rostam compare to Aeneas?
These two epic heroes are an interesting pair to compare and contrast because of the differences between Western and Eastern literature. The most obvious similarity between these two characters is that their lives are guided by fate. No matter what, Aeneas’s destiny was to conquer Italy and found the new Trojan state. The God’s were on his side so he could not lose. Rostam was destined to be the strongest, fiercest warrior the world had ever seen. Not only was he backed by his own religion but also by the forces of nature. He was the only one who could ride Rakkash and the Simourgh also protected him. Both heroes also openly accepted their destinies and led their lives accordingly. Another similarity between the two is that they both exhibit pietas. Aeneas is loyal to his father and Rostam is loyal and also very proud of his strong heritage. A key difference between the heroes is that Rostam is a tragic hero whereas the ending of the Aeneid is a happy one. Rostam not only kills his own son but also dooms himself by murdering Esfandiyar. On the other hand, despite losses of friends and family, Aeneas ultimately fulfills his destiny and sets the stage for the birth of the great Roman Empire. Rostam also exhibits many questionable qualities, such as his trickery and staunch individualism. The story of Aeneas is one that also glorifies Augustus Caesar whereas Rostam does not always show loyalty to the throne. Although these two characters represent very different cultures, there are many similarities between them. This shows that there may not in fact be such a large divide between “Western” and “Eastern” literature.
Colin Moore
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Themes and Characters in the Shahnameh
How is the father vs. son theme portrayed throughout the Shahnameh?
The theme of fathers versus their sons is an important one throughout these stories of Sam, Zal, and Rostam. The first example of fathers versus sons was when Sam sent Zal to die in the mountains because he was born with white hair. This was the first conflict between a father and a son in the Shahnameh. Another example of fathers versus their sons was when Rostam killed his own son. Even though Rostam did not know that Sohrab was his son, Sohrab did know that Rostam was his father. Rostam was too blinded by his emotions to realize that the person he was fighting was his own son. The father vs. sons theme is important to this book because every generation in this family line is affected by it. Fathers and sons continually clash throughout this book whether it is about appearances or through hand to hand combat. The relationship between the father and his sons do receive some focus because in most cases the father and the sons conflict in some way.
How is Rakhsh important in the Shahnameh?
Rakhsh is one of Rastom’s dearest friends throughout his life. Rakhsh was Rastom’s horse that protected and supported him through thick and thin. Rakhsh was also important because he helped Rostam through a few of the seven trials Rostam had to go through. Rakhsh completed the first trial when he killed the lion that was attempting to kill Rostam. The lion was killed before Rostam even woke up. Rakhsh also alerted Rostam when a dragon swooped down into the area. The horse also helped Rostam kill the dragon. Rakhsh was important because he was Rostam’s sidekick, and every hero needs a sidekick. Hercules had Pegasus, Batman had Robin, and Rostam had Rakhsh. Rakhsh was also important by means of Rastom’s fate. Fate decided everything for Rostam and Rakhsh was just a tool that supernatural powers used to complete Rostam’s fate.
How was the ending compared to other endings of epics in the past?
In my opinion, the ending of this book was somewhat disappointing. I feel that Rastom died in a somewhat boring way. He fell into a pit lined with spears. I feel like a proper hero should go out in a proper, heroic way. This is different from other epics because other heroes either succeed or die in a heroic way. Aeneas in The Aeneid was successful in his quest to kill his competitor and begin a long line of successful rulers of Rome. I found the ending to the Shahnameh to be disappointing because his death was not heroic; he was killed in a somewhat cowardly way. He was tricked. However, it is an ironic death because Rostam was a trickster hero.
What can be the true symbol of Zal?
ReplyDeleteZal is born a child with white hair and very powerful. His dad wants nothing to do with because he has white hair. I think of this as just because this child is born differently then you may have thought he should have looked like does not mean he has a main purpose here in this world. I think Sam did not think about he would do by sending his newborn son away just because he is different. Sam does go back and rethink his decision but this is some time after. Zal being born differently I think made his dad try to understand his full potentially is to be. Just because his hair is different does not mean Zal will not be a good person. Sam going to the Sigmorh shows that he has remorse in what he done. For me I thought this was a very good thing for Sam to do. I think it by setting his son free it made him think about what he did and that even though his son is born different that made just because he has different colored hair that he is still his son and he must love him the same.
How is Rostam seen as a hero?
For me I think this starts back from when he is born. He is born like no other child before. I see this as a way of describing him in the future that he will be a figure of importance. He is also around the sigmorh which is how raised his dad Zal. He grows into a man very quickly because of a magic feather. For me this means that he is needed out in the world a lot quicker than he is to grow up normally. Being an adult means he can serve more as a hero figure. He always seems o be going into these battles and always comes out on top. He then finds himself a special horse named Rakkish who I think fits right in with him. They both stand out and each quality of them is balanced by the other. I see his horse as a side kick who is always there to help Rostam out when he needs it the most.
Jessica Bourdage
ReplyDeleteHow are the relationships between fathers and sons shown?
The relationships between the fathers and the sons of the Shahnameh are rocky. There are many example beginning with Sam and Zal. Just because Zal has white hair his father, Sam, casts him away. Rostam ends up killing his own son in battle when he doesn’t know that Sohrab is his son. Rostam tricks his son when Sohrab almost kills him by saying that you must fell someone twice before you kill them. Another example of the conflicts shown between fathers and sons is Esfandyar and his father, King Gostasp. The king orders Esfandyar to go bring back Rostam bound in chains. Esfandyar knows that his father is simply sending him there because the king knows Esfandyar will die and won’t be able to steal the crown from him. “You’re not pursuing Zal and Rostam-I,/ Your son, am singled out by you to die;/ Your jealous passion for your sovereignty/ Has made you want to rid the world of me.” (Pg. 170) The King was willing to have his son killed than take a chance that Esfandyar could take the throne. His daughters tell him, “Neither the Simorgh nor Rostam nor Zal killed [Esfandyar]: you killed him…Shame on your white beard, that you killed your son for the sake of greed.” (pg. 210) But there are also instances when the son avenges their fathers deaths such as Faramarz when Rostam dies and Bahman when he becomes king.
How do people deal with death in the book?
Throughout the book astrologers and other wise men are called upon to show what fate has in store for the future. King Gostasp learns from astrologers that Esfandyar will be killed if he goes to meet with Rostam and yet he still orders him to go. Fathers so easily dismiss their youth. King Gostasp sends Esfandyar on an impossible task to keep his own throne, Sam leave Zal because he has white hair and Mehrah was going to kill his daughter, Rudabeh, when she wanted to marry Zal. When going into battle the people accept that if they are fated to die it must be so. “Death comes to all.”(pg. 137) “Who is immortal? We are all Death’s prey, both he who wears a helmet and he who wears the crown.” (pg. 136) Rostam seems almost immortal, he never loses in a fight and has lived through seven kings but even he succumbs to death in the end. In battle many people say something along the lines of “your mother will weep for you” when they are about to kill someone. When someone dies people smear dirt on their heads and tear at their hair as a sign of mourning. Both Bahman and Faramarz avenge their father’s death.
What role does God/Fate play in the book?
God is mentioned many times throughout the book. Whenever anyone writes a letter to someone else they praise God at the beginning of the letter. In the fourth trial that Rostam faces a witch is disguised as a beautiful women. Rostam praises God and the witch cannot handle it or understand it and is revealed as her true ugly self. Sam repents to God after abandoning Zal but God had ordained that Zal be raised in the nest of the Simorgh. “No one can escape God’s justice….A warrior’s teeth can be like anvils…but still he must obey God’s will.” (pg. 37) Fate controls everything, everything happens as God wills it too. When the men go into the battle they rely on Fate. If they are fated to die, let it be so. It was Fate that Rostam would kill his son and Esfandyar. They were both evenly matched but Fate willed it that Rostam would live. Fate also claimed that whoever killed Esfandyar would have a doomed fate.
1. What can be considered the cultural legacy of the Shah Nameh?
ReplyDeleteAfter the Muslim conquest of Iran, the Persian people could’ve very much ended with the same fate of the Persians that were assimilated after Hellenic conquest of Anatolia - a total loss of cultural history, and the uniqueness that made those people definable in the first place. There’s nothing that could have stopped the wash of Arab culture over Persia, save the collective effort of the Persians that was exemplified by the creation of Ferdowsi’s Shah Nameh. This is the reason why, that after more than a thousand years being part of the Islamic world, people in Iran still consider themselves Persian, they speak Persian, and they will fight for their autonomy over foreign influence. This is, in my opinion, the reason why they were so resentful against western intervention in the form of installing Shah Pahlavi, because they saw it as an erosion (or westernization) of a Persian society that has survived uninterrupted since Antiquity. This Persian defiance has colored the entirety of recorded history, from the time where the Shah Nameh takes place, until today.
2. Why is it so key that Rostam pays respect to the kings of Persia, that they would challenge such a legendary figure?
The tributary system used in Persia was a rudimentary form of taxation that, when carried out according to it’s function, was the primary peace-keeping function used within the various empires that held court over Iran. It was meant to be a way of establishing the superiority of those who carried the title King of Kings. Instead of warring over political control, regional kings would pay a tribute to the ultimate King, to keep the proverbial gravy-train rolling, and everyone relatively happy. By defying the “respect” the kings were due by virtue of his legendary strength, Rostam threatened to upset the order of the empire, and set a poor precedent for other particularly strong vassals of the King of Kings. Esfandiyar’s mission to imprison Rostam then becomes an attempt to show the force and legitimacy behind the throne, and not just some weird petty feud between the King and his nation’s greatest protector. It was a matter of upholding the law of the land, as it were.
3. How can Rostam be compared to heroic figures in more recent, and more ancient western traditions?
The ancient Greek legends of Hercules, and his fantastic feats of strength and heroism are echoed constantly throughout Rostam’s adventures in the Shah Nameh. From his tremendous stature, strength, and furiously protective mount, Rostam and Hercules can find a lot of common ground with each other. Rostam also acts as a guardian of his native peoples against the supernatural and extremely dangerous, much like Hercules did for his ancient compatriots (compare the legend of the Hydra to that of Rostam’s fight with the White Demon - both were single-handedly vanquished by the hero). Leaping into time ahead of the Shah Nameh, the American folk tale of Paul Bunyan is yet another example of a hero who, along with incredible physical traits and occupational prowess, does feats of good and kindness to people who have nothing more in common than a homeland. It highlights the importance of a national identity in countries that are going through transitional periods: the relatively recent Muslim conquest of Iran, and the phenomenon of Manifest Destiny in the frontier of the United States. People in a fragile country look for common points of light, so as to unite culturally and succeed with that shared point of origin or pride.
What is Zoroastrianism and why is it important in Shahnameh?
ReplyDeleteZoroastrianism is a religious concept that deals with good and evil. The basic idea behind Zoroastrianism is that the universe is the result of a battle between good and evil and that there needs to be a balance between the two. In order to be a complete or well rounded person it is thought that a person needs to have a balance of good and evil also, just like the universe does. This concept is important in the book Shahnameh because it is exemplified in one of the main characters. Rostam is the personified example of Zoroastrianism because he is both good and bad. He is portrayed as the hero but he is also a trickster.
What is the significance of the color white in Shahnemeh?
The color white stands for evil in the book Shahnemeh. This is demonstrated in the white devil that Rostam has to defeat. Sam's son, Zal is born with white hair and Sam quickly questions whether his son is evil. He wasted no time in abandoning his child who was raised by Simorgh. When Zal grew up he had a son, Rostam. He has shown to have a little bit of evil in him. Rostam comes from a somewhat evil background because of his father's white hair. This all relates to Zoroastrianism because good and evil will always exist to form some sort of balance. This also relates to fact that Ferdowsi is trying to establish a difference between Persians, who are darker skinned, and other middle eastern cultures who are lighter skinned.
Is it fate or free will that is foregrounded in Rostam's heroic life?
I think that fate ultimately ruled Rostam's life but he had free-will as well. Rostam's life is very supernatural. When Rudabeh was giving birth to Rostam, Simorgh told Zal that his son would grow up to be a hero and a legend. During Rostam's life, he was a hero but he also made some poor decisions on his own. He was warned not to kill Esfandiyar because fate said that whoever killed him would be doomed to have a bad life. Rostam made his own decision and killed him anyway. So, fate does play a huge role in Rostam's life but he does have the power to make his own decisions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDid Rostam fully respect and trust Rakkash?
DeleteWhile reading The Shahnameh I was annoyed with how Rostam treated his horse, Rakkash. Rostam and Rakkash were perfect companions and inseparable. However at times, Rostam felt that he was smarter and more superior then Rakkash. In the chapter, The Seven Trials of Rostam, Rakkash tried warning Rostam several times about the dragon that was going to attack them. Instead of trying to figure out why Rakkash was acting out, he just got angry with Rakkash for waking him up. However after Rakkash’s third warning, Rostam saw the dragon and then they both defeated it. Afterwards, I felt like Rostam didn’t fully appreciate Rakkash’s warnings, it seemed like he didn’t want to accept the fact that Rakkash saved his life. In the chapter, The Death of Rostam, Rakkash tried saving their lives but once again Rostam refused to listen. Rakkash knew that something was wrong and tried telling Rostam that the path was dangerous by rearing up and refusing to go any further. This was extremely out of character for Rakkash to act this way. Instead of listening to his horse, Rostam whipped him until he had no choice but to go. This lead to their death, the path had a pit with spears and swords sticking out, so when they fell in they were stabbed.
I have been riding horses for most of my life. It didn’t take long for me to realize that horses are really smart. Their senses are stronger than ours; so they are able detect a dangerous situation before the rider even realizes that there is danger. If a horse has a connection to someone, it means they generally trust and want what is best for their rider. Therefore, the rider needs to be in tune to what the horse is trying to tell them. So I find it frustrating when riders like Rostam, beat the crap out of their horse because they are too arrogant to listen to them.
What are the father and son relationships like in the Shahnameh?
In most literature, fathers protect and want what’s best for their sons; this is not the case in the Shahnameh. There are several examples through out the Shahnameh that illustrate how fathers do not always look out for their sons. One example is how, Rostam tricks and then kills his son Sohrab without knowing it. Through out the battle Sohrab kept saying that he was looking for his father, Rostam. Rostam was so caught up in the moment he didn’t listen to Sohrab, and didn’t realize that he was his son until it was too late. Sam banished and left his infant son Zal to die in the woods. Due to the fact that, he had white hair. Lastly, Esfandiyar’s father didn’t want him to have the throne, so he sent Esfandiyar on a mission to bring Rostam to their kingdom in chains. His father knew that Esfandiyar would die in battle, but he would rather have his son die than to take the throne from him. I found it shocking that so many fathers in the Shahnameh were so willing to see their sons die. Generally, fathers want to protect their sons and help them succeed, not kill them for their own selfish needs.
Question: Why do you think nations need epics such as Aeneid or the Shahnameh?
ReplyDeleteI believe there are various reason that nations need epics. One major reason is for a better view of the ancient history of a given culture (this is in regards to old epics that have come out of cultures that date back to antiquity). Epic such as Aeneid, Shahnameh, and Homer's epics, for example, give the readers insight into events, cultural traditions, and other happenings. They may also give somewhat historical accounts of events that might not be documented anywhere else in history. A great example of this is the battle of Troy between the Greeks and the Trojans, as primarily spoken of in Homer's epic poem The Iliad (and also more briefly spoken of in his poem Odyssey). Homer's epics are widely regarded as works of fiction, however, the story of Troy which originates from his epics has turned out to be a real ancient city and culture. As a matter of fact, Homer's accounts of some of the geography are so accurate in The Iliad that Dr. Heinrich Schliemann used them in 1870 to actually find the site of the ancient city of Troy! With the existence of Troy, and the geographical parts of The Iliad being proven as historically accurate, one must then question what else of Homer's epics are historically accurate? It is well documented that Dr. Heinrich Schliemann believed that The Iliad and Aeneid told stories of actual historical events. This line of thought extends to all of the other really old epics as well; what parts of these supposed fictional epics are rooted in actual historical events, even if to a very small degree? This question is why these epics are so precious to nations who have ancient history, because not only are they a view into their antiquated culture, but they may even be historical records of that culture!
What is the new national epic/s of the American culture?
There are many new national epics of the American culture. Some of those newer epics are: Moby Dick, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Star Wars. While all three are known of internationally, Star Wars is probably the most popular of the three. I wanted to point out that Star Wars has the theme of father and son constantly fighting (Luke and Vader) as Shahnameh has in many different parts which was brought up in class today.
Kelly Gilbert
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Blog #7
3/26/13
The Love Between Zal and Rudabeh
I found these tales to be intriguing and I felt very pulled in with all the action and drama Ferdowsi used in his stories. My favorite aspect of the book was the romance and love between couples such as Zal and Radubeh. I always love reading about love stories especially with a touch of magic and mythical ideology involved. Looking at Zal, he is such a strong and masculine character. He is this man who was thrown into such a horrible situation as a young boy, he was given up by his father for just having white hair and set in the woods to basically die, but a Simorgh saves him and raises him in her nest. Zal has obviously had a very unusual childhood. On the other hand, Radubeh is born of royalty and lives in her father’s kingdom. She is absolutely stunning and beautiful and according to her slave girls, is too good for any man. However, Radubeh falls for Zal the minute she hears of him, and same goes for Zal. They have no even met each other, yet they’re in love just hearing the description of each other, which seems strange because today, that would probably never happen. Today, it usually takes a physical interaction for a couple to fall for each other. I feel that this unusual storyline is what makes is so interesting to me, that it’s no unlike the norm. I really appreciated Radubeh being so persistent about her feelings for Zal, even after asking her slave girls for their opinion of what she should do. Although they thought that she shouldn’t do what she says she wants to and that what she’s feeling is not right, she is angered by them and wishes they would go to Zal and relay a message to him from her about her feelings and her wish to meet him. I admire her strength. When Zal and Radubeh finally meet, I find it magical, like a fairytale. It even does have a reference to Rapunzel, when Radubeh says she will let down her hair and zal can climb up it to her. Although Zal refuses to climb up her hair, this is a very romantic and cute little scene in the story of The Love of Zal and Radubeh.
What is the religious perspective that is dominant in the Shamnameh?
ReplyDeleteThe religious perspective that is dominant in the Shamnameh is Zoroastrianism. This is also called Mazdaism and Magianism. It is from ancient Iranian philosophy. In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods into two opposing forces, the Ahura Mazda which was the illuminating wisdom and the Angra Mainyu which was the destructive spirit. These forces were always in conflict. In simpler terms this is basically a battle between the good in evil in human beings. Rostam is a perfect example of this because he has a dualistic perspective of himself. At some points in the story he can be portrayed as a good character and at other times as a villain. He has a trickery way to his personality and also to his battle tactics throughout the story which helps him survive.
Describe the importance of Simorugh in Zal’s life.
Simorugh is extremely important in Zal’s life. Without him Zal would have died. Sam, Zal’s father could not stand the sight of his old man looking white hair and had Zal taken away to survive on his own as a child. Simorugh was brought by God to save Zal and raise him like one of its own. He was raised in the nest with the rest of the birds. Once Zal got older and stronger people had spread rumors of him being alive which had reached Sam. Sam was surprised to hear the news and set off to find Zal and bring him home. Simorugh allowed this and told Zal whenever he needed him Simorugh would come to help. And Zal did need Simorugh to birth his child. Simorugh helped Rostam become part of this world and without Simorugh this would not have been possible. Simorugh also helped Rostam the son of Zal as well as best as he could whenever he was called upon.
How do you interpret the unusual characteristic of Zal within the overall framework of the Shahnameh?
In my opinion I felt that Zal felt unusual and out of place in the society he lived in. Having white hair was definitely an off-putting quality of his. He seemed alien to me and didn’t belong. Even though he was a strong warrior and kind people didn’t treat him with respect because of the way he looked. Only when they finally listened to his wishes about marrying the Princess did they treat him better. Also, when Sam started to be on Zal’s side people followed along with him which helped.
Kelsey Davidson
ReplyDeleteBlog Response
Shahnameh
What are some of the similarities between the Aeneid and the Shahnameh?
A similarity I noticed between the two texts was the theme of love. In the Aeneid, Dido falls in love with Aeneas. I enjoyed following their “love story” throughout the text. They both were willing to do anything to keep their love alive, until Aeneas was forced to leave. In the Shahnameh, I noticed a similar love story between Zal and Rudabeh. Their love was also stopped at a halt due to differences in cultural backgrounds. Both of these stories followed the romance between two people but was not continued due to problems with their prior obligations or cultural backgrounds.
What are some of the similarities between the Republic and the Shahnameh?
I found that the way the society is built is very similar in both the Republic and the Shahnameh. In the Shahnameh, there is a separation of people into different classes; priests, warriors, farmers, manual laborers, etc. There is also no social mobility. In the Republic, there were the guardians, the auxiliaries and the producers. The priests are very similar to the guardians, the auxiliaries are similar to the warriors and the producers are similar to the farmers and manual laborers.
What is the status of women in the Shahnameh?
I found it very interesting how the role of women was depicted in the Shahnameh. Most of the texts that we have covered in this class have portrayed women as inferior to men however, in the Shahnameh, women are very highly esteemed individuals in society. The men often look to the women for advice. There are several instances in which the man’s finals decision was based on the woman’s input. I find this very interesting given the time period.
What is a trickster hero, and how does Rostam fit these qualifications?
ReplyDeleteA trickster is someone who plays tricks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and conventional behavior, and Rostam does both! He has contempt for the Monarchy, something which should not be done, as they are the absolute rulers. In combat, when it seems that there is a chance that he may be subdued, he uses trickery to escape death, and to overcome his adversary. He talked Sohrab into letting him go, and then turned around and fatally wounded him. This turned out poorly for Rostam, because it ended up being his son, but he was blinded by his passion for war. He escaped death from Esfandiyar by tricking him, coming back, and using a magic arrow to defeat this invincible man, which also came back to haunt him when his kin came to take over his land after he had died. Tricksters are also known for using Magic, which Rostam also does, with the aid of the Simourgh, multiple times in the epic.
How does Rostam react to swearing loyalty to kings?
He does it formally. If he likes the king, and he’s treated well, he will defend them till his last. But there is an underlying tone to the whole book. Rostam is his own man. His service is given voluntarily and cannot be constrained, and that he is at no one’s beck and call, not even his king’s. He is loyal only if he chooses. He is on the “edge,” having complete contempt for boundaries, choosing his own path. He is called the “kingmaker,” and every king who tries to cross him ends badly.
This was by far my favorite thing we've read thus far in the class but I have little to respond on. I really liked how it was written and the imagery used. The imagery was a bit redundant in a lot of ways, like when anyone that is tall and handsome/beautiful is compared to a cypress tree like on pages 18, 19, 21, 38,40, 41, 53, and so on, but some of the lines were very elegant. Not an example of imagery but a very well-put line was "we have come here so that her ruby lips can become acquainted with the lips of Sam's son" (Ferdowsi 17). It was a clever line since they had never even seen each other and instead of just saying they wanted to meet, Ferdowsi made it more romantic. The most care was taken in describing the physical attributes of the characters or the emotions they felt. For example, when speaking of Mehrab "...his body trembled, his face darkened, blood surged in his heart, his lips were cold with sighs, and he said, '"I shall make a river of blood of Rudabeh this moment"'(Ferdowsi 31). I also appreciated the description of the dragon when Ferdowsi said, "I approached and saw it was like a great mountain, with its hair trailing on the ground, its tongue like a black tree, its gullet breathing fire, its eyes like bowls of blood" (37). I appreciated that he didn't describe the dragon as having a cypress tree black tongue however.
ReplyDeleteHow does Rostam compare with other male leads?
ReplyDeleteI would say that Rostam is a physically strong character that can perform amazings feats. He is also unforgiving when performing a task he believes to be right and isn't bothered by the trickery he has to use in order to survive. This makes him incredibly different from the usual male characters in stories; Rostam isn't afraid to do bad things in order to reach his goal. The usual male character usually avoids doing anything bad, unless it entails killing an evil being as in Beowolf; meanwhile Rostam kills his own son. I think Rostam is more interesting than other male lead characters because he is showing off his humanity and the combination of good and evil that he is.
I also thought that this is one of the better epics that I have been able to read. The words are precise and flow beautifully and there is continuous imagery. The italicized sections are phrased nicely and allow characters to be understandable as well as pointing out important breaks in the story. The entire story is interesting and connect to stories that I'm already familiar with while remaining unique.
Shahnameh
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Simourgh’s significance in Shahnameh?
After Sam abandoned his son Zal, it was the Simourgh that found him. The bird took Zal to its nest and raised Zal keeping him safe and fed. Then after Sam came back to retrieve his son the Simourgh gave Zal some of its feathers so that Zal could call if he ever needed help. If it were not for the Simourgh’s actions Zal would probably not have lived to make it home. Also, if not for the Simourgh, Zal would not have been able to father his son Rostam. Therefore if not for the Simourgh all of Rostam’s achievements would never have occurred.
What is the significance of the women’s role in Shahnameh?
One aspect of the story I noticed was how unique the role of women was in important matters. For instance after Zal and Rudabeh had fallen in love and Mehrab consulted with his wife on the issue. Also, when Sam and his army came Mehrab listened to the advice of his wife and sent her out to speak with Sam. There were also other aspects in the story where Kings would consult their wives regarding official matters. To me this represents a unique role that women represent as valued advisors to their husbands instead of just inferior partners.
What is Rakkash’s role in the story?
Rakkash is Rostam’s magnificent horse who serves as Rostam’s loyal companion. Out of all the other horses Rostam looked at Rakkash was the only one who could carry Rostam. Rakkash also looks out for Rostam’s safety by killing a lion that attempted to sneak up on them. Rakkash also warned Rostam several times of a dragon’s presence before the warrior was finally able to make out the dragon and kill it. I noticed however that Rostam seemed to treat Rakkash as an inferior on occasion. For instance Rostam instructed Rakkash to not challenge any threats, after the lion attacked, and instead to wake him since the horse might not be able to win such a battle. But when Rakkash attempted to wake his master about the dragon Rostam didn’t see the dragon and expressed irritation with the horse instead of believing him. However I believe that Rostam paid for his disregard for his horse when he fell into the pit. Since Rakkash had sensed the pit was there and it was Rostam’s stubbornness that led them into the pit to their deaths. In the end had Rostam had more belief in Rakkash he might not have died as he did.
Father and son
ReplyDeleteThe father son relationship of Shahnameh is very different than the relationship we see today in general society. In this story this relationship is adversarial in that it the fathers plot against there sons (successors seems to be the better word) and try to maintain their power. This story has two heroes and two kings whose story is almost identical. Sam the father of Zal casts his son out to die due to his white hair, and only saves him because he thinks it will keep him in power. While King Gostasp sends his son to bind Rostam and make him prisoner, knowing that this will kill his son. The king does this because he fears losing his crown. In these two cases the reoccurring theme is that the preservation of one’s own power is the greatest ideal. For the other father son relation there is Rostam and his two very different sons. Rostam ends up battling his son Sohrab, and killing him. Sohrab had Rostam beat and it is obvious that his son had inherited his father’s strength and not his mindset (genetics versus being raised without him). While his other son Faramarz has certainly learned his father mindset and gets revenge for the death of his father. An interesting thought is if Faramarz fought Rostam instead of Sohrab who would have won?
Animal relations with Rostam
The two main animals in this story are the Simorgh and Rakkash. They could be considered “spirit guides” that have physical form as well. Both of these animals care for their masters but when it comes time to listen to their advice they are tossed aside. The Simorgh in this story is characterized as good, it has raised Zal after his father left him to die and offered him protection. And with Rostam the Simorgh warns Rostam that whoever kills Esfendyiar will be doomed. His warning is brushed aside and Rostams fate sealed. Rakkash is the faithful steed of Rostam. Rakkash’s fate seems foreshadowed in the seven trials of Rostam. He saves Rostam from a lion while he sleeps, showing that he will protect Rostam. In another trial Rakkash stomps and makes the dragon disappear, but wakes up Rostam in the process. This angers Rostam, instead of trusting in his magnificent steed he is frustrated. This moment signifies that Rostams patience with his steed may be a key trial in his life. In the final part of Rakkash and Rostams relationship Rakkash tries to save Rostam from falling into a pit. But ultimately Rakkash is frustrated and whips Rakkash forcing Rakkash to dash into death. If Rostam was more willing to heed the warnings of animals he may have delayed his death.
Pride
Pride seems to be ones doom in the Shahnameh. King Gostasp is to prideful and arrogant to let his son succeed him and thus kills his son and ends up setting up his own death by revenge. Rostams pride seems to be most evident in this tale. Rostam refused to be led away in chains by Esfendyiar even though it would have cost him pride and may have brought shame it could have saved his life. Rostam was to prideful to let someone beat him or surrender and it ended up sealing his faith. One could even say that his pride in his family helped his death by not heeding Rakkashs warning because he was hasty to deal punishment for insult. Pride does not seem beneficial in the Shahnameh.
Alec Wolsiefer
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Blog Week 10
Shanameh
The Role of Women In Shanameh
What is the role of women in Shanameh? How does it differ from other works we have read? How are they portrayed? Is Shanameh a feminist work, in comparison to other works of it’s time?
In Shanameh, specifically the stories of Rostam and his father Sam, women seem to play a very important role. Through out the story husbands go to their wives for help and council. It seems that women have a large sway over men and their opinions were much more valued than in other works. Sindokht, the queen of Kabol, was able to calm her husband down when he became furious with their daughter Rubadeh for consorting with Zal (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 30-31). Sindokht is able to calm her husband again when he finds that an army is coming to destroy his lands because Zal and Rubadeh are infatuated with each other and if the two joined their new kingdom would be unstoppable (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 38-39).
Women in Shanameh were also entrusted with more important tasks than in previous works we have read. One example of women taking on more important tasks is when Rubadeh’s slave girls were entrusted with messages from both Zal and Rubadeh (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 19-22). These messages were secret, unknown to the king of Kalob Mehrab and his queen Sindokht. The slave girls are also entrusted to ferry gifts from Zal to Rubadeh and vice-versa (The Love of Zal and Rubadeh pages 28-30). The women in this work seem to be more equal to men than women in other works that we have read, although they are still subservient to men.
In the Bible there is a completely different role for women, they are often portrayed as weak willed and easily turned from god. In the story of Job, after Satan starts terrorizing Job, his wife tells him to denounce god and spurn his name. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the angels warned Lot and his family to not look back as they escape. While the cities are being destroyed Lot’s wife turns back to look and becomes a pillar of salt. These two stories show how the Bible portrays most of the women in its stories, weak willed and not as devote as men. In Plato’s Republic women are also described as subservient to men, in respect to their specific classes.
I would say that although through out Shanameh women are portrayed in a much better light than women in other works, it is still not a feminist work. It could be considered a feminist work at that time period, especially if you look at how Muslim women are treated today. Shanameh is miles ahead of other works of it’s times in terms of gender equality, they are generally more valued and respected. The women in Shanameh are still subservient to the men and seem to accept this lesser role.
What characteristics define a national epic?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me a national epic has two dual purposes. They serve to define and perhaps celibrate or glorify one specific national identity (the national part) as well as to deal with the broadest and most universal themes imaginable that all peoples and nations have had to deal with throughtout time: life and death, good and evil, justice and injustice, fate and independence (the epic part). In the Shahnameh (or at least the portions focusing on Rostam), these purposes are fulfilled. Ferdowsi defines Persian identity based on the ideal characteristics of Rostam: he is a brave warrior, a quick thinker and is loyal to the Persian royalty when they are deserving of his loyalty, so in this way he is just and fair. These are all qualities Ferdowsi seaks to idealize as the Persian way. One characteristic of Rostam that Ferdowsi perhaps wishes to discourage in Persians is the act of going against one's fate, as is implied by Rostam's death after he doesn't heed the warning of the mythical Simourgh. Through Rostam's adventures, Ferdowsi is able to deal with the broad, universal themes but demonstrate the Persian way of dealing with them; for instance, he shows Rostam to be a mix of heroic and demonic lineages, so the Persian perspective might be that all men must balance the good and evil within themselves.
What is the American national epic?
There are a lot of viable candidates for this title, but I would argue that if there has to be one national epic, it would be the Superman epic, as it has unfolded in various serialized comic books and novels since 1938. Superman's experience can be seen as the quintessential ideaized American experience: he is an immigrant (from Krypton), who is raised in the rural great plains by simple, hard working, compassionate people, and then goes to live in a bustling metropolis literally called Metropolis, a kind of representation of all aspects of post-industrial, urban America. He is impossibly strong, brave, quick witted, and yet still compassionate and humble, never forgetting his simple up bringing. And he fights directly in the most epic battle of all, the battle between good and evil. If Superman stands for the American Way, then those qualities must be the American Way. And Superman has also had the capability to change to fit the national mood at any given time, since he is part of an ever continuing story, beginning during the Depression as a fighter against corrupt politicians and crooked land lords, and then changing during World War II to an uber patriotic war bonds salesman. Superman is the first and most archetypical of the superheroes, an American invention, a man who is not constrained by any frontiers or limitations and has enormous power, yet chooses to use his power for the good of all mankind. He is everything America aspires to be, and so is the perfect candidate to be the hero in our national epic.
How can the audience view Ferdowsi writing Persian myths and legends in the Persian language as well as referencing Zoroastrian values when he was under Islamic rule?
ReplyDeleteThis aspect of the life and times of Ferdowsi should be an important consideration in the critical interpretation of his writings, which were done in a time that the Islamic Empire had been extremely dominant in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Ferdowsi was an Iranian which would place his homeland in between Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula, which are two of the most powerful and influential geographic areas in the rise and dominance of Islam. Iranian culture which included the Persian language, Zoroastrianism, and the myths and legends that accompany these aspects of Persian culture were being suppressed by Arabic, Islam, and the culture that is associated with being a Muslim. The answer to reconciling these differences is the plurality of culture and the different parts of life that define every member of any society; this plurality means that every person has different socio-cultural ideals and values that important to them. Using Ferdowsi as an example; he was a Muslim, but he was also an Iranian with deep ties to the older Persian culture. This means that while he would worship Allah and obey the laws of Islam he would also feel connected to older Persian legends, myths, historical figures, language and any other part of the Persian culture that defined Iran for centuries. Ferdowsi could be considered an Iranian who was also a Muslim, because these things are not exclusive or conflicting in nature. Applying this to other situations and individuals can bring this argument from tenth century Iran to today; many people claim to be American Communist, Muslims or Christians with progressive values, secular Jews, or people who strongly identify with the nation that they or their family have immigrated from as well as their new home of America. This raises the question of whether or not a child of immigrants from India who follows the religion of Hinduism and still speaks Punjabi at home could be considered a real American, the answer is yes. This individual is an Indian-American and a follower of Hinduism. These things do not restrict whether or not they are American, they are simply aspects of a plural and complex identity that this specific individual has. This can be applied once again to Ferdowsi, his pride and knowledge of Persian culture and traditions did not mean he was not a Muslim, but rather that he was a Muslim that had an Iranian heritage. Writing this massive anthology of the history of Iran and Persian culture was a rejection of Arab and Turkish influence that was dominating his culture, writing an epic tale of Persian history and culture was a way of reinforcing what he identified with as an Iranian. Ferdowsi disliking Arab influence and language instead of Persian influence and language did not make him a bad Muslim, but rather an Iranian with pride. Plurality is the ability to identify with different cultures and values, but not to be completely defined and restricted by these cultures and values.
Why are our heroes orphans?
ReplyDeleteHarry Potter. Super Man. Spiderman. Batman. Luke Skywalker. Each a very famous orphan who came to define for a generation of Americans what being a hero is about. Other heroic orphans include Evey Hammond from V for Vendetta, the Boudelaire children from A Series of Unfortunate Events, the Elric brothers from Fullmetal Alchemist, and Naruto from the self-titled manga. Others still, like Zal of Shahnameh, were raised by animals, including Tarzan and Romulus. I can’t say with any certainty why orphans are so overrepresented in media, but I can propose a few possibilities. Heroes generally follow a path from weakness to strength, which requires a disadvantage in his/her background. However, many are born with an unearned gift, whether it is a family fortune, being strong with the force, or magical powers, indicating they are supposed to be special from birth. Another possibility is that we consider persevering through a tragedy to be a heroic trait: a testament to his/her strength. Being orphaned forces them to begin independently and acquire companions to help them.
Why do so many heroes have daddy issues?
Luke Skywalker. Sohrab. Oedipus. Perseus. Zeus. Jason. Once again, no one reason can fully explain it. Freud would attribute it to competition for his mother, but Freud would be wrong. Few of these heroes knew it was their fathers they had to fight or kill when they began their journeys. It could be that, again, the tragedy and emotional strife adds to our perception of their strength. Humans may innately view overtaking their parents as a rite of passage into adulthood. Regardless, the two above trends seem to suggest heroes have to come from broken families for them to be respected.
Was Rustem being a good warrior when he tricked Sohrab?
Rustem, after being beaten by his son Sohrab, tricked him into not killing him, allowing him to meet him again in combat and eventually kill Sohrab. As a warrior, was this trickery dishonorable? Is there a higher moral standard than simply trying to win the battle? Was his trickery simply using his experience as an advantage over an enemy who was using his youth against Rustem? In my opinion being able to deceive an enemy requires a talent, a strength to be utilized. Odysseus was known and respected for his clever tactics among the Greeks, so I see little reason why Rustem should be criticized for it. While his combat was different in that it was one-on-one and relied on mutual respect between the fighters, Rustem had every right to use whatever abilities he had at his disposal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFathers and sons...
Zal said that a Man leaves behind two things, his fortune and his son. If a man feels the forboding presence of his own mortality and his own doomed fate weaving closer and closer to the end of their thread, they act in desperation. Sam, I believe abandoned a deformed son Zal, in fear of not just death but dying and having a son incapable of maintaining his legacy. This is a topic that is not talked about much because does anyone want to stare death in the face and think about those who will remember you and what they will remember you for. If Sam did not believe he would be remembered because the only person he would leave behind would one day "kill him" by letting him be forgotton or remembered wrongly, is it hard to believe he would do whatever was in his power to protect his own interests, including leaving his infant son to the animals?
Women in Persia
My Great Grandmother granted this concept to her daughter-in-law and it was passed to my mother. Women might have been put on this planet to listen to and obey their husbands, but if they listen wisely, know them more intametly than anyone, and give well councel they can control their husband so well that they will never even know they were played. Have you ever heard the prase "make him think it was his idea?" Well this is a very well known concept to the women of the Middle East and one well known to my Lebanese Grandmother. If these stories are indication, it was well known by the Persian women as well. When Rudabeh's mother tells her daughter to dress in a beautiful gown and cry in front of her father, she is telling her daughter to trick her father into forgiveness. Nifty skill huh?
Austin Stone
ReplyDeleteDr. Akman
Humanities 1
3/26/13
1) I’m going to begin my question with a short anecdote. When I saw on the syllabus we were reading Shahnameh this week I realized that I did not have a copy of the text. I then went to Milne Library only to find that there was not one copy of this epic in all of the library’s collection. Why is this the case, when almost every text we have read thus far has been readily available in the library?
While I was able to find the text on the internet eventually, I was very surprised by the fact the library did not have it. But then I thought about it for a minute and it made much more sense. It all goes back to the idea of a “Western Humanities Canon,” and who is responsible for dictating this master list of literature. Shahnameh deals mostly with Middle-Eastern heroes and settings, so it is no surprise that it may have been skipped over by someone interested in “Western Humanities.” However, this text discusses many of the same issues as the “Classics” and provides new perspectives on humanity and/human nature.
2) Is Shahnameh comparable to other influential texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an? Why or why not?
It would be a statement of fact to say that Shahnameh is as influential as the foundational religious texts mentioned above, but they are influential for different reasons. In their most basic elements, all of the aforementioned literature share many obvious similarities. From structure to subject matter, from the non-linear interpretation of time to the heroes that dominate the tales, the resemblances are hard to ignore. This can partly be attributed to the fact that Shahnameh is in fact a religious text, but it is not considered to be a pillar of faith like the Bible or the Qur’an. Also, once the religious implications are stripped away, all three of these examples of literature could be considered epic stories. We are able to view Shahnameh with an open mind unclouded by presuppositions of faith and religion, where as it is much more difficult to do this with the Bible or Qur’an. But the downside of this is that this text is not held in as high regard as the other two, and this fact makes Shahnameh incomparable to a work such as the two mentioned above. Shahnameh inspires to unite a nation, to bring together a specific group of people and to promote their culture and way of life. The other texts, however, seek to unite people under religious beliefs. Because of this, in more modern examples at least, Shahnameh can appear as more of an epic someone would read for pleasure. This is contrary to the Bible or the Qur’an, which provide people with a moral code many still abide by. Although the stories and subject matter are similar, Shahnameh cannot be compared to the Bible or Qur’an.
3) Shahnameh is a text that contains a great deal of Iranian cultural identity. Do any of the other texts we have encountered this semester have this same quality?
The easy answer to this question would be no. No group or culture defines themself and take so much pride from a single work of literature than the Iranians with Shahnameh. The closest example to compare the text with would be the Kallipolis in Plato’s Republic, as both are centered on a core national identity.
Zech Nelson Darwinism or Justice!
ReplyDeleteIs justice a necessary virtue in the Shahnameh?
While discussing Ferdowsi's tale of Rostam in class I began to question what the underlying moral of the story was. I found that could come to no immediate conclusion. My own hypothesis was that it must have something to do with the virtue of justice because what is the point in writing a history of your people and teaching poor values. Rostam does not place his loyalty directly with the several kings which reveals his anarchic nature and the reader is left with a open enterpretation of what justice is. This led me back to the argument that Thrasymachus makes about the definition of justice back in the republic. That justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. I felt that this was a core issue that is arisen in the tale of Rostam because Rostam is the strongest so he decides what is just. The good and evil that is deep within Rostam demonstrates why what Thrasymachus was saying has some tangibility. Having good and evil traits demonstrates balance and perhaps being the strongest itself means you set the par for what justice is. If your the strongest and you decide what justice is even if you were a tyrant it wouldn't matter because you would not be challenged and you could create a world where tyranny is the true way. Good and evil within you would automatically be balanced out because the world would be subjected to you the ruler. The most evil man in our eyes would be considered half good and bad to the people that rein under him because their perspectives would be shifted by his rule alone. The fact that Ferdowsi's Shahnameh was rejected by Mahmoud of Ghazni is proof that the most powerful decide what is just. Ferdowsi dies in poverty because the king decided that his book was not relevant because it focused on Persian rather than Islamic values. Or Janshid within the Shahnameh dividing people into major classes deciding that it was a just thing to do. This example is stronger because separate civilizations came to the same conclusion close to the same time. The greeks were doing the same thing in another part of the world with no outside influence so perhaps there is a grand design at work and both eventually reached justice because society inevitable evolves that way.
Thinking about this for as long as I did brought me to Darwins theory of natural selection(or survival of the fittest) and proof that justice is determined by the most powerful because the winers write the history books.
Robert Lawton
ReplyDeleteShahnemeh
Are certain stories universal?
I was struck in reading the Shahnemeh how familiar some of the stories were, though I had never read them. The tragedy of Rostam would be very at home in a Greek or Roman myth. The Seven trials should make anyone familiar with mythology immediately think of Hercules. The assistance by animals and totem spirits would fit very accordingly also within Native American and South American mythology. The underlying themes of good and evil, questioning of the Gods and fate are all central to our archetypical heroic myths and l,egends. Some specific fairy tale stories such as Rapunzel are represented. When Zaul goes to meet Rabudeh she lets down her hair so that he may climb the wall. Of course, contrary to the European story we know, in this version the hero chooses not to debase or harm the woman, but instead uses his own might and shockingly a rope. The hero is not just strong and chivalrous, but also smart. The same cannot be said about all European heroes.
Is this tale about violence?
It is almost comical how quickly our society labels everything not ours as violent, while glossing over our own innate violence. When looking for electronic copies and commentaries there was one consistent word: violence. So much focus and emphasis was put on the deevs, and the violence of the heroes. Again, this is not so different from the heroes that we grew up learning. God turning an entire city to salt? Children being eaten by a witch? A witch being melted on screen, or having a house droppe don her? These are just some of the very violent, iconic tales we grew up with. Not so sure the Shahnemeh is that much worse.
What is the role of women in the Shahnameh?
ReplyDeleteIn the Shahnameh, women are portrayed very differently than they were in most of the other texts we have covered. In the other texts, they tend to be portrayed either as inferior, or witch like. However, in the Shahnameh, women are held in high esteem. Men often consult them for help.
Fathers and Sons
The theme of fathers and sons in the Shahnameh is very complex. There are several instances in which fathers and sons are pitted against one another; Zal is sent to his death by his father, Sam, because he was born with white hair, the sign of a demon. Sohrab is killed by his father, Rostam, although Rostam does not know that Sohrab is his son. However, the interactions between father and son are not only violent. For instance, as soon as Sam learns of who Zal has become, he begs for forgiveness and acceptance from his son.
I am very curious why a father would leave his son abandoned to die, simply because he looks different. Supposedly a parent's love for their child is unconditional, yet his father readily left him to die because his hair was white, and was albino. I understand that being albino is an evil omen, but then wouldn't the first step taken be to try and purge whatever evil was within Zal? Or perhaps to try to change the way he looks in the thoughts that whatever demon consumed him may not recognize him? I feel that in that time period these would be thoughts considered, as minimal and improbable they would be. Instead, Sam took the easy route out and left his son to die.
ReplyDeleteWhen Sam came back for his son, it was because he found out Zal was meant for great things, and that he was powerful and special. In my opinion, that is the most selfish thing in the world for a father to do. It is one thing if he really regretted his decision to abandon his son, but he went back because Zal is special. I personally would have loved to smack Sam for that. Maybe he regretted it a little bit, but not enough to go back before he found out how special Zal was. All of a sudden Zal had some value, and then all of a sudden his father wanted him back. It made me angry.
Another curiosity I found was when Rostam and Sohrab fought. I don't understand why Rostam did not tell Sohrab the truth about who he was. Sohrab asked him if he was Rostam, and he denied it. Rostam saw his own grandfather in Sohrab, said he was an image of Sam. Wouldn't he put the pieces together? Sohrab kept trying to guide him in the right direction with it. Sohrab had a feeling he was fighting Rostam, but was never very clear about it. This story frustrated me because of this.