Full Reviews of Iranian
Nationality and the Persian Language
Journal of Iranian Studies (Vol 28,
#1-2)
The study of Persian literature has long been dominated by two trends: attention
to poetry, and analysis in terms of formal literary structures. Shahrokh
Meskoob, in this enlightening book drawn from a series of lectures, demonstrates
that Persian prose is important not only for its own sake as belles-lettres,
but also as a vehicle for understanding Iranian national culture. In short,
Meskoob demonstrates that Persian prose has a distinctive Iranian character.
This character must be understood, not stylistically but rather sociologically,
in terms of the principal groups of people who used Persian to communicate
over the past 13 centuries and their role in Iranian society.
Ethnicity is a modern concept occasioned by the rise of nation-states from
the late 18th century onward. Before this time, national feeling was in
most parts of the world subordinate to other forces-fealty to a particular
king or leader, adherence to a common religious tradition, alliances based
on political convenience or economic necessity, or conquest of one group
by another. A few of the world's peoples had a clear sense of their own
ethnic identity in ancient times: the Japanese, Chinese, ancient Egyptians,
Arabs and Iranians.
A central component of ethnic feeling is language. Meskoob traces the emergence
of Modern Persian as a vital literary language after the establishment of
Islam as both the dominant religion and the dominant governmental force
in the Iranian cultural homeland, including greater Khorasan. Persian is
not merely a code-it is also a vehicle for the expression of particularly
Iranian thought. Moreover, Persian literature from this early period can
be read as a reflection of specific Iranian social and political institutions,
since audiences for prose works were highly specific. Meskoob concentrates
on three specific groups whose use of Persian in writing have yielded thinking
characteristic of Iranian national thought: the early state bureaucrats,
the Islamic clergy, and Sufi mystics. His reflection on the specificity
of expression for early court and government officials sets the tone for
his overall discussion:
The author of The Book of Government or A Mirror for Princes
or even Kalileh and Demneh belonged . . . to a specific social group. Either
he was in the court or government or somehow connected with them, or he
wrote at the behest of the King, a vizier or a prince. Or if he wrote with
the thought of publication, he dedicated his work to them.... In other words,
people of erudition wrote eruditely for people of erudition (pp. 93-4).
Members of the Islamic clergy, the ulama, communicated with two audiences:
people of science and religion like themselves and the illiterate or semi-literate
community of believers. For the former, they wrote in Arabic. For the latter,
they relied on oral communication in Persian. It was not until after the
establishment of Twelver Shi'ism as the Iranian national religion in the
Safavid period that Persian became an important vehicle for religious writing:
The custom of writing about theological matters in simple language
everyone could understand for use by the faithful began at the command of
Shah 'Abbas I with Shaykh Baha'l (1547-1621). One can only guess at the
depth and breadth of the effects of this order on the spiritual and material
lives, the cultural mentality and the day-to-day existence of the emulators,
i.e., the majority of people of Iran, who patterned their behavior in accordance
with these treatises (p. 136).
Meskoob gives extensive treatment to the most important religious scholar
writing in Persian, Molla Mohammad Baqer Majlesi (1627-98). It is through
Majlesi that many folk beliefs were introduced into religious belief. Nevertheless,
his influence prompted virtually every religious scholar down to the present
to compose a resaleh or "treatise" in colloquial Persian on everyday
religious practice for the instruction of the faithful.
Sufi gnostics began writing in Persian long before the main-line clerics.
As a partial explanation for this, Meskoob asserts:
From the ninth and tenth centuries to the threshold of the Constitutional
Movement Iranian Islam had two characters in terms of culture. We might
say that we Iranians faced two Islamic cultures. Of course, I do not mean
two Islams, but two cultural forms, two intellectual manifestations of one
religion in cultural life: the Islam of the faqih, the theologian, and the
Islam of the 'aref, gnostic, the Islam of the Law and the Islam of the Way.
Let me state at the outset that a clear dividing line cannot be drawn between
these two. A great number of gnostics were not only legalistic Muslims as
well, but they also endeavored to show the oneness of these two sides of
Islam and to deny their difference (p. 161).
In early Islam during the 'Abbasid period, Meskoob points out, the of ficial
religious bodies had close ties with government of ficials in Baghdad and
thus with the language of both government and religion during that period,
Arabic. By contrast the Sufi practitioners operated outside the sphere of
government. This also meant that the public venues for oral communication
available to clerics were not available to the Sufis. Hence, they turned
largely to written communication in vernacular Persian. The Sufi developed
a style of writing that was rich in symbolism and embraced the mythic, even
pre-Islamic aspects of Iranian culture. When Shi'ism became the state religion,
Sufism and Shi'ism began to meld, and a highly characteristic Persian form
of expression began to develop that is present even today.
Meskoob's analysis is both sweeping and compelling. It provides the only
real comprehensive view of literary Persian in its complete historical and
cultural context available anywhere. As such it is a model not only for
Iranian studies, but for other studies of language and national culture.
This reviewer only wished for one additional topic in his discussion: an
account of the earliest form of Modern Persian prose, Judeo-Persian writing.
A book with so many literary and cultural references also desperately needs
both an index and a comprehensive bibliography.
Because Meskoob delivered the contents of this book in the form of a series
of lectures, there is a somewhat rambling style to the presentation of his
arguments that is disconcerting at first. The effort needed to get past
the first 50 pages or so of the book is well rewarded, however. John Perry
is to be complimented for putting the text in an accessible and cogent form
for the reader. Michael J. Hillmann's translation is idiomatic and pleasant
to read, and his footnotes to the text are welcome elaborations on Meskoob's
points. The introduction and interview with Meskoob by Ali Banuazizi add
to the pleasure of the book. The fact that these three leading scholars
of Iranian language and culture devoted such care to this project is a high
recommendation for the work.
Return to top of page
Center for Iranian Research and Analysis
Newsletter (Vol. 10, No. 2, Winter 1995)
This is a handsome book, tastefully designed and produced. A foreword and
an interview with the author, both by professor Banuazizi precede the text.
The book is divided into four sections: "Iranian Nationality vis-á-vis
Language and History;" "The Government Establishment and Persian
Prose;" "The Muslim Clergy and Persian Prose;" and "Sufism
and Persian Prose." The text concludes with an epilogue in three pages.
This book grew out of a number of lectures delivered in Persian for a Persian
audience in Paris. The talks were later published under the title of Milliyyat
va Zaban (Paris, 1982). A couple of lapses in the translator's typically
good judgment should be mentioned because they may be confusing to some
readers. The Shi'ites, for example, thought of themselves as the "clients"
of the 'Alids, not their "masters." There are also some inconsistencies
in transliteration and the text is not free of typographical errors. These
and other small errors and inconsistencies however do not reduce the value
of the work.
This is a fine book. Its arguments generally adhere to the accepted view
of the history of Persian language and literature. However, I find some
of these views problematic. Certain phrases and ideas tend to be used formulaically
in cultural histories of Iran. For instance the author speaks of the shock
that the Iranians "suffered" as the result of the Muslim conquest
of their country (p. 27). He makes much of the great influence of the class
of dihqdns. "landed gentry" in preservation and transmission of
Iranian cultural values (p. 28). Persian translators of the Middle Persian
literature, who by retelling the Sasanid literary tradition in Arabic managed
to save much of it from anonymity, are lavishly praised.
The value of Meskoob's writing is that although he accepts the canonical
beliefs regarding the nebulous history of New Persian literature, he also
demonstrates the intellectual integrity and honesty of feeling uncomfortable
with this body of scholastic lore. He does lapse into questionable arguments,
however. On page 41, the author observes that the arts of painting and sculpting
are not permitted in Islam. This is strictly speaking partly true, but infractions
of Muslim law for which we have ample and incontrovertible proof, range
from enjoying pork as well as paintings, and wine sipping as well as sodomy.
The statement that painting was not permissible in medieval Muslim society
is completely false. There is a mass of textual evidence against it to say
nothing of the actual surviving art work itself. The idea is essentially
a myth of modem scholarship, which does not take into consideration the
vast textual data and chooses to go along with some "doctrinal"
views on the subject expressed by a number of medieval jurists whose vigorous
protestations only prove the contrary, i.e., the existence and the great
popularity of the artistic tradition. In other words, one does not vigorously
prohibit what does not present great temptation, or by virtue of its widespread
existence, great annoyance.
Let us go on to consider another questionable assumption of Meskoob's hook.
There is some implied concern, or maybe even alarm, regarding an alleged
attack upon the Persian language by the Arabs in the past, and their alleged
collaborators, namely the clergy of our own time (p. 14). This concern runs
also through much of the writings of the modern Persian cultural historians.
Pronouncements by some extremist clergymen are often cited as proof that
the clergy either intend, or wish to change the national language of Persia
to Arabic. This alarmist view is totally unjustified by virtually all existing
data. As far as Persian secular life and literature are concerned, Arabic
has never put so much as a dent in either. If anything, the Arabic vocabulary
absorbed into Persian has only enriched the language. Most of the important
religious leaders of Iran, although able to write in Arabic, are unable
to speak it. They did not learn to for the simple reason that they are ethnic
Iranians, who saw no conflict between their mother tongue and the language
of theological discourse, and thus, no need to abandon Persian. Indeed,
their whole calling would have been impracticable if, spurred by a misguided
form of religious fanaticism, they were suddenly to decide to address their
congregations in Arabic. These facts are well known. Yet, cultural historians
doggedly continue to sound the alarm about the danger of the alleged encroachment
of Arabic upon the Persian heart and hearth. They then rejoice in the revelation
that the attack on the Persian language met with "total failure"
(pp. 16-17).
Often studies of Iranian cultural history tend to concern themselves almost
exclusively with the verbal aspect of culture. Meskoob is no exception.
On page 105 he writes, "In the past, when literacy was not widespread
and science and literary culture were at the disposal of the elite alone,
written cultural commentaries and transactions were likewise exclusively
theirs, and not the property of everyone or even a majority. The transmission
of culture among members of society took place ... mostly through oral means
such as tales told by old women, sermons in the name of the caliphs and
Sultans, rural love quatrains or stories told by professional raconteurs."
I must confess to some befuddlement at Meskoob's grouping of the tales of
old women, politico-religious sermons, and rural love quatrains as necessary
vehicles of cultural transmission. Furthermore, since old men and children
tell stories at least as often as do old women, and since the tender feelings
laying beneath "rural love quatrains" permeate urban centers no
less than the countryside, one is somewhat perplexed by the mention of these
two groups among the chief transmitters of culture. Since historical data
does not support this speculative scenario, the consistent reference to
this quartet of "cultural transmitters" in popular histories of
Persian culture may be better explained by psychological speculation. Could
we justifiably see in this model a projection backwards of the concerns
and anxieties of our educated middle class? That is, could we reasonably
identify the implied coziness and warmth of an old woman's story-telling
session with maternal nurturing, the idyllic love quatrains of the countryside
with "natural" love, and hence eroticism? Would we be far off
the mark in detecting the stern paternal presence, symbolized by the "sermons
in the name of the Caliphs and Sultans," disturbing the serenity of
the mother-son dyad? Is the fourth member of the quartet, namely the professional
raconteurs, only a symbolic expression of the sons' unhappy telling of their
own sad tale of frustrated love?
The main problem with the book is that it confuses "language"
and "literature" which are distinct entities. It fails to realize
that whereas "language" may have much to do with ethnicity and
national identity, literature may or may not. In other words, an impressive
body of literature may exist and thrive in a language long after that language
has ceased to be a functioning medium of communication. Latin and Sanskrit
are good examples of this phenomenon. Before its revival, Hebrew too passed
through such a state. Thus focusing on Persian literature and its development
as a reliable measure or indicator of Persian ethnic or national identity
misses the point altogether. It is absurd to argue that between the conquest
of Iran in the seventh century, and the appearance of the first surviving
specimens of Persian literary effort in the tenth, Persian as a national
language and a contributing factor to Persian national identity was not
thriving. Persian literature and its great monuments are results of the
vivacity of the Persian language, not the cause of its perpetuation or maintenance.
Ferdowsi's versification of the national epic did not establish Persian
as the national language of Iran. The situation was exactly the opposite.
Ferdowsi composed his epic in Persian, and for that reason alone, his work
gained the kind of ascendancy and prestige that it has enjoyed for the past
thousand years in the Persian-speaking world. We know for a fact that Persian
was spoken widely not only in Iran proper, but also in some of the areas
which are now parts of the Arab cultural realm. On pages 23-4, Meskoob states
that the book is a study of the roles played in the process of the emergence
of the Persian language as the second language of the Muslim empire, by
three groups-the royal courts and their representatives, the clergy, and
the mystics.
There are several problems with positing these groups as those who contributed
to the elevation of Persian into an official language in Islam. Islam has
always had only one official language, and that has been Arabic. Arabic
continues to be the official language of Islam even today. Persian became
the official language of some Muslim countries, not the official language
of Islam. Second, we know that many people were able to read Persian, but
not Arabic. That is why a Samanid prince ordered the translation into Persian
of al-Tabari 's great commentary on the Qur'an, and his voluminous history.
Thus, the efforts of these three groups in writing Persian was forced upon
them by the fact that those whom they wished to reach did not understand
any other language. I therefore fail to see how these three groups can be
given the central role that Meskoob seems to assign them. I must add here
that I am not denying the great role that the mystics played in transmitting
Persian language beyond the eastern frontiers of Persia proper. That, however,
is a far cry from thinking that they were responsible for the perpetuation
of the Persian language among the Persians themselves.
If the triad of the governmental official, clergy, and mystic have not had
as great an influence in transmission of the Persian language and culture
as Meskoob seems to think, then who does? It seems to me that virtually
every author who ever wrote on the subject neglects the vital role played
in this event by the common people. By the common people I mean the trader,
the peasant, the soldier, and generally what in the United States we call
the "tax payer." Above all, the paramount role of Persian women
as probably the most important transmitters of Persian culture is completely
neglected.
Whenever one people conquers another, intermarriage and ethnic mingling
occurs. This situation clearly obtained after the Muslim conquest of Iran.
Furthermore, since Muslim women could not marry non-Muslims, but Muslim
men could take non-Muslim wives, to say nothing of procreating with slavewomen
or imá, the typical ethnically mixed family was one in which the
father was an Arab, but the mothers were both Arabs and Iranians. Thus,
at least in the Iranian cultural areas, children of mixed marriages spent
the whole of their early lives in almost exclusively female company, namely
that of their Persian mothers. It is from these women that they heard Persian
tales and legends. It was these women who transmitted their ancestral culture
to their offspring. It is fairly certain that the transmission of the Persian
culture, and naturally the perpetuation of the Persian language, owes a
greater debt to the Iranian mothers of these mixed children than it does
to any other group such as the mystics, the government bureaucrats, the
clergy, or even the so-called dihqáns.
Like many other modem authors on cultural history, Meskoob has an unlikely
candidate for the job of helping to transmit Persian language and culture.
On page 28, he suggests that the Persian landowners, who also served as
the Muslim government's tax collectors, became "to some extent the
preservers and transmitters of Iranian language and culture." Nothing
is more fantastic than assuming that a bunch of probably ruthless rural
tax collectors were the transmitters of the Persian cultural tradition.
The suggestion that these tax collectors knew the heroic tradition better
than the rest of the people, and that they did us all the favor of transmitting
the ancient legends, which but for their grace would have been irretrievably
lost. is so absurd as to defy the imagination. Yet. his view is accepted
by the majority of very reasonable scholars such as Meskoob, who subscribe
to it more as a result of habit, rather than conscious thought.
At any rate, aside from these small problems, this is an interesting and
informative work, competently translated and annotated by Professor Hillmann.
It can be quite valuable for undergraduate courses, provided that it is
assigned with other works which present differing views.
Return to top of page
Home / About
Mage / 1996 Catalog / Order
Form / Reviews / Printed
Catalog / Links / Comments