BATTLE

I spoke with the ghost of Hesse :-)

I know that Hesse was psychoanalysed at one point by Carl Jung. So, I’m guessing that he knew enough about the collective unconscious – his works clearly show this fact anyway. I’d say he might be a Smart Alec and tell us that a national anthem is a collective "discharge, call, cry, …" of a nation! :-) Which is somewhat true... less true than a personal poem.

As for the "Wheaties," I think he would first roll in his grave and then call it a "post-modern product!" LOL. Now, that answer is so really true :-)

Cheers,

Azadeh

Azadeh

Have you tried Wheaties?
They’re whole wheat with all of the bran.
Won’t you try Wheaties?
For wheat is the best food of man.
They’re crispy and crunchy
The whole year through,
The kiddies never tire of them
and neither will you.
So just try Wheaties,
The best breakfast food in the land.

A soroodeh melli probably lies somewhere between advertizing rhyme  and Hesse's discharge, call, and cry. The feeligs are sincere, and there is a sense of beauty, but the poet is less interested in his/her own feelings than in persuading others to feel the same way, and as a result behave in a certain way:

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

How would Hesse classify these words?

Herman Hesse and I beg to differ

Dear Ari, 

Following Mehman's unchanging habit of speaking to me indicrectly, I'd like to tell you that once again he has misjudged my reading of Rostam and Sohrab. In fact, I believe the social and historical context of a writing (poem of prose) is of great importance. I totally disagree with the post-modern fad of separating the work from the author (be it a poet like Ferdowsi or the original creators, i.e., the Iranian peoples over 3000 years.) It's an arbitrary and useless practice. I finish with a quotation from Herman Hesse (one of my favourite authors) on poetry. I wrote it on someone else's blog and thought of reproducing it here as well. I think Hesse is right when he speaks of the organic relationship between the author and her work in the following terms:

"In its origin a poem is something completely unequivocal. It is a discharge, a call, a cry, a sigh, a gesture, a reaction by which the living soul seeks to defend itself from or to become aware of an emotion, an experience. In this first spontaneous, most important function no poem can be judged. It speaks first of all simply to the poet himself, it is his cry, his dream, his scream, his smile, his whirling fists."

Cheers,

Azadeh

interesting , Mehman

Dear Ari, the author is dead!

"writer's obvious intentions, writer's probable intentions, writer's probable "market,"

Looking for the writer's obvious or probable intentions is labeled as "intentional fallacy" for New Critics. They believe that once the work of art (written fiction) is created it is disntinct from its creator both in form and meaning. The writer's intentions (even if he openly claims them) are not valid, because the literary text often 'beguiles' its creator's intentions. This happens sometimes in our ordinary talks when we intend to say something but when the words come out of our mouth the 'opposite meaning' is portrayed and we are annoyed by the effects of our words  contradicting our initial intentions!

The post-structural theoricians (of the 1970s and beyond) accepted this notion from the New Critics and expanded it further to totally denying the existence of the writer 'after' the creation of the work of art! They openly claim "the death of the author" (title of the famous essay by Roland Barthes).

For them the work of art is not essentially different from any other 'text', ie. it is a 'social product' like any other commodity. The text is contextual not in the sense that it should be analyzed 'internally' as an organic entity (as New Critics claimed) detached from the environment of its creation, but rather as the 'product 'of such an environment.

Now as regards to where the ultimate meaning of the text resides the postmoderns disagree but they all concede to the fact that the 'meaning' of the work is independent from its authorial intentions.

Behrouz Mehman 

PS:  Another factor for denying the role of the author in determining the ultimate 'meaning' of the text is that the post-structuralists see the author no more than 'another product' of his/her environment. Now imagine 'a product' creating another product! Is he eligible to determine the meaning of his production (ie. the work of art) while he himself is the product of the socio-economic and cultural factors of his environment?!

 Here comes the value of the 'Critic' for the postmoderns. The critic is more eligible, they claim, to determine the meaning of the work than the author himself! (because of his analytic knowledge of the environment of production). Another group of postmoderns give the ulimate credit for deciphering the meaning of the text to 'readers'  as we discussed before.

Ari

I'll do that in a far future! Cheers ~

Sahameddin, I hear you

Thank You

Thank you for posting this wonderful article. It is a good feeling to finally see something intelligent and thought provoking on Iranian.com.

I have never read the "Shahnameh" in its entirety. Your article has motivated me to find a copy and read it.

I hope to see more analytical articles about Persian literature from you. Best Wishes.

Azadeh

Thanks Mehman

The unity of human being

داستان رستم و سهراب درست جریان یک زندگی واقعی است. که گروهی در مقام و بلندای ثروت نشسته اند و میخواهند آنرا برای خود حفظ کنند و برایشان مهم نیست که کی از بین میرود و چه بیگناهانی زندگی های خود را از دست میدهند کیکاووس و افراسیاب که بر تخت قدرت نشسته وظیفه خود را حمایت از مردم نمیدانند بلکه میخواهند زندگی سرشار از لذت و ثروت و حکومت داشته باشند. متاسفانه این موضوع تا به امروز پا برجا است که کسانی که قدرت را در دست دارند حاضرند که هر نوع جنایت و خیانت را انجام دهند تا بر سر قدرت باقی بمانند. ولی امروزه دیگر قدرت واقعی در دست پادشاهان و یا امیران و رییس های جمهور ی نیست. آنها ظاهرا بر اریکه قدرت نشسته اند که دستهای نامریی اقتصادی نخهای این عروسکان را در دست دارد و اگر گوش به فرمان نباشند و بخواهند سر خود کاری کنند از مقام خود پایین کشیده میشوند. نظیرش را دیده اید. مثلا صدام تا هنگامیکه حرف شنوایی داشت سر پست و مقام خود باقی بود ولی زمانی که غره شده بود و حرف گوش نمیکرد حتی با لشگرکشی اورا از بالا پایین آورند. یا مثلا زاپاتا که رییس جمهور بود که دید که نمیتواند به مردم خدمت کند و گفت که حق گرفتنی است و بایست همه مبارزه کنند و رییس جمهور قدرتی واقعی ندارد که بتواند حق مردم را بستاند. بازیگران واقعی در حقیقت همان سوداگران میلیارد میلیارد ی هستند که میخواهند وسایل خود را بفروشند. و برای اینکار لازم است که جنگ و نفرتی وجود داشته باشد تا بتوانند مردم را بجان هم بیندازند. همان طور که دیدیم پدر را در برابر پسر قرار دادند و یا پسر را با حیله به جنگ پدر فرستادند. درست مثل امروز که قبایل مختلفه را بر ضد یکدیگر تحریک و یا تطمیع میکنند.

پس اصل داستان فرقی نکرده است. همان طوریکه در آن زمان از ناپختگی و کم دانشی سهراب و رستم شاهان بد کین سو استفاده کردند. امروز هم شاهان واقعی که همانا صاحبان کارخانه های عظیم و شرکتهای غول پیکر هستند و نبض اقتصاد دنیا را در دست دارند از بی دانشی رهبرانی مثل صدام سو استفاده میکنند و او را بجان دیگران میاندازند. و در هنگامیکه وی کردهای بی پناه را با گاز های سمی و اسلحه شیمیایی میکشد. هیچ کسی حرفی نمیزند زیرا منافع سازندگان مواد جنگی و مواد مخدر با این وحشیگریها گره خورده است.

که این بار بجای رستم و سهراب جوانان بی گناه ایرانی و عراقی مورد حمله و نابودی قرار میگیرند و صاحبان زر و زور و شرکت های سازنده بمب و مواد منفجره و مواد مخدر ساکت و خاموشند. چرا زیرا آنان کنترل وسایل ارتباط جمعی را در اختیار دارند و هر وقت که صلاح بدانند از آن استفاده میکنند. به عبارت دیگر سرمایه هایی که بایست صرف بهداشت و تحصیل و درمان و مواد ضروری و خوراکی انسانها شود صرف خرید جنگ افزار های متنوع میشود و سود های کلان به جیب سوداگران مرگ و دلالان آنان میرود و مردم متوسط بهای این را با مالیاتهای گران میپردازند. حال اگر سهراب و رستم همدیگر را میشناختند و با هم صحبت میکردند مسلم است که این همه ناراحتی پیش نمیامد. که در آنصورت دکان کید سرمایه داران در رشته های غیر انسانی کساد خواهد شد و چه کسی بمب های یک میلیون دلار آنها را خریداری خواهد کرد. در حقیقت بی دانشی و ناآگاهی و نفرت و خشم مایه فروش آنها میشود. فرض کنیم که انسانهای که در پس پرده هستند و با بلند گوهای خود به مردم خط میدهند که چه کنند اگر انسانهای والایی باشند و برای خوشبختی مردم کار کنند. در آنصورت که وسایل مخدر و مرگ آور آنها را خریداری میکند و ناچار بایست به کارهای پرزحمت و کم درآمد تر بپردازند.
پس همین طور که میبنید از دودستگی ونفاق برای مقاصد اقتصادی خود سو استفاده میکنند. حال اگر وحدت دنیای آدمیان اجرا شود و هم با عدل و انصاف و دادگستری با یکدیگر برخورد کنند و کینه وعداوت ها پایان یابد و مردم با هم مهربان باشند. خود بخود تخت های سلطنت اهریمنان هم از هم پاشیده خواهد شد و این چیزی نیست که آنان میخواهند.

a postmodern reading

"Which brings me to the research Azadeh has kindly provided. I’m guessing that the only way Azadeh would propagate Ferdowsi to our next generation is in opposition to its patriarchal elements, and in favor of whatever lost origins these stories may have had in non-patriarchal pasts."

Dear Ari,

I think Azadeh's reading of the story could be classified as a post-modern feminist reading of Sohrab and Rostam and there are many valuable points in it.

As a matter of fact I wrote my thesis on the Reader-Response Criticism and I find these readings culturally and historically relevant though they might not be always contextual (as defined by New Critics of the 40s and 50s). The meaning of 'text' for postmodern thinkers is not limited to the closed work of art but the 'text' must be examined in its historical/economic/social situation. The text gets its meaning in relation to other works of arts and theories. for postmoderns any writing (even news events) are 'texts' and not just the sublime work of fiction.

For Reader-Response critics (prevalent since 1980 up to now) heralded by Stanley Fish each and every reader's response or reading of the text (work of art) is as valid as any interpretation by a professional critic. The text in fact, according to these critics, redefines itself and gets its meaning in the minds of readers. They believe the ultimate meaning of the text resides in the reader's mind and not (as opposed to New Critics) in the text or in the writer's mind.  

For Mehman, Azadeh, IranWrites

I think we have the same definition of “textual evidence.” We may disagree as to whether I have applied it correctly in this case. Finding a world that literally means “sibling” is textual evidence to me. Interpreting it to mean “playmates” in the light of Tahmineh’s archetypal loyalty or poetic necessity seems to me to be contextual evidence. But this is a small matter. As IranWrites points out, the word also literally refers to genetically unrelated children who have been suckled by the same wet nurse.  The important question is why Sohrab thinks it is odd that unrelated children sharing a wet nurse are not as tall as he. If he knows they are not related by blood, why ask the question? This is a question you would ask only if you believed these other children were related to you.  Here I am being neither textual nor contextual but deductive. As an alternative, Ferdowsi may be suggesting that Iranians and Tooranians look different as separate races. I find no evidence of this in the Shahnameh.

But to get to the heart of our debate, for any classic—literary, musical, or theatrical—the purist camp stands in opposition to the experimental camp. Each serves their function in keeping the classic alive, just as in architecture the tension element and the compression element, apparently in opposition, are jointly responsible for the building staying up. To keep things interesting, here’s rock guitarist Jeffery Lefvert mangling Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, thus keeping it relevant in the context of modern sonic textures.

 Which brings me to the research Azadeh has kindly provided. I’m guessing that the only way Azadeh would propagate Ferdowsi to our next generation is in opposition to its patriarchal elements, and in favor of whatever lost origins these stories may have had in non-patriarchal pasts. In today’s world Tahmineh’s loyalty to Rostam is fast becoming a liability for the heroine because she looks the fool to many modern women, unless they find less Rostam-centric motives for what she did.  Experimentalists go out to find these motives, and purists make sure that in the process of resuscitation the Shahnameh doesn’t end up with a sex-change operation.

For Mehman

As I said, I am not "imposing" my "feminist theory" to the Rostam and Sohrab story! (I don't have any specific feminist theory.) You accuse me of something (that I refute,) and you keep accusing me of the same thing over and over without any solid proof. That's not productive.

I've "checked" my theory: it does suit the world of Rostam and Sohrab very well.  But I guess we have to agree to disagree, until I come up with an article.

Cheers,

Azadeh

To IranWrites

Thanks dear for your valuable comment, I think your good note on the meaning of the work 'hamshiregan' clarifies the doubts!

For Azadeh

I appreciate your knowledge and endeavours dear Azadeh,

Behrouz Mehman 

For Mehman

Dear Behrouz,

You could have addressed me directly instead of speaking of me in the third person as if I am not in the forum.

Anyway, I am not a Marxist-Leninist (do they still exist? :-) and do not believe in historical materialism. I am a feminist but do not adhere to any particular school of feminism - I'm ecclectic, if you'd like. So, the idea of applying historical materialism or feminism to mythological stories is alien to me and you are categorically wrong in your judgment. I have a *theory* as you or Farzaneh have one too. Why this resistance? Why can't you just be open to new ideas? Nothing is written in stone, you know! I defend this thesis as a theory, not as a fact! I invite you to come up with a counter-argument, instead of empty accusations, dear!

Also, why do you use the word "matriarchal" when you know that I do not believe in the past existence of matriarchy? And why do you have this patriarchal idea that if there is no patriarchy, there must then be a "matriarchy" or a *rule of women* such as Tahmineh? When I speak of matrilineal societies, I'm speaking of societies that are *relatively* (compare to patriarchal ones) egalitarian. We have had this debate before, yet you have not learnt. Why not?

You say "Tahmineh is a totally loyal and submissive wife,  in a sense that she almost worships her ideal mate (Rostam) and is ready to do anything to please him. " Why do you think that loving a man and adoring him is synonymous with being submissive to him? Why? I have adored a few men in my lifetime and been loyal to them, but have never ever been submissive! I believe that your statements are unfortunately coloured by many pre-conceived notions. Love and voluntary loyalty have nothing to do with submission!

The story of Rostam and Sohrab is *not* historical but archetypal. It *represents* times of upheaval and specially *internal conflicts* in *our collective unconscious* instead of literal happenings. Although Ferdowsi wrote it during patriarchal times, it comes from many centuries prior to him within the oral tradition. This story and other similar ones have been tainted by Ferdowsi's patriarchal views, albeit unconsciously. As far as I know, he tried hard to remain faithful to what he had heard or read. However, the stories that are passed orally from one generation to another change a lot over time until someone writes them down... and even then... readers like us bring their own interpretation into them.

There is an old book on Rostam and Sohrab written by a British mythologist whose name I don't recall. It was published in 1905 and is out of print. The book develops my theory very well. There is one copy of this book at Harvard's Social Sciences library. I'll try to get my hands on it somehow and use it as a source book for an article I might write about my theory. The author was not a Marxist-Leninist,  but a liberal academic like Geza Roheim.

Do you live on the East coast?

Azadeh 

To Ari, Mehman, and Azadeh

Hamshiregan refers to those who are breast fed by an identical wet nurse more or less simultaneously. Tahmineh, being from the nobility, did not nurse her own son; and the wet nurse, very likely, did breast feed a few others in addition to Sohrab. This practice was neither uncommon nor unusual. Do we recall that Vis and Ramin were nursed by the same identical wet nurse? So there is nothing unusual for Sohrab to have some Hamshiregan without forcing Tahmineh to remarry. 

For Ari

This story is great Ari!

equivalents!

The farsi equivalent for denotation could be: معنای لغوی یا معنای تحت الفظی

connotation: دلالت ضمنی

For Ari

You ask, "One other thing, the puzzle Farzaneh poses is not why Rostam didn't stay in Tooran, but why didn't Tahmineh follow him to Iran. Any better ideas than she just didn't want to go? "

I tend to believe that the reason for Tahmineh's not "following" Rostam was that she lived in a matrilineal /matrilocal social system.

As I’ve already mentioned this on another thread and Mehman disagreed with me, the whole story of Rostam and Sohrab happens in a historical period of passage from matrilocality/matrilineality to patriarchy. Let’s look at some details:

*) Tahmineh initiates the relationship with Rostam by going to his *bedroom,* expressing her love *and* her desire to have a child from him. This never happens in a patriarchal society, but in a pre-patriarchal one, in a matri-centric society (and not matriarchal that has never existed.)  The same goes with the story of Khadijeh asking Mohammad for marriage, because the pre-Islamic Arabia was still matri-centric and living in the same period of passage to patriarchy.

*) Tahmineh keeps the child with herself in Touran and never thinks of taking him to Iran, because both Iran and Touran are still pre-patriarchal societies where children belong to their mothers and mothers' tribes / territories and get their identities from them.

*) Tahmineh keeps the father’s identity a secret while bringing up Sohrab like him. This contradictory attitude that Farzaneh allutes to, is another manifestation of this period of passage, when fatherhood was gradually becoming important.

*) It is by threatening his mother that Sohrab finds out the identity of his father. In matrilineal marriages, children often do not know the identity of their fathers and do not care to know it. Maternal uncles are the masculine figures in their upbringing.

When the biological fatherhood was discovered about 6000 years ago, men wanted to be direct parents like women. This is a long process that involves a lot of factors, but one thing is certain: there were thousands of bloody clashes between tribes that wanted to remain matrilineal and those that were motivated to turn patrilineal (monotheistic religions appeared around these periods of passage.)

And one of the indicators of these tragic clashes that have marked human psyche is the stories of fathers and sons who belong to enemy tribes/territories and find themselves in opposite camps, fighting and killing each other. The natural ally of any man in this period of history was his maternal uncle and not his father. Fatherhood was still an institution in making. [Kidnapping or buying women later became a way to "keep" women and their children in one's own territory.]

*) Victorious yet heartbroken Rostam represents patriarchy and idealistic Sohrab who resisted the new order, represents the old order of matrilineality. The new world order of patriarchy is brutal. And Rostam wins over Sohrab not by physical strength but by being cunning (creation of patriarchal institutions and traditions?)

To wrap it up and in other words, I’d say the historical root of this myth could be traced back to the emergence of patriarchy in the Bronze Age. Sons and daughters traditionally belonged to their mothers’ clans / tribes/territories. During the tribal wars for the imposition of the new system of patrilocality and patrilineality (that was founded on the discovery of biological paternity /creation of social paternity as well as the creation of private property and then monotheistic religions), often fathers and sons who belonged to different tribes (those of their mothers) fought against each others. Sons would fight alongside their maternal uncles against their known or unknown fathers and other paternal relatives who were considered "strangers". Sohrab belonged to his mother’s clan and territory (Touran), lived with her (matrilocality) and received his identity and blood line from her (matrilineality.)

I tend to believe that in the original story, Rostam knew he was killing Sohrab and was not ashamed of it, as he was killing a stranger, a stranger hostile to the new order. However, as patriarchy was established later on, it became an abnormality and a tragedy to kill one’s own son. So, in the later version, the father ignores that the one he has defeated and killed is his own son. - -- The same goes for the children's stories where the children are abused not by their mother, but by their step-mother! It is difficult to accept that a mother abuses her own children or a father kills his own son.

I like Farzaneh's take on the story, but I think the most important aspect of this tragedy, at least from women’s point of view, is the defeat of matrilineality represented by Tahmineh and Sohrab,  and the victory of patrilineality and patriarchy represented by Rostam. (One of the Seven Labours of Rostam is the killing of the White Div who is, in fact, a manifestation of the Great Goddess and her cult.)

(Authors to read: Erich Neumann, Geza Roheim, Bruno Bettelheim, Bronislaw Malinowski, James Frazer, Edwin Oliver James, Evelyn Reed and Elise Bouldng, and myself : "La paternité usurpatrice, l'origine de l'oppresion des femmes, 1985, Editions du remue-ménage, Montréal.)

Mehman!

I admire your logic !! Very great. I agree %100 with your example about Hafez poem and this:

"I assume that the word ‘hamshiregan’ here is used  by Ferdowsi due to
some poetic limitations and necessity and thus it connotes ‘hambaziha’
or  ‘hamsaleha”. These secondary meanings might contradict the
denotative referrals of the sign but they totally conform with the poetic context where the word was used."

Your capacity of analyzing the subject : an A+  

Connotations!

There are some notions that should be clarified:

what is denotation as opposed to connotation?

 These literary jargons might have changed meaning during the time as the critical approaches have evolved in the 20th century and beyond,  but regarding our present discussion I would define them like this :

Denotation is the ‘literal meaning of the word’ referring to common meanings reflected in society for that particular word. These meanings are not contextual (do not look at the poetic context where the word is used).   The denotative meaning of a word is thus clear and you can check it straightly in Moin, Dehkhoda and so on…

The  literary approach of New Criticism (in the first half of the 20th century up to the 60s)  saw the unique importance and usage of ‘words’ in a poem which would sometimes break the limitations of common usage and create a new meaning for a common word different from its usual usage. These new meanings are determined ‘contextually’ in reference to the particular situation of  the specified poem where the word is used.   (contextual for New Critics is not the same as for the New Historicists and other post modern critics, it is in a sense the opposite!)

Thus ‘connotation’ here is the secondary meaning or the particular meaning of the word which must be determined in a  particular poem or poetic episode.  It is thus that if you analyze one ghazal of Hafez, according to New Critics you might find a secondary meaning for a word which would make sense only in that particular ghazal (for every single work of art is like a closed system according to New Critics) and not in other poems by Hafez or other poets of his age.

Regarding this particular word, ‘hamshireh’ you are absolutely right when you refer to the common denotative meaning of the  word (bros and sis) , however, regarding the ‘context’ of  the work and looking at other related  verses  in  this story (as far as my memory helps) I can tell you for sure  that there is absolutely no evidence that Tahmineh married after Rostam and also regarding the uni-dimensional (black or white) nature of many (not all) epic and mythological characters,  I would say with confidence that since Tahmineh represents an archetypal  female figure of loyalty,  she has not committed such an act.  Acting   as a New Critic I would say: show me enough textual evidence (and by textual evidence I do not mean denotative meanings) and I would accept  it!

Assuming Tahmineh’s  deep  love and respect for Rostam (and seeing nothing to the contrary  in the text),  I assume that the word ‘hamshiregan’ here is used  by Ferdowsi due to some poetic limitations and necessity and thus it connotes ‘hambaziha’ or  ‘hamsaleha”. These secondary meanings might contradict the denotative referrals of the sign but they totally conform with the poetic context where the word was used.

I am yet open to challenges Ari and I do not consider what I say  the last word on the issue! Dear Ari, nice chatting with you!

Mehman

Here's the verse:   

 که من چون ز همشیرگان بر ترم
همی بآسمان اندر آید سرم

Why would Sohrab expect other children not related to him by blood--playmates, classmates--to display similar genetic characteristics?

Also, please consider that Sohrab has just threatened to kill his mother if she does not reveal the father:

گر این پرسش از من بماند نهان
نمانم ترا زنده اندر جهان 

He expresses concern in the next verse as to what to say if others ask who his father is, ie. notice that he does not look like his siblings. These emotions spring from everyday issues that the epic format does not encourage, but cannot help reflect. The modern reader is better equipped to read between the lines.

One other thing, the puzzle Farzaneh poses is not why Rostam didn't stay in Tooran, but why didn't Tahmineh follow him to Iran. Any better ideas than she just didn't want to go?

Sorry about the punctuation marks being in the wrong places--Farsi-Engligh software glitch.

Textual Evidence!

 Dear Ari,

"Intriguingly Tahmineh appears to have other children because Sohrab refers to his "hamsheeregan." If she has not lied to Rostam about never having been seen out of the "pardeh," she must have remarried after Rostam. Any thoughts on this? "

Hamsheeregan is equivalent to "hambaziha" or "hamsenosalha", not brothers and sisters. The 'ifs' and 'agars' may work in real life but not in a literary text.

 In the latter you can not have undetermined surmises about the intentions of characters (specially in a non-modernist ancient epic text), your guesses should be contextual ie.  supported by textual evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence that Tahmineh married after Rostam. We are here dealing with half-mythological half-epic characters and not with Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina or the  20th century female characters of modernist novels!

Tahmineh was in love and admiration (both) with Rostam and was a (mythologically) faithful woman to her ideal husband. She wanted to keep a permanent token (Sohrab) of his ideal man (Rostam).

She knew she could not keep Rostam to live in Samanghan (part of Touran) yet she loved him so much that she was satisfied to have him for a short time instead of not having him at all.

Behrouz Mehman 

Wonderful analyis, Farzaneh

Intriguingly Tahmineh appears to have other children because Sohrab refers to his "hamsheeregan." If she has not lied to Rostam about never having been seen out of the "pardeh," she must have remarried after Rostam. Any thoughts on this?

Thank you for this great piece of work