I am not Shemr, this is not a dagger, nor is this Karbala.
In this enactment our intention is lamentation.
âµ
TaÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ«, also known as shabÄ«h-khÄnÄ«, is an Iranian form of ShiÊ¿i devotional drama. Before an enactment commences the performer playing the arch-antagonist Shamer b. áºÄ« al-Jawshan, âShemrâ, paces the empty stage area and recites the verse above. He draws a careful distinction between actor and character: the real and the represented. There is no desire for verisimilitude here. The performance is a devotional offering that incites lamentation by representing pivotal moments in sacred history.
At the heart of the taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire is a cycle of plays traditionally performed during the Islamic month of Muḥarram to commemorate the martyrdom of the Third Imam of ShiÊ¿i Islam, and grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad, Ḥusain b. Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄleb (b. c.6/627).1 The siege and slaughter of Ḥusain and his companions on the plain of Karbala, in the year 61/680, are the central events that, as the tradition developed, it came to portray in episodic style. The practice of taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ« dates back more than three centuries, and continues in present day Iran. Performances remain a highly important element of devotional culture for the many communities who stage them. Through the replaying of the events at Karbala, together the taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄn (performers) and audiences preserve the memory of the martyrs, seek proximity to them, mourn their suffering, and hope for their intercession.
At an outdoor performance, after dark, in the village of Garmaseh (near Isfahan) in Muḥarram of 1439/2017 the performer playing the Umayyad caliph YazÄ«d b. MuÊ¿Äwiyyah, who ordered Ḥusainâs killing, dropped out of character and addressed the audience directly (a practice common in the taÊ¿ziyeh). âSo great was our martyr, that his mourners are still here after a thousand years,â he said, gesturing towards the hundreds of black-clad women who filled one side of the cross-roads turned stage. They responded with an outburst of wailing.2 Indeed, one of the overwhelming impressions of a literary study of the taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire (albeit of the central episodes, as I present here) is just how much the devotion of those mourners has shaped this art form. Far from being the legacy of elite patronage, the taÊ¿ziyeh emerges very much as the collective creative property of the performers and composers (often one and the same), and those who have participated en masse as audience members â a large and highly important contingent of whom are women.
The repertoire has acted as a repository for popular wisdom relating to ShiÊ¿ismâs sacred figures. Whilst concurring broadly with the martyrdom narratives reported in historical and hagiographical sources, the central episodes of the taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire incorporate a wealth of additional detail. Old and little-known stories are embedded within these episodes. Interventions by angels, dervishes, and foreigners from diverse historical periods, the apparition of jinn (genies), and the significant treatment of the perspective of the women at Karbala, enrich the narrative texture.
Furthermore, successive generations of anonymous dramatists embellished the memory of Karbala with innovative narrative content. Between the 1830s and the 1890s under the Qajar Dynasty (r. 1210â1344/ 1796â1925), when elite patronage of taÊ¿ziyeh was at its height, new characters and scenes appear in the scripts of the central plays of the Muḥarram cycle: some of these innovations are dead ends and later disappear; other â obviously successful â innovations become permanent features of the plays, and over a couple of decades are integrated into renditions across the country. As these were texts for performance, for a new section of material to be successful it must have been accepted by both the players and their audience. This was no small matter as once a scene became a permanent feature of a central episode it would be played for generations, forming part of the memory of Karbala as conceived within the taÊ¿ziyeh universe.
Despite the intriguing nature of this manner of telling the Karbala narratives, and although there has been valuable work in the field of taÊ¿ziyeh studies, research examining the taÊ¿ziyeh as literature is scare. The study that I present in this book began from a desire to contribute to filling that gap; as I learned of the long hours spent by those performing and attending taÊ¿ziyeh, year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation, my study was fuelled by a burning curiosity about the playsâ content. Due, in part, to the largely anonymous nature of their authorship, each episode is subject to numerous variations. To study the essential features of a particular episode, we cannot simply look at one version without the risk that conclusions reached could be contradicted by other renditions. I have therefore cast a broad net in terms of primary sources: focusing the analysis on four episodes, The Martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs, The Martyrdom of QÄsem, The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain and BÄzÄr-e ShÄm (The Damascus Market), I refer in detail to over forty scripts. The assemblage of performers, audience and performance space is ever-present in my consideration of their contents, as are the questions of who has contributed to this tradition, and how they have left their mark upon it.
This literary analysis has revealed important evidence to suggest the strong influence of a separate and somewhat older performance form, an influence that has hitherto gone largely unrecognised, and has certainly not been subject to systematic evaluation. In the chapters that follow we will consistently see traces of connections to naqqÄlÄ« (traditional storytelling) and in particular pardeh-dÄrÄ« (also known as pardeh-khÄnÄ«, or shamÄyel-gardÄnÄ«) â devotional storytelling using a painted canvas backdrop. The pardeh-dÄrÄn (storytellers) were dervishes who narrated episodes from the lives of the ahl-e bait (Holy Family), and the battle of Karbala in coffeehouses and marketplaces, but whose repertoire could include the stories of the Iranian epics.3
We see the migration of specific narrative material from the pardeh-dÄrÄ« tradition to the taÊ¿ziyeh, and the characterisation of the ShiÊ¿i martyrs as heroes of epic, commensurate with their pardeh-dÄrÄ« portrayal. The very compositional features that I identify across my sample of plays, and indeed the wider repertoire, are typical of oral art forms. We will also see a societal connection between the Qajar era taÊ¿ziyeh performers and the brotherhood to which the pardeh-dÄrÄ« practitioners belonged, and that connection reflected by the dramatic content and poetic form of certain taÊ¿ziyeh episodes.
The identification of naqqÄlÄ« influence both illuminates and challenges our understanding of the taÊ¿ziyeh, which has long been conceived of as having descended primarily from the tradition of rawżeh-khÄnÄ«, recitals (largely by mullahs) of the tribulations of the ShiÊ¿i martyrs, as told in Ḥusain VÄÊ¿eẠKÄshefÄ«âs Rawżat al-shuhadÄʾ and similar works. The prevailing scholarly theory is that the taÊ¿ziyeh emerged from the fusion of such recitals with the tableaux vivant of the Karbala tragedy, staged atop wagons in the Muḥarram processions. I will discuss this theory and suggest an alternative to it in chapter 1, which deals with the history of the tradition. For now, it is sufficient to say that, whilst the influence of rawżeh-khÄnÄ« upon the taÊ¿ziyeh is of undoubted importance, the connection with pardeh-dÄrÄ« requires a new understanding of the taÊ¿ziyeh tradition, taking it further from Karbala as recorded in the written word, and closer to the memory of the martyrs that lived through its performance in the bazars and coffeehouses â and not only during Muḥarram.
Of course, vibrant living traditions are never static. An important branch of this research has been to track how the taÊ¿ziyeh episodes subject to this study evolved through time. My main temporal focus is the reign of the Qajar Dynasty, an era when the art form enjoyed both elite patronage and widespread popularity amongst the masses, certainly a highly important period in its evolution. Incorporating in my sample the earliest extant scripts, from the Zand Dynastyâs reign (1164â1209/ 1751â1794) as well as scripts from the Qajar period, and up to the mid-20th century, I examine the changes that took place and observe patterns in how the repertoire developed. It is in this area that the following chapters will show the importance of the influence of women, as we see a steady increase through time in the treatment of their perspective. Before carrying this discussion further, however, I offer a brief synopsis of the events at Karbala according to the mainstream narrative and prior to their dramatization in the taÊ¿ziyeh.
In 61/680 Ḥusain, his family and a group of supporters set out from Mecca in the Hijaz area of the Arabian Peninsula and journeyed towards Kufa in present day Iraq.4 Kufa was an important garrison town and Ḥusain had received correspondence from the residents promising support if he were to rise against the newly acceded Umayyad caliph YazÄ«d b. MuÊ¿Äwiyyah (r. 60â4/ 680â3). This challenge was part of a leadership dispute that had remained unresolved since the death of the Prophet Muḥammad (b. c.570 CE, d. 11/632). Ḥusain represented the sector of the Muslim community, now identified as ShiÊ¿i, who maintained that rightful leadership belonged to Muḥammadâs hereditary line through Ḥusainâs parents, Muḥammadâs daughter FÄá¹emeh-ye ZahrÄ (b. c.615 CE, d. 11/633) and her husband, Muḥammadâs cousin, Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄleb (b. c.600 CE, d. 40/661). Before Ḥusainâs party reached Kufa, news of the impending challenge had spread to the Umayyad capital Damascus. YazÄ«d had taken direct control of Kufa, deposing the governor and putting his own man, Ê¿Ubaid-AllÄh b. ZiyÄd, in charge. Ḥusainâs paternal cousin Muslem b.Ê¿AqÄ«l, who had been acting as envoy to the Kufans and had assured Ḥusain of their loyalty, had been publicly beheaded. The Kufans had abandoned Ḥusainâs cause.
When Ḥusain and his party reached an area in the desert north of Kufa and near the banks of the Euphrates, now known as Karbala, they were cut off by both Syrian and Kufan troops. Surrounded and denied access to the water of the Euphrates, Ḥusain was given an ultimatum: swear allegiance to YazÄ«d or be killed. He refused to swear allegiance. Despite being drastically outnumbered, one by one the warriors of the besieged party fought bravely before being killed. Once the grown men were gone, young boys took to the battlefield in defence of Ḥusain. Eventually, on the 10th of Muḥarram, after three days without water, Ḥusain himself was killed. The women and children of his family, together with his one remaining adult son, Zain al-Ê¿ÄbedÄ«n (the Fourth Imam), who was too weakened by illness to fight, were captured and taken to YazÄ«dâs court in Damascus.
The Muḥarram cycle dramatizes these events, with each play focussing on the martyrdom of an individual member of Ḥusainâs family or the fate of the survivors as captives. The events are traditionally represented chronologically and the plays performed daily during the first ten to twelve days of Muḥarram. Set in Kufa, The Martyrdom of Muslem b.Ê¿AqÄ«l, is performed around the beginning of the cycle, preparing the ground for the impending tragedy. As the cycle builds towards the climax, the focus moves to Karbala with the central episodes treating the martyrdoms of Ḥusainâs prominent supporters and relatives. These plays are set in the besieged camp. The barren desert and encroachment of the enemy troops creates an atmosphere of high tension. With water withheld, desperate thirst, particularly that of the children, acts as an essential dramatic motor that drives fateful attempts to break the blockade on the Euphrates. The fact that the besieged party are a family allows for the treatment of themes such as obedience and familial hierarchy, fraternity, the derangement of a bereaved mother, and the rituals associated with marriage and mourning. The climactic play The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain is always enacted on Ê¿ÄshÅ«rÄʾ, the 10th of Muḥarram, understood to have been the date of Ḥusainâs death. After this, the action moves on from Karbala, following the journey of the survivors and ending with a play such as BÄzÄr-e ShÄm (The Damascus Market).
In political terms, the mission of Ḥusain and his followers can be seen as a revolution, an uprising against a ruler perceived as unjust and illegitimate. However, from a ShiÊ¿i perspective, Karbala is much more than that. Ḥusain is the Third Imam of ShiÊ¿i Islam. For the ShiÊ¿a, the members of the Holy Family are vital characters in sacred history. Many ShiÊ¿i traditions claim that Muḥammad, Ê¿AlÄ«, FÄá¹emeh, Ḥasan and Ḥusain were created by God from the light of his own holiness and before the heavens and the earth. The earthly lives of these figures act as focal points through which the deeper meaning of existence can be understood. According to mainstream ShiÊ¿i tradition, Ḥusainâs martyrdom at Karbala was predestined; from as early as Ädam the prophets had received word of his fate. It is believed that his martyrdom was necessary in order that he should become an intercessor for the sins of the Muslim community on the Day of Judgement.5 In this understanding Ḥusain, like the figure of Jesus Christ in Christianity, is incarnated for atonement. His martyrdom and the events of Karbala have a central importance within ShiÊ¿i eschatology.
Crying for the Karbala martyrs is believed to have an important redemptive value. Tears shed for the Holy Family are even described in some traditions as a barrier between the mourner and hell:6 attendance at taʿziyeh is not considered a religious duty, but the plays help to provoke the shedding of redemptive tears. The audience come both to remember the martyrs and to cry for them. The plays are typically around three and a half hours long, with the climactic play, The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain, lasting around five hours: the central episodes feature protracted farewells between family members before a martyrdom, and the focus is not on the battle, but rather the emotional agony of those involved. Thus the audience are taken to the very point where the suffering is most intense and then, to allow for lamentation, are held there for a considerable time.
The first chapter of this book will focus on the history of taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ«, offering an original theory as to the process of the traditionâs emergence, examining its consolidation and endurance, and exploring how it was woven into the fabric of Iranian society. The second chapter will discuss the compositional features and conventions of the taÊ¿ziyeh genre observed during the course of my study. These include structural features, including the type-scene, and techniques such as the application of a defined composition-scheme, that are shared with other folk, epic and oral literatures. In addition to these recognised concepts, in describing the specifics of the taÊ¿ziyeh, I add the notion of the âfloating scene.â The conventions of the genre identified in chapter 2 will be seen in context in the remaining chapters that are organised by play, with a chapter focussing on each of the four selected episodes.
The taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire is broad. For example, the work of á¹¢Ädeq HumÄyunÄ« lists and synopsizes 152 different taÊ¿ziyeh plays, and the Cerulli Persian Collection, the largest script collection in the world, includes scripts pertaining to almost 300 plays.7 TaÊ¿ziyeh plays fall into two main categories. A full-length play (lasting between three and five hours) is termed a vÄqeÊ¿eh or majles-e aá¹£lÄ« (main episode); these originally focussed on the events at Karbala, in particular the martyrdoms, but through time came to treat epic, historical and other religious stories. The second type of play is termed a gÅ«sheh or taÊ¿ziyeh-ye farÊ¿Ä« (sub-episode). These are short, self-contained plays that are not performed alone but alongside the main episodes, either inserted into the body of the episode or played as a prologue or epilogue to it (a prologue being termed a âpÄ«sh-e vÄqeÊ¿ehâ). These sub-episodes treat diverse subject matter. They often use a dramatic device called gurÄ«z (literally meaning âescapeâ or âdigressionâ) as a link to the Karbala narrative and the subject matter of the main episode.8 This classification is useful when examining the evolution of the main episodes, as oftentimes an apparent innovation in content can prove to be a gÅ«sheh that has been permanently integrated into the fabric of the episode.9
1 The Plays under Analysis
I selected the following four episodes for in-depth analysis due to their position at the core of the taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire and treatment of the experiences of the most beloved members of Ḥusainâs family. Forming part of the Muḥarram programme played year after year, they are among the most widely performed episodes. What can be observed in the compositional features of these plays, and the trajectory of their development, reflects the repertoire as a whole. There are other prominent episodes worthy of analysis, but these four capture a range of the types of scene, character, and interaction that form the essence of the taÊ¿ziyeh genre.
1.1 The Martyrdom of AbÅ« al-Fażl al-Ê¿AbbÄs
This play concerns the martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs b. Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄleb, Ḥusainâs half- brother. Ê¿AbbÄs is a formidable warrior and guard to the ahl-e bait. Tradition holds that he was not only the standard-bearer at Karbala but also the sÄqÄ« (water-bearer) of the group on their journey. During the siege, determined to bring water for the children, Ê¿AbbÄs launches a raid on the Euphrates. Attempting to return to the camp, he is beset by the enemy and, drastically outnumbered, has both of his hands cut off before dying. This episode is crucial to the arc of the Muḥarram cycle. It marks the beginning of a downward spiral in the fortunes of the besieged party. Prior to this point, despite the dire circumstances, they have faith in the protection of the mighty Ê¿AbbÄs and thus some hope, but, this protection lost, they are exposed and vulnerable, and plunged into a state of grief. Leaving no surviving adult warriors besides Ḥusain, the demise of Ê¿AbbÄs marks the moment when junior members of the family take to the battlefield.
1.2 The Martyrdom of QÄsem
Also set during the siege at Karbala, this episode treats the marriage of the adolescent QÄsem, son of the deceased Second Imam (and Ḥusainâs older brother), Ḥasan, to Ḥusainâs daughter FÄá¹emeh. The groom is then martyred before the consummation of the marriage. Featuring a macabre combination of the rites connected to marriage and to death, this play also explores the shame felt by an orphan and the derangement of a bereaved mother. The occasion of a wedding lends considerable attention to the women of the group, with most renditions of the play featuring long sections of inter-female dialogue. It thus offers a valuable opportunity to study the taÊ¿ziyeh treatment of the women at Karbala.
1.3 The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain
Anticipated throughout the cycle, the climactic play sees the fulfilment of Ḥusainâs predestined martyrdom. Before the climax, we see the desperation caused by thirst intensify as the siege wears on. Also, the function of the female characters shifts. With no menfolk other than Ḥusain, the sickly Zain al-Ê¿ÄbedÄ«n, and infant boys remaining, the women take on menâs duties. They prepare themselves for the loss of their patriarch and for being taken captive. Alone on the battlefield, Ḥusain encounters a series of benevolent strangers. His refusal of their help is essential to the portrayal of his acceptance of his divinely ordained duty â to be martyred at Karbala in order to become an intercessor for the sins of the community. Ḥusainâs beheading by the arch-antagonist Shemr sees this destiny fulfilled.
1.4 BÄzÄr-e ShÄm
This play portrays the aftermath of Ḥusainâs martyrdom, with the action unfolding in and around YazÄ«dâs court in Damascus. Beginning by focussing on YazÄ«d himself, who has become ill with impatience as he awaits news from Karbala, later renditions feature an element of satire, ridiculing YazÄ«d by having him attended by a European doctor who attempts to cure him with a nonsense remedy. News of the massacre arrives and the play goes on to provoke outrage by depicting the mistreatment of the captives and parading of the martyrsâ heads as trophies. Shemr provides a graphic account of how he killed each one: YazÄ«d attempts to make Ḥusainâs severed head drink wine. The heroism of the survivors, particularly Zainab (Ḥusainâs sister) and Zain al-Ê¿ÄbedÄ«n, is shown through their bravery in speaking out against injustice. The play also features a European ambassador who attempts to intervene on the captivesâ behalf.
2 Scripts and Script Collections
Since the birth of the tradition over 300 years ago taÊ¿ziyeh performers and directors, both amateur and professional, have been the custodians of the repertoireâs scripts, which have been handed down through generations, copied and recopied many times. The scripts included in this study span the reign of the Qajar Dynasty, incorporating examples from the Zand period where available. In order to establish whether the developments of the genreâs heyday took root, I have also included scripts dated up to the 1950s. (It must be remembered that the scripts are usually marked with the date of the last copyist, as opposed to dates of composition, and that their content is therefore likely to be older than the date they bear.)10
Here I describe the scripts and the collections to which they belong not only to furnish the reader with an understanding of my sources but because they are an important part of the taÊ¿ziyehâs material legacy and reveal much about the tradition itself. This said, we cannot understand a live performance tradition through reference to its scripts alone. In the chapters that follow I ground my analysis of the textual sources in the context of their production and live delivery. I will make frequent reference to witness accounts of taÊ¿ziyeh performances from different phases of the traditionâs history, and the dynamics of the spaces in which they took place are ever present in my assessment of performer-audience interaction. While this is a historical study, it is also informed by my experience of attending taÊ¿ziyeh performances at a number of locations in Iran, during Muḥarram of 1439/ 2017.11
The vast majority of the scripts used in this study belong to the Cerulli Persian Collection, held by the Vatican Library. Comprising 1055 handwritten taÊ¿ziyeh scripts (some of which are fragments) the Collection includes multiple renditions of each central episode. These scripts take two distinct forms. Most are collections of small booklets, each containing the lines of an individual character, a form known as âtak-nuskhehâ (acting sides).12 These are 5â12 cm wide and no longer than 18cm, designed to be held in one hand during the performance. A fehrest (directorâs key or prompt sheet), listing the order in which the characters speak and the first word of each interjection, accompanies each collection of acting sides and thus the plays can be reconstructed for analysis. The second and less common variety of script are those that take the form of a jung; a taÊ¿ziyeh play is referred to as a jung when the lines of all characters, in the order in which they are delivered, have been written into a single booklet. These tend to conform to the dimensions of the acting sides. They may have been the master copies of plays held by a group or have been used by the director during performances. Neither the booklets of the acting sides, nor those in jung form, are bound. They are simple, handwritten booklets sewn together with thread. These are humble materials.
Working with these manuscripts presents the researcher with numerous challenges. The fehrests are often inaccurate, not corresponding entirely to the interjections featured on the acting sides. The scripts contain numerous orthographic errors and words are randomly joined or separated in the middle.13 The booklets of a single play can contain a number of different handwriting styles; writing is very small and at times illegible. Many booklets are extremely fragile, the ink often smudged. As a general point, the fragile nature of these manuscripts has implications for the study of the earliest period; the further back we go, the less chance there is of such manuscripts having been preserved. These challenges aside, taʿziyeh scripts constitute an invaluable record of the history of the tradition and those belonging to the Cerulli Collection have rarely been used by researchers.
To widen the sample range, I have included scripts from a number of other sources. Many of these have been edited and published in Iran; others are from collections made by visitors to Iran. I treat these scripts, just like the scripts of the Cerulli Collection, as evidence of these plays as performed, rather than a purely literary product. The vast majority of the acting sides that I have studied show wear and tear from use; furthermore, many include minor edits by a hand other than that of the copyist, and in some instances the lines of two marginal characters (with not dissimilar profiles) have been written into the same booklet â suggesting that the same performer played both parts. Many of the Cerulli Collection scripts in jung form also show wear commensurate with having been held in the palm or folded to go into a pocket. This strongly suggests that these scripts were not only designed to be used in performances, but have been used in performances. Hailing from cities, towns and villages across Iran, they should be seen as written records of how the stories they tell were recited and enacted amongst local communities, for generations.
2.1 The Collections
Working forward from the oldest examples, I now detail the various sources from which scripts have been drawn for this study. I discuss briefly what is known of the collectors and collection processes, topics that in themselves offer glimpses of the colourful history of the tradition.
2.1.1 Zand Collection: Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ« and DaryÄÄ«
This is a small yet highly important collection of scripts dating to the reign of the Zand Dynasty. Among a handful of other works, it includes the earliest extant renditions of: BÄzÄr-e Sham, dated 1184 (1770â71); The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain, dated 1204 (1790); and The Martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs, dated 1206 (1791â92).14 It has been gathered and edited by DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ« and MehdÄ« DaryÄÄ«. These scripts are not only interesting in their own right, but also offer an invaluable starting point from which to analyse the playsâ historical development. Their geographical origin is not always stated, but in the case of The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain âFarfÄhÅ«nâ is given within the script as the place of writing,15 this is likely to denote the small village of Farfahan in southern Markazi Province. The editors provide photographs, and an invaluable level of description of the manuscripts, detailing dating, location and authorship, where known, as well as how these aspects inform understanding of the tradition and its players during this early period. They also give insight into how the features of these plays compare to their later equivalents; in the following chapters I will frequently refer to the gems of information that they provide.
2.1.2 Chodzko Collection
Aleksander Borejko Chodzko worked as a translator for the Russian diplomatic service at various locations in Iran during 1830s and attended taÊ¿ziyeh performances in Tehran. He recalls attending, in 1833, a 14-day series of performances hosted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, MÄ«rzÄ AbÅ«l Ḥasan KhÄn, that made a great impression upon him.16 He purchased the scripts of 34 taÊ¿ziyeh plays transcribed, seemingly by one hand, into a 326-page codex, a book with a lacquered board cover. This is a very unusual format for the transcription of taÊ¿ziyeh plays, suggesting that this collection is likely to have been transcribed specifically for the European collector, perhaps as a commission. The manuscript is now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.17 An annotation within it states that Chodzko purchased these scripts in Tehran, from Ḥusain Ê¿AlÄ« KhÄn, on 15th July 1833.18 Chodzko describes Ḥusain Ê¿AlÄ« KhÄn as a eunuch who directed performances in the âheart of Tehranâ. Whilst acknowledging these plays were usually anonymous, he suspects that Ê¿AlÄ« KhÄn himself, reputedly a playwright, had either composed or edited the works.19 These speculations aside, 14 of the plays included in the manuscript bear discrete references to an author.20 Chodzko translated five of the plays into French;21 six of them are available as an edition.22
2.1.3 Litten Collection
Diplomat Willhelm Litten spent time in Iran during the early 20th century, serving as the German Consul in Tabriz in 1914.23 He collected and later published the scripts of 15 taÊ¿ziyeh plays.24 Writing in 1928, Litten tells us that âover 20 years agoâ he saw a performance of the taÊ¿ziyeh of AmÄ«r TÄ«mur at the shahâs theatre in Tehran and that he asked the director if he could purchase the script. The director was unwilling to part with the original but allowed a copy to be made. Litten explains that he then purchased another 14 plays that were original scripts but he does not state where or from whom.25 Two of these scripts are marked with the dates 1247 (1831â2), and 1255 (1839).26 The others, including his versions of The Martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs and The Martyrdom of Imam Ḥusain (used in my study), are undated. Based on his description we can be confident that they were copied in 1908 at latest, yet they appear to be much older; arguing from their content, Ḥusain EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ« believes the whole collection to date to around the 1830s.27 My findings on the development of the repertoire compel me to agree.28 Littenâs published collection compiles photographic reproductions of these scripts; they show that he bought them in jung as opposed to tak-nuskheh form.
2.1.4 Gobineau Translation
This study includes a French prose translation of The Martyrdom of QÄsem, by Comte Arthur de Gobineau, published in 1281â82/1865 (geographical origin unknown).29 Gobineau spent time in Iran between the mid-1850s and mid-1860s, serving at various European missions.30 He was a regular spectator at taÊ¿ziyeh and his memoires provide valuable evidence of the tradition during this period. Despite being a translation, this script is valuable not only because it offers an important data point on the timeline of the playâs development, but also because it includes some stage directions, not customary in taÊ¿ziyeh scripts.31
2.1.5 Pelly Collection
Sir Lewis Pelly was British âPolitical Residentâ at Bushehr between 1862 and 1873. He gathered a collection of taÊ¿ziyeh plays from a local source, 37 of which he published in prose translation.32 Pelly describes his source as, â⦠a Persian who had long been engaged as a teacher and prompter of actorsâ; this source agreed that â⦠assisted by some of his dramatic friends, he should gradually collect and dictate all the scenes of the Hasan and Husain tragedy.â33 We can thus understand his collection to have been gathered from the local taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄn. By âscenesâ, Pelly refers to the episodes and sub-episodes included in his collection. He does not specify a date or location for any single play but describes the collection process as having gone on for over several years. We must therefore take 1290/1873 (his departure from the area) as the latest possible date for these plays; in accordance with Pellyâs residence, their geographical origin should be considered as Bushehr or Shiraz.
2.1.6 Darbandsar
A collection of scripts belonging to the performers of the mountain village Darbandsar (Tehran Province), compiled by Ḥasan á¹¢Äleḥī RÄd and published in 1389 SH/ 2001â2, provides a further source.34 The collection is wonderfully broad, the editor providing the scripts of 50 plays across two volumes. A firm dating for these scripts cannot be given. Local tradition holds that their composition dates to the reign of Muḥammad ShÄh QÄjÄr (1250â1264/ 1835â1848). However, the inclusion, in the Darbandsar rendition of the climactic play, of certain characters who were not customarily featured as early as the 1840s, suggests that the scripts were composed (or at least edited) somewhat later.35 Indeed, with performances ongoing in the village it is probable that the plays of the Darbandsar collection continued to be subject to small changes up until the 20th century CE.
2.1.7 HÄshem FayyÄż: MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ Collection
HÄshem FayyÄż was a Tehrani taÊ¿ziyeh director and performer who dedicated much of his life to collecting and staging the works of Qajar era composer Sayyed Muá¹£á¹afÄ KÄshÄnÄ«, known as MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ.36 The Martyrdom of QÄsem from this collection, edited by SamÄneh KÄáºemÄ«, has been included in this study.37 In this case, the script appears to be a composite rendering, featuring verse by both MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ and a certain âMÄ«r-e MÄtam; it bears the takhalluá¹£ (nom de plume) of both poets.38 I thus refer to this as the MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ/ MÄ«r-e MÄtam rendition. It was last copied in 1326 SH/ 1946â7 by FayyÄż. The date of composition is not stated. However, given the period of MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄâs activity, we should attribute it (at least in part) to the last decades of the 19th century CE, and assume that the likely geographical origin is Kashan or Tehran. We will return to MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ and his work in the next chapter.
2.1.8 Cerulli Collection
Enrico Cerulli was Italian Ambassador to Iran from November 1950 to April 1954. He was a scholar of anthropology with an interest in folk literatures, language and religion.39 During his time in Iran he became interested in the taÊ¿ziyeh and began to gather the vast script collection that he donated to the Vatican Library. Around half of the collectionâs 1055 manuscripts were sent to Rome during his stay in Iran, with the others being sent after his return. It is important to note that the sequence of the catalogue numbers corresponds to the order in which the manuscripts arrived in Italy.40 Cerulli assembled his collection with the help of local agents Ê¿AlÄ« (Arkady) HÄnÄ«bÄl and Ḥusain ShariyÊ¿atÄ« áºawq Ê¿AlÄ«-ShÄh.41 The latter is described in the Vaticanâs guide to its collections as the leader of a mystical brotherhood, a Sufi pÄ«r (spiritual guide) perhaps. HÄnÄ«bÄl was a Russian anthropologist who had taken up residence in Iran and converted to ShiÊ¿i Islam; he was passionate about folk culture and tradition, served as Director of Tehranâs Museum of Anthropology, and is recognised for his work in setting up further museums.42
AmÄ«r KÄvÅ«s BÄlÄzÄdeh and Ḥusain EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ« treat the assembly of the Cerulli Collection in the foreword and introduction to the Persian translation of its catalogue. The fact that the names of HÄnÄ«bÄl and ShariyÊ¿atÄ« áºawq Ê¿AlÄ«-ShÄh, and some description of the collection process, are given in the Vaticanâs own collections guide (published six years earlier) appears not to have come to their attention. BÄlÄzÄdeh problematises the âsilenceâ around this issue, going as far as to call it a âsecretâ.43 Nonetheless, they are aware of Cerulli having had dealings with HÄnÄ«bÄl, correctly hypothesize his being involved in assembling Cerulliâs taÊ¿ziyeh script collection, and open a useful discussion around the levels of the collection process, a topic that certainly merits further research.
HÄnÄ«bÄl had apparently assembled his own collection of several hundred taÊ¿ziyeh scripts that he intended to bequeath to a museum (perhaps that of Qazvin); BÄlÄzÄdeh believes that, instead, he sold these to Cerulli and then, through his contacts with taÊ¿ziyeh players across Iran, went on to assemble Cerulliâs wider collection.44 EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ« extends BÄlÄzÄdehâs theory, suggesting that the first 300 or so manuscripts in the Cerulli Collection may have been from HÄnÄ«bÄlâs original script collection, with the others being gathered during the subsequent period. This assertion is based on the fact that the first 300 manuscripts do not tend to state an origin whereas later entries usually do.45 He also mentions that manuscripts coming earlier in the sequence are often better organised with more concise titles, and that towards the end there are more fragments, plays with curiously long titles, and manuscripts that are odd for other reasons [suggesting a less experienced or discerning collector]. Acknowledging the collectionâs great value for research, he urges caution with respect to the later entries, believing that as word spread of the ambassadorâs enthusiasm to procure as many taÊ¿ziyeh scripts as possible, it is likely that scripts were rapidly copied, or even composed, for sale to the collector.46
The idea of HÄnÄ«bÄlâs script collection forming the basis for Cerulliâs sounds plausible, but there is at least one piece of evidence (an observation made during my own work with these manuscripts) that may contradict EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«âs suggestion that the first 300 entries originally belonged to a separate collection. As previously explained, the booklets of the acting sides are often made from recycled materials. A significant number of acting sides, belonging to different manuscripts, have outer covers made from tobacco packaging, coloured card featuring a crown insignia; examples are found in the manuscripts numbered 43, 51, 354, 513, and 908. These are from diverse locations and are otherwise not identical in style.47 Whilst we cannot rule out the idea that using tobacco packaging to bind the acting sides was a trend amongst taÊ¿ziyeh players of the period, the material connection between these booklets indicates them having passed through the same hands. Perhaps the team working on Cerulliâs collection project favoured this packaging for repairs, the important point being that this material connection â between some of the earliest entries to the sequence and one of the latest â speaks against the likelihood of the first entries coming from a separate collection process.
This aside, EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«âs note of caution is well founded. It is important to bear in mind that at the time of Cerulli gathering his collection, the taÊ¿ziyeh was not a grand affair, receiving generous sponsorship and attended by all sectors of society, as it had been when Chodzko, or even Litten, visited Iran. As will be discussed below, like other Muḥarram rituals, it was subject to restrictions and sporadic prohibitions under the Pahlavi Dynasty (r. 1304â57 SH/ 1925â79) and thus, by the 1950s had largely retreated to the villages where the tradition was kept alive amongst players of humble means. Whilst some scripts may have been held by individuals with no ongoing personal connection to the tradition, we should assume that a large section of the materials gathered by HÄnÄ«bÄl, ShariyÊ¿atÄ« áºawq Ê¿AlÄ«-ShÄh and their collaborators, were obtained from such players.
In a small number of cases, the physical appearance of the manuscripts does suggest that they are likely to have been copied for Cerulli as opposed to being used scripts. This in itself does not pose a problem regarding their authenticity, as copying is part of the tradition. This is the nature of scripts that are part of a living performance form; they are designed for use, and over the centuries, when they have become worn, they will have been copied and replaced (often booklet by booklet, according to necessity).48 However, with reference to the Cerulli Collection and the process of its assembly, it is interesting to note that there is a similarity in appearance (ink, paper and scribal hand) between some of the scripts that I have noted to be âunusedâ. They are thus likely to be copies made for Cerulli. These are from different locations, suggesting a copyist (or team of copyists) working for the collector, in conjunction with the purchase of scripts held by local players. Whilst this does not entirely solve the mystery of Cerulliâs collection process, it goes a long way towards building our understanding of it.
Accepting this scenario does not disqualify seemingly unused scripts from having potential as research materials, if used discerningly. Copies made for collectors (such as the Chodzko manuscript described above) are accepted as valuable sources within the field of taʿziyeh studies. By drawing the majority of its script sources from the Cerulli Collection, this book contributes to the field by bringing to light information from materials that are not easy to access for scholars of taʿziyeh, many of whom are based in Iran. To ensure balance, in the sample of renditions of each episode I include at least four from alternative sources. As a general point, I have not found the content of the Cerulli Collection renditions of these plays, including those that are later in date (or arrived later in Italy), to differ significantly from other examples.49
2.2 Historiography, Hagiography, and Lithographs
Accounts of the events at Karbala have been collected and reported by historians from as early as the century following the battle. These events have also been widely treated in the maqtal genre, broadly definable as a body of works that give a devotional record of the martyrdoms. It is clear that the taʿziyeh portrayal of the experiences of Ḥusain, his family, and supporters at Karbala is influenced by both of these categories of literature. It is beyond the scope of this study to trace the narratives of the episodes through such sources in any great detail. However, in order to understand the degree to which the dramatists exercised creative licence, it is necessary to have some understanding of the martyrdom narratives as they are likely to have received them. I therefore begin each chapter concerning an episode by briefly looking at its main characters and events as treated in a select handful of sources pre-dating the emergence of the taʿziyeh tradition.
These sources include historian AbÅ« JaÊ¿far Muḥammad b. JarÄ«r al-ṬabarÄ«âs TÄrÄ«kh al-rusul waâl-mulÅ«k (4th/10th century), and KetÄb al-ErshÄd (also 4th/10th century) by Imami-ShiÊ¿i theologian AbÅ« Ê¿AbdullÄh Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-NuÊ¿mÄn, âal-Shaikh al-MufÄ«dâ. Both works are valuable due to their relative proximity in date to the events in question and the citing of eyewitness accounts, including extracts from the lost work Maqtal al-Ḥusain by AbÅ« Mekhnaf (d. 157/ 774), an important transmitter of Iraqi traditions. These works are in Arabic.
I also include Samanid vizier AbÅ« Ê¿AlÄ« Muḥammad BalÊ¿amÄ«âs (4th/10th century) Persian translation of al-ṬabarÄ«âs TÄrÄ«kh, entitled TÄrÄ«kh-nÄmeh-ye ṬabarÄ«, which I refer to as his âversionâ of al-ṬabarÄ«âs work due to its content differing significantly from the original. I also consider the accounts of two Safavid era historians, Rawżat al-á¹£afÄ, composed around the turn of the 16th century CE by Muḥammad b. KhÄvandshÄh b. MaḥmÅ«d, âMÄ«rkhÄndâ, and ḤabÄ«b al-siyar (c.935/ 1538â9) by GhiyÄs al-DÄ«n âKhÄndamÄ«râ. These works are important not only because they were written closer to the taÊ¿ziyeh composersâ time, but also because they encompass many Karbala accounts given in earlier works.50 Close consideration of KÄshefÄ«âs Rawżat al-shuhadÄʾ, composed in Timurid Herat c.1502 CE, has also been essential due to its undoubted influence on the taÊ¿ziyeh genre.51 Despite KÄshefÄ«âs Rawżat belonging in a broad sense to the maqtal genre, I refer to it as a hagiography due to its treatment of the lives and deeds of the ahl-e bait.
With the exception of KÄshefÄ«âs Rawżat, I do not suggest that the taÊ¿ziyeh composers drew from these sources directly. However, al-ṬabarÄ«, al-MufÄ«d, BalÊ¿amÄ«, MÄ«rkhÄnd and KhÄndamÄ«r represent the upper echelons of the literary tradition treating Karbala, constituting something of an official version of events, with which the composers can be expected to have had at least some contact. KÄshefÄ«âs Rawżat proves to be the source of much of the taÊ¿ziyehâs extra-historiographical narrative content: the composers may have been familiar with the text as it was used in rawżeh-khÄnÄ« recitals, without necessarily referring to manuscript versions.
Separately, it is well known that the taÊ¿ziyeh composers drew from lithographed books of religious stories. Lithography in Iran began in the 1830s (parallel to the flourishing of the taÊ¿ziyeh). The following decades saw a trend in the publication of many illustrated collections of such stories. These works belong to what is known as the rawżeh-khÄnÄ«/maqtal genre.52 The most prominent of these is MÄ«rzÄ EbrÄhÄ«m b. Muḥammad-BÄqer JawharÄ« s ṬūfÄn al-bukÄʾ (The Tempest of Tears), completed in 1250/1834 and first published in 1252â53/1837. Other examples of such works include SarbÄz BurÅ«jerdÄ«âs AsrÄr al-shahÄdah, âBÄ«delâ QurbÄn b. RamażÄn al-QazvÄ«nÄ« al-RÅ«dbÄrÄ«âs MÄtamkadeh and Muḥammad Ḥusain b. Muḥammad ReżÄâs VasÄ«lat al-najÄt. Whilst the overlap in content between these works and the plays of the taÊ¿ziyeh is clear, I do not assume them simply to be sources used by the composers. Instead, I consider the interplay between these different forms of devotional artistic output. In many cases the stories transformed into print and illustration in the lithographs were already in circulation amongst the oral storytellers and, as the Zand period collection of scripts will show, were already being played in the taÊ¿ziyeh.53
3 Connecting the Scholarship
In addition to the painstaking efforts of the scholars who have produced edited volumes of historical scripts, there have been many valuable contributions to the field of taÊ¿ziyeh studies.54 However, particularly outside the Persian language sphere, scholarship has not tended to engage with the taÊ¿ziyeh repertoire as literature. This may well be due to the vernacular nature of the primary sources, the complexities of which should now be evident. However, if we do not study the content of the plays, we are limited to discussing the phenomenon of people staging and attending these performances without knowing what is being shown or watched â the content matters. Furthermore, the scholarship that has taken place in Iran over the last two decades is detached from that which circulates in the international sphere. For example, the publication of the aforementioned Zand period scripts, much earlier in date than those widely known amongst scholars internationally, has, until now, not been discussed in the anglophone scholarship, save for my own work. The research presented in this book draws from both spheres and endeavours to bring the advances of the Persian language scholarship to an international audience.
The foundations for the scholarly study of taÊ¿ziyeh were laid between the mid-1960s and the late 1970s by BahrÄm BeyżÄʾī, Peter Chelkowski, MuhÌ£ammad JaÊ¿far MaḥjÅ«b, á¹¢Ädeq HumÄyÅ«nÄ« and others, leading to a flurry of international interest towards the end of the 1970s. Scholarship at this stage largely sought to define the characteristics of this form of devotional drama, and to understand the circumstances of its emergence and how it relates to other dramatic forms, with some limited attention given to its verse. International interest in the topic then dwindled. Nonetheless, certain significant contributions have been made during the last two decades, some of which pertain to the study of the taÊ¿ziyeh as literature.55 Important among them are William Beemanâs work that considers the treatment of time and space within the plays, and the themes of the climactic episode, and Mahnia Nematollahi Mahaniâs analysis of the portrayal of Zainab bint Ê¿AlÄ« through study of the Darbandsar script collection.56
The recent contributions of Babak Rahimi and Matthew Randle-Bent are also significant. Rahimiâs âTaÊ¿ziyeh Close-Upâ, an interview with taÊ¿ziyeh performer and scholar Moslem NÄdÊ¿alÄ«zÄdeh, offers a welcome insight into how the tradition is developed, transmitted and preserved between generations of a family, both in practical and philosophical terms. The conversation between Rahimi and NÄdÊ¿alÄ«zÄdeh begins to explore certain dramaturgical aspects, and to critically consider the extent to which taÊ¿ziyeh can be described as theatre.57
Randle-Bent also questions the terminology and, moreover, urges re-evaluation of the conceptual frameworks applied to the study of taÊ¿ziyeh. The main focus of his critique is the scholarship resulting from the symposium on taÊ¿ziyeh held at the 1976 Shiraz Arts Festival, the proceedings of which were published as a volume, edited by Chelkowski, and became a âtouchstoneâ for the study of the tradition over the subsequent decades.58 Randle-Bentâs concern is that this scholarship artificially imposed the framework of ritual, as understood by Victor Turner and Richard Schechner, upon the taÊ¿ziyeh. He also argues that the staging of taÊ¿ziyeh at Shiraz in 1976, under Pahlavi state patronage and supported by the collaboration of international scholars and artists, detracted from the potential for the tradition to be understood in its own terms. Rather, it resulted in an understanding that reinforced nationalist, and even â albeit unintentionally â Orientalist, trends of thinking.59 Whilst proper engagement with the questions raised by Randle-Bent is beyond the scope of this book, his work is a welcome reminder that all scholarship must be understood within its historical context, both political and intellectual, and of the ever-present need for reflexivity on the part of the scholar and artist.
My research is influenced by, and indeed builds upon, the work of Anayatullah Shahidi, DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ«, and Muḥammad Ḥusain NÄá¹£erbakht, published in Iran. Shahidiâs PazhuheshÄ« dar taÊ¿ziyeh va taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ« focusses on the taÊ¿ziyeh tradition in Tehran during the Qajar period.60 It categorizes the plays by theme and subject, looking closely at their verse, and analysing the types of dialogue. In recognising the curious way in which the script of any given play usually features both simple and sophisticated verse, Shahidi discusses these scripts passing through many hands and including the contributions of many poets. He shows that composers commonly borrowed from each other, from classical poetry, and from the lithographed works of the rawżeh-khÄnÄ«/maqtal genre. Copyists and directors also commonly made additions or edits. As directors sought to breathe new life into their performances for each Muḥarram, they added new sections of verse (and action) to the scripts, some of which had been generated through improvisation during performance. In general, Shahidi does not see what we might term the âmultiple hands on textsâ approach as a corruption of some original work, but rather as part of the taÊ¿ziyeh traditionâs character.61 This agrees with what I have observed in the course of this study, that during the Qajar period the tradition was still fluid and open to a wide range of contributions.
DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ«âs ÄshnÄyÄ« bÄ mabÄnÄ«-ye shabÄ«h-khÄnÄ« addresses a number of topics important to our understanding of the taÊ¿ziyeh as literature, including the influences of mysticism and myth.62 Both his work and NÄá¹£erbakhtâs AdabiyÄt-e Ä«rÄnÄ« va ÄyÄ«n-e shabÄ«h-khÄnÄ« make important observations about the composition of taÊ¿ziyeh plays, drawing parallels with the structures found in other forms of Iranian literature, and considering the influence of the epics.63 I take this further in the chapters that follow, identifying previously undiscussed recurring structural features of the taÊ¿ziyeh, and features that are also found in the verbal art forms of other cultures, thus showing a structural link to the storytelling traditions.
All dates are given in the hejrÄ« qamarÄ« (Islamic lunar) and Gregorian calendars, unless marked âSHâ to indicate the hejrÄ« shamsÄ« (or JalÄlÄ«) solar calendar.
Authorâs observation.
I use the term ahl-e bait, literally meaning âpeople of the houseâ, according to the Twelver ShiÊ¿i understanding: to refer to the Prophet Muhammad, his daughter FÄá¹emeh-ye ZahrÄ, her husband, Muḥammadâs cousin Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄleb, their sons Ḥasan and Ḥusain, and the rest of the Twelve Imams.
The events briefly synopsized here are reported in a wide range of historical and hagiographical sources. See ṬabarÄ«, The History of al-ṬabarÄ«: The Caliphate of YaziÌd b. Muâawiyah, trans. I.K.A. Howard, 39 vols., vol. 19 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 91â183; MuhÌ£ammad b. MuhÌ£ammad MufÄ«d, KitÄb al-IrshÄd: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, trans. I.K.A. Howard (London: Partridge Green, Horsham: Balagha Books: Muhammadi Trust, 1981), 272â347; BalÊ¿amÄ«, TÄrÄ«kh-nÄmeh-ye ṬabarÄ«, ed. Muḥammad Rowshan, 5 vols., vol. 4 (Tehran: SurÅ«sh, 1380 SH), 703â15; Muḥammad b. KhÄvandshÄh b. MaḥmÅ«d MÄ«rkhÄnd, Rawżat al-á¹£afÄ, ed. JamshÄ«d KiyÄn-Farr, 15 vols., vol. 3 (Tehran: EntesharÄt-e ÄsÄá¹Ä«r, [c.1500 CE] 1385 SH), 2186â273; GhiyÄs al-DÄ«n KhÄndamÄ«r, ḤabÄ«b al-siyÄr, 4 vols., vol. 2 (Tehran: EnteshÄrÄt KhayyÄm, [c.1539 CE] 1380 SH), 37â61; Ḥusain VÄÊ¿ez KÄshefÄ« SabzevÄrÄ«, Rawżat al-shuhadÄʾ ed. Muḥammad Rowshan (Tehran: á¹¢edÄ-ye MuÊ¿Äá¹£er, [c.1502 CE] 1390 SH), 273â523.
For further information see: Mahmoud Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in IslaÌm: A Study of the Devotional Aspects of Ê¿ÄshÅ«rÄʾ in Twelver ShÄ«Ê¿ism (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1978), 27â36.
Ibid., 142â43.
á¹¢Ädeq HumÄyÅ«nÄ«, TaÊ¿ziyeh dar ĪrÄn (Shiraz: NavÄ«d, [1368] 1380 SH) 349â89. For a full index of the Cerulli Persian Collection see: Ettore Rossi, Alessio Bombaci, and Enrico Cerulli, Elenco di drammi religiosi Persiani: (Fondo Mss. Vaticani Cerulli) (CittaÌ del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1961). For a Persian translation see Ḥusain EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Fehrest-e dastnevÄ«s-hÄ-ye namÄyeshÄ«-ye maáºhabÄ«-ye ĪrÄn dar ketÄb khÄneh-ye VÄtÄ«kÄn (Tehran: EnteshÄrÄt-e NamÄyesh, 1396 SH).
These are terms used by taÊ¿ziyeh performers and thus by many scholars. For a particularly clear definition see Anayatullah Shahidi, PazhuheshÄ« dar taÊ¿ziyeh va taÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ«: az ÄghÄz tÄ pÄyÄn-e dowreh-ye QÄjÄr dar TehrÄn (Tehran: Daftar-e pazhuhesh-ha-ye farhangÄ«-ye UNESCO dar ĪrÄn, 1380 SH), 263â65.
Ê¿AlÄ« BulÅ«kbÄshÄ«, TaÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ« (Tehran: AmÄ«r KabÄ«r, 1383 SH), 161.
Some of the scripts dated to the 1950s bear the name of an author and may well have been composed at that time. While such works are of less interest for the current purpose than those composed a hundred years earlier, they are still valuable in that they attest what the composers of said period perceived to be the essential elements of these plays.
See E. Lucy Deacon, âTaÊ¿ziyeh-khani in Iranian Communities: Muharram AH 1439 (AD 2017),â Medieval English Theatre 42 (2020).
Translation borrowed from Rebecca Ansary Pettys, âThe TaÊ¿ziyeh: Ritual and Drama of the Martyrdom of Hussein,â The Drama Review 49, no. 4 (2005): 28.
This joining of words, and other orthographic peculiarities displayed in the scripts of the Cerulli Collection, are long-standing features of the genre. DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ« comments on their presence in scripts dating to the Zand period. DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ« and MehdÄ« DaryÄÄ«, Daftar-e taÊ¿ziyeh 11 (Tehran: EnteshÄrÄt-e NamÄyesh, 1390 SH), 11. In order to for the reader to get an authentic impression of the scripts, quotations throughout the work below are given as found in the manuscripts (with any correction detailed in a footnote).
See Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ« and MehdÄ« DaryÄÄ«, Daftar-e taÊ¿ziyeh 11. For a further script dating to the same period also see Daftar-e taÊ¿ziyeh 12 (Tehran: EnteshÄrÄt-e NamÄyesh, 1392 SH).
Daftar 11, 153â54.
Aleksander Chodzko, TheÌatre persan choix de teÌazieÌs ou drames (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1878), xxiâxxix.
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Supplément Persan 993, Jung-i Å ahâdat. The manuscript has 35 entries, including one untitled fragment. For its contents see Francis Richard, Catalogue des manuscrits persans: Bibliothèque nationale, Département des manuscrits, 2 vols., vol. 2 (Rome: Istituto per lâOriente C.A. Nallino, 2013), 1300â06.
Jung-i Šahâdat, 324.
Chodzko, TheÌatre persan, xxxv.
See Richard, Catalogue des manuscrits persans, 1300.
Chodzko, TheÌatre persan.
See: ZahraÌ EqbaÌl and MuhÌ£ammad JaÊ¿far MaḥjÅ«b, Jung-e shaÌhadat: majmūʾeh-ye 33 majles-e taÊ¿ziyeh (Tehran: SurÅ«sh, 1355 SH).
Oliver Bast, âGermany ix. Germans in Persia,â Encyclopædia Iranica X/6 (2001). Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/germany-ix (accessed June 15th, 2024).
See Wilhelm Litten, Das Drama in Persien (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1929). For an edited volume of these scripts see Ḥusain EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Teshneh dar mÄ«qÄtgah (Tehran: MuÊ¿Ä«n, 1389 SH).
Litten, Das Drama, xvâxvii.
No. 13 in his collection Durrat al-á¹¢adaf is dated ShaÊ¿bÄn 1255 (OctoberâNovember 1839) and no. 14, EmÄm JaÊ¿far as-á¹¢Ädeq, is dated 1247 (1831â2).
EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Teshneh, 17.
For example, characters introduced during the mid-19th century are absent from these scripts, interjections are generally long and use of stichomythia, pervading the dialogues by c.1900, is sparse. In these respects, the scripts are similar to those of the Chodzko manuscript for which we have a date.
Arthur Gobineau, Les religions et les philosophies dans lâAsie centrale (Paris: Didier et Cie, 1865), 405â37.
Jean Calmard, âGobineau, Joseph Arthur de,â Encyclopædia Iranica XI/1 (2001). Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/gobineau (accessed June 15th, 2024).
In addition to the translation in question, he devotes three further chapters in the same work to describing and giving his opinions about the taÊ¿ziyeh tradition. Arthur Gobineau, Les religions et les philosophies dans lâAsie centrale (Paris: Didier et Cie, 1865), 359â403 and 439â459.
Lewis Pelly, The Miracle Play of Hasan and Husain, 2 vols., (London: WM. H Allen and Co., 1879). Pelly collected 52 âscenesâ in total but states that for fear of his translation becoming tiresomely long he only publishes 37. Miracle Play, vol. 1, v.
Pelly accredits the transcription and translation to his assistants James Edwards and George Lucas. The Miracle Play of Hasan and Husain, 2 vols., vol. 1 (London: WM. H Allen and Co., 1879), iv.
Ḥasan á¹¢Äleḥī RÄd, MajÄles-e taÊ¿ziyeh, 2 vols., (Tehran: SurÅ«sh, [1380 SH] 1389 SH).
Foreword by Ê¿AlÄ« BulÅ«kbÄshÄ«, ibid., vol. 1, 14.
SamÄneh KÄáºemÄ«, MÄ«r-e Ê¿AzÄ-ye KÄshÄnÄ« dar qalamrow-ye taÊ¿ziyeh (Tehran: EnteshÄrÄt-e SÅ«reh Mehr, 1386 SH), 8â9.
Ibid., 460â79.
Ibid., 455â56.
Filippo Bertotti, âCerulli, Enrico,â Encyclopædia Iranica V/6 ([1991] 2011). Available- online at https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cerulli-enrico-1898-1988-italian-orientalist-and-diplomat (accessed June 16th, 2024).
Rossi, Bombaci, and Cerulli, Elenco, xxvi. Mss. 1â532 arriving by December 1953, Mss. 533â816 in June 1954, Mss. 817â827 in October 1954, Mss. 828â844 in December 1954, Mss. 845â878 in February 1955 and Mss. 879â1027 in May or June 1955. Mss. 1028â1055, all of which, except MS 1055 (a collection of fragments), are in Turkish, arrived amongst the last four consignments but were catalogued separately due to language.
Angelo Michele Piemontese âCerulli persiana,â in Guida al fondi Manoscritti, Numismatici, a Stampa Della Biblioteca Vaticana, 2 vols., vol. 1, ed. Francesco DâAiuto e Paolo Vian (Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2011) 402â403.
See Ê¿AlÄ« BulÅ«kbÄshÄ«, âHÄnibÄl, Ê¿Ali,â Encyclopædia Iranica XI/6 (2003). Available online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/hanibal-ali (accessed May 29th, 2024).
EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Fehrest-e dastnevÄ«s-hÄ, 10, 13.
EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Fehrest-e dastnevÄ«s-hÄ, 12â13.
Cerulli himself clarifies that these place names denote the location in which the script was collected and warns that it may not always be indicative of its origin. Rossi, Bombaci, and Cerulli, Elenco, XLIV.
EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Fehrest-e dastnevÄ«s-hÄ, 24â26.
CP: MS 43, BÄzÄr-e ShÄm (GhulÄm Ḥusain b. MullÄ SharÄ«f, 1335/1916 and 1324 SH/1945); MS 51, Martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs (GhulÄm Ḥusain b. MullÄ SharÄ«f, 1371/1951â2); MS 354, Dukhtar-furÅ«shÄ« (Mazandaran, 1301/1883â84); MS 513, Martyrdom of Ê¿AbbÄs (GhulÄm Ḥusain á¹¢ÄberÄ«, Kashan, 1331 SH/1953); and MS 908, BÄzÄr-e ShÄm (GhulÄm Ḥusain b. MullÄ SharÄ«f, Shiraz, 1372-1952-3). The fact that three of these attest the same composer is intriguing but, given their different origins, does not explain the material similarity.
It is common for the editors of taʿziyeh script collections to note that the acting sides of different characters (belonging to a single play) are written by different hands, and marked with different dates.
The plays of the Cerulli Collection manuscripts dating to the 1950s are often very similar in structure and content to the same episodes from the Darbandsar collection and frequently share sections of verse with them. What I do note is that some Cerulli Collection plays that are later in date are messier in appearance and include more orthographic eccentricities than those of the Qajar period, perhaps evidence of the tradition having had less highly educated guardians at that point in time.
For example, KhÄndamÄ«r frequently gives accounts which he attributes to the early 3rd/9th century scholar AbÅ« ḤanÄ«fah DÄ«navarÄ«, and AbÅ« Muʾīd al-KhwÄrezmÄ« who in the 6th/12th century had also written a work entitled Maqtal al-Ḥusain.
Peter J. Chelkowski, âKâshefiâs Rowzat al-shohadââ: The Karbalâ Narrative as Underpinning of Popular Religious Culture and Literature,â in Oral Literature of Iranian Languages. Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic, Persian and Tajik: A History of Persian Literature, ed. Philip. G. Kreyenbroek, Ulrich Marzolph, and Ehsan Yarshater (London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010).
For the early days of print in Iran see Ulrich Marzolph, âPersian Popular Literature in the Qajar Period,â Asian Folklore Studies 60, no. 2 (2001); Nile Green, âPersian Print and the Stanhope Revolution: Industrialization, Evangelicalism & the Birth of Printing in Early Qajar Iran,â Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 30, no. 3 (2010). For more on the rawżeh-khÄnÄ«/maqtal genre as lithograph see Marzolph, âThe Pictorial Representation of Shiâi Themes in Lithographed Books of the Qajar Period,â in The Art and Material Culture of Iranian Shiâism: Iconography and Religious Devotion in Shiâi Islam, ed. Pedram Khosronejad (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012).
For the interconnected nature of such art forms see Marzolph, Narrative Illustration in Persian Lithographed Books (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 25â26; and âThe Visual Culture of Iranian Twelver ShiÊ¿ism in the Qajar Period,â Shii Studies Review, no. 3 (2019). For an excellent collection of illustrations from the many versions of ṬūfÄn see Ê¿AlÄ« BÅ«áºarÄ«, Chehel á¹Å«fÄn: barrasÄ«-ye taá¹£ÄvÄ«r-e chÄp-e sangÄ«-ye ṬūfÄn al-bukÄâ fÄ« maqÄtel al-shuhadÄ (Tehran: KetÄbkhÄneh-ye mÅ«zeh va markaz-e asnÄd-e Majles-e ShuwrÄ-ye EslÄmÄ«, 1390 SH).
For a list of the edited script collections published in Iran over the last three decades see: EsmÄÊ¿Ä«lÄ«, Fehrest-e dastnevÄ«s-hÄ, 17â19.
For a broad overview of contributions to the field of taÊ¿ziyeh studies see Mahnia Nematollahi Mahani, âStudies on Persian Passion Play (taâziya): An Annotated Bibliography,â Cultural and Religious Studies 5, no. 2 (2017).
William O. Beeman, Iranian Performance Traditions (Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers, 2011), 117â69; Mahnia A. Nematollahi Mahani, The Holy Drama: Persian Passion Play in Modern Iran (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2013).
Babak Rahimi, âTaÊ¿ziyeh Close-Up: A Conversation with Moslem Nadalizadeh.â Ecumenica 15, no. 1 (2022).
Matthew Randle-Bent, ââIndigenous Avant-Gardesâ: The Shiraz Arts Festival and Ritual Performance Theory in 1970s Iran,â Arab Stages 14, Spring 2023. Available online at: https://arabstages.org/?p=3473&preview=true (accessed May 10th, 2024); Peter J. Chelkowski ed. Taâziyeh: Ritual and Drama in Iran (New York: New York University Press and SurÅ«sh, 1979).
Randle-Bent, ââIndigenous Avant-Gardesâ.â
Shahidi, TaÊ¿ziyeh-khÄnÄ«: dowreh-ye QÄjÄr. Shahidi has worked extensively with the script collection of the Parliament Library, in Tehran.
Ibid., 558â61.
DÄvÅ«d Fatḥ-Ê¿AlÄ« BaigÄ«, ÄshnÄyÄ« bÄ mabÄnÄ«-ye shabÄ«h-khÄnÄ« (Tehran: SÅ«reh Mehr, 1396 SH).
Muḥammad Ḥusain NÄá¹£erbakht, AdabiyÄt-e Ä«rÄnÄ« va ÄyÄ«n-e shabÄ«h-khÄnÄ« (Tehran: SÅ«reh Mehr, 1396 SH).