Massimiliano Vassalli
Idolatry, Ugliness, and Poverty: Europeans’ Perceptions and Prejudices Towards Iranian Zoroastrians in the Early 19th Century
Shahram Arshadnejad
The Trace of Natural Law Concept in the Indo-Iranian Context, Understanding Iranian Tyranny
Moderator: Touraj Atabaki
Abstracts
Massimiliano Vassalli
Idolatry, Ugliness, and Poverty: Europeans’ Perceptions and Prejudices Towards Iranian Zoroastrians in the Early 19th Century
The establishment of the Qajar dynasty in Iran severely impacted the Zoroastrian religious minority: due to religious persecution and the increase of the poll tax (jizya), this minority experienced a steady decline that would only stop in the mid-19th century. However, there is little direct evidence of this decline, as from 1773, the date of the last contact with the Parsis, a long silence began among the Zoroastrians of Iran that lasted until 1854, when they resumed contact with the co-religionists of India.
For these travelers, the modern decadence of the Zoroastrians is the direct consequence of their being idolaters: their abandonment of ancient monotheism led them to make erroneous choices with disastrous effects. According to these travellers, even their physical appearance, often described as ugly and horrifying, is a physical manifestation of their way of life considered wrong by Europeans. However, in contrast to them, other travellers showed an ability to go beyond prejudice and took an interest in the difficult economic and social situation of the Zoroastrians.
Indeed, in some cases, European travellers tried to plead the Zoroastrians’ causes before the Qajar court or were even very attentive towards them.Sir R. Ker Porter and Sir W. Ouseley represent the two opposite perceptions towards the Zoroastrians of Iran. Both are interested in Iranian culture, especially ancient culture, but the former looks down on modern-day Zoroastrians. In his accounts, he uses harsh words that echo European prejudices already attested in previous centuries.
On the contrary, Sir Ouseley tries to combat these prejudices and within his travel accounts he spends many words and pages proving the groundlessness of the accusations of idolatry made by other travellers; he also spends several words to nullify other types of prejudices such as the one about their physical appearance.
Both travellers have an in-depth knowledge of Iranian history and the travel literature of those who preceded them: thanks to their constant quotations, it is possible to understand in detail what the prejudices of the Europeans of the time were and also to reconstruct their origin through the literature of the time and of previous centuries.
Understanding and analysing these preconceptions is useful to understand the Europeans’ perception of the Other and the approach they used to establish relations with both Iranian culture and religious minorities. In fact, once back home, travelers would publish their reports, which often became the main source used by the intellectuals of the time and other future travelers for up-to-date information about Iran and its society.
Shahram Arshadnejad
The Trace of Natural Law Concept in the Indo-Iranian Context, Understanding Iranian Tyranny
I explore the Indo-Iranian cults and their gods, mainly Varunā and Mitra, with a keen interest in their potential political implications. These deities held pivotal roles as guardians of righteousness and covenant, exerting significant influence during early historical periods. Their presence and influence were instrumental in fostering a sense of political community in the protohistoric era.
Understanding the political aspirations associated with these gods is vital in unraveling the complex tapestry of early human governance and societal development.In the third millennia, Zaraθuštra, the Prophet, introduced Ahura Mazdā as the supreme God, the Lord of Wisdom, consolidating the diverse cultic gods of the past Indo-Iranian tradition into a singular omnipotent deity.
Zoroastrianism, with its belief in this lone God, attributes the creation of the universe, mankind, and good laws to Ahura Mazdā. All legitimacy, whether for individuals or laws, derives from this divine source. The question of government, therefore, revolves around the authority of God on earth, and as such, any King is considered the representative of God. In this framework, tyranny does not become the central focus of the political ethos, as the king gains legitimacy for governing directly from God.
Ahura Mazdā bestows his blessing on the king, known as Fær-e Izadi in the Middle Persian or Xvarənah in the Old Persian.Zoroastrianism’s focus on a single omnipotent God leads the King’s legitimacy to be derived from God; and the absence of independent sub-categorizations of law under Divine Law creates a unique perspective on governance and political authority in contrast to Western political thought, which I call it “monolithic perspective.” The alignment of tyranny with God’s law differentiates this perspective from the notion of tyranny as commonly understood in the Western context.
In extending this inquiry, I attempt to identify a parallel argument in ancient Iran, investigating the presence of natural law and its impact on the political landscape. Ahura Mazdā, along with its prophet Zaraθuštra, possessed the authority to govern both earthly life and the afterlife. The exclusive attributes of Ahu and Ratu empowered God and its messenger to formulate and enact laws ensuring a place in heaven. Consequently, Divine Law and positive law became intricately intertwined within a unified legal framework. This divine law, sanctioned by God and enforced by the King, diverges from the Greek perspective, particularly that of Aristotle’s, where tyranny is seen as a deviation from the ideal political order.
In the Iranian context, tyranny is synonymous with God’s representation, sharing the holiness and regal attributes of a King, who, in the Iranian and Avestan sense, enjoys God’s blessing as Xvarənah or Faer-e Izadi. The intertwining of law and authority of the King precludes the possibility of an independent legal sovereignty apart from the King’s authority.
The monotheistic tenets of Zaraθuštra’s religion, officially established in the 4th century AD as the Religion of the State, solidify this integrated system. Consequently, the coexistence of republicanism or any mixed form of government within Iran becomes unattainable under the influence of this monotheistic doctrine.
