یادداشتی در باره درس‌گفتار تاریخ آقای تورج دریايی و «طهران» ایشان

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2103470106941078.

 امروز در فیس‌بوک از آقای  تورج دریایی  ویدئوی بالا را دیدم که  برنامه درس‌گفتاری ست که ایشان برای شناسانیدن فرهنگ ایران  ساخته اند. من هر چهار بخش از ۲۵ بخش آن را که تا کنون ساخته اند به تماشا نشستم  و به پژمان دریغا ذریغ که د یدم  ایشان  تاریخ ایران باستان  را در چارچوب « اوریانتالیزم» ایرانیکائئ   از اوستای ذرتشت آغاز کرده اند . و در باره فرهنگ  برجسته مهرانی  پیش از پیدایش  ذرتشت  چنان‌که  خواهیم دید خاموش مانده اند .   دیروز هم  پیامکی  در فیسبوک ایشان  دیدم  که در آن  تهران  را «طهران» نوشته بودند. من در وانوشتی  (کامنتی )  در زیر  آن  پیامک نوشتم 

برای من شگفت آورست  گه یک تاریخ‌دان  «تهران» را  «طهران» بنویسد. شاید  اگر تهران  در خاک یک سرزمین  عربی  بود  می‌توانستیم  آن را  «طهران»  بنوبسیم.   اما  تهران  واژه‌‌يي در  پارسی  کهن است که ازدوبخش «ته» به میانای گرم  و گرمسیر  و  پسوند  «ران »  به میانای  جای  و  سرزمین  ریخت گرفته  است  و میانای أن  دامنه گرم‌سیر  کوهستان  است و در برابر ان « شمران » را داریم  که « شم»  به میانای سرد و سردسیر  است  . و زین‌روی  شمران  به میانای « بلندی های سردسیر»   کوهستان است  و برای نمون شمشک با آن خویشاوند است 

«ته»  یا «تاه» به میانای گرم  که آن را در واژه های تب   و تابش  می‌بینیم . در زبان‌های ایرانی باستان و پهلوی به بن  کردار «تافتن» (در اوستایی با ریشه «تَف» به میانای  گرم شدن، سوزان بودن و تفتیدن)  که خویشاوندان آن  در سانسکریت « تـاپـیا »  तापीय  که دریونانی  «ترمی» θέρμη ودر لاتین  «ترمالیس» thermalis و در زبان‌های  نگلیسی  و  فرانسه  «ترمال» thermal  ، ترمومتر (Thermometer) و ترموستات (Thermostat)  می‌باشند.   

پسوند  «ران » به میانای  جای  و سرزمین را در مکران سرزمین کناره دریائی باستانی  در جنوب خاوری ایران (استان سیستان و بلوچستان) و جنوب باختری پاکستان ،  شکران: دهی  دربخش میانی  اصفهان، بگران، دهی در شهرستان اردبیل،  جمکران، روستایی تاریخی و معروف در استان قم ، کمران: شهری کوچک در بخش  میانه شهرستان سیرجان،  و شماری دیگر 

بسیار   خوش‌نود  خواهم  شد که  برایه ‌های  شما را برای نوشتن  واژه‌ي «طهران » بدانم.

 

 به نژندگینی ژرف  آقای  دریايي  به جای پاسخ ، آن پیامک  را یا پاک کرده‌اند  و  یا  دیدن آن را برای من  بسته‌اند و این زیبنده یک   تاریخ‌دان  فرهیخته نیست . 

به هر روی   پس از دریافتن این که  ایشان  به همه‌گی  فرهنگ  باستانی مهر میترائی  را نادیده گرفته اند   و به ویژه هنگامی‌که دیدم  از سروده های یشت هائی مانند   مهریشت (یشت دهم) یکی از باستانی‌ترین و کهن‌ترین بخش‌های اوستا  به شمار می‌رود، به آوند فرهنگ اوستائی نام برده اند بدون آن که به دست کم   پرخیده بدارند که   از برای‌چه  این یشت مهرانب  آمیخته شد ه   با اوستای  ذرتشت بر نژند من افزوده شد.  زیرا  در گسترش  اوریانتالیزم‌گرائی  آسیب‌های بسیار می‌بینم. به کوتاه سخن همانگونه که من     به در تاریخ ایران باستان  خود  ریزبینانه و به درازا  به آن پرداخته ام، به هنگام  فرمانروائی بلاش یکم (سال‌های ۵۱ تا ۷۸ میلادی.) از دودمان آرش‌آکیان پارت ها و گردآوری  نبشته‌های پراکنده پنهان در پستوها و زیرزمین‌ها  به فرمان او  تین یشت ها به اوستا اندر شدند  زیرا گه در فرهنگ میترائی، همه ‌ی باورهای «دیگری» درخور بزرگ‌داشت و آزرم  بوده‌اند همان‌گونه که کورش در آزرم داشت به آئین یهود  و مردوک بابل و  پسرش کامبیز درپاس‌داشت به آئین آپیس  در مصرو ساختن نیایشگاه او نشان داده‌اند  . من می‌خواستم این یاداشت را در زیر درس‌گفتار ایشان بگذارم  ولی نگران از این که ایشان به جای درگیری پژوهش‌گرایانه آنرا هم پاک کنند  مرا بر آن داشت که این یادداشت  را در این سکو بگذارم

داستان این‌ست که هنگامی که  تبارهای  میترا باور آریائی   از سرزمین داهه  پر میانه دو رود  آمو دریا و سیری دریا  با سروده‌های آئینی خود به سوی چنوب کوچ نمودند  شاخه ئی از  آنها در فلات  ایران  به سوی   دامنه‌های زاگرس  و شوش و انشان در شاهنشاهی ایلام  آمد و شاخه‌یی   دیگر به سوی حنوب هند . چنین شد  که خدایان هندو به  بارگاه ایزدان  دیوانی  میترائی  در ریگ ودا  راه یافتند  .  اما در ایران  پس از به پاخیزی  ذرتشت  و پذیرفتن آئین او  نخست  از سوی مادر داریوش و سپس پدر او  و به انجام خود او  تنها اسورای  کمانگبر آسوریان  که  ذرتشت ا و را  پس از سفر به آشور به اوند  اهورا  مزدا  شناسانید. و از این روست که اوریانتالیست ها هرگز درنیافتند که چرا  اسوراهای پلید میترا باوران ودائی در اوستا اهورا شد .  نا آگه از این که  این اهورای آسوری را  با  با اسورای ریگ ودا پیوندی نیست.     ذرتشت همه ‌ی ایزدان میترایی را  از بارگاه اهورائی  بیرون  راند و چنین شد که واژه ‌ی « دیو »  که در زبان‌های  هند واروپايي   آشاوان  و فرهمند  است  مانند  مها دوا महादेव (مه دیو= خدای بزرگ)  یا   یا divinus در لاتین به میانای «از آن خدا» که از ریشه divus به میانای خدا در دیسه هند واروپائی شاخه زده و در فرانسه کهن  devin شده و در اننگلیسی امروز divine،  در زبان  پارسی  زشت و پلید گشته شد.  هرچند  هنوز واژه  دیوان  برای گردآوره سروده‌‌‌سرایان پرآوازه به کار برده می‌شود.   

پس از آفند اسکندرمقدونی  که شیفته  کوروش بود  و کتاب گزنفون را   در باره آموزش کوروش (کوئیرو  پائدیا Κύρου παιδεία) را  با خود  در بستر و کنار بالش  داشت  و آرامگاه  کورش  را که ویران و دزد زده شده  بود بازسازی  نمود و برای نگاهبانی  از آن  پاسدارانی برگماشت  او ستا پراکنده و پنهان در پستوها  شد،  تلاش اسکندر  برای از میان بردن  اوستا  به کین‌توزی از آفند خشایارشا ه به یونان  برای گسترانیدن دین ذرتشت بود و چنین بود که  برای دهه ها  اوستا  در   پنهان و پراکنده ماند.  تا آن که بلاش یکم آرش‌آکیان  فرمان به گردآوری نوشته‌های کهن آئینی داد و از برای آزرم داشت  پارت‌های میترا باور به همه آئین‌ها و خدایلن  یشت ها و ایزدان  میترائی و نوشته‌های اوستا در  کنار هم آمد.

پس از به‌پاخیزی  ارته‌شیر  (اردشیر) ساسانی  در رویارویی با ارته‌بان پنجم  (اردوان) از  دودمان آرش آکیان پارت (اشکانیان)  ارته شیر که خود هیربدی بود  ذرتشتی در آنشگاه آناهییتا  در استخر پارس،  موبدانی مانند تنسر و ارته ویراف  و به ویژه کارتیر را برگزید  تا اوسنای  گردآوری شده  بلاش   مهرباور را  ویراستاری کنند و   آن را از نوشته‌های میترايی  بپالایند  و گرچه ارته‌ویراف  اوستا را پالایش داد ولی نفوذ  هفت خاندان  نیرومند پارتی به ویژه  در ارتش ساسانیان ( سورن ها و مهران‌ها و اسپه‌بدها و زیک‌ها  و کارن ها  و ورازها  و اسپندیازها)  تواناتر از آن بودند که به ارته ویراف و کارتیر پروا دهند  که بخش‌هائی مانند مهر یشت و  زامیادیشت و ایزدانی مانند میترا و آناهیتا  و کبوان و بهرام  را از اوستا بزدایند.

 به هر روی  چنین است که پیوند بسیار ژرفی ی میان زامیاد یشتِ اوستا و سرود‌‌ه‌های میترايي  ریگ‌ودا   برجای ماند . این پیوند در  نگاه نخست برآمده از خاستگاه  استوره‌ئی،  کیش میترا یی تبارهای  کوچنده  به هند و ایران   در ریگ‌ودا بود که به اندوه اینک ریگ ودا از آن فرهنگ هندوان  گرفته می‌شود. هرچند  زامیاد یشت (نوزدهمین یشت اوستا) که به نام ایزد زمین (زام) نام‌گذاری شده، بن گوهر ش ستایش فره  ایزدی «خْوَرِنَه» یا همان «وارکاس   वर्चस्  د ر ریگ ودا» ( به میانای شکوه  مهرانی پادشاهان و پهلوانان   تاریخ استوره‌ئي آریائی است.  شاهان یا ایزدان ریگ ودا نیز هنگامی که به اوج  نیرومندی  و توانائی  می‌رسند، دارای وارکاس می‌شوند.

 زبان سانسکریتِ  ریگ‌ودا به‌‌اندازه‌ئی به  زبان اوستا نزدیک است که با دانستن چند  وندیداد آوایی ساده (مانند  دگردیسی «س» ودایی به «هـ» اوستایی)، می‌توان  واژه‌های ریگ‌ودا را به اوستا برگرداند.  در زامیاد یشت آمده که چگونه فره ایزدی   یا خورنه  از جمشید   جدا شد.  در اوستا  او «ییما خْشائه‌تا» (Yima Xšaēta به میانای ییمای درخشان ) است که  در پساترها در زبان پارسی میانه و نو به «جم» و «جمشید» دگرگون شد. در ریگ‌ودا، «یَاما»   यम  نخستین پادشاه و فرمانروای جهان مردگان است. زیرا که فره ایزدی از جمشید از برای خود بزرگ بینی  او جداشد که ساختاری بسیار نزدیک به جمشید اوستایی دارد. یا فریدون (تریتئونه): 𐭯𐭥𐭦𐭲𐭥𐭭 یا به ریخت دبیره ی   سادهتر  نوین : 𐭯𐭭𐭩𐭲𐭥𐭭  pyltwn'  گُردی که اژدها (ضحاک/اژ‌ی‌دهاک) را شکست می‌دهد.، در ریگ‌ودا  «تریتا آپتیا»   त्रित आप्त्य  سا  که  نابودکننده اژدهای سه سر(دو سر مارهای شانه‌های ضحاک  و سرخود صحااک)  است

در باره پردیس

واژه  « پردیس »  درریخت عربی « فردوس » ریشه  در زبان کهن  ایران  دارد که   در خط آوائی  اوستا بازسازی شده از خط پهلوی  کهن در سده  چهارم  یا پنجم میلادی از  ین واژه  «پایری دائزا »   𐬞𐬀𐬌𐬭𐬌𐬛𐬀𐬇𐬰𐬀-   شاخه زده    که  به میانای  «باغی دیوار کشیده به دورادور»  می ‌باشد. پر را در پارسی امروز در واژه پیرامون  می‌ت.انیم ببینیم .    هرجند  در اوستا هیچ پرخیده‌ئی به این که جمشید (ییما) پردیس راساخت  دیده نمی‌شود. 

در وندیداد باغی را که جمشید ساخت  «وارا»  𐬬𐬀𐬭𐬀 خوانده اند .  که بر پایه  افسانه وندیداد اهورا مزدا  به ییما  هشدار داد که آمدن  زمستانی سخت همه هستی را بر روی زمین  نابود خواهد کرد. چنین بود که ییما باغی دیوار برکشیده به دورادور را ساخت و از همه جانداران و گیاه‌ها جفتی را درآن باغ جای داد تا زندگی را در گیتی پاس بدارد. این باغ  ییما   به همان باغ  یاما در ریگ‌ودا می‌ماند که  یاما ، نخستین انسان بود که مرگ را آزمود، به جهان پس  از مرگ راه یافت  بهشای  دل‌گشا   به نام यमस्य सदस्थम् « یاماسیا ساژاسثام»  یه میانای  «گردهم‌ آمدگاه  یاما»   باغی سرشار از شادی و خوشی و ترانه  که انسان با  نیاکان درست‌کار  خویش  گردهم می آیند 

 نویسندگان یونان باستان  مانند   گزنفون  برای برای نشان‌دادن زیبايي‌ها و سرسبزی   شکارگاه‌های  پادشاهی  ایران واژه  «پارا دیزیوس » παράδεισος  را به وام‌ گرفتند  .

  سپس برگردان  کنندگان  مسیحی  در برگردان  پیمان کهن ( عهد عتیق)  به زبان یونان باستانِ  برای  «باغ عدن»  واژه * «پارادزیوس »  را به کار بردند که در زبان‌های  لاتین و فرانسوی: این واژه  paradise  شد  وسپس در سده  دوازدهم میلادی     از گذار لاتین  نوین (به  ریخت  paradisus ) و در فرانسوی کهن (به  ریخت   paradis)  به زبان انگلیسی  راه یافت.

 ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

پ . ن 

 من به نژند به نوشته‌های آقای  دریائی  دیگر دسترسی ندارم  هرچند یکی از دلنشجویانم نگاره‌برداشت (اسکرین شات ) بالا  را  از صفحه ایشان برای من فرستاد که  درآن نگارهئی از اسکناس ناصرالدین  شاه  دیده می‌شود که در آن طهران با ط  توشته شده است و پررنگ شده.  به برداشت این دوست دانشجو  این نگاره در پاسخ به پرخاش من در باره نوشتن نادرست تهران است. من از این عربی سازی درشگفت نیستم .

نخستین نوشته تاریخی  که نام  ابن آبادی را با حرف «ت»  نشان داده و به  گویش بومی آن پرخیده  نموده، کتاب پرآوازه «معجم‌البلدان»  نبشته‌ی  یاقوت حموی (سده هفتم هجری   -  نزدیک به  سال ۶۰۱ هجری شمسی یا  سال ۱۲۲۳ میلادی) است.یاقوت حموی با اینکه به برای  نگارش کتابش به زبان عربی، نام  را «طِهران» (با طاء)   نوشته ، اما بی درنگ   این درستی در گویش زبانی آن را آشکار می‌نماید و می‌نویسد:«طِهران... لفظی است عجمی و ایشان [تهران] تلفظ می‌کنند، چون در زبان ایشان طاء وجود ندارد.»  این که  نوشته‌های پیش ازیاقوت حموی (مانند کتاب‌های سده سوم تا ششم) نام این  آبادی  را با «ط» نوشته‌اند،  از برای «معرَّب نمدن» (عربی‌سازی) واژه‌های  پارسی در زبان دیوانی و  دانش آن زمان بوده است. برای نمون  فارس‌نامه ابن بلخی (سده ششم) نیز که به زبان فارسی است،  در زیر هنایش  نبشتاری آن  روزگار   «طهران» نبشته شده است،  یا  در کتاب الجرح و التعدیل (سده سوم) و تاریخ بغداد (سده پنجم): ، نام نویسنده  دینی   برخاسته  از این سرزمین را   با ط به ریخت محمد بن حماد طهرانی رازی  نوشته‌اند .  

در دوران قاحار علی‌قلی‌میرزا اعتضادالسلطنه (وزیر علوم ناصرالدین شاه)  و پس از او احمد کسروی  تهران  را درست نوشته اند .زنده‌یاد جلال آل احمد در کتاب‌ها، نبشته‌ها و نامه‌های خود (مانند  داستان برجسته  مدیر مدرسه یا نامه‌هایش به سیمین دانشور) ازنبشتار  درست و پارسی آن «تهران»  بهره می‌برد. همسرارجمند او سیمین دانشور نیز در داستان‌های پرآوازه خود   مانند  سووشون، جزیره سرگردانی و  گردآورد داستان‌های‌اش به آوند  نویسنده‌ای  نوگرا،  و دانشمند  و  چیره  به  روانه‌های  نوین ادبی نیز تهران  را تهران می نوشت  .احمدشاملو  نیز در کتاب گردآورده  نامه‌های خود زیر آوند «تهران، خیابان آشیخ هادی» تهران را درست می‌نوشت  و  از آن پس کمتر کسی  است که تهران را طهران  بنویسد.

 

In Defence of Max Blumenthal and the Principle of Free Inquiry

In every age, societies produce individuals who are willing to challenge prevailing orthodoxies and confront powerful interests, often at considerable personal and professional cost. Whether one agrees with all of their conclusions is ultimately secondary to a more fundamental principle: the preservation of free inquiry and the protection of dissenting voices. In this regard, Max Blumenthal has emerged as one of the most controversial and persistent journalists of his generation.

Blumenthal's work has frequently provoked strong reactions because he has chosen to investigate subjects that many prefer to leave unquestioned. His critics have every right to dispute his interpretations, challenge his evidence, and engage him in rigorous debate. Such intellectual contestation is the lifeblood of a free society. What is far more troubling, however, are attempts to silence, de-platform, intimidate, or delegitimize him merely because his conclusions are inconvenient or politically uncomfortable.

History repeatedly demonstrates that the suppression of dissent rarely serves the cause of truth. The great intellectual and moral advances of civilization—from religious reform to civil rights and anti-war movements—have often depended upon the courage of individuals who were initially marginalized, condemned, or denounced. A society confident in its values does not fear debate; it welcomes scrutiny, knowing that truth is strengthened rather than weakened by open discussion.

For many observers, Blumenthal's persistence evokes a venerable prophetic tradition within Jewish history itself. The Hebrew prophets were seldom court intellectuals who sought the approval of kings or the comfort of popular opinion. Rather, figures such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah frequently stood in opposition to prevailing power structures, denouncing injustice, hypocrisy, and the abuse of power regardless of the identity of the perpetrators.

The prophet Amos declared: "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." The prophetic vocation was not one of tribal loyalty or ideological conformity but of moral witness. In this broader ethical sense, many supporters view Blumenthal's work as reflecting an enduring Jewish tradition of questioning authority, defending the marginalized, and insisting that moral principles must transcend political expediency.

To describe someone as a "true Jew" is ultimately a matter of personal and theological interpretation, and people of good faith may disagree profoundly on this question. Yet it is undeniable that the Jewish intellectual tradition has long prized vigorous debate, self-criticism, and the pursuit of justice. From the prophetic writings to the rabbinical tradition of argumentation, Jewish civilization has repeatedly affirmed that difficult questions must not be silenced merely because they are uncomfortable.

The attempt to suppress journalists through vilification, censorship, or campaigns of intimidation sets a dangerous precedent. Once society accepts that certain opinions may be excluded from public discourse simply because they challenge dominant narratives, the boundaries of permissible discussion inevitably continue to narrow. Today's dissenter becomes tomorrow's heretic, and intellectual freedom itself gradually erodes.

Defending Max Blumenthal's right to speak, investigate, and publish does not require agreement with every one of his conclusions. Rather, it requires adherence to a higher principle: that truth can only emerge through open examination and fearless inquiry. The proper response to ideas one considers mistaken is not censorship but evidence, argument, and reasoned debate.

In this sense, the defence of Max Blumenthal is inseparable from the defence of free speech itself. A society that silences controversial voices may achieve temporary conformity, but it does so at the cost of intellectual vitality and moral courage. Genuine democracy demands something more difficult and more noble: the willingness to permit even deeply contested voices to be heard, trusting that through open discourse, truth and justice may ultimately prevail.

On Apollo, Mithra, and the Silence of Delphi: A Reply

A few years ago, a group of my students visited me at the Guttenheim Gallery on Granville Island, Vancouver. One of them later published a summary of our conversation in a Vancouver newspaper. In that conversation I discussed the mythological resonances in my paintings, and I mentioned that scholars such as Fritz Graf have long noted that the origins of Apollo remain genuinely obscure — that certain elements of his cult may reach back to Eastern or Indo-European roots rather than to a purely Hellenic invention.

Calvert Watkins, in How to Kill a Dragon (1995), pursued a related thread through comparative Indo-European poetics, arguing that aspects of Apollo — his role as archer, as purifier, as a god who must himself be cleansed of blood-guilt — preserve very old Indo-European motifs, ones shared in modified form with Indo-Iranian tradition. And Roger Beck, one of the foremost modern authorities on Roman Mithraism, has shown in detail how Greco-Roman thinkers of the Hellenistic and Roman periods increasingly folded Mithra into their own solar theology, identifying him with Apollo and Helios.

None of this required the Greeks to have invented the equation themselves. It was, in fact, a habit of Greek thought long before Rome: interpretatio graeca, the practice of recognizing foreign gods by mapping them onto familiar Greek ones. Hellenistic rulers went further and made the equation official policy. At the great sanctuary of Mount Nemrut, King Antiochus I Theos of Commagene had his own dynastic theology carved in stone, invoking a single fused deity: Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes. Whatever else this inscription tells us, it demonstrates that educated people in antiquity — not modern enthusiasts — saw enough common ground between the Iranian sun-and-covenant god and the Greek Apollo to merge them formally, in a royal cult, in public.

The Puzzle of Delphi

I suggested that this same climate of religious accommodation might help explain a genuine historical puzzle: why Delphi survived the Persian invasion of 480–479 BCE essentially untouched. This is not a fringe question. Historians including J. A. R. Munro, Pierre Roussel, and Eduard Meyer, working within the broader debate over "Delphic medism" and Persian religious pragmatism, have pointed out how strange the sanctuary's survival really is.

Consider the position Delphi was in. After Thermopylae, Xerxes controlled nearly the whole of central Greece. Persian forces burned Athens and razed sanctuaries elsewhere without hesitation. Delphi, by contrast:

• held enormous wealth — vast dedications in gold and silver, accumulated over centuries;
• was militarily undefended;
• lay well within territory the Persian army effectively controlled.

And yet it emerged from the invasion unplundered. Herodotus offers a pious explanation involving divine intervention and thunderbolts (8.35–39), the kind of story Delphi itself had every incentive to circulate afterward. But for historians looking past the miracle narrative, the coincidence of Delphi's ambiguous wartime diplomacy, its known history of pragmatic accommodation with powerful neighbors, and its convenient survival has always looked less like providence and more like negotiation. If Xerxes' court entertained the kind of syncretic religious thinking that later Hellenistic rulers made explicit at Nemrut, restraint toward a shrine of "Apollo" — understood as, in some sense, akin to a god the Persians already honored — becomes far more explicable than restraint toward a shrine of a purely alien god would have been.

The Shahrvand Interview, and Roshanzamir's Objection

Recently a friend showed me a post on Bahram Roshanzamir's blog, Iran Studies, where he introduces himself as holding a "Master of Arts in Ancient Iranian History" and as the winner of a "Best Cultural Heritage Personality" award in 2013. He commented on that old student article without first writing to me directly.

The relevant passage from the original Shahrvand interview reads, in the reporter's paraphrase:

گیتی‌نوین در گفتگویی با سه تن از شاگردان خود در هفته‌نامه شهروند، در پاسخ به این پرسش که از چه رو به میتولوژی یونان اشاره می‌کنید و نه به میتولوژی ایران باستان؟ می‌گوید در واقع همه این داستان‌ها و افسانه‌های هندواروپایی یکی است، مثلاً آپولو، خدای آفتاب، همان میتراست، مثلاً در تاریخ هرودوت می‌خوانیم که خشایارشاه در برابر معبد آپولو نیایش کرد و حتماً این میترا بوده که مورد نیایش قرار گرفته...

In English: in a conversation with three of her students published in the weekly Shahrvand, Guity Novin was asked why she draws on Greek rather than ancient Iranian mythology. She replied, in the reporter's summary, that these Indo-European stories and legends share a common origin — that Apollo, the sun god, corresponds to Mithra, and that in Herodotus we read of Xerxes praying before a temple of Apollo, very likely intending Mithra by it.

It's understandable that the young reporter, writing quickly for a general audience, was imprecise: he rendered "these myths share a common root" as "these myths are the same." With a little charity, most readers would catch the intended meaning. Roshanzamir, however, did not extend that charity. He wrote:

برای اهالی تاریخ یک ضرب‌المثل است که هیچ دانشی مانند تاریخ از آماتورها و غیرمتخصص‌ها آسیب ندیده. نمونه‌اش سرکار خانم گیتی‌نوین، نقاش و گرافیست ایرانی، در پاسخ به اینکه چرا اسطوره‌های یونانی را به ایرانی ترجیح داده، برای توجیه خود (که نیازی هم به توجیه نبود واقعاً) با فهمی ناقص و سراسر اشتباه از تاریخ، به تاریخ آسیب می‌زند تا کار خود را توجیه کند.

In English: among historians, it is practically a proverb that no field has suffered more from amateurs and non-specialists than history. He offers me as an example — an Iranian painter and graphic artist who, asked why she prefers Greek myths to Iranian ones, damages the historical record with an incomplete and thoroughly mistaken understanding, all to justify a choice that never needed justifying in the first place.

He then criticizes me for supposedly claiming that these myths are simply identical rather than cognate, and goes on:

ما هیچ خبری از «خودآگاهی هندواروپایی» نداریم... میترا هم اصلاً خدای خورشید آریایی نبوده! میترا هرگز در اندیشه هندوایرانی خدای خورشید نبود. در اوستا، یشت میترا یا مهریشت از خورشیدیشت مجزاست... ولی در ایران احتمالاً از اواخر دوره هخامنشی میان میترا و شمش... پیوند برقرار شد... صد تا خدای خورشید داریم.

In English: he insists there is no such thing as an "Indo-European self-consciousness" — that ancient Iranians felt far closer kinship with Elamites, Babylonians, and Assyrians than with Greeks or Romans; that the whole notion of European "Aryan-ness" was a nineteenth-century French and English invention, later weaponized by German racial theory in the twentieth, and is scientifically obsolete — though, he adds, Iranian identity is Aryan, just unrelated to that European construct. He further argues that Mithra was never an Indo-Iranian sun-god at all: in the Avesta, the Mihr Yasht is textually distinct from the Khwarshed Yasht, and the two remain separate even in the later Khordeh Avesta. Only from the late Achaemenid period, he says, did an association with the Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash — who was certainly not Aryan or Indo-European — begin to form, an association that Hellenistic-era syncretism in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia then generalized into shared cults. There are, he notes dryly, a hundred sun-gods in the ancient world; the fact that Commagene once equated Mithra with Apollo tells us nothing about the Greek pantheon and the Iranian pantheon as wholes.

A Reply

Mr. Roshanzamir's criticism ultimately rests on a series of category errors.

First, he refutes a proposition that was never made. I never argued that Apollo and Mithra were originally identical deities, nor that Greek and Iranian mythology are simply interchangeable systems. The original interview, as even the Persian text indicates, concerned common Indo-European roots and later religious correspondences, not literal identity.

Second, he treats philological distinctions within the Avesta as though they invalidate all later historical developments. But historians of religion do not proceed in this manner. The fact that Mithra and Hvar-khshaeta appear separately in Avestan texts does not erase the overwhelming evidence that by the Hellenistic and Roman periods Mithra had acquired pronounced solar characteristics and was explicitly identified with Helios and Apollo. The inscriptions of Commagene are not modern fantasies; they are ancient evidence.

Third, Mr. Roshanzamir dismisses comparative Indo-European scholarship without engaging it. The works of Georges Dumézil, Calvert Watkins, Martin West, Walter Burkert, Fritz Graf, and numerous others have demonstrated that Greek religion cannot be understood in isolation from its broader Indo-European and Near Eastern contexts. One may disagree with particular interpretations, but to imply that such comparisons are merely the product of amateur historical misunderstanding is difficult to sustain.

Most importantly, his criticism entirely bypasses the historical puzzle under discussion: why Delphi, uniquely wealthy, undefended, and fully exposed to Persian power after Thermopylae, survived virtually untouched.

This anomaly has long attracted scholarly attention. The debate over Delphic medism is hardly a fringe enterprise. Eduard Meyer, Pierre Roussel, J.A.R. Munro, and others have all recognized that Herodotus' miraculous explanation may conceal a more complicated political reality. Negotiation, accommodation, and Persian religious pragmatism remain legitimate historical possibilities.

To raise the possibility that Persian rulers may have perceived certain Greek cults through the lens of interpretatio or functional equivalence is therefore neither irrational nor historically irresponsible. The Achaemenids consistently demonstrated remarkable flexibility toward local religions throughout their empire. Cyrus in Babylon, Darius in Egypt, and later Hellenistic rulers all illustrate the same broader pattern of imperial religious accommodation.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Apollo "really was" Mithra. That would indeed be a simplistic and untenable proposition.

The real question is whether ancient peoples themselves sometimes perceived similarities between these deities, and whether such perceptions could have had historical consequences.

The evidence strongly suggests that they did.

Consequently, Mr. Roshanzamir's charge that this discussion constitutes "damage to history" seems considerably overstated. At most, one may debate the degree of Apollo-Mithra correspondence or the plausibility of its relevance to Delphi. But to dismiss the entire inquiry as amateurism, while ignoring the extensive comparative scholarship and the genuine historical anomaly involved, risks replacing historical analysis with polemics.

A compressed newspaper paraphrase, written years ago for a general audience, is a slender reed upon which to construct accusations of incompetence.

Indeed, intellectual charity would suggest another conclusion: that the interview raised a legitimate comparative question—one that scholars have debated for generations—even if the language of a journalist's summary lacked technical precision.

Farid Novin and the Theatre of Ideas: Dramatic Form as Philosophical Method

James A. Baldwin

Farid Novin’s dramatic corpus resists easy classification within contemporary theatre. His twelve plays, taken together, do not constitute a conventional theatrical cycle so much as a sustained philosophical inquiry staged through dramatic means. Novin is, in the most precise sense, a playwright of ideas first and a dramatist of theatre second. This is not a diminishment; rather, it is the key to understanding both the originality and the limitations of his work. His theatre functions less as mimetic representation and more as a laboratory of concepts—where Kantian ethics, quantum indeterminacy, diasporic memory, and existential freedom are not merely referenced but structurally embedded within the dramaturgy itself.

The ambition of this project is striking. Across the corpus, Novin traverses intellectual terrains rarely held together within a single artistic vision: the juridical abstraction of Kant under the immediacy of immigration enforcement; quantum mechanics reimagined as existential metaphor; the psychological residue of Armenian and Iranian diasporas; and the reanimation of canonical literary figures—Shakespearean and otherwise—within radically displaced contexts. The result is a body of work that situates itself at the intersection of philosophy, political theory, and theatre, often privileging analytical density over conventional dramatic movement.

The Diagnostic Image and Its Limits

Novin’s most distinctive formal innovation lies in what may be termed the diagnostic image: a single object, gesture, or staging constraint that condenses an entire philosophical argument into theatrical form. These images—empty shoes, a backwards clock, an unlit candle, pigeons released toward a vanished village—function as visual theses. At their best, they achieve what the most ambitious theatre seeks: the transformation of abstraction into immediate, embodied recognition.

Yet this strength is paired with a recurrent weakness. Novin frequently mistrusts the sufficiency of his own images, supplementing them with explanatory dialogue that reiterates rather than deepens their meaning. The result is a flattening of dramatic tension. Where silence might allow the audience to inhabit the ambiguity of the image, language intervenes to resolve it prematurely. This tendency reflects the underlying tension in Novin’s method: the philosopher’s impulse to clarify competing with the dramatist’s need to withhold.

Theatre as Philosophical Medium

It is analytically useful to reverse the usual categorization: Novin is best understood not as a playwright who incorporates philosophical themes, but as a philosopher who employs theatre as his medium of publication. This distinction clarifies both the coherence and the friction within his work. His plays are structured less around character development than around the exposition and collision of conceptual frameworks. Dialogue often functions as argument; staging as diagram; character as position.

This orientation yields several consistent strengths.

First, Novin demonstrates a profound grasp of displacement psychology. In works such as The Manuscript of Ismail and The Tavern of Unfinished Returns, exile is not treated as a narrative condition but as a cognitive reconfiguration. Identity becomes stratified across time and geography; memory destabilizes into competing versions; the body retains what narrative attempts to smooth over. These plays stand alongside the most compelling recent contributions to diaspora drama in their capacity to render dislocation as lived epistemology.

Second, Novin deploys structural contrast as a mode of argument. In The Trench Between Two Fears, the opposition between Sedai (theoretical abstraction) and Jamshidi (logistical pragmatism) is not resolved discursively but enacted materially. The audience does not merely understand the gap between ideology and power; it experiences the consequences of that gap. This is theatre operating as demonstration rather than illustration.

Third, Novin exhibits a disciplined use of absence. In several works, key figures remain unseen or unheard: victims who never appear, examiners who never speak, narrators who are explicitly absent. This restraint generates a productive unease, denying the audience the cathartic closure that more representational approaches might provide. It is a rare instance in philosophically ambitious theatre where what is withheld carries more weight than what is shown.

Fourth, his formal range is unusually broad. Within a relatively short period, Novin moves across genres—memory play, Lehrstück, surrealist allegory, philosophical comedy, historical drama—without settling into a stable aesthetic signature. This formal promiscuity is not merely stylistic experimentation; it reflects a commitment to selecting the form that best articulates the argument of each work.

Persistent Limitations

The same qualities that produce Novin’s originality also generate his most persistent weaknesses.

The first concerns accessibility and dramatic pacing. When intellectual density exceeds the carrying capacity of the theatrical form—as in The Event Horizon Symposium or Syntax of the Artificial Soul—the plays risk becoming discursive overload. The staging struggles to contain the conceptual material, and the audience is positioned less as witness than as participant in an advanced seminar. These works are often intellectually exhilarating yet theatrically strained, suggesting that certain arguments might find more effective expression in essayistic rather than dramatic form.

The second limitation lies in the characterization of women. Across the corpus, female figures frequently function as vehicles for critique rather than fully realized subjects. Characters such as Fataneh, Mina, and even Shirin achieve their greatest vitality when articulating the play’s central thesis. Shirin’s demand for “the right to choose badly” in The Mountain Does Not Answer constitutes one of the most powerful feminist statements in the cycle; yet it emerges as philosophical declaration rather than dramatized experience. The tension between idea and embodiment remains unresolved.

Close Readings: Selected Works

Among the twelve plays, several stand out as particularly successful integrations of intellectual ambition and dramatic control.

The Tavern of Unfinished Returns represents the corpus at its most emotionally and structurally complete. The Armenian concept of karo—a sustained, present-tense ache distinct from nostalgia—is not merely defined but enacted through ritual and repetition. The image of pigeons released toward a non-existent village encapsulates the paradox of longing directed toward an irrecoverable past. Here, Novin trusts the image sufficiently to allow it to resonate without excessive exposition.

The Manuscript of Ismail is the most formally inventive. The staging of multiple temporal versions of a single character simultaneously present on stage transforms memory into a contested space rather than a stable archive. The “well incident,” retold differently by each participant, dramatizes the mutability of memory with a precision that exceeds purely theoretical accounts.

The Trench Between Two Fears exemplifies Novin’s Brechtian capacities. The opposition between ideology and logistics is rendered with clarity and dark humor, culminating in a revelation that reframes the entire preceding action. The line “structure doesn’t taste like rice” condenses the play’s argument into a single, devastating insight.

The Mountain Does Not Answer achieves remarkable philosophical compression. Its minimal staging—throne, stone, empty chair—functions as a conceptual triad. The conflict between Khosrow, Farhad, and Shirin articulates competing ontologies: history as necessity, suffering as truth, and freedom as self-authorship. Miam’s closing assertion—“They are all wrong. They are all real”—provides perhaps the most succinct statement of Novin’s broader philosophical position.

By contrast, The Event Horizon Symposium illustrates both the height and the limits of Novin’s ambition. Its synthesis of economic theory and quantum mechanics is intellectually rigorous, mapping concepts such as the invisible hand onto probabilistic collapse and uncertainty onto policy dynamics. Yet the sheer number of voices and frameworks strains the theatrical medium, producing a work that reads more effectively as interdisciplinary speculation than as staged drama.

Conclusion: Between Philosophy and Theatre

Farid Novin occupies a singular position in contemporary dramatic writing. His work expands the possibilities of theatre as a site of philosophical inquiry, demonstrating that the stage can function not merely as a space of representation but as a medium of thought. At his best, he achieves a rare synthesis in which image, structure, and argument converge to produce genuine theatrical insight. At his most overextended, the weight of his ideas exceeds the capacity of dramatic form, revealing the limits of theatre as a vehicle for maximalist intellectual ambition.

The central tension of Novin’s corpus—between showing and explaining, between image and argument, between theatre and philosophy—is not a flaw to be resolved but a defining characteristic of his method. His plays ask not only what can be staged, but what it means to think on stage. In doing so, they challenge both disciplines they inhabit, leaving open the question of whether the future of such work lies in further refinement of theatrical economy or in a reconfiguration of the boundary between drama and philosophical prose.

Either way, Novin’s project remains one of the most intellectually provocative contributions to contemporary theatre: a body of work that insists, sometimes against its own medium, that ideas themselves can be dramatic.

Nietzsche and Wagner: A Musical-Philosophical Romance and Rupture

 

Friedrich Nietzsche's relationship with Richard Wagner represents one of the most fascinating intersections of music and philosophy in nineteenth-century European culture. Initially approaching Wagner's works with profound admiration, Nietzsche saw in them the potential for cultural renaissance, only to later reject them as symptoms of cultural decline. This evolution mirrors broader shifts in Nietzsche's philosophical thought and offers insight into both figures' artistic and intellectual development.

Early Admiration: Wagner's Revolutionary Works

Nietzsche's initial enchantment with Wagner's oeuvre centered on several groundbreaking compositions that he viewed as revolutionary manifestations of artistic genius. Among these, three works stood out with particular significance:

Der Ring des Nibelungen

"Der Ring ist ein Labyrinth, in dem sich die moderne Seele verliert und wiederfindet." (The Ring is a labyrinth in which the modern soul loses and finds itself again.) -- From Nietzsche's notebooks, 1878

This monumental tetralogy—comprising "Das Rheingold," "Die Walküre," "Siegfried," and "Götterdämmerung"—represented for Nietzsche the apex of artistic ambition. He saw in it not merely an operatic cycle but a comprehensive critique and reimagining of modern culture through the lens of Germanic mythology. The work's scope and philosophical implications aligned perfectly with Nietzsche's early vision of art as a vehicle for cultural transformation.

Tristan und Isolde

"In der Welt der Musik ist 'Tristan und Isolde' das centrale Werk. Wagner hat nie etwas Besseres gemacht: es wird die Verzweiflung und die Seligkeit der Liebe in ihrer höchsten Potenz haben." (In the world of music, 'Tristan und Isolde' is the central work. Wagner never made anything better: it has despair and the bliss of love in their highest potency.) -- From "Ecce Homo"

This revolutionary opera, with its chromatic innovations and exploration of love's metaphysical dimensions, represented for Nietzsche the perfect fusion of Dionysian passion and Apollonian form. Its harmonic complexity and emotional depth exemplified music's power to transcend conventional boundaries of expression.

Tannhäuser

"Tannhäuser ist ein Werk, das die Grenzen zwischen dem Heiligen und dem Profanen verwischt, wie es nur die größte Kunst vermag." (Tannhäuser is a work that blurs the boundaries between the sacred and the profane, as only the greatest art can do.) -- From Nietzsche's letters, 1870

The opera's exploration of the tension between sacred and profane love particularly resonated with Nietzsche's emerging philosophical preoccupations, offering a dramatic representation of the apollonian-dionysian duality he would theorize in "The Birth of Tragedy."

The Great Disillusionment: Parsifal and the Break

Nietzsche's eventual rejection of Wagner centered primarily on "Parsifal," which he saw as a betrayal of the composer's earlier revolutionary spirit:

"Parsifal ist ein Werk der Tücke, der Rache, der heimlichen Giftmischerei gegen die Voraussetzungen des Lebens." (Parsifal is a work of malice, of revenge, of secret poisoning against the prerequisites of life.) -- "Nietzsche contra Wagner"

This final opera, with its Christian themes and emphasis on redemption through renunciation, represented everything Nietzsche had come to oppose in his mature philosophy. The work's celebration of asceticism and spiritual purity stood in direct opposition to his vision of life-affirming values.

Nietzsche as Musician

Less widely known but equally fascinating is Nietzsche's own musical output. His compositions, while modest in scope compared to Wagner's, reveal a sensitive musical intelligence. Two notable works demonstrate his musical aspirations:

• "Heldenklage" (Heroic Lament): A piano composition that exemplifies his understanding of musical pathos
• "Hymnus an die Freundschaft" (Hymn to Friendship): A more optimistic work celebrating human connection

The infamous incident involving Cosima Wagner's performance of Nietzsche's composition merits reconsideration. While Wagner's reported reaction of derisive laughter is often cited, more nuanced accounts suggest this may have been an oversimplification of a complex moment in their deteriorating relationship.

Conclusion

The trajectory of Nietzsche's relationship with Wagner's music parallels his philosophical development from romantic idealism to critical perspectivism. His eventual rejection of Wagner's later works, particularly "Parsifal," reflects not merely personal disappointment but a fundamental philosophical reorientation. This evolution illuminates both the power of music to embody philosophical ideas and the potential for aesthetic judgment to serve as a catalyst for philosophical development.

Nietzsche's own musical compositions, while overshadowed by his philosophical works, offer valuable insight into the practical manifestation of his aesthetic theories. They remind us that the relationship between philosophy and music in his thought was not merely theoretical but deeply personal and practical.

The Alchemical Symphony: Orchestras as Crucibles of Collaborative Genius

In the hallowed halls where melodies weave tapestries of sound, a grand alchemy unfolds—one that transmutes individual virtuosity into collective transcendence. The symphony orchestra, that venerable institution of Western art music, stands as a paragon of collaborative artistry, a living, breathing entity whose essence far surpasses the sum of its constituent parts. Herein lies a microcosm of human potential, where the interplay of knowledge, understanding, and synergy gives birth to moments of sublime beauty that can move the very soul.

The Mosaic of Musical Minds

Picture, if you will, the kaleidoscopic array of talents that comprise a world-class orchestra. Each musician, a master of their chosen instrument, brings to the ensemble not merely technical prowess, but a lifetime of experiences, emotions, and interpretative insights. The Berlin Philharmonic, that bastion of orchestral excellence, exemplifies this phenomenon with breathtaking clarity. Here, the cellist's bow does not merely traverse strings; it excavates wells of profound melancholy, each note a tear crystallized in sound. The flautist's breath becomes the very wind of inspiration, carrying aloft themes of ineffable brightness.

Yet, it is in the crucible of collective performance that true magic is forged. The Vienna Philharmonic, steeped in centuries of tradition, epitomizes the delicate balance between individual expression and collective responsibility. In this rarefied atmosphere, musicians are not mere cogs in a melodic machine, but rather, alchemists of sound, each contributing their unique essence to the greater elixir of music.

Decoding the Musical Genome

To truly appreciate the depths of orchestral performance, one must delve into the very DNA of the music itself. The score, that cryptic tapestry of notation, becomes a map to uncharted emotional territories. Musicians and conductors alike engage in a hermeneutic dance, deciphering not just notes and rhythms, but the very essence of the composer's intent.

The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, in its commitment to education and outreach, illuminates this process of musical exegesis. By sharing their insights with audiences and students alike, these musical savants not only deepen appreciation for their art but also invite others into the sacred circle of interpretation. In doing so, they transform the concert hall into a forum of intellectual and emotional exchange, where the boundaries between performer and listener blur into insignificance.

The Conductor: Alchemist-in-Chief

At the heart of this symphonic crucible stands the conductor, a figure both enigmatic and essential. Far from being a mere timekeeper or human metronome, the conductor is the alchemist-in-chief, tasked with transmuting the base metals of individual talents into the gold of unified performance. Yet, in the most transcendent of musical moments, even the conductor becomes but a catalyst for something greater.

Consider the London Symphony Orchestra, renowned for its chameleon-like ability to adapt to diverse conducting styles. Under the baton of a luminary like Sir Simon Rattle, this musical organism does not simply follow; it engages in a dialectic of sound, pushing boundaries and exploring uncharted territories of interpretation. In these moments, the orchestra becomes not just an instrument of the conductor's will, but a co-creator in the alchemical process of music-making.

The Crucible of Rehearsal

Away from the glare of the spotlight, in the sacred space of the rehearsal room, another form of alchemy takes place. Here, in the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and countless others like it, ideas are exchanged, interpretations debated, and musical decisions forged in the fires of collective wisdom. This collaborative crucible is where the true work of musical creation occurs, where disparate elements are combined and recombined until the perfect formula emerges.

The Resonance Beyond the Music

Yet, the transformative power of orchestral collaboration extends far beyond the confines of music itself. In nurturing the skills of deep listening, mutual respect, and collective creativity, orchestras become microcosms of ideal social interaction. They stand as living proof of what humanity can achieve when individuals sublimate their egos to a higher purpose, when diversity of thought and experience is celebrated rather than feared.

Coda: The Eternal Symphony

As the final notes of a symphony fade into silence, we are left not just with memories of beautiful sounds, but with a profound lesson in the power of human collaboration. The orchestra, in its quest for musical perfection, offers us a glimpse of a world where understanding, knowledge, and cooperation reign supreme. It challenges us to find similar harmony in our own lives, to seek out the symphonies hidden within our daily interactions.

For in the end, are we not all members of the great orchestra of humanity, each playing our unique part in the eternal symphony of existence? Let us, then, take inspiration from these musical alchemists, and strive to create our own moments of transcendent beauty, both in art and in life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HljSXSm6v9M

Enchanting Echoes: A Lyrical Journey through Offenbach's *Les Contes d'Hoffmann

In the realm of operatic artistry, few works resonate with the haunting beauty and emotional depth of Jacques Offenbach's *Les Contes d'Hoffmann*. This masterful opera, intricately woven with themes of love, loss, and longing, follows the tormented poet Hoffmann as he navigates the shadows of three ill-fated romances. The recent performance featuring the evocative voices of Fatma Said and Adèle Charvet, alongside the illustrious Orchestre National de France conducted by Cristian Macelaru, offers a fresh and compelling interpretation of this classic tale.

At the heart of this production is the dynamic interplay between the vocalists and their characters. Fatma Said, with her crystalline soprano, breathes life into Olympia, the enchanting automaton whose mechanical allure masks a profound vulnerability. Said’s agile vocal delivery, imbued with a sense of both wonder and sadness, captures the essence of Olympia's tragic existence. Conversely, Adèle Charvet's warm and expressive timbre lends emotional depth to Antonia, Hoffmann's doomed muse. Charvet’s portrayal highlights the delicate fragility of her character, evoking the audience’s empathy as she grapples with the haunting legacy of her family's tragic history.

The synergy between the soloists and the Orchestre National de France is nothing short of extraordinary. Under Cristian Macelaru’s astute direction, the orchestra delivers a performance marked by precision and passion. Macelaru’s ability to draw out the lush colors of Offenbach’s score enhances the narrative, creating a vibrant soundscape that envelops the audience. Each orchestral flourish complements the singers, weaving a tapestry of sound that underscores the emotional currents of Hoffmann’s journey.

The performance's rhythmic diversity mirrors the operatic narrative's emotional landscape. Offenbach’s score oscillates between lively, spirited passages and tender, introspective moments, reflecting the complexities of love and desire. The orchestra's rich tonal palette provides a solid foundation, allowing the singers to soar above the instrumental backdrop, their voices intertwining in a harmonious dance that captivates the listener.

This production of *Les Contes d'Hoffmann* stands as a testament to the artistry and dedication of all involved, from the nuanced performances of Said and Charvet to the vibrant orchestral accompaniment. Together, they create a memorable and enchanting experience that lingers in the hearts of the audience long after the final curtain falls. As Hoffmann’s bittersweet tale unfolds, it reminds us of the profound beauty and inherent tragedy of love—a theme that resonates universally across time and space.

 Search in Google  for : 

CONCERT DE PARIS 2024 : Les Contes d’Hoffmann ...