Introduction
ThisstudyisanengagementwiththeologicalShi’idiscourseinIran,from 1940until2000.Thisengagementisinspiredbytheassumptionthatthis discoursereceivesinadequatetreatmentintheexistingliteratureonthe IslamicRevolutionandIranianhistoryingeneral.Atbest,itiscastas romanticandutopian.Atworst,itispresentedasacynicalmanipulationof anignorantlaypopulation.Additionally,Shi’idiscoursemaybepresented asasurfeitofinformation,callingforanyandallworldlyinterpretations.
ThisstudysuggestsadifferentwayofengagingwithShi’idiscursive theology.Morespecifically,itproposesthatreligiousexperienceplaysa distinctandsignificantroleintheconceptualizationandpracticeofShi’i theology.Moreover,thestudysuggeststhatscholarlyanalyticalcategories whicharedevoidofanexperientialdimensionprovidealimitedreadingof theologicalShi’idiscourse.
“Religiousexperience” isacontentiousterm,carryingadiversearrayof connotations.Thisstudywillseektodefinevariousconceptualcategoriesof religiousexperiences.Theseincludecrisis,anxiety,faithandmore.Thestudy willapproachthesecategoriesthroughthetheologicalexperienceofreading. Readingisnot,ofcourse,limitedtotheology.However,thestudywillsuggestthattheologicalreadingisahighlyexperientialformofreading.Asit dealswithinsightsthatareoftenineffable,theologicalreadingdevelops interpretativeandmetaphoricalskillsamongreaders.Thestudywillpropose thattheseskillsplayasignificantpartintheformation,praxisandimpactof theologicalShi’idiscourse.
IattempttoreadShi’idiscourseascriticaltheologicaldiscourse.Thatis, IreadseveralprominentShi’iclericaltextswhilefocusingontheirunderstandingofGodandGod’srelationshipwithhumanity.Additionally,I attempttoconductthisreadingwithinabroader,comparativetheological frameworkthatincludesJewishandChristiantheology.Thestudyproposes thattheologicaldiscourseswhichengagecriticallywithmodernityandreligiousthoughtcanofferasoundtheoreticalparadigmforreadingand understandingShi’itheologicaldiscourse.Thestudyalsocontendsthat areadingwiththisparadigminmindrevealsadiscoursesignificantly moresophisticatedandintricatethantheonedescribedandanalyzedby
prominentcurrentliteratureinbothhistoryandthesocialsciences.Rather thanstayensconcedwithintheintellectualhistoryofShi’ism,thisstudy takesonShi’iperceptionsofhistoryandhistoricityfromanexperiential perspective,offeringakindofcounterhistory.
ReadingShi’itheologicaldiscourseassuchisnotanattemptto “explain” theIslamicRevolution.Itisanattempttoaddressaneglectedaspectofthe revolutionaryShi’imovement,namelythenotionsofreligiousexperienceit involvesandpromotes.Formulatingandapplyingthiscomparative,theologicalmethodhavebeenundertakeninordertotryandreintroducereligious experience(thatis,theologicalreadingandbasicreligiouscategoriesof experience)asvaluabletothetellingandretellingofhistoricalnarratives regardingtheperiod.
Inthestudy,Iofferinitialdirectionstowardanewconceptualizationof theologicaldiscourse,whilehighlightingitsexperientialelements.I first identifyanexperientialquotientofShi’itheologicaldiscoursebyexamining varioustheologicalcategoriesincontext.ThenIproceedtoofferanunderstandingofthesecategoriesbasedonacomparativetheologicalreading. Thisis,ofcourse,anexperiencestructuredandorderedbyacademicand scholarlycategoriesandprocesses.However,itstillseekstofocuson experienceratherthandetachedanalysis.
Essentially,thestudyarguesthatthecategoryofexperienceinhistorycan beeffectivelyapproachedbyapplyingexperientialmeans.Isuggestthat examinationsofexperienceshouldnotseekitsgenericelementsorthe “objectively” accessibleknowledgeitoffers.Rather,suchexaminations shouldhighlight “theexperienceofexperience,” recreatinganopportunity forreaderstothinkofthediscourseinquestionanditsexperientialvaluein termsoftheirowncapacityforexperience,beitintellectual,cultural,social or,preferablyallofthese.Theexperienceofreading,socentraltothepromulgationoftheologicalShi’idiscourseandtoitsintegrativeeffect,thus presentsuswithasuitablemediuminwhichtotryandapproachthe experienceofexperience.
Oneofthestudy’sbasicassumptionsisthattheexperientialdimensionof clericaldiscoursepresentsadifficultyforcertainconceptionsrootedinhistoryandthesocialsciences.Speci fically,IsubmitthatShi’itheologicaldiscourseisgroundedinexistentialnotionsoftensionandcrisisaswellasin practicesoffaithandinterpretation,andthatitviewsthesecategoriesas essentialtoitsviabilityandintelligibility.ManydominantanalysesofShi’i discourse,bywayofcontrast,strivetoeitherreconcileitsinternalcontradictionsortoidentifymyriadcontextswithinit.Thus,theytendtoignore experience,optinginsteadforgranderparadigmsofpowerpoliticsorvarioushistoricities,betheyrelativistorstrictlydisciplinarian.Itisnotthat experienceisincorrectlyexpressed,butthatitishardlyexpressedatall.
Thislackofexpressionmaytakeseveralforms.Itmayoccurbydestabilizingthenormativeandethicalcontentofreligiousexperienceandpresentingitasa figmentofulteriorimaginations.Itmayalsotakeplacewhen
theclericalinvolvementintherevolutionisanalyzedin “value-neutral” termsoforthodoxsocialscienceorwithinMarxistframeworkemphasizing economicrelationsbetweenclasses.Intheseterms,experiencebecomesan individualphenomenon,andisthusconsideredinaccessibletoanalytical paradigms.
Thestudyassumesthatreligiousexperienceplaysanimportantand observableroleinthecreationandevolutionofreligiousdiscourse.AsI mentionedearlier,criticismofsuchanargumentiseasilyvoiced.Howcan anexaminationofexperiencebemadeinto “genericallyhumanexperience ”?1 ThemethodologicalapproachIadoptinthisstudyisonethatis bothminimalistandmaximalist.Itisminimalistintightlylimitingthescope ofthediscussion.Itakeonnotionsofexperiencethatarespeci ficto,or moreintensefor,Shi’ireligiousscholars.
Ido,however,adoptmaximaliststandardsinothercontexts.Mytheoreticalframeworkisabroadone,utilizingtheologians,philosophersandhistorians.ThetextsonwhichIdraware,forthemostpart,translatedintheir entirety.Asmyfocusisexperience,thereader’sactiveengagementwiththe textissignificantforanyviableunderstandingofexperienceImayhopeto achieve.Mysubjectmatterisalsomaximalist,treatingreligiouscategories ofthoughtandexperienceashavingrealexistenceintheclericalcontextwe arestudying.
Thisstudyexplorestheencountersbetweenmaximalandminimalmeaning,mostsignificantlybetweenthedivineabsoluteandthecontextually human.Speci fically,thestudywishestoidentifyanddiscussthoseareasin Shi’idiscoursewheresuchcategoricaldistinctionsareattheirmostpoignant andsimultaneouslyattheirmostblurred.Thismovementbetweena minimalistandamaximalistapproachalsodefinesmyuseofsecondaryliterature.Manysourcesfromdiverse fieldshavebeenperusedduringthe courseofthisstudy.ThesesourcesarenotconfinedtoIranianstudies.They rangefromvarioustheologicaltraditions,throughhermeneutictheoryto worksofhistoryandphilosophy.Thestudywishestoachieveacomparative synthesis,ratherthanbaseitsargumentsondetailedexpertiseinspecific fields.Therefore,whiletherearemanypassagesquotedatlengthfromdifferentsources,therearenotmanyliteraturereviewsorreference-laden paragraphsalludingcasuallytoideaswhichremaininfootnoteform. Isuggestthatthetextualtraditionsampledbythisstudyviewstheskills ofreadingasinstrumentaltothemessage,ormessagesitseekstoconvey. Thus,mygoalinthisstudyistoestablishanarrativesequencethatshould encouragemyreadertoexperientiallyapproachtheexperienceofreading Shi’itheologicaldiscourse.Acombinationofminimalistandmaximalist approachesservesbesttoboththinkandtoexperiencetheas-yetrelatively unchartedwatersofShi’idiscourse.
Ipresentthetextsreadinthisstudyasworldstobeexperiencedandlived in.Theseworldsarenotplaced “behindthetext,”2 assomeulteriormeaning thatmustbegraduallyrevealed,which,ultimately,viewsthetextitselfasa
derivativeofgreaterforcesorconditions.Thesetextualworldscanbeeffectivelyaccessedthroughexperience,byprovidingthereaderwiththetools andopportunitytoappropriatethemforherself,toseeherselfasshewould belivingintheseworldswhilelearningtheirrulesofactionandengagement.
Mygoalisnottocarefullyretrieveeverycultural/social/political/economic elementinvolvedinthecreationofthesetexts.Thissortofworkis,justifiably,animportantmainstayofhistory.Isuggestahistoricalsensitivity whichismeanttocomplementandenhancethehistoricityengendered throughsuchfundamentalendeavors.
UtilizingthedistinctionestablishedbySørenKierkegaard,theapproach guidingthisstudyisoneofrepetition,3 ratherthanrecollection.Thestudy doesnotpresumetorecreatetheexperiencesofIraniansandIranianclerics overthelast60–70yearsthroughaclosereadingofthreerepresentative texts.However,Iputitforwardthatthisexperienceseemstoplayan importantroleinthehistoricalnarrativeoftheperioddiscussed,yetisstill castaseitherinaccessibleromanticmythorastheproductofcynical manipulation.Thestudywishestorepeatthesetextsasexperience.These textsarenottobereadasthecausesofhistoricaleventsorastheproductof quanti fiablehistoricalconditions.Rather,theyarerootedinparticular understandingsofreligiousexperience.
Whilethisunderstandingisgroundedinaclearlydefinedreligioustradition,itisalsomeanttoinitiateandfosteropen-endedreligiousexperience amongthereadersofthesetexts.Infact,thetextsstudiedandpresentedin thisvolumeviewtheindividualexperiencesoftheirreadersastheprimary expressionsofbelongingtoajointreligioustradition.UndergoingopenendedexperienceisanormativemainstayofShi’idiscourseasIdescribeit. Thatis,oneoftheelementsofavirtuoussocietybythestandardsofthe Shi’idiscourseIdescribeisthecontinuedprocessofundergoingopen-ended, personalexperiencewithinawell-definedreligioustradition.Oneofthe mainwaysinwhichaparticipantinthisdiscoursecomestorecognizeher commitmentsandallegiancetoitstenetsisthroughanindividualcourseof experience.Open-endednessservestoreaffirmdivinelyinspiredvaluesand perceptionsandviceversa.Embarkingonthisexperienceis,therefore,a repetitionofotherembarkationsandnotarecollectionoftheultimatedestinationorrationaleofsuchexperiences.
Asmaybeobserved,themethodologicalchoicetoperformthisrepetition isnotanobviousone.Itmixeseticandemicperspectives,blurringthe linesbetweenstudyingShi’idiscourseandactivelyparticipatinginit.This strategyisdictatedbythediscursivedimensionsrelevanttoreligious experience.Thesedrawnocleardivisionofpowersbetweentheabstractand thetangible.Rather,elementsofbothdenominationsenforceandaccentuate eachother,strivingforasynergeticeffectwhichisoftenthoughtofasinaccessibleorevenanomalousinanalyticterms.Thisstudyiscommittedisto thegradualunfoldingyetconstantlypresentsenseofunderstandingthrough experience.Thiscommitment,Ifeel,isreinforcedbytheinterminglingof
diverselevelsoflinguisticsensibilityanddifferentstrategiesofargumentationandrecounting.
Historicalbackground
Thepurposeofthishistoricalsummaryistoprovideanabridged,conventionallyhistoricalnarrativesettingforthehistoricalstrategiesusedin thisstudy.Certainsegmentsofthisbackgroundwillrecurinthespecific chaptersofthisstudy,focusingoncertainelementswhicharerelevanttothe discursivedimensiondiscussedinthechapter.However,Ibelieveaconcise historicalsketchisrequiredinordertoframeandprovidecontrastforour discussion,afactualbasebutalsoabordertocrossandrecross.
Iranianhistoryisavast field.Thisstudydrawsitshistoricalinspiration mainlyfromhistoriesofIraninthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies. Morespecifically,itdealswithhistoricalworksthatseektoengagewith,and attimesofferanexplanationfor,theIslamicRevolutionof1979.
TheShi’issecededfromthegreatmajorityoftheIslamiccommunityin theseventhcentury(AD)duetoadifferenceofopinionregardingtheheirs oftheprophetMuhammad.Thedebatewasbroadlyfocusedontheissueof authorityandlegitimacyforthatauthority.Theprophet,claimedtheSunni majority(“Sunnah” meanstradition,orpath,andreferstothepathsupposedlytroddenbytheprophethimself),wonhisauthoritythroughhischaracterandachievements.ThathewasamanofGodwasclearlyevidentin hisenormoussuccess.Theprophettransformedafragmentedtribalsociety andturneditintoaunified,monotheisticempire.ThereforetheSunnis consideredtheprophettobethemanwhobroughtorder,prosperityand discipline.Whentheprophetdied(633 AD),theSunnineededtoknowthat theirnextleadercouldmaintaintheprophet’sachievementsandperhaps addtothem.
Shi’ismaintainedadifferentview.TheyclaimedthatAli,thecousinand son-in-lawoftheprophet,wastheheirapparenttoMuhammad.They believedthatwhattheprophetMuhammadbroughtwithhimtoleadership wasmorethanjustpoliticalacumen.TheShi’isclaimedthattheprophet’ s legitimacyhadtodowiththefactthathedevelopedanintimaterelationship withGod.Allthemembersofthetwelverchain(fromAlitotheImam Mahdi,thehiddenImam)carriedadivinespark,a nass.Theheirofthe prophetshouldbesomeonerelatedtohimbyblood,soastokeepthespark alive.TheShi’is,atleastofficially,didnotcaresoterriblyforthegloriesof thisworld.Theywantedaleaderwhowouldserveasconstantprooftothem ofGod’sexistence.HavingaleaderwhowasanintimateofGod,aninfallibleindividual,providedeveryactcarriedoutbyabelieverwithaclear divineandsocialcontext.LeadershipbecameatenetofShi’iIslam,aprerequisitefortheexistenceoftheworld.
ThisdifferenceofopinionregardingauthorityturnedtheShi ’isintoa persecutedminority.ThesixthImam,Ja’faral-Sadiq(d.765 AD),wasthe
firsttoshiftwhatwouldlaterbecomeclericalauthorityfromthepublicly politicaltootherareas.TraditionhashimcuttingImamileadershipoff from political,temporalrule,andrestrictingittotherealmofthemetaphysics, butalsotothedailylifeofthecommunity.Theleader,theImam,wastobe bothalinktothedivineandtheultimateleaderandjudgeofthecommunity.Hewasevenconsideredtheidealmanifestationofthecommunity.
However,theImamdidnotaskandwasnotgivenpolitical,monarchical power.TheImamdidnothavethepowertoimposeviolentsanctions againstoffenders,whichistheusualwayofdescribingtheprerogativeofthe statewhichispoliticalpower.TheImamrepresentedthecommunityoppositeindividuals,butwasalsoanindividualhimself,sensitivetotheplightof hisfaithfulatthemostprivateindividuallevel.Inotherwords,Imami Shi’ismturneddialectic,aconstantrelationofpolarizedentitieswithno institutionalmiddleorrather,withtheleaderasthemediatingmiddle.The Imamsproducedhigh-browmetaphysicalliteraturewhilealsosittingin judgmentonmattersofcivillawandcommunaldisputes.Itwasonly throughthepresenceoftheImamthatthemetaphysicsgainedpractical applicationswhiletheactsofShi’iindividuals,nomatterwhotheywereor wheretheywerefrom,wereplacedwithindivine,normativecontexts.
ThenextcrucialstageinthedevelopmentofShi’ismwastheoccultation ofthetwelfthImam.Wewillforego,inadvance,anydetaileddiscussionof thelegendssurroundingthebirthandlifeofthetwelfthImam.Sufficeitto saythataccordingtoShi’ilore,hewastakenbyGodasachild,andhas beenheldinoccultationwithGoduntilherisesasmessiah(Mahdi)onthe dayofjudgment.TheoccultationoftheImamstrengthenedtheShi’itendencyforthedialecticinpolitics.Theywerenowleftwithnomediator,no onetoprovidetheiractionswithcontextandexplaintothemtherulesof Godastheywerewritteninthe “MotherofAllBooks,” theQur’an.The occultationisalsoresponsibleforanotherimportantelementintheShi’i generationofmeaning.Losingthisproofofthedivinebroughtaboutgreat distress,anexistentialsorrow.Shi’iswerenowalone,seekingameaningand acontextthatwereonceprovidedbytheImam.
IntheabsenceoftheImam,religiousleadershipbecameinterpretative, chargedwithturningthewordsoftheImamsintoperformablestandardsfor communalandindividualpractice.Thereligiousscholarswereempowered, nolongerunderthethumbofanabsoluteruler,andwerethusrelativelyfree tocreatetheirpublicandprivateidentitieswithnounchallengedlegitimate authoritydictatingaclearagenda.Thereligiousscholarsneverdemanded sovereigntyandwouldhavebeentooweakpoliticallytorealizesuchsovereigntyinanycase.Thisempowermentcamefromarealsenseofcrisis,an anxietydeepandpowerful.Thedesireforanimmediateattachmenttothe divinewastheprimaldesire,andanymeaningcreatedbeganwiththiscrisis ofdesireandwasperpetuatedthroughit.
Wenowmoveontotheyear1501,whenShahIsma’iltheSafavidestablishedthe firstShi’istateinIran.TheSafavidswerewarriortribesfrom
centralAsia.WhiletheyconqueredandunifiedIran,theywerelacking inanysortofinstitutionallegitimacy.TheywerealsoShi’isofamilitant, mysticalschool.SinceShi’ismwasneveradominantcourtreligion,itprosperedonthefrontiersandperipheriesoftheIslamicworld,eventually comingtopoweronaticketof flexiblemysticismratherthanrigid,institutionaldoctrine.
TheSafavidsbegantoimportShi’ireligiousscholarsfromabroad,mostly fromthegreatscholarlycenterintheLebanon,inordertoprovidereligious legitimacyfortheirrule.Theywerequicktooffersoundrewardstothe nativereligiousestablishmentinIran,whichwasmostlySunni.TheSafavids offeredtheShi’iclerics(someofwhomwereSunniswhohadconvertedto Shi’ism)thesupportofastrongstate.Theclericswouldreceivestate appointmentsandsalaries,achancetobecomeanelite.Inreturn,they wouldprofesstheirallegiancetothestateandpersuadetheiradherentsto dothesame.
TheIranianstatehadtwoleaderships:onereligious,theothertemporal. Thereligiousleadershipdevelopedintoatraditionalelitewiththesupport andfundsofthestate.Still,itneverdemandedthemandatetorulethe country.Thepoliticalcommunitywasneverswallowedupintoareligious socialorder.Religiousscholarspreferredtoremainbehindthescenes, occupyingapastoralrole.Moreoftenthannot,theyofferedtherecognition andlegitimacydemandedbythegovernment.
TheSafavidmodelallowedforthejoint,yetseparate,developmentofthe stateandthereligiousestablishment.Thereligiousscholarsreliedonthe stateforinstitutionallegitimacy,butalsocreatedreligiousvenuesfor legitimization.ItwasundertheSafavidsthattheconceptof taqlid (emulation)evolved.Accordingtothisconcept,theShi ’iclericisamodelemulated bythelayfaithfulinallareasoflifepertainingtoreligion.Themodelof emulation(marja’-etaqlid)isaliving,breathingreligiousauthorityandis selectedforhispiety,religiousknowledgeandabilitytoaddresstheneedsof hisemulatingconstituency.
TheSafaviddualsystemfunctionedforjustabout400years.4 Withthe fallanddisintegrationoftheSafavidstatein1722,andaftersomesixdecadesofinternalwarsandpoliticalinstability,theQajardynastyroseto power.WesternpowersbegantocovetIran’sresourcesandstrategiclocation fromtheendoftheeighteenthcenturyonwards,andtheyplayedanactive partinthemachinationsoftheQajarcourt.Thereligiousestablishment fearedbothforitselitestatusandforitsroleastheguardiansofsocial moraleandmorality.In1892,theclericsdirectlytookonthemonarchy whentheleadingsourceofemulation,MirzaHassanShirazi,publisheda religiousdecreeforbiddingthefaithfultousetobaccoproductsofanykind. ThiscameaboutaftertheQajarShahgrantedatobaccofranchisetoa British firm,allowingforeignerstotakeovertobaccoproductionfromthe growingstagetothesellingoftobaccoproducts.Anentirenationstopped smoking,andtheShahwasforcedtorescindhisorder.5 However,fragile
coexistencecontinuedfor30moreyears,whichsawmoreconflictbutno significantrockingoftheinstitutionalboat.
In1925,RezaShahPahlaviwasenthroned,establishingthePahlavi dynasty.RezaShahhadanagendawhichviewedwithdisdaintheIranianShi’isystemofmultifocal,intertwinedinstitutionsandlegitimacies. RezaShahlookedtothewest,andwishedtoemulatetheunitarystructure ofthewesterninstitutionalstate.Hewishedtochangethebalanceofpower inIran,buildinganewstatewhosesolesourceoflegitimacyandauthority wasthemonarchy.RezaShahinitiatedthecreationofanewIranian nationalidentity.WhilethisnewidentitydidnotrejectIslamwholeheartedly,itwaspredominantlysecularandsawitshistoricalrootsinIran’ s imperial,pre-Islamicpast.Still,thereformsmostrelevanttoourdiscussion havetodowithRezaShah ’sappropriationoftraditionaljurisdictionsofthe religiousestablishment.
TheShahestablishedanew,state-guidededucationalsystemwhich extolledthemonarchyandwasrunbystate-trainedemployees.Religious schools,themainformofpopulareducationinIran,weregradually replaced.TheShahalsoestablishedanewlegalsystem,adoptingEuropean codesandappointingwestern-trainedjuristsasjudges.Bydoingthis,he underminedthelivelihoodofthereligiousscholars,whilealsoremoving theirmoralandpublicauthority.
RezaShahtookpracticalandsymbolicsteps,likeorderingtheunveiling ofwomen.Itwashisson,MohammadRezaShah,whotookonthereligiousestablishmentdirectlyandbluntly.Whilehisfatherwasoccupiedwith infrastructureandviewedperceptionsofidentityandhistoryasmeanstoa modernizingend,MohammadRezaShahsawhimselfasanideologue. Hewishednotonlytocementhisauthorityinpractice,butalsotoprovide Iranianswithanalternativehistoricalandculturalnarrativereplacing theonepresentedbytheShi’iestablishment.Anexampleisthealteringof theIraniancalendartobeginitsyearcountwiththeascensionofCyrusthe Great(thuslinkinghimselftoIran’simperial,pre-Islamicpast).Hewanted totakeoverasthenation’sspiritualguardian,notonlytoestablishhisstatus asabsolutemonarch.MohammadRezaShahpositionedhimselfasanomniscientandomnipotentleader.Forsomereligiousleaders,thissignaledan impendingcrisisintheirtraditionallystablerelationshipwiththemonarchy.
TheShahappealeddirectlytothepeopleforsupport.Henationalized muchofthelandinIran,initiatingasweepingagrarianreformwhichplaced landatthehandsofthetenantfarmersandpeasants.Therulesofthegame changed,removingthefocusfromelitistmaneuveringsontopopularpolitics. Somemembersofthereligiousleadershipwereforcedtoreconsidertheir traditional,quietistandadaptingposition.Thiswasnolongeradoctrinal dispute.Thewaysinwhichthereligiousestablishmentregulatedandinfluencedthecreationofmeaninginsocietywerenowbeingovertlythreatened. TheShahwascontemplatingandcarryingoutachangeinthemeaningand authorityofleadership.
IendthishistoricalsketchonthevergeoftheIslamicRevolutionin1979. MohammadRezaShahsucceededinalienatingmanymajorforcesinthe Iranianpublicsphere.Western-educatedintellectualsopposedhisauthoritarianreign, flockingtothebannerofMarxismandtowesternnotionsof humanrightsandruleoflaw.Traditionalists,includingclericsbutalso manybourgeoispractitionersofthe “freeprofessions” (engineering,medicine,lawetc)wereappalledbytheShah’srapidwesternizationpolicies.The economicelites,particularlytherichmerchantsandlandowners,opposed theShah’soppressiveeconomicregulationandpopulistnationalization policies.However,inthetraditionofIraniancoalitionrevolutions,thedifferentfactionsunitedaroundasinglesocioculturalmessageofrevolt.In thelate1970sthelanguagemostcapableofreachingalargemajorityofthe IranianpopulationwastheIslamicone,fullofreferencestoastruggle againsttyranny,emphasizingbothstrictsocialjustice(appealingtoMarxists)andhighlyprotectiveoftraditionaswellasprivateproperty(appealing tolandowners,tradersandtraditionalprofessionals).6 Themoreovertly politicalleadersoftherevolutionwerehappyforscholarlysupport,butdid notenvisionthetakeoverofgovernmentbythelastgroupafterthedepartureoftheShah.
HistoriesofIran – asurfeitofmeaningtocureallills
TheinstitutionalstructureoftheIslamicrepublichasbeenintentionallyleft outsidethescopeofthisstudy.TheIslamicrepublicisremarkablywelldocumentednotonlyinscholarlyfora,butinpublicationsprovidingdaily analysisandintheworkingpapersproducedbythinktanks,strategicteams etc.TheIslamicregimecontinuestoofferachallengetotheworldinits flagrantabuseofhumanrights;itselaborate,intricatemechanismsand divisionandpower;andinitsinsistenceonpresentingitselfasafull-fledged cultural,politicalandsocialalternativetotheglobalnormativestructure. ExploringtherevolutionandtheIslamicregimeindepthwouldhave eclipsedmyattempttoexploredimensionsoffaith,metaphorandcounterhistoriesinmodernShi’idiscourse.
Thisstudyarguesthatdominantanalysesoftheologicaldiscourse inmodernIran,adiscoursethoroughlypoliticalintheIRI,tendtoportray itasgroundedineitheraromantic,utopianmythorasthederivativeofa cynical,oftenmanipulativeattemptonthepartoftheclericstoclaimovert politicalauthority.However,themostsophisticatedanalysesofIranian historyandtheroleofShi’idiscoursewithinittendtoadoptathird approach,thatoflocatingthesubjectofanalysiswithinasurfeitofmeaning,asortofrelativistichistoricalcontextualismwhichshrugsoff notjust theologicaldiscourse,butallother “essentialist” discourseaswell.7
HamidDabashi,oneofthemostprominentscholarsofmodernIran,has recentlypublishedabook-lengthreviewofIranianhistoryoverthelast 200years.His “Iran:APeopleDisturbed”8 isalreadyanextremelyinfluential
andcontroversialwork.Intheintroductiontohisbook,hehasthefollowing tosayaboutmodernIranianhistory:
ThereisasenseofmisplacedmemoryaboutmodernIranianhistory, acollectivelyrepressednotionoftemporaryallocationofaspotinhistory,whereonecouldnotreallybelong.Itisasifthereisacommunal consensusamongIraniansthathistoryishappeningsomewhereelse, aplacewherewebelong,while(inthemeantime)wearestuckinthe makeshiftremissivespaceofsomewhereelse,somewherewethink wedon’tbelong,wedon’tdeserve.Thereisalwaysasuspendedsenseof waitingfortheothershoetodrop … Wesensethatwhenhistorywas abouttostartwewereroundedup.Marchedawayfromwherewewere, andleftsomewhereelse,somewherewedidnotwanttobe … ourpresenthistoryandourlivedexperiencesaretrappedandnarratedbetween thesetwopolaroppositesofatemporarilyborrowedpastandapermanentlypostponedfuture.IwishtoplacemodernIranianhistoryinbetween thosetwopoles – wherenohistorycanevenbegin,letaloneend.9
Dabashiwishesto: “… DiscardtheclichédcategorizationofIranasa countrycaughtbetweenabelligerenttraditionandanalienmodernity,and toadoptamorehistoricallynuanced,culturallymultifaceted,andmaterially groundedreadingofIran.”10
HecriticizestheIranianperceptionofhistory,assuspendedbetweentwo unattainableextremes,andlinksittowesternperceptionsofIranasaculturalpresenceexpressibleonlythroughmutuallyexclusiveculturalextremes. HiscureforthesegapsinbothIranianandgeneralperceptionliesinthe ever-increasingelaborationandsophisticationofhisexamination.Hewishes toshowthatIran,onitsownmerits,iscapableofsustainingthislevelof multidisciplinaryexaminationandnuance.Dabashioffershisbookasa polemicdefenseofthecomplexityofIran,ofitsirreducibilitytoanygeneral “understanding” orformula.Heperceivesthissophisticationasameritin itself,perhapstheultimatemerit.Byrefutinganyattemptatan “ essence ” withinthenarrativeofIranianhistory,DabashiwishestosecureIran’ s statusasafull-fledgedcommunity.
MohammadTavakoli-Targhi,thecurrentpresidentoftheInternational SocietyforIranianStudiesandoneoftheleadingintellectualhistoriansof Iran,expressesanevenmoreovertbeliefinthebene fitsofcontextualization. Hisbook, RefashioningIran, 11 isanattempttopresenttheintellectualhistoryofIraninthelatenineteenthandearlytwentieththcenturiesasarich, variedtapestryofhybridizedculturalsourcesandcross-influences.TavakoliTarghi’sprovidesaverybriefaccountofhismulti-focalhistoricalvoyagein the firstparagraphofhispreface:
RefashioningIran istheproductofanintellectualjourneythatbegan withtheIranianrevolutionof1979butwhichthendetouredinto
anexplorationofmodernity,Orientalism,nationalismandthewriting ofhistory.Dissatisfiedwiththeconventionalaccountsoftherevolution andmyowndissertationonthesubject,Ibegantoexplorethemakings ofmodernIranianidentity.Aninitialinquiryintothenarrativeidentity ofthenineteenthcenturyledmebacktoasetofIran-centered “dasatiri” texts(namedafter “Dasatir,” acollectionofwritingsattributedto ancientIraniansages)thatwereproducedbyanexilecommunityof ZoroastrianscholarswhohadsettledinIndiainthelatesixteenth century.These … texts,whichwerepopularizedbythelateeighteenthandearlynineteenth-centuryOrientalists,intensi fiedmycuriosityabout theformationofOrientalisnand “orientalStudies” inIndia.The inquiryintotheworksofearlyOrientalists,conversely,interestedmein Persianatescholarswhohadinformedandeducatedthese “pioneers.” ExploringtheworksofPersianscholarswhocollaboratedwithOrientalists,inturn,promptedmystudyofPersiantraveloguesonEurope. ExploringPersiantravelogues,onceagain,Icamefullcircleandfound myselfencounteringthethemesthatinformedtheconstitutionalistand revolutionarydiscoursesinIran.12
Tavakoli-Targhi’shistorychallenges “essentialist” understandingsofIranian histories,thoseconcernedwithgrandthemesofwesternization,retrenchment,andthedevelopmentandgrowthofinstitutionalpower.Hecriticizes anyattemptstosetIranianapartfromwesternsocieties,andisconcerned withpresentingthegradualevolutionofIranianidentityasaconstant engagementwiththeworldatlarge.Thisendeavorishighlysignificant. Thereisnodoubtthatoneofthe firstshortcomingsofOrientalisthistoryis itsreductionof “theOrient” toaone-dimensionalentity.Beingabletoplace Iranianhistoryinthisplethoraofcontextsandpointsoforiginenablesa perceptionofIranasarich,complexculturalandpoliticalentity.However, thiswealthcomesataprice.
Tavakoli-Targhi’shistoryisalways-alreadyadeferredhistory.Nothing carriesmeaningonitsownmerit,butalwaysinrelationtoanotherhistoricalorculturalphenomenon.Iamnotsuggestingthatitispossibleto captureahistoricalentity ’smeaningwhollyandexactly.Ido,however, wishtoobservethatthisaccountofhistorysacrificestheverybasicdesire formeaning,inthesenseofconsistentcoherence.Meaningisasecond-order entity,aderivativeofulteriorculturalforces,amereproductofthegrander narrativesofpolitics,socialrealityandculture.Iranianculturalandpolitical “self-sufficiency,” whichbothseemtodesire,13 comesintoexistenceonlyin thisdeferredmanner,itselfcobbledfromcountlesssourcesandinfluences.
Ihavenoargumentwiththenotionthathistory,andespeciallythehistory ofidentity,14 isexactlysuchaconsciousamalgamofinfluences,dataand analysis.However,Iwishtosuggestthatinthecaseofconsideringand evaluatingtheroleofareligiousdiscursivemovement,consideringthecreative roleoftheexperientialsearchformeaningcouldaddmuchtothediscussion.
ThescholarswhoparticipatedinthecreationofanIslamicideologywere motivated,Isubmit,bymorethanacon fluenceofculturalandpolitical forcesinoperationabovetheirheads.Theirconvictionswerebasedontheir definitionsoffaith,ofhumanidentityinaworldinfusedwithdivinepresence,ofhistoryunfoldingagainstthecontrastofthetimelessabsolute. Thesecategorieswerenotjustabstractidealstranslatedintodoctrinal imperatives.Theywereasmultifacetedandcomplexasthemachinationsof nationalismandpublicpolitics.Thesecategories,mostdominantlytheir perceptionofhumanself-assertionasemanatingfromcrisis,theirunderstandingofdiscourseasthecrucibleofamediatedhumanconceptionof truth,andtheirrealizationoffaithastheultimatemediatorofhistoryand transcendence,areverydifficulttoaccesswiththedeferred,multivocallanguagepresentedbyDabashiandTavakoli-Targhi.Theseconceptualizations operatewithinaframeworkofobligationandtradition,butreceivetheir viabilityfromaconstantsenseofcrisis,ofacategoricalmistake.Theirrealityandcoherenceisreaffirmedexactlybythiscrisis,asistheirpolitical intelligibilityandeffectiveness.TheyaddressneedsleftverymuchunansweredbystrategiessuchastheonesdeployedbyDabashi,Tavakoli-Targhi andotherprominentscholarsofIrananditsShi’idiscourse.
Historyandpersonalexperience
Inthissection,Ihopetopresenttwoexamplesofapproachesthatviewdifferentaspectsofpersonalexperienceassignificantfortheircoherenceand contributiontothestudyofandreflectiononhistory.Thisisbynomeansa systematicreviewofdisciplinaryliterature,asthesehistoricalendeavors rangefarandwideinscopeandsubjectmatter.15 Infact,anattemptto describeadiscourseof “experientialhistory” wouldbedetrimentaltothe challengethesehistoriesoffertomoreestablishedhistoricalparadigms. Experientialhistoriesdrawmuchoftheirstrengthfromthecasematter theyengagewith,highlightingdimensionsofmeaningoftenneglectedby moremainstreamaccounts.Thatis,experiencedoesnotplayanidentical constitutiveroleinallhistoricalphenomena,neitherisitsimilarlyunderplayedineveryhistoricalexamination.Thisstudyfocusesontheintellectual historyofareligiousmovementandonthenotionsofexistentialcrisisand faith,andmyexampleswilldealwiththesetopics.Thefollowingsectionis meanttoprovideanexampleofthemethodusedinthisstudy,quotingat lengthandinterjectingwithmyowncommentsandcommentarywithinthe quotedtext.
Historyascrisis
Concerningtheunderstandingofhistorywithandthroughcrisis,Martin Heideggermakesthefollowingmethodologicalstatementinhis Being andTime:
Adisciplineismatureonlyinsofarasitiscapableof ‘undergoing’ a crisisinallofitsbasicconceptsandprocedures.16
Thisis,forHeidegger,adesirablesituation.Itsfurtherimplication,that thecleardistinctionbetweenknowledgeandthewaysofknowingbecomes blurred,isalsoanindicationofdisciplinarymaturity.17 WalterDavis,inhis Deracination, 18 usesHeidegger’sdistinctiontosuggestatheoryofhistory basedontherecognitionofexperienceanditseffectonthehistorian.He focusesontheeffectofacatastrophicallytragicevent,inhiscasethe bombingofHiroshimainWorldWarII,onthewritingandunderstanding ofhistory.
Davisprovidesaninterestingdiscussionofalternativehistorieschallengingnotionsofhistoricalsensibilitieswhichhaddominatedthehistorical mainstreamoverdecadesandcenturies.Briefly,onemightgeneralizeand suggestthatthesedominantparadigmsincluded,amongothers,a firmbelief intheobjectivityofhistoricaltruthandthepriorityoffacts(overconcepts orimpressions).19 Againstthesedominantparadigms,Davislistsdevelopmentsinhistoricalknowledgewhichreshapedgeneralconceptionsofthe world,time,personalidentity,subjectivityetc.theseincludeMichel Foucault’sconceptofgenealogicalhistory;PaulRicoeur’stheoryoftime andnarrative;thecritiquesofAlthusserandGramsciwhichtakeonthe divisionsofpowerinmodernsocietyfromaMarxistperspective;thepsychoanalytical(mostlyLacanian)workofSlavoj Žižekandothers,thecritical historyoftheFrankfurtschooletc.Hethengoesontorefertovarious alternativehistoriesfocusingonrevealingthewaysinwhichdominanthistoricalpracticesexcludeddiverse “voices” whichchallengethemotivesand hegemonyofthemainstream. 20
Hisownmodel,however,doesnot fitneatlyintoanyofthecategories ofhistoricalinnovationhedescribesindetail.Hereferstothebombingof Hiroshimaasthe “inauguralpost-modernact.”21 Heseemstosuggestthat thebombchangedsomethinginthecollectiveAmericanpsyche.Thisevent nolongerallowedAmericanstolookawayfromthelessconsciousaspects oftheirculture,yetforcedthemtotryanddenytheseaspectsbecauseof theirhorror.Anexistentialcontradiction,anaporia,wasformedattheheart oftheAmericansenseofself.Davisusesthisaporiatosuggesttheneedand thechallengeofanewhistory.
Einsteinsaid “theBombchangedeverything – exceptthewayswe think.” Assuch,itistheinwardnessofourinwardness,nevermoreso perhapsthanwhenweusedeconstructiveironyasthemastertrope thatdeliversusfromtheburdenofahistoricallysituatedsubjectivityor, atthatoppositeextremethatamountstothesamething,whenwe reassertanessentialisthumanismasthe fixedanduniversalsystemof understandingandexplanationthatwashesuscleanofhistoryandits contingencies.Whatifwebrokewithbothstrategies – andratherthan
deconstructingtheBomborcontainingitwetriedto internalize itand thentracethewaysitexplodesandimplodeswithinthepsyche?22
Davisdescribesthedifficultiesexploredearlierinthisintroduction.Onthe onehand,deconstructionleavesuswithalways-alreadydeferredmeaning. Ontheotherhand,deconstructionrejectsanymeaningwhichcannotbe reconciledwithagrand,humanisticvisionofaharmonicworld.Hissuggestionseemstobethatbreakingoutofthisparadigminvolvesrecognition ofpersonalexperiencebothonthepartofthebomb’svictimsandonthe partofthehistorian:
Suchaneffortwouldtakeasitsgoalareconstitutionofthetragicas thedialecticalcategorythatprovidestheonlyadequateideafor comprehending – andexisting – inthepresent.Suchahumanism, however,confrontsasitspriorandprimarytaskaderacinationofthe systemofguarantees onwhichprevioushumanismshavedepended.For thefunctionofthatsystem,witharespecttohistory,hasbeento establish,ascanonsofresearchandexplanation,asetofessentialistic conceptsofmeaning,logicandhumannaturethatfunctiontoinsulate historiansandtheiraudiencessothathorrorcanneverbemorethanthe temporaryaberrationfromwhichwealways,ofnecessity,recover.23
Whilereligiousthoughtisbynomeanstreatedasterrorintheliteratureon theIslamicRevolution,itisclearlytreatedasananomaly.Mostoften,the revolutionissubsumedbyoneofthetwocategoriesDavisdescribes,sothat wemayrecoverfromitsanomalousthreatasquicklyaspossible.24 Anyrival system,hesuggests,wouldhavetostartattheverybeginningbytakingon thebasicconceptsofahumanistvision.Humanismmaybeestablished throughtheconsciousdismantlingofgrandideasorforcesinhistoryinto asurfeitofspecificdetails.Itmayalsooccurbyattemptingtorecollect inordertoreconcilebytracingall “aberrant” phenomenatocausesthat areultimatelyeffableintheprogressivelanguageofglobalhumanism, therebyreducingthesubversivepotentialofthesephenomenatoalmost nothing:
Thenarrationofhistorytherebybecomesyetanotheroccasionfor deploying – andtherebyreinforcing – thecentralbeliefsandvaluesof thehumanistictradition.Thattraditionthusprovidestheego,oridentity-principle,that “ we ” (thecommunityofhumanisticinterpreters) move “from” and “to” indealingwiththeeventsthatchallengeour certainties.Welovetoreadandwritehistoriesbecausesuchstoriestell uswhowealreadyknowweare,whileconvenientlyexorcizingthe threatofthoseaccountsthatwouldholdupadifferentmirrortoour nature.Historyis,indeed,a “fiction,” thecorpseoverwhichwewarm ourselvessothatwemayrisecleansed,catharted,thesystemofneeds,
beliefs,andguaranteesrestored – withexistencetheself-referenceperpetuallydeferred.25
Ournarrationofhistoryinthekeyofdeconstructionorreconciliationis,in effect,areaffirmationofwhowealreadyknowourselvestobe.Thereisno realdevelopmentorgrowththroughhistory,andnoaccesstothecollective orindividualpsyche.Ahumanisthistory,onethatshapesthewayinwhich weseetheworld,isastateofmindandnotjustarecounting.Historicityis aforcethatinstillsorderandproducesmeaningfromourexperiences.Yetit also,inviciouslycircularfashion,isshapedbyandforourexperiencesof theworld.Ifitlooksatthetragic,orinourcaseattheperfectinstability ofrevelation,mainstreamhistoricitywillvoiditsexperientialeffectonboth historiansandparticipants.
Whatif,instead,weapproachedhistoryasareality – andadisciplinein whichwemustriskourselvesutterly?Oneinwhichtoknowistosuffer irreversiblechangeinone’sbeliefs,values,andeveninone’ s “identity” withnothinginthelogosofthoughtabletoprotectusfromthatpossibility?Thereignofthe apriori wouldtherebycometoanend,theprincipleofhopeacategorywe’drisk,notonewe’dneedtorenewatwhatever cost.Couldsuchanengagementconstitutethetrue “forceandsignification” ofHiroshimaandtherebyevidencethateventsinhistoryare thetrue “Absolute” thatabidewithus – thegiftofthepasttothefuture asthatcallofconsciencerequiringofusnolessthanafundamentally newunderstandingofthehumanpsycheandthehumancondition?26
Davishasanaxetogrindwithmainstreamhistory’sinabilitytoengagewith thepsychoanalyticalunderstandingofexperience.Heseesthereaffirmation ofidentitythroughhistoricalwritingasacop-out,apreferenceofsterile safetyoveractualcommitment.Still,whileweneednotacceptallofhis conclusionsorpreferences,hismainpointstrikeshome.Whatifhistory couldbeexaminedinacontextthatdemandedrisk,againstcategoriesthat wouldundermineanddestabilizeourcategoricalunderstandingofourselves specificallybyappealingtoourdeepestlayersofselfandidentity?This questionisexaminedindepthwithinthefollowingstudy
Historyandfaith
Thenextexaminationofhistorythroughapersonalperspectivefocuseson therelationofhistoryandfaith.Thisisanexaminationundertakeninthe Jewishtheologicaltradition.Thistraditionwaschosenbecauseofthemany similaritiesitshareswithShi ’itheologyandreligiousthought.BothJewish andShi’itheologiesremainedbeyondthejurisdictionofinstitutionalpolitical establishment.EventhoughShi’ishaveruledIranoverthelast500years, Shi’iclericsconsciouslyavoidedtheassumptionofdirectpoliticalpower.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
JUNE 24.
This day, being St John’s Day, the king went in state to the Chapel Royal, Holyroodhouse, and there, after a solemn offertory, touched about a hundred persons for the king’s evil, ‘putting about every one of their necks a piece of gold, coined for the purpose, hung at a white silk riband.’—Bal.
On the same day, the city gave a banquet to the English nobility, ‘with music and much merriment. After dinner, the provost, bailies, and councillors, ilk are in others’ hands, with bare heads, cam dancing down the High Street with all sort of music, trumpeters, and drums. The nobles went to the king, and told him their entertainment, joy, and gladness, whereat the king was weel pleasit.’—Spal.
After a sporting tour by Linlithgow, Dunfermline, and Falkland, ‘his majesty came to Perth, and was weel receivit with tenscore of men for guard, all in white doublets and red breeks, with partisans. Mr William Bell delivered him a speech.... There was are sword-dance dancit to his majesty the morn after his coming, upon an island made of timmer on the water of Tay, and certain verses spoken to his majesty by ane boy, representing the person of the river Tay, and some conference in his majesty’s praise betwixt Tay and another representing Perth, made by Andrew Wilson, bailie.’—Chron.Perth.
JULY 8. 1633.
The king on this occasion lodged in the house which had belonged to the late Earl of Gowrie, and where his father had had a memorable adventure in 1600. The arrangement for the sworddance is more particularly described in the record of the corporation of glovers. His majesty ‘went down to the garden, and being set upon the wall next the water of Tay, whereupon was ane fleeting stage of timber clad about with birks, upon the whilk thirteen of this our calling of glovers, with green caps, silver strings, red ribbons, white shoes, and bells about their legs, shewing rapiers in their hands, and all other abulyiement, dancit our sword-dance, with
mony difficile knots, five being under and five above, upon their shoulders, three of them dancing through their feet and about them, drinking wine and breaking glasses. Whilk, God be praisit, was actit and done without hurt or skaith till any. Whilk drew us till great charges and expenses, amounting to the sum of 350 merks.’52
We have no actual account of Highlanders present on this occasion; but it fully appears that Charles, ten days before, caused a letter to be sent to the Laird of Glenurchy, desiring that there might be a ‘show and muster’ of that class of his subjects at Perth, ‘in their country habit and best order.’ The laird was requested to ‘single out and convene a number of [his] friends, followers, and dependers, men personable for stature, and in their best array and equipage, with trews, bows, dorlochs [swords], and others their ordinary weapons and furniture, and to send them to the burgh of Perth,’ for the king’s contentment.53
If these mountaineers made their appearance as requested, there must have been precisely the same mixture of Highland and more civilised costumes at Perth on this occasion, as was presented in Edinburgh at the visit of George IV. in 1822.
On his return to Edinburgh, the king crossed the Firth of Forth, in fair weather; nevertheless, a boat perished in his sight, containing thirty-five of his domestics, all of whom excepting two were drowned.54 ‘His majesty’s silver plate and household stuff perished with the rest; a pitiful sight, no doubt, to the king and the haill beholders ... betokening great troubles to fall betwixt the king and his subjects, as after does appear.’—Spal.
JULY 10. 1633.
The aged Marquis of Huntly desired to take advantage of the king’s presence in Scotland to interest him in the affair of Frendraught; but in his journey from the north to Edinburgh he fell sick at Candechyll, a country-house he had on Dee-side, and could go no further. ‘He sent his lady with the Lady Aboyne [his daughter-in-law] to complain
JULY 12.
unto his majesty anent the fire of Frendraught; who took their own time as commodiously as they could, and, accompanied with some other ladies in mourning weed, pitifully told the king of the murder ... humbly craving at his hands justice. The king with great patience heard this complaint, whilk he bewailed, comforted the ladies the best way he could, and promised justice.’ They could get no more for the present, but humbly took their leave at the king, and returned to their lodgings. Spal.
This mourning procession for justice was in imitation of similar incidents which took place while James lived in Holyrood. The two ladies were not altogether unsuccessful, as they did not return from Edinburgh till they had urged on the trial of John Meldrum, and seen him executed. He ‘died but any certain or real confession, as was said, anent this doleful fire.’—Spal.
The king left Edinburgh on the 13th of July, on his journey to London. ‘It is said his majesty commendit our Scottish enterteinment and brave behaviour, albeit some lords grudgit with him.’—Spal.
Licence was given to one Edward Graham to have the keeping of a camel belonging to the king, and to take the animal throughout the kingdom that it might be shewn to the people, ‘by tuck of drum or sound of trumpet, from time to time, without trouble or let,’ he and his servants engaging to behave themselves modestly, and not exhibit the camel on the Sabbath-day. P.C.R.
JULY 30. Aug. 19.
The moral wildness which still clung to the Highlands was evinced by a rude incident which happened in the course of a deer-stalking adventure of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie and his eldest son.
Having gone into the savage wilderness at the head of Strathaven, the two gentlemen suddenly lighted upon a party of natives, believed to be of the Clan Chattan, who were sleeping upon the hillside. Suspecting these men to be rogues, the two gentlemen shot at them, and wounded one. The men then set upon Gordon and his son, and killed both, but not before two more of their party had fallen. The servants of the Gordons then retreated to give an alarm.
When Dunkintie’s second son soon after came to the spot with a few friends, he found his father’s and brother’s bodies lying on the ground, beside one of the slain Highlanders, while the other two slain men were very cunningly buried in one hole. The young man piously disposed the bodies of his father and brother in two chests, to be taken to Elgin for interment. Then cutting off the head of one of the Highlanders, he caused it to be erected on a pointed stick, and carried before the coffins on their way to the grave. ‘Upon the 22d day of August, with great lamentation, they were buried within the Marquis’s Aisle, and immediately thereafter this limmer’s head was set up on ane iron stob, upon the end of the Tolbooth of Elgin, in example of others to do the like.’
The Marquis of Huntly took the death of these his near relatives greatly to heart, and used his utmost influence to detect the offenders and bring them to justice, but in vain: ‘some thought this strange that the great marquis should see his blood destroyed without trial or reparation.’—Spal.
The parish of Duddingstone, near Edinburgh, had for its pastor Mr Robert Monteath, who came to have a strange history. Of Arminian tendencies, and perhaps further infected with Romanism from his parishioner the Marchioness of Abercorn, he incurred the enmity of the Calvinists in consequence of pasquinading
them. Such a walk as his would have required great circumspection; he, on the contrary, fell under the serious blame of adultery with the wife of another parishioner, Sir James Hamilton of Priestfield. The unfortunate minister fled to France, there joined the Catholic church, and attached himself to the service, first of M. de la Porte, Grand Prior of France, and afterwards of the famous Cardinal du Retz, who, forming a high opinion of his talents, bestowed on him a canonry in Notre Dame. He wrote Histoire desTroublesdelaGrande Brétagne depuisl’an1633jusques1649(Paris, fol. 1661), of which an English translation appeared in 1735, bearing the words ‘by Robert Monteth of Salmonet.’ It is told of him that, on arriving in France, being asked of what family he was, and finding that ‘blood’ was essential to his prospering there, he described himself as one of the Monteaths of Salmonet—a word that sounded well, while the fact was that his father was a mere fisherman (user of a salmon-net) on the Forth at Stirling; but another account denies this story, and makes Salmonet a real house of that age, and one in tolerable esteem, being a branch of the Monteaths of Kerse.
William Coke and Alison Dick were burnt for witchcraft on the sands of Kirkcaldy. An account, which has been preserved in the session records of the parish, of the expenses incurred on the occasion, reveals some parts of the process of witch-prosecution, including the lamentable fact of the concern borne in such matters by the ministers of religion. There is first paid, for thekirk’spart, £17, 10s., composed as follows: Mr John Miller, when he went to Preston for a man to try them, £2, 7s.; to the man of Culross, when he went away the first time [probably a pricker], 12s.; for coals for the witches, £1, 4s.; in purchasing the commission, £9, 3s.; for one to go to Finmouth for the laird to sit upon their assize as judge, 6s.; for harden to be jumps to them, £3, 10s.; for making of them, 8s. Then, of the town’s part, for ten loads of coal to burn them, 5 merks, £3, 6s. 8d.; for a tar-barrel, 14s.; for tows, 6s.; to him that brought the
executioner, £2, 18s.; to the executioner for his pains, £8, 14s.; for his expenses here, 16s. 4d.; for one to go to Finmouth for the laird, 6s.; in all, £17, 1s. Sum of the expense, £34, 11s. Scots.
James Smith, ‘servitor to the Earl of Winton,’ having to build some houses in the village of Seaton, found that he could not obtain the proper timber required without sending for it to Norway. It occurred to him that the wood might most conveniently be paid for by sending thirtysix bolls of wheat of his own growth, the one article to be exchanged against the other. This was a very rational idea; but how to carry it out? In those days, exportation, as already explained, was a thing generally unpopular, as being supposed to cause scarcity at home; and the sending out of corn was forbidden by particular laws. It affords a curious idea of the difficulties which might then attend the simplest movements in life, through the efficacy of erroneous doctrines in political economy, that James Smith had to petition the government before he could get the Norwegian timber for those houses about to be built at Seaton. By favour probably of the Earl of Winton, who sat in the Council, he was permitted to export the thirty-six bolls of wheat to ‘Birren [Bergen] in Norway.’—P.C.R.
1634. MAR. 25.
AR.
Thomas Menzies, burgess of Aberdeen, who had been driven into exile on account of popery some years before, now petitioned the king for leave to return for a few months, to dispose of his estate and recover some money owing to him, in order ‘that he may abandon the kingdom, without staying any longer to give offence to the present professed religion.’ The king, seeing that Thomas had comported himself modestly during his exile, was pleased to recommend the case to his Scottish Council, by whom the necessary permission and protection were granted. P.C.R.
A fulmination took place in the Privy Council concerning the south-country papists. They gave final decision in the case of Robert Rig, wright at the Brig-end of Dumfries, who had been more than once before the presbytery of that district for marrying Elspeth Maxwell, ‘ane excommunicat papist.’ Robert, on being questioned, owned that ‘he was married by a popish priest, upon the 17th of November last, being Sunday, at night, with candle-light, above the bridge of Cluden, in the fields, and that four were present at the marriage, beside the priest, whereof some were men and some were women, whom he knew not, because they had their faces covered.’ Mr Thomas Ramsay, minister of Dumfries, was present to support the proceedings of the presbytery in the case. Robert himself was full of contrition, and humbly craved pardon for his offence. The lords, having fully considered everything, found that ‘Robert Rig has violat and contravened the laws of this kingdom, in marrying ane excommunicat woman, by a priest who has no power to exerce any function within this kingdom,’ and they sentenced him to be imprisoned during their pleasure in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh; ‘no person from the said Elspeth Maxwell, his wife, to have access to him by word or write.’
JUNE 3. 1634.
The Council, soon after, had in hands the case of Elspeth herself, who for some time had been expiating her candle-light nuptials by imprisonment in Dumfries jail. A group of people, fourteen of them women, mostly wives of tradesmen in Dumfries, were also now or had lately been, prisoners in the same jail, ‘for hearing of mass and being present thereat sundry times within thir twelvemonths bygane, as their confessions bears.’ The Council ordered that all these people should be ‘exhibit’ before them, on a certain day, ‘to the intent such order may be ta’en with them as may give terror to others to commit the like.’
In obedience to the charge of the Council, Mr Thomas Ramsay, minister of Dumfries, and John Williamson, one of the bailies, appeared on the 3d of July, and exhibitednearly the whole of these
delinquents. Eight ‘declared that they were heartily sorrowful for the scandal they had given to the kirk by hearing of mass, and craved pardon for the same;’ adding a faithful promise ‘in all time coming to obey the laws, and for that effect to resort to the kirk, hear preachings and to communicate, and that they should not hear mass nor reset Jesuits.’ These were commanded to remain in their lodgings in Edinburgh till further orders. Seven, wholly women, ‘refused to conform to the religion presently professed within the kingdom; in respect whereof, the Lords ordains them to be committed to ward within the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, therein to remain upon their awn expenses till they be freed and relieved by the said Lords.’ Five days after, the whole were committed to the hands of Patrick, Archbishop of Glasgow, to be dealt with as he might think fit.’—P.C.R.
Walter, first Earl of Buccleuch, who had died in London towards the close of the preceding year, was buried in the magnificent manner then customary. His body, having been embalmed, was sent down to Scotland ‘in one John Simpson’s ship of Kirkcaldy;’ but the ship, meeting a storm, was driven to the coast of Norway, and only with great difficulty, and after a long delay, reached Leith. After resting twenty days in the church there, the corpse ‘were thence, by his honourable friends, transported to his awn house of Branxholm, where they remained till the 11th of June,’ when the funeral was at length solemnly effected at Hawick.
JUNE 11. 1634.
A striking sight it must have been, that long heraldic procession which went before the body of the deceased noble, along the banks of the Teviot, on that bright June day. First were forty-six saulies in black gowns and hoods, with black staves in their hands, headed by one called a conductor, who was attended by an old man in a mourning-gown; a trumpeter in the Buccleuch livery following, and sounding his
trumpet. Next came Robert Scott of Howshaw, fully armed, riding on a fair horse, and carrying on the point of a lance a little banner of the defunct’s colours, azure and or. Then a horse in black, led by a lackey in mourning, a horse with a crimson velvet foot-mantle, and ‘three trumpets in mourning on foot, sounding sadly.’ Then, the great gumpheon of black taffeta carried on a lance, the deceased’s spurs carried by Walter Scott of Lauchope, his sword borne by Andrew Scott of Broadmeadows, his gauntlets by Francis Scott of Castleside, and his coat of honour by Mr Lawrence Scott.
The next great section of the procession was a purely heraldic display. Eight gentlemen of the Clan Scott bore each the coat of arms of one of the various paternal and maternal ancestors of the defunct. Other gentlemen of the name—Scott of Harden, Scott of Scotstarvet, &c.—carried the great pencil, the deceased’s standard, his coronet, and his ‘arms in metal and colour.’ Near whom were three more trumpets, and three pursuivants, all in mourning. ‘Last of all cam the corps, carried under a fair pall of black velvet, decked with arms, larmes [tears], and cipress of sattin, knopt with gold, and on the coffin the defunct’s helmet and coronet, overlaid with cipress, to shew that he was a soldier. And so in this order, with the conduct of many honourable friends, marched they from Branxholm to Hawick Church, where, after the funeral-sermon ended, the corps were interred amongst his ancestors.’55
JUNE 14.
An arrangement was made by royal authority for putting the sale of tobacco under some restriction, so as to insure that only a good and wholesome article should be presented to the public. Sir James Leslie, knight, and Thomas Dalmahoy, servant to the Marquis of Hamilton, were to sell licences to retailers, and account to the royal revenue for the proceeds, as might be arranged between the parties. Thus it was hoped that the great abuses from ‘the ungoverned sale and
immoderate use of tobacco’ might be abated.—P . C. R. Numberless entries in the Record shew that great difficulty was experienced in carrying out this arrangement.
JUNE 19. 1634.
The Privy Council had under its consideration a supplication from the Bishops of Orkney and Caithness, setting forth the miserable condition to which those districts were like to be reduced by famine. Owing to tempestuous weather, the corns of the bypast year had not filled, or proved answerable to the people’s expectation, ‘the boll of aits in many parts not giving ane peck of meal.’ In the consequent deficiency of seed, ‘the thrid rig lyeth unsown, and in many parts the half is not sown.’ Even now, from the scarcity of victual, ‘multitudes die in the open fields, and there is none to bury them, but where the minister goeth furth with his man to bury them where they are found. The ground,’ it was said, ‘yields them no corns, and the sea affords no fishes unto them as it wont to do. The picture of Death is seen in the faces of many. Some devour the sea-ware, some eat dogs, some steal fowls. Of nine in a family, seven at once died, the husband and wife expiring at one time. Many are reduced to that extremity that they are forced to steal, and thereafter are execut, and some have desperately run in the sea and drowned themselves. So great is the famine, that the people of mean estate have nothing, and those of greater rank nothing that they can spare.’
The lords recommended the case of these poor people to the charity of their countrymen generally. P . C. R. Supplies of food were soon after sent, but not in time or quantity to save a deplorable mortality.
