We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Sadeq Hedayat's life and works have been subjected to numerous comments and criticisms of both a general and particular nature. But, with the possible exception of The Blind Owl, there have been very few detailed studies of his individual short stories. This has created two major defects in the understanding of the man and his works: on the one hand, it has resulted in a serious neglect of many of Hedayat's stories which are well worth studying in their own right; and, on the other hand, it has contributed to an imbalance in the overall assessment of his socio-literary achievements. Indeed, it can be argued that a full appreciation of The Blind Owl itself is not quite possible without a careful study of Hedayat's earlier and--to some extent--later works.
The author is grateful to John Gurney and William Hanaway for their helpful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper, although the usual disclaimers are in order.
1. This is typical of Hedayat's psycho-fictional works only.
2. The author has apparently misunderstood the Hafiz verse from which the latter quotation comes. He does not seem to be aware of its implicit reference to Hallāj, and he interprets it so as to mean that the seeker must always ask for advice before he reveals the “secrets”! See, “Mardi-i keh nafsash ra kusht” [“The Man Who Killed His Passionate Self”] in Se qatreh khūn [Three Drops of Blood]. Tehran: Parastu Books, 1344 (1965), p. 200.Google Scholar
3. This was still true of the position of a schoolmaster in the few and still elitist colleges of modern education in Tehran.
4. Op. cit., p. 198.
5. This may be another example of structural fault, though it may also represent a touch of realism, or even cynicism, on the author's part.
6. Wa man qatala nafsin ˓amdan fajiza˓ihū Jahannam!
7. E.g., J. W. Clinton, in The Literary Review: Iran, pp. 38-52.
8. It is rather strange that he had had to wait for the sheikh's guidance to take such an obvious course of action, or to find it suggested in the writings of classical theorists and practitioners. This may be yet another “technical flaw” or further evidence for the author's lack of interest in telling a technically consistent story (as opposed to reflecting on the subject matter). In this connection, it is even more strange when we read that a week after Hussein Ali had received his guidance, he was pondering upon “the twelve years” in which “he had subjected himself to suffering and hardship.” See Mardī ka, op. cit., p. 204.
9. Mardī ka, op. cit., p. 196.
10. The fact that the sheikh “happens to be” an Arabic master is not without significance since we know that the author had a strong antipathy towards the Arab nation, Arabic language and the Islamic impact on the development of Persian society.
11. See “sīn gāf lām lām” (“S.G.L.L.“) in Sāgeh rushan (chiaroscuro). Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1342 (1963), p. 23.Google Scholar
12. See “Arusak-i pusht-i pardeh” [“Puppet Behind the Curtain”], Sayeh rushan, op. cit., pp. 79-96.
13. See “Bunbast” [“Dead End”] in Sag-i vilgard [stray Dog]. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1342 (1963), p. 55.Google Scholar
14. See “Zindeh beh gūr” [“Buried Alive”]. in zindeh beh gūr [Buried Alive]. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1342 (1963).Google Scholar
15. Mardi keh…, op. cit., p. 204.
16. Ibid., p. 209.
17. See “Tarīk-khāneh” (“The House of Darkness”), in Sag-i Vilgard, op. cit., pp. 127-141.
