Rostam Slays the White Elephant

Mohl’s continuous text begins with garden drinking, Zal’s instruction to reward the guests, distribution and sleep. Moscow Appendix X and Khaleghi’s below-main-text narrative preserve this fuller early-feat sequence; Ganjoor has no corresponding section.

The English retains service to guests before the display of strength. Wine is an actual circumstance of the scene, not a word the analyst can remove to make the hero’s behavior more exemplary. The text moves from a controlled distribution to an uncontrolled emergency.

Return to parallel text

The alarm concerns the commander’s escaped white elephant. The keepers fear their master’s blame if they release the boy; Rostam kills one in anger, disperses the rest and breaks the fastenings.

The English preserves an ethically significant act carried by the fuller Persian tradition. The killing is not an accidental synonym for pushing a guard aside. Rescuing the people from the animal does not erase the death of a dependent attempting to obey orders.

Return to parallel text

Mohl describes a mountain-like beast, a raised trunk, the heavy mace and collapse like Bistun, followed by Rostam’s return to sleep.

The English sustains the traditional scale and the One Blow inheritance without turning the animal into a moral villain. “Drunken” or maddened elephant language belongs to a conventional account of dangerous animal fury; the commentary need not assign the beast a cup of wine because the humans have been drinking.

Return to parallel text

The morning report precedes Zal’s regret for a battle-proven elephant, then his embrace and recognition of extraordinary youthful strength.

The English correctly keeps “Alas.” The elephant is a loss to the household’s military resources even though its immediate rampage had to be stopped. The father’s mixed response is more precise than either unqualified condemnation or uncomplicated celebration.

Return to parallel text

Zal directs an unknown young Rostam toward the fort associated with Nariman’s death. Mohl gives the four-farsang height and breadth, crops, water, people, livestock and a single high approach.

The English’s large dimensions are transmitted epic magnification, not a measurement to be certified on a present-day map. The agricultural abundance explains why ordinary siege cannot succeed: the problem is sustained supply, not merely thick stone.

Return to parallel text

The account recalls Nariman’s campaign under Fereydoon, his death by a stone, the army’s retreat and Sahm’s prolonged but unsuccessful siege.

The English preserves two failed generations instead of allowing the hero’s triumph to float free of family history. Their inability to starve the fort out is central to the next proposal. The text’s time spans magnify futility; they are not a siege log independently verified by another source.

Return to parallel text

Zal proposes a caravan because the defenders have not yet heard the youth’s name; Rostam agrees to obey.

The English’s emphasis on acting before fame spreads gives the ruse a definite window of opportunity. Cunning is not introduced to excuse a lack of strength: it answers the kind of obstacle strength alone has already failed to remove.

Return to parallel text

The plan specifies camel-driver clothing and salt alone as merchandise because the fortress values it and needs it for food.

The English’s final formulation gives the stratagem a lucid economic basis. A fort rich in water and crops can still depend on exchange for one necessary item. This is the actual mechanism of entry, not a magical opening of the gate by the strength of the hero’s name.

Return to parallel text