Analysis
From looking at the representations of artifacts, it is evident that slaying the dragon is symbolic of solving problems we face in our lives. Dragons are not always physical creatures, they represent temptation and distraction (Pierce 2015). This and the fact that the dragon in my chosen Shahnameh passage was not clearly illustrates by Ferdowsi symbolizes how the dragon represented evil and hardship in the world. Moreover, the article explains how “in Indian myth the dragon slayer was a warrior god and how in Zoroastrian myth the dragon slayers are supernatural heroes”(Pierce 2015). This shows that when heroes conquer a dragon which is really a problem in life, they are considered very brave. However, in the Shahnameh passage, Sekandar poisoning the cows shows his shrewdness which is also a form of bravery. Another similar story occurs in Persian folktale called the story of Ardasir. In this story, King Ardasir is challenged by Kerman (Márkus-Takeshita, 2001). A dragon has promised the Persian Empire to Kerman and Ardasir uses his trickery to defeat him. He enters Kerman’s castle disguised as a merchant who is there to feed the dragon. Ardasir feeds the dragon molten metal instead of rice and wins the battle. This demonstrates how in Persian literature, it is common to use strategy as a tactic. Another similar story that connects to my artifacts occurs in the final fight between Isfandiyar and Rustam. Ultimately, when Rustam is very badly wounded by Isfandiyar, he gets an idea from the Simorgh telling him to aim the arrow at Isfandiyar so that he can blind him and win (Pierce, 2015). This demonstrates how he used strategy in combat by hitting him in his weakest spot, his eyes. Going for the soft spots in combat is also something that was depicted in the folio of Rustam killing the dragon since he goes for his neck and his horse hits him in the shoulder.
This demonstrates how taking a different avenue and concealing intentions helps people get ahead in life. We can see that poisoning dragons was also a tactic employed by Sekandar when he fills the cows with poison so the dragon can eat them. This was also the same strategy employed by Daniel (de Bruyn, 2015) . The theme here is that it takes a lot of bravery to fight in hand to hand combat but it also takes bravery to fight using strategy. The other artifacts featuring Isfandiyar and Rustam demonstrate the differences between both types of combat. We compare the expressions of the faces of the people in all 3 paintings. When Isfandiyar kills the dragon, the people are in dismay and scared. When Rustam kills the dragon he is very immersed in the situation. When Daniel outsmarts the dragon, the people all look somber. This shows that although the tactic of strategy involves a lot of waiting and anticipation, it will not cause as much stress as the tactic of brute force. Another key aspect to notice is that Isfandiyar lost two of his horses and his carriage with the brute force strategy. When using mental tactics, the losses are far less.
Another reason why the dragon is symbolic is because in both the stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar slaying the dragon are on a path. For example, Rustam killing the dragon was the third of his seven trials on the way to save Kay Kuvus. Here the dragon represents the trails and tribulations that one faces in life when they are working towards a goal. They were revered and written about because they were able to overcome the difficulties that life brought.