Iranian merchants, artists, and scholars had an almost continuous presence in the Ottoman Empire from its very beginnings in the thirteenth century. After the Arab provinces were added to the empire in the sixteenth century, their numbers were further augmented by pilgrims on their way to the holy cities of the Hijaz and Iraq. As such, in terms of actual numbers, during any period of its history there were probably more Iranians resident in the Ottoman Empire than from any other foreign state. This assertion, however, cannot be proven empirically, for before the nineteenth century the Ottoman sultans did not recognize the Iranians as constituting a “nation” along the model they had established for the European communities resident in the empire.

La plus belle charge de la cour, c'est la faveur.

Safavid historiography has oscillated between admiration and vilification in its appraisal of Shah ‘Abbas II's reign (1642-1666). In the accounts of contemporary observers—for the most part European travelers—one finds favorable descriptions of the shah and his court as part of a positive assessment of the overall state of the country. Impressed by the hospitality they enjoyed at the court of Isfahan, these foreign visitors spoke highly of a magnanimous and tolerant monarch; moreover, the absence of rebellion and relatively secure roads prompted them to refer to Iran as a prosperous and stable country. Those who visited Iran within a generation after the shah's death corroborated this image; indeed, in their narratives one already finds an element of nostalgia for the days of ‘Abbas II.

In January 1988, the Speaker of Parliament, Hojjat al-Islam ‘ Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, delivered a lengthy Friday sermon (khuţbah) in which he discussed a “very important message” previously issued by the “leader,” Ayatollah Khomeini. The message, as expounded by Rafsanjani, was a reiteration of Khomeini's well-known views on the nature and function of Islamic Government and, specifically, on the duties and privileges of the ulama as the political leaders of the Muslim community. The gist of the sermon was that “it is the jurists (fuqahā’) who determine the Muslims’ way of life under every condition and at any given time.” In a world where “people extract economic minerals from the depths of the earth,” where “war is waged for the conquest of space and Mars,” and where “atom [bombs] are built … as weapons of intimidation,” the Qur'an could not provide answers to all problems and issues.

When a historian decides to use literary texts to help construct a past, these texts can present some interesting theoretical and methodological problems. One theoretical question that concerns both historians and literary scholars is that of genre. Generic considerations are of primary importance for the historian as he or she sifts through such diverse kinds of material as personal diaries, government documents, field reports of inspection teams, and books of doctrine or practice. The historian knows what to expect of each sort of document and by virtue of this familiarity is able to notice, for example, unexpected additions, omissions, or subtle deviations from the expected norms. This awareness of generic considerations often becomes second nature to us as we work with familiar types of material.

But, alas, the specialized fields and disciplinary training of historians and literary scholars can obscure for them the generic characteristics of texts that they do not ordinarily work with.

Gary Sick's latest book, October Surprise, has been frequently cited, less widely read, guardedly praised and savagely criticized in the last year, during which it has also led to two ongoing Congressional investigations. Such a book was undoubtedly the farthest thing from his mind when he retired from distinguished service with the U.S. Navy and began to write his first book, All Fall Down. First published in 1985 (it was republished in 1986 with a 15-page introduction), All Fall Down chronicled, on the basis of Sick's first-hand experience as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and following his subsequent research into the question, the most complete and accurate account to date of the Carter administration's policies toward Iran. All Fall Down was voted one of the eleven best books of 1985 by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.