What is it, then, that we see here elucidated? Just conceive. For the last
three thousand years and more, the learning of the world has been employed
to ascertain the _origin_ of the doctrine of Budhism. The savants of
France, the indefatigable inquirers of Germany, the affected pedants of
Greece and Rome, and the pure and profound philosophers of ancient India
and Egypt, have severally and ineffectually puzzled themselves to dive
into the secrets of that mystic religion.[118]
“The conflicting opinions,” says Coleman, “which have prevailed among the
most intelligent Oriental writers, respecting the origin and antiquity of
this and the Jaina sects, and the little historical light that has yet
been afforded to disperse the darkness that ages have spread over them,
leave us, at the end of many learned disquisitions, involved in almost as
many doubts as when we commenced upon them.”
“There was, then,” adds Gentil, “in those parts of India, and principally
on the coast of Choromandel and Ceylon, a sort of worship the precepts of
which we are quite unacquainted with. The god Baouth, of whom at present
they know no more in India than the name, was the object of this worship;
but it is now _totally_ abolished, except that there may possibly yet be
found some families of Indians who have remained faithful to Baouth, and
do not acknowledge the religion of the Brahmins, and who are on that
account separated from and despised by the other castes.... I made various
inquiries concerning this singular figure, and the Zamulians one and all
assured me that this was the god Baouth, who was now no longer regarded,
for that his worship and his festivals had been abolished ever since the
Brahmins had made themselves masters of the people’s faith.”
“The worship of Budha,” says Heeren, “concerning the rise and progress of
which we at present know so little, still flourishes in Ceylon.” Again,
“All that we know with certainty of Budha is, that he was the founder of a
sect which must formerly have prevailed over a considerable part of India,
but whose tenets and forms of worship were in direct opposition to those
of the Brahmins, and engendered a deadly hate between the two parties,
which terminated in the expulsion of the Budhists from the country.”[119]
“The real time,” say the _Asiat. Res._ viii. p. 505, “at which Budha
propagated the doctrines ascribed to him, is a desideratum which the
learned knowledge and indefatigable research of Sir W. Jones have still
left to be satisfactorily ascertained.”
“If the Budhaic religion,” says the _Westminster Review_ of January 1830,
“really arrived at predominance in India, its _rise_ in the first place,
and more especially its _extirpation_, are not merely events of stupendous
_magnitude_, but of impenetrable mystery.”
It will soon appear, that however _impenetrable_ heretofore, it is so no
longer. Indeed, a great deal of the principle of their _faith_ has been at
all times understood, but under different associations. It was that which
Job alluded to when he said, “If I gazed upon Orus (the sun) when he was
shining, or upon Järêcha (the moon) when rising in her glory; and my heart
went secretly after them, and my hand kissed my mouth (in worship), I
should have denied the God that is above.”
So far all have arrived at the discovery of this creed, and accordingly,
if you look into any encyclopedia or depository of science for a
definition of the word “Budhism,” you will be told that “it is the
doctrine of solar worship as taught by Budha.” There never was such a
person as Budha--I mean at the outset of the religion, when it first shot
into life, and that was almost as early as the creation of man. In later
times, however, several enthusiasts assumed the name, and personified in
themselves the faith they represented. But the origin of the religion was
an _abstract thought_, which while Creuzer allows, yet he must acknowledge
his ignorance of what that _thought_ was.
The sun and moon were the great objects of religious veneration to fallen
man in the ancient world. Each country assumed a suitable form to their
propensities and peculiarities; but all agreed in centering the essence of
their zeal upon those resplendent orbs to whom they were indebted for so
many common benefits. Those mysteries of faith to which the “_initiated_”
alone had access, and which were disguised in the habiliments of symbols
and of veils, were neither more nor less than representative forms of
_generation_ and _production_. These were the _theme_ which made the
canopy of the firmament to ring with their songs; and these the _spring_
which gave vigour and elasticity to those graceful displays which, under
the name of _dances_, typified the circular and semicircular rotations of
those bright objects of their regard.[120]
The Eleusinian[121] rites themselves were essentially of this kind; for
though the benefits of _agriculture_ were said to be chiefly there
commemorated, this after all resolves itself into the above: for as the
process of the earth’s bearing is similar to that of our own species, and
indeed of all creatures that rest upon her,--no seed bringing forth fruit
until, as the apostle has affirmed,[122] it first dies,--the
representation of this miracle of nature’s vicissitudes led the mind to
the contemplation of general fecundity. And hence the _culture_ of the
ground, and the _propagation_ of human beings, being both viewed in the
same light, and sometimes even named by the same epithet, viz. _tillage_,
were inculcated no less as beneficial exercises than as religious
ordinances. Did a doubt remain as to the accuracy of this connection
between the worship of the ancients and their sexual correspondence, it
would be more than removed by attending to the import of the terms by
which they mystified those celebrations, and which, with the sanctity
attached to the _parts_ themselves, will come consecutively under our
review. One of them, however, is too apposite to be omitted here, and that
is the term by which they designated a certain ceremony still practised on
the coast of Guinea, and which neither the _blandishments_ of _artifice_
nor the _terrors_ of _menace_ could ever prevail upon them to divulge.
This ceremony they call _Belli-Paaro_. The meaning they assign to it is
_regeneration_, or the act of reviving from _death_ to a new state of
existence; and when we see that the name itself is but an inflection of
the _Baal-Peor_ of the Scriptures, the _Baal-Phearagh_ of our forefathers,
and the _Copulative deity_ of the amative universe, it will not be hard to
dive into its character, though so shrouded in types.
But the Budhists, not content with this ordinary veneration, or with
paying homage in _secret_ to that symbol of production which all other
classes of idolators equally, though privately, worshipped,--I mean the
Lingam,--thought they could never carry their zeal sufficiently far,
unless they erected it into an _idol_ of more than colossal
magnitude--_and those idols were the Round Towers_. Hence the name
_Budhism_, which I thus define, viz. _that species of idolatry which
worshipped Budh_ (_i.e._ the Lingam), _as the emblem_ of _Budh_ (_i.e._
the Sun)--Budh signifying, indiscriminately, Sun and Lingam.
Such was the whole substance of this philosophical creed, which was
not--as may have been imagined--a _ritual of sensuality_, but a _manual of
devotion_, as simple in its exercise as it was pious in its intent--a
Sabian veneration and a symbolical gratitude. I shall now give a summary
of their moral code, couched in the following Pentalogue, as presented by
Zaradobeira, chief Rahan at Ava, to a Catholic bishop, who expressed a
wish some years ago to be favoured with a brief outline of their tenets;
it is this:--
1. Thou shalt not kill any animal--from the meanest insect up to man
himself.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
4. Thou shalt not tell anything false.
5. Thou shalt not drink any intoxicating liquor.
The extension of this first commandment from the crime of homicide to the
deprivation of life of any breathing existence, arose from their doctrine
of the transmigration of souls, which they believed should continue ever
in action, and, after release from one tenement of earthly configuration,
enter into some other of a different species and order.
In this incessant alternation--which was to be one of _ascent_ or of
_descent_, according to the merits of the _body_, which the spirit had
_last_ animated, and which was all considered as a sort of lustral
crucible, for the refining of the vital spark against its reunion with the
Godhead, whence it had originally derived--it is manifest that such
tenderness for the entire animal creation arose from the apprehension of
slaying some relation in that disguise.--Or, did we ascribe it to no
higher motive than a sympathy with fellow-creatures, which, if not equally
responsible, are at all events susceptible of anguish and of pain, this in
itself should teach us to suppress all ebullitions of irreverent sarcasm,
and, if we yield not our acquiescence, to extend to it at least our
commiseration.
“Pain not the ant that drags the grain along the ground,
It has life, and life is sweet and delightful to all to whom it
belongs.”[123]
The _good works_ which they were _additionally_ enjoined to perform were
classified under the two heads of _Dana_ and _Bavana_. By “_Dana_” was
meant the _giving of alms_, and hence the whole fraternity were called
_Danaans_ or _Almoners_.[124] By “_Bavana_” was understood the
_thoughtfully pronouncing_ those three words, _Anuzza_, _Docha_, and
_Anatta_: of which the first implies our liability to _vicissitude_; the
second to _misfortune_, and the third our _inability_ to exempt ourselves
from either.[125]
The exposition of the terms _Tuath_ and _de_, as prefixes to _Danaans_,
forming with it the compound Tuath-de-danaan, I shall reserve for a more
befitting place. Meantime I hasten to redeem my “pledge” as to the
elucidation of the import of the name _Hibernian_.
In the wide range of literary disquisition there is no one topic which has
so engrossed the investigation of studious individuals as the origin of
the word _Hibernia_. The great Bochart, the uncertain Vallancy, the
spiteful Macpherson, the pompous O’Flaherty, and the “antiquary of
antiquaries,” Camden himself,--with a thousand others unworthy of
recognition,--have been all consecutively shipwrecked upon its
unapproachable sand-banks. But the most miserable failure of all is that
of a namesake of my own, _the author of a dictionary upon the language of
his country_, who, in his mad zeal for an outlandish conceit, foists into
his book a term with which our language owns no kindred, and then builds
upon that a superstructure which “would make even the angels weep.”
This gentleman would fain make out[126] that, because those islands have
been denominated the _Cassiterides_, or _Tin Reservoirs_, therefore Eirin,
our own one of them, must have been so called as an _Iron Store_!
forgetting that the genius of our vocabulary has never had a term whereby
to express that _metal_ at all,--that by which we now designate it,
namely, _iarun_, being only a modern _coinage_ from the English word,--as
the general voice of antiquity speaks trumpet-tongued on the point, and
the fragments of our Brehon laws give it insuperable confirmation, that
_iron_ was the last metal which mankind has turned to profit, or even
known to exist, while with us it was an exotic until a very recent
period.[127]
But admitting that _Eirin_ or _Erin_ did signify _the Land of Iron_, then
its Greek formation _Ierne_ must convey the same idea, and so must
_Hibernia_, their Latin inflection; and it would afford me a considerable
portion of merriment to behold any champion for this _iron-cased_ knight
buckle on his _etymological_ armour, and analyse these two last terms so
as to make them indicate the _Land of Iron_.
Yet pitiable as this appears, for the author of an Irish dictionary, its
ingenuity, at all events, must screen it from contempt. But how will the
public estimate the brightness of that man’s intellect, who would state
that _Erin_ is but a _metempsychosis_ of the word _Green_? Will it be
believed that such is the sober utterance of the author of the _Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire_? But lest I should misrepresent, I shall let
him speak for himself, viz.: “Ireland, from its luxuriant vegetation,
obtained the epithet _Green_, and has preserved, with a slight alteration,
the name _Erin_.”[128]
So that a country which piques itself on its _Irishry_, has remained ever
without a cognomen, until the _English_ language has been _matured_; and
then, in compliment to her sister, Britain, has borrowed an adjective from
her _rainbow_, which, however, she had not the good manners to preserve
pure, but allowed to degenerate so far, that the sagacity of a conjurer
could not trace any resemblance between this _vitiation_ and the _original
epithet_ which pourtrayed her _verdure_!
Have we not here the solution of that general disbelief which attaches to
proofs deduced from etymology? It is so in all professions, when quacks
break into the fold, and usurp the office of the legitimate practitioner.
Etymology, in itself, is an exalted _science_, and an _unerring standard_;
but the mountebanks that have intermeddled with her holy tools, and
disjointed the symmetry of her fair proportions, knowing no more of the
_foundation_ of _languages_ than they do of the _origin_ of _spirit_, have
sunk it into a _pandemonium_ of _hackling_, _mangling_, and _laceration_,
at which “the satirist,” perhaps, may laugh, but “the philosopher,” who
has any regard for the right thinking of society, and the implanting in
the tender mind a correct idea of words, at a moment when impressions are
so wrought as to be _ineffaceable_, will feel differently on the subject;
and, if he cannot _reform_, do all that he can to _expose_ it!
How opposite has been the conduct of the learned Abbé MacGeoghegan as to
the origin of this abstruse word! After reviewing in his able work[129]
the opinions offered by the several persons who wrote before him upon the
question, and none of them giving him satisfaction, he freely
acknowledges, when unable to supply the deficiency, that “the derivation
of this name is unknown.” He was right; but the spell is at last broken.
As a sequel to this avowal, I must be allowed to quote at full length the
extract from Avienus,[130] which has been already referred to--
“Ast hinc, duobus in _Sacram_--sic _Insulam_
Dixere _prisci_--solibus cursus rati est;
Hæc inter undas multum cespitem jacit;
Eamque latè gens _Hibernorum_ colit,
Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet,”--
that is, two days’ sail will take you thence (from the Sorlings) to the
_Sacred Island_; as so denominated by the _men of old_. A rich gleby soil
distinguishes this favourite of the waters; and the race of the
_Hibernians_ cultivate it in its wide extent. Close by, again, is situated
the isle of the Albiones.
Without dwelling upon the importance which he attaches to this “Sacred
Island,” while he disposes of England in one single line, I ask any person
at all conversant with letters, whether it was as a vernacular epithet, or
not rather in compliance with his _hexameters_ and the rules of metrical
versification, which rendered inconvenient the exhibition of the _name
itself_ that the poet paraphrased its meaning, and gave _insula sacra_ as
its equivalent?
Is not the country inhabited by the Gauls called Gallia; that occupied by
the Britons, Britannia; that possessed by the Indians, India; that peopled
by the Germans, Germania; and that tenanted by the Arcadians, Arcadia?
Consequently, the land inhabited by the people styled _Hibernians_ must,
by universal analogy, be denominated _Hibernia_. And if this signifies
“Sacred Island,” of course “Hibernian” must mean “an inhabitant of the
Sacred Island.”
Avienus wrote about the three hundredth year of the Christian era, and
cites the authorities whence he derived his information to the following
purpose, viz.:--
“Himilco, the Phœnician, has recorded that he has himself traversed the
ocean, and with his own eyes and senses verified those facts. From the
_remote_ annals of the Phœnicians I copy the same, and present them to you
as handed down from antiquity.”
Himilco, be it remarked, flourished six hundred years before the name of
Christianity was mentioned in the world; and when his acquaintance with
this isle, and that of his countrymen in general, is thus irrefutably
premised, we shall be the more ready to do justice to that observation
made by Tacitus, when, in his _Life of Agricola_, talking of Ireland
relatively to England, he affirmed that “her coasts and harbours were
better known, through commerce and mercantile negotiation,” than those of
the latter country.[131]
Why do I introduce this notice here? To show that it was not to the Latins
Avienus was indebted for his _insight_ into that term, which we thus
pursue. The Romans knew nothing even of the _situation_ of the place that
bore it, until their avarice and their rapacity brought their eagles to
Britain; and, after effecting the subjugation of that heroic island, it is
no small incentive to our vanity to see their historian constrained to
confess that the exhibition of a similar project against the liberties of
Ireland was more with a view to overawe, than from any hopes of
succeeding;[132] while the ignorance which he evinces in another clause of
that very sentence, whence the above extract has been quoted,--placing
Ireland _midway_ between Spain and England,--is proof incontrovertible of
the position which has been assumed.
But it is to me immaterial whether Avienus was aware or otherwise that
“Hibernia” and “Sacred Island” were convertible and synonymous. It is not
by his authority that I mean to establish the fact; for even admitting his
cognisance of the identity of these two terms, he must yet of _necessity_
be unacquainted with the _root_ whence they _both_ had sprung; and,
accordingly, I have only put him here in the foreground--as has been the
plan all through--“to break the ice,” as it were, for the exordium of the
promised _dénouement_.
_Iran_, then, and _Irin_, or, as more correctly spelled, _Eirean_ and
_Eirin_, with an _e_ prefixed to each of the other vowels, as well initial
as intermediate, is the characteristic denomination which all our ancient
_manuscripts_ affix to this country. There is no exception to this
admitted rule. From the romance to the annal, the observation holds good;
it is an _inalienable_ landmark, and of _inviolable_ unanimity.
Dionysius of Sicily, who wrote about fifty years before the _Advent_, and
who cannot be suspected of much partiality towards our forefathers, calls
the land they inhabited by the name of _Irin_.[133] Nor will the
circumstance of his applying to it in another place, the variation _Iris_,
detract from this fact; as it is evident that he only manufactured this
latter, having occasion to use a nominative case which he thought that
_Irin_ would not well represent, and so, with the lubricity of a Greek,
ever sacrificing sense to sound,[134] he gave birth to a conception which
_strangled_ the original.[135]
In the _Life of Gildas_, an early and eminent English ecclesiastic, we
find it called _Iren_, when the biographer, talking of the proficiency
made by his subject in literary pursuits, says that he betook himself to
_Ireland_, which he designates as above, in order to ascertain, by
communion with kindred teachers, the very utmost recesses of theology and
philosophy.[136]
Ordericus Vitalis, in his _Ecclesiastical History_,[137] having occasion
to mention the _Irish_, calls them by the name of _Irenses_, equivalent to
_Iranians_, that is _inhabitants_ of _Iran_, _Iren_, or _Irin_, whichever
of them you happen to prefer. And as these are now established as the
_basis_ of our general search, I shall address myself without further
digression to their syllabic analysis.
To do this the more effectually, and at the same time to comprise within
one dissertation what otherwise might encroach upon two, it is to be
noticed that the country known in the present day as _Persia_, and whither
our labours will be directed at no distant hour, was by its _primitive_
inhabitants called _Iran_ also, and spelled as ours, with an initial _E_.
The prefixing of this letter, in both instances of its occurrence, whether
we regard the _Eastern_ or the _Western_ hemisphere, was neither the
result of chance, nor intended as an operative in the import of the term.
It was a mere _dialectal_ distinction, appertaining to the court-language
of the dynasty of the times, and what is astoundingly miraculous, retains
the same appellation, with literal precision, unimpaired, unadulterated,
in both countries, up to the moment in which I write.
_Palahvi_[138] is the appellation of this courtly dialect in _Persia_, and
_Palahver_ is the epithet assigned to it in _Ireland_; and such is the
softness and mellifluence of its enchanting tones, and its energy also,
that to soothe care, to excite sensibility, or to stimulate heroism, it
may properly be designated as “the language of the gods.”
Thus we see that Ireland and Persia were both called _Iran_; that both
equally admitted of the change of this name to _Eiran_; and that the
_style_ of this variation was similarly characterised in both. How, then,
will the _empyrics_ of etymology recover their confusion: they who would
persuade us that Ireland was so denominated from _Iar_, the
_West_--unless, indeed, they can substitute _East_ for _West_, and show
that Persia was denominated from _Iar_ also.[139] Entangled in this
dilemma, the amiable old General Vallancy, without intimating, however,
that _it_ was what extorted his remark,--after rigidly maintaining through
a series of volumes, that the word had its origin in the above exploded
_Western_ Will o’ the Wisp,--exclaims, in a sentiment of unconscious
self-conviction, that “nothing more can be said of this derivation than
that the name was common to that part of the globe whence they (who
imported it) originally came.”[140]
Arrived, then, at length, at the _fountain-head_ of our inquiry, how shall
we account for it in “that part of the globe whence we originally came”? I
have seen but two efforts to develop the word, as applied to that
quarter: one by Professor Heeren, of the Göttingen University; the other
by “a learned priest of the Parsees,” as recorded by Sir John Malcolm, the
late lamented author of a history of the place itself. And as the former
of these is rather _humorous_, and as the latter contains in it a small
_ingredient of truth_, it is worth while to parade them in the _tail_ of
our inspection.
“Anciently,” says the professor, “they were called by the Orientals
themselves by the common term of _Iran_, and the inhabitants, inasmuch as
they possessed _fixed_ habitations and laws, were styled _Iranians_, in
opposition to the _Turanians_, or _wandering_ hordes of Central
Asia.”[141]
I wonder did the German _historian_ take his cue from the conjecture of
the Irish _lexicographer_? It is literally marvellous if he did not; for,
by a most unaccountable coincidence, while tracing the foundation of a
name, descriptive of two localities at opposite points of this mundane
ball, one boldly asserts, and the other more than insinuates, that its
root is to be found in one and the same _English_ word!--and this, too,
when those countries were blazing in glory, before three words of the
English language were broken into train!
A difference, however, breaks out amongst those partners, which seems to
sever the prospects of their _metallic_ union. It is, that though each
would make _iron_ to be the substratum of their respective hobbies, yet
would _my namesake_ have his so called as _abounding_ therein; whereas,
the _professor_, who betrays a respectable insight into geology, and
fearing that the womb of _Persia_ could not conceive so hard an ore,
wishes us at once to believe that it acquired its _ancient_ epithet from
the _fixedness_ of that metal; and thus would one _ex abundantiâ_, and the
other _ex similitudine_, have the common name of _Iran_ for Ireland and
for Persia be derived from an _English_ word, which was not concocted for
many centuries after the _decay_ of those two regions, when the very metal
it represented first grew into use![142]
“Moullah Feroze, an excellent Palahvi scholar, tells me,” says Sir John
Malcolm, “that _Iran_ is the plural of _Eir_, and means _the country of
believers_.” And again, when he had occasion to consult his oracle, he
states the answer as follows:--
“I gave this inscription[143] to Moullah Feroze, a learned priest of the
Parsees, at Bombay, and he assured me that the translation of De Sacy was
correct. Feroze explained the word _An-Iran_ to mean _unbelievers_. _Eer_,
he informed me, was a Pehlivi word, which signified _believer_; _Eeran_
was its plural: in Pehlivi, the _a_ or _an_ prefixed is a privative, as in
Greek or Sanscrit; and consequently, _An-Eeran_ meant _unbelievers_. The
king of _Eeran_ and _An-Eeran_ he interpreted to mean king of _believers_
and _unbelievers_; _of_ Persia and other nations. It was, he said, a title
like king of the world. This however,” adds Sir John, of himself, “is like
all _conjectures_ founded on etymology, very uncertain.”
It was natural enough that Sir John should express himself slightingly as
to a mode of proof, the principle of which he must have seen violated in
so many instances; and, independently of this, it is an infirmity in human
nature to affect disregard for any knowledge which we do not ourselves
understand. I do not mean, however, to vindicate Feroze’s interpretation;
on the contrary, I purpose to show that it is not only _imperfect_, but
_incorrect_; yet while doing so, I am bound to acknowledge, that, if he
has not hit off the whole truth, he has a part of it; and even _this_ is
such a treat, in the wilderness through which we have been groping for
some time back, that I welcome it as an _oasis_, and offer him my thanks
thus beforehand.
To prove however, that he is in error, I need but confine myself to the
unravelling of his own words. At first he affirms that _Eeran_ is the
plural of _Eer_, and means the _country of believers_; if so, the singular
must mean _the country of a believer_; but he tells us afterwards, that
_Eer_ signifies _a believer_ alone, consequently _Eeran_ must _believers_
alone, without any consideration of the word _country_. And the same
inconsistency, which manifests itself here, applies with equal strictness
to _An-Eiran_ also.
Should these papers ever reach the observance of this distinguished
foreigner, whom I appreciate even for his _approximation_ to the precincts
of the _thought_, they will, I doubt not, readily disabuse him of a
_radical_ misconception. _Eeran_ is not a _plural_ at all, but a
_compound_ word: its constituents being _Eer_ and _An_,[144] of which the
former signifies _Sacred_ and the latter a _Territory_. So that the united
import will be the _Sacred Territory_; and _An-Eeran_, of course, is but
its negative.
This exposition I gain from the Irish language, which I take to be the
primitive Iranian or Persic language. By it I am furthermore enabled to
inform the _German_ “professor” that _Turan_, though now inhabited by
“Nomad tribes,” obtained not its name from that circumstance, but from a
widely different one. Tur[145] means _prolific_, whether as regards
_population_ or _rural produce_; and _An_, as before, a territory--the
whole betokening a _prolific territory_.[146] And he should remember, what
he is not at all unconscious of, that eastern denominations are not varied
by recent occupants, but continue in uninterrupted succession, from age to
age, as imposed at the outset.