[Sidenote: [457-489 A.D.]]
Upon the death of Yezdegerd II (457) a quarrel seems to have broken
out immediately between his sons, Hormuzd III, king (that is to say,
“prince-satrap”) of Sagastan, and Peroz, who were the children of one
mother, Dinak by name. Hormuzd, the elder, held his ground for a while,
but at the end of two years Peroz supplanted him by the help of the
Hephthalites and the active exertions of Raham, of the noble house of
Mihran. He caused three others of his nearest kinsmen to be put to death,
as well as his brother. He, again, was hostile to Christians and Jews,
but he had political insight enough to favour the conversion of his
Christian subjects to the doctrines of Nestorius, which had been banished
as archheresy from the Roman Empire. At the synod held at Beth Lapat in
the year 483 or 484, the ancient Christian church of the Persian Empire
adopted the Nestorian confession; and being thenceforward separated
by a great gulf from the Roman Christians, was consequently even less
dangerous to the state than it had been before.
But, as a matter of fact, Christianity in Persia had never been really
much of a menace to the country. The Armenians on the other hand joined
the monophysites, who had a large party in the Roman Empire and often had
the upper hand there.
Whether the Hephthalites wanted heavier payment for their assistance
than had been previously agreed upon, or whether Peroz did not keep
promises he had actually made, the end was that great conflicts ensued
between them and the Persians. Peroz won some victories; but in the
desert country east of the Caspian Sea the conduct of war is hampered
by enormous difficulties. Twice he was compelled to conclude peace on
unfavourable terms, once at least he himself fell into the hands of his
enemies, and for two years his son Kavadh had to remain in the enemy’s
camp as a hostage for the payment of his heavy ransom. Nevertheless
Peroz was perpetually breaking the pledges he had given. In 484 he
took the field with a large army. A tremendous battle ensued, in which
Peroz perished among the unrecognised slain. His daughter was among the
prisoners, and the king of the Hephthalites took her into his harem.
Evil days were now in store for Persia. The victors overran the
country. For a time there was no king. Presently, however, Zarmihr, of
the powerful house of the Karen, succeeded in restoring order in the
empire. At the time of Peroz’s death this man had been in Armenia, which
had rebelled again, and had almost completed its subjugation. He then
hastened to the capital and installed Balash, a brother of the late
ruler, as king. In all probability he afterward entered into negotiations
with the victorious enemy, and bought him off with a yearly tribute.
A brother of Balash, Zareh by name, who likewise aspired to the crown,
was defeated and slain. The king, however, had but little authority. He
was obliged to induce the Armenians to submit by allowing them to exclude
the state religion of Persia from their country altogether. The praise
which the Syrians and the Armenians render to Balash’s clemency may
perhaps have no other foundation than his disagreements with the priests
of Zoroaster. The enmity thus aroused proved fatal to him. His treasury,
of course, was empty, so that he could neither form a party among the
nobles nor attach an army to himself; and in 488 or 489 the priests went
so far as to have him blinded and so made incapable of governing. For
according to the law of Persia no man could be king who was not whole and
sound in body and mind.
KAVADH I
[Sidenote: [489-506 A.D.]]
His nephew, Kavadh I, the son of Peroz, was set in his place. He found
the empire in a state of great disorder. We hear of revolts of savage
mountain tribes, and of another rebellion in Armenia. Kavadh, who had no
inclination to play the obedient servant to the tyrants who had raised
him to the throne, adopted a dangerous method of weakening the power
of priests and nobles; for he favoured Mazdak, a zealous preacher of
religious-socialistic doctrines, who demanded in the name of justice that
he who was blest with riches and possessed of many wives should give of
his superfluity to those who were in want. Nor did he rest satisfied with
the theory, for many of his disciples distributed their wives and goods.
But the nobles and clergy united to depose Kavadh, imprisoned him in the
“castle of oblivion,” and bestowed the crown on his brother Jamasp (about
496). Kavadh, however, escaped, and fled to the Hephthalites, among whom
he had formerly lived as a hostage. The king gave him his daughter to
wife, the child of that sister of Kavadh who had been taken in battle;
and by the help of the barbarian prince he succeeded in overthrowing
Jamasp and once more becoming king of Persia (498 or 499). His flight and
restoration appear to have been favoured by some of the most powerful
nobles. According to Persian tradition Zarmihr actually accompanied him
into exile, but such testimony as we have concerning this man and the
flight to the Hephthalites is so confused that we can place no reliance
upon it. Certain it is that after his return the king visited his enemies
with severe chastisement. Presumably he abandoned Zarmihr about that
time, for he handed him over to his most formidable rival, Sapor, of the
house of Mihran. It is not likely that Kavadh then resumed his experiment
with the Mazdakites.
NEW CONFLICT WITH ROME
He had certainly reduced the empire to tolerable order by the time the
war with the Romans began. There had been much treating over terms, both
parties had violated compacts more or less, and the only question was
whether either of them was desirous of finding a _casus belli_. This was
the case with Kavadh. In the summer of 502 he inaugurated that era of
hideous strife which so reduced the strength of both Persia and Eastern
Rome as to make possible the subsequent victories of the Arabs. In August
he took Theodosiopolis (Karin or Erzerum), the capital of Roman Armenia,
without a blow. On the 10th of January, 503, Amida fell after a three
months’ siege, and was frightfully punished for its resistance. Myriads
of the inhabitants were slaughtered, as we know from the good accounts we
have in existing contemporary Syrian sources.
In this war, of which very full contemporary accounts have come down to
us, especially from Syrian sources, the Roman operations were conducted
without the necessary energy, and lacked the direction of a single
commander. Mesopotamia was fearfully ravaged. In 504 the Romans regained
possession of Amida, after a long siege, by treaty, or more correctly
speaking by purchase. After many battles and sieges peace was concluded
in the August of 506, a peace which left everything _in statu quo ante_.
The Romans once more undertook to pay an annual contribution towards the
maintenance of the fortifications in the Caucasus. The Persians are said
to have been induced to conclude peace by a war with the “Huns.”
[Sidenote: [506-554 A.D.]]
From the vague fashion in which the Greek authors of that time use the
word “Huns” we cannot tell which of the tribes of northern barbarians is
here meant. That Kavadh was at this time involved in serious difficulties
at home or abroad may be inferred from the fact that he did not forcibly
prevent a gross violation of the treaty of peace on the part of the
emperor Anastasius, who converted the little village of Dara, close upon
the frontier, into a great fortress intended to keep Nisibis in check.
There was no further outbreak of hostilities during the life-time of
Anastasius; but Justin I (July the 9th, 518-August the 1st, 527) appears
to have intermitted the payment of the moneys stipulated to Persia.
In return Kavadh incited the Arabs to make predatory raids into Roman
territory, and Roman troops once more invaded and ravaged Armenia. In
addition, violent quarrels arose about the Caucaso-Pontic districts,
over which both sides claimed dominion. This time, however, Kavadh was
little disposed towards war; perhaps he had realised that he could
hardly hope to gain any permanent advantage. In the perpetual renewal
of negotiations he had only one main object in view; he was anxious to
procure the succession for Chosroes, the best beloved of his sons and
certainly the most capable of ruling the empire, although he was not the
eldest; and for this purpose he wished for a kind of guarantee from the
emperor, which should take the form of an adoption of Chosroes by the
latter. Negotiations concerning this and other matters were carried on at
Nisibis. If matters went as they are represented to have gone, the Romans
acted most perversely; in any case the negotiations had no other result
than to put both parties out of humour. The chiefs of the Roman embassy
escaped with no worse than degradation, the Persians were executed,
though personally they deserved well of the king. These negotiations took
place in 525 or 526; the war began again before the death of Justin.
There was hard fighting on the frontier as early as the summer of 527,
the Romans making a vain assault on Nisibis, and the Persians an equally
fruitless attempt on Dara.
EXPLOITS OF MUNDHIR
In these many years of war, with frequent pauses for negotiation,
Belisarius first comes into prominence as a commander. One noteworthy
event, among others, is Mundhir’s great invasion of Syria. This Mundhir
was the Arab vassal-prince of Hira, of the same line as the prince of the
same name. He seems before this to have grown so powerful as to rouse
Kavadh’s apprehensions, and the latter therefore deprived him, either
wholly or in part, of his dominions for a time, in favour of Harith, a
member of the much-ramified family of the Kinda kings. The statement
that this event bore some relation to the Mazdakite troubles is hardly
probable.
On the outbreak of the war with Rome, however, Kavadh restored the whole
of his former dominions to the tried warrior Mundhir. In the spring of
529 the latter invaded Syria, laid the whole country waste as far as
Antioch, and carried off troops of captives that he might secure their
ransom. He was a savage who in one day slaughtered four hundred nuns from
a Syrian nunnery in honour of his goddess Zuhara (the planet Venus). In
the same year his rival Harith went to war with him, and Mundhir caused
a number of members of the princely family of Kinda, who had fallen into
his hands, to be put to death at Hira. For half a century he was the
terror of Roman subjects, troubling himself little to inquire whether
peace prevailed or not, till at length he fell in battle against the
Roman prince of the Arabs, Harith, the son of Jabala (June, 554), whose
captive son he had likewise sacrificed to Zuhara.
[Sidenote: [531-540 A.D.]]
It was Mundhir who induced Kavadh, after an interval, to undertake a
campaign in Syria itself (531). The Persians advanced far to the north
along the right bank of the Euphrates, but were compelled to retreat by
Belisarius. A battle was fought at Callinicus (Rakka), near the frontier
that is, in which Belisarius was totally defeated; but the Persian
commander was nevertheless obliged to return home. The Persians gained
some successes in Mesopotamia the same year, and had almost reduced the
great fortress of Martyropolis (Maiferkat, Arabic Mayafarikin) when
tidings came of the death of the king, and brought about a truce.
A few years before his death Kavadh had brought the Mazdakites to a
horrible end. The sect seems to have grown so powerful that it could
no longer be tolerated; for, in spite of all its theoretic idealism it
threatened to subvert the foundations of society and the state. The
catastrophe, which was accompanied by lavish bloodshed, took place in 528
or 529, under the orders of Prince Chosroes, acting in agreement with the
king.
Kavadh died on the 13th of September, 531, aged eighty-two. He certainly
destined Chosroes for his successor; and according to a report we may
well credit, he had him crowned on his death-bed. Chosroes I (Chosrau),
who bears the surname of _Anosharvan_, “the blessed,” was undoubtedly
a great king. It is true that he was by no means the ideal king that
Orientals make him out to have been, but neither does he bear the title
of “the just” without due reason.
CHOSROES “THE JUST”
The negotiation taken in hand on his accession led in the course of a
year to an “eternal peace” (September, 532). The Romans agreed to make
a large annual payment and other concessions, the Persians gave up some
castles in Lazistan (the ancient Colchis, at the eastern extremity of
the Black Sea). The conclusion of peace was evidently a matter of great
moment to the Persian king. He probably availed himself at once of this
breathing space to protect his frontiers from barbarians of all kinds.
Tradition is certainly right in attributing to him comprehensive measures
for the defence of the Caucasus and northeastern frontier, among which
was the forcible transplantation of unruly tribes.
In a few years he felt himself strong enough to take up hostilities
against the Romans once more. Perhaps he really feared that the result of
the success of Justinian’s arms in Italy and Africa would be to make the
Roman Empire too strong for him. No doubt the messengers sent by Witiges,
king of the Goths, had painted the perils which would ensue to Persia
from them in the liveliest colours. He probably found an incitement even
more powerful in the fact that the Armenian nobles, who had rebelled in
consequence of many acts of injustice, applied to him for aid although
they were Christians.
CHOSROES ATTACKS ROME
[Sidenote: [540-551 A.D.]]
There was no lack of petty violations of the treaty by one side or the
other; the Arabs on both sides alone took good care of that. At all
events Chosroes was this time eager for war, and he therefore started
early in the year 540 to invade Syria as Sapor I had done. He passed
by the strongly fortified cities which bought him off by the payment
of large sums, those which offered resistance he took. This fate fell
heaviest upon Antiochia, the metropolis. The army left it laden with
booty, which included many works of art. He burned the city and carried
off its inhabitants. After advancing to the shores of the “Roman” Sea, he
continued his victorious progress through northern Syria and Mesopotamia,
from west to east. The fortress of Dara, which had always been an eyesore
to the Persians because it had been built in contravention of the treaty,
was obliged to purchase safety at a price. None went free without payment
except the inhabitants of Carrhæ, who, being still heathen, might be
supposed to entertain sympathy for the non-Christian empire. At the end
of the summer he reached Ctesiphon again, without having encountered any
open resistance in the field.
In the second year of the war Chosroes marched to Lazistan at the request
of the inhabitants, penetrated to the Black Sea, and there took the
strong fortress of Petra. The struggle was continued for several years
in Mesopotamia with variable fortune. In 546 a truce was concluded for
five years on payment of a large sum of money by the Romans. But Lazistan
territory was excluded from the operation of the truce, both then and in
553, when the armistice was prolonged for a further period of five years.
The Arabs of the two empires also continued to fight with one another.
Not until 556 was the armistice extended to Lazistan, the Roman arms
having made some progress in the meantime, and about Christmas, 562, a
peace was concluded for fifty years.
The Romans again pledged themselves to pay a considerable sum every
year, the Persians resigned their claims to Lazistan, but the question
of who should possess the neighbouring province of Suania remained
undecided. Our information concerning the articles of this peace happens
to be exceptionally detailed; one important provision is that, though
stipulating for full religious liberty for Persian Christians, the Romans
recognise that they are prohibited from proselytising among Zoroastrians;
and consequently that severe punishment inflicted for the infringement of
this prohibition does not constitute a violation of the articles of peace.
In the attempt to conquer Yemen (about 570) we have in actual fact a
somewhat wild undertaking. The country had been occupied in 525 by the
Christian Abyssinians. A prince of Yemen besought Chosroes to aid him in
delivering the country from the negroes. After some hesitation the king
despatched a small force under Vahriz by sea, which actually succeeded
in overcoming the feeble resistance of the Abyssinian army and bringing
the country into subjection to the king. It remained nominally under
the sovereignty of Persia until it became Moslem, but the empire reaped
no advantage from this remote province beyond a certainly scanty and
probably irregular tribute.
A country to which the sea offered the only convenient approach could be
of no use to a race so utterly ignorant of navigation as the Persians,
and we find no vestige of sea-borne traffic between Yemen and Persia.
Chosroes may indeed have had some idea of diverting commercial advantages
from the Romans and procuring them for the Persians, just as in other
respects commercial interests play their part in the hostile and amicable
relations of the empire; as was done, for instance, and to a very great
extent, by the silk trade with the interior of Asia.
[Sidenote: [551-578 A.D.]]
The king was not exempt from strife within the borders of his dominions.
About 551 his son Anoshazadh, who for some offence had been banished to
Susiana, hearing that his father was seriously ill, proclaimed himself
king and persisted in his rebellion. He relied upon the Christians, his
mother’s co-religionists, but was soon overcome and taken prisoner. He
was not executed, but merely rendered ineligible for the throne by a
slight facial disfigurement.
In the later years of his life Chosroes was again involved in war with
the Romans, who this time allied themselves with the Turkish chagan, now
a formidable foe of Persia. The Persians did all they could to prevent
intercourse between him and the Romans. The Romans likewise complained
of the destruction of the Christian kingdom of Yemen. But these were
secondary considerations. Even the refusal of the emperor, Justin II
(November 14th, 565-6, to October, 578), to pay to Persia the sum
stipulated by treaty would probably not have led to a direct rupture.
But the Persians could not tamely submit to see the whole of Armenia
become Roman. Armenian nobles were once more contemplating rebellion;
the clergy and the fanatical mob raised a tumult when it was proposed to
erect a temple of Fire at Dovin, the capital, and Suren, a Persian, was
slain (spring of 571). The rebels turned to Constantinople; the king of
Iberia (to the north of Armenia) did likewise. The incompetent emperor
imagined that both countries might fall to Rome again, and took them
under his protection. It was the signal for war. Excellent as are the
contemporary reports of this war which have come down to us, we have no
complete and chronologically exact summary of its progress. At the very
beginning Nisibis was besieged to no purpose by the Romans; Chosroes,
on the other hand, took Dara after a six months’ siege (573), while
his general, Adharmahan, invaded Syria by way of the right bank of the
Euphrates, and there perpetrated ravages similar to those for which his
master had been responsible in 540. He destroyed Apamea and carried the
inhabitants away into captivity. After marching through Mesopotamia he
joined forces with the king before Dara. Some of the captives he settled
in New Antioch.
Tiberius, who directed the government at Constantinople in concert with
the empress Sophia and was formally appointed co-regent on the 7th of
December, 574, was anxious for peace. But even the conclusion of a truce
for three years did not bring about real tranquillity, as Armenia was not
included in the armistice. Early in the year 575 Chosroes marched through
Armenia and penetrated a long way towards Cappadocia. He was obliged to
withdraw before the Roman troops, who actually plundered his camp, but
could not prevent him from burning Sebastia and Melitene and getting
safely home. His Roman pursuers occupied a great part of Persian Armenia
and wintered there, but were driven out of it in the following year.
That the Romans displayed no more humanity than the Persians is clear
from the fact that they carried off even the Christian inhabitants of
the Persian border-provinces of Arzanene, and considered it a singular
favour to assign dwelling-places to them in Cyprus (577). Negotiations
for peace were set on foot again and again. After recent experiences the
Roman claims to Persian Armenia and Iberia were readily renounced at
Constantinople. On the point of honour that the temporal and spiritual
nobles of Armenia who had taken refuge at Constantinople should not be
handed over to the vengeance of the Persians, an understanding might
also have been arrived at. Dara was still a great stumbling-block, the
Romans insisting on its restoration, with excellent reason. For all that,
peace would probably have been concluded if Chosroes had not died (about
February, 579) shortly after Tiberius had become sole monarch (October
4th or 6th, 578).
HORMUZD IV
[Sidenote: [578-590 A.D.]]
The new king, Hormuzd IV, son of Chosroes and the daughter of the
Turkish chagan, was haughty and enterprising. It produced an unpleasant
impression at Constantinople that he sent no notification of his
accession thither, for even in time of war announcements of this sort
had been ceremoniously made by both courts. Altogether Greek authors
criticise Hormuzd very unfavourably, and even Persian tradition testifies
that he was spiteful and shed much blood. We know on the evidence of
a contemporary that he put his brothers to death when he came to the
throne, but the same authority states that this was a barbarous custom
among the Persians. On the other hand, Persian tradition reports that he
exercised strict justice without respect of persons, and zealously took
the part of the common man against the noble. The weight of his severity
fell upon the great. This agrees with the fact that he took thought
for the soldiers in the ranks and treated the aristocratic cuirassiers
with slight regard. He also incurred the wrath of the priests by a
decision which does him the highest honour, for he ironically rejected
their petition that he should place Christians at a disadvantage. In
many points he seems to have resembled the first Yezdegerd, whose fate
he likewise shared. It was his misfortune that he did not possess the
intellectual superiority which enabled his father to control the nobles,
both temporal and spiritual.
The war with Rome lasted through the whole of his reign, and the
repeated attempts at negotiations came to nought. Sometimes one side was
victorious, sometimes the other. To this war was added an unfortunate
war with the Turks. Against them Hormuzd despatched Bahram Chobin. He
succeeded in gaining a brilliant victory over them, or rather over one
of their vassals, and took much booty; and even, as the story goes,
converted the Persian tribute to the Turks into a Turkish tribute to the
Persians. The victorious general was next sent (589) to the countries
south of the Caucasus, there to aim a mighty blow at the Romans. Bahram,
however, was totally routed. Hormuzd was then guilty of the folly of
dismissing this experienced commander, the head of the house of Mihran,
with ignominy.
CIVIL WAR
[Sidenote: [590-592 A.D.]]
Bahram retaliated by open rebellion. His army took his part. He very
likely knew how disaffected the nobles were, and could count upon
malcontents among the rest of the troops. The army in Mesopotamia, which
had retreated to Nisibis after being defeated by the Romans and dreaded
the vengeance of the king, mutinied and joined Bahram, though without
resigning its independence. Bahram had advanced as far as the great Zab
(not far from the Mosul of to-day) on his way to the capital, when he was
confronted by a royal army. But this army likewise rebelled, not, indeed,
in Bahram’s favour, but in favour of Chosroes, the king’s son. Some of
these troops reached Ctesiphon soon after, whither Hormuzd had hurried
from Media on receipt of the fatal tidings. The city was given over to
tumult. Bindoe, whose sister was Chosroes’ mother, was imprisoned there
(a fate most liable to befall an oriental noble); his brother Bistam
(Vistahm) liberated him by force, and the nobles proceeded to depose
Hormuzd and proclaim Chosroes king (summer of 590). He was on bad terms
with his father, and the movement certainly did not come upon him as a
surprise. How far he was implicated in the assassination of Hormuzd,
which soon followed, we cannot tell with any degree of certainty; most
likely he let that happen which he could not well prevent.
Chosroes II, surnamed _Parvez_, “the victorious,” tried in vain to win
Bahram over to his side. The latter himself wished to reign either in
the name of a prince who was not of age, or preferably in his own.
Chosroes marched against him, but his army was not loyal. The famous
general commanded more respect than the faint-hearted king, whose troops
deserted him after the first serious engagement. Chosroes, with his
family and a few faithful followers, fled into Syria, to the Romans. When
he had reached the frontier city of Circesium, he wrote to implore the
aid of the emperor Maurice (who had been on the throne since the 14th
of August, 582). The latter was not adroit enough to take advantage of
this extraordinarily favourable situation for the benefit of his empire,
for he undertook to restore Chosroes without stipulating for a fair
equivalent. A man of mean origin himself, he probably felt flattered by
the mere fact of being called upon to reinstate a legitimate king of
ancient lineage and being able to declare himself “father” of such a one.
Meanwhile Bahram, after some hesitation, had caused himself to be
proclaimed king and had struck coins in his own name. He had also been
fortunate enough to get Bindoe into his power. But Bahram’s was but a
tottering throne from the outset. The nobles would not submit to a man
who had been their equal. Even in the Parthian Empire, however, often
kings were deposed and raised to the throne; it had always been accounted
right that none but an Arsacid should wear the crown, and in the empire
of the Sassanids the legitimist sentiment was much stronger. In the
popular mind the “ancient royal majesty” (_farrahi kayanik_) was bound up
with the house of Ardaschir, and no other could reign.
There was a rising even in Ctesiphon itself, which was put down by
Bahram, though Bindoe escaped during the tumult, further to exert himself
on his nephew’s behalf. By the beginning of 591 an imperial army was in
the field to reinstate Chosroes. Martyropolis, which had fallen into the
hands of the Persians through treachery, and had already been blockaded
for a considerable time, was given over to the Romans by Chosroes; so was
Dara. The Persian army at Nisibis went over to him, and increased from
day to day by the arrival of Persian nobles, among whom were barons from
Armenia. Bistam collected an army at Aderbaijan to march against Bahram;
the main Romano-Persian army advanced upon him to the left of the Tigris,
but before ever they came into touch with the enemy, a royal force which
had been sent in advance straight through the Mesopotamian desert had
taken the capital cities of Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and New Antiochia.
All men took the part of their lawful sovereign, and in the great battle
that was fought near the Zab, Bahram was completely routed (summer of
591). He fled to the Turks, by whom he was received with honour, but
soon afterwards assassinated. Chosroes was escorted to Ctesiphon by the
Romans, and as a matter of course peace was concluded between Rome and
Persia. Equally of course the payment of tribute was dropped; but the
frontiers remained as they had been before the war, and Nisibis was left
in the hands of the Persians.
Chosroes still felt so insecure on his throne that he begged the emperor
to leave him a body-guard of one thousand Romans. His first thought was
to rid himself of all dangerous characters, and especially of those who
had compassed his father’s fall and his own elevation to the throne.
Among others he had his uncle, Bindoe, put to death; but Bindoe’s
brother Bistam was beyond his reach. When the latter saw that his death
was determined upon, he followed Bahram’s example, assumed the title of
king in Media, and had coins struck. He too was of ancient lineage, and
he too could not gain the prestige of the legitimate line. He seems to
have relied upon the remnants of Bahram’s forces, and to have entered
into alliance with the Turks and Delamites. He withstood Chosroes’ troops
for nearly six years, till he fell by treachery (probably at the end of
595 or the beginning of 596).
VICES OF CHOSROES II
[Sidenote: [592-610 A.D.]]
These disorders must have sadly distracted the empire, which had been
sufficiently enfeebled before by the long wars in the east and the west.
Nor was Chosroes II the sagacious, strong, and humane ruler whom it
required under these circumstances. At best he was a very ordinary type
of oriental prince. Weak at bottom, he was at the same time boastful
and cowardly, and to ostentation and luxury he added the much more
harmful fault of avarice. At his death the royal treasuries, which he
had found empty, were full, while his dominions were impoverished by
war. Some excuse may be found in the circumstances of the time for his
conduct towards those who had helped him to the throne. In war he never
distinguished himself, his victories are only those of his generals. He
did indeed protect the Christians, he even treated them with distinction,
and built churches for them; but he did it partly on account of the
impression made upon him by the help of the Romans and (as he himself
thought) the assistance of St. Sergius, the patron saint of the Syrians
and Arabs in the Roman Empire, partly at the instigation of Shirin, his
favourite wife, who was an ardent Christian, and of others, such as
his Christian physician in ordinary, Gabriel. In later days Chosroes’
friendship for the Christians was turned into the opposite sentiment. And
we know that he was a man of gross character.
After Maurice had been overthrown by a mutiny and slain, and the vile
Phocas elevated to the imperial throne (November, 602), Chosroes looked
upon himself as in a state of war against the Romans, in the capacity
of avenger of his “father” Maurice, and protector of his putative son
Theodosius, who had taken refuge with him. Furthermore Narses, who
was in command at Edessa, appealed to him against Phocas. Chosroes,
therefore, made a beginning by imprisoning the ambassadors by whose hand
Phocas informed him of his accession. The actual war probably commenced
at the beginning of 604. For twenty years the Roman Empire was overrun
by Persian armies as it never had been before, so disordered was it
by Phocas, so harassed by Avars and other barbarous tribes. Chosroes
was present in person at the taking of Dara, after which he took no
active part in the war. In a few years the Persian armies had pressed
forward far on the road to Asia Minor, even reaching Chalcedon, opposite
Constantinople.
The fact that the power of the Persian Empire was not very firmly based
for all that, is shown by an event, in itself insignificant, which
falls within this period (between 604 and 610), the battle of Dhu Kar.
Chosroes had abolished the kingdom of Hira, and caused Nohman, the last
king, to be put to death. By this means the empire was quit of a vassal
state which had often proved troublesome; but, on the other hand, it
was henceforward far more difficult to gain an ascendency over the
savage tribes of the desert, and prevent them from making raids upon
the cultivated regions. After the fall of Nohman, the Bedouin tribes
of Bekr ben Wail succeeded in inflicting a total defeat on an imperial
army consisting of Arabs and Persian regular troops at Dhu Kar, not far
from the Euphrates and a few days’ march from Ctesiphon, and holding the
territory out of which the Persians wished to drive them. This victory
of Arabs over Persians, magnified by national vanity, greatly encouraged
the former in their self-esteem, and strengthened the confidence of the
Moslems when they attacked the empire.
CONFLICT WITH HERACLIUS; FALL OF CHOSROES II
[Sidenote: [610-628 A.D.]]
The war with the Romans continued to make successful progress, after
Phocas had been overthrown, by his able successor Heraclius (October,
610). The latter, seeing himself hard pressed on all sides, sued in
vain for peace. Damascus was taken in 613. The surrounding country,
which had never been trodden by Persian feet since the founding of the
empire, was laid so utterly waste that to this day countless ruins bear
witness to these ravages. In the June of 614 Jerusalem was taken. The
whole of Christendom was horrified by the tidings that, together with the
patriarch, the Persians had carried off the “Holy life-giving Cross” of
Christ. Egypt was next conquered, and Asia Minor again overrun as far as
to Chalcedon. Not till 622 was Heraclius able to take the field against
the Persians. He took ship for the Bay of Issus, thence pressed forward
to Armenia and the regions about the Pontus, and for the first time in
the campaign inspired the enemy with respect for the Roman arms. The
loss of church treasures must be reckoned as a heavy item in the cost of
the war. On the 15th of March, 623, Heraclius at length started upon the
great military expedition which led him again and again into the heart
of Persian territory. The almost extravagant daring of his cross-marches
and transverse marches, in which he was generally deprived of all
communication with his base and must have had great difficulty in feeding
his troops, prove him a great commander and a great statesman.
In the first year of the campaign he destroyed one of the most sacred
sanctuaries of the Persians, the Fire temple of Ganjak, not far from the
Lake of Urumiyeh; it was his reply to the destruction of Jerusalem. We
find him now in the vicinity of the Caucasus, now in the east of Asia
Minor, now, again, in Mesopotamia, never vanquished, often victorious,
more often still, it may be, weakening or deluding superior forces by
skilful movements. Chosroes, who felt the emperor disquietingly near at
Ganjak, sent Shahrbaraz, the most famous of his generals, with a great
army direct to Chalcedon to draw him off (626).
It was an anxious time for Constantinople, with the Persians on this
side and the Avars on that (in the summer of 626), and the emperor
almost beyond knowledge in the remote parts of Asia. But the Avars soon
withdrew, seeing that the Persians, having no fleet, could not undertake
concerted operations with them on the far side of the Bosporus. In
retaliation Heraclius brought the savage Khazars, from the north of the
Caucasus, into Persian territory. At length, in 627, he ventured into the
chief province of the monarchy. He kept the “feast of lights” (January
6th, 628) at Dastagerd, only about three days’ journey from Ctesiphon,
where Chosroes had held his court regularly for the last twenty years.
[Sidenote: [628-629 A.D.]]
The king had fled in terror, not feeling safe till he and his harem
had the bridge of the Tigris at Ctesiphon behind them. Heraclius had
naturally accomplished his tremendous march from the Caucasus with
comparatively few troops, and was in no position to attack the capital,
strongly fortified and protected by waterways as it was. On the contrary,
before the king had collected a large army he withdrew, but only to
Ganjak, thus remaining on the enemy’s soil; and in February and March
traversed the Alps of Kurdistan amidst perpetual snow-storms, a feat
which has not often been matched in the annals of war.
Meanwhile important events had been taking place at Ctesiphon. Chosroes’
tyranny and extortion had exasperated high and low alike; by his cowardly
flight he had forfeited the respect of his people. In addition, he had
designated Mardanshah--his son by Shirin, who still governed him wholly
in spite of her years and his thousands of other wives--as his successor,
to the exclusion of Kavadh. The latter was imprisoned in a fortress with
most of his brothers. Some nobles, among whom was a Christian, Shamta,
son of the deceased farmer-general Ezdin, now set Kavadh at liberty and
proclaimed him king (February 25th, 628). Chosroes, deserted by all
men, was dragged out of his hiding-place, put in prison, and, after
a few days, executed (the 29th of February, 628). Thus miserably and
horribly perished the man whose camps extended almost to the borders of
the Achæmenid Empire. No hand was raised to defend or avenge him. The
Christians above all--who, apart from other things, had suffered deadly
insult at his hands by the carrying away of the True Cross--hailed with
acclamations the parricide Kavadh, in whose elevation one of themselves
had played no small part.
SUCCESSORS OF CHOSROES II
The first thing that Kavadh (II) Seroes did was to murder all his
brothers (probably to the number of eighteen); the second was to send the
emperor an urgent entreaty for peace. A truce was quickly concluded, but
no peace as yet, Heraclius being in no hurry for it, since he was now to
some extent master of the situation. All Persian troops received orders
to evacuate Roman territory. Heraclius seems next to have introduced such
order as he could into the affairs of the provinces so recovered, and
of Mesopotamia in particular. On reaching Syria he learned that Kavadh
Seroes was already dead. The wretched man had only reigned for about half
a year. His reign was marked by a dreadful pestilence.
The party in power set his son Ardashir III, a child of seven, in his
place; and an epoch of unspeakable confusion ensued, in which the
children and women on the throne served only as a pretext for the
ambitions of contesting nobles. During Ardashir’s reign the cross, which
had been sent back from Ctesiphon to Heraclius through the head of the
Nestorian church, was solemnly set up again by him in Jerusalem. The
festival of the Elevation of the Cross on the 14th of September still
keeps that joyful day in remembrance (629).
The government at Ctesiphon was powerless. The Khazars invaded and
ravaged the empire. Possibly it was at this time that Chosroes, the son
of Kavadh and grandson of Hormuzd IV, who had grown to manhood among the
Turks, first tried to establish his throne in Khorasan. He was killed in
a few months, but a mightier than he, the victorious general Shahrbaraz,
grasped at the crown. In a personal interview at Arabissus in Cappadocia
(June, 629) he seems to have secured the assent of Heraclius, who must
have been deeply interested in weakening the hostile empire by fostering
internecine discord. Shahrbaraz then marched with a small force upon
Ctesiphon, and the famous defender of the empire took the city of its
kings by the treasonable aid of some of the principal inhabitants. The
city was given over to plunder, murder, and horrors of every kind; and
the boy Ardashir was slain on April 27, 630. But on the ninth of June,
Shahrbaraz himself fell a victim of the jealousy and legitimism of his
compeers. His corpse was dragged through the street; and tradition heaps
grotesque irony on the man who would be king and could not, because he
was not of the legitimate line.
[Sidenote: [630-633 A.D.]]
A woman, Boran, the daughter of Chosroes II, was next raised to the
throne. She seems to have formally concluded peace with Heraclius at
last; on what terms we do not know, but probably the peace with Maurice
was simply ratified anew. At all events, Nisibis remained Persian.
Boran only reigned until about the autumn of 631. She was succeeded at
Ctesiphon, probably after the brief intermediate reign of a prince, Peroz
by name, by her sister Azarmidokht. At Nisibis, however, the troops of
the murdered Shahrbaraz set up Hormuzd V, a grandson of Chosroes II,
who held his ground in that district for some time (in the years 631
and 632). Azarmidokht was overthrown by Rustem, the mighty hereditary
crown-general of Khorasan, whose father she had caused to be put to
death. From the confused accounts of this time of confusion we cannot
gather with any certainty who was king or who pretender in the capital or
provinces, nor determine the date or even the sequence of these “reigns.”
It is certain that after Azarmidokht one Ferrukhzadh (or Khorrezadh)
Chosroes was for some time accounted king at Ctesiphon. He was probably
a child, and according to some authorities was the only son of Chosroes
II who had escaped the general butchery. But others of the men in power
set up another child at Persis, Yezdegerd III, son of Shahriyar and
grandson of Chosroes II, and crowned him in the Fire temple of Ardashir
(in the second half of 632 or the first half of 633). He was presently
acknowledged in the capital, Chosroes having been put to death. No
lasting resistance appears to have been encountered in other provinces.
ANARCHY AND CHAOS
No one could now dream of a real restoration of the fearfully distracted
empire; but at least a grandson of Chosroes, who did not trace his
descent from the parricide Sheroe, was sole king once more. He was
consecrated at Istakhr, the home of the dynasty; and the mighty Rustem
stood at his side. A change for the better seems really to have ensued,
but it was no more than a brief respite. A foe destined to prove more
formidable than Julian or Heraclius was already knocking at the gates of
the empire. In the internal disorders which had distracted Ctesiphon,
the loss of Yemen, and a few of the empire’s possessions in northeastern
Arabia to the Moslems, had probably passed almost unnoticed.
The Moslems, however, were soon close at hand. The Bekr Bedouins had made
raids upon the royal dominions several times since the battle of Dhu Kar.
After a while Muthanna, one of their bravest chiefs, became a convert to
Islam, and with that force behind them their attacks grew bolder. Then
(probably in 633) the mighty Khalid, after subduing the insurrections in
Arabia, appeared with a small force on the lower Euphrates to conduct
the operations of these same Bedouins. Persian Arabs and imperial
troops were defeated in small engagements, and soon a number of border
forts were in the hands of the Moslems. The inhabitants of the regions
west of the Euphrates, who were all Christians, and, like all the
Christians about the Euphrates and Tigris, felt little loyalty to the
empire, submitted to the victors and even undertook to supply them with
information.
ARAB INCURSIONS
[Sidenote: [633-637 A.D.]]
The Arabs were already beginning to rove on the far side of the
Euphrates; they plundered Baghdad, then a village, while a fair was being
held there, as well as other places on the right bank of the Tigris.
But Khalid presently received orders (the commencement of the summer of
634) to start for Syria, the conquest of which was at the time a matter
of greater consequence to the caliph. His successor, Abu Obaid of Taif,
brought some reinforcements with him; but when at length a regular
Persian army came on the scene, the Moslems, in spite of their heroic
valour, were completely defeated in the “battle of the Bridge,” on the
Euphrates, November 26th, 634. After their leader had fallen Muthanna
had great difficulty in extricating the remains of his army. Most of the
Moslem conquests were lost without further ado. After some hesitation
Omar (caliph since August 23rd, 634) resolved to send more troops to
Irak. He appealed simultaneously to the greed and piety of the Arabs,
urging them in the same breath to win the treasures of Chosroes and the
joys of paradise. A larger Persian army was now defeated for the first
time (at Buwaib, 635 or 636); the commander, a member of the house of
Mihran, was among the slain.
The Arabs were once more masters of the country west of the Euphrates.
They found an energetic and cautious leader in Saad, son of Abu Wakkas,
one of the first followers of the prophet. The lords at Ctesiphon now
realised the great danger that impended over the empire. The news of
the battle on the Yarmuk (August 20th, 636) which cost Heraclius, the
conqueror of Persia, the whole of Syria, probably contributed to their
fears. Rustem, therefore, took the head of a great army in person. As a
token of the gravity of the struggle he bore with him the sacred banner
of the empire (_dirafshi Kaviyan_), which was supposed to have come
down from time immemorial. He also took with him a number of elephants,
according to the Persian usage in war. At the approach of the advanced
guard of the Persian army Saad evacuated his position and retreated
to Kadisiya, on the verge of the desert (south or southwest of Hira).
For months the armies confronted one another, with only a little space
between. The Arabic force was certainly much the smaller of the two; they
could not have fed a large army in that place, for they were dependent on
the produce of their raids and such provisions as the caliph sent after
them from Medina.
At length the great battle of Kadisiya (end of 636 or 637) was fought.
It lasted for several days; Saad was ill, but nevertheless took the
command. The Persians were, for the most part, much better armed than the
Arabs, but the courage of the latter was wound up to the highest pitch.
They were terrified by the elephants at first, but as they pressed on
gallantly for all their fears, the animals appear to have got beyond
control and to have become a source of confusion to the Persian ranks.
The great majority of the Persians certainly behaved with cowardice,
after their ancient fashion; but the Arabs had hard work before the foe
was defeated, Rustem himself slain, and the banner of the Persian Empire
taken.
ARAB CONQUEST
[Sidenote: [637-652 A.D.]]
The battle of Kadisiya practically decided the fate of the provinces
on the Tigris. There were a few other fights, some of them in the vast
territory of ancient Babylon, but the Arabs soon afterwards reached
Seleucia, took it after a protracted siege, crossed the rapid stream of
the Tigris, and quickly forced their way into Ctesiphon. The young king
Yezdegerd had already fled to Holwan (on the border between Babylonia and
Media). On their way thither, at Jalula, the Arabs won another victory
over the Persians under Khorrezadh, Rustem’s brother, and Yezdegerd
fled further into the interior. Meanwhile other Arabs had conquered
the delta of the stream and thence advanced into Susiana. A very able
resolute commander might still have saved the actual land of Iran for
the Persians. Omar, who was very cautious in spite of his energy, was
apprehensive lest the Arabs should extend their forces too far, and at
first would not give orders for an advance into the highlands. At length
he did so. A great Persian army had been collected at Nehavend, a little
to the south of the ancient highway from Babylon to Ecbatana. Here a
great battle was fought (in 640, 641, or 642), in which the Arabs--first
under the command of Nohman and, after he had fallen, under Hudhaifa the
Meccan--won a brilliant victory.
With good reason the Moslems called the triumph of Nehavend the “victory
of victories.” It completely shattered the empire of Persia. The Arabs
had a long contest before them, until they had really conquered all the
provinces of the vast monarchy, but it consisted of isolated struggles in
which there could be no doubt of the ultimate issue, as their enemies had
lost all cohesion. Many towns and districts had to be subjugated again
and again, because they were constantly rebelling. The most obstinate
resistance appears to have been offered in Persia proper, especially
about Istakhr, the cradle of the empire of the Sassanidæ and the centre
of its religion. Many of the great provincial nobles and some of the
lesser entered into friendly agreement with the Arabs. They one and all
met them on the footing of independent sovereigns.
King Yezdegerd meanwhile led a wretched life. He could not summon up
courage to set his life on the stake for his crown and empire. He fled
from one satrap to another. He seems to have stayed longest at Istakhr,
the home of his race. The outward pomp of royalty was left him, coins
were still struck in his name, but as soon as he became a troublesome
guest he was sent away. At length he took refuge in the extreme
northeast, and there he was miserably murdered, in the neighbourhood of
Merv. The circumstances of his death, which took place in 651 or 652, are
not exactly known, but it seems tolerably certain that Mahoe, satrap of
Merv, had a hand in it. [For the traditional account see page 154, this
volume.]
The similarity of the circumstances under which the Achæmenid and
Sassanid empires perished forces itself upon our notice, a similarity
which, though apparently fortuitous, indicates a great correspondence
in character. As the battle on the Granicus first fully showed the
formidable nature of the enemy, as Issus cost the king his western
provinces and Gaugamela rent the empire asunder without thereby making
the victor master of all its several provinces, so it came to pass nearly
one thousand years later, with the battles of Buwaib, Kadisiya, and
Nehavend. And as the fugitive Darius was slain, in the northeast, not
by enemies but by treacherous nobles, so it was with Yezdegerd, who was
no more a hero than he. The Persian nobility did not exhibit so gross a
lack of patriotism and loyalty in the case of the Arabs as in that of
Alexander; the vivid consciousness of religious differences and the ruder
manners of the Arabs made adherence to them more difficult; but there
was no lack of traitors of high rank nor of renegades among the greater
and lesser nobles. The complete subjugation of the Persian monarchy took
the Arabs much longer than it had taken the great Macedonian, but on the
other hand its effects were much more lasting; Hellenism touched the
mere surface of Persia, but Iran has been thoroughly permeated by Arab
religion and Arab characteristics.
[Sidenote: [652-750 A.D.]]
A fragment of the Sassanid empire continued to exist for some time
longer. The hereditary crown-generals (Shahpat, Ispehbedh) of Khorasan,
of the house of Karen, withdrew into the mountain country of Tabaristan
(Mazanderan) and there reigned for more than one hundred years, though
they occasionally found themselves under the necessity of paying tribute
to the caliph. They remained faithful to the religion of Zoroaster.
The era which they struck upon their coins begins, in all probability,
with the death of Yezdegerd, and they thus seemed to have looked upon
themselves as the direct succession of the last Sassanid king.[b]
FOOTNOTES
[30] [Or according to Von Gutschmid, 227; see chapter I.]
[Illustration: BRONZE HINGE FROM ANTIQUE CHEST]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER III. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ARABS
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 2500 B.C.-622 A.D.]]
The Arabian peninsula is Africa reduced in size and of more moderate
proportions, but without a river-valley like that of the Nile. The heart
of the country is a tableland, sparely watered under a burning sun, and
forming a depression in the midst of sandy deserts, rocky plains, peaks,
and naked cliffs. Thus, despite its great extent of over a million square
miles, Arabia presents, especially in the interior, but few stretches
of land suitable for cultivation. It is in the south, where the plateau
slopes down to the Indian Ocean in a series of declivities, that fertile
valleys lie; and on the mountain terraces, where cool winds from the
ocean temper the tropic heat, the richest fruits abound. This district of
Arabia is the land of frankincense, of sugar-cane, and coffee tree, of
pomegranates, figs, dates, of maize, and wheat.
Herodotus,[b] who like all other historians of antiquity applies the
name Arabia to regions lying even beyond Sinai and the Syrian deserts,
gives us but meagre information concerning the inhabitants of this vast
land. “The Arabs,” he says, “wear long garments, carry at their right
side great bows with double strings, and ride on swift camels. They
worship two gods, Dionysus whom they call Urotal, and Urania whom they
call Alilat, the latter also being called by the Babylonians Mylitta.
Compacts are made in the following manner; a third person cuts each of
the parties to the agreement in the hand near the thumb, and with the
blood thus obtained smears seven stones that lie on the ground between,
at the same time calling on Urotal and Alilat. Compacts thus sealed are
held sacred by the Arabs, and are kept with a fidelity rarely found in
other nations.” Artemidorus[c] of Ephesus calls Arabia rich in animals
of all sorts; lions, panthers, wolves, wild asses, and camels; and the
inhabitants, according to him, were wandering herdsmen who travelled
about and did their fighting on the backs of camels, and lived on the
camels’ milk and flesh. He withholds from us the names of these tribes on
account of their obscurity and unmusical sound. Diodorus[d] also tells
us that parts of Arabia on the Syrian side were inhabited by tribes who
lived by trading and agriculture; but the tracts adjoining were for the
most part barren and without water, and the Nachabæans who occupied them
led the life of bandits, plundering their neighbours far and wide; no
other tribe had succeeded in conquering them. In the interior and in the
west of Arabia were sand plains of immense extent, across which it was
only possible to travel by taking, as on the sea, the Great Bear as a
guide.
Pliny[e] remarks: “Wonderful to say, the Arabians live about equally by
robbery and by trade; what they obtain from their forests (meaning the
products of the date-palms and the fruit-trees of the south) and from the
sea they sell, yet they never buy anything in return.”
“The Arabs,” says Ammianus Marcellinus[f] “cover the territory that
reaches from the Euphrates to Egypt. They wear no clothing save a sort
of apron around the body, and a voluminous cloak. Every man among them
is a warrior, and on their camels and swift, fine-limbed horses they
are everywhere to be seen. They cannot endure to remain long in any one
locality; without permanent dwelling-place they wander restlessly about,
and their whole life is nothing but a flight. Of bread and wine the
majority of Arabs have never even heard.”
Different information is given us regarding the southern coast of Arabia.
Herodotus[b] remarks that the greatest blessings are showered upon the
extreme limits of the earth, and that this seems to be true of Arabia,
the most southern point of the inhabited world. Here only in all the
earth grow frankincense, myrrh, cassia, and ladanum; here only are raised
sheep with tails so bushy that wagons have to be bound beneath them to
support them. But the trees bearing frankincense are guarded by winged
serpents and those bearing cassia by bats.
Thoroughly informed in matters relating to this district by reason of
Alexandria’s wide trade connections, Eratosthenes[g] could name the
different tribes that inhabited the south. “In the interior,” he adds,
“were thick forests formed by tall frankincense and myrrh trees; and
besides these there were cinnamon trees, palm and calmus, and other
trees of a similar nature, sending forth the sweetest odours. Out of
so many it is not possible to name every species; it is enough to say
that the perfumes they diffused were delicious beyond all words. Even
people going by this land in ships at some distance from the shore, have
the odours wafted to them on the breeze. For here the aroma does not
proceed from spices old, stale, and laid away, but is sent forth in full
strength and freshness, so that sailors along the coast believe they are
enjoying ambrosia, no other name expressing the extraordinary strength
and richness of the perfume they inhale. Among the Sabæans the monarchy
is hereditary, and it is here that the king lives, dispensing justice to
the people, but never venturing to leave his palace. Should he once show
himself outside he would be stoned by his subjects, who would thus be
fulfilling an ancient oracle. The Sabæans are the richest people in the
world. In exchange for their few wares silver and gold flow in to them
from all sides, and owing to the remoteness of their situation no other
tribe has ever conquered them.”
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 2500-645 B.C.]]
The Hebrew Scriptures have preserved for us information concerning
the populations of Arabia, that is older by a thousand years than
that of Pliny, and by five hundred than that of Herodotus. According
to Genesis[h] the tribes fall into four main groups; the Joktanites,
among whom the tribes of the south and east are the most prominent; the
Keturites, which include certain tribes of the east and northwest; the
Ishmaelites, among whom can be counted tribes of the north and of the
tableland of the interior; and finally the group of tribes who wandered
and settled near the eastern frontiers of Canaan--the Amalekites,
Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. The Hebrews ascribe to the Arabs the
same origin as their own.
From the genealogies it is plain that the Hebrews regarded the Arabian
tribes as close kinsmen of their own, and kinsmen of a far more ancient
branch. The Arabs of the south traced their origin back to the fifth
generation after Shem, the common forefather, while the Hebrews descended
from the second son of Isaac. Most closely related to them are the
Ishmaelites, who are divided into twelve tribes--the descendants of the
sons of Ishmael, the “twelve princes”; then follow the Edomites, the
Ammonites, and the Moabites.
The tradition of the Arabs scarcely goes back to the beginning of the
Christian era. What their writers, who began after Mohammed to tell
the early history of their race, knew of those ancient periods is
either derived from the accounts of the Hebrews, or is the work of pure
imagination. They represent the Amalekites, whom they found in Hebrew
Scriptures, as the founders of their race, and place their dwelling
variously in Canaan and Damascus, and the district of Mecca and Oman, and
cause them at one time to rule over Egypt. These Amalekites, the Tasmites
and Jadi, Aadites and Jorhomites, they look upon as the true Arabian
stock, to whom God taught Arabic after the confusion of tongues. But the
Tasmites and Jadi are as little to be accepted historically as Amalek,
their names signifying “the extinct,” and “the vanished”; the Aadites are
a purely fabulous people, and the Jorhomites (near Mecca) are a tribe
of by no means ancient origin. The progenitor of the tribes of Yemen in
the south is, according to the Arabians, Kahtan, the son of Eber, and
great-grandson of Noah; this is the Joktan of Genesis. This founder of
the Sabæan monarchy left two sons, Himyar and Kahtan. Himyar was the
progenitor of the Himyarites, and their abode is placed on the southern
coast of Arabia, between Mareb (Saba) and Hadramaut.
To the kingdom of Mareb, founded by Abd Shams-Sabah, is ascribed by Arab
tradition a long succession of rulers. But even if we were to allow to
each name a reign of more than thirty years, Kahtan’s period would not
be carried back beyond 700 B.C. Abd Shams-Sabah is supposed to have
built not only Mareb but a great dam for the irrigation of the land. The
well-built dams, canals, and sluices at Sana (the Uzal of the Hebrews, to
the west of Mareb) are said to have been erected by Asad. The castles of
Sahlin and Bainun (near Sana) were built by dæmons, at Solomon’s bidding,
for Belkis, queen of Sheba. Towards the end of the year 700 B.C. Harith,
at the head of the Himyarites, gained possession of the kingdom of the
Sabæans, who were thus driven from their own land, and the Himyarites
who supplanted them (the Homerites of western nations) became the ruling
people in Yemen. Arab tradition had somewhat prepared the way for this
change by making Himyar the oldest son and successor of Abd Shams-Sabah.
If we trace the genealogies given by Arab tradition to the rulers of the
tribes descended from Ishmael backwards for twenty generations till we
reach Adnan, his grandson, we do not arrive at an earlier period than the
second century B.C., even if we allow thirty years for each generation.
There have been handed down to us no consistent accounts of these people.
We learn that Egypt, at some period later than 3000 years B.C., gained a
foothold in the west of the Sinai peninsula, but we are unable to obtain
any certainty of the origin of the invading tribes. The inscriptions of
Egypt of the time of Tehutimes and the first Ramses,[i] tell of victories
achieved over the Shasu and over the Punt, that is, the Arabs; but we
cannot learn the extent of these victorious operations, nor the names of
the tribes against which they were directed, hence we conclude that they
were of but a transitory nature. The Hebrews relate that the queen of
the Sabæans, ruler over that fruitful, spice-bearing land, journeyed to
Jerusalem to lay before King Solomon rich presents of spices and gold.
It would surprise us to learn that an Arabian monarchy was in the hands
of a woman, did not the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings[j] reveal
that even the tribes of the deserts frequently had women as rulers.
These same inscriptions also furnish us with information concerning
certain early Arabian tribes, and make known to us their great wealth
in cattle. The third Tiglathpileser relates that in the year 735 B.C.
he received tribute from Zabibieh, queen of Arabia (Aribi). In the year
734 he marched on Samshi, queen of Arabia, and took from her as spoils
thirty thousand camels and twenty thousand oxen, afterwards subjugating
the people of Saba, the Sabæan city. King Sargon makes boast that he
conquered the people of Thamud, the Thamudenes of western writers; also
those of Tasid, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chayapa, the distant Arbæans, the
inhabitants of the lands of Bari, “which the learned and the scribes knew
not,” and that Samshi, queen of the Arabs and Yathamic, the Sabæan, paid
him tribute of spices, camels, and gold (715 B.C.). Sennacherib took
from the Pecod, the Hagarites, the Nabatæans, and certain other tribes,
5330 camels, and 800,600 head of small cattle (703 B.C.). During the
reign of Asshurbanapal, Adija, queen of the Arabs, and Ammuladin, king
of the Kedarites, were conquered and brought in chains to Nineveh; and
the “innumerable warriors” of another prince, Yauta-ben-Bir-Dadda, were
put to rout and his tents were burned. A third chief, Abiyate, with his
allies, Yauta-ben-Hazael, Natnu (Nathan) king of the Nabatæans, and the
worshippers of Istar, was defeated in 645 B.C.
The position of Arabia between the river valleys of the Nile, the
Euphrates, and the Tigris, which had been the seats of the oldest
industries and where agriculture and civilisation had early begun to
flourish, brought the Arabs, who were continually wandering about the
frontiers of their land, into close connection with Egypt and Babylon.
What robbery failed to supply could be obtained by barter. The wandering
herdsmen had need of corn, tools, and weapons; the Egyptians and
Babylonians, of horses, camels, skins, and wool. By giving in exchange
for what they required cattle and skins, the Arabs kept the Egyptians and
Babylonians supplied with raw materials for their industries. According
to Hebrew tradition Abraham went into Egypt, and the sons of Jacob bought
grain in Egypt when “there was a famine in the land.” The fact that the
Egyptians gained possession, in 3000 B.C., of the valley of Maghara in
the Sinai peninsula, and that a thousand years later certain nomad tribes
of the northwest of Arabia obtained supremacy over Egypt, served but to
strengthen the later relations between the two countries. That there had
long been intercourse is certain; and contact with the superior culture
of Egypt had so multiplied the wants of the Arabs as greatly to increase
their trading relations. They could offer not alone their cattle to the
Egyptians in barter but the costly products of their southern coasts, the
frankincense and perfumes that had already attained a high celebrity in
Egypt as early as 2500 B.C.
It is no wonder then, in view of this ancient and active trade, that
Queen Ramaka (Maat-ka-Ra or Hatshepsu) of Egypt made the attempt to
import the products of southern Arabia direct by way of the Red Sea; and
it must have been this same intention that caused Ramses II to project
a canal that should connect the Nile with the Red Sea. Later, Ramses
III caused ships to be built especially for the trade with “the land
of Punt” (Arabia) and “the land of the gods” (the far East). Great as
was the demand of Egypt for incense and perfumes, that of Babylon seems
to have been no less. Herodotus[b] tells us that at the annual feast of
Belos a thousand talents of incense was burned on the altar of the great
Babylonian temple.
[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1225 B.C.-100 A.D.]]
The demand for Arabian products must have greatly increased when the
Phœnician cities planted along the coast of Syria, grew to be important
trade centres.
That the Babylonian talent was current among the Sabæans is evidence of
the extent and activity of Babylonian trade. First passing their goods
from one to another of their own tribes until the market at Damascus was
reached, or the Euphrates and the Nile for shipping, the Arabs permitted
or refused passage to the caravans of the Babylonians and the Phœnicians.
They lay in wait for the merchant-trains, and either plundered them or
forced them to pay for safe passage and convoy.
[Illustration: AN ARAB ARCHER]
The beauty and fertility of the portion of Arabia occupied by the Sabæans
and the Chatramites must have early served to fix them there as permanent
settlers, and their constantly growing commerce with Egypt, Syria,
and Babylonia unquestionably resulted in a great influx of wealth to
these tribes. Thus even the tales current among western nations of the
splendour of their cities--the sixty temples of Sabbatha, and the gold
and silver vessels, pillars, and couches of Mareb--must have had strong
foundation in fact. Ruins of mighty aqueducts, dams, and basins remain,
which are the wonder and admiration of our tourists for the excellence
of their plan and the solidity of their construction. They reveal to us
not only the skill of the ancient Sabæans and Chatramites in erecting
important works, but their complete understanding of the subject of
irrigation; since the whole system of canals and basins was evidently
designed to utilise upon their own lands the streams rushing down from
the mountains. Remains of magnificent structures, not alone near Mareb
but near Nejran, Ghorab, Nakb-el-Hajara, go far towards confirming what
western and Arab tradition tell us of the glories of ancient times; and
inscriptions on these and other ruins in the southwest of Yemen give us,
though they do not go back further than the year 120 B.C., an insight
into the life and culture of the tribes of South Arabia. We also learn
the earlier forms of their spoken and written language, and discover that
their alphabet was derived from that of the Phœnicians, developing later
independently side by side with it. Of a more recent date (the first
century A.D.) are inscriptions on the rocks of the Sinai peninsula in
the extreme northwest of Arabia, which are written in the north Arabian
language and characters.
A glance at the meagre array of facts made known to us reveals the basis
of the religious conceptions of the Semitic tribes in Arabia to be
almost the same as that of the Semitic tribes in Syria, or those by the
Euphrates and Tigris. It can readily be believed that the rites of those
tribes nearest Syria partake somewhat of the character of the Syrian
rites and that the worship of the southern tribes is closely allied to
that of the Babylonians.
That the tribes of the desert should pay particular reverence to the
stars cannot occasion much wonder. With the refreshing dews of night came
not only Venus and the moon but the entire splendour of the firmament, to
dazzle the eye and touch the spirit of the Arab. High above the silent
desert, the tents, and sleeping flocks, looking down on the midnight ride
and the waiting ambuscade, the stars swung on their glittering way. They
were the source of a varied knowledge to the Arab; they marked out his
path through the trackless desert, foretold the coming of the rain for
which he had prayed, indicated the change of the seasons and the time for
breeding in his flocks. Since these stars could at one time provide good
pasturage and all that was needful for flocks, and at another dry up the
wells and grass, why could they not also bring joy and pain, happiness
and sorrow to mankind? Thus to the tribes of the desert the stars that
shone brightest became living spirits, that ruled supreme over nature and
the destinies of men.
The life of the nomad tribes of the interior (included by the Arabs
under one name, Badawi [Bedouins] “children of the desert”) has suffered
but few changes; up to the present day there have been no very radical
departures from the customs and conditions of the olden time, which are
fully described elsewhere.
In the Arabs the qualities peculiar to the Semitic character have
attained their soundest and most strongly marked development. Their
wandering life in the desert, exposed to burning sun and tempests of
wind and sand, has steeled and strengthened them. In a land of trackless
wastes, surrounded by beasts of prey and hostile tribes, each man was
dependent for safety on his own watchfulness and keenness of vision,
on his own courage and resolution, on his horse and lance. Soberly and
frugally nourished, the body became lean and spare, but supple, sinewy,
and capable of great endurance, and within these hardened frames dwelt a
spirit of indomitable resolution. Thus the Arabs are characterised by a
freer bearing, a more steadfast good faith, a more umbrageous pride, a
greater love of independence, and a bolder daring than any other tribes
of their race. The nature of their country and of their life has saved
them from the excesses of greed of luxury and sensuality into which the
Semitic populations on the Euphrates and the Tigris, as well as those on
the Mediterranean, frequently fell, though they share in the cruelty and
blood-thirstiness common to their race. It was the Arabs on whose unused
strength it was possible to found an empire, a new Semitic civilisation
in the Middle Ages, after Babel and Asshur, Tyre and Carthage, Jerusalem
and Palmyra, had long passed away.[k]
ARAB HISTORY BEFORE MOHAMMED
[Sidenote: [380 B.C.-634 A.D.]]
The history of Arabia and its inhabitants naturally divides itself
into two distinct and even dissimilar periods, that, namely, which
preceded the era of Mohammed, and that which followed it. Each of these
two periods, though comprising in its extent several minor phases and
fluctuations, now of advance, now of retrogression, bears, however, a
well-marked general character of its own. The first of the two periods
is distinguished as one of local monarchies and federal governments; the
latter commences with theocratic centralisation dissolving into general
anarchy.
The first dawning gleams of anything that deserves to be called history
disclose Arabia wholly, or nearly so, under the rule of a race of
southern origin; the genuine, or, as they are sometimes termed from a
mythical ancestor Kahtan, the Kahtanee Arabs. These, again, we find
subdivided into several aristocratic monarchical governments, arranged
so as to form a broad framework or rim around the central wilds of the
peninsula.
Oldest and chiefest among the Arab monarchies was that of Yemen; its
regal residence is said to have been in the now abandoned town of
Mareb, in the extreme south. After a devastating inundation, referred
with some probability to the first century of the Christian era, the
seat of government was removed from the ruins of Mareb to Sana, a city
which has continued the metropolis of Yemen to the present day. The
Yemenite kings, descendants of Kahtan and Himyar (the dusky), a name
denoting African origin, and each adorned with the reiterated surname
of “Tobba,” a word of African etymology, and signifying “powerful,”
are said to have reigned, with a few dynastic interruptions and palace
revolutions, for about twenty-five hundred years, during which long
period they commanded the direct obedience of the entire southern half
of the peninsula; while, by their tribute-collectors, and by chiefs of
kindred or delegated authority, they indirectly governed the northern.
One of these monarchs is asserted, though historical criticism will
hardly admit the assertion for fact, to have subdued the whole of central
Asia, and even to have reached the boundaries of China; while another
anticipated, so runs the story, the later and more authentic conquests
of his race on the north African continent. In both these cases Arab
chroniclers seem to have appropriated for their own rulers, not without
some additional exaggerations, the glories and exploits of the Egyptian
kings. But that theirs was a vigorous and in some respects a civilised
government is attested alike by the literary and the architectural relics
of their time. Their sovereignty was at last overthrown, 529 (A.D.) by an
Abyssinian invasion, and was re-established in 603 A.D. as a dependency
of the Persian Empire, till in the year 634 it was finally absorbed by
Mohammedan conquest.
[Sidenote: [100-500 A.D.]]
Next in importance to the kingdom of Yemen came the subsidiary monarchy
of Hira, or more correctly Heerah, situated in the northeasterly
province of Arabian Irak. Its kings, a collateral branch of the royal
race of Sana, governed the western shore of the lower Euphrates, from
the neighbourhood of Babylon down to the confines of Nejd, and along
the coast of the Persian Gulf. The duration of their empire, founded
in the second century after Christ, was 424 years. This kingdom paid
an uncertain allegiance to their more powerful neighbours, the Persian
despots; and from time to time exercised considerable influence over the
turbulent tribes of central Arabia, till, like Yemen, it sank before the
rising fortunes of Mohammed and his followers.
A third monarchy, that of Ghassan, lorded it on the northwest over lower
Syria and the Hedjaz; its independence was somewhat tempered with unequal
alliances with the Roman, and subsequently the Byzantine Empire. It was
founded in the first century of the Christian era, shortly after the
flood of Mareb; and its duration, till subdued by the all-conquering
prophet, exceeded six hundred years.
A fourth government, that of Kindeh, detached itself from Irak early in
the fifth century, and united under its sceptre the tribes of northerly
Nejd and even those of Oman, for about 160 years. Its kings were, like
those before mentioned, of Yemenite origin; but their rule was weak and
disturbed by frequent wars.
Much has been written by Arab authors regarding the great inundation,
as they term it, of Arem or Mareb, possibly a tropical cyclone of more
than ordinary destructiveness, like that of 1867 in the West Indies; and
this event they love to assign as the proximate cause which dispersed the
families of Yemen over northern Arabia, and led to the foundation of the
kingdoms of Irak and Ghassan. But the reality of the events, physical or
political, symbolised by the “flood of Arem” (a counterpart, after its
fashion, of the biblical flood) cannot now be well deciphered.
This is however certain--in that the Yemenite Arabs, and especially those
who tenanted the south of the peninsula, had, during the period now
cursorily sketched, attained a very fair degree of civilisation--that
arts and commerce flourished, that wealth was accumulated, literature
cultivated, and talent held in esteem. On all these points we have not
only the uncertain and distorted testimony of foreign authors, such as
Strabo, Pliny, Diodorus, Ptolemy, and the like, but the more positive
though fragmentary evidence afforded by the national writings, chiefly
verse, that have survived to our day. In its general character and
institutions the kingdom of Yemen seems to have borne a considerable
resemblance to the neighbouring one of the Nile valley, on the other
side of the Red Sea, and, like it, to have reached at a very early
epoch a relatively high degree of prosperity and social culture, from
which, however, it had long declined before its final extinction in the
seventh century. But the daughter-kingdom of Hira had, as was natural,
something of a Persian tinge; while that of Ghassan took a more Byzantine
colouring. Lastly, the nomadic element predominated in the ill-cemented
monarchy of Kindeh.
But while the sceptre of Yemen was yet, in one form or other,
outstretched over the length and breadth of the land, and its children,
the genuine or African Arabs, formed a complete and dense circle of
population all around, the centre of Arabia remained the stronghold
of a different though kindred race, in their mode of living wild and
ferocious; less susceptible of culture, but gifted with greater energy
and concentration of purpose than their southern cousins. The latest
recorded emigration of this branch of the Arab stock had been not from
the south but the north; and instead of the mythical Kahtan, they
claimed a no less mythical Adnan, or his supposed grandson Nezar, for
their ancestor; their language, though radically identical with that
spoken by the genuine Arabs, was yet dialectically different in several
respects, and nearer to the Syriac or Hebrew. Lastly, unlike the Arabs
from the south, they had little disposition for agriculture, and even
less for architecture and the fine arts; their instincts leading them
to a pastoral and consequently a nomadic life. The almost infinite
ramifications of these “Mustareb” or “adscititious Arab” tribes lead
ultimately up to five principal stocks. These were Rabiah, which,
however, laid some claim to a Yemenite kinsmanship in the east centre of
the peninsula; Koreish, on the west; Kais, or Kais-Ailan, and Hawazin, on
the north; and Tamin in the middle.
[Sidenote: [500-570 A.D.]]
History has left unrecorded the exact date of their arrival in Arabia;
nor has she defined the period during which they remained tributaries,
though often refractory, of the kings of Yemen. But in the fifth century
of the Christian era there appeared among the Mustareb tribes a leader
of extraordinary talent and energy named Kolaib, sprung from the tribe
of Rabiah, who having, in the fashion of William Tell, slain with his
own hand the insolent and licentious tax-gatherer sent them from Sana,
raised the banner of general revolt in Nejd; and, in the battle of Hazat
(500 A.D.), broke forever the bonds of Yemen from off the neck of the
northern Arabs. This done, Kolaib aspired to unite his countrymen into
one vast confederacy, over which he himself exercised for a time an
almost kingly power; but the scheme was prematurely broken off by his
own assassination. Left now without a master, but also without a ruler,
the Mustareb tribes found themselves involved in a series of wars that
lasted during the whole of the sixth century, their heroic period. Yet
in spite of severe losses sustained in battle by this or that particular
clan, their power as a whole went on increasing, till at the dawn of the
seventh century they had wholly absorbed the feeble kingdom of Kindeh,
and encroached yearly more and more on the narrowing bounds of Yemen,
Irak, and Ghassan.
[Illustration: AN ARAB CHIEF]
Nor, probably, would they have stayed till they had become absolute
lords over the whole, or nearly the whole, of the peninsula, had there
not developed itself from among themselves a still more energetic
element which, before many years had passed, reduced both northern
and southern Arabs alike to common obedience, then raised them to an
unexpected height of common glory, and at last plunged them, along with
itself, into one comprehensive decline and ruin. This new and potent
element was the well-known clan of Fihr or Koreish. Its families, of
Mustareb descent, had at an early period, which subsequent and Mohammedan
chroniclers have tried to identify with the fortunes of the mythical
Ismail, established themselves in the southerly Hedjaz, near the town
of Mecca, a locality even then the principal religious and commercial
centre of Arabia. Already, at the beginning of the fifth century,
the chiefs of Koreish had, by a mixture of violence and craft very
characteristic of their race, rendered themselves the masters and the
acknowledged guardians of the sacred “Kaaba.” This square stone temple,
or rather shrine, itself of unknown antiquity, was situated within the
precincts of the town of Mecca; and to it the Arabs were in the habit
of bringing yearly offerings, and of making devout pilgrimages, for
centuries before Mohammed had adopted it into the new ritual of Islam
as the house of the true God. The keys of the consecrated building had
originally been in possession of delegates appointed by the monarch of
Yemen; but the Koreish Arabs, having once obtained them, held them fast
forever after, and successfully repelled every effort, both of their own
pagan competitors and of the invading Christian Abyssinians (570 A.D.),
to recapture or to seize them. Their possession of the temple keys not
only gave the tribe of Koreish a semi-religious pre-eminence over all the
other clans of Arabia, but also placed at their disposal the treasures of
gold, silver, jewels, and other offerings accumulated by the pagan piety
of ages in the temple of Mecca.
[Sidenote: [500-600 A.D.]]
A more important, as also a more creditable, source of wealth to the
Koreish clan was their Red Sea coast traffic, particularly with the
ports of Yemen and Abyssinia. Jiddah has been always the chief westerly
seaport, and Mecca, which is only a few leagues distant, the principal
inland emporium, of Arab trade; and under the dominating influence of
the clever and active merchants of Koreish, both places acquired special
prosperity and importance.
Lastly, only a day’s journey distant from Mecca, was held, in the
pre-Islamitic times, the great yearly fair and gathering of Okad, so
called from the name of the plain where it used to assemble--a national
meeting, frequented by men of all conditions, from all quarters of the
Arab peninsula, and lasting through the entire month of Dhul-kaadeh,
which in pagan, as subsequently in Mohammedan reckoning, immediately
preceded the ceremonies of the annual pilgrimage. Here horse races,
athletic games, poetical recitals, and every kind of public amusement,
diversified the more serious commercial transactions of an open fair,
that, in its comprehensiveness, almost assumed the proportions of a
national exhibition. Here, too, matters of the highest import, questions
of peace and war, of treaty and alliance, of justice and revenge, were
habitually treated by the chiefs of the northern Arabs; the “children of
Mezar,” to give them their favourite Mustareb patronymic, assembled in a
sort of amphictyonic council, not less ancient, but while it lasted much
more influential throughout Arabia, than that of Thebes ever had been in
classic Greece. In this assembly the immediate local proximity of the
Koreish chiefs, joined to their personal wealth, courage, and address,
assigned them a predominant position.
Of their pedigree, which, as is well known, includes that of Mohammed
himself, we have a carefully (too carefully, indeed, for authenticity)
constructed chronicle, bringing the family tree up in due form to
Ishmael, the son of Abraham, of whom the Koreish figure as the direct
descendants. In the same artificial annals the Yemenite, or genuine
Arabs, appear under the cousinly character of the children of Joktan,
the son of Eber. On these points all Mohammedan annalists are equally
positive and distinct; all other Arab testimony is equally adverse or
silent. That a fable so utterly defiant of reasonable chronology, and
even of the common sense of history itself, should have been adopted as
matter of fact by Arab vanity and ignorance, is less surprising than that
it should have found favour in the eyes of not a few, indeed of most, of
our own European writers. Enough here to say that Mohammedan chroniclers,
by adopting as irrefragable historical authority the Jewish records, and
then retouching them here and there in accordance with their own special
predictions and tenets, have succeeded in concealing the truth of their
own national identity and story from themselves and even from others,
under an almost hopeless incrustation of childish fiction.
To sum up, at the opening of the seventh century of our era, and
coincidently with the first appearance of the prophetic autocrat and
destined remodeller of Arabia, the overteeming life and energy of the
great peninsula was, broadly taken, thus divided: Foremost stood the
tribe of Koreish, with their allies, a powerful confederacy composed of
tribes belonging to the Mustareb or northern stock, and occupying the
upper half of the westerly coast and region. Next in importance came the
countless independent, and, thus far, uncentralised clans of the centre
of the peninsula; they, too, are mostly of Mustareb origin; though a
few claimed the more ancient and aristocratic kinsmanship of Yemen, but
without, however, paying any allegiance to its rulers. Lastly, to the
south, east, and north, still existed the noble but enfeebled relics of
the old Yemenite kingdoms of Sana, Hira, and Ghassan, half-sunk into
Persian or Byzantine vassalage, and exerting little authority, even
within their own ancestral limits.
[Sidenote: [25 B.C.-632 A.D.]]
But, however important to the country itself and in their ultimate
results to the world at large might be the events that took place within
Arabia during the pre-Islamitic epoch, they had small bearing on the
nations outside the peninsula. The Yemenite queen of Sheba’s ambassage
to Solomon, even if an historical event, led at least to no historical
results; and with other coeval rulers and nationalities, Greek, Persian,
and Macedonian, the Arabs rarely came into any other contact than that of
distant and desultory traffic. Nor do the frontier skirmishes by which
an Antigonus or a Ptolemy attempted, without success, to gain a footing
in Arabia, deserve more than a passing notice; and Pompey himself,
victorious elsewhere, was foiled on its frontiers.
At last during the reign of Augustus, Ælius Gallus, the Roman prefect
of Egypt, undertook a military expedition against Yemen itself, with
the view of annexing that region, which report enriched with immense
treasures, to the Roman Empire. With an army composed of ten thousand
Roman infantry, five hundred Jews, and one thousand Nabatæans, he crossed
the Red Sea in two hundred and ten galleys, and landed at Moilah, or
Leuce Come, in 25° N. lat., near the modern Yambo. After some delay, the
consequence of disease and disorganisation among his troops, he marched
southward until he reached the inland district and city of Nejran, on the
nearer frontier of Yemen. The town of Nejran he is said to have taken by
assault, as well as a few neighbouring places, probably mere villages, of
little note.
Meanwhile a large force of Arabs had assembled to oppose him, but Gallus
easily defeated them, and advanced to Mareb itself, then, we may suppose,
the capital of Yemen. But the Roman soldiers, unaccustomed to the heat
of the tropical climate, and much reduced in numbers, were incapable of
laying siege to that town; and their general thus found himself forced
to retreat, and recrossed the sea to Egypt without having effected any
permanent settlement on the Arab side. Later attempts, made by Roman
governors or generals under Trajan and Severus, were restricted to the
neighbourhood of the Assyrian frontier; and the ruined cities of Bosrah
and Petra yet indicate the landmarks of the extreme southerly limits
reached by imperial dominion over Arab territory.
More serious, and more lasting in its consequences, was the great
Abyssinian invasion of Yemen in 529, when Aryat, son or lieutenant of
the king of Abyssinia, landed in Aden with an army of seventy thousand
men, to avenge his co-religionists, the Christians, who had been cruelly
persecuted by Dhu-Nowas, king of Yemen, himself a proselyte to and an
ardent propagator of the Jewish code. The expedition was successful;
Dhu-Nowas perished, Christianity was proclaimed, and for seventy-six
years the Ethiopian conquerors retained subject to their rule the
southern and richer half of the peninsula. Their king Abraha even
advanced, in 570 A.D. (the year of the birth of Mohammed) as far as
Mecca; but beneath its walls suffered a repulse, which has been magnified
by the _Koran_ and Mohammedan tradition into the proportions of a
miracle. Persian assistance, furnished by the great Chosroes, ultimately
enabled the Arabs under Seif, son of Yezen, last direct lineal descendant
of the old kings of Sana, to liberate their territory from its dusky
usurpers (605 A.D.).
The seventh century had now commenced, and before long the wonderful
successes of Mohammed (622-632 A.D.), while they closed in one great
centralising effort the era of Arab progress and development within the
land, opened a marvellous phase of new activity and almost boundless
extension without.[l]
[Illustration]
CHAPTER IV. MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED BEN ABDALLAH BEN ABDUL-MUTTALIB
[Sidenote: [570-632 A.D.]]
While the poets in their stories were moulding the language to a more
uniform character, another work was going on in men’s minds which
contributed to found Arab nationality in a more decisive manner; there
was no more belief in the idols which had, at an early date, taken the
place of the one God, Allah; religious sentiment burst out on every side.
Already wide schisms were apparent; entire tribes had abandoned the
former worship. Besides idolatry, several religions were to be found in
Arabia. The Jews, driven from their country by the Assyrians, the Romans,
and the Greeks, had been warmly welcomed by the children of Ishmael,
who found in the traditions of the exiles a deep respect for the God
of Abraham; by means of these souvenirs skilfully evoked, Judaism had
made converts. It was principally seen spread throughout Hedjaz, in the
neighbourhood of Khaibar and Yathreb, where powerful tribes, those of the
Koraizas and the Nadhirites, had long been naturalised. A large portion
of the tribes of Yemen had also adopted it; and some of the Tobbas had
favoured the introduction of the faith of Moses into their states,
principally towards the years 225, 310, and 495 A.D. Sabaism or magianism
was also practised by the Himyarites and on the coast of the Persian
Gulf; some disciples of Brahmanism were even to be found in the midst of
the inhabitants of Oman.
RELIGIOUS UNREST
[Sidenote: [520-580 A.D.]]
Christianity, successfully preached in several parts of Arabia, was
professed by the Ghassanides in the year 330, and by various Arab tribes
of Irak, Mesopotamia, Bahrein, the desert of Faran, and Damut-Jandal.
The combined efforts of the negus of Abyssinia and of the emperor of
Constantinople had contributed to spread the Gospel in Yemen. The
Christian colony of Nejran had been honoured by persecution under
Dhu-Nowas towards 523; fifty years later, Abraha sought to make of the
church of Sana the goal of Arab pilgrimages. Lastly several kings of
Hira had been favourable to the religion of Christ.
In the midst of the new ideas which preaching had spread throughout the
peninsula, idolatry nevertheless remained the dominant religion. The
intermediary divinities which certain tribes adored bore no resemblance
to those creations of the Greeks and Romans, who worshipped moral beings
clothed in bodily forms; they were, as with the ancient Egyptians,
animals and plants, the gazelle, the horse, the camel, palm trees,
vegetables, or inorganic bodies, rocks, stones, etc. All the Arabs
acknowledged one supreme God, Allah; but some of them worshipped under
the figure of their idols, the angels Benat-allah (the daughters of God);
others, the planets or stars such as Aldebaran, Sirius, Canope, etc.
They believed in genii, _Jinn_, in ogres, _Ghol_, in witchcraft, _Shir_,
in divination, _Kehana_, in sacrifices, in oracles; fate was consulted
by means of arrows without points, _kidah_ or _azlam_, and the most
blamable superstitious rites were still almost universally practised. A
great number of tribes had their special idols, Hobal, Lat, etc., who
were honoured by rich offerings, and in whose honour victims were slain;
however, no temple had the fame of the Kaaba, whose pre-eminence was
universally admitted.
This temple, which Abraha al-Ashram had wished to destroy, had been
throughout the ages the object of the greatest veneration; it was looked
on as a present made by Jehovah to the Arab race to bear witness to its
condition privileged beyond all others. It was the oratory of Abraham and
of Ishmael, the house of Allah; on receiving the 360 idols, subordinate
powers accepted by the Arabs, it included all their divinities and became
the Pantheon of the nation; the traditions connected with it were dear
to all. They made the Kaaba a place of pilgrimage. They laboured to
adorn it, to beautify it; they would have liked it to surpass in riches
all the monuments of the universe; they hung the _Moallakat_ in it,
as if to connect with it every form of illustration. The Sabians, the
fire-worshippers, sent their offerings to it; even the Jews showed a deep
respect for this revered spot. The guardians of the temple, the Koreish
clan, had a sort of religious authority which was willingly recognised by
all; for instance, they had the right to name the sacred months during
which, after the pilgrimage, a suspension of arms should reign throughout
Arabia. So those who could attend the fair of Okad placed their weapons
in the hands of the Koreish chiefs before entering the meeting, which,
without this wise precaution, would often have degenerated into bloody
fights. It was therefore necessary to have influence at Mecca and with
the Koreish chiefs if one wished to found a uniform and national religion
in Arabia, and Mohammed saw this perfectly.
Abdul-Muttalib, the son of Hashim, born in 497, exercised supreme
authority in Mecca, from 520 to 579; he had the glory of delivering his
country from the invasion of the Abyssinians, and he saw a Himyarite
prince drive the foreigners from Yemen with the help of the king of
Persia. Father of eighteen children, he believed himself bound by a rash
vow to sacrifice one of his sons, in 569, before the idols of the Kaaba;
fate fixed on one he loved the most, Abdallah, about twenty-four years
of age. At the moment of the sacrifice, some of the Koreish chiefs rose
against so barbarous an action and so fatal an example; by their advice a
witch, _arrafa_, was consulted, who declared that Abdallah’s life might
be purchased by means of the _dia_ (price of human blood), and by drawing
lots. The _dia_ consisting of ten camels, the number ten was inscribed
on a pointless arrow, and on another the name of Abdallah; nine times
the name of Abdallah appeared, and it was only the tenth time that the
camels were condemned. So a hundred were killed instead of Abdallah, and
this number became thenceforth among the Koreish chiefs the price of the
_dia_.
A few days later Abdallah married Amina, daughter of Wahb, chief of the
family of the Zohri, and from this marriage was born Mohammed, “the
glorified,” about the month of August, 570.[b]
MOHAMMED’S LIFE
[Sidenote: [570-595 A.D.]]
Mohammed (properly Muhammad, “the much praised”; and not Mahomet),
was born in Mecca five years after the death of Justinian. The small
inheritance which his father left him consisted of five camels and a
faithful female slave. The biographers inform us that according to the
custom which prevailed among the upper classes in Mecca, his mother
Amina put the child out to nurse in the country. Halima, the wife of a
herdsman, was his foster-mother and nurse till his third year, and the
sacred legend tells us of many wonders with which the divine favour
surrounded Mohammed’s childhood. Halima’s flocks and herds increased
tenfold; her fields bore a superabundant harvest; angels cleansed
the child’s heart from all sins and filled it with faith, knowledge
and prophetic gifts. As, however, the child suffered from fits of
convulsions, at the end of two years Halima brought him back to his
mother. With her he remained till his sixth year. She then went with him
to Yathreb (Medina), to visit her relatives, but died on the way back in
the town of Abwa.
Mohammed now entered the house of his grandfather, Abdul-Muttalib, and
when two years later the latter also died, his uncle Abu Talib took him
into his family and watched over him with paternal affection. The story
that in his twelfth year he accompanied his foster-father on a caravan
journey to Syria, and that on this occasion a Christian monk foretold the
boy’s future greatness, appears, like many other details of his life,
to be a later legend. As he grew older, after having spent some time in
guarding the flocks, Mohammed took his share in the business and manner
of life of his relatives. He accompanied several of his uncles on warlike
and commercial expeditions, in which he learned to know his country and
his nation, and beheld the desert with its terrors and its poetry, where
he heard the legends and traditions of the wandering tribes and gathered
information concerning the teachings of the beliefs of Jew and Christian.
He did not himself understand the language of writing, but Mecca as the
pilgrim city of the East was one of the world’s centres, a school of
culture containing much instruction for a thoughtful youth. The Christian
religion, indeed, appears to have been known to him only by a few legends
and distorted doctrines; but on the other hand the Jewish sect of the
Hanifs, who lived scattered over the oases of the desert, had preserved
and handed down Judaism in its original purity and simplicity, together
with the belief in divine revelations at the mouth of inspired prophets.
HIS MARRIAGE WITH KHADIJA
[Sidenote: [595-612 A.D.]]
In his twenty-fifth year Khadija, the wealthy widow of a merchant, who
like himself was descended from Kussai, intrusted him with the conduct
of some caravans going to Syria and southern Arabia. In the execution
of these commissions Mohammed showed so much circumspection, skill, and
honesty, that Khadija though already forty years old permitted him to
make application for her hand. The wedding was solemnly performed and
it founded Mohammed’s fortune. Khadija was an intelligent and virtuous
woman, and a faithful companion to her husband in good and evil days.
“She was his first convert, she comforted him when he was mocked, she
encouraged him when he suffered under persecution, she strengthened him
when he was wavering.” But for the love and faith of Khadija, Mohammed
would never have become the prophet of his nation.
“Although poor in goods which are but transient possessions, inconstant
shadows,” said Abu Talib at the marriage feast, “my nephew Mohammed
exceeds all the men of the Koreish in nobility of soul, virtue, and
understanding.”
The marriage was blessed with children, but the sons died at a tender
age; and of the four daughters only the youngest, Fatima, continued the
race. Mohammed recognised and valued Khadija’s superior qualities. In
spite of his great fondness for the female sex he remained faithful to
her so long as she lived, and after her death held her memory in high
honour. Aisha, his beloved wife of later days, said she was never so
jealous of any of his other wives as she was of the dead Khadija whom he
always declared to be a model for all women.
For more than a decade after his marriage Mohammed continued his life as
a merchant, but with little success and little content. He was often seen
to be deep in thought; he withdrew more and more into solitude, spending
many days and generally the whole of the month Ramadhan in a cave in
Mount Hira, not far from Mecca. Sometimes he went into this retirement
alone, sometimes with Khadija.
There in that gloomy neighbourhood, full of naked rocks, yawning
precipices, and grim ravines where no shade affords protection from
the blazing sunlight, where no grass, no vegetation, no sound of
falling water refreshes the spirit, he gave himself up to religious
contemplations and considered how he might save his nation from its
degradation. In the city of Mecca, all alive as it was with people, as
well as on his journeys, he had been brought much in contact with Jews
and Christians; he had not only absorbed their teaching and traditions,
but from the effects of their religion on life and character he had
perceived the superiority of the belief in one God over the idolatrous
heathenism of his own nation; and he had also learned that both religious
fraternities still waited for the completion of their religion; the Jews
looking for the advent of a messiah, the Christians for the return of
Jesus or the appearance of the promised “comforter” (_paraclete_). Thus
there gradually awoke in him the conviction that his people stood in
need of a purer revealed religion, that the idols were but vain trifles,
and that their worship excited the anger of God; that a new and divinely
inspired prophet must come forward, who should overturn the kingdom of
darkness and idolatry, and his fiery imagination filled him with the
belief that the one God had sent him to convert mankind that they might
become participators in the joys of heaven, and escape the fearful
chastisements of hell. His nervous, hysterical nature, the violent
convulsions and cataleptic fits which seized him from time to time, the
vivid dreams and mental delusions produced by his feverish and excited
fancy, might well engender in himself and others the belief that he had
relations with angels and spirits, and was a sharer in divine visions
and inspirations. Mohammed had already passed his fortieth year when he
“began to feel the travail of new ideas.”
MOHAMMED AS A PROPHET (610 OR 612 A.D.)
[Sidenote: [610-612 A.D.]]
Once when he was dwelling in the gloomy cavern he had a vision, in which
the angel Gabriel approached him and commanded him to publish abroad the
revelations which the Lord and Creator had sent. Mohammed felt his spirit
illuminated with a divine light; but doubting lest a demon should be
playing him an evil trick, he came to Khadija, his face streaming with
perspiration and utterly discomposed. She believed in the divine message,
and in union with her learned cousin Waraka, who had already denied the
pagan beliefs of the fathers, she laboured to dispel his doubt.
Soon the angel appeared to him a second time, and gave him an assurance
that he was not possessed by demons but called of God to spread the
revelations of heaven. Mohammed now believed and announced that Allah,
the lord of heaven and earth, had chosen him as his ambassador to inform
men of his holy will; he now believed and taught that the Lord spake by
him, and that his utterances were inspirations and revelations from the
only and most high God, and being written down separately and eventually
put together in the sacred book _Koran_,[c] they were so regarded by the
faithful and accepted with reverence. Thus began Mohammed’s prophetic
career in the year 610 or 612 of our era. Like the seers of old, like
the prophets in Israel, he took the enthusiasm which dwelt in him as a
“charge from the Lord,” and the words which issued from his mouth as the
outpourings of the divine spirit.
Convinced of the truth of his prophetic mission, Mohammed now entered on
his office of teacher. But with all his devotion to the holy cause he
went to work with great caution. He first turned to his kinsmen that he
might be recognised by them as the messenger of God. His wife Khadija,
his daughters, his cousin Ali, the ten-year-old son of Abu Talib, his
friend Abu Bekr, a well-to-do merchant of upright character and clear
discernment, and his former slave Zaid to whom he had given his liberty
were his first converts. In like manner he avoided anything which might
have irritated his compatriots.
“He sought to bring his teaching into harmony with their prejudices and
to lead them gradually to a better knowledge. He did not venture to
attack the sanctity of the Kaaba, joined in the ceremonies of the pilgrim
festival, and sanctioned the adoration of the Black Stone.”
Thus three years went by, during which the number of Mohammed’s adherents
did not exceed forty, for the most part young men, foreigners or slaves.
It was not till the fourth year that in accordance with another vision
he attempted to appear publicly in the character of a prophet. He first
addressed himself to the men of his own race, the Koreish; and in the
name of the one God who had sent him as his apostle, threatened them with
the fire of hell if they did not renounce their unbelief.
“One day ye shall die and rise again; then must ye give account of your
deeds and shall be rewarded for your virtue in paradise and punished for
your vices in hell.”
But far from winning a hearing he reaped mockery and scorn. Already in
the first assembly his uncle Abu Lahab had lifted a stone against him;
and although the rest of his kinsmen protected him from ill-treatment,
the hatred and opposition of the Koreish increased with each new oration.
The more clearly they perceived that Mohammed’s claims as a prophet
might endanger their priestly position and their lucrative privileges
as guardians of the holy temple, the more fiercely did their anger
burn, and the more vehement became their threats and abuse. His chief
opponents were the Koreish of the line of the Abd Shams, under the
leadership of Abu Sufyan and Abu Hakam, called by Mohammed, Abu Jahl (the
father of folly), two bitter enemies of the new prophet. It was only to
the protection of his nearest relatives that Mohammed owed his rescue
from the violence of his enemies and persecutors. On the other hand
the position of his adherents of humble rank, who had no such powerful
protectors to stand by them, especially of the slaves and freedmen, grew
daily more insecure; so that in order that they might escape torture and
scourging the prophet allowed some of his followers to deny him outwardly
“if only the heart remained steadfast in the faith,” and on his advice a
number of believing men and women, amongst them his daughter Rokayyah and
her husband Othman, took ship for Abyssinia, where the king, a Nestorian
Christian, assured them a refuge. In vain did the Koreish through Amru
and another ambassador, offer the prince rich gifts for the delivery of
the refugees; the Abyssinian kept his hands pure of any injury to those
who had sought his protection. He may have perceived that the persecuted
stood nearer to the true faith than the idol worshippers of the Kaaba.
MOHAMMED AN OUTLAW
[Sidenote: [612-620 A.D.]]
The invective and ill-treatment which Mohammed had to suffer increased
the number of his followers, whilst indignation at the abuse and insults
to which he was daily exposed without any fault of his own led certain
brave men of chivalrous disposition to take his part. Amongst them were
Mohammed’s uncle Hamza, “the lion of God,” and Jahl’s nephew Omar. Having
been sent by his relatives to kill the prophet for a great reward, on the
way to the latter’s dwelling Omar was suddenly and miraculously converted
by hearing his sister Fatima read a passage of the _Koran_, and from
being a persecutor he became an earnest believer. Omar, then twenty-six
years old, was a man of gigantic stature, of fabulous strength, and great
courage. His wild aspect terrified the boldest, and his staff struck more
fear into the beholder than would have been inspired by another man’s
sword.
But the more devotees “Islam” _i.e._, “submission” (to the will of God)
acquired, the more eagerly did its enemies seek to stifle the work in
the blood of its author. New persecutions increased the number of the
emigrants; only Mohammed and his most faithful worshippers were protected
by Abu Talib from the rage of the sons of Shams and Naufal. He hid them
in a strong castle without the city, in the depths of an impassable
ravine, and when their powerful enemies laid a ban on all the followers
of the prophet and the whole race of Hashim and solemnly declared in a
roll which was hung up in the interior of the Kaaba that until he was
given up they would treat his protectors as enemies, the faithful uncle
betook himself to the rocky fortress with many of his kinsmen. For three
years they lived in the barren desert, cut off from all communication
with the city, whither they could venture only in the sacred months, and
often they were in want of the most necessary means of existence. Finally
the ban, which had excited the greatest discontent in Mecca, and of which
even the sons of Shams were beginning to grow weary, was removed. The
parchment roll disappeared from the Kaaba, according to the legend, by
a miracle. Mohammed now returned to Mecca (_circa_ 620); but soon the
death of his paternal friend and protector, Abu Talib, who was followed
to the grave a few days later by his faithful wife Khadija, exposed him
to fresh dangers. Abu Talib died in the religion of his fathers; he had
always honoured his nephew as an upright and god-fearing man, but he had
never believed in his prophetic mission. Mohammed sincerely mourned them
both.
[Sidenote: [620-622 A.D.]]
“Never was there a better wife than Khadija,” he said once to the
youthful and beautiful Aisha; “she believed in me when men despised
me; she relieved my wants when I was poor and despised by the world.”
Nevertheless he soon consoled himself for her loss by his marriage to
Sauda and his betrothal to Aisha, the seven-year old daughter of Abu Bekr.
While the prophet was leading a melancholy existence under scorn and
ignominy, sometimes in Mecca, sometimes in the society of a few friends
in Taif, a place lying in a fruitful region on the borders of the hill
country, hiding himself with difficulty from the snares and persecutions
of his enemies, his soul felt itself comforted and exalted by new
visions. He saw in the spirit how he was borne on a winged horse to the
temple at Jerusalem and thence to the seventh heaven to the presence of
God, where the patriarchs, the earlier prophets, and the hosts of angels
yielded him precedence, and the Lord himself proclaimed him as the crown
and aim of creation. He needed this self-confidence, this firm belief in
his high message, to keep him from wavering and succumbing to the storms
and dangers which gathered over his head.
But whilst the inhabitants of Mecca hardened their hearts against the
doctrine of the one God, revealing himself through the new prophet,
Mohammed won eager devotees from a host of pilgrims from Yathreb,
afterwards called Medina, _i.e._, the city, to whom he unfolded the
principles of Islam on the “mount of homage,” Akaba. They belonged to
the distinguished tribe of the Khazraj who, in conjunction with the
tribe of Aus had, in the fifth century, wrested the lordship of Medina
from the Jews; and on their return to their native city they worked in
secret for the new faith for which, in consequence of their relations
with the numerous Jewish tribes in the neighbourhood, they were better
prepared than the Meccans. In spite of the jealousy of the tribes of Aus
towards the Khazraj, by the energy of the learned Masab, whom Mohammed
sent to Medina as his forerunner and as reader of the _Koran_, Islam
soon obtained a firm foothold in the city; so that two years later his
adherents could venture to invite the prophet to visit them. With this
object seventy-three believers journeyed to Mecca and in an assembly held
at night on that same hill of homage they made a covenant with Mohammed.
They vowed, and gave their hands on the promise, to pray only to the one
God and to none other gods, to honour the prophet, to obey him in joy
and sorrow, and always confess the truth without fear of man. Under the
guidance of twelve leaders, whom Mohammed selected from amongst them, the
men of Medina (who thenceforth bore the name of Ansar, _i.e._, those who
give aid) returned to their own city in the company of many believers.
THE HEGIRA (622 A.D.)
[Sidenote: [622 A.D.]]
But Mohammed, with his most faithful adherents Abu Bekr and Ali,
remained in Mecca three months longer. Only when he was informed by a
secret worshipper that the Koreish had determined to murder him, did
he depart on his flight with Abu Bekr, both mounted on swift camels.
Whilst the enemy was surrounding his house, the craft and fidelity of
Ali, who occupied the prophet’s bed and assumed his garments, enabled
him and his friend to flee secretly in the darkness of the night and
conceal themselves in a cave. Next morning, when the Koreish discovered
the deception, they set a price of a hundred camels on the head of the
fugitive and sent in pursuit of him. But Mohammed’s destiny was not yet
fulfilled. After having spent three days and nights in the cave of Mount
Thaur, he succeeded in escaping with his companion by by-paths to Medina.
With this flight, which was afterwards assigned to the 16th of July of
the year 622 according to our reckoning, begins the Hegira, the era of
the Mohammedans or Moslems (Mussulmans), _i.e._, the “submissive.” [Ali
remained three days after his master had left. Considerable property had
been entrusted to Mohammed for safe keeping; and it was Ali’s duty to
restore this to its owners.]
The people of Medina received Mohammed with joyous enthusiasm; his
entrance into the town resembled that of a triumphant prince rather than
a poor fugitive. Soon the rest of his friends and followers gathered
round him, amongst them Ali whom the Koreish had allowed to go unharmed,
Omar, with his beautiful daughter Hafsa, whom some time afterward the
prophet included in the number of his wives, and Othman with his wife
Rokayyah. When the last-named died in the following year, Mohammed gave
his second daughter Um Kolthum in marriage to his faithful comrade. The
case containing the inspired sayings of the _Koran_ was entrusted to the
care of Hafsa.
[Sidenote: [622-624 A.D.]]
The prophet’s presence had the most beneficial results for Medina. The
two tribes of the Khazraj and the Aus, who in former years had often
engaged in bloody conflicts, were united in the new faith as the faithful
“helpers” of God’s messenger, and in conjunction with the emigrants from
Mecca (Mohajira) formed the kernel of the Moslems. At first Mohammed
attempted to win over the numerous Jews of Medina to his cause, and
for this reason paid attention in many respects to the Mosaic law; he
continued the observance of the Sabbath, and made Jerusalem the Kibla,
_i.e._, the holy place, towards which the faithful had to turn their
faces when they prayed. But when the Jews refused to recognise him as the
expected Messiah as they had formerly refused to recognise Jesus, but
rather made the new prophet an object of their scorn, he once more turned
to the old Arab faith. He removed the Kibla to Mecca, appointed Friday
as the day of devotion and religious observance, and eventually wielded
the scourge of religious persecution over Jews and heathens without
distinction.
Many of the emigrant Meccans were overtaken by illness and homesickness
in this foreign land, and in order to make up to them for the loss of
their relatives and belongings, Mohammed founded a system of brotherhood
among fifty-four believers from Mecca and a like number from Medina, so
that two men united in this “brotherhood of faith” should stand closer to
each other, even in the matter of inheritance, than blood relations,--an
institution which lasted, however, only until the foreigners had settled
into the new life.
A second period in the history of the development of Islam begins in
Medina. But however brilliantly and successfully Mohammed’s prophetic
labours might continue from this time forward, his character during the
period of his fortune was less spotless, his conviction less sincere, his
motives less pure than in the dark and suffering time of persecution and
oppression. His revelations, which he received from the angel Gabriel as
occasion arose, were circulated as inspired sayings amongst the people,
partly through oral tradition, partly in fly-leaves until they were put
together in one whole as the holy writing (_Koran_). They were not drawn
up without occasional adjustment to the circumstances of the moment
and to his own appetites, a transformation which reveals itself even in
the form and the language. For whilst in the parts drawn up in Mecca
poetic enthusiasm prevails to an undue extent, in Medina the oratorical
element is more in the foreground; for Mohammed, all too closely bound
to material things, was no longer able to disengage himself from them.
In the lack of personal conviction which now supervened, if he wished to
rise above the commonplace he had to supply the inner impulse by affected
vividness, and the truth firmly believed by empty sophistry; and from his
manner of writing it is easy to see that his thoughts no longer spring
from a warm heart, but are the products of a cold intellect. No longer
following the suggestions of his mind can he allow his discourse to
pursue its natural course; all must now be thought out beforehand, for it
is no longer guided by the spirit of God but by his own _ego_. The first
mosque, a simple, artless building made of the wood of date trees, which
was erected soon after his arrival in Medina, became a sacred centre of
his teaching. From its roof, five times each day, the steadfast devotee
Bilal summoned the faithful to prayer.
[Illustration: ARAB CHIEF IN THE TIME OF MOHAMMED]
Hitherto Islam had been a religion of peace and love, and Mohammed had
inculcated no precept as he had that of gentleness in word and deed. But
now that he found himself at the head of a submissive host of followers
and in a position to oppose his enemies by force of arms, he declared
the struggle against the infidel, the spread of his doctrines by fire
and sword, to be the sacred duty binding on all Moslems, a precept which
gave Islam an aggressive direction and had in its results a world-shaking
significance. Not to bring peace, but a sword, had he, the last and
greatest of the prophets, appeared on earth; the struggle against the
enemies of Islam was a sacred struggle; he who fell in the contest would
pass, free from all sin and punishment, safely into paradise, that abode
of the blessed which he had painted to his converts with all the ardour
of his imagination as a place of earthly pleasures and all the joys of
sense; and still further to inflame their courage he planted in their
souls the contempt of death by teaching them that the duration of life
as well as the destiny and end of mankind had been fixed beforehand by a
divine decree, by an unchangeable fate; if the hour of death had come,
none could escape his destiny, if the end of life had not yet approached,
he might unhesitatingly venture the utmost.
Relying on the warlike impulse which such doctrines must have engendered
in the fiery soul of the Arab, Mohammed, at the head of his fellow
tribesmen, allies, and believing followers, now undertook warlike
expeditions against the Koreish who had driven him from his native
city. He knew that he could not more effectively punish the haughty
merchant princes of Mecca than by lying in wait for their caravans and
robbing them of the valuable wares which they were accustomed to take
to Syria. At the same time he could absolutely rely on the assistance
of his new fellow-citizens in these struggles, for the merchants of
Mecca looked down with contempt on the agricultural people of Medina.
He himself generally marched into the field more to fire the courage of
the combatants by his prayers and promises of heavenly support than for
the purpose of himself bearing the white standard, which he generally
entrusted to the valiant Omar, or the heroic Ali, the “father of the
dust.”
Ali, to whom Mohammed gave his favourite daughter Fatima in marriage at
Medina, is the purest and noblest figure among the followers of Mohammed,
the “Siegfried of Islam,” as a modern writer has designated him. All his
life he adhered to the prophet and the faith of his youth with complete
submission and eager admiration. If his fiery, pure, and magnanimous
character made him the boast and ornament of the Moslems, he was also by
his heroism and bravery the bold vindicator of Islam, the trumpet of the
strife in struggle and danger.
If at first warfare was suspended during the sacred months, according to
the practice of former generations, Mohammed soon tore down this barrier.
For instance, Abdallah ben Jash fell on the Koreish in the valley of
Nakhla during the sacred month of Rajab, robbed their wagons, and slew
some of the escort and took others prisoners; and when the prophet, who
had himself recommended this act to the leader in a dubiously worded
document, perceived that it had excited general indignation, he issued a
proclamation by which war against the infidel was declared to be lawful
at any period--a proof “that he was no longer acting according to the
will of God but according to his own will”; and that the utterances of
the _Koran_ were so many “pictures reflecting” his own position. In the
second year of the Hegira the fight of Bedr took place; and here was
manifested for the first time how the hope of a blessed hereafter had
filled the believing Moslems with an enthusiasm which defied death and
despised pain.