SYNOPSIS OF THE DYNASTIES, RELIGIONS, SECTS, AND PHILOSOPHIC OPINIONS,
TREATED OF IN THE DABISTAN.
§ I.――THE FIRST RELIGION――THE DYNASTIES OF MAHABAD, ABAD AZAR, SHAI
ABAD, SHAI GILIV, SHAI MAHBUL, AND YASAN.
Mohsan Fani exhibits the remarkable notions, dogmas, customs, and
ceremonies of twelve religions, and their various sects, without
giving more of their origin and genesis than the names of their
founders. The very first principle of all religion is referred, by
some, to a primitive Divine revelation; by others, to a natural
propensity of the human mind to superstition. However this may be,
history confirms the suggestions of psychology, that admiration was
one of the principal sources of religious feelings; how should man not
be struck with the glories of the sky? Therefore, the adoration of
stars was one of the most ancient religions. It needed no prophet: it
is “_the poetry of heaven_,” imprinted in eternal characters of fire
upon the ethereal expanse. Prometheus, enumerating the benefits which
he bestowed upon untutored barbarians, says:[73]
“―― ―― ―― At random all their works
Till I instructed them to mark the stars,
Their rising, and, a harder science yet,
Their setting.”[74]
According to all traditions, astronomy was one of the first sciences
cultivated by men.[75] The stars not only occasioned the institution,
but also served to announce the regular return, of religious feasts;
thus they became, as called by Plato, “the instruments of time,” men
were at once induced and taught by religion to count months and years.
Astronomy, in her feast-calendars, consecrated upon an altar the first
fruits of her labors.
Upon the star-paved path of heaven man was conducted to the sanctuary
of the supreme Being. In general, the first feeling of “the Divine (το
θεῖον),” seizing the human mind with its own supernatural power,
elevated it at once above the material concerns of the nether world;
thus, sublime ideas of the Deity, the universe, and the immortality of
the soul preceded the invention of many arts and sciences relative to
the comforts of social life. This is confirmed by the account,
contained in the Dabistán, of the most ancient religion of the
Persians, which is founded upon transcendental ideas of the Divinity:
“Except God himself, who can comprehend his origin? Entity, unity,
identity are inseparable properties of this original essence, and are
not adventitious to Him.” So the Desátir, with which the Dabistán
generally so fully agrees, that we can scarce doubt that the author of
the latter had the former before his eyes.
No sooner has man acquired the consciousness of mental freedom, than
he endeavors to expand beyond himself the first vague feeling of the
Divine; not satisfied to admire all exterior marvel, he desires to
understand and to name its interior moving cause: this is something
immaterial; it is a soul, such as acts in himself. Among the ancient
Iranians, the “first creation of the existence-bestowing bounty” was
the intellectual principle, called _Azad Bahman_, “the first
intelligence;” he is also the first angel; from him other spirits or
angels proceed. Every star, every heavenly sphere has its particular
intelligence and spirit or angel. In the lower region, each of the
four elements owns its particular guardian; vegetables, minerals,
animals have their protecting angels; the conservative angel of
mankind is _Farun Faro Vakshur_. It is not without reason, that this
religion was called “the religion of light.” As the supreme Being
“Sow’d with stars the heav’n thick as the field.”[76]
So also he peopled the vast extent with the “sons of light, the
empyreal host of angels,” who not only moved and governed the
celestial orbs, but also descended into the elemental regions to
direct, promote, and protect his creation. Not a drop of dew fell
without an angel. The Hindus and Greeks animated universal nature; the
Persians imparadized the whole creation by making it the abode of
angels. Hence demonology in all its extent. But, “_among_ the most
resplendent, powerful, and glorious of the servants who are free from
inferior bodies and matter, there is none God’s enemy or rival, or
disobedient, or cast down, or annihilated.” This important passage of
the Desátir[77] I shall have occasion to refer to hereafter.
Human souls are eternal and infinite; they come from above, and are
spirits of the upper spheres. If distinguished for knowledge and
sanctity, while on earth, they return above, are united with the sun,
and become empyreal sovereigns; but if the proportion of their good
works bore a closer affinity to any other star, they become lords of
the place assigned to that star; their stations are in conformity with
the degrees of their virtue; perfect men attain the beatific vision of
the light of lights, and the cherubine hosts of the supreme Lord. Vice
and depravity, on the contrary, separate souls from the primitive
source of light, and chain them to the abode of the elements: they
become evil spirits. The imperfectly good migrate from one body to
another, until, by the efficacy of good words and actions, they are
finally emancipated from matter, and gain a higher rank. The
thoroughly-depraved descend from the human form to animal bodies, to
vegetable, and even to mineral substances.
So far we see the well-known dogma of transmigration ingeniously
combined with the Sidereal religion. Here is exhibited a singular
system of heavenly dominion, maintained by every star, whether fixed
or planetary, during periods of many thousand years. A fixed star
begins the revolution, and reigns alone, the king of the cycle, during
a millenium, after which, each of the fixed and planetary stars
becomes its partner or prime-minister for a thousand years; the last
of all is the moon, for a millenium. Then the sovereignty of the first
king devolves to the star which was its first associate. This second
king goes through the same course as the first, until this becomes for
a thousand years his partner, and then his period is also past. The
same is the course of all other stars. When the moon shall have been
king, and all stars associated with it and its reign too past, then
one great period shall be accomplished. The state of the revolving
world recommences, the human beings, animals, vegetables, and
minerals, which existed during the first cycle, are restored to their
former language, acts, dispositions, species, and appearances; the
world is renovated, that is to say, forms, similar to those which
passed away, reappear. This system, copied from the Desátir,[78]
expresses nothing else but the general vague idea of long heavenly
revolutions, and periodical renovations of the same order of things in
the nether world.
The Dabistán[79] adds a mode of computing as peculiar to the followers
of the ancient faith: they call one revolution of the regent Saturn a
day; thirty such days one month; twelve such months one year; a
million of such years one _fard_; a million fard one _vard_; a million
vard one _mard_; a million vard one _jad_; three thousand jads one
_vad_; and two thousand vád one _zád_. To these I must subjoin
_salam_, _shamar_, _aspar_, _radah_, _aradah_, _raz_, _araz_,
_biaraz_, that is, eight members of a geometric progression, the first
of which is 100,000, and the coefficient 100. But these years are
revolutions, called _farsals_, of thirty common years each. There are
besides farsals of Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the moon, a day of each
being the time of their respective revolution.
I thought it necessary to repeat these extravagant numbers, because it
is by them that the reigns of the first ancient dynasties are
measured.[80] The first earthly ruler of the present cycle, who with
his wife survived the great period to become the first ancestor of a
new innumerable population, was _Mahabada_. This name seems of
Sanscrit derivation.[81] In his reign we find traced the first
ground-lines of all human societies; agriculture and the arts of life
are invented; villages and cities organised; four classes of society
established――priests, warriors, agriculturists, and tradesmen. The
names of these classes are in the Dabistán much like those of the four
Hindu _castes_, but the Desátir and the Shahnamah have other
denominations, belonging to an ancient Persian dialect,[82] for these
divisions, which originated in the indispensable wants of a rising
society. This institution connects itself with the principles of
social morality: men are bound to each other by the laws of justice
and mutual kindness, which is extended even to all innoxious
creatures. To Mahabad the _Desátir_ was sent, a celestial code, and
his faith was maintained through the whole series of his fourteen
successors; the number of whom reminds us of the fourteen Indian
Manus; they are said to have reigned six hundred and six trillions of
years.
To the Mahabadians succeeded _Abad Azar_, who soon withdrew from
government, and devoted himself to solitude and piety. After him, the
hitherto fortunate state of society changed into war, confusion, and
anarchy. His son, _Jai Afram_, was called to the throne, and restored
peace and order in the world, giving his name to a new dynasty. After
this, four other princely families are named, that of _Shai Abad_,
_Shai Giliv_, _Shai Mahbul_, and _Yasan_.[83] I shall not count the
many millions of years during which they ruled; all that is said of
their reigns appears nothing but a repetition of the first; a period
of peace, order, and happiness is followed by war, disorder, and
misery, until a revolution renews the state of things. Such traditions
of a progress and regress in virtue and happiness, and of repeated
changes from one condition to another, are not destitute of general
truth. The moral is not, more than the physical world, exempt from
revolutions. These, although their date cannot be determined, have
left behind them undeniable traces, and without a reference to them,
we could not explain so much of the strangeness, incoherence, and
heterogeneity in the history of men and nature.
Thus I have slightly sketched the principal features of the religion
which prevailed among the first Persian dynasties; these, not
mentioned in other historical books, are we know peculiar to the
Desátir and Dabistán, which appeared to sir W. Jones an
unexceptionable authority for believing the Iranian monarchy “the
oldest in the world.” Upon this, W. Erskine remarked:[84] “Shall I be
forgiven for saying, that the history of letters seems to me scarcely
to afford an instance of a more perverted judgment on historical
evidence?” Silvestre de Sacy[85] too “banishes among the most absurd
fables the dynasties of the Mahabadians, and of their successors,
which sir William Jones, and after him some other Orientalists, have
too hastily adopted, and of which they would to-day blush, since their
titles have been produced.” More recently, William von Schlegel[86]
said: “It would be useless to conceal to the public that that learned
man, endowed with talents so rare, was totally deficient in historical
criticism:” This was inferred, because he had admitted, and used in
some of his considerations, as genuine, a forgery of Wilford’s Pandit.
Besides, “he received without diffidence, and even welcomed with
enthusiasm, the traditions contained in the Dabistán, a modern Persian
book, written with _the intention to claim for Persia the pre-eminence
over India with respect to the antiquity of religious revelations_.”
As to “the intention” mentioned, I hope to be able to justify Mohsan
Fani. With respect to the Mahabadian dynasties――the light recently
acquired upon the ancient history of Persia, reflect rather favorably
upon that part of sir William Jones’s opinion, that this country, in
its wide extent, was once the original seat of many nations now
settled in distant regions. So much, at least, may be considered as
established: 1. that the limits of history are to be removed further
back than those before fixed; 2. that in the earliest times primitive
nations, related by language to each other, had their origin in the
common elevated country of central Asia, and that the Iranians and
Indians were once united before their migration into Iran and
India.[87] This great fact presents itself, as it were, upon the
border of a vast abyss of unknown times.
For these a measure was sought. Hence we meet with extravagant, but
perpetually recurring chronological statements. The Mahabadian ages
are neither better nor worse, as to accuracy, than the Indian yugs,
the Chaldean,[88] or other periods. In order to reduce them to their
true value, we must consider them as nothing else than expressions of
the ideas which the ancients entertained of the antiquity of the world
and human society, in which they cannot be easily refuted, and at
least are not absurd. Such ideas originated, when man, curious after
his past, had long ceased to be a listless barbarian; but the earliest
civilisation is a late product of slow-working time, the memory of
which could have been preserved only by monuments. The most ancient of
these however are but recent in our historical knowledge, the limits
of which are far from being those of antiquity. The duration of
ante-historical empires, in printless but extensive spaces of times,
escapes research and computation. As men, however, bear with
impatience vague and loose ideas, the Persians, as well as other
nations, determined the past by numbers formed from the multiplication
of some astronomical periods known in early times, as has been
observed:[89] this appears to me at once the whole truth and falsehood
of those statements. In the utter impossibility to reconcile the
discordant data of different nations, we must content ourselves to
take up the general ideas and facts in which they all agree, whilst in
the particulars they all differ. Thus, in laying down maps of
countries little known, we are satisfied with tracing the general
direction of some rivers and mountains, and abstain from topographical
details.
[73] Προμηθευς δεσμωτης,
―― ―― ―― ―― ἄτης γνώμης τὸ πᾶν
Ἔπρασσον, ἔς τε δή σφιν ἀντολὰς ἐγὼ
Αστρων ἔδειξα, τάς τε δυσκρίτους δύσεις.
(v. 457-459).
[74] Transl. by Dr. Potter.
[75] Hyde, who did not know the Dabistán, says (p. 188):
that a year, or calendar, of Median invention was introduced
in Persia, before Jamshid, that is, according to Ferdusi’s
not irrational chronology, earlier than 3429 before our era.
[76] Milton’s Paradise Lost, b. VII. v. 358.
[77] The book of Shet Shai Kiliv, v. 59. p. 56.
[78] Bombay edit. Engl. transl., pp. 19. 20.
[79] Vol. I. p. 14. The Bombay Desátir does not mention the
revolution of Saturn, and states differently the value of
fard, mard, etc., etc.
[80] It is known that in India, and perhaps all over Asia,
the number of ciphers not followed by a significative
number, is indifferent, and indicates nothing else but
magnitude. Thus the Hindus, to determine positively
hundreds, thousands, etc., affix the required figure at the
end: for instance, to determine 100 rupees to be given, they
write 101.
[81] The word is perhaps a form of the Sanscrit _Mahábodhi_,
“a great deified teacher.” In the Burhani Kati we find six
significations attributed to the word _Abad_; these are: 1.
cultivated; 2. praise and prayer; 3. exclamation of praise;
4. the name of the Kaba; 5. the name of the first Persian
prophet; 6. good and beauteous.
[82] See vol. I. pp. 19-20.
[83] I have (see vol. I. p. 26, note 1) derived this name
from the Sanscrit _yas_, “glory, honor.” In Burhan Katii it
is interpreted by “what is convenient.”
[84] _Loco cit._, p. 342.
[85] _Journ. des Savans, février 1821_, p. 69.
[86] See _Réflexions sur l’Étude des Langues orientales_,
_loc. cit._, p. 51.
[87] See the development of these ideas in _Erdkunde von
Carl Ritter_, _VIII^{ter} Theil_; _III^{ter} Buch_, _West-asien
Seiten_ 105-109, with reference to _E. Burnouf Comment. sur
le Yacna_, pp. 461, 563.
[88] We may be here permitted to call to mind the eras of
the Chaldeans, who, according to Berosus, Epigenes, Diodorus
of Sicily, Abydenus counted 490,000, 720,000, 473,000,
463,763 years. They are said to have exhibited, before
Alexander’s conquest in Asia, historical annals for 150,000
years.
[89] See p. lxvii.
§ II.――THE PESHDADIAN, KAYANIAN, ASHKANIAN, AND
SASSANIAN DYNASTIES――THEIR RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS.
After the four dynasties mentioned follows the _Gilshanian_, monarchy,
founded by _Gilshah_, or _Kayomers_, “the king or form of earth.”[90]
We are now upon well-known ground, and hear familiar names of four
races: the _Péshdadian_, _Kayanian_, _Ashkaniun_, and _Sassanian_, to
which, altogether, the Dabistán attributes a period of 6024 years,
differing considerably from that of other Asiatic chronologers.[91]
Sir William Jones was right when he declared,[92] that “the annals of
the _Péshdadi_ (or Assyrian) race must be obscure and fabulous; those
of the Kayání family, or the Medes and Persians, heroic and poetic:”
annals gathered from oral traditions can be but such as the great
Orientalist characterises those of the mentioned dynasties. But it was
in his younger years, before he had enlarged his views upon the
history of mankind, that he fixed the origin of the Persian monarchy
so late as 890 years before our era;[93] afterwards, in India, he
refuted his former notions, and ranged more freely in the expanded
fields of antiquity. I shall add that Ferdusi places the beginning of
Gilshah’s reign 3529 years before Christ, an epoch which receives
synchronical confirmation from our daily-increasing knowledge of the
antiquity of China, India, Assyria, Egypt, and other states.
The fundamental religion remains the same: a celestial volume called
_Payman-i-farhang_, in perfect accord with the Mahabadian code, is
transmitted to Kayomers. So the Dabistán: but, in the Desátir, the
four books ascribed to the first four Mahabadian prophet-kings contain
the purest deism, and although the foundation of astrolatry and
demonolatry may be perceived in the cosmology of the first book, yet
these did not form a positive worship, which develops itself in the
seven planetary books of the seven subsequent Persian kings, to wit:
_Kayomers_, _Siamok_, _Hushang_, _Tahmúras_, _Jamshid_, _Feridun_, and
_Menocheher_. Under these monarchs, a particular worship was rendered
to the seven planets, as to mediators between God and men; the
description of the forms under which they have been adored, is not, to
my knowledge, found in any other book but the Dabistán.
Superstition is certainly as ancient as human nature itself; it is
impossible to fix the epoch at which particular opinions and practices
originated, such as the eighty-four sitting-postures at prayer; the
suppression of the breath for the abstraction of thought; the mystical
and fantastical notions upon vision and revelation; and particularly
the belief that a man may attain the faculty to quit and to reassume
his body, or to consider it as a loose garment, which he may put off
at pleasure for ascending to the world of light, and on his return be
reunited with the material elements. All these matters are considered
as very ancient.
We find in the Dabistán a curious account of Persian sects under
different names, such as _Abadians_, _Azur-Húshangians_,
_Jamshaspians_, _Samradians_, _Khodaiyans_, _Radians_, _Shidrangians_,
_Paikarians_, _Milanians_, _Alarians_, _Shidabians_, _Akshiyans_. The
founders of these sects are placed so far back as the reigns of
Jamshid and Zohak. Individuals professing the particular creed of each
of these sects were living in the time of the author of the Dabistán,
who was personally acquainted with several of them, and imparts the
information which he had himself received from their lips. He gives
with particular care an account of the before-mentioned Azar
Kaivan,[94] the chief of the later _Abadíans_ and _Azar-Hushangians_.
The doctrine of these sectaries contained peculiar notions about God’s
nature and attributes, and the world; the latter was to some an
illusion; God himself but an idea. To others, God was every thing, to
be served alone without a mediator between him and mankind;
the heavens and the stars were his companions. God was the
sun――fire――air――water――earth; he was the essence of the elements: from
every one of these divine principles the heavens, stars, and the whole
world proceeded. These were some of the fundamental principles of
their metaphysical religion.
Their morality appears to have consisted in the acknowledgment of all
natural virtues; piety, justice, charity, sobriety; wine and strong
drinks were forbidden; above all a tenderness towards all living
creatures was recommended; and the severity against those who slew
innoxious animals was carried to such an excess, than even sons
punished their fathers with death, and fathers their sons, for the
slaughter of a sheep or an elk.[95]
Their political constitution appears from the earliest time to have
been that of an absolute monarchy: this is the curse attached to
Asiatics. The king was to be of a noble descent, and bound to
acknowledge the _Farhang-Abad_, “code of Abad.” All dignities,
military and civil, were hereditary from father to son. The royal
court and inner apartments appear to have been regulated in much the
same manner as they are still in Asia; his cup-bearers and familiar
servants, as well as those of his sons, and other nobles, were always
females.
The interior administration of cities and villages is sufficiently
detailed in the Dabistán. An active police was established, with
numerous spies and secret reporters, for the security of government.
We are glad to find in such early times hospitals for the relief of
the suffering, and caravansaras for the convenience of travellers.
Moreover, post-stations of horses and messengers were distributed for
the rapid communication of news, from all sides of the vast empire, to
the monarch.[96]
Not a little care was bestowed upon the discipline and continual
exercise of numerous armies. The military chiefs were distinguished by
the magnificent decorations of their persons, horses, and arms, in
which they prided themselves. They were bound to treat their soldiers
kindly, nay, obliged to produce certificates, from their subordinates,
of having behaved well towards them. An order of battle was
prescribed, in which they were to encounter the enemy; no plunder
after victory was permitted; they never slew, nor treated with
violence, a man who had thrown down his arms and asked for quarter.
History may well be referred to religion, which is an ancient
intellectual monument, living in the human soul from generation to
generation. I have hitherto marked two religious periods: the first,
that of the _Desátir_, through the Mahabadian dynasty; the second,
that of _Paiman-í-Farhang_, prevailing during the Pésh-dadi-race until
the middle of the Kayanian reign; I now come to the third.
[90] The first word is pure Persian; the other may be
derived from the Sanscrit _kaya_, “body, form,” and _mrita_,
“earth.”
[91] See vol. I. p. 31, note 1.
[92] His Works, vol. III. the sixth Anniversary Discourse,
p. 108.
[93] _Ibid._, vol. XII. p. 399.
[94] See page 63.
[95] See vol. I. pp. 181. 184.
[96] _Parasang_, _Farsang_, even in our days a Persian word,
is found and determined as a lineal measure of distances in
Herodotus, lib. II. V. and VI.
§ III.――THE RELIGION OF ZARDUSHT, OR ZOROASTER.
All religions are said to have deviated from their primitive
simplicity and purity, as men advanced in knowledge and civilisation.
This is true but in a restricted and distinctive sense, and may be
explained, even without yielding to our habit of considering that
which is more remote and less known as holier than that which is
nearer and better examined. Thus, we may admit that the impressions
made upon men in the first stage of expanding reason are stronger and
more vivid, the less they are distracted by simultaneous and
correlative associations; one great idea is enough to fill their whole
mind, and admits of no rival, of no commixture with any thing else;
curiosity, versatility, luxuriancy of intellect are not yet known;
constancy is a necessity in a small compass of ideas. We have already
touched[97] upon the powerful effect which the early perception of the
_Divine_ produced upon man: but he soon circumscribed what was too
vast or his comprehension in a perceptible object――heaven, sun, fire,
to which he offered his adoration; he wanted a visible type or image
of the invisible Divinity; but, his means of formation being at first
very confined, he contented himself with the most simple
representation: he had a symbol, an idol in a grove or cavern, but not
yet a Pantheon. Simplicity may be a mere restriction to one object or
to few objects; purity, nothing else but homogeneity in good or bad,
true or false; we shall not confound them with rationality, which may
subsist with multiplicity and mixture. Thus, the adoration of one
deified man, one great serpent, one huge stone, is by no means more
rational than the worship of numerous generations of gods, the
ingenious personification sof multiform nature, ever acknowledged as
the genuine offspring of the happy marriage between intellect and
imagination. In the absence of arts and riches, worship is rude and
destitute of showy accessories. Afterwards, the development of the
understanding widens the field of reasoning, the fertility of which
may be attested more by the shoot of weeds than by the growth of
fruits: error prevails over truth; the increase of manifold resources
facilitates and prompts superfetation of exterior religion. Besides,
the impressions, by which the first legislator attached his followers
to his doctrine, are effaced by time; the first traditions, obscured,
confused, and altered; faith is weakened, and an opening made for
change in belief, practice, and morals. A change, merely as such, is
considered as a corruption by the adherents of the old creed. Finally,
revolutions, interior and exterior, deteriorate or destroy religion
and civilisation.
These reflexions, with the explanation previously given as to the
various notions of which the religions in Asia were composed, will
clearly show that, in the course of ages, a reform of astrolatry,
pyrolatry, and idolatry, the branches of Sabæism and Mezdaism, became
desirable; and _Zardusht_, or _Zoroaster_, appeared.
In the notes placed at the bottom of the pages containing Mohsan
Fani’s account of Zoroaster,[98] will be found some of the principal
results of the investigations which have been made in Europe
respecting this legislator. The name of Zoroaster was applied by some
to the founder of Magism, or Sabæism; we know also, that he has been
identified with many other prophets under different names, among whom
is _Abraham_, called “the great Zardusht,” and _Hom_, of so extensive
a celebrity, that his name is mentioned by Strabo as predecessor of
Zoroaster. No wonder that the name of the latter occurs in more or
less remote times. According to the Dabistán, he was born in Rai, a
town in the province of Jebal, or Irak Ajem, the country of the
ancient Parthians, and appeared as a reformer of religion, under the
reign of _Gushtasp_, the fifth king of the Kayanian dynasty, by the
Occidental historians generally identified with _Darius Hystaspes_.
Although variously stated, this period is less subject to
chronological difficulties than are many others; for, as Eastern and
Western historians agree in the epoch of Alexander’s death (321 B.
C.), we may from this, as from a fixed point, remount upwards to
Gushtasp; we find, according to some Orientals, five reigns in 228
years,[99] and therefore that of the said king, beginning 549 years
before our era, whilst, according to the Occidentals, there are ten
reigns within 200 years, from Alexander’s conquest of Persia to Darius
Hystaspes, whose reign commences in 521 A. D. The discrepancy of
twenty-eight years is far from being unexampled, even in more known
periods, and may in this case be most easily and plausibly
adjusted.[100]
According to a wide-spread tradition, to which I shall have occasion
to return, Gushtasp was instructed by Brahmans; pursuant to the
Dabistán, his brother Jamasp was the pupil of the Indian
_Jangran-ghachah_ (Sankara acharya)[101]. This sage, as soon as he
heard of Gushtasp’s listening to Zoroaster, wrote an epistle to
dissuade the king from the adoption of the new creed; an interview
took place at Balkh between the Persian and Indian sages, and the
latter abandoned his religion upon hearing a _nosk_, or chapter of the
_Zand-Avesta_.[102] This is the name of the work attributed to
Zoroaster himself, a part of which was brought to Europe, in the year
1761, by Anquetil du Perron.
The author of the Dabistán mentions the Zand-Avesta, and declares the
_Mah-Zand_ to be a portion of the Desátir, and the Zand books in
general conformable to the Mahabadian code. The fifth Sassan, the
translator and commentator of the Desátir, in a passage
above-quoted,[103] joins this work to the Avesta, and is said in the
Dabistán to have made a translation of the code of Zardusht.
Great was the sensation caused among the learned of Europe at the
first appearance of the works attributed to Zoroaster, published in
French by Anquetil du Perron, in 1771. In a note of this volume[104]
will be found the names of the principal authors who declared
themselves for or against the authenticity of the Zoroastrian books.
Among those who combated it, sir William Jones was most conspicuous.
Seventy years have since elapsed, and a learned controversy may now be
considered as settled, nay, entirely forgotten, in the course of a
most eventful historical period. Nevertheless, the Desátir is so
closely connected with the Zand-Avesta, that so much having been said
of the one, the other should not be lightly discarded. The value and
importance of the Dabistán rest chiefly upon the support of the two
documents mentioned; on that account I may hope to be pardoned if I
here venture to repeat whatever facts and arguments appear to me to
have some bearing upon this work. But it was sir William Jones who
then roused the whole learned public into lively attention, and, I
dare presume, that the subject may by itself at all times excite
considerable interest.
I shall quote the very words of lord Teignmouth concerning the French
author before mentioned:[105] “Anquetil had published in three quarto
volumes an account of his travels in India, the life of Zoroaster, and
some supposed works of that philosopher. To this publication he
prefixed a Discourse, in which he treated the university of Oxford,
and some of its learned members and friends of Mr. Jones, with
ridicule and disrespect. From the perusal of his works, Mr. Jones was
little disposed to agree with Monsieur du Perron in the boasted
importance of his communication; he was disgusted with his vanity and
petulance, and particularly offended by his illiberal attack upon the
university, which he respected, and upon the persons whom he esteemed
and admired. The letter which he addressed to M. du Perron was
anonymous; it was written with great force, and expresses his
indignation and contempt with a degree of asperity which the judgment
of maturer years would have disapproved.”[106]
The letter alluded to contains most severe remarks, not only upon the
Zand-Avesta, but also upon Oriental studies in general: these are
blows so much more sensible to Orientalists, as they come from a
friendly and most revered hand. Such was the ardor of a susceptible
mind under the impression of having to vindicate the honor of his
friends, that he forgot for a moment the wreath which he had already
won in the career of Oriental literature; he had already composed his
commentary upon Asiatic poetry, and translated from the original
Persian the Life of Nadir-shah; he had then no presentiment of the
glory which he was destined to acquire by collecting, under the Indian
heaven, the lore of antique Asia. As his French letter, written in a
very spirited and brilliant style, can never be read without causing a
great impression, I shall be permitted to borrow from the writings of
this celebrated author himself some reflexions, which I think
necessary for placing in a right point of view Oriental studies in
general, and in particular the contents of the Dabistán, inasmuch as
these are in some parts founded upon the Zand-Avesta, and in other
points of a nature similar to that so much ridiculed in that ingenious
satire.
If it were true, that Anquetil was wrong “to affront death for
procuring us useless lights――if the writings of Zoroaster are a
collection of galimatia――if enlightened Europe had no need of his
Zand-Avesta, which he has translated to no purpose, and upon which he
uselessly spent eighteen years, a time which ought to have been
precious to him――――”[107] then any similar attempts which have been or
shall be made to procure, in Asia, and to publish ancient historical
documents, are equally ridiculous and blamable. It is certainly not
the founder of a new era in Oriental literature whom we hear in these
words. Nobody knew better than he that, in Asia, the cradle of
mankind, we must search for the most ancient documents to restore the
lost history of mankind; and if all endeavors were to prove vain and
useless, still the merit of having attempted the attainment of a most
laudable purpose would remain. It is not unimportant to fix the limits
which researches can reach, and beyond which nothing is to be gained;
men are benefitted and enriched at once by the saving of time and
trouble which preceding attempts teach; and by all the acquisitions
which better directions render possible in a new and more profitable
career. Should the bold navigators who strive to arrive at the pole
never attain their aim, still would their endeavors be worthy of
praise; the smallest fragment of a rock, the slightest shoot of a
plant, plucked off in the desert of eternal ice, in latitude
eighty-eight, would at home be regarded with lively interest, and
navigation have not a little gained in aid of other more fortunate
undertakings.
But, who can like to read “puerile details, disgusting descriptions,
barbarous words――Zoroaster could not have written such
nonsense――either he had no common sense, or he wrote not the book
which Anquetil attributed to him.”[108]
As much has been and may be said of the books attributed to other
Asiatic legislators, who were nevertheless revered as sacred during
many ages by numerous nations. Until we properly understand the
ignorance and habitual ideas of Asiatics, we shall always remain
ignorant of what is proverbially called _the wisdom of the East_. To
appreciate the just value of the ancient codes of laws, we ought to
represent to ourselves the primitive children of the earth, as
Prometheus describes them:
“They saw, indeed, they heard; but what avail’d
Or sight, or sense of hearing, all things rolling,
Like the unreal imagery of dreams,
In wild confusion mix’d! The lightsome wall
Of finer masonry, the rafter’d roof
They knew not; but, like ants still buried, delved
Deep in the earth, and scoop’d their sunless caves.
Unmark’d the seasons chang’d, the biting winter,
The flow’r-perfumed spring, the ripening summer,
Fertile of fruits.”[109]
It will then be felt how important it was to break the savage under
the yoke of seemingly puerile practices and customs. In a state which
was not unaptly called “the infancy of man,” it was by no means absurd
to ensure health by dietetical prescriptions, cleanliness by
obligatory ablutions, and decency with convenience by a regulated
dress; the _koshti_, “the girdle,” of Zoroaster was then not so
unmeaning as it now appears to us. It was necessary to educate the
moral sense by appropriate images, and to occupy conveniently, by
fables, symbols, and mythical accounts, the first active faculty of
the soul, imagination. Although those men who, as legislators, were
elevated above their barbarous age, could in many points but partake
in the general imbecility and ignorance of an infant state of society,
they have nevertheless, among seemingly childish and absurd precepts,
promulgated most luminous truths, better than which none have hitherto
been known, even at the most advanced degree of civilisation. Any
information above the common understanding of the age is justly called
“a revelation,” and every nation has received some from their
prophets, by which we have all benefited.[110] We, the youngest sons
of science, ought to keep a grateful and reverential remembrance of
our elder brothers. Let it be a subject of regret that, by the
maintenance of ancient institutions much longer than was required for
their intended purpose, the intellectual growth of many Asiatic
nations was stopped; thus they now appear made for their laws, whilst
their laws were once made for them. After these and similar
reflexions, we shall view Zoroaster’s hundred gates, and the remains
of his twenty-one nosks, as venerable monuments of an antique
civilisation, which ought never to be profaned by derision.
Upon the Zand language, in which Zoroaster’s laws were written, I
refer to the great philologers of our days, who have examined
it――Rask,[111] Bopp, Burnouf, Lassen, and others: it is one of the
most important conquests made in archæology and philology, and this we
owe to Anquetil. When Jones[112] treated with such severity the
publication of this French author, he could not foresee that he should
one day call forth to notoriety the Dabistán, which rests in great
part upon the authority of the Desátir, and these very books to which
he refused all authenticity. Mohsan Fani, one hundred and twenty years
before Anquetil, derived his information probably from other copies of
Zoroaster’s works, and knew nothing of Western authors, yet his
statements agree with what the latter, before and after our era
related, and most particularly with what the French discoverer
published of that ancient philosopher. Can it be supposed that all
these men of different nations, whose statements have thus coincided
during the lapse of more than two thousand years, have “imposed upon
themselves, or been imposed upon by others concerning the pretended
laws of a pretended legislator?” Anquetil deserved a better name than
that of “a French adventurer, who translated the books ascribed to
Zoroaster, from the translation of a certain gypsy at Surat, and his
boldness in sending them abroad as genuine”[113] was not unsupported
by judgment. If there was some folly and foppery to deride in a young
man, who spoke of his _lilly-rosy cheeks and elegant figure_, there
was no “_imposture_” to detect, and too much acerbity shewn in
retorting thoughtless indiscretions, exaggerated into “_invectives_.”
Sir William Jones, when he published the strictures which his
antagonist, from pride or moderation, never answered, was but in his
twenty-fourth year and under the influence of youthful ardor. Eighteen
years after, in a discourse, addressed to the Asiatic Society of
Calcutta, in 1789, he spoke with more moderation of Anquetil as
“having had the merit of undertaking a voyage to India in his earliest
youth with no other view than to recover the writings of Zoroaster.”
The illustrious president of that Society was not in the position to
appreciate Anquetil’s whole character, and died too soon to become
acquainted with the brilliant reputation which the youthful voyager
acquired in his maturer years as a learned member of the French
Academy of Letters, both in his own country and abroad.[114]
The Dabistán informs us, that the Zand-books are of two kinds: the
one, perspicuous and without enigmatical forms of speech, is called
the _Mah-Zand_, “great Zand;” the second, abounding in enigmatic or
figurative language, is entitled _Kah-Zand_, “little Zand.” The first,
in most points speculative and practical, agrees with the Desátir; the
second is intended to prevent philosophy falling into the hands of the
ignorant, to whom an enigmatical veil is offered, whilst the sages
know the true purport of the pure doctrine. To king Gushtasp, his
brother Jamasp, his son Isfendiar, and to Bahman, the son of the
latter, were attributed the interpretations of Zoroaster’s religious
system, and many ingenious parables which, for their moral sense, may
be reckoned among the best specimens of this kind of popular
instruction.
This true statement, contained in the Dabistan,[115] corrects the
assertion of sir William Jones,[116] that Mohsan Fani affirms “the
work of Zartusht to “have been lost.” The learned Orientalist
evidently confounds the _Mah-zand_, which is said to be a portion of
the Desátir, with the work of Zartusht. The writer of the Dabistán
enumerates[117] the twenty-one _nosks_ or books, of which the Zand was
composed; he says:[117] “At present there are fourteen complete nosks,
possessed by the Dosturs of Karman; the other seven being incomplete,
as, through the wars and dissensions which prevailed in Iran some of
the nosks have disappeared, so that, notwithstanding the greatest
researches, the nosks have come into their hands in a defective
state.” We find it expressly declared in the Dabistán, on the
authority[118] of the Dostur who wrote the volume of the _Sad dur_,
“the hundred gates,” that “the excellent faith has been received from
the prophet Zartusht.” In a particular section, intitled _Enumeration
of some advantages which arise from the enigmatical forms of the
precepts of Zartusht’s followers_, Mohsan not only adduces examples of
Zartushtian allegories, but subjoins his own interpretations of them;
yet he never _affirms_, nor even insinuates “the place of Zoroaster’s
lost works to have been supplied by a recent compilation.” Nor can we
assent to the view, which sir W. Jones takes of the modern literature
of the Mobeds, “for whom,” he says,[119] “as they continued to profess
among themselves the religion of their forefathers, it became
expedient to supply the last or mutilated works of their legislator by
new compositions, partly from their imperfect recollection, and partly
from such moral and religious knowledge as they gleaned, most probably
among the Christians with whom they had an intercourse.”
To settle our judgment upon this subject, we ought to recollect, that
languages and precepts may be transmitted from generation to
generation by oral instruction, which indeed was once the only
possible mode during a long period of time. It was then that memory
was so much stronger, as, destitute of all artificial assistance, it
depended solely upon itself. We bought the advantage of writing by
resigning somewhat of memorial energy; this was the evil, which,
according to Plato, Thamus, the Egyptian king, predicted to Theut, the
inventor of writing. However this may be, it will appear founded upon
reason and history, that religious creeds, which had once been the
property of nations, are not easily eradicated by any force, or
forgotten under any circumstances; they become living streams of ideas
and sentiments, which run uninterruptedly through the ever-renewed
races of man, even when these separate from a parent stock. Hence we
find, in countries and among nations the most remote from each other,
so many notions and customs, the origin of which is lost in the night
of time. Shall I mention the Jews, who, throughout the whole world,
repeat to-day the same words which they learned more than thirty-three
centuries ago? With regard to the Guebres――sir W. Jones might have
safely granted a little more confidence to his friend Bahman, his
Persian reader, who always named with reverence Zartusht, whose
religion he professed, in common with many so called Guebres. For
these it was not necessary “to preserve Zoroastrian books, in sheets
of lead or copper, at the bottom of wells near Yezd:”[120] this fact,
which Bahman used to assert, shows the particular care which had once
been taken to guard these sacred documents, the veneration for which
most naturally prevented any falsification of their known contents.
We are confirmed, by the author of the Dabistán, that Zoroaster did
not change the fundamentals of the ancient religion; only the dualism
of the principles, good and bad, not existing, as I have remarked[121]
in the Mahabadian religion, was either then first introduced, or only
further developed; besides, we see the cycle of 12,000 years fixed,
and divided into four periods of 3000 years each; we hear the promise
of a Saviour to restore the empire of God promulgated, and the
destruction of the world by fire announced: this is at the same time
the epoch of the general resurrection, which is one of the most
remarkable dogmas of the Zoroastrian religion.
Although this be not destitute of religious observances, yet we find
scarce any painful austerity recommended. The twenty-fifth gate of
Zoroaster contains the remarkable precept: “Know that in thy faith
there is no fasting except that of avoiding sin: in which sense thou
must fast the whole year.”[122] The ancient Mahabadian religion,
although adulterated before, during, and after Zoroaster’s life, seems
to have never lost its grave character and solemnity. In the
Zand-books known to us, no trace of temples, altars, or religious
symbols exist. Herodotus knew of none; the fire-places were upon a
desert place, or upon mountains; the fire upon the ground. Upon the
Persian monuments which time has spared, upon the walls of the
thousand-pillared palace of Isfahan, and upon those of the Royal tombs
we see no idols, but priests and kings, performing the sacrifice of
fire before their _fervers_, “ideals of virtue and sanctity,” and
other actions rather of a political than religious character. The
pyræa, round and concave, represented the vault of heaven. Nevertheles
other accounts permit us to believe, that, by association with other
nations; most likely by the introduction of sculpture, architecture,
and painting; and, as the Dabistán expressly says, by the use of
symbolical language: a superstitious worship of sacred places and
symbolic images gained a great ascendancy.
This religion prevailed during the times of the Kayanian kings from
Gushtasp to Dara the Second, during more than two centuries. After the
conquest of Persia by Alexander, a political and religious revolution
took place in this country, and extended to Greece, where, according
to the commentary of the Desátir, the creed of the _Gushaspians_ was
introduced. This is declared to be a medium between the _Illuminated_
and the _Rationalists_, perhaps the same which the Dabistán calls the
faith of the _Beh-dinians_, “professors of the better religion.” So
much is avowed by Philo, Plinius, and others――and we have reason to
lay stress upon this avowal――that at one time the so called barbarians
were reckoned to be more wise and virtuous than the Greeks. During the
Ashkanian dynasty (from the third century B. C. to the end of the
second after our era), the people conformed to the _Kah-zand_, that
is, yielded to the superstition, which the figurative language was apt
to suggest. Ardeshir, the first Sassanian, in the beginning of the
third century A. D.; endeavored to re-establish the ancient religion;
but, after his reign of forty years, the Kah-zand took and kept the
ascendancy, until the Persian empire fell before the overwhelming
power of the Muhammedans. The Mah-zand was lost during the domination
of the intolerant invaders, Greeks, Arabs, and Turks; the Kah-zand
still remains in some of its parts, whilst many others were lost in
the successive disorders of the state.
The fifteenth and last section of the first chapter treats of
_Mazdak_, who lived in the fifth century of our era. We are informed
of the existence of a book, called _Desnak_, which the author of the
Dabistán saw, and which contains the doctrine of this reformer. This
was nothing else than the Zoroastrian system about the two principles,
_Yezed_, “God” or “light,” and _Ahriman_, “agent of evil” or
“darkness,” with a few peculiarities which did not destroy the
fundamental principles of the original religion. But, it was the
ethical part of his doctrine which at first caused a great revolution,
and at last the destruction of the teacher and his numerous disciples,
Mazdak bade all men to be partners in riches and women, just as they
are of fire, water, and grass; private property was not to exist; each
man to enjoy or to endure, in his turn, the good and bad lots of this
world. To this strange doctrine may be perhaps applied the saying of a
great bishop (Bossuet): that “every error is but an abuse of some
truth.” To prevent an excessive inequality of fortunes in society was
the object towards which celebrated ancient legislators tended, and
for which frequently wishes were expressed, reforms projected, and
politico-philosophical romances[123] composed by well-meaning and
respectable persons. It is therefore to a natural, but dangerous
propensity of the human mind, that we ought to refer Mazdak’s bold and
for some time too successful attempt, as well as all the doctrines of
the same tendency, which before and after him were and will henceforth
be proposed.
I have now terminated the general review of what the first chapter of
the Dabistán, and the first volume of the English translation contain,
concerning the most ancient dynasties, religions, and political
institutions of Persia.
[97] See page 70.
[98] See vol. I. p. 211 _et seq._
[99] See sir John Malcolm’s History of Persia. Ferdusi
counts 304 years from Alexander’s death to the beginning of
Gushtasp’s reign; but he assigns to the latter 120, and 112
to that of his successor _Bahman Arjer_, or _Ardishir diraz_
(Artaxerxes longimanus). These two reigns might have
comprised those of several others not mentioned by Ferdusi.
[100] The duration of the whole Kayanian dynasty is stated
by the Orientals (see vol. I. p. 31, note 1 of this work) to
be 704 years in 10 reigns; according to Occidental
historians, it is only 380 years in 18 reigns. The first
statement is evidently erroneous as to the small number of
kings, but it is not decided that it is equally so as to the
duration of the whole dynasty. The error is more likely to
be in the list of the kings than in the whole period of
their reigns. May I be permitted to refer to my discussion
upon the chronology of the _Rajatarangini_ (vol. II. p. 387)?
[101] Sir William Jones says (Works, vol. III. p. 128): “It
was he (Zoroaster)――not as Ammianus asserts, his protector,
Gushtasp――who travelled in India, that he might receive
information from the Brahmans in theology and ethics.” This
is not to be found in the edition of Calcutta, nor in the
manuscript of the Dabistán which D. Shea and myself have
seen.
[102] Mr. Eugène Burnouf, when he communicated to me his
opinion upon the derivation of the word _Wasátir_ (see
p. xxii), adverted incidentally to that of the term
_Zand-Avesta_, interpreted sometimes “the _Zand_ and the
_Usta_,” and said, that these words are found in perhaps a
single passage of the books of Zoroaster, to wit, _huzanth
vacha vaidhya cha_. These two words are applied to _mantras_
(prayers), and seem to signify “which will give life,” or
“which are salutary to towns and nations,” and “which are
learned.” We recognise the Sanscrit _sujantu_ and _vidya_.
[103] See page 66.
[104] See vol. I. p. 223.
[105] See Memoirs of the life, writings, and correspondence
of sir W. Jones, in his Works, vol. I. p. 190, 8vo., ed.,
1807.
[106] See works of sir W. J. vol. X. p. 403 _et seq._
[107] See Works of Sir W. J., vol. X. p. 403 _et seq._
[108] See works of sir W. J. pp. 413. 432. 437.
[109] De Potter’s Transl. of Æschylus, Prometheus chained.
In the Greek origin. v. 447-456.
[110] Voltaire, whose genius sir W. Jones knew how to
appreciate, said: “Glorifions-nous de ce que les vérités les
plus importantes sont devenues des lieux communs pour les
Européens, mais ne nous en moquons pas, et sachons avoir
quelque reconnaissance pour les anciens legislateurs qui
nous les ont, les premiers, appris.”
[111] See Transact. of the R. A. S. of Great Brit. and
Irel., vol. III. part I. p. 524 _et seq._ _Remarks on the
Zand language and the Zand-Avesta._ This able tract is
chiefly a comment upon Erskine’s Memoir _On the sacred book
and religion of the Parsis_, in the Transact. of the Lit.
Soc. of Bombay, vol. II. p. 295.
[112] Sir W. J. says (see his Works, vol. III. p. 116) that,
according to his conviction, the dialect of the Guebrs,
which they pretend to be that of Zertusht, of which Bahman,
a Guebr and his Persian reader, gave him a variety of
written specimens, is a late invention of their priests.
What language does he mean? certainly not that of the
Zand-Avesta, of which he speaks in particular, and states
(_ibid._, p. 118) “the language of the Zand was at least a
dialect of the Sanscrit, approaching, perhaps, as nearly to
it as the Prácrit, or other popular idioms, which we know to
have been spoken in India two thousand years ago.”
[113] Sir W. J.’s Works, vol. V. pp. 414-415.
[114] Anquetil composed a number of Memoirs, read to the
French Institut and preserved in their printed records. He
published, in 1771, three quarto volumes upon his voyages
to, in, and from India, and the Works of Zoroaster; in 1798,
_L’Inde en rapport avec l’Europe; in 1799, La Legislation
orientale, ou le despotisme considéré dans la Turquie, la
Perse et l’Indostane_. An epistle which he placed before his
Latin translation of _Dara Shuko’s Persian Upanishad_, and
addressed to the Brahmans of India, contained, as it were,
his religious and political testament. He declares his
nourishment to have been reduced, like that of an abstemious
ascetic, living, even in winter, without fire; and sleeping
in a bed without feathers or sheets. His juvenile boast of
“personal beauty” was expiated by total neglect of his body,
left “with linen unchanged and unwashed;” his aspirations to
“a vast extent of learning” had subsided into patient and
most persevering studies. But, disdaining to accept gifts
and pensions, even from government, he preserved his
absolute liberty, and blessed his poverty, “as the salvation
of his soul and body, the rampart of morality and of
religion; a friend of all men; victorious over the
allurements of the world” he tended towards the Supreme
Being. Well may virtues so rare efface other human failings
of Anquetil du Perron. He died, in his seventy-fourth year,
in 1805.――(See _Histoire et Mémoires de l’Institut royal de
France. Classe d’Histoire et de Littérature anciennes_, tome
III. 1818.)
[115] See Transl., vol. I. pp. 351-353.
[116] Works, vol. III. p. 115.
[117] Transl. vol. I. p. 275.
[118] _Ibid._, p. 310.
[119] _Loco cit._, p. 117.
[120] Yezd, in central Persia, is the ancient Isatichæ of
Ptolemy. It is celebrated on account of the fire-worship of
_Yezdan_ (or Ormuzd, as light), there practised, and as the
last asylum of the adherents to Zoroaster’s religion, who
fled before the Muhammedans. From thence thefire-worshippers
sought a refuge in India, and settled in Diu, Bombay, and in
the higher valleys of the Indus and the Ganges.
[121] See vol. I. p. 71.
[122] See vol. I. p. 321.
[123] For instance, the _Utopia_ of Thomas Moore, the
_Oceana_ of Harrington, the _Leviathan_ of Hobbes, etc., etc.
§ IV.――THE RELIGION OF THE HINDUS.
The theatre upon which the author of the Dabistán begins history from
the remotest times, is Persia, without limitation of its extent,
probably including Chaldæa. From thence he passes to India, he says
little of any other country; nothing at all of Egypt. The delta of
this most fertile land, as an alluvial formation of the great river
Nile, was necessarily posterior to the existence of inland regions;
still its claims to antiquity are very high and not unsupported, to a
certain extent, by the best written testimonies and architectural
monuments. If I here refer in a cursory manner to its eras,[124] it is
to strengthen what was above remarked concerning the general belief of
the great age of the world. The ancient religion of Egypt, although
connected and conformable in many points with other Asiatic religions,
is never alluded to by the author of the Dabistán, probably because in
his time the Egyptians had lost even the memory of their ancient
history, which very little attracted the curiosity of their masters,
the Muhammedans, except perhaps by the medium of the Bible of the
Jews, often quoted in their Koran.[125]
I cannot here omit briefly noticing the various opinions of several
learned men concerning the comparative antiquity of the Magi, the
Egyptian priests, and the Hindu philosophers. Aristotle[126] believed
the Magi more ancient than the Egyptians; Diodorus of Sicily[127]
believed the Hindus to have never sent nor received colonies, and
invented every art and science; Lucian, Philostratus[128], and
Eusebius[129] granted anteriority in philosophy to the Hindus over the
Egyptians. In our times the learned abbé Mignot established in three
Memoirs[130], that the Hindus owed nothing to the Egyptians, and
traced the true communications of the former with several nations of
Asia and Europe. But sir W. Jones declared in 1785[131], as not
ill-grounded, the opinion that Ethiopia and Hindostan were peopled or
colonized by the same extraordinary race, or that the Ethiopians of
Meroe were the same people as the Hindus. His opinion was reproduced
under different forms by Hennel, Wilford, Forbes, Carwithen, among the
English, and adopted by L. Langles among the French. I need not dwell
upon this opinion, as the grounds upon which it rested are now
considered as entirely destroyed. Sir W. Jones himself seems to have
abandoned it in 1789,[132] as the Dabistán appeared to him to furnish
an unexceptionable evidence, that the Iranian monarchy must have been
the oldest in the world, although, he added, it will remain dubious to
which of the three stocks, Hindu, Arabian, or Tartar, the first kings
of Iran belonged; or whether they sprang from a fourth race, distinct
from any of the others; He further states, that no country but Persia
seems likely to have sent forth colonies to all the kingdoms of Asia,
and that the three races (Indians, Arabs, Tartars) migrated from Iran
as from their common country, “the true centre of population, of
knowledge, of languages, and of arts; which, instead of travelling
westward only, as it has been fancifully supposed, or eastward, as
might with equal reason have been asserted, were expanded in all
directions to all the regions of the world, in which the Hindu race
had settled under various denominations.”
The second chapter of the Dabistán describes, in twelve sections, the
religious systems and customs of the Hindus. It is a detailed account,
given by a Persian who, as traveller and resident in India during
about thirty years, had the best opportunities to collect right
information; he shows himself acquainted with the canonical books of
this nation; he quotes their Puránas, and other works less known.[133]
The Hindus are, among all nations, most particularly distinguished by
a decided turn for metaphysics, which even tinctured the radicals of
their language; they have labored more than others to solve, exhaust,
comprehend, what is insolvible, inexhaustible, incomprehensible. To
give a general notion of their metaphysical theology, I do not say to
render it intelligible, would require an extensive treatise. We will
now give a few characteristic and leading features of their systems as
indicated in the Dabistán.
Some of their theological philosophers made incredible efforts to
steer clear of anthropomorphism in their conceptions of the Divinity:
their Brahm, in the neuter gender, has no symbol, nor image, nor
temple; they generally profess the great principle of _emanation of
all existences from a common but unknown source_. God is the producer
of the beginning and end, exhibiting himself in the mirror of pure
space. Creation is held to have proceeded from pure space and time.
Other Hindu philosophers establish: 1. a primary, subtile, universal
substance, undergoing modification through its own energy. This they
call _Mula Prakritti_, “rudimental nature,” no production but the root
of all, involving, 2. _seven principles_, which are productions and
productive (that is, intellect, egotism, and five subtile elements);
from these seven proceed: 3. _sixteen productions_ (to wit, eleven
organs and five gross elements); to these just mentioned twenty-four
(namely, Nature, seven principles and sixteen productions); add, 4.
_the soul_, which is neither a production, nor productive, and you
have the _twenty-five physical and metaphysical categories_ of the
Sankhya philosophy.[134] This strikes us as a very specious methodical
arrangement of an abstruse matter, which is not thereby in any degree
rendered more intelligible.
We seem to understand something more when, as in the Vedenta
philosophy, it is said of the truly-existing Being (God):[135] “that
he has exhibited the “world and the heavens in the field of existence,
but has nothing like an odor of being, nor taken a color of reality;
and this manifestation is called _Máya_ that is, ‘the Magic of God,’
because the universe is his playful deceit, and he is the bestower of
imitative existence, himself the unity of reality. With this pure
substance, like an imitative actor, he passes every moment into
another form. He, manifesting his being and unity in three persons,
separate from each other, formed the universe. The connexion of the
spirits with the holy Being is like the connexion of the billows with
the ocean, or that of sparks with fire.” This is pure idealism; but
man will spontaneously break through the shadowy illusion, and grasp
at some reality; the trinity of the Hindus became _creation_,
_preservation__, and _destruction_ (or renovation), the history of
nature before their eyes.
I shall here remark, without attempting to explain, the striking
contrast in the religion of the same nation between the most subtile
metaphysic theology and the grossest idolatry. In the latter, the
symbolical representation prevails; it is known, that in its
immoderate use they have entirely abandoned the normal proportions of
the human form, and by the multiplication of members banished all
fitness and beauty. Their plastic and graphic typification of an
all-mighty, all-bestowing, and all-resuming God, with its three, four,
five heads, so many and more arms, is repulsive; in their poetry he
frightens us with innumerable mouths, eyes, breasts, arms, and legs,
grinding between his teeth the generations of men, who precipitate
themselves into his mouth like rivers into the ocean, or flies into
fire.[136]
The psychology of the Hindus is not less abstruse than the rest of
their metaphysics. We have already mentioned the soul among the
twenty-five categories as neither a production nor productive. The
Indian philosophers distinguish spirit and soul, that is, a rational
soul and a mere sensitive principle. The first is supposed enveloped
with a subtile, shadowy form of the most delicate material ether. Some
hold the soul to be incased in three sheaths, the intellectual, the
mental, and the organic or vital sheath.[137] According to different
views the vital spirit is _Máya_ herself, or an emanation of Máyá, in
any case the illusive manifestation of the universe.
This ingenuous conception seems to have taken deep and complete
possession of the Hindus; it dominates in their most subtile
abstractions, and embodies itself in a thousand forms to their vivid
and luxuriant imagination. The _Saktians_, a sect wedded to sensual
materialism, represent Máyá as a _Saktí_ or energy of Siva; she is
“the mother of the universe;” “non-entity finds no access to this
creator, the garment of perishableness does not sit right upon the
body of this fascinating empress; the dust of nothingness does not
move round the circle of her dominion; the real beings and the
accidental creatures of the nether world are equally enamoured and
intoxicated with desire before her.” Above the six circles, into which
the Hindus divide the human body, is “the window of life, and the
passage of the soul, which is the top and middle of the head, and in
that place is the _flower of the back_ of one thousand leaves: this is
the residence of the glorious divinity, that is, of the
world-deceiving queen, and in this beautiful site reposes her origin.
With the splendor of one hundred thousand world-illuminating suns, she
wears, at the time of rising, manifold odoriferous herbs and various
flowers upon her head, and around her neck: her resplendent body is
penetrated with perfumes of divers precious ingredients, such as musk,
safran, sandal, and amber, and bedecked with magnificent garments; in
this manner, she is to be represented.”[138] Thus we see the poetical
imagination of the Hindus, playing, as it were, with abstruseness,
materializing what is spiritual, and spiritualizing what is material.
Characteristic of and peculiar to the Hindus, are their conceptions
relative to the states of the embodied soul, which are chiefly three:
“_waking_, _dreaming_, and _profound sleep_.”[138] In these three
conditions the soul is imprisoned, but it may, by virtue and sanctity,
break the net of illusion, that is, acquire the consciousness of the
illusion which captivates it, and know that, even when awake, man is
dreaming: this is the triumph of his perfection.
Such, and other notions, in their development and application, form a
system of metaphysics, in which excess and abuse of refined
speculations lose themselves in obscurity, contradiction, and
absurdity.
Among the Indian sectaries appear the _Charvak_, who, rejecting the
popular religion, follow their own system of philosophic opinions.
Of _Buddha_ and the _Buddhists_, we are disappointed to find so little
in the Dabistán, except the important information that Vichnu, in
order to destroy the demons and evil genii, the agents of night,
assumed the avatár of Buddha when ten years only of the Dwaparyug
remained, that is, 3112 years before Christ. In the section on the
tenets held by the followers of Buddha, these religionists are called
_Jatis_ or _Yatis_, a great number of whom are corn-traders and get
their livelihood as servants; they are divided in several classes, and
do not believe the incarnations of the deity; as to the rest, they
have tenets and customs in common with other Indian sects, only
distinguishing themselves by a great aversion to Brahmans, and an
extreme care of not hurting animal life.
In the whole account, which the Dabistán gives of the various sects
and doctrines of the Hindus, we can but remark a frequent confusion of
Indian with Muhammedan notions and stories. Indeed, this work having
been written in India at a time when, after a sojourn of more than
seven centuries, about twenty millions of Muselmans appeared, as it
were, lost in the midst of one hundred millions of Hindus, we cannot
wonder that a mutual assimilation in opinions and customs took place
among individuals of both religions. A remarkable instance of it
presents itself in the person of _Kabir_, renowned in his time for
sanctity. After his death, both the Hindus and Muhammedans claimed his
corpse for funeral honors; monuments erected to him by each party
exist in our days, with the proverbial precept which originated from
this event:
“Live so as to be claimed after death to be burnt by Hindus,
and to be buried by Muslims.”
The Indian Yogis, Sanyásis, and Vairagis are perpetually confounded
with Muhammedan Durvishes, and Sufis, of whom hereafter.
We do not fail to meet with many traces of the ancient Persian
astrolatry and pyrolatry among the Indians. Mohsan mentions the
_Surya-makhan_ (_Sauras_), “worshippers of the sun,” and periphrases,
as addressed to that luminary, a Sanscrit prayer, which seems to be
one of those called _gayátri_, the holiest verses of the Vedas, kept
as mysterious by the Brahmans, and pronounced with the deepest sense
of concentrated devotion. In our days, more than one _gayátri_ has
been made known.[139] We cannot doubt that (according to the
poet)[140]――
“That vast source of liquid light, the ethereal sun, which
perpetually laves heaven with ever-renewed brightness,”
was, from the remotest times, the object of adoration in India. The
Dabistán mentions also the _Chandra-bakhtra_, “worshippers of the
moon.” Even in our days we find the veneration for the sun, the
planets, and fire, openly practised by the Hindus. The worshippers of
the latter elements called _Sagníkas_, are very numerous at
Benares;[141] they keep many _agni-hotras_, “burnt-offerings,”
continually blazing; they kindle, with two pieces of sacred wood,
called _sámi_, a fire, never extinguished during their lives, for the
performance of solemn sacrifices, their nuptial ceremonies, the
obsequies of departed ancestors, and their own funeral pile. There are
besides particular worshippers of the wind, water, earth, and the
three kingdoms of nature. The latter are called _Tripujas_,
“trinitarians.” We find also _Manushya-bhakta_, “worshippers of
mankind,” who recognise the being of God in man, and believe nothing
to be more perfect than mankind; like _Channing_, a famous American
preacher of our days. In short, the worship of personified nature, in
its utmost extent, is most evident in what we know of the Vedas, and
never ceased to be the general religion of the Hindus.
Not without interest will be read in the Dabistán the account of
_Nanak_,[142] the founder of the Sikh religion and domination. He is
there represented as having been, in a former age, _Janaka_, sovereign
of Mithila, and father of Sitá, the wife of Rama. The revolution
effected by Nanak, in the middle of the sixteenth century, proves that
the Hindus are not quite so unchangeable in religion and customs as is
generally believed. It is however to be remarked, that the Panj-ab,
the country of the Sikhs, was always considered by the Brahmans as the
seat of heterodoxy (probably Buddhism), and blamed for irregularity of
manners. Mohsan’s account will be found to add confirmation and a few
particulars to that given of Nanak, from the best sources――the
generals sir John Malcolm, and John Briggs.
What will appear most valuable in this work is the description of
various usages, some of which have never been described elsewhere. The
most ancient customs are brought to recollection. Thus, we find
stated, on the authority of Maha bharat, that widows could formerly
take other husbands――married women, with the consent of their
husbands, maintain intercourse with other men――several individuals, of
the same race and religion, espouse one wife among them;――in ancient
times there existed no such practice as appropriation of husband and
wife; every woman being allowed to cohabit with whomsoever she liked;
conjugal fidelity was only in later times made a duty. Much of what he
describes may be seen, even in our days, in India, where all the
degrees of civilisation which the Hindus ever attained, from the
lowest to the highest, occur here and there within a small compass of
country. So constant are they in good and bad! The whole of antiquity
is still living in India, and Herodotus stands confirmed in what
appeared most incredible in his narrative by the testimonies of Mohsan
Fáni, the reverend abbe Dubois,[143] Ward, and others. The Persian
author intersperses his account with anecdotes which characterise in
the most lively manner individuals, sects, and tribes. If now and then
we must avert our eyes from disgusting scenes of human degradation,
more frequently we admire man, even in his errors, for the power and
command of the mental over the physical part of his nature. The naked
Yogi, who inflicts the most cruel tortures upon himself, wants but a
better motive for being justly extolled as a hero of fortitude; death
appears to him an habitual companion, into whose arms he sinks without
fear; overpowered by malady, he buries himself alive.
We may be astonished at the number of unbelievers among the Hindus of
whom we read, and at the licentiousness of their opinions, expressed
with a strength which we should think carried to excess.[144] We
perceive also that, in contradiction to common belief, in the midst of
the seventeenth century, when the Dabistán was composed (1645 A. D.) a
numerous class of Indians assumed the name of Muselmans, but it must
be remarked, that the Hindus neither endeavor to make, nor easily
admit, proselytes: because their religion depends much less upon
creed, in which they are latitudinarians, than upon the fixed customs
of their castes, the character of which, being derived from birth,
cannot be transferred to strangers.[145] We shall see hereafter in
what manner Hindus and Muhammedans may be confounded with each other.
So much of India being known in our days, we have the facility of
trying the veracity and correctness of the Dabistán concerning this
country. Its account will be found, I dare say, rather incomplete in
the small compass in which so extensive a subject was inclosed, but
not inaccurate in the greatest part of its various statements. Sir W.
Jones[146] bears Mohsan Fani the testimony, “that his information
concerning the Hindus is wonderfully correct.” Let us compare the
account given by him with all that has been published about India by
the best instructed Europeans before the foundation of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, and we shall regret that the Dabistán was brought
into notice so late. Whatever it be, the particular views of a
Persian, through a medium of education, religion, and custom, so
different from that through which we consider India, can but interest
us by their novelty, and by themselves add something to our
information about the character of Asiatics.
[124] According to Manetho, a high-priest of Heliopolis, the
Egyptians counted 53,525 years; they saw twice the sun set
where he now rises――they saw (as well as the Chaldeans) the
ecliptic perpendicular upon the equator before 39,710 years.
Herodotus (lib. II) attributes to them, more moderately,
15,882 historical years.
[125] The history of Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses in Egypt, is
often referred to by Muhammed and his followers; they state
that the Egyptian king professed a religion unlike that
mentioned by Greek authors, with whom the Bible also
disagrees. In general, monotheism is adverse to the
examination of polytheistical systems, and seldom accurate
in the representation of their tenets.
[126] Quoted by Diogenes Laertius, _Prœm._, p. 6.
[127] Lib. II. p. 113. edit. Wossel.
[128] Vita Apol. c. 6.
[129] _Chron. lib. post._, n. 400.
[130] _Mémoires de Littérature de l’Académie royale des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, tome XXXI.
[131] Works, vol. III. p. 41.
[132] Ibid., pp. 111. 134.
[133] Such is the Jog-Vasishta, mentioned (vol. II. pp. 28
and 256) as a very ancient book. Sir W. Jones calls it one
of the finest compositions on the philosophy of the Vedanta
school; it contains the instructions of the great Vasishta
to his pupil Rama. Lord Teignmouth says, that several
Persian versions of this work exist, and quotes some
passages of them, which, compared with the original
Sanscrit, were found substantially accurate.
[134] See the detailed table of it, vol. II. p. 122.
[135] Vol. II. pp. 91-92.
[136] See _Bhagavad-gita_, vv. 16. 23. 28. 29. Schlegel’s ed.
[137] vol. II. p. 24.
[138] See vol. II. pp. 150-151.
[139] That which sir W. Jones quotes (see Works, vol. XIII.
p. 367) is, perhaps, most to be depended upon.
[140] Lucretius, V. v. 282:
Largus item liquidi fons luminis, æthereus sol,
Irrigat assiduè cœlum candore recenti.
[141] Sir W. J., Works, vol. III. p. 127.
[142] Vol. II. pp. 246-288.
[143] See _Mœurs, Institutions et Cérémonies des Peuples de
l’Inde; par M. l’abbé J. A. Dubois, ci-devant missionnaire
dans le Meissour_. Paris, 1825. This work was first
published in the English language, London, 1816. It had been
translated from the author’s French manuscript, which lord
William Bentinck, governor of Madras, purchased on the
account of the East India Company, in 1807. This composition
received the approbation of major Wilks, resident of
Maissour, sir James Mackintosh, and William Erskine, Esq.;
to which I am happy to add the most decisive judgment of the
honorably-known Brahman, Ram Mohun Roy, whom I often heard
say: “The European who best knew the Hindus, and gave the
most faithful account of them, was the abbé Dubois.”
[144] See vol. II. p. 201.
[145] The celebrated Ram Mohun Roy had abandoned all the
tenets, but remained as much as possible attached to the
customs, of his Brahminical caste.
[146] His Works, vol. IV. p. 16.
§ V.――RETROSPECT OF THE PERSIAN AND INDIAN RELIGIONS.
I have endeavored to trace the most remarkable features of Persian and
Indian religions from among those which are contained in the Dabistán.
In them we recognise resemblances, and, in more than one point, even
coincidences, which appear not merely taken from each other in the
course of time, but rather originally inwoven in the respective
institutions. This may be explained, partly by the general probability
that nations, passing through the same stages of civilisation, might
agree in several parts of religion, politics, and philosophy, and
chiefly by the fact, now generally admitted among the learned,[147]
that in very remote times, a union of all the Arian nations, among
whom the Persians and Indians are counted, existed in the common
regions of central Asia. Sir W. Jones[148] goes so far as to say: “We
cannot doubt that the book of Mahabad, or Manu, written in a celestial
dialect, means the Veda.” William von Schlegel most ingeniously
surmises,[149] “that the name of _Zand_ may be but a corruption of the
Sanscrit word _chhandas_, one of the most usual names of the Vedas.”
The fourteen Mahabadians are to him: “Nothing else but the fourteen
Manus, past and future, of the Brahmanical mythology.”[150] Thus we
should have to thank Mohsan Fani for a confirmation of the
above-stated historical fact; the _Mahabadians_ were nothing else but
_Mahabodhis_, in good Sanscrit, “great deified teachers;” he would
have placed them, as did lately Burnouf, Lassen, and Charles Ritter,
somewhere on the highlands of Iran, and he _invented_ nothing.
From the ante-historical dynasties descending to later times, let us
consider that, according to respectable traditions,[151] there existed
friendly and hostile relations between Iran and Persia in the time of
the Iranian king _Feridun_, 1729 years before our era: he reconducted
with an army a fugitive Indian prince, and rendered India tributary.
Two other invasions took place under the Persian monarch
_Manucheher_,[152] after which the Indians recovered their liberty.
Under Kai Kobad[153] flourished Rustum, who ruled, beside other
countries, Sejistan and Kabul, conquered the Panj-áb, and carried war
into the bosom of Arya varta. This country was also attacked by
Afrasiab, a Turan prince,[154] then possessor of Persia. Ferdusi’s
Shah-namah indicates expeditions of Feramurs, a son of Rustum, to
India, under the reign of Kai Khosrú. We arrive at the epoch of
Gushtasp, who ordered the Indus to be explored, and although he had
not, as Herodotus asserts,[155] conquered the Indians, he entertained
religious relations with that nation. After Alexander’s conquest of
Persia, Sassan, the son of Dara, retired to Hind, where, devoted to
the service of God, he died.[156] After a very obscure period of
Persian history, Ardeshir, directed by a dream, brought an offspring
of Sassan from Kabulistan to Istakhar. We cannot doubt that at all
times a communication was open between Iran and India, where Bahram
Gor married an Indian princess, and whence Nushirvan received a
celebrated book and the game of chess. In our seventh century, the
Muhammedan Arabians, driven by the spirit of conquest, turned their
arms towards India, but stopped on the borders of the Indus. It was
reserved to Muhammedan Moghuls, mixed with Persians, to establish in
the midst of India an empire which, after eight hundred years,
disjoined by various disorders, fell into the hands of the English.