We should decide all this with much more certainty did we possess but

one direct rendering made from the Pahlavi into Arabic. Above all we

have to deplore the loss of Ibn Mukaffa's history of Persian Kings which

is always assigned the first place among translations of the Persian

Book of Kings by Hamza and other authorities. This distinguished man who

only late in life exchanged the faith of his forbears for that of Islam,

and who never professed the latter with over much zeal, translated a

series of Pahlavi writings into Arabic including the _Khoday-Nameh_. He

was a courtier, and passed for a good Arabic poet and one of the best

rhetorical writers of his time. The famous Wazir Ibn Mukla counted him

among "the ten most eloquent men." He must consequently have striven to

suit his rendering of the book of Persian kings to the taste of his

contemporaries. But we have no sufficient grounds to assume that he

introduced arbitrary and material alterations into his translations or

even that he greatly elaborated the rhetorical passages of the original

text or invested them with an altogether different garb. Such a

suspicion is contradicted by the coincidences with other sources which,

like Firdausi, are independent of him. There is little probability of

Ibn Mukaffa's work being again brought to light in its entirety. But on

the other hand, it will indeed be possible to gather together in course

of time more and more stray passages belonging to the book; though it is

to be feared, unfortunately that these fragments will prove more to be

preserved as efforts of rhetoric than because of their intrinsic value.

A few extracts of this nature we find in Ibn Kotaiba's _Oyun-al Akhbar_.

Among these citations which I owe to the goodness of Rosen, there is one

tolerably long on the death of Peroz. Now the same fragment, little

curtailed, is in the chronicle of Said bin Batrik or Eutychius, the

patriarch of Alexandria. We should, therefore, be inclined from the

first to derive other information in Eutychius on the Sasanides from Ibn

Mukaffa. And our predisposition is supported by the circumstance that

the history of the dynasty as given in a manual by the same Ibn Kotaiba

and which is styled _Kitab al Maarif_, brief as it is, betrays as in the

instance of the reign of Peroz, all through such an harmony with

Eutychius that here two independent authors must necessarily have drawn

upon one and the same original; and that original source can be no other

than the production of Ibn Mukaffa. The abstract in Eutychius is very

unequal being in some parts exhaustive, in others much abridged. The

narrations as preserved in Tabari, which correspond to the statements in

Eutychius and Ibn Kotaiba and which consequently go back to Ibn Mukaffa,

are of a similar nature though Tabari gives in addition other parallel

reports. Tabari, however, did not himself use Ibn Mukaffa's work, but

for the History of Persia, among other authorities, employed by

preference a younger work which represented another version together

with excerts from the former. This can be inferred from the fact that

the anonymous Codex Sprengers 30, which and Tabari are mutually

independent, shows quite the same combination of two main sources and so

far as the section in question goes, can be utilised and treated as a

new manuscript of Tabari. Both have relied almost to the letter upon the

presentment which emanated partly from Ibn Mukaffa and partly from

another translator with the only difference that the anonymous writer is

oftener more concise than Tabari. Again the version which does not

proceed from Ibn Mukaffa is for the most part in accord with the epitome

of the story of the Sasanides in the introduction to Yakubi's History of

the Abbasides; there the excellent author occasionally subjoins

extraneous information. More often than not this presentment is in touch

with Ferdausi. I am unable to aver from whom has originated this other

recension of the story of the Sasanides. We know indeed the names of a

number of persons who redacted the History of Persia, originally in

Pahlavi, for Arab readers. But though we can collect a few notices of

some of the authors mentioned, we know nothing in particular about them

and are completely in the dark about the special nature of their work.

All that we can postulate as established is that they wrote posterior to

Ibn Mukaffa. The latter is always mentioned in the first place. Muhammad

bin Jahm who is regularly cited next after him and bears the surname of

Bermaki, was a client of the Barmecides, who came to power a long while

after the death of Ibn Mukaffa. Ifc may be supposed that they all laid

under contribution the production of their celebrated predecessor. How

they individually set about their work, whether perhaps some of them

tapped non-Persian tradition; also, how far one or other of them

utilized the novels of which there were probably many in Pahlavi--this

we are no longer in a position to determine. Again this too remains a

mystery whence Tabari came by most of the accounts touching the

Persians, which are conspicuous by their absence in the anonymous Codex.

To clear this whole ground it would appear to be expedient in the first

place to set apart all that for which Ibn Mukaffa directly or indirectly

is responsible. This I have done in the footnotes but an advance is

possible in this direction. On the other hand, we must keep Ferdausi

steadily before our eyes. Whatever in Tabari and other Chroniclers does

not issue from Ibn Mukaffa and is not represented in Ferdausi likewise

merits special study.

[Sidenote: Direct Sources of Ferdausi.]

[Sidenote: The Persian prose Shahname was not derived from Arabic but

Pahlavi.]

A superficial reading of Firdausi would engender the view that he

obtained his material partly from Pahlavi books direct and partly from

the oral communication of competent renconteurs. That this is only a

deceptive illusion we conclude at once from his strong resemblance not

only in the main features but also in the details and the order, with

Arab writers some of whom were much anterior to him. Firdausi positively

knew no Pahlavi and as for Arabic he knew next to nothing. He did employ

written sources preponderatingly if not exclusively and these were in

modern Persian. His principal authority was, according to the

introduction mentioned above, a translation of the old Book of Kings

which was prepared by Abu Mansur bin Abdar Razzak bin Abdullah bin

Ferrukh. So far our information is surely trustworthy. For, Biruni

testifies to a Shahname by Abu Mansur bin Abdar Razzak of Tus. According

to the introduction, this man was a minister of Yakub bin Laith Saffar,

who was commissioned with the work which he accomplished through a

certain Sund bin Mansur Mamari with the help of four competent people

from Khorasan and Sagistan in 360 A.H. The chronological impossibility

involved in the figure is removed by Mohl who emends it to 260. Yakub

ibn Laith got a foothold in Khorasan in 253 A.H. and reigned till 265.

Still this report involves much that is incorrect. That the uncouth

warrior Yakub who was perpetually camping in the battle fields should

have possessed a sense for such a literary undertaking is extremely

improbable, though not altogether inconceivable. May be, he was actuated

by a political design, but Abu Mansur bin Abdar Razzak did not live

under Yakub but flourished two or three generations later. For he is

either a brother of Muhammad bin Abdar Razzak of Tus or Muhammad

himself. The first surmise has the weight of greater likelihood in that

the Strasburg manuscript calls him once Abu Mansur Ahmed and Muhammad

had in fact a brother named Ahmed who participated in his political

manouvres. Muhammad was the lord of Tus. We hear much about him--how he

in the years A.D. 945-960 stood up now for the Samanides, his proper

overlords, now for their powerful antagonist Ruknaddin, the Buide, whose

capital lay in dangerous proximity to his territory. In those days when

an enthusiasm for Modern Persian was strongly awakened the enterprize

may most appropriately have been taken in hand. Immediately after the

Princes of Khorasan planned to cast this prose work into poetry; and

this task was first inaugurated by Dakiki for the Samanides and brought

to conclusion by Ferdausi of Tus, countryman of Abu Mansur bin Abdar

Razzak, for Mahamud of Ghazna. The name of the four people who executed

the work for the son of Abdar Razzak are all genuinely Persian; which

indicates that they were all adherents of the ancient religion and that

they had actully a Pahlavi original before them. To transfer an Arabic

version into Modern Persian would not have required four men. Moreover,

Firdausi's poem occasionally betrays that his sources had not flowed to

him through Arabic. Of those men one only is met with again, Shahzan son

of Barzin. He is mentioned by Firdausi at the head of his account of the

genesis of KALILA WA DIMNA: "Listen to what Shahzan, son of Barzin has

said when he revealed the secret." Because this section is an episode

which assuredly did not appear in the KHODAY-NAMEH, we may conclude that

the prose Shahname on which this Shahzan collaborated, embodied all

manner of similar episodes, though Firdausi may have taken several from

elsewhere. It is an interesting circumstance that the potentate who had

this work prepared by Abu Mansur bin Abdar Razzak, had inserted--so

Biruni tell us--a fictitious genealogical tree in it which led up his

ancestors to Minochihr. Such things were in those times very common

among new men of Persian origin who attained power. We are compensated

for the loss of this prose work by at least the epos of Ferdausi which

has issued from it.

[Sidenote: Dinawari.]

As the most important of extant Arabic representations of the

_Khoday-Nameh_ and the cognate literature we must regard at any rate

Tabari I have already touched upon Eutychius, Ibn Kotaiba, and Yakubi.

Another old chronicler Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Daud Dinawari greatly

accords with Tabari but presents also much that is peculiar to himself.

A closer examination would no doubt reveal that he draws considerably

upon romances directly or indirectly and that he is not particularly

accurate. Tabari reproduces the conflicting versions of the same

incident separately one after another; Dinawari works them up into a

single unified narrative.

[Sidenote: Hamza.]

The small book which Hamza Ispahani wrote in 961, contains in brief much

independent information on the Sasanides. Hamza treats his materials in

a spirit of much more freedom and independence than Tabari, but to us

the compiling process of Tabari is far more convenient.

[Sidenote: Masudi.]

Masudi in his "Meadows of Gold" affords us many a supplement to Tabari's

narratives derived from reliable Persian sources. But Masudi works very

unequally, accepts a good deal that is suspicious provided only it is

entertaining, and as regards detail he is by no means over exact.

As an historical authority, the Persian redaction of Tabari, so

remarkable in many of its aspects, and achieved by Muhammad Belami or by

others under his guidance, has but little value. I designate this work

as "Persian Tabari" and have used it in the splendid Gotha manuscript

and in Zotenberg's French translation. I have also consulted the Turkish

version of Belami in a Gotha Manuscript.

[Sidenote: Tabari more valuable than Firdausi.]

All these writers and others present us collectively a tolerably rich

and vivid portrait of Persian tradition of the Sasanide times. But the

best comprehensive statement of the story of the Sasanides on the basis

of this tradition is furnished us by Tabari, all his shortcomings

notwithstanding and despite the pre-eminence which Firdausi's poem

possesses as such.

[Sidenote: Ibn Kelbi.]

But in his narrative of this period Tabari had laid under contribution

reports which were not of Persian origin. For the history of the Arab

princes of Hira, which is so intimately related to that of the Persian

empire, Tabari's chief authority was Hisham bin Muhammad called Ibn

Kelbi a man who, like his father Muhammad bin Saib Kelbi before him, has

rendered, however often modern criticism may take exception to the

unscientific system of both the writers, the greatest service in

connection with the collection of the scattered information on the

history of ancient Arabs. We know of a few of the numerous writings,

large and small, of Ibn Kelbi which are enumerated for us in the

_Fihrist_ and which probably are at the root of Tabari's chapters. It is

quite possible that Tabari borrows many of the secondary sources of Ibn

Kelbi. It is surprising that the latter is cited as an authority on the

Persian history itself, on the reigns of Ardeshir, Peroz, Khosrau I,

Harmizd IV, Khosrau II, and Yazdegerd III. We are not cognisant of any

work of his on the History of Persia. But it may be conjectured that

occasionally in his history of Arabia he supplied minuter details

touching contemporary Persia. An amanuensis of his, Jabala bin Salim, is

noticed in the _Fihrist_ as one of the translators from Persian. Ho

provided his master with material from Pahlavi books.

For the History of the Arabs of that period Tabari has used a variety of

other sources, most prominent among them being Muhammad Ibn Ishak who is

better known as the biographer of the prophet. In this section of

Tabari's great work mediately or immediately a large amount of diverse

information has been brought together.

It is certainly desirable and to be hoped that the criticism of the

sources in this domain would make substantial progress. But the point of

greatest moment even here is to test every incident or piece of

information according to its origin and credibility as I have

endeavoured to do in the footnotes.

APPENDIX VI

_LETTER OF TANSAR TO THE KING OF TABARISTAN._

Christensen, by the following reasoning, comes to the conclusion, that

it was written somewhere between 557 and 570.

Among the sources of our knowledge of the Sasanian institutions, one of

the most important is the letter of Tansar to the king of Tabaristan

published and translated by Darmesteter in the _Journal Asiatique_

(1894). The information which it gives on points where we can verify it

is so exact that we cannot doubt that the letter was composed in the

time of the Sasanians. On the other hand, on the first reading of the

epistle I formed the impression that it was a literary fiction dating

from the time of Khusro when the tradition made of Ardeshir the model of

political sagacity and the founder of the entire organisation of the

empire. The letter impressed me as a historical, theological, political

and moral dissertation which in the shape of a correspondence between

the grand Herbed Tansar and the king of Tabaristan, ill-informed

regarding the new state of affairs and hesitating to submit himself to

Ardeshir, was calculated to instruct contemporaries. It, therefore, fits

in with the entire literature of the _Andarz_ type, which was developed

under Khusro and the object of it was the moral instruction of the

people. A more minute examination has confirmed me in this view and now

I think I am able to affirm positively that the letter was composed

under Khusro I. Tansar relates that Ardeshir softened the penalties for

crimes against the religion. Formerly, "they used to put to death

without hesitation those who set aside the religion of the State. But

Ardeshir has directed that the accused shall be arrested and shall be

catechised during a year and only if that proves of no effect he shall

be killed." As a matter of fact, the rigorous ordinance which awarded

the punishment of death for apostacy could not have existed before

Parsism became with Ardeshir the State religion. The relaxation of

punishment, on the other hand, dates from a much later period, when the

standpoint of greater humanity began to be prevalent and when it was

attempted to give greater authority to these views by attributing them

to the celebrated founder of the dynasty. And we can say the same thing

with reference to the less severe punishment for crimes committed

against the State and in respect of other things mentioned in the

letter. Besides, the tolerance in matters religious and the humanity of

Khusro I are well-known.

Now let us look at the incident of succession. According to the letter

Ardeshir did not like to choose his successor lest the latter should

wish for his death. So, he arranged for the succession in the following

manner. The king only left in his royal letters a few counsels or

instructions to the grand _Mobed_, the commander-in-chief, and the

principal secretary, and after the decease of the king the latter were

to proceed to elect a successor from among the royal princes. If they

all were not of the same mind the choice should rest with the grand

_mobed_ alone. But Aideshir had made a formal notes that he was not

going to establish a president thereby, and that "in another age a

manner of looking at things different from ours may appear the proper

one." In the first place such an arrangement accords ill with the nature

of a statesmen like Ardeshir, for we know from Tabari who follows the

official chronicle of the times of the Sasanians, that Ardeshir as well

as Shapur I and II themselves chose their respective successors. But in

the times between Ardeshir II and Kawadh the election of the king was

generally in the hands of the noblemen, and the system mentioned by

Tansar may well have suited this period and been in harmony with the

singular expression ascribed to Ardeshir that the system in question was

not a definite one, and that in other periods, other manners might be

more convenient. It seems to us that the letter of Tansar was composed

at a period when the memory of the system of Ardeshir was still living

although it had already been abolished. In other words, it was the time

when the kings had gained the power to nominate their successors during

their life-time, which brings us to the period between Kawadh and Hormum

IV.

The letter makes Ardeshir say "None but the subject kings who do not

belong to our House can assume the title of king barring the wardens of

the marches of the territory of the Allans and the districts in the west

and of Khwarzm." By the oppression 'the warden of the matches' we must

understand no doubt the _marzbans_ of the countries established by

Khusro.

Finally, the geographical notices permit us to determine in a more exact

fashion the time of the origin of the letter.... The letter was

consequently, composed after the march of Khusro I towards the East by

the destruction of the Hephthahtes, but before the capture of Yemen.

that is to say, between 557-570.

Christensen finally notes that Marquart has arrived at the same

conclusion, by another way, namely, that the letter is a fiction of the

time of Khusro I. (See _Eranshahr_ page 30, note 2).

APPENDIX VII

_Some Arabic authors and the Iranian material they preserve._

_IRANIAN MATERIAL IN THE UYUNAL AKBHAR OF IBN QOTAIBA_.

[_Note,_--Brockelmann's edition of the _Uyunal Akhbar_ is not accessible

to me in India. I have carefully examined the first volume of the Cairo

Edition and the following will show the wealth of Iranian material

comprised in the book.--G.K.N.]

When the Kisra died this was reported to the Prophet who inquired who

was going to succeed the dead emperor and when he was told his daughter,

the princess Buran, the Prophet declared that the nation could not

prosper inasmuch as its affairs depended upon a woman. (p. 11).

[Sidenote: Next-of-kin marriage.]

I have read in the _Book of the Persians_ an epistle written by

Ardeshir, son of Babak to his subjects declaring that the ecclesiastical

authorities were the upholders of the religion and that the warriors

were the bearers of the casque and literature, and were ornaments of the

empire and that the agriculturists were pillars of the country. (p. 15).

[In the course of the epistle there is a reference to marriage of next

of kin, the king exhorting his subjects to _tazauwa-ju-fil qarabayn_.]

[Sidenote: _Kitab Ain_ or the Pahlavi _Ain-nameh._]

[Sidenote: Anushirwan's rule.]

I have read in the _Ain_ that a king of Persia said in his address to

his people: "I am only the ruler of people's bodies, not their minds;

and I govern with justice, not according to my pleasure; and I safeguard

people's property, not their secrets." Furthermore, the Persians say the

most efficient of rulers is he who draws the bodies of his subjects to

fealty to him through their hearts. When Anushirwan appointed a person

to an office he directed his secretary to leave out in the appointment

order a space of four lines so that he may fill it up with his own hand,

and when the appointment order was brought to him he would write in it

"govern the good people by love, and for the common people mix liberty

with awe and govern the proletariat with levity." (p. 15).

And it is said in the _Book of the Persians_ that the hearts of the

people are the treasuries of the king, so that whatever is put there

should be made known to him. (p 17).

[Sidenote: The _Taj._]

And I have read in the _Taj_; Said Aberwez to his son Shiruya who had

put him into prison, [and here follow some views relating to the

treatment of soldiers.]

And in one of the _Books of the Persians_ it is stated that Ardeshir

said to his son, "Oh, my son, the empire and the religion are two

brothers which cannot do the one without the other. For the religion is

the foundation and the empire is the guardian and whatever has no

foundation falls and whatever has no guardian to look after it goes to

waste" [And then proceeds to advise him as to the treatment of the

nobles, warriors, the clergy, etc. Then are described the five qualities

essential in a man occupying a post in the imperial government]

And it is said in the _Taj_ that Aberwez wrote to his son Shiruya from

his prison.... (p. 20)

And I have read in the letter ... Aberwez wrote to his son Shiruya, [and

here follow instructions regarding the three qualifications necessary in

a revenue officer.] (p. 21)

[Sidenote: The _Taj._]

I have read in the _Taj_ that one of the kings of Persia took counsel

with his _Wazirs,_ [and here follows a discussion about the necessity of

confiding one's secret to one man only and not more.] (p. 25)

[Sidenote: Epistle of Aberwez.]

I have read in the Epistle of Aberwez to his son Shiruya who was

imprisoned by him,[here follows the advisability of taking counsel with

a certain class of people.] (p. 30).

[Sidenote: Marzbans.]

One of the kings of Persia, when he consulted the Marzbans and they did

not give their opinion in a proper way, summoned those who were

entrusted with provisioning the Marzbans and punished them. The latter

complained that the error was on the part of the Marzbans whereas the

punishment was awarded to them and the king replied that was so, and

that the Marzbans would not have committed the error unless their minds

were not dependent upon their food.

[Sidenote: Buzurjamaher.]

[Sidenote: Books of the Persians.]

[Sidenote: Ideal Persian Secretary]

Says Buzurjamaher, "When you are in doubt as to the propriety of doing

one of two things then look out for the one which is nearest to your

desires and relinquish it." (p. 23). And it is said in the _Books of the

Persians_, [and here follows one of the most frequently repeated

injunctions about the strict guarding of one's secrets.] (p. 40.) The

Persians were in the habit of saying that the person would be deficient

as a writer who was not conversant with the nature of flowing waters,

with the digging of canals, with mirage, with the length of days as to

particular seasons, with the rising of the new moon, and its effects,

with weights and measures, with mensuration, triangles, squares, and

measurements of areas involving various angles, with the preparation of

channels and bridges and water mills, with the implements of artisans,

and with the intricacies of mathematics. (p. 43).

[Sidenote: Mobedan-Mobed]

I have read in one of the _Books of the Persians_ that the

_Mobedan-Mobed_ in eulogising the art of writing said etc ... (p. 47).

[Sidenote: Epistle of Aberwez.]

I have read in the Epistle of Aberwez to his son Shiruya. [Then follows

an advice about severely punishing even a small piece of dishonesty.]

(p, 58).

[Sidenote: The _Taj_.]

I have read in the _Taj_ that Aberwez said to the treasurer [here

follows some observations on integrity.]

[Sidenote: Persian sense of justice and equity.]

I have read in the _Ain_ that it behoves the ruler to understand the

jurisdiction of rightful justice, of justice which is not equity, of

equity which is not justice, and to use his judgment with regard to

evidence and eyewitnesses, and to refrain from doubtful matters. Since

it is both justice and equity to kill a person for the slaughter of a

person, and it is justice without equity to kill a master for the

slaughter of a slave, and it is equity without justice to award the same

punishment for a crime committed by a sane man as to one who was not in

his senses. (p. 88).

And I have read in the _Taj_: Said Aberwez to his chamberlain; [and here

follow very interesting instructions regarding the treatment which the

chamberlain was to give to the various persons seeking an audience of

the king.] (p. 74).

I have read in the _Taj_ [here follows an address of a secretary to a

king.]

[Sidenote: Speech from the throne.]

I have read in the _Siyaral Ajam_ [one of the Arabic versions of _Shah

Nameh_] that Ardeshir, when he was firmly established on the throne,

gathered together his subjects and addressed them with eloquence

exhorting them to love and obedience to himself, and warning them

against sin and dividing the people into four classes, upon which those

present made obeisance and their spokesman addressed the king as

follows. [Here follows one of those typical speeches of which we have so

many in _Shah Nameh_, and which leaves no doubt that the originals of

them were composed in Pahlavi and that they were almost literally

translated.]

_JAHIZ._

_KITAB-AL-BAYAN VA-AL-TABAYYIN._

_(Egyptian Edition.)_

PART I.

The dictum of BUZURJAMEHR: Buzurg, son of Bokhtagan was asked, "Which is

the thing which covers indolence." "Aye" he said, "Wisdom, which gives

beauty to it." They said, "If a person has got no wisdom?" He said,

"Then property, which will cover it." They said, "But if there is no

property?" He said, "His friends will earn respect for him." They said,

"But if he has got no friends to earn respect for him?" He said, "If a

person is indolent then he must preserve silence" They said, "But if he

does not observe silence?" He said, "Then sudden death is better for him

than that he should remain, in the world of the living." This passage

has been repeated at page 123 with a slight difference. There the

interrogator is Kisra Anushirvan, and the question is, which thing is

the best for a man who is indolent. Buzurg replies, "Wisdom, with which

he may be happy." (p, 4.)

There is mention of several authors and books similar to _Kalileh wa

Dimneh_ with the names of their authors including Sahal Ibn Harun, Ibn

Rayhani, Al Katib. (p. 30.)

Says Ismai: In the alphabet of the Romans there is no _zad_ and among

the Persians there is no _tha_. (p. 36)

A longish definition and description of oratory by Ibn ul Mukaffa. (p.

64.)

Ibn Mukaffa again referred to. (p. 65.)

Instances of Arabic poetry in which Persian words and phrases are

intermingled _e.g., garden_ for _unuk_ (neck); _av sard_ for cold water,

&c. (p. 79.)

[There are several other instances where the Persian words are there,

but the copyist and possibly also the editor, do not seem to have

understood the Kasida and the editor observes in a marginal note that,

the text is corrupt, G.K.N.]

PART II.

Mention of Sahal Ibn Harun. (p. 37.)

Mention of Persia, (p. 53.)

Mention of Abdallah Ibn Mukaffa. (p. 84.)

Mention of Persia, (p. 92.)

Dicta of Ibn al Mukatia on the dignity of kings and of nobles, (p. 104.)

Reference to Khalid al Kisravi. (p. 105.)

Reference to Ibn al Mukaffa. (p. 109.)

Khalid al Kisrawi. (p. 112.)

Al Hurmuzan. (p. 139.)

On the service of kings. (p. 176.)

PART III.

The ways of the Shuubiya. (p. 2.)

Reference to Persia. (p. 5.)

Persia and Arabia compared. (p. 7.)

Arabia and Persia compared. (p. 12.)

Arabia and Persia contrasted. The prophets of Ajam. (p, 13.)

Reference to Persia. (p. 44.)

The Persian throne. (p. 77.)

Dicta of Mukaffa. (p. 87.)

Khalid al Barmaki. (p. 110.)

Dicta on Adab of Mukaffa. (p. 135.)

Reference to Barmaki. (p. 174.)

Reference to Barmaki. (p. 170.)

Sahal Ibn-Harun. (p. 185.)

Dictum of Buzurja Meher. (p. 217.)

Madaini quoted. (p. 233.)

Persia referred to. (p. 234.)

PART III., PAGE 5.

[Sidenote: Value of Zoroastrian literature.]

And we note that the persons most superior with, regard to preaching our

sermons are the Persians. And among the Persians the most clever in this

respect are the people of Fars, and they are the sweetest in words, and

their pronunciation is the most correct. And the most difficult in this

respect are the people of Merv. The most eloquent dialect of Persia is

the Dari. As regards the Pahlavi idiom, of the people of the country of

Ahwaz are the best. And as regards the chantings of the HERBEDS and the

songs of the MOBEDS the superiority in this respect lies with the

annotators of the Zemzema. And it is said that he who desires to acquire

proficiency in the art of eloquence, and to be acquainted with rare

expressions, and to be profoundly versed in vocabulary should read the

book of Karwand. Moreover, if it is necessary to acquire sagacity and

good manners and knowledge of the various interpretations of terms, a

knowledge of pleasing expression and agreeable interpretation, one

should study the LIVES OF KINGS, since for the Persians this book

contains essays and sermons and fine expressions.

HAMZA ISPAHANI.

[Sidenote: Why no authentic history of Iran has survived.]

[Sidenote: A clear reference to the ambiguous Pahlavi script and to the

great difficulty of translating from it:]

[Sidenote: Enumeration of the sources of Iranian history.]

There are four dynasties among the kings of Persia and their enumeration

is given alone and without any history of the events of their time or

the characteristics of the kings of Persia during the protracted period

of their sovereignty. They were divided into four groups called the

Feshdadiya, the Kayaniya, the Ashghaniya, and the Sasaniya. Their entire

chronology is dubious and not certain since it was translated after 150

years from one language into another and from one equivocal set of

symbols for figures into another set of symbols, so that there remained

nothing for me with reference to a narrative, in these chapters except

to bring together the doubtful transcripts. I succeeded in finding eight

transcripts and these were the following:--The Book of the Reigns of the

Kings of Persia translated by Ibn al Mukaffa, the Book of the Reigns of

the Kings of Persia translated by Muhammad Ibn al Jaham al Barmak, the

Book of the History of the Kings of Persia which was taken out of the

treasury of the Khalif Mamun; the Book of the Reigns of the Kings of

Persia which was translated by Zaduya son of Shahuya of Ispahan; the

Book of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia which was translated or

compiled by Muhammad Ibn al Behram Ibn Mutyan of Ispahan; the Book of

the Chronology of the Kings of Persia which was translated or compiled

by Heshan Ibn Kasum of Ispahan, the Book of the Chronology of the Kings

of the Sasanian Dynasty which was improved upon by Behram son of Mardan

Shah, Mobed of the district of Shabur in the country of Fars. And when I

had collected together all these works, I compared one with the others

and then acquired what was necessary for the writing of this chapter.

[Sidenote: Incorrect translations from Pahlavi.]

And says Abu Mashar, the astronomer:--The majority of their [Iranian]

histories are interpolated and corrupt, and there is the corruption

because they have come down from a great many years ago and because they

have been translated from one writing into another and from one tongue

into another and hence there have been mistakes of either excess or

defect.

"And the Persians start their assertion from the Book which was brought

to them by Zaradusht and which was called Avesta. This is the Book of

their religion. It alleges that there have elapsed since the reign of

Kayumarth, the father of mankind, down to the reign of king Yazdegerd,

4182 years, 10 months, and 19 days."

[Sidenote: Corrupt texts and faulty translations.]

Says Musa Ibn Isa al Kesravi in his book: I saw the Book which is called

the _Khoday Nameh_ and which is the Book which when it was translated

from Persian into Arabic was entitled _Kitab al Muluk al Fars._ I

carefully examined the copies of this Book and looked through the

narratives in them, and I found them in disagreement with each other so

that I could not find even two copies which agreed with each other, and

this was on account of the doubts in the minds of the translators who

turned from one writing into another.

[Sidenote: Mobed Behram the historian.]

And turning back to what I have related in the previous chapter as

regards the chronology [of the Persians], I relate what has been stated

by Behram son of Mardanshah, _Mobed_ of the district of Shabur in the

province of Fars. Says Behram the mobed: I collected together a little

over twenty copies of the book called _Khoday Nameh_ and I put together

properly the chronology of the kings of Persia from the times of

Kayumarth, the father of mankind, till the last days when the empire was

transferred from them to the Arabs.

[Hamza describes the dress of the kings according to a book in which

they were depicted just before their death. And he gives the buildings

which each of them erected, especially the fire-temples they established

along with the villages on the produce of which they were to be

maintained.]

[Sidenote: Avesta.]

"I have read in the book which has been translated from one of their

books called _Avesta_," and so on Hamza proceeds regarding the beginning

of creation.

TABARI.

(1st Series, Vol. 2, page 675.)

[Sidenote: Fire-temples in India.]

It is related by historians versed in the antiquities of Arabia and

Persia that Bhishtasb, son of Kay Loharasb, when he assumed the crown,

said:--To-day we have become sovereign and we shall employ our thoughts,

our action, and our knowledge for the acquisition of the good. And it is

said that he built in Fars a city called Fasa and he built fire-temples

in India, etc., and appointed _herbeds_ to the same. He assigned several

dignities to seven of his noblemen in his dominions and appointed each

of them to the charge of a district.

[Sidenote: The appearance of Zoroaster.]

[Sidenote: Wars of Iran and Turan.]

Zaradusht son of Isfayman appeared in the thirtieth year of his reign

and laid claim to apostleship and endeavoured that his religion might be

accepted by the king. The latter refused and then Zaradusht satisfied

him. Upon which the king accepted his claim. And he brought to him a

Writing which he claimed was a revelation. And the said Writing was

inscribed on 12,000 cow hides and they were embellished with gold, and

Bishtasp deposited the same in a place in Istakhar called Darbesht and

he appointed _herbeds_ in that connection. He prohibited the teaching of

it to ordinary people.... [Here follows a passage which is not very

clear regarding the difference that arose between the king of Iran and

the king of the Turks relating to this new religion which Bishtasb had

adopted. The name of the Turk sovereign is given as Khurzasaf.] Now when

the messenger arrived with the epistle to Bishtasb there were gathered

together the Ahl-bayat[1] and the noblemen of the empire, including

Jamasaf the Wise, and Zarrin son of Loharasaf. Then Bishtasb wrote to

the king of the Turks a strongly worded reply challenging him to a war

and expressing his determination not to withdraw the step that he had

taken and saying that that even if he refrained from fighting there

would be all the people on both sides who would continue the struggle.

On that day there were in the council of Bishtasb his brother Zarrin,

and Nastur son of Zarrin, and Isfandiyar and Beshotan, the sons of

Bishtasb and all the progeny of Loharasb. On the side of Khorasaf there

were Ju Hormaz, and Hudarman his brother, and the Ahl-bayat and

Baidarafsh, the magician. In the battle Zarrin was killed which was a

heavy blow to Bishtasb and a great booty was taken by his son

Isfandiyar, and Baidaraf was killed which was a calamity to the Turks.

There was a huge slaughter and Khorsasaf fled. Thereupon Bishtasb

returned to Balkh. Now when a number of years had passed after this war

a person called Karzam attacked Isfandiyar. There was also an

estrangement between Bishtasb and Isfandiyar. Order was issued for his

imprisonment in a castle in which there were ladies, Bishtasb then

proceeded in the direction of Kerman and Sagistan and proceeded towards

a mountain called Tamdar. [The various manuscripts write the word

differently and the editors have printed it without the diacritical

marks so that it can be read in a variety of ways], for the purpose of

teaching the religion and of spreading it there. And he left behind him

his father Loharasaf in the city of Balkh and the treasures and the

properties along with the harem including Khatus, his queen, were also

left with the old man. [As the Editor points out Khatus is the Hutaosa

of _Gosh Yast_ 26, and _Ram Yast_ 36[2]]. Now this fact was conveyed by

the spies to Khorasaf and when he learnt it he collected an innumerable

army and proceeded from his country towards Balkh and Khorasaf thought

that this was an opportunity of attacking Bishtasb and his country. Thus

when he approached Takhun he sent forward Ju Hormaz, his brother, with a

large army and directed him to continue his march till he reached the

centre of Bishtasb's country and to invade it and attack the people and

the cities. And this was done by Ju Hormaz who shed a large amount of

blood and carried off incalculable booty. And Khorasaf followed him and

set fire to the archives and slew Lohorasaf and the _herbeds_ and

destroyed the fire-temples, _(buyut-an-niran)_ and he took possession of

the properties and the treasuries and took two of the daughters of

Lohorasaf prisoner and one of them was called Khumay and the other

Bazafreh. [This of course is according to Firdousi Beh Afrid]. He

captured a great standard which was called Dirafsh Kabyan and he pursued

Bishtasb who was fleeing from him.

[Footnote 1: Ahl-bayat, or people of the house, is the Arabic equivalent

of the Iranian Visputhra and was applied by Arabs to the superior

Persian noblemen.]

[Footnote 2: Here is evidence, on the one hand, that the Arab historians

had Iranian histories at their disposal and on the other, that the

latter are still reflected in the _yasht_ literature.]

[The historian narrates how Isfandiyar went into the heart of the

kingdom of the Turk and reached his capital which was called "Dez Ruin"

and he proceeds to say "and being interpreted in Arabic it means the

palace of copper." There is further reference to the canals and castles

which we can trace to the BUNDEHESH. The struggle between Rustum and

Isfandiyar is also described. This is followed by a curious passage

regarding Zoroaster.]

DINAWARI.

PAGE 26, CAIRO EDITION.

THE CALL OF ZARADUSHT.

[Sidenote: Rustam and Isfandiyar.]

And it is said that Zaradusht the head of the Magians came to Bishtasb

the king and told him, "I am the Apostle of God to you", and gave him

the Book which the Magians possess. Then Bishtasb believed in him and

accepted his religion which is that of the Magians and exhorted the

people of his kingdom to the same and they also accepted it _nolence

volence._ And Rustam the Strong, was at that time the Governor of

Sagistan and Khorasan, and he was powerful of body and possessed of

great vigour. And when this happened it was reported to Kaykobad the

king, this, about the admittance of Bishtasb into the Magian religion

and his abandoning the religion of their forefathers. Kaykobad became

exceedingly angry at this, and said that this was forsaking of the

religion of their forefathers who had inherited it from one generation

to another. Then the people of Sagistan were gathered together and they

wore incited to destroy Bishtasb. And they revolted against him. Upon

this Bishtasb called upon Isfandiyar who was the strongest man of his

time and said to him, "Oh son, the kingdom will be entrusted to you. But

the affairs will not improve except by killing Rustam, and you know his

strength and vigour. But you are his match in power and prowess. So do

you choose from the army whomever you like and then proceed against

him." So Isfandiyar selected 12,000 Persian knights from the forces of

his father, and marched against Rustam. And Rustam proceeded towards him

between the boundaries or Sagistan and Khorasan. Isfandiyar suggested to

Rustam that their armies should be excused from attacking each other,

but that they two should engage in single combat and that whoever killed

the other should be held to be the victor. Rustam agreed to the proposal

and the covenant. Then the two armies stood abide and the two warriors

engaged in a duel. Now the Persians have a good deal to say in this

matter and that it was Rustam who killed Isfandiyar and that the

latter's army returned to Bishtasb and informed him of what had happened

to his son Isfandiyar. The king was overwhelmed with grief fell ill and

died. And the kingdom, came to the grandson Bahman, son of Isfandiyar,

and it is related that soon after Rustam returned to his residence in

Sagistan, he died.[1]

[Footnote 1: Note that Dinawari had obviously before him Iranian

traditional materials for his history.]

DINAWARI TREATS OF THE FOLLOWING IRANIAN SUBJECTS IN HIS CLEAR AND

SUCCINCT FASHION.

The reign of Baywarasaf, Farasiyab; Dhahak, the end of the reign of

Minosher and the beginning of the reign of Farasiyab, the reign of Zab

son of Budkan and Kaykohad Zab; the reign of Kaykawuys son of Kaykobad,

the reign of Kai Khosro, the reign of Lohrasf and the invasion of Bukht

Nasar; the reign of Bhishtasb in Persia; the call of Zaradusht, the

reign of Bahman Ibn Isfandiyar in Persia and the emancipation of the

Jews, the reign of Khumani (Humay) the queen of Bahman; the reign of

Dara Ibn Bahman; the war of Dara with Greece; the reign of Darayush; the

origin of Alexander; the invasion of Alexander against Dara; the reign

of Ardwan; One para. is devoted to the Muluk ut Tawaef, and then

regularly follow all the Sasanian kings beginning with Shahan Shah

Ardeshir.

IBN AL ATHIR

(Vol. I., PAGE 110 CAIRO EDITION.)

_Account of King Loharasp and his son Bishtasb and the appearance of

Zaradusht_.

[Sidenote: Zend and Pazend.]

And we have related that Kai Khosrou, when he was at the point of death,

bequeathed the crown to the son of his uncle Loharasp; and when he

acquired the sovereignty he got possession of the throne of gold adorned

with jewels. For him was built in Khorasan the city of Balkh which was

called Husna (charming). He established archives and strengthened the

empire by the selection of soldiers and by advancing agriculture. He

took taxes for the purpose of wages for his soldiers. At that time the

Turks were in great strength and he went down to Balkh to fight them,

and he was a favourite with his people and strong in overpowering his

vigourous enemies, kind to his well-wishers, and of great intrepidity.

He raised great buildings and cut a number of canals, built cities. The

kings of India and China and the occident used to pay tribute to him and

addressed him in their despatches as their 'Lord' out of fear and

respect for him. Subsequently he abdicated the empire and throne and

engaged himself in devotion, appointing in succession to him his son

Bishtasb to be king. And his reign endured for 120 years. After him

Bishtasb became king and in his days appeared Zaradusht son of Sakiman

[it should be Safiman, the difference being only that of a dot] who

claimed to prophesy and the Magians followed him. And according to what

is stated by writers, Zaradusht belonged to Palestine and was a personal

servant to one of the disciples of Armaya, the prophet. He was

unfaithful to him and told him a lie so that God cursed him and he was

afflicted with leprosy and went away to the country of Azarbayjan and

there started the religion of Magians. And it is also stated by others

that he was a Persian and that he composed a Book and went about with it

in the world. But no one knew its meaning. And it was alleged that it

was in a heavenly language and was called as such. It was entitled Ashta

[this is clearly a misformation of Avesta]. Then he left Azarbayjan and

proceeded towards Fars. No one knew what was in the book and no one

accepted it. Then he went to India and produced it before the kings

there. Next he went to China and Turkey. But no one acknowledged it, and

he was driven out from their countries, and started for Farghana whose

king prepared to slay him so that he fled from there and bent his steps

towards Bhishtasb son of Loharasp; who ordered his imprisonment and he

was consequently in captivity for a time. Now Zaradusht wrote a

commentary on his Book called the Zend which means interpretation. Next

he commented upon the Zend in a book called Bazand, that is,

interpretation of interpretation, and therein are various sciences like

astrology, astronomy, medicine, etc., with reference to the history of

past ages, and the books of the prophets. And in his book is

stated,--"Adhere to what I have brought you till the time when there

will come to you the man of the red camel," which means Muhammad the

Prophet. This was at the beginning of the year 1600 and it was on this

account that there has been enmity between the Magians and the Arabs and

it has been mentioned in the history of Sabur Dhul Aktaf that this was

one of the reasons justifying the raids on the Arabs. But God knows the

best.

[Sidenote: The Eternal fire.]

[Sidenote: Royal archives forbidden to the Vulgar.]

Then Bishtasb caused Zaradusht to present himself before him since he

was in Balkh. And when he came to him he commenced with his religion.

Bishtasb admired it, followed it, and forced his people to embrace it,

and slew a large number of them till the rest adopted it. But the

Magians assert that he was by origin from Azarbayjan and that he came to

the king from the roof of his palace and that there was in his hand a

cube of fire with which he played without its injuring him; that whoever

took it from his hand did so without hurting himself. He caused the king

to follow him and to accept his creed. And he built fire temples in the

country and lighted them with that fire. For it is stated that the fires

which are in their fire-temples are burning from that fire to this day.

But they are telling an untruth since the fire of the Magians was

extinguished in all their temples when God sent Muhammad down as his

apostle as we shall describe, God willing, in the sequel, as well as the

appearance of Zaradusht after thirty years of the reign of Bishtasb. And

Zaradusht brought a writing which is alleged to be revelation from God

and is inscribed on 12,000 cow hides inlaid with gold. Bishtasb

deposited them in a place in Istakhar and forbade the teaching of thorn

to the vulgar.

MASUDI.

_Kitab-at-tanbih._

[Sidenote: The Kohan Nameh and the Ain Nameh.]

The Persians have a book called the _Kohan Nameh_ in which are mentioned

all the officers of the Persian monarch amounting to 600 and classed

according to their respective ranks. This book formed part of the _Ain

Nameh._[1] The meaning of Ain Nameh is the 'Book of regulations'. It is

a book containing several thousands of leaves and no one can find a copy

of it anywhere except among the _mobeds_ and others invested with

authority. The mobed of the Persians at the moment of writing this

history, that is in the year 364, for the country of Jabal in Iraq and

for the countries of Ajam, is Ammad son of Ashwahisht. Before him these

countries had for their mobed Isfandiyar, son of Adarbad, son of Anmid,

who was killed by Radi at Baghdad in 325.

[Footnote 1: A remarkable passage from this Pahlavi treatise has been

embodied in a close Arabic version in Ibn Kutayha's _Uyun-al-Akhbar._

The credit of discovering and translating this unique passage into a

European language belongs to M.K. Inostranzev.]

I have seen in the city of Istakhar in Fars in the year 303 in the

house of a high noble Persian, a large book in which were set out along

with the descriptions of several sciences the histories of the

kings of Persia, their reigns and the monuments which they had

erected,--fragments which I have not been able to find anywhere else in

Persian books, neither in the _Khoday Nameh_, nor in the _Ain Nameh_ nor

in the _Kohan Nameh_ or anywhere else.

[Sidenote: Portrait of Sasanian kings taken just before their demise.]

[Sidenote: Persian Imperial archives: Translation into Arabic.]

In this book were pictures of the kings of Persia belonging to the house

of Sasan, twenty seven in number, twenty five men and two women. Each of

them was represented as at the moment of death, whether old or young

with the royal ornaments, with the tiara, hair, beard, and all the

features of his face. This dynasty reigned over the country for 433

years one month and seven days. When one of these kings died his

portrait was painted and it was deposited in the treasury in order that

the living princes may know the features of the dead kings. The

representation of every king who was painted as a warrior was in a

standing posture; that of every king who was occupied with government

affairs was in the sitting posture. To it was joined the biography of

each, of them detailing his public and private life together with the

important events and facts concerning the most interesting incidents of

his reign. The book which I saw was redacted according to the documents

found in the treasuries of the kings of Persia and it was completed in

the middle of the second Jamada of the year 113. It was translated for

Hisham son of Abdal Malik son of Merwan from Persian into Arabic. The

first of the kings of this dynasty whom one sees there is Ardeshir. The

distinctive colour in his portrait was of a brilliant red. His trousers

were of sky-blue and the mitre was green on gold. He held a lance in the

hand and he was standing. The last was that of Yezdegerd, son of

Shahariyar, son of Kesra Abarvez. His distinctive colour was green. His

trousers were sky-blue and his mitre vermillion. He held in his hand a

lance and rested the other hand on his sabre. This painting was made

with Persian colours which are no longer to be found now-a-days and of

gold and silver dissolved and of pulverised copper. The leaves of the

book were of a purple colour and of a marvellous tint. It was so

beautiful and prepared with such care that I do not know whether it was

paper or whether it was thin parchment. (P. 250.)

[Which stands for Pahlavi and not modern Persian.]

[Sidenote: Zoroaster, Avesta, and Avesta Script.]

Zaradusht brought to the king the book of _Avesta_, the name of which in

Arabic has received a final _kaf_ and has thus become _Abestak_. The

number of chapters of book is twenty one, each chapter comprising 200

leaves. In this book we find a total of sixty vowels and consonants each

with a distinct character. Some of these characters are found elsewhere

and others have fallen into disseutude. For this script is not confined

to the language of the Avesta.

[Sidenote: Extent of Avesta.]

[Sidenote: Persian translation of Avesta.]

[Sidenote: Contents of Avesta.]

Zoroaster invented this writing which the Magians have called Sin

Dabireh, that is to say, the 'sacred writing'. He incised his writing

into 12,000 cow skins and filled it with gold. It was in the ancient

language of Persia of which no one has any knowledge to-day. Only a few

portions of its chapters have been translated into the modern Persian.

It is this Persian translation which they have in their hands when, they

say their prayers. The translation contains fragments like the Ashtad,

the Chitrasht, the Aban Yasht, the Hadukht, and other chapters. In the

Chitrasht are found the recitals of the origin and the end of the world.

Hadukht comprises exhortations.

[Sidenote: commentaries on Avesta.]

Zoroaster composed the commentary on the Avesta which he called the

Zend, and which in the eyes of his followers was revealed to him by God.

He subsequently translated it from Pahlavi into Persian. Zoroaster,

further, prepared a commentary on the Zend and called it Bazend.

[Sidenote: Their destruction.]

The Mobeds and the Herbeds, learned in the science of religion,

commented in their turn on this commentary and their work was called the

Barideh, and, by others, the Akradeh. After he had conquered the Persian

Empire and put to death Dara son of Dara, Alexander burnt them....

[Sidenote: Synopsis of Zoroastrian beliefs.]

Besides the two modes of writing which they owe to Zoroaster, the

Persians have five other methods in many of which Nabatian words have

been introduced. We have explained all these in our books already cited

with quotations of portions regarding the miracles of Zoroaster, the

marks and the proof of his revelation, the belief in the five eternal

principles which are Ormazd or God, Ahriman which is the same as Satan,

the wicked, Kah or time, Jay or space, Homa or the good spirituous

liquor, the grounds on which they support these doctrines, the reasons

why they render homage to the two luminaries and to other heavenly

lights, the distinction which they make between fire and light, their

discourses regarding the origin of the human species, on Mashya son of

Gayomert, and Mashyana his daughter, and how the Persians trace their

geneologies back to these two personages, and finally, other things

connected with the exercise of their religion, the practice of their

cult and the various places where they have established their fire

sanctuaries.

[Sidenote: Confutation of prejudice Moslem theologians.]

Certain Musalman theologians and authors of books on various sects, and

several authors who have set before them the task at different times of

refuting Zoroastrianism have alleged that it is believed in their

religion that from the reflexion of God on himself has issued an evil

spirit or the devil and that God, indulgent towards him, has accorded

him a certain time during which to tempt mankind. These authors further

cite as appertaining to this religion propositions which the Magians

themselves have always rejected. I believe that they must have heard

these particulars from ordinary people and that they have recorded them

as the authentic expression of the followers of the religion of

Zoroaster.[1]

[Footnote 1: Our celebrated Arab polyhistor not only does not malign the

faith of Zoroaster but proceeds to confute his prejudiced

co-religionists who pretended to refute the old faith of Iran.]

SHAHARASTANI.

KITAB AL MILAL VAL NIHAL.

(_Page 112, Bombay Edition. Compare also page 83 of the Egyptian Edition

on the margin of Ibn Hazm._)

THE MAGIANS.

These people believe in two Principles as we have already stated; only,

that the original Magians were of the belief that it was not possible

that there should be two Principles eternal and without beginning, but

that the light was without beginning and darkness was only produced; and

they were of different views as regards the origin of its rise,--whether

it arose from light, since light cannot bring something that was partly

evil. How then could the principle of evil or anything else arise since

there was nothing at first which participated with light in its

production and in its being eternal? Here the error of the Magians

becomes apparent. They also assert that the first of persons was

Kayumarth, though they sometimes say that he was Zarwan the great, and

that the last of the prophets was Zaradusht. The Kayumarthiya assert

that Kayumarth was Adam; Kayumarth appears as Adam in the histories of

India and Persia. But all the histories are against this.[1]

[Footnote 1: I have constantly referred to Haarbrucker's German

translation and to the German passages cited by Gottiel in the Drisseler

Volume which was very kindly presented to me by our Prof. A.V.W.

Jackson. Gottiel has omitted the sections regarding the Kayumarthiya.]

THE ZARADUSHTIYA.

These are the followers of Zaradusht, son of Budashab who appeared in

the time of Bishtasb, son of Lohrasb, the king. His father came from

Azarbayjan and his mother from Ray and her name was Doghd. They assert

that they had prophets and kings and that they had Kayumarth who was the

first king on the earth and that his residence was at Istakhar, that

after him came Haushanj, son of Farawal, who descended on India. After

him came his son Jam; the king. Then followed prophets and kings among

whom was Minochehr. He proceeded to Babel and settled there, and it is

related that Musa, (may peace be on him!) appeared in his time. Things

continued like this till the sovereignty came to Bishtasb, son of

Lohrasb. In his time appeared Zaradusht al Hakim or the Wise....

[Sidenote: Miracles of Zoroaster.]

[Sidenote: Essence of his teachings.]

[Sidenote: His Cosmogony.]

Then the child [Zaradusht] laughed a great laugh which was noticed by

all those present, and people contrived so as to put Zaradusht in the

way of cattle and the way of horses and in the way of wolves. But each

of them stood up to protect him from its own kind. After he had attained

to an age of thirty God sent him as his prophet and apostle to his

creation, and he turned himself with his calling to king Bishtasb and

the latter accepted his creed. His creed consisted in the reverence of

God and the non-reverence of Satan, in the obedience to good and in the

prohibition of the evil, and in abstaining from unclean things. He said

that light and darkness were two original principles which opposed each

other antagonistically, and so were Yazdan and Ahriman and that both

were the beginning of the created things in the world. That the

composition of it was the product of the co-mingling and that the

variety of forms were given rise to by means of the various unions, but

that God was the creator of light and darkness and of both the prime

origins. He was one without a companion, without an opponent, and

without anyone who was his like, and that it was not possible to trace

to him the existence of darkness in the way in which the Zarwanites

trace it, but that good and evil, pure and impure, holy and unholy, were

brought forth only by the co-mingling of light and darkness, and had not

the two fore-gathered the world would not have come into existence. They

were pitched each against the other and they fight each other till light

shall overcome darkness, and good evil. And then the good will be

liberated and come to its own, and the evil will be hurled down to its

own world and that will be the cause of the emancipation. God, the

Almighty, however, has in his wisdom compounded and co-mingled them.

Sometimes they make out that light is the original principle and express

themselves thus: The existence of light is a real existence. Darkness,

however, is only a consequence like the shadow of a person. It was

alleged that darkness was a thing produced though not created in

reality, and that God had produced light and that darkness had come out

as a consequence, because contrast was a matter of necessity in

existence. Hence the existence of darkness was also essential. And thus

it had become a thing created although not as in the first view, as

brought out with reference to a man's shadow.

[Sidenote: Zend Ave-ta.]

He [Zaradusht] also had composed a book about which people said that it

was revealed to him, namely, the _Zand Awasta_ which divides the world

into two parts, Mino or the spiritual and Geti or the corporeal; that is

to say, into spiritual and corporeal worlds, or in other words, into

mental and physical. And just as the creation is divided into two

worlds, so according to him, all that was in the world was again divided

into two, namely, _Bakhshis_ [Haarbrucker translates _Bakhshis_ by

_gnade_ or favour, but the original Arabic expression is _takdir_ which

means _destiny_, and _kunish_ or _deed_, by which are meant

pre-destination By God and human action.]

[Sidenote: Zoroastrian Ethics.]

Further, he discussed the duties relating to the religious law and these

have reference to the movements of man. He divided them into three parts

_Manish, Guyish_ and _Kunish_, meaning thereby belief, speech, and act,

and these comprehended all the duties. When in this a man is wanting he

is out of obedience and out of creed. But if he conducts himself in

these three movements according to the standard of the law and the

ordinance he attains to the highest good.[1]

[Footnote 1: Here is an instance where the Arab philosopher and writer

hands down to posterity the spirit of Zoroastrianism without prejudice

and with precision.]

[Sidenote: Some Miracles explained.]

The Zaradashtiya ascribed to Zaradusht a number of miracles including

that while Zaradusht was thrown into prison the forefeet of the horse of

Bishtasb entered into its body. When he was set at liberty, the feet of

the animal came out. Next, it is said that he happened to pass a blind

man at Dinawar and to have told him, "Take the herb", which he described

to him "and press its juice into your eye and you will be able to see".

This was done and the blind man was restored to his sight. This,

however, is to be attributed to his knowledge of the properties of the

herb and so it is in no wise a miracle. (Here Gotthiel omits one section

on the Saisaniya and the Bihafridiya[1]).

[Footnote 1: The Bihafridiya formed a heresy from Zoroastrianism in the

time of the Moslems. The sect furnishes the strongest proof that there

was no persecution worth the name in Persia at the time. Not only in

those days were the Zoroastrians permitted to follow their own faith but

here is a curious pars from Al Biruni which proves that both the

original Zoroastrians and the heresy were permitted to flourish side by

side under the Khalifs:--"When Abu Moslem came to Nishapur the _mobeds_

and _herbeds_ assembled before him telling him that this man [the

founder of the Bihafridi sect] had infected Islam as well as their own

[Zoroastrian] religion. So he sent Abdalla to fetch him. He met him in

the mountain at Badjeh and brought him before Abu Moslem to put him to

death together with such of his followers as he could capture. His

followers called the Bihafridians still keep the institutes of their

founder and strongly resemble the Zam-Zamis among the Magians."

Shaharastani adds that they were the most hostile of God's creatures to

the Zamzami Magians. The entire chapter on the Iranian sects in

Shaharastani is worthy of careful and deep study. It explains the

divergence between the prescriptions of the _Vendidad_ and the practice

of the bulk of the Iranians. The _Vendidad_ was, it would appear, the

authoritative scripture of one of the sects of Zoroastrianism. At any

rate it is not too extravagant to deduce from the careful studies of the

Iranian religion by Arab writers that as the teachings of Sakya Muni

developed into more Buddhisms than one so there were several creeds with

the common designation of Zoroastrianism.]

[Sidenote: The dignity of Mobedan Mobed.]

The Magians and the followers of the Two Principles and the followers of

Mani and the other sects which are related to the Magians are known as

the adherents of the Great creed or the Great religion. All the kings of

Persia were the followers of the religion of Ibrahim, subjects and all

those who belonged to the country among them during the reign of each of

them followed the religion of their rulers. But these latter relied upon

the chief of the ecclesiastics, _Mobed Mobedan_, the sage of sages, and

the wisest of men according to whose instructions the kings conducted

themselves and without whose judgment they undertook nothing; to him

they showed reverence such as is shown to the Khalif of the time.

IBN HAZM.

KITAB AL FASAL FIL MILAL WAL HAWA WAL NAHAL.

(PAGE 112, VOL. 1, EGYPTIAN ED.)

As regards the Magians they believed in the prophetship of Zaradasht....

And as regards Zaradasht it is said that the majority of Moslems

believed in his prophetship....

[Sidenote: "Majority of Moslems believed in the Prophetship of

Zoroaster."]

And the Book of the Magians and their religious Law were for a long time

during their sovereignty in the possession of the _mobeds and_ 23

_herbeds_. Each of the herbeds had a volume which was individual and

separate. In it was associated none of the other herbeds and no outsider

had any concern with it. Subsequently there was a break on account of

Alexander setting fire to their books at the time when he invaded Dara,

son of Dara, and they admit with unanimity that a portion of their

scriptures to the extent of a third has perished. This has been

mentioned by Bashir and Nasik and others of their men of learning....

[Sidenote: History of Zoroastrian Sacred literature.]

And Magians compiled all the scriptures (ayat) regarding the miracles of

Zoroaster such as that of the brass which was spread over and melted on

his chest and which did not injure him, and the feet of the horse which

had penetrated his belly and which were drawn out by him, etc.

[Sidenote: Zoroastrians are _Kitabis_.]

And among those who assert that the Magians are _Ahal Kitab_ are Ali Ibn

Talib and Khuzayfa, may God be pleased on these two, and Said Bin Al

Musib and Karadah and Abu Thaur and the whole of the sect of the

Zahurites. And we have set out the arguments of the validity of this

statement in our book entitled the _Isal_ in the chapters on Jehad,

Ceremonial Slaughter, and Nikah. And therein is sufficiently proved the

validity of the acceptance of Jaziya by the prophet of God from them.

For in the clear statement of the Qoran in the last verses of the

chapter of _Burat_, God has declared unlawful the acceptance of the

Jaziya from _non-Kitabis_....

Now as regards the Magians they admit that the books of theirs in which

is incorporated their religion were destroyed by fire by Alexander when

he slew Dara son of Dara,--that more than two-thirds of them have

perished the remnants being less than a third,--that their religious law

was comprised in what has disappeared. Now since this is the condition

of their religion, then their claims are void altogether became of the

disappearance of the majority of their books; since God does not held

responsible any person with reference to anything that has not been

entrusted to him.

[Sidenote: Zoroastrians extant scriptures are corrupt.]

And among their books there is one entitled the _Khudhay_ to which they

pay great reverence, in which it is related that king Anushirwan

prohibited the teaching of their religion in any one of the cities

except Ardeshir Khurrah and the religion spread from Datjird. Before

this time it was not taught anywhere except Istakhar and it was not

proper for anyone to engage in its study except a special class of

people. And of the books which remained after the conflagration by

Alexander there were 23 volumes and there were appointed 23 _herbeds_,

one _herbed_ for each volume. And no herbed transgressed upon the volume

of another. And the MOBED MOBEDAN was the superintendent of the whole of

those scriptures. Now whatever is in this condition has its contents

altered and modified and each of the transcripts is in this state. Hence

they are corrupt and do not deserve to be regarded as authentic. Thus

whatever is in their books cannot be held to be authentic except by

reason of faith alone since there are evident falsehoods in them like

the statement that their king mounted on Iblis and rode on him wherever

he willed, that man in the beginning originated from a vegetable like

grass called Sharaliya, and the birth of Bayarawan Siyawush son of Kay

Kawash who built a city called Kangdez between the earth and the heaven

and settled therein 80,000 men belonging to the _people of family_, that

they are there to this day, and that when Behram Hamawand manifests

himself on his bull to restore to them their sovereignty that city will

descend to earth and will help him to restore their religion and Empire.

Says Abu Muhammed, may God be pleased with him. And every book in which

is incorporated a falsehood is invalid and fictitious. It does not come

from God. Thus there is corruption in the religion of the Magians just

as there is in the religion of the Jews and the Christians to an equal

degree.

IBN HAUKAL.

Ibn Haukal has been edited in the _Bibliotheca Geogra phorum Arabicorum_

by De Goege, but as the text is not available the following excerpts

from a translation of it made over a century ago by Sir William Ouseley

will indicate its importance. He flourished in the middle of the 11th

century.

[Sidenote: Fire Temples.]

"There is not any district nor any town of Fars without a fire temple.

These are held in high veneration. We shall hereafter minutely describe

them. Also throughout Fars there are castles one stronger than another.

[Sidenote: Nirang.]

"There is not any district of this province nor any without a fire

temple. One near Shapur they call Kunbud Kaush.... And in the religion

of the Guebres it is ordained that 'Omnis Foemina quae tempore gravid it

at is aut tempore menstruorum, fornicationem seu adultarium fecerit,

pura non erit, donec ad Pyraeum (seu templum Ignicolarum) accesserit

(et) coram Heirbed (sacerdote) nuda ferit et urina vaccae se laverit.'

"In the province of Fars, they have three languages--the PARSI, which

they use in speaking one to another, though there may be some

variations of dialects in different districts yet it is in fact all the

same and they all understand the languages of each other and none of

their expressions or words are unintelligible; the Pahlavi language

which was formerly used in writings; this language now requires a

commentary or explanatory treatise; and the Arabic language which at

present is used in the Divans or royal courts of justice and revenue,

etc.

[Sidenote: Maritime commerce.]

"As to the manners of the people in Fars those who are the chief men and

occupy the higher offices in the service of the sovereign are polite and

courteous. They have fine palaces and are very hospitable. The people in

general, are kind and civil in their manners. The merchants are

remarkably covetous and desirous of wealth. I have heard that there was

a certain man of Siraj who had forty years at sea never leaving his ship

during this time. Whenever he came to a port he sent some of his people

on shore to transact his commercial affairs, and when the business was

finished he sailed on to some other place. The inhabitants of Siraj

devoted their whole time to commerce and merchandise. I myself saw at

this place several persons who possessed 4,000 thousand dinars and there

were some who had still more and their clothes were those of labourers.

[Sidenote: Parsis in Fars.]

"In Fars there are fire worshippers, Guebres, and Christians and some

Jews. And the practices of the Guebres, their fire temples, and their

customs and ceremonies and Guebreism or Magism, still continue among the

people of Fars and there are not in, any country of Islam so many

Guebres as in the land of Fars. It has been their capital or residence."

[Like all other Arab authors Ibn Haukal mentions the celebrated men

belonging to each of the provinces he describes. Among the celebrities

of Fars are reckoned Hormuz, "Guebre", who in the time of Omar was taken

by Abdulla Ibn Omar and put to death; and Salman Farsi who was one of

the illustrious men. His piety is celebrated throughout the world. He

sought the truth of religion in all quarters only to find it at Medina

with the Prophet. In consequence of this Selman became a true believer.

Abdulla Ibn Mukaffa also belonged to Fars. In the territory of Istakhar

is a great building with statuettes carved in stone and there also are

inscriptions and paintings.]

APPENDIX VIII

IBN KHALLIKAN

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY

TRANSLATED BY DE SLANE, VOL, I.

_Dehkan_ is a Persian word signifying both a farmer and a historian. It

is generally used to designate a person of ancient Persian family

possessing hereditary landed property. (P. 77).

_Ispeh Salar._ This word signifies commander of the troops. (P. 228).

KATIBS or writers were the persons employed in public offices: the

directors, clerks and secretaries in government service were all called

katib.

[Sidenote: Nauruz in Baghdad.]

_Khalifs' Nauruz._--This another name for Nauruz Khasa "New Year's day

proper," in which it was customary to offer presents to the sovereign.

This festival was held on the sixth day of the month of Ferwardin (end

of Marob). The old Persian custom of celebrating Nauruz existed at

Baghdad under the Abbaside Khalifs. (See P. 203 of this work, see also

an anecdote of Ahmed Ibn Yusuf al Khatif in his life of Al Mubarad.) (P.

340).

"In the year 499 Ak Sunkur was directed by the sultan Muhamed to lay

siege to Tikrit which was then in the possession of Kaikobad Ibn

Hazarasb (about 1125)." (P. 227.)

[Sidenote: Ibn Mukaffa.]

Ibn Khallikan has devoted seven pages to the life of Ibn Mukaffa who is

called _the Katib_ and was renowned for the elegance of his style. He

was the author of admirable epistles. He was a native of Fars and a

Magian. But he was led to the profession of Islam by the uncle of the

two first Abbaside Al Safar and Al Mansur. He then became a secretary

and was admitted into intimacy. It was related that Mukaffa went to Isa

Ibn Ali and said that he was persuaded of the truth of Islam and wished

to make a profession of that faith. Isa answered, "Let it be done in the

presence of the leaders and chiefs of the people who come here

to-morrow." On the evening of that very day he went to dine with Isa,

and having sat down he began to eat and to mutter according to the

custom of the Magian, "How" said Isa, "he mutters like the Magian

although resolved to embrace Islam?" To this Makaffa replied: "I do not

wish to pass a single night without some religion." The next morning he

made to Isa his solemn profession of Islam. Notwithstanding the eminent

merit of Mukaffa he was suspected of infidelity and Al Jahiz states that

his religious sincerity was doubted (P. 431). Ibn Kallikan says, "It was

Mukaffa who composed the book entitled _Kalileh Wa-Dimneh_. But some

state that he is not the author of the work which they say was in

Pahlavi, and he translated it into Arabic, and put it in an elegant

style. But the discourse at the beginning of the work is by him."

VOLUME II.

Ahmed Ibn Yusuf addressed to Al-Mamun a verse with a present of an

embroidered robe on the day of Nauruz. (P. 32).

Al-Marzubani received his surname of Al-Marzubani because one of his

ancestors bore the name of Al-Marzuban, a designation applied by

Persians to great and powerful men only. This word signifies guardian of

the frontier, as we learn from Ibn al Jawaliki's work called Al-muarrab.

(P. 68).

A reference to the game of chess which originated in India, and the game

of Nerd as invented by the Persian king Ardeshir.

We often come across names like Dhia-ad-Din Abu Said Bahrain Ibn

al-Khidr, just as we have Paul Pakiam indicating the bearer of the name

was originally Hindu but had adopted subsequently Christianity. (P.

296).

[Sidenote: Nominal converts.]

Abl-Hasan Mihyar Ibn Mirzawaih, a native of Dadam and secretary for

Persian language was a Fire-worshipper, but afterwards adopted the

Moslem faith. It is said that he made his profession to Sharif ar-Rida

who was his professor and under whom he made his poetical studies. It

seems, however, the conversion of Mihyar was only nominal. Ibn al-Athir

al-Jazari says in his Annals that one Ibn Burhan said to him. "Mihyar,

by becoming a Musalman you have merely passed from one corner of hell to

another." "How so?" said Mihyar. Ibn Burhan replied: "Because you were

formerly a fire-worshipper and now you revile the companions of our

blessed Prophet in your verses." (P. 517.)

Ibn Khallikan adds that "Mihyar and Mirzawaith are both Persian names.

Their signification is unknown to me."

VOLUME III.

Instances of hybrid compound names, the Iranian component being

retained.

Izz ad-Din Kaikaus son of Ghiath ad-Din Kaikhosru. (P. 487).

Ala ad-Din Kaikobad. (P. 489).

Abu Mahfuz Ibn Firuz. (P. 384).

Abu Manzur Al Muzaffar Ibn Abi I-Husain Ardeshir. (P. 365).

Abu Mansur-Sheherdar Ibn Shiruyah. (P. 11).

Sultan ad-Dawlat, Fanakhrosru (which is no doubt equivalent to Panah

Khurso.) (P. 278).

The word _abna_ signifies _sons_. It was generally employed to designate

persons one of whose parents was an Arab and the other of a foreign

race. At the time of Mahomed and afterwards there was in Yeman a great

number of _Abna_ whose fathers were Persians and whose mothers were

Arabs. (P. 334).

Dress of the Ulema. (P. 273).

Yahya Ibn al Munajjim whose real name was Abban Hasis, the son of Kad,

the son of Mahavindad, the son of Farrukhdad, the son of Asad, the son

of Mihr, the son of Yezdigerd, the last of the Sasanian kings of Persia.

Story of the onagar with the inscription on its ear written by Bahramgor

in the Kufic character. Ibn Khallikan quotes Al Khawarezmi's

_Mafatih-al-Ulum._ (P. 85).

[Sidenote: Old castles.]

Istakhri refers to the castle of Jiss in the district of Arrajan about

which we have a more exhaustive notice by other writers. "Here lived the

Magians," says Istakhri, "and here also are to be found memorials of the

past of Persia. The place is strongly fortified. The castle of Iraj is

also strongly fortified. The fastnesses which cannot be subjugated are

so many that it is not possible to detail them."

Describing the city of Jur Istakhri says that it was built by Ardeshir.

"It is said that here water used to be collected as in a lake. The king

had taken a vow to build a city and to erect a fire temple at the place

where he had defeated his enemy. He had the place drained, and when it

was dried he built the city of Jur on the site. The city in its extent

is like Istakhr, Sabur, and Darabgird. It had mud walls and moats and

many gates, the eastern one being called the gate of Mihr, the western

the gate of Bahram, the northern the gate of Hormuz, and the southern

the gate of Ardeshir. In the centre of the city is a building with a

cupola built by Ardeshir. It is said that it is so high that it commands

a view of the city and its surroundings. _High at its top is a fire

altar_.[1]" (P. 56).

[Sidenote: Languages of Iran.]

In another portion of his book Istakhri describes the inhabitants as

thin, with little growth of hair and of brown colour. "In the colder

tracts," he continues, "the people are of a taller stature with a thick

growth of hair and very fair. They speak three languages,--the Parsi,

which everybody speaks and which is employed in their letters and their

literature; the Magians who dwell among them use the Pahlavi in their

writings, but it needs for a thorough understanding an explanation in

Parsi; and Arabic which is the language used in the correspondence of

the Sultan, the Government Boards, the grandees and the Amirs." (P. 67).

[Footnote 1: This goes to confirm the hypothesis of Sir John Marshall

that the curious structure with probably a fire-altar at the top

excavated by him at Taxila near Rawal Pindi is a Zoroastrian

_atash-kadeh_.]

[Sidenote: Tardy Converts.]

In the same place he makes mention of a numerous settlement of the

Magians. "Here are," he says, "a goodly number of Magians in the

neighbourhood of Istakhr. There is a large stone building with carvings

and pillars about which the Persians relate that it is the mosque of

Solomon; the son of David, and that it is the work of genii. In bulk it

is comparable to the buildings in Syria and Egypt" "In the neighborhood

of Sabur is a mountain on which the representations of all the kings,

governors, servitors of temples and grand mobeds who were celebrated in

the times of the Persian monarchy are to be found. On the pedestals of

these figures are engraved the events in connection with and the deeds

of these personages." Describing the Karen mountains Itakhri says, "The

mountainous region is inaccessible and the inhabitants hold commerce

with no one outside. During the Omayad period they persisted in their

adherence to Zoroastrianism, and they could not be subjugated, and were

worse than the inhabitants of the Koz mountain. But when the Abbasides

came to power they embraced Islam. These Magians were extraordinarily

brave. Yakub and Amru the sons of Leith, commenced their rule and power

here and drew their supporters from these hills." "Mokan," says

Istakhri, "contains many villages which are inhabited by the Magians."

(P. 71.)

MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

IN THE NUZHAT AL KULUB OF HAMD-ALLAH

MUSTAWFI

BY G. Lestrange.

The following fire-temples are mentioned:--At [Transcriber's note: word

unreadable] there was an ancient fire temple called Ardahish. (P. 56)

A dragon was slain by king Kaikaushro who then built on the spot a fire

temple afterwards known as Dayr Kushid. (P. 69).

Turshid was the chief city of the Kohistan province and near it was the

village Kishwaz famous for the great cypress trees planted by Zoroaster

as related by Firdausi in the Shah Nameh, (Turner, 1. Macar Vol. 4, line

1061). Near Tushiz were four famous castles one of which was called

Arthush Gah or the Fire temple. (P. 80).

Herat was watered by the canals of the river Hari Rud. It had a famous

castle called Sham Iram built over the ruins of an ancient Fire temple

on a mountain two leagues distant from the city. Mustawfi adds a long

account of the town, its markets and its shrines, giving the names of

the various canals derived from the Hari Rud. (P. 85).

AL MUQADASI.

(BIBLIOTHECA INDICA)

[Sidenote: Zoroastrians are treated like Jews and Christians.]

The religious bodies which enjoy rights of subjects under the protection

of law are four,--the Jews, the Christians, the Majus, and the Sabiah.

(P. 67-69).

[Sidenote: Nauruz and Miherjan.]

The worshippers of idols in Sind are not of the Dhimma, nor those under

the protection of Islam; it is on this account that they are exempted

from the poll tax. _The Majus are counted with the Dhimma; for Omar

ordered them to be treated in the same way as the people of the book

(the Jews and Christians;_) the fact that we call the followers of one

and the same code of doctrines by two names, one of praise and one of

blame, does not arise from eulogising or reviling on our part; our

object is merely to shew what others think of any sect, and by what

names they call them. (P. 7).

THAALIBI.

EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY H. ZOTENBERG.

And Behram was matchless among kings, perfect in manners and facile of

tongue. For he used to converse on the days of public assemblies and

courtly meetings in Arabic and in matters of receiving petitions and

granting of the gifts in Persian, and when giving public audiences he

used the Dari language, and when playing polo he used Pahlavi, and

Turkish while at war, and when out hunting the language of Zabulistan

and in legal matters Hebrew, in questions of medicine the Indian

language, in Astronomy the language of the Greeks, and while on voyage

he used the Nabatian language and while speaking with women he used the

speech of Herat. (P. 555).

That Thaalibi knew the correct distinction between Pahlavi and Persian

can be seen from the fact that he says at p. 633 of his history with

reference to the book of _Kalileh wa Dimna_ as follows:--When Burzuyeh

arrived at the court and presented himself before Anushirwan he

recounted to him what had happened to him and announced to him as a

happy event that he was in possession of the book. Then he made a

present of it to the king. (Anushirwan was charmed with it and he gave

the order to translate the book into Pahlavi.) Burzuyeh requested and

got from the king the permission to place at the head of the first

chapter the king's name, and a notice of his life. And the book remained

carefully guarded with the kings of Persia until Ibn Muquaffa translated

it into Arabic and Rudaki at the command of Amir Nasr Ibn Ahmad turned

it into Persian verse.

Reference to _Kitab al Ain_. (P. 14.)

Reference to the murder and burial of the last Sasanian king, (P. 748.)