Chapter V: Part II (1)

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.