Chapter IX

What is it, then, that we see here elucidated? Just conceive. For the last three thousand years and more, the learning of the world has been employed to ascertain the _origin_ of the doctrine of Budhism. The savants of France, the indefatigable inquirers of Germany, the affected pedants of Greece and Rome, and the pure and profound philosophers of ancient India and Egypt, have severally and ineffectually puzzled themselves to dive into the secrets of that mystic religion.[118]

“The conflicting opinions,” says Coleman, “which have prevailed among the most intelligent Oriental writers, respecting the origin and antiquity of this and the Jaina sects, and the little historical light that has yet been afforded to disperse the darkness that ages have spread over them, leave us, at the end of many learned disquisitions, involved in almost as many doubts as when we commenced upon them.”

“There was, then,” adds Gentil, “in those parts of India, and principally on the coast of Choromandel and Ceylon, a sort of worship the precepts of which we are quite unacquainted with. The god Baouth, of whom at present they know no more in India than the name, was the object of this worship; but it is now _totally_ abolished, except that there may possibly yet be found some families of Indians who have remained faithful to Baouth, and do not acknowledge the religion of the Brahmins, and who are on that account separated from and despised by the other castes.... I made various inquiries concerning this singular figure, and the Zamulians one and all assured me that this was the god Baouth, who was now no longer regarded, for that his worship and his festivals had been abolished ever since the Brahmins had made themselves masters of the people’s faith.”

“The worship of Budha,” says Heeren, “concerning the rise and progress of which we at present know so little, still flourishes in Ceylon.” Again, “All that we know with certainty of Budha is, that he was the founder of a sect which must formerly have prevailed over a considerable part of India, but whose tenets and forms of worship were in direct opposition to those of the Brahmins, and engendered a deadly hate between the two parties, which terminated in the expulsion of the Budhists from the country.”[119]

“The real time,” say the _Asiat. Res._ viii. p. 505, “at which Budha propagated the doctrines ascribed to him, is a desideratum which the learned knowledge and indefatigable research of Sir W. Jones have still left to be satisfactorily ascertained.”

“If the Budhaic religion,” says the _Westminster Review_ of January 1830, “really arrived at predominance in India, its _rise_ in the first place, and more especially its _extirpation_, are not merely events of stupendous _magnitude_, but of impenetrable mystery.”

It will soon appear, that however _impenetrable_ heretofore, it is so no longer. Indeed, a great deal of the principle of their _faith_ has been at all times understood, but under different associations. It was that which Job alluded to when he said, “If I gazed upon Orus (the sun) when he was shining, or upon Järêcha (the moon) when rising in her glory; and my heart went secretly after them, and my hand kissed my mouth (in worship), I should have denied the God that is above.”

So far all have arrived at the discovery of this creed, and accordingly, if you look into any encyclopedia or depository of science for a definition of the word “Budhism,” you will be told that “it is the doctrine of solar worship as taught by Budha.” There never was such a person as Budha--I mean at the outset of the religion, when it first shot into life, and that was almost as early as the creation of man. In later times, however, several enthusiasts assumed the name, and personified in themselves the faith they represented. But the origin of the religion was an _abstract thought_, which while Creuzer allows, yet he must acknowledge his ignorance of what that _thought_ was.

The sun and moon were the great objects of religious veneration to fallen man in the ancient world. Each country assumed a suitable form to their propensities and peculiarities; but all agreed in centering the essence of their zeal upon those resplendent orbs to whom they were indebted for so many common benefits. Those mysteries of faith to which the “_initiated_” alone had access, and which were disguised in the habiliments of symbols and of veils, were neither more nor less than representative forms of _generation_ and _production_. These were the _theme_ which made the canopy of the firmament to ring with their songs; and these the _spring_ which gave vigour and elasticity to those graceful displays which, under the name of _dances_, typified the circular and semicircular rotations of those bright objects of their regard.[120]

The Eleusinian[121] rites themselves were essentially of this kind; for though the benefits of _agriculture_ were said to be chiefly there commemorated, this after all resolves itself into the above: for as the process of the earth’s bearing is similar to that of our own species, and indeed of all creatures that rest upon her,--no seed bringing forth fruit until, as the apostle has affirmed,[122] it first dies,--the representation of this miracle of nature’s vicissitudes led the mind to the contemplation of general fecundity. And hence the _culture_ of the ground, and the _propagation_ of human beings, being both viewed in the same light, and sometimes even named by the same epithet, viz. _tillage_, were inculcated no less as beneficial exercises than as religious ordinances. Did a doubt remain as to the accuracy of this connection between the worship of the ancients and their sexual correspondence, it would be more than removed by attending to the import of the terms by which they mystified those celebrations, and which, with the sanctity attached to the _parts_ themselves, will come consecutively under our review. One of them, however, is too apposite to be omitted here, and that is the term by which they designated a certain ceremony still practised on the coast of Guinea, and which neither the _blandishments_ of _artifice_ nor the _terrors_ of _menace_ could ever prevail upon them to divulge. This ceremony they call _Belli-Paaro_. The meaning they assign to it is _regeneration_, or the act of reviving from _death_ to a new state of existence; and when we see that the name itself is but an inflection of the _Baal-Peor_ of the Scriptures, the _Baal-Phearagh_ of our forefathers, and the _Copulative deity_ of the amative universe, it will not be hard to dive into its character, though so shrouded in types.

But the Budhists, not content with this ordinary veneration, or with paying homage in _secret_ to that symbol of production which all other classes of idolators equally, though privately, worshipped,--I mean the Lingam,--thought they could never carry their zeal sufficiently far, unless they erected it into an _idol_ of more than colossal magnitude--_and those idols were the Round Towers_. Hence the name _Budhism_, which I thus define, viz. _that species of idolatry which worshipped Budh_ (_i.e._ the Lingam), _as the emblem_ of _Budh_ (_i.e._ the Sun)--Budh signifying, indiscriminately, Sun and Lingam.

Such was the whole substance of this philosophical creed, which was not--as may have been imagined--a _ritual of sensuality_, but a _manual of devotion_, as simple in its exercise as it was pious in its intent--a Sabian veneration and a symbolical gratitude. I shall now give a summary of their moral code, couched in the following Pentalogue, as presented by Zaradobeira, chief Rahan at Ava, to a Catholic bishop, who expressed a wish some years ago to be favoured with a brief outline of their tenets; it is this:--

1. Thou shalt not kill any animal--from the meanest insect up to man himself.

2. Thou shalt not steal.

3. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

4. Thou shalt not tell anything false.

5. Thou shalt not drink any intoxicating liquor.

The extension of this first commandment from the crime of homicide to the deprivation of life of any breathing existence, arose from their doctrine of the transmigration of souls, which they believed should continue ever in action, and, after release from one tenement of earthly configuration, enter into some other of a different species and order.

In this incessant alternation--which was to be one of _ascent_ or of _descent_, according to the merits of the _body_, which the spirit had _last_ animated, and which was all considered as a sort of lustral crucible, for the refining of the vital spark against its reunion with the Godhead, whence it had originally derived--it is manifest that such tenderness for the entire animal creation arose from the apprehension of slaying some relation in that disguise.--Or, did we ascribe it to no higher motive than a sympathy with fellow-creatures, which, if not equally responsible, are at all events susceptible of anguish and of pain, this in itself should teach us to suppress all ebullitions of irreverent sarcasm, and, if we yield not our acquiescence, to extend to it at least our commiseration.

“Pain not the ant that drags the grain along the ground,
It has life, and life is sweet and delightful to all to whom it
belongs.”[123]

The _good works_ which they were _additionally_ enjoined to perform were classified under the two heads of _Dana_ and _Bavana_. By “_Dana_” was meant the _giving of alms_, and hence the whole fraternity were called _Danaans_ or _Almoners_.[124] By “_Bavana_” was understood the _thoughtfully pronouncing_ those three words, _Anuzza_, _Docha_, and _Anatta_: of which the first implies our liability to _vicissitude_; the second to _misfortune_, and the third our _inability_ to exempt ourselves from either.[125]

The exposition of the terms _Tuath_ and _de_, as prefixes to _Danaans_, forming with it the compound Tuath-de-danaan, I shall reserve for a more befitting place. Meantime I hasten to redeem my “pledge” as to the elucidation of the import of the name _Hibernian_.

In the wide range of literary disquisition there is no one topic which has so engrossed the investigation of studious individuals as the origin of the word _Hibernia_. The great Bochart, the uncertain Vallancy, the spiteful Macpherson, the pompous O’Flaherty, and the “antiquary of antiquaries,” Camden himself,--with a thousand others unworthy of recognition,--have been all consecutively shipwrecked upon its unapproachable sand-banks. But the most miserable failure of all is that of a namesake of my own, _the author of a dictionary upon the language of his country_, who, in his mad zeal for an outlandish conceit, foists into his book a term with which our language owns no kindred, and then builds upon that a superstructure which “would make even the angels weep.”

This gentleman would fain make out[126] that, because those islands have been denominated the _Cassiterides_, or _Tin Reservoirs_, therefore Eirin, our own one of them, must have been so called as an _Iron Store_! forgetting that the genius of our vocabulary has never had a term whereby to express that _metal_ at all,--that by which we now designate it, namely, _iarun_, being only a modern _coinage_ from the English word,--as the general voice of antiquity speaks trumpet-tongued on the point, and the fragments of our Brehon laws give it insuperable confirmation, that _iron_ was the last metal which mankind has turned to profit, or even known to exist, while with us it was an exotic until a very recent period.[127]

But admitting that _Eirin_ or _Erin_ did signify _the Land of Iron_, then its Greek formation _Ierne_ must convey the same idea, and so must _Hibernia_, their Latin inflection; and it would afford me a considerable portion of merriment to behold any champion for this _iron-cased_ knight buckle on his _etymological_ armour, and analyse these two last terms so as to make them indicate the _Land of Iron_.

Yet pitiable as this appears, for the author of an Irish dictionary, its ingenuity, at all events, must screen it from contempt. But how will the public estimate the brightness of that man’s intellect, who would state that _Erin_ is but a _metempsychosis_ of the word _Green_? Will it be believed that such is the sober utterance of the author of the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_? But lest I should misrepresent, I shall let him speak for himself, viz.: “Ireland, from its luxuriant vegetation, obtained the epithet _Green_, and has preserved, with a slight alteration, the name _Erin_.”[128]

So that a country which piques itself on its _Irishry_, has remained ever without a cognomen, until the _English_ language has been _matured_; and then, in compliment to her sister, Britain, has borrowed an adjective from her _rainbow_, which, however, she had not the good manners to preserve pure, but allowed to degenerate so far, that the sagacity of a conjurer could not trace any resemblance between this _vitiation_ and the _original epithet_ which pourtrayed her _verdure_!

Have we not here the solution of that general disbelief which attaches to proofs deduced from etymology? It is so in all professions, when quacks break into the fold, and usurp the office of the legitimate practitioner. Etymology, in itself, is an exalted _science_, and an _unerring standard_; but the mountebanks that have intermeddled with her holy tools, and disjointed the symmetry of her fair proportions, knowing no more of the _foundation_ of _languages_ than they do of the _origin_ of _spirit_, have sunk it into a _pandemonium_ of _hackling_, _mangling_, and _laceration_, at which “the satirist,” perhaps, may laugh, but “the philosopher,” who has any regard for the right thinking of society, and the implanting in the tender mind a correct idea of words, at a moment when impressions are so wrought as to be _ineffaceable_, will feel differently on the subject; and, if he cannot _reform_, do all that he can to _expose_ it!

How opposite has been the conduct of the learned Abbé MacGeoghegan as to the origin of this abstruse word! After reviewing in his able work[129] the opinions offered by the several persons who wrote before him upon the question, and none of them giving him satisfaction, he freely acknowledges, when unable to supply the deficiency, that “the derivation of this name is unknown.” He was right; but the spell is at last broken.

As a sequel to this avowal, I must be allowed to quote at full length the extract from Avienus,[130] which has been already referred to--

“Ast hinc, duobus in _Sacram_--sic _Insulam_
Dixere _prisci_--solibus cursus rati est;
Hæc inter undas multum cespitem jacit;
Eamque latè gens _Hibernorum_ colit,
Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet,”--

that is, two days’ sail will take you thence (from the Sorlings) to the _Sacred Island_; as so denominated by the _men of old_. A rich gleby soil distinguishes this favourite of the waters; and the race of the _Hibernians_ cultivate it in its wide extent. Close by, again, is situated the isle of the Albiones.

Without dwelling upon the importance which he attaches to this “Sacred Island,” while he disposes of England in one single line, I ask any person at all conversant with letters, whether it was as a vernacular epithet, or not rather in compliance with his _hexameters_ and the rules of metrical versification, which rendered inconvenient the exhibition of the _name itself_ that the poet paraphrased its meaning, and gave _insula sacra_ as its equivalent?

Is not the country inhabited by the Gauls called Gallia; that occupied by the Britons, Britannia; that possessed by the Indians, India; that peopled by the Germans, Germania; and that tenanted by the Arcadians, Arcadia? Consequently, the land inhabited by the people styled _Hibernians_ must, by universal analogy, be denominated _Hibernia_. And if this signifies “Sacred Island,” of course “Hibernian” must mean “an inhabitant of the Sacred Island.”

Avienus wrote about the three hundredth year of the Christian era, and cites the authorities whence he derived his information to the following purpose, viz.:--

“Himilco, the Phœnician, has recorded that he has himself traversed the ocean, and with his own eyes and senses verified those facts. From the _remote_ annals of the Phœnicians I copy the same, and present them to you as handed down from antiquity.”

Himilco, be it remarked, flourished six hundred years before the name of Christianity was mentioned in the world; and when his acquaintance with this isle, and that of his countrymen in general, is thus irrefutably premised, we shall be the more ready to do justice to that observation made by Tacitus, when, in his _Life of Agricola_, talking of Ireland relatively to England, he affirmed that “her coasts and harbours were better known, through commerce and mercantile negotiation,” than those of the latter country.[131]

Why do I introduce this notice here? To show that it was not to the Latins Avienus was indebted for his _insight_ into that term, which we thus pursue. The Romans knew nothing even of the _situation_ of the place that bore it, until their avarice and their rapacity brought their eagles to Britain; and, after effecting the subjugation of that heroic island, it is no small incentive to our vanity to see their historian constrained to confess that the exhibition of a similar project against the liberties of Ireland was more with a view to overawe, than from any hopes of succeeding;[132] while the ignorance which he evinces in another clause of that very sentence, whence the above extract has been quoted,--placing Ireland _midway_ between Spain and England,--is proof incontrovertible of the position which has been assumed.

But it is to me immaterial whether Avienus was aware or otherwise that “Hibernia” and “Sacred Island” were convertible and synonymous. It is not by his authority that I mean to establish the fact; for even admitting his cognisance of the identity of these two terms, he must yet of _necessity_ be unacquainted with the _root_ whence they _both_ had sprung; and, accordingly, I have only put him here in the foreground--as has been the plan all through--“to break the ice,” as it were, for the exordium of the promised _dénouement_.

_Iran_, then, and _Irin_, or, as more correctly spelled, _Eirean_ and _Eirin_, with an _e_ prefixed to each of the other vowels, as well initial as intermediate, is the characteristic denomination which all our ancient _manuscripts_ affix to this country. There is no exception to this admitted rule. From the romance to the annal, the observation holds good; it is an _inalienable_ landmark, and of _inviolable_ unanimity.

Dionysius of Sicily, who wrote about fifty years before the _Advent_, and who cannot be suspected of much partiality towards our forefathers, calls the land they inhabited by the name of _Irin_.[133] Nor will the circumstance of his applying to it in another place, the variation _Iris_, detract from this fact; as it is evident that he only manufactured this latter, having occasion to use a nominative case which he thought that _Irin_ would not well represent, and so, with the lubricity of a Greek, ever sacrificing sense to sound,[134] he gave birth to a conception which _strangled_ the original.[135]

In the _Life of Gildas_, an early and eminent English ecclesiastic, we find it called _Iren_, when the biographer, talking of the proficiency made by his subject in literary pursuits, says that he betook himself to _Ireland_, which he designates as above, in order to ascertain, by communion with kindred teachers, the very utmost recesses of theology and philosophy.[136]

Ordericus Vitalis, in his _Ecclesiastical History_,[137] having occasion to mention the _Irish_, calls them by the name of _Irenses_, equivalent to _Iranians_, that is _inhabitants_ of _Iran_, _Iren_, or _Irin_, whichever of them you happen to prefer. And as these are now established as the _basis_ of our general search, I shall address myself without further digression to their syllabic analysis.

To do this the more effectually, and at the same time to comprise within one dissertation what otherwise might encroach upon two, it is to be noticed that the country known in the present day as _Persia_, and whither our labours will be directed at no distant hour, was by its _primitive_ inhabitants called _Iran_ also, and spelled as ours, with an initial _E_. The prefixing of this letter, in both instances of its occurrence, whether we regard the _Eastern_ or the _Western_ hemisphere, was neither the result of chance, nor intended as an operative in the import of the term. It was a mere _dialectal_ distinction, appertaining to the court-language of the dynasty of the times, and what is astoundingly miraculous, retains the same appellation, with literal precision, unimpaired, unadulterated, in both countries, up to the moment in which I write.

_Palahvi_[138] is the appellation of this courtly dialect in _Persia_, and _Palahver_ is the epithet assigned to it in _Ireland_; and such is the softness and mellifluence of its enchanting tones, and its energy also, that to soothe care, to excite sensibility, or to stimulate heroism, it may properly be designated as “the language of the gods.”

Thus we see that Ireland and Persia were both called _Iran_; that both equally admitted of the change of this name to _Eiran_; and that the _style_ of this variation was similarly characterised in both. How, then, will the _empyrics_ of etymology recover their confusion: they who would persuade us that Ireland was so denominated from _Iar_, the _West_--unless, indeed, they can substitute _East_ for _West_, and show that Persia was denominated from _Iar_ also.[139] Entangled in this dilemma, the amiable old General Vallancy, without intimating, however, that _it_ was what extorted his remark,--after rigidly maintaining through a series of volumes, that the word had its origin in the above exploded _Western_ Will o’ the Wisp,--exclaims, in a sentiment of unconscious self-conviction, that “nothing more can be said of this derivation than that the name was common to that part of the globe whence they (who imported it) originally came.”[140]

Arrived, then, at length, at the _fountain-head_ of our inquiry, how shall we account for it in “that part of the globe whence we originally came”? I have seen but two efforts to develop the word, as applied to that quarter: one by Professor Heeren, of the Göttingen University; the other by “a learned priest of the Parsees,” as recorded by Sir John Malcolm, the late lamented author of a history of the place itself. And as the former of these is rather _humorous_, and as the latter contains in it a small _ingredient of truth_, it is worth while to parade them in the _tail_ of our inspection.

“Anciently,” says the professor, “they were called by the Orientals themselves by the common term of _Iran_, and the inhabitants, inasmuch as they possessed _fixed_ habitations and laws, were styled _Iranians_, in opposition to the _Turanians_, or _wandering_ hordes of Central Asia.”[141]

I wonder did the German _historian_ take his cue from the conjecture of the Irish _lexicographer_? It is literally marvellous if he did not; for, by a most unaccountable coincidence, while tracing the foundation of a name, descriptive of two localities at opposite points of this mundane ball, one boldly asserts, and the other more than insinuates, that its root is to be found in one and the same _English_ word!--and this, too, when those countries were blazing in glory, before three words of the English language were broken into train!

A difference, however, breaks out amongst those partners, which seems to sever the prospects of their _metallic_ union. It is, that though each would make _iron_ to be the substratum of their respective hobbies, yet would _my namesake_ have his so called as _abounding_ therein; whereas, the _professor_, who betrays a respectable insight into geology, and fearing that the womb of _Persia_ could not conceive so hard an ore, wishes us at once to believe that it acquired its _ancient_ epithet from the _fixedness_ of that metal; and thus would one _ex abundantiâ_, and the other _ex similitudine_, have the common name of _Iran_ for Ireland and for Persia be derived from an _English_ word, which was not concocted for many centuries after the _decay_ of those two regions, when the very metal it represented first grew into use![142]

“Moullah Feroze, an excellent Palahvi scholar, tells me,” says Sir John Malcolm, “that _Iran_ is the plural of _Eir_, and means _the country of believers_.” And again, when he had occasion to consult his oracle, he states the answer as follows:--

“I gave this inscription[143] to Moullah Feroze, a learned priest of the Parsees, at Bombay, and he assured me that the translation of De Sacy was correct. Feroze explained the word _An-Iran_ to mean _unbelievers_. _Eer_, he informed me, was a Pehlivi word, which signified _believer_; _Eeran_ was its plural: in Pehlivi, the _a_ or _an_ prefixed is a privative, as in Greek or Sanscrit; and consequently, _An-Eeran_ meant _unbelievers_. The king of _Eeran_ and _An-Eeran_ he interpreted to mean king of _believers_ and _unbelievers_; _of_ Persia and other nations. It was, he said, a title like king of the world. This however,” adds Sir John, of himself, “is like all _conjectures_ founded on etymology, very uncertain.”

It was natural enough that Sir John should express himself slightingly as to a mode of proof, the principle of which he must have seen violated in so many instances; and, independently of this, it is an infirmity in human nature to affect disregard for any knowledge which we do not ourselves understand. I do not mean, however, to vindicate Feroze’s interpretation; on the contrary, I purpose to show that it is not only _imperfect_, but _incorrect_; yet while doing so, I am bound to acknowledge, that, if he has not hit off the whole truth, he has a part of it; and even _this_ is such a treat, in the wilderness through which we have been groping for some time back, that I welcome it as an _oasis_, and offer him my thanks thus beforehand.

To prove however, that he is in error, I need but confine myself to the unravelling of his own words. At first he affirms that _Eeran_ is the plural of _Eer_, and means the _country of believers_; if so, the singular must mean _the country of a believer_; but he tells us afterwards, that _Eer_ signifies _a believer_ alone, consequently _Eeran_ must _believers_ alone, without any consideration of the word _country_. And the same inconsistency, which manifests itself here, applies with equal strictness to _An-Eiran_ also.

Should these papers ever reach the observance of this distinguished foreigner, whom I appreciate even for his _approximation_ to the precincts of the _thought_, they will, I doubt not, readily disabuse him of a _radical_ misconception. _Eeran_ is not a _plural_ at all, but a _compound_ word: its constituents being _Eer_ and _An_,[144] of which the former signifies _Sacred_ and the latter a _Territory_. So that the united import will be the _Sacred Territory_; and _An-Eeran_, of course, is but its negative.

This exposition I gain from the Irish language, which I take to be the primitive Iranian or Persic language. By it I am furthermore enabled to inform the _German_ “professor” that _Turan_, though now inhabited by “Nomad tribes,” obtained not its name from that circumstance, but from a widely different one. Tur[145] means _prolific_, whether as regards _population_ or _rural produce_; and _An_, as before, a territory--the whole betokening a _prolific territory_.[146] And he should remember, what he is not at all unconscious of, that eastern denominations are not varied by recent occupants, but continue in uninterrupted succession, from age to age, as imposed at the outset.