Sikandar, on ascending the throne, harangues the nobles and marries Rúshanak, the daughter of Dárá. The poet then tells of Sikandar's dealing with Kaid and Fúr (Porus) of Hind, his visit to the Kaaba, to Queen Kaidáfa (Candace), to the Brahmans, to the Western Sea, to the land of Habash and of the Narmpái, to the City of Women, to the Darkness in search of the Water of Life, and to the Angel Isráfíl. Sikandar then again turns east­ward, and erects a barrier against Yájúj and Májúj (Gog and Magog), reaches the End of the World, and is warned of his own death by the Speaking Tree. The poet then tells of Sikandar's relations with Faghfúr of Chín, of his visit to Bábil, of his corre­spondence with Aristálís (Aristotle), and of the circumstances attending his death and burial.

The Vullers-Landauer text, from which we have translated thus far, does not extend beyond the reign of Dárá, and from this point to the end we have made our version from the text of Macan. Mohl's edition of the text—the alternative—is, apart from other reasons for our choice, too ponderous for practical purposes; the volume of it containing the reign of Sikandar, for instance, measures 18 × 13 × 2 5/8 inches and weighs 17 lbs. 2 ozs.! The prin­ciples of our translation remain the same as laid down in the Introduction,*

but it is necessary to add that in Macan's edition there are many misprints not included in the Errata at the end of his volumes. These misprints we have corrected in our trans­lation, but have not thought it necessary to call attention to them in footnotes. The corrections for the most part are quite obvious, and sufficiently indicated in our version to any one acquainted with the original.

§§ 2-4. These correspond generally with the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Book II. chap. 22, and with the Syriac version, Book II. chap. 14. For Roxana, see p. 32.

§§ 5-11. Alexander on his arrival in India naturally came into contact with the Fakírs—the mendicant and ascetic orders which are such a feature of that country. His pilot, Onesicritus, has left an account of an ombassy on which he was sont to them. He describes how he found fifteen men standing, sitting, or lying in various attitudes naked in the sun, and conversed with two of them, Calanus and Mandanes, of whom the latter was the older, the wiser, and the more generally amenable.*

The former, however, accompanied Alexander back to Persia, where, having fallen into bad health, he was burnt to death by his own request.*

Calanus is mentioned also by Alexander's admiral, Nearchus,*

and by Chares of Mytilene.*

According to Plutarch his real name was Sphinés, and Calanus was a name given him by the Greeks because in salutations he used the word kale, “hail.”*

The accounts in the original authorities of Calanus and Mandanes, or Dandamis—a name by which also he is known—were freely used by later writers.*

Palladius, who was bishop of Helenopolis at the beginning of the fifth century A.D., wrote a treatise on the peoples of India and the Brahmans in which he gives an account of Calanus and Dandamis, drawn from the older authorities. This work was interpolated into Codex A of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, where it forms chaps. 7-16 of Book III., thus bringing Calanus into the Romance. Dandamis had appeared already in chap. 6. The passage from Palladius is given in the early Latin version of the Romance by Julius Valerius, but not in the Syriae translation from the Pahlaví. The first oriental mention of the Indian sages seems to be in the little Pahlaví treatise known as the Kárnámak-i-Ardshír-i-Pápakán, which will engage our attention later on in the present volume.*

In that treatise, which dates back probably to the seventh century A.D., the founder of the Sásánian dynasty consults the wise Indian, Kait. It is true that Ardshír Pápakán lived five centuries after Sikandar, but in the Sháhnáma this would be no bar to the reappearance of the sage. Ya'kúbí, the Arabic historian, writing towards the end of the ninth century A.D., has an account of Sikandar's meeting with a wise Indian king named Kaihan. In Pahlaví the letter t well might be taken for the letters h and n, and these with the short vowel a interposed would make Kaihan.*

The story of the Indian sage seems rapidly to have developed in oriental hands, as is evident from the account given by Mas'údí, who died in A.D. 956, of the dealings of Sikandar with the wise Indian king, Kand.*

Mas'údí, indeed, professes to give an abridgment only; but his version, with one exception, agrees closely with that of Firdausí. The exception is the introductory matter contained in § 5, which appears to be the poet's own con­tribution to the story. Kaid's dreams are a veiled presentment of Firdausí's own discontent with the circumstances of his own time, and contain a fierce arraignment of Sultan Mahmúd himself.*

Kait, Kaihan, Kand, and Kaid evidently represent the same per­sonality, which is none other than that of the Mandanes or Dandamis of classic authors, while the sage whom he sends as one of his four gifts to Sikandar is the historical Calanus.*

Firdausí adopted the form Kaid for rhyming purposes. Kaid, we are told in § 6, dwelt at Mílád. Historically this would be Taxila, a city situated between the Indus and the Hydaspes (Jhílam) and Attock and Rawalpindi. Omphis, the king of Taxila, who was at enmity with his neighbour King Porus, was on very friendly terms with Alexander. Both Calanus and Mandanes or Dandamis were resi­dent at Taxila. In the Sháhnáma Sikandar's dealings with Kaid are placed correctly before the war with Fúr. In the Pseudo-Callisthenes the interpolation from Palladius*

is inserted after the account of Alexander's interview with the naked Indian sages in Book III. chaps. 5 and 6, a passage which is an integral part of the work and will be dealt with later on, for the interview is represented both in the Pseudo-Callisthenes and in the Sháhnáma as taking place after the war with Porus (Fúr).*

In Mas'údí and Mírkhánd the affair with Kaid also takes place after that war.*

Their account of Sikandar's passage of wits with the sage agrees closely with that of Firdausí in § 11, save that when Sikandar returns the rusted mirror to the sage the latter makes a cup that will float of it; on which Sikandar sends it back filled with earth, and the sage returns it to him without alteration, earth being the last word in all matters. Such symbolism is common in the East, and the whole passage might be interpreted thus. The Sháh begins by suggesting that the sage had better get into training if his wits are to be of any use to his new master. The sage replies that they are already as sharp as needles. The Sháh re­torts that, though they may be sharp they are unpolished, and the sage rejoins that on the contrary they are exceedingly bright. The Sháh then observes that he can soon take the shine out of them, and the sage retorts that he knows a trick worth two of that. At this point the Sháh, hoping to take the sage at a dis­advantage, summons him and requests him to interpret what had passed between them, thinking that he may not like to put his symbolism into plain speech. The sage, however, is equal to the occasion, and on the spur of the moment gives an unexpected turn to his interpretation, and one which meets with the Sháh's approval. The true interpretation seems to be this. The Sháh by sending a bowl full of ghee indicates that already he is so charged with knowledge that he has no occasion for the sage's services. The sage, by inserting many needles into the ghee, suggests that there is room for improvement. The Sháh replies that his finer faculties have become too blunted by the cares of his station. The sage rejoins that he can amend that. The Sháh retorts that the improvement will not last, but this the sage denies. Mas'údí adds that ultimately Sikandar allowed the sage to return to his own country.*

A similar story is told by Hiuen Tsiang of two great Buddhist saints who lived about the first century B.C. One visited the other to hold discussion with him. The visitor was not admitted at once. The other sent a disciple to him with a begging bowl full of water, symbolising the fulness, depth, and lucidity of the wisdom of his master. The visitor said nothing but dropped a needle into the bowl. The disciple returned and reported what had happened to his master, who at once recognised the worth of the visitor and gave orders that he should be admitted.*

§§ 12-15. These correspond with Book III. chap. 1-4 of the Pseudo-Callisthenes and of the Syriac version of it, and like them are quite unhistorical, as will be seen from the following summary of what really happened. On quitting Taxila, Alexander marched to the Hydaspes (Jhílam), on the opposite bank of which he found Porus with his forces prepared to dispute the passage. He deceived Porus so often by feints that after a time the latter ceased to believe that Alexander's intention of crossing the river was serious; and Alexander, in a night of storm and rain, suc­ceeded in effecting the passage—one of his most brilliant feats of arms. Immediately after the crossing he was attacked by the son of Porus with a small force, which he defeated without much difficulty, and the son of Porus was slain. The general engage­ment with Porus himself followed. Alexander was again victorious, and Porus, who had behaved throughout with great gallantry and was wounded, surrendered after Alexander had sent several mes­sengers to beg him so to do. Alexander treated Porus with every consideration, restored his kingdom to him, and enlarged it. The battle with Porus was fought in the late spring or early summer of B.C. 326. Alexander then continued his advance into India, crossed the Akesines (Chináb) and the Hydraotes (Ravi), and reached the Hyphasis (Beas). At this point his army refused to proceed further, and he acceded to their wishes, though with the greatest reluctance. In the Pseudo-Callisthenes such histo­rical features as survive are adapted so as to contribute to the glory of its hero. Thus the protest of the army takes place before the battle with Porus and proves ineffective, because it was incum­bent that Alexander should meet with no check. The difficulty of transporting horses across a river on the further bank of which a strong force of elephants was drawn up to oppose them, and the known antipathy of horses to elephants, suggested the device of the iron steeds. A tradition, resting on good authority, that Porus was very tall, “more than five cubits in height” according to Arrian,*

suggested that Alexander should be made out to be very small. The death of the son of Porus may have suggested, or been mistaken for, that of his father, which naturally is repre­sented as having been caused by Alexander's own hand.

The differences between the Pseudo-Callisthenes and Firdausí are not important and chiefly in matters of detail. In the former Porus begins the correspondence; he has wild beasts as well as elephants in his army. In branches B and C Alexander, disguised as a sutler, visits the city of Porus and has an interview with him. In the battle that ensues Bucephalus falls, in branch A by the hand of Porus. The battle lasts for twenty days, and so forth. In the latter the kingdom of Fúr is situated beyond Kannúj—a city on the Ganges—and it is there that the correspondence with Fúr takes place. After the correspondence comes the protest of the army against proceeding further. Sikandar appoints Sawurg king in Fúr's stead.

§ 16. This is derived, of course, not from the Pseudo-Callis-thenes, but from independent Arabic sources. It appears in Dínawarí, who died in A.D. 896.*

The insertion makes wild work of the geography, for it brings Sikandar back from Kannúj, accord­ing to Firdausí, to Mecca. Later on,*

he has to go eastward again in order to interview the Brahmans.

The neighbourhood of Mecca has been a sacred spot from time immemorial. The city stands in a sacred territory known as “Harám,” i.e. “prohibited,” and contains the still more sacred Kaaba, into the wall of which, and perhaps most sacred of all, is built the meteorite known as the “Black Stone.” The Kaaba itself, according to the Kurán, was built by Abraham and Ishmael.*

The custody of the Harám—a position of great honour and profit —was in the hands now of one, now of another, of the Arab tribes. In Muhammad's time the Kuraish, whose ancestor was Nasr, son of Katíb, were in charge. Previously it had been in that of the Khuzá'. The fact that the change of guardianship is attributed to Sikandar is an eloquent testimony to his fame.*

Kahtán, according to Arab tradition, was descended from Shem, and was one of the great progenitors of the race. He was identified with Joktan.*

§§ 17-23. We learn from Quintus Curtius that when Alexander was besieging Mazaga, a city situated probably on the Swat River, and the inhabitants despaired of the defence, their queen Cleophis, attended by many noble ladies, came out to him, was received graciously, and confirmed in her sovereignty. Some people, how­ever, were ill-natured enough to say that her personal charms rather than Alexander's humanity brought about this result. At all events she is said to have had a son later on whom she named Alexander.*

Alexander's relations with Cleophis and his visit to the Oasis of Ammon may have suggested to the author of the Pseudo-Callisthenes the episode which is the subject of the above sections. The story is, of course, unhistorical; but it is easy to see how it would suggest itself to an Egyptian, whether native or naturalised. Both before and after the Christian era Candace seems to have been the dynastic name of the queens, whether sole regnant, consort, or dowager, of that part of Nubia which is bounded by the Nile, the Blue Nile, and the Atbara, and known as the Island or as Meroe, the latter being also the name of one of its two principal cities, the other being Napata. Excavations have brought to light remains of tombs and palace, and reliefs of various queens of a pronounced negroid type. Whether Alexander was introduced into some already existing story, told originally in another connexion, of one of the old queens of Meroe, or whether the whole thing is the invention of the Egyptian author of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, it is impossible to say. Firdausí's version of the story corresponds with the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Bk. III. chaps. 18-24, and with the Syriac version of it, Bk. III. chaps. 8-14. The three are closely in accord in most points, but there are differences in matters of detail and in the names of the characters in the story. The Kandake (Candace) of the Pseudo-Callisthenes and of the Syriac version becomes Kaidáfa in Firdausí, which shows that his account came to him through the Arabic, in which the name, in the absence of diacritical points, could be read either way. Similarly the Kandaules of the Greek, the Kandáros of the Syriac,*

became Kaidrúsh, the story having passed from Greek into Pahlaví, from Pahlaví into Syriac, from Syriac into Arabic, and from Arabic into Persian again (modern instead of middle) before Firdausí dealt with it. In the Pseudo-Callisthenes and the Syriac version Ptolemy takes Alexander's place when Kaidrúsh is brought into court, and Alexander assumes the name of Antigonus. In Firdausí the latter becomes the name of Sikandar's chief minister (Naitkún), and the two exchange their respective positions. In the Greek and the Syriac the wife of Kandaules is taken prisoner by a hostile king, while Kandaules himself escapes to the camp of Alexander, who regains his wife for him. In Firdausí the pair are taken prisoners by Sikandar while celebrating their wedding-feast in the city of king Faryán, the father of the bride. This version is more considerate of the lady, who does not get off so easily in the Greek and Syriac. In the Greek too the scene of the action is laid in the kingdom of Semiramis, whose descendant*

Kaidáfa is stated to be. In the Syriac the name Semiramis is corrupted into that of a people. In the Sháhnáma the scene is laid in Andalús, i.e. in Spain, which was conquered by the Arabs early in the eighth century A.D. In the Greek, Candace's other son, who had married a daughter of Porus, is unnamed, but is called Charogos in the early Latin version of Julius Valerius. In the Syriac he appears as Kerátór, and in the Sháhnáma as Tainúsh, who is represented there as being the eldest son, as in the Ethiopic, where he is called Kanír.*

The Ethiopic too alone coincides with the Sháhnáma in giving the dramatic conclusion of the story—the discovery by Tainúsh (Kanír) that the ambassador to his mother was Alexander himself—from which we might conclude that both versions derived the incident from a common Arabic source. Another view, however, may be suggested. The hand of a poet is visible in Firdausí's presentment of the whole story. He enlists our sympathy by making Kaidrúsh and his wife a newly married couple, which is found in no other ver­sion, suppresses the worst of the lady's misfortunes, which is expressed or implied in the other versions, and makes two other consequential alterations. Tainúsh is described as being the elder instead of the younger son, because Firdausí represents him as having been longer married; and Faryán, who stands for the abductor of the lady in the other versions, becomes her own father. Further, the Ethiopic version appears to have been a late produc­tion which came into being some time between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries,*

when the Sháhnáma itself had become a great authority, and it seems not unlikely that the dramatic con­clusion in the Ethiopic version was derived through the Arabic from Firdausí's own handiwork.

§ 24. This corresponds with Bk. III., chaps. 5-6, of the Pseudo-Callisthenes and of the Syriac version, in both of which the order of events is the war with Porus, the interview with the Brahmans, the affair with Candace. In Firdausí the order of the last two is transposed. This is due to the interpolation from Arabic sources of Sikandar's expedition to the Kaaba, in § 16, imme­diately after the war with Fúr. Consequently he has to make a second expedition eastward. His interview with the Brahmans may be regarded as a literary invention based partly on the account of Onesicritus*

and partly on some other source, which is responsible for his questions and their answers. These appear in Plutarch's Life of Alexander, ch. 64. That historian makes the interview take place in the course of Alexander's voyage down the Indus to the sea. The questions and answers vary in the different accounts. The question as to whether the living or the dead are the most numerous is found in Plutarch, where the answer is, the living, in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in Julius Valerius, and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions.

The question whether there is most land or water occurs in the Pseudo-Callisthenes and Julius Valerius. In the Syriac version the question is as to whether the land or the water is the older. In Plutarch the question is whether the earth or sea produces the largest beast. In both cases the answer is, the earth.

The question as to who are the sinners, or the most sinful, is found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in Julius Valerius where it occurs in the form, which is the most cunning of beasts? in the Syriac and in the Ethiopic.

Alexander's question as to what the Brahmans would have of him is found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in Julius Valerius, and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions.

Several of the questions occurring in other versions do not appear in the Sháhnáma, such, for instance, as those in the Syriac as to whether death or life is the mightier; which existed first, day or night; and whether the limbs on the left side of the body or on the right side are the better, and so forth.

§§ 25-27. At this point the adventures of Sikandar become more romantic. In codex A of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, and in the Latin version of Julius Valerius, they form the subject of a letter, purporting to be written by Alexander to Aristotle, and come between the visit to the Brahmans and that to Candace. The letter is a long one, and is lengthier still in the Syriac version, which contains incidents no longer extant in the Greek but found in the Sháhnáma. In the Greek the letter forms ch. 17 and in the Syriac ch. 7 of Bk. III.

It may be well to quote here a short passage from M'Crindle's Ancient India as described by Magasthenés and Arrian, which is very apposite in the present connexion. Speaking of the ancient Greeks' conception of India, he says:—“They imagined it to be an Eastern Ethiopia which stretched away to the uttermost verge of the world, and which, like the Ethiopia of the West, was inhabited by a race of men whose visages were scorched black by the fierce rays of the sun. See Homer, Od. i. 23-24, where we read

(The Ethiopians, who are divided into two, and live at the world's end—one part of them towards the setting sun, the other towards the rising.) Herodotus in several passages mentions the Eastern Ethiopians, but distinguishes them from the Indians (see par­ticularly Bk. vii. 70). Ktêsias, however, who wrote somewhat later than Herodotus, frequently calls the Indians by the name of Ethiopians, and the final discrimination between the two races was not made till the Makedonian invasion gave the Western world more correct views of India. Alexander himself, as we learn from Strabo, on first reaching the Indus mistook it for the Nile. Much lies in a name, and the error made by the Greeks in thus calling India Ethiopia led them into the further error of considering as pertinent to both these countries narrations, whether of fact or fiction, which concerned but one of them exclusively. This explains why we find in Greek literature men­tion of peculiar or fabulous races, both of men and other animals, which existed apparently in duplicate, being represented some­times as located in India, and sometimes in Ethiopia or the countries thereto adjacent.”*

Bearing this passage in mind, it is easy to understand that the original author of the Romance of Alexander, whose idea was to make his hero traverse the whole world, and the later redactors of the Romance, found it easy to provide a crop of marvels, of which the Persián version in the Sháhnáma furnishes a by no means exhaustive account. The Macedonian invasion may have given the Western world more correct ideas of India, but it did not prevent the Pseudo-Callis-thenes from coming into being some five centuries later and flourishing exceedingly. The return of Alexander from India to Persia by sea and land along the desolate shores of Makrán (Gedrosia) naturally gave rise to a crop of marvels not all without foundation.

§ 25. The people encountered by Sikandar after leaving the Brahmans were known to Arrian as the Oritæ. They dwelt in the neighbourhood of the Pur-Ali River. He describes them as wearing a dress and using arms similar to those of the Indians, but as differing in language and customs.*

The shore-dwelling Oritæ are responsible for one of the etymologies suggested for the name of their country—Makrán—i.e. “Máhí-khúrán,” “Fish-eaters,” “Ichthyophagi,” which, even if it be not correct, is at least appropriate. Two extracts from Arrian's Indica, based on the account of Nearchus, Alexander's admiral, and others from modern sources, will serve to show that the habits of the shore-dwellers in that region have not altered materially during a period of over two thousand years, if we except the employment of the skeletons of whales for house-building—a custom that would be mentioned by modern travellers in those parts if it still obtained. The dwellings now consist of mats held together by poles or else take the form of mud huts.*

“The Ichthyophagi live on fish, whence their name. Few of them indeed fish, few indeed have boats for the purpose, or know the art of fishing, but catch most at the ebb of the tide. Some even have made nets to do this, most of such a size that they stretch two stades.*

These they make of palm-bass, which they twist like flax. When indeed the sea recedes, deserts the land, and leaves it dry, it is generally void of fish, but when the land retains the water in some deeper indentation, then they find a great abundance. Of these most are small, others large. These they encircle with their nets and take. The finer sorts they eat raw as they draw them from the water; the larger and coarser they dry in the sun, and, as soon as they are baked through, reduce them to flour by grinding and convert them into bread. Some make it into a paste. They even give their beasts fish-flour instead of fodder. All the region, in the absence of meadows, produces no herbage. They take withal in these parts a great quantity of crabs, oysters, and shell-fish. The region also naturally produces salt, from which they make (an equi­valent or substitute for?) oil. Those of them indeed that in­habit the desert parts, and a region productive of neither trees nor fruit, live on fish only: a few sow a little ground, and eat bread as a relish with their fish, for fish are their corn. They build their houses thus. The wealthiest of them take whatever bones of the whale the sea throws up, and use them in the place of timber, making the largest into doors. The indigent majority make their houses of fish bones.”*

In the following chapter Arrian enters more into detail:—“Some of the whales are driven ashore occasionally in various places, and are stranded when the tide recedes; others are cast on to the land by violent storms, and perish of putrefaction; their flesh dropping off leaves their bones for men to employ in house-building. Their greater ribs are selected for the beams, the smaller for the planks; the jaw-bones are taken for doors.”*

A modern account says:—“Nearchus … names the whole of this coast, from the river Indus to Charbar, the country of the Ichthyophagi or fish-eaters, and the inhabitants still live entirely on fish, the cattle having much the same diet as their masters, for the country is wholly destitute and barren, and yields no sort of grass. Vast stores of oysters, crabs, and all kind of shell-fish are found on the coast, of which Nearchus's description is generally very accurate. In many places, both here and in Arabia, the cattle are fed entirely on dried fish and dates mixed together, on account of the great scarcity of grass in these sun-burnt and sandy regions.”*

A later account says:—“Fish, to this day, is the staple article of food for those of the inhabitants living on the sea-board, and in this respect they fully bear out the name of ichthyophagi given to their ancestors by ancient writers.”*

And again:—“Nearchus … coasted along the shores of Balochistan, and his account of the natives he met with, and the difficulty he found in obtaining supplies, is as credible as if the voyage had been carried on under similar circumstances at the present day.”*

There is further mention of the Ichthyophagi in § 34.

The story of Sikandar's adventure with a basking whale which was mistaken for an island, with disastrous consequences to those that visited it, has not been lost sight of by the romancers and poets of later ages. In the first voyage of Sindbad the sailor, in the Arabian Nights, he lands upon an island “like a garth of the gardens of Paradise,” but which proves to be a great fish, and sinks when fires are lighted on it for cooking purposes.*

For the poets the reader may be referred to the passage in Paradise Lost, Bk. i. line 200 seq., Aldine ed.*

The reeds mentioned are of course bamboos, of which one of the many uses is for house-building.

§ 26. Here we are introduced to the true Ethiops, who, accord­ing to Greek notions, occupied the extremities of the world both in the East and West.*

§ 27. The above remark applies equally to the Narmpái.*

The story of the dragon is not extant in the Pseudo-Callisthenes or in the Latin version of Julius Valerius. It is found, however, in the Syriac version and in the Ethiopic,*

which represent the monster as being regarded as a god by the natives. In the Syriac it is described as killing its victims by drawing in its breath, and so sucking them down its throat.*

The temple that Sikandar visits is that of Dionysus, and the corresponding passage in the Pseudo-Callisthenes is Bk. III. ch. 28. There is a doublet of the visit in § 31.

§ 28. Modern historical research, which is restoring to us the knowledge of the great Hittite empire once dominant in Asia Minor and northern Syria, appears incidentally to have thrown light on the origin of the legend of the Amazons. The period of the historical importance of the Hittites dates approximately from B.C. 2000 to B.C. 700; and it appears that their great goddess Ma—the prototype of Cybele, the Great Mother—was served by women “who in later centuries, on the decline of the Hittite power, at the coming maybe of the Phrygians, at first for the defence of their religion, and later separating in independent action, developed into armed priestesses.”*

In the Introductory Note to the work here quoted Professor Sayce says:—“The Amazons of Greek legend prove to have been the warrior-priestesses of the great Hittite goddess.”*

The seat of the Amazons, which legend places on the river Thermodon, is quite in concord with the above identification, and their legend itself extends from Homer*

through Herodotus and many other writers to Sir John Maunde-ville. *

As to the origin of the legend that brought Alexander into connexion with the Amazons we are told by Arrian that when that king was in Sughdiana he received a visit from Pharas-manes, king of the Kharazmians, who stated that his dominions marched with those of the Colchians and Amazons, and that if Alexander desired to proceed to those regions and subjugate the races in the neighbourhood of the Euxine he would act himself as guide and furnish necessaries for the troops.*

The land of Kharazm is now represented by the modern Khiva, and the whole breadth of the Caspian Sea intervened between Pharasmanes and his nearest neighbours to the west; but the mere suggestion seems to have taken root, and soon it was affirmed by some of the more romantic, or less scrupulous, historians of Alexander that the queen of the Amazons had visited him in person—the view adopted by Quintus Curtius, who tells us how their queen Thalestris arrived with her suite of three hundred women from the vicinity of the river Thermodon, and spent about a fortnight with the king.*

In the Pseudo-Callisthenes it is Alexander who visits the Amazons, and the visit takes place immediately after that to Candace, queen of Ethiopia, in which the ground is laid for it by representing her son and daughter-in-law as being on their way to perform religious rites in the land of the Amazons when the lady was abducted. Firdausí, who omits the passage about the abduction, naturally leaves out the reference to the Amazons and gives his account of them in another connexion.*

His version corresponds with that of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Bk. III. ch. 25-27, and with the Syriac version, Bk. III. ch. 15-17. In these versions and in the Sháhnáma the Amazons are repre­sented as living on an island, and the account of their marriage-customs in the Pseudo-Callisthenes and in the poem may owe something to the stories of the Male and Female Islands that no doubt were current in Egypt in connexion with the country —southern Arabia—whence it obtained its supplies of frankin­cense. It seems to have been the custom of the incense-gatherers, who were always men, to leave their wives and children at home, which in this case would mean, among other localities, the Kuria Muria Islands, while they themselves crossed over to the main­land for the purposes of their trade. Sons, when grown up, would accompany their fathers, while the daughters would remain with the mothers. The seven Kuria Muria Islands thus became known collectively as “The Female Island,” while the mainland repre­sented “The Male Island.”*

There appears to be a reference to the same custom in Hiuen Tsiang:—“To the south-west of Fo-lin, in an island of the sea, is the kingdom of the western women: here there are only women, with no men; they possess a large quantity of gems and precious stones, which they exchange in Fo-lin. Therefore the king of Fo-lin sends certain men to live with them for a time. If they should have male children, they are not allowed to bring them up.”*

By the black race encountered by Sikandar on his way to the city of the Amazons the negroes seem to be intended, and the description is quite in the style of one in the Arabian Nights:— “Then sprang with a drop-leap from one of the trees a big slob­bering blackamoor with rolling eyes which showed the whites, a truly hideous sight.”*

The bringing of frost and snow would be a great marvel in their hot country. Similarly Sarv, king of Yaman, tries to overcome the three sons of Farídún.*

It does not seem possible to identify the fair-haired race that Sikandar met after leaving Harúm. The type is too common and his wanderings are too vague. There is the Berber race in North Africa among which the blond type with blue eyes is not un­common, and in northern Europe the Scandinavian. Herodotus too speaks of the Budini, whom he places north of the Palus Mæotis, as having blue eyes and red hair;*

and Tacitus describes in similar terms the peoples of Germany.*

Moreover, tribes with red beards and blue eyes are mentioned in Chinese annals as living in Central Asia.*

The notion of “The Gloom,” about which Sikandar makes inquiries, seems to have been the outcome of two distinct concep­tions. One was that as the sun set in the West, and thereupon night ensued, there was a Land of Darkness in that quarter. This notion is as old as Homer, who opposes the East to the West by describing the former as being , “towards the dawn and the sun,” and the latter as being , “towards the gloom.”*

The other was based on the accounts that filtered through to the sunnier South of the dark­ness of the North—the long sunless winters of the Arctic Circle. Attached to each conception was the idea of an earthly paradise— in the West the garden of the Hesperides, and in the North the elysium of the Hyperboreans, who had their counterpart, or original, in Indian legend which told that “towards the North, beyond the Himâlaya, dwelt the Uttarakuri, a people who enjoyed a long and happy life, to whom disease and care were unknown, and who revelled in every delight in a land all paradise.”*

Hesiod knew of the Hyperboreans.*

There is an interesting chapter on “The Land of Darkness” in Marco Polo.*

§ 29. At the close of § 28 we have the beginning of the story of Sikandar's famous expedition into the Land of Darkness and to the Fount of Life. This does not appear in branch A of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in the early Latin version of Julius Valerius, or in the Syriac version. It is given at large, however, in branch C, which has Christian leanings, and it is found also in the Ethiopic version. It is obvious that Firdausí's account had passed through the Arabic. The Arabic in its turn came from the Syriac, and the existence of the account in the Syriac is due to the fact that Jacob of Sarúg*

inserted it in his metrical version of the Syriac Christian Legend of Alexander already referred to.*

The basis of the whole is branch C of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, where the account runs as follows:—“Thence Alexander set forth again with his host, retiring to a level place in the midst whereof was a ravine. Having thrown a bridge across he wrote thereon in Greek, Persian, and Egyptian, and the writings signified: ‘Alex­ander, arriving hither, built this arch, and crossed it with his whole host, being desirous of possessing the ends of the earth, God willing.’ And in three days he came to regions where the sun did not shine. The name thereof is ‘The Country of the Blest.’ And Alexander, having left the baggage and the infantry with the old men and the women, was minded to take chosen youths with him to investigate and see these regions. His friend Callisthenes advised him to make his entry with forty friends, one hundred youths, and twelve hundred soldiers. King Alexander set forth, instructing them to take no old man with them. An inquisitive elder, however, who had two sons—noble and trusty soldiers—said to them: ‘Children, hearken to your father and take me with you, and I shall be found not empty on the journey, for I wot that in time of difficulty the old will be sought after, and you therefore, as having me with you, will be honoured much by your king. Lest, being found to transgress his ordinance, ye be deprived of life, now, bestirring yourselves, crop my head and beard; thus altering hair and appearance I will go with you and prove of great use to you in the time of need.’ So doing their father's bidding, they took the old man with them. Thus they fared with Alexander and reached a murky spot. Being unable to advance further, owing to the impassable nature of the place, they removed thence their tents. Next day, Alexander, taking with him a thousand soldiers, went to ascertain if the end of the earth were there. Going leftward he saw a part that was lighter, and fared over places waste and precipitous for half the day. This he knew not from the sun but by taking measurement of the way geometrically. Afterwards he turned back in alarm because the route was impracticable. Emerging, he was minded to go to the right because the plain was level, albeit dark and gloomy. But being in difficulties because none of the youths were willing for him to enter that dark place in that, the horses being wearied out by the glooms of that dark road, they would be unable to return, Alexander said to them:—‘O noble soldiers! ye all know now that in wars nothing is done nobly without counsel and advice, for in good sooth an old man coming with us would direct us how we ought to enter this dark region. If now there be some noble man among you let him go and bring into our camp for me an elder, and he shall have much gold of me.’ Howbeit none of them was found to do this thing by reason of the length of the way and of the lightless air. Then, presenting themselves, the sons of the old man said to Alexander:—‘If thou wilt hear us with forbearance, O king! we will tell thee somewhat.’ King Alexander said:—‘Say what ye will, for I swear by divine Provi­dence not to wrong you.’ Forthwith they told him about their sire, and ran and brought the old man to him. Alexander, on seeing, embraced him and asked him to counsel them. The old man said: ‘It is fit, O king Alexander! for you to know this, that if horses enter you will see the light never more. Choose therefore mares with foals, and leave the foals there, going your­selves with the mares; they will lead us thither.’*

Alexander therefore made search among all those with him, but only found a hundred mares with foals. Taking these and another hundred selected ones, as well as many others to carry their provand, he entered according to the counsel of the old man, leaving the foals without. The old man instructed his sons that whatever they should find lying on the ground as they went they were to collect and place in their pouches. There entered with Alexander three hundred and sixty soldiers, and thus advancing along the dark road for fifteen schœni,*

they saw a certain place wherein was a bright fountain whereof the water flashed like lightning; the air was fragrant and most sweet. Now Alexander, the king, becom­ing hungry, wished to eat bread, and calling his cook, who was named Andreas, told him to prepare a meal. Taking a dried fish he went to the shining water of the fountain to wash the meat. On being wetted in the water it came to life forthwith and escaped from the hand of the cook, who told nobody of what had happened, but took himself some of the same water in a silver vessel and safe-guarded it; the whole place indeed gushed with waters whereof all drank and partook of food. Alexander, after he had eaten, again journeyed on for thirty schœni, and further saw a light without sun, moon, or stars, and he beheld three birds flying, but having the aspect of men, and crying to him from aloft in the Grecian tongue: ‘The land whereon thou treadest, Alexander! is that of God alone. Return, thou wretch! thou art not able to tread the Country of the Blest. Go back then, O man! and tread the earth bestowed upon thee, and prepare not troubles for thyself.’ Being affrighted, Alexander gave instant heed to the words spoken to him by the birds, one of which cried to him again:—‘The East calleth thee, Alexander! and the realm of Porus shall become subject to thee by conquest.’ Thus saying the bird flew off. Alexander, having resigned himself to Provi­dence, bade Antiochus to signify to the troops:—‘Let each that wisheth take of what is here, be it stone or earth or wood.’ To some it seemed good so to do, while to others Alexander's words appeared madness. Now as they went he said to Philon:—‘Dis­mount and take up whatever chanceth.’ Philon, dismounting, found a stone that seemed to him one of the worthless sort, and taking this he fared with Alexander. Many of the troops too took what each found from the material lying in that place, and the sons of the old man in particular, according to the bidding of their father, filled their wallets till they could walk no longer. Alexander, having guides, sent on the asses in front, marched by the Wain, and in some days arrived within hearing of the neighing of the mares, and in this manner issued from the land of night. So they came to the light where were the rest of the troops, and, looking on one another, found pearls and stones of price. When they saw this those that had taken none repented, while all those that had taken them blessed the old man and Alexander for their good counsel. Philon brought his stone to Alexander, and it was all gold. Then the cook told how the meat had come to life. Alexander, enraged, ordered him a terrible scourging. He said however to Alexander:—‘What boots it, Alexander! to repent a past matter?’ He did not say that he had drunk of the water or that he had kept some of it. This the cook refrained from con­fessing save as to the dried fish coming to life. Then that wicked cook going to Kalé, the daughter of Alexander and of the concu­bine Uné, seduced her, promising to give her to drink of the Water of the Fount of Immortality, which he did. Alexander, hearing of this, envied their immortality. He called his daughter and said to her:—‘Take thy clothes and depart, for behold thou hast become a goddess, being immortal, and thou shalt be called Nerois as having immortality from water, and therein shalt thou dwell.’ Weeping and mourning she departed from him, and con­sorted in waste places with the spirits. As for the cook, Alexander gave orders for a stone to be fastened to his neck, and that he should be flung into the sea. Being cast away thus he became a god and dwelt in a part of the sea that on this account was called Andreanticus. So much for the cook and the daughter of Alexander, who took these things to signify that the end of the earth was in those parts. When they came to the arch that Alexander had built, he engraved thereon again to this effect:— ‘Let those that wish to enter the Land of the Blest fare to the right.’”*

This legend through the Syriac became known to Muhammad, who gives his version of it in the chapter of the Kurán known as “The Cave.” Of part of the story he makes Moses the hero and of the rest Zú-'l-karnain, i.e. The Two-horned (Alexander the Great). In the Kurán the part of the legend concerned with the salt fish is told in connexion with Moses and, being somewhat obscure and fragmentary, has given a fine opportunity to the commentators. To elucidate the passage in the Kurán it was explained that on one occasion when Moses had made an eloquent address to his followers they were so impressed that they asked him if he knew of any one wiser than himself, and he replied that he did not. The Almighty reproached him for his vanity and told him that if he would go to a certain rock, where two seas met, he would find his master in wisdom. He was to take with him a fish in a basket and, when he missed the fish, would know that he had reached the right place. Accordingly Moses and Joshua set forth, arrived at the rock, forgot all about the fish, and fared onward. At length Moses became hungry, bethought him of the fish, and told Joshua to bring it. Joshua had to admit that he had forgotten all about it. The fish in the meantime had made its way to the sea in some marvellous manner, as Muhammad says. Moses and Joshua therefore returned to the rock, where they met one of God's servants who by his proceedings proved his superiority in understanding. He is identified by Muhammadans with the prophet Al Khidr, known from the hue of his raiment as “The Green Prophet,” and the friend of the Faithful in their dis­tress. He is familiar to readers of the Arabian Nights, and is a curious development of the reprobate cook, Andreas, of the Pseudo-Callisthenes. *

The angel Isráfíl, whose introduction into Firdausí's account is another sign of his indebtedness to Arabic sources, is one of the four archangels and the sounder of the Trump of Doom which will slay all creatures, himself included, after which the general Resurrection will ensue.*

§ 30. The legend of the iron gates built by Alexander in the Caucasus to exclude from the civilized world the savage tribes of the North is absent in branch A of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in the Latin version of Julius Valerius, and in the Syriac version. It is found, however, in branches B and C.*

Thence the account passed into the Christian Legend of Alexander and thence into the poem of Jacob of Sarúg and the Kurán.*

In the latter the passage is as follows:—“Then followed he (i.e. Zú-'l-karnain) a route until he came between the two mountains, beneath which he found a people who scarce understood a language. They said:— ‘O Dhoulkarnain! verily, Gog and Magog waste this land; shall we then pay thee tribute, so thou build a rampart between us and them?’ He said, ‘Better than your tribute is the might where­with my Lord hath strengthened me; but help me strenuously, and I will set a barrier between you and them. Bring me blocks of iron’—until when it filled the space between the mountain sides—‘Ply,’ said lie, ‘your bellows’—until when he had made it red with heat (fire) he said,—‘Bring me molten brass that I may pour upon it.’ And Gog and Magog were not able to scale it, neither were they able to dig through it.”*

Naturally this account appealed to the commentators on the Kurán and to Arabic historians, and as embellished by them pro­vided the material for Firdausí's picturesque version. Tabarí, for instance, compares the promiscuity of the excluded races to that of beasts, speaks of their sleeping on one ear and covering themselves with the other, and as having a thousand children each*—

traits found in the Sháhnáma.*

The word used in that poem for the monsters whereon Yájúj and Májúj are said to batten is “tinnín”—the same as that variously translated in the Old Testament R.V., as sea-monster,*

dragon,*

and serpent.*

It is a question as to which of the passes through the Caucasus*

Sikandar's barrier is to be referred. The most probable, because the most exposed, is the one between the range and the Caspian, but the description in the text, and still more in the older authorities, which describe the wall as being built from mountain to mountain, seems to favour the pass of Dariel, where the road runs through vertical walls of rock nearly 6000 feet high.

The method of vitrifying fortifications by means of heat was known in ancient times, and was used in the new world as well as the old. The operation is said to be not difficult if the proper rocks are used for the purpose, some of the primaries fusing easily when exposed to the heat of wood-fires. There are stated to be some fifty examples of such vitrified forts in Scotland alone.*

§ 31. We have had already a version of the account of the corpse in the palace of jewels in § 27.

The speaking trees of the sun and moon are found in all the branches of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, in A as part of the contents of a letter from Alexander to Aristotle, and in B and C as part of the narrative.*

They occur also in the Syriac version*

and in Julius Valerius. The trees, which in the above versions are described as resembling cypresses, seem akin to those of the riddle propounded by the archimages to Zál.*

In fact it is not improbable that the riddle was suggested by this passage in the Romance of Alexander. Other passages in the Sháhnáma may have been suggested similarly, the wonders, for instance, seen by Kai Khusrau during his voyage in pursuit of Afrásiyáb,*

and the account of how Asfandiyár, whom Persian tradition may have liked to regard as forestalling Sikandar, wandered over the whole world and reached the Gloom.*

In the same chapter of the Syriac version as that mentioned above we have the account of another solar tree, corresponding to a passage in the Pseudo-Callisthenes:*—.

“From thence we set out again and came to a river (the ocean-stream?). And upon the bank of the river there was a tree, which grew and increased from dawn until the sixth hour, and from the sixth hour until evening it diminished in height until there was nothing to be seen of it. Its smell was very pleasant…” In Zál's riddle the sun only was taken into consideration. In Sikandar's case the tree has a double trunk to provide for the moon as well. The male trunk (the sun) speaks by day, the female (the moon) by night. Much has been written about these trees, but the allegory seems fairly obvious.

§ 32. Sikandar's expedition to Chín and his dealings with the Faghfúr are extant only in the Syriac version of the Pseudo-Cal-listhenes, whence it passed into the Arabic as Dínawarí's account, which follows the Syriac closely, shows.*

Firdausí's is closer still and agrees with the Syriac in making the Faghfúr, though conscious of his power, fall in with Sikandar's wishes through sheer love of peace—a point omitted by Dínawarí.*

This is the third occasion on which Alexander is represented as going as his own ambas­sador *—

a notion originating no doubt with the Egyptian author of the Pseudo-Callisthenes.

§ 33. According to Firdausí's version, this is the third time that Sikandar goes to Hind. Historically, after the defeat of Porus, Alexander had some trouble with that king's nephew, who, after having sent ambassadors to Alexander out of enmity towards his uncle, became disaffected when he found that Porus was held in such great honour by his conqueror.*

Part of Alexander's army, under Craterus, returned from India by way of Nímrúz.

§ 34. This has some correspondence with the Pseudo-Cal-listhenes, Bk. III. ch. 28, and with the Syriac version, Bk. III. ch. 18. In the former the priest of the sun is described as being an Ethiop, and seems to reappear in the Gúsh-bistár of the Sháhnáma. We have had Gúsh-bistárs already, in fact if not in name in Firdausí's description of the races excluded by Sikandar's barrier—

“They sleep upon one ear, And use the other as a coverlet.”*

In this connexion the following passage is of interest: “The Enôtokoitai are called in Sanscrit Karnaprávaramás, and are frequently referred to in the great epic poems—e.g. Mahábh. II. 1170, 1875. The opinion was universally prevalent among the Indians that barbarous tribes had large ears… “It is easy,” says Wheeler (Hist. Ind., Vol. iii. p. 179), “for any one con versant with India to point out the origin of many of the so-called fables… Men do not have ears hanging down to their feet, but both men and women will occasionally elongate their ears after a very extraordinary fashion by thrusting articles through the lobe… If there was one story more than another which excited the wrath of Strabo, it was that of a people whose ears hung down to their feet. Yet the story is still current in Hindustán. Bábu Johari Dás says:—‘An old woman once told me that her husband, a sepoy in the British army, had seen a people who slept on one ear, and covered themselves with the other.’ (Domestic Manners and Customs of the Hindus, Banáras, 1860.) The story may be referred to the Himálayas. Fitch, who travelled in India about 1585, says that a people in Bhután had ears a span long.”*

For the Ichthyophagi see p. 69 seq.

§ 35. The correspondence with Aristotle with regard to the succession is of course an Oriental addition which came to Firdausí through the Arabic. Dínawarí has it to the same effect, the chief difference being that he makes the matter the subject of an interview between Alexander and Aristotle at Jerusalem where, according to him, the former died.*

The device was intended to account for the long interval—five centuries and a half—that separated the last of the Kaiánians (Sikandar) from the first of the Sásánians (Ardshír Pápakán). The Persians made it out to be much shorter.*

The prodigious birth that occurred on Sikandar's arrival at Babylon is described in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Bk. III. ch. 30, in the Latin Version of Julius Valerius, and in the Syriac, Bk. III. ch. 19.

§ 36. The version of Alexander's will in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Bk. III. ch. 33, is longest in codex A, which unfortunately is much mutilated. The corresponding passage in the Syriac version is Bk. III. ch. 22, and this agrees with Firdausí's in the following points—the request to his mother not to grieve, the instruction to the chiefs to honour her, the gift of the kingdom of Macedonia (of Rúm in Firdausí) to the son of Rúshanak, if she shall have one, and the direction that his (Sikandar's) body shall be laid in a golden coffin filled with honey, and conveyed for interment to Egypt. Most of the provisions of the will as given in the Greek and Syriac would have little or no interest for later Persian or Arabic writers, or for Firdausí himself, and naturally are lacking in the Sháhnáma.

§ 37. This corresponds with the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Bk. III. ch. 32, 34, and with the Syriac version, Bk. III. ch. 21, but the latter omits the dispute of the Greeks and Persians over the disposal of Alexander's body. According to the Greek version the oracle of the Babylonian Zeus was consulted, by whose direc­tion the corpse was conveyed to Memphis whence, at the in­stigation of the high priest of that city, it was taken to Alexandria and there buried. According to Firdausí the oracle was consulted at a place called Khurm, a word which means “vapour” or “ex­halation.” Similar emanations are said to have existed at Delphi.

Alexander died at Babylon on June 13th B.C. 323. His death was no doubt a natural one, the result of a fever, but it gave rise to a legend, referred to by Arrian only to be rejected,*

that poison was employed for the purpose by Antipater who, fearing that his position as regent in Macedonia had been under­mined by the intrigues of Olympias, sent his son Cassander to bring about the death of his master. Cassander found a willing instrument in Iollas, Alexander's cup-bearer, who had injuries of his own to avenge, and the fatal draught was administered at a banquet. The Pseudo-Callisthenes repeats the story,*

and it appears in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions,*

but not in the Sháhnáma.

§ 38. The sentences of the sages over the corpse of Sikandar are not in the Pseudo-Callisthenes or in the Syriac version of it. They are an Oriental addition, and Mas'údí gives another version of them.*

§ 39. Alexander's burial at Alexandria of course is historical. His mother, according to Mas'údí, removed the corpse from its golden coffin, lest the cupidity of future kings should be aroused and the tomb desecrated. Mas'údí, who spent some of his last years in Egypt, and died about A.D. 956, states that a pedestal of white and other coloured marbles, and known as the tomb of Alexander, was to be seen at Alexandria in A.D. 943-944.*

S. Chrysostom, however, says that the tomb was destroyed in his time (A.D. 345-407), and the annual observance at Alexandria of the day of Alexander's death abolished.*

Perhaps there may have been some restoration of the tomb by the Arabs, to whom the personality of Alexander was of interest,*

after their conquest of the city in the middle of the seventh century A.D.

Firdausí says that Sikandar built ten cities. In the Pseudo-Callisthenes the number is twelve or thirteen,*

thirteen in the Syriac version,*

and twelve in the Ethiopic.*

One at least of them has not become a brake of thorns, and the Romance of Alexander, which there first took literary form, has done more to extend his fame and make his name a household word than all the sober histories of him ever written.

To conclude then, in the three reigns of Dáráb, Dárá, and Sikandar, taken collectively, we have the Persian version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes which, if it does not possess a complete historical skeleton, has at least a historical backbone, some of the vertebræ of which reappear in the Sháhnáma—e.g. Sikandar's invasion of Írán, the defeat and death of Darius, Sikandar's accession to the throne of Irán, his marriage with an Oriental princess, his invasion of India, his defeat of Porus and inter­course with Indian sages, his return to Írán, his death at Babylon, and interment at Alexandria. Of the elements introduced into the Pseudo-Callisthenes by its Egyptian author the Persian version reproduces two—the device of Sikandar going as his own ambassador, and the story of Kaidáfa. Of Persian and Arabic sub­stitutions and additions, not appearing in versions of the Pseudo-Callisthenes other than the Persian, the most important are the account of the birth of Sikandar, his address to the chiefs on his accession to the Iránian throne, and his correspondence with Aristotle as to the succession. The purely Arabic are the story of Kaid, the pilgrimage to the Kaaba, the interview with the angel Isráfíl, and the sentences of the sages at Sikandar's interment.

The appended diagram may help to show the provenance of the Persian version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes.

>genealogy<

Alexander the Great (Sikandar)
Egyptian sources	Historic sources	Romantic sources	Other sources
Pseudo-Callisthenes
Pablaví version			Syriac Christian legend and the metrical version of it by Jacob of Sarúg
Syriac version			References to Zú-'l-karnain (Alexander), &c., in the Kurán
Adapted Persian and Arabic versions
Reigns of Dáráb, Dárá, and Sikandar in the Bástán-náma
ditto in modern Persian version of ditto
ditto in the Sháhnáma