HERE follows in Mirkhond’s original work the history of the Persian kings of the Peshdâdian and Kaiânian dynasties, the earliest rulers in Persia. As this part had been already translated by Mr. David Shea in A.D. 1832 for the old Oriental Translation Fund, Mr. Rehatsek did not think it necessary to re-translate it. Shea’s translation not being now easily procurable, it was my first intention to reprint it as the third volume of this series, so that the whole of Part I. of Mirkhond’s history would be complete in one set. Having ascertained, however, that copies of Shea’s work are obtainable at Mr. Quaritch’s, 15, Piccadilly, and can also be perused at the libraries of the Royal Asiatic Society and Royal Institution in Albemarle Street, at the British Museum, the Bodleian, and London Library, St. James’s Square, it was decided not to go to the expense of a reprint, but to give here a short summary of the work in question.
Mirkhond tells us that the first Peshdâdian and the first king was Kaiomars or Kaiomarth. In the total absence of dates it is impossible to fix any time for the commencement of his reign except that it must have been many hundred years before the Christian era. He was succeeded by his grandson Houshung, who, murdered by the demons when praying in a cave, was followed by his son Tehmuras, surnamed the Enslaver of Demons, as during his reign he completely subdued them. Tehmuras was followed by the great and mighty Jemsheed, but whether he was the son, brother, or nephew of the deceased king is not definitely settled. The reign of Jemsheed fills some twenty odd pages in Shea’s translation, and, among other things, this king is said to have ‘divided the people into four classes, and enjoined that no individual should engage in the pursuits of any class excepting his own. The first consisted of wise and learned men; the second of the military and the royal retinue; the third of those who plough and sow the ground; the fourth of tradesmen and artificers. With respect to this distribution, he said: “As the four elements are the cause of perpetuating the various species, so these four classes are the means of civilizing the world.”’ Then follow the details of the duties of each of these classes. Curiously enough, among the Hindus there are the Brahmans or priestly or learned class, the Kshutrya or warlike class, the Vaishya or agricultural class, and the Shoodra or menial class. Whether Jemsheed is the original author of this system has still to be settled, for in the absence of both Persian and Hindu dates it is difficult to fix the time when these arrangements were introduced either into Persia or Hindustan.
After a fabulously long reign, varying from seven hundred to three hundred years, Jemsheed appears to have been attacked, defeated, and succeeded on the throne by Zohâk, the Arab, who reigned also for a fabulous period of several hundred years, and was eventually disposed of by Gâvah the Blacksmith, who headed an insurrection against Zohâk’s oppression and tyranny. Gâvah seems to have been rather a sensible man, for, after a successful revolution, when offered the throne, he said: ‘I am not one of the royal family, nor do I possess the qualifications necessary for the discharge of that important duty:
‘One whose profession lies in iron, forges and bellows,
Would commit a sin by aspiring to the kingly state,’
and so he declined the honour.* On this, Feridoon, a descendant of Jemsheed, and in concealment on account of the designs of Zohâk against him, was discovered and made king. Feridoon, whose praises have been sung along with others of his dynasty by Firdausi in his great epic ‘The Shahnamah, or Book of the Kings of Persia,’ reigned for many years, and was rebelled against by his two sons Selm and Tûr, who treacherously slew his favourite son and their half-brother Iraj. After a reign of five hundred years Feridoon resigned his throne to his grandson Minucheher, who commenced by attacking, defeating, and slaying the murderers of his father Iraj, and then ruled prosperously. ‘But after the auspicious fortune of Minucheher had for nearly fifty years been exercised in expanding the wings of benevolence over the feeble and the husbandmen, suddenly the malignant Deity, on the coin of whose sincerity you can build no hope, and tyrannic Fate, on whose friendship no reliance can be placed, effected a change and impelled Afrasiâb, who was descended from Tûr, to commence hostilities against the sovereign of the human race.’ After a long struggle Afrasiâb was obliged to retire from besieging Minucheher in the fort of Ámal, formerly the populous, wealthy, and impregnable capital of Tabaristan, and a sort of truce was established between them. Minucheher then turned his attention to the administration of his government, and delivered a long speech on the respective duties of a king to his subjects and vice versâ, which might be perused with advantage even by the kings of the present day. After a reign of one hundred and twenty years he appointed his son Nauzer his successor, and died shortly afterwards. Nauzer was attacked and defeated by the Afrasiâb mentioned above, and an eclipse which took place at the time of the battle between them, has been the means of fixing a date on other grounds than tradition only. Shea, in a footnote at page 193, says: ‘According to the most probable accounts the reign of Nauzer falls between B.C. 798 and 768. The field of battle [between Nauzer and Afrasiâb] was in Dehestân between 38° and 39° north latitude, and 54° 30' longitude from Paris. It can be proved from astronomical tables that on April 4, B.C. 778, there occurred a solar eclipse in the meridian and parallel of Dehestân, in which 10 digits 10' of the sun’s disc were concealed by the moon’s; it began at 2.23 in the afternoon, and lasted until 5.3 p.m. This calculation not only fixes the period of Nauzer’s reign, but may also serve to fix preceding and future dates in Persian history.’
Shortly after the battle Nauzer was put to death, and the reign of Afrasiâb in Iran commenced; but such tyranny was practised that a rebellion was got up under Zaul, the son of Saum, and Zaub, the son of Tehmasp, the son of Minucheher.* Afrasiâb was defeated, and Zaub placed on the throne B.C. 766, the former having reigned twelve years from B.C. 778. After a reign of thirty years, Zaub resigned B.C. 736 in favour of his brother, or, as some say, his minister Gurshâsf, who also reigned for thirty years, to B.C. 706. ‘A respectable writer tells us that in the majority of histories the dynasty of the Peshdâdian kings ended with Gurshâsf, after whom, by the unanimous consent of all writers, the sovereign power was vested in the Kaiânian line,’ say about B.C. 706.
Though a date has been fixed to the end of the Peshdâdian dynasty, it is to be regretted that no dates can be given to their earlier kings, and also that so little is really known about them. Further discoveries in Egypt and elsewhere may throw some light on the subject. In Egypt it may turn out that this dynasty was connected with the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, who formed the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth dynasties of the Egyptian kings, and about whom next to nothing as yet is known. It is supposed that they ruled at Sân from B.C. 2214 to 1703, some five hundred years, and that they were foreigners.
Again, further discoveries in India, Assyria, and Babylonia may reveal something more about these Peshdâdians, who may also have made conquests in these countries, or emigrations to them. Mr. Shea, at page 206 of his translation, gives an interesting note, in which it is stated that some of these kings of the Peshdâdian dynasty, such as Jemsheed, Zohâk, and Feridoon, are said to have reigned six hundred, one thousand, and five hundred years respectively. It has been supposed that these names represented dynasties, and ‘to the three dynasties of Jemsheed, Zohâk, and Feridoon, we find among the Greeks the three corresponding dynasties of the Chaldæans, Arabs, and Beletâras, in the series of the kings of Nineveh and Assyria.’ In the first volume of this work, at page 108, Mirkhond mentions Zohâk, the Arab, as living at the time of the prophet Hûd, who lived some time between Noah and Abraham (page 98).
Of this dynasty, Kaikobad was the first monarch, and his first business appears to have been to declare war against Afrasiâb, whose dynasty it is supposed was still extant, for Afrasiâb himself was dethroned from Iran B.C. 766, or sixty years previously. Anyhow, war was declared, and Rustam Dastan, the great Persian hero, now appears upon the scene, and mainly by his efforts Afrasiâb was defeated, and sued for peace, which was granted. Kaikobad then reigned tranquilly for a very long period, and was succeeded by Kai Kâoos [Cambyses?], some say the son, others the grandson of the first king. Kai Kâoos appears to have been engaged in wars a great part of his life, the descriptions of which occupy some twenty-four pages in Shea’s translation, intermixed with stories about his son Siyâwesh, the hero Rustam, and others. After a long reign he retired to the quiet of a religious life, and was succeeded by his grandson Kai Khusrau [Cyrus?], the son of Siyâwesh, who had been murdered by order of Afrasiâb.
Kai Khusrau appears to have been a great king. He first settled the administrative affairs of his kingdom, and then declared war against Afrasiâb for the murder of his father. The first expedition under his uncle Faribarz ended in defeat, but the second under Gudarz was successful, and after two bloody battles Afrasiâb and his generals were defeated, his capital and country taken, and Afrasiâb himself, after wandering as a fugitive for some time in different parts of the world, was captured and slain. Mirkhond says that after this Kai Khusrau removed from Media to Balkh, and whilst in that country, having made a long speech on the subject of retirement for religious duties, he appointed Lohorasp [Hystaspes?] his successor, and then departed from among the people, and no one ever after found a trace of him. Shea, at page 262 of his translation, gives the following extract from Malcolm’s ‘History of Persia’:
‘The history of Kai Khusrau corresponds in several particulars with the history of Cyrus as given by Herodotus. Siyâwesh was the son of Kai Kâoos, but educated by Rustam. He was compelled by court intrigues to fly to Afrasiâb, the King of Turan [Turkestan], whose daughter he married, and by whom he was afterwards slain. He left a son called Kai Khusrau, whom Afrasiâb resolved to put to death lest he should revenge his father’s death; but this cruel intention was defeated by the humanity of his minister Pirân Wisah, who preserved the child, committed him to the care of a shepherd, and had him educated in a manner suitable to his rank. The young prince afterwards effected his escape to the court of his paternal grandfather, Kai Kâoos, and was placed on the throne of Persia during the lifetime of that monarch. The first act of his reign was to make war upon his maternal grandfather Afrasiâb, whose armies were commanded by Pirân Wisah. This humane minister was defeated and slain; Afrasiâb met with the same fate, and his territories fell into the possession of his victorious grandson. Kai Khusrau, after this conquest and many other achievements, determined to spend the remainder of his days in religious retirement; he proceeded to the spot he had selected, where, we are told, he disappeared; and his train, among whom were some of the most renowned warriors of Persia, perished in a dreadful tempest. This tradition seems to allude to the slaughter of Cyrus and of his whole army by the Scythians under Tomyris.’
Lohorasp [Hystaspes?] is said to have been the grandson of Kai Kâoos’s brother, and it was with some difficulty that Kai Khusrau got the nobles of Iran to consent to the nomination of this person as his successor. Lohorasp had two sons, Gushtasp [Darius Hystaspes] and Zareer, both of whom he rather neglected, ‘distinguishing the sons of Kai Kâoos and those of former princes beyond his own children.’ On this account Gushtasp got up a plot against his father, which being discovered he fled to the territories of Rûm. Here it may be stated that in Oriental histories, Rûm is used as a general and indefinite name given to the countries west of the Euphrates, as far as the shores of the Mediterranean, Bosphorus, and Euxine.
The adventures of Gushtasp, in the kingdom of Rûm, are given at some length, but eventually he returned with an army, and Lohorasp seems to have resigned the throne in his favour. During the reign of Gushtasp, Zerdusht, or Zoroaster, is said to have appeared in Azarbaijan [Media]. Shea gives at page 274 a short memoir respecting the age in which this Zoroaster, the author of the Zenda Vesta, and the reformer of the religion of the Magi, appeared. and fixes the date about the middle of the sixth century, B.C.
It is a question whether Gushtasp himself became a convert to this religion or not. The subject, however, seems to have been a cause of dispute between him and Arjasp, the prince of Turkestan, which led as usual to a bloody war, in which Gushtasp was victorious. Mirkhond then relates the story of Esfendiar [Xerxes?], the son of Gushtasp, first his imprisonment, then his release, his adventures and battles with Arjasp, then his campaigns in the further East, afterwards in the West, and finally his fight with Rustam, by whom he was slain, after each had recounted at length the history of his life and his heroic deeds.
According to an extract from Malcolm’s Persia, at page 310 of Shea’s translation, ‘Esfendiar is reckoned, with some probability, the Xerxes of the Greeks, who led the famous expedition of the Persians into that country. The Greeks always speak of Xerxes as the sovereign of Persia, but Esfendiar never had the name of king, though for a time when viceroy at Balkh he possessed regal power. Besides, it is probable that Esfendiar had been associated in sovereignty by a father who is stated to have always employed him in the command of his armies, and the government of a part of the empire.’
Gushtasp avenged his son’s death in the usual way by battle and slaughter, and then resigned his kingdom to his grandson, Behmen, son of Esfendiar.
The historians of Fars call this prince Darâz Dast, or longhanded, because his authority extended over the Seven Climates, and he is supposed to be the Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks. After avenging his father’s death, it is stated: ‘In the course of his reign Behmen deposed Bakhtanassar’s son from the government of Babel, which he committed to one of Lohorasp’s sons, named Kurêsh, whose mother was descended from the children of Israel; he likewise commanded him to send back the captives of the children of Israel to the territory of the Holy Temple, and to appoint as their governor whomsoever they themselves should select. Kurêsh therefore assembled the children of Israel and appointed Daniel to the government. It is related in some histories that Lohorasp, having deposed Bakhtanassar from the government of Babel, permitted the Israelitish captives to return in order that the kingdom of Shaum [Syria] should be cultivated. They conformed to these orders, and in the days of Behmen had brought the territory of the Holy Temple to the highest state of cultivation; but Behmen, having sent an ambassador to the children of Israel, their king put him to death, which so aroused his indignation, that he commanded Bakhtanassar a second time to lay waste the country of a people who neither obeyed God nor the decrees of the king. Bakhtanassar therefore, setting out with his army, laid the Holy Temple and the region of Shaum entirely waste, and returned to Irak Araby with one hundred thousand young children, whom he had borne away into captivity; but all knowledge is with the Almighty.’
When Behmen became old he committed the empire to the profound talents of his daughter Homai, to the exclusion of his son Sassân, who became a recluse. Homai afterwards bore a child named Dârâh [Darius II.], who succeeded her, and became a great and mighty king, even defeating Filqûs [Philip], Prince of Rûm, obtaining an annual tribute from him, and marrying his daughter, but sending her back to her father on account of her unpleasant breath. ‘At this period the illustrious princess was pregnant with Eskandar [Alexander the Great], and her father, to save his reputation, not only kept the matter from being made public, but endeavoured to suppress the secret altogether.’
Dârâh left the empire to his son Dârâ, or Dârâh, also styled Dârâ the Less, who was defeated by Eskandar, and on the day of his escape from the battle assassinated by two persons of Hamadan belonging to his court. ‘The sovereign of Rûm, being informed of this event, hastened with all speed to the pillow of Dârâ. The heir to the realms of the Kaiânian line, who had still a spark of life remaining, heaved a cold sigh, having contemplated on the pages of his present state the image of his enemies’ exultation, according to the saying: “The life of man, if prolonged even for one day after his enemy’s death, is regarded as a great advantage.” Eskandar placed on his lap the head of Dârâ, and kissing it repeatedly, declared with solemn oaths and sincere protestations: “I was unacquainted with this plot, and never sanctioned such a proceeding.” As Dârâ had received a deadly wound, and all hope of life was now cut off, he therefore entreated Eskandar to retaliate on his assassins, to bind himself in marriage to his daughter Roushang [Roxana], and not invest a stranger with dominion over the princes of Faristân. Eskandar cheerfully accepted these testamentary instructions, and undertook to fulfil all his requests. And so died the last of the Kaiânian kings.
Considerable interest is attached to the Kaiânian, or, as it is called by the Greeks, Archæmenian dynasty, on account of the mention in the Bible of some of its kings under the names of Ahasuerus, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. It is difficult to fix the exact date of this line of kings, and it can only be assumed that the dynasty began about 700, and ended about B.C. 330. It is impossible to make out from the Bible a series of correct dates fitting in with the reigns of the four kings named above; neither can these be fixed in any way from Persian historical sources. But supposing that the succession of these Persian kings as given by Mirkhond is correct, and further supposing that Kai Kâoos, Kai Khusrau, Lohorasp, Gushtasp, and Behmen represent Cambyses or Ahasuerus, Cyrus, Hystaspes, Darius and Artaxerxes, it may be fairly imagined that such a line of succession is not opposed to the manner in which the four kings are spoken of in the Old Testament, and that their dates might be something between B C. 650 and 400.
From Persian history it must also be inferred that Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar and his son were not independent sovereigns in Babylon and Assyria, but ruled or reigned under the Kaiânian dynasty of Persia. Space will not, however, here admit of any further remarks on this portion of Mirkhond’s history translated by David Shea, and the translation of Mr. E. Rehatsek must now be continued.