It is generally known that sir William Jones was the first who drew the attention of Orientalists to the Dabistán. This happened five years after the beginning of a new era in Oriental literature, the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta by that illustrious man. It may not appear inopportune here to revive the grateful remembrance of one who acquired the uncontested merit of not only exciting in Asia and Europe a new ardor for Oriental studies, but also of directing them to their great objects—MAN and NATURE; and of endeavoring, by word and deed, to render the attainment of lan­guages conducive to the required knowledge equally easy and attractive.

Having, very early in life, gained an European reputation as a scholar and elegant writer, sir Wil­liam Jones embarked* for the Indian shores with vast projects, embracing, with the extension of sci­ence, the general improvement of mankind.* Four months after his arrival in Calcutta,* he addressed as the first president of the Asiatic Society, a small but select assembly, in which he found minds responsive to his own noble sentiments. A rapid sketch of the first labors of their incomparable leader, may not be irrelevant to our immediate subject.

In his second anniversary discourse,* he proposed a general plan for investigating Asiatic learning, history, and institutions. In his third discourse, he traced the line of investigation, which he faithfully followed, as long as he lived in India, in his annual public speeches: he determined to exhibit the prominent features of the five principal nations of Asia —the Indians, Arabs, Tartars, Persians, and Chi­nese. After having treated in the two following years of the Arabs and Tartars, he considered in his sixth discourse* the Persians, and declared that he had been induced by his earliest investigations to believe, and by his latest to conclude, that three primitive races of men must have migrated origi­nally from a central country, and that this country was Iran, commonly called Persia. Examining with particular care the traces of the most ancient lan­guages and religions which had prevailed in this country, he rejoiced at “a fortunate discovery, for which,” he said, “he was first indebted to Mir Muhammed Hussain, one of the most intelligent Muselmans in India, and which has at once dissi­pated the cloud, and cast a gleam of light on the primeval history of Iran and of the human race, of which he had long despaired, and which could hardly have dawned from any other quarter;” this was, he declared, “the rare and interesting tract on twelve different religions, entitled the DABISTAN.”*

Sir William Jones read the Dabistán for the first time in 1787. I cannot refrain from subjoining here the opinion upon this work, which he communi­cated in a private letter, dated June, 1787, to J. Shore, esq. (afterwards lord Teignmouth); he says: “The greatest part of it would be very interesting to a curious reader, but some of it cannot be translated. It contains more recondite learning, more enter­taining history, more beautiful specimens of poetry, more ingenuity and wit, more indecency and blas­phemy, than I ever saw collected in a single volume;* the two last are not of the author's, but are introduced in the chapters on the heretics and infidels of India.* On the whole, it is the most amusing and instructive book I ever read in Per­sian.”*

We may suppose it was upon the recommendation of sir William Jones, that Francis Gladwin, one of the most distinguished members of the new Society, translated the first chapter of The Dabistán, or “School of Manners,” which title has been preserved from due regard to the meritorious Orientalist, who first published the translation of a part of this work. The whole of it was printed in the year 1809, in Calcutta, and translations of some parts of it were published in The Asiatic Researches.* It is only at present, more than half a century after the first public notice of it by sir W. Jones, that the version of the whole work appears, under the auspices and at the expense of the Oriental Translation Com­mittee of Great Britain and Ireland.

Who was the author of the Dabistán?—Sir Wil­liam Jones thought it was composed by a Muham­medan traveller, a native of Kachmir, named Moh­san , but distinguished by the assumed surname of Fání, “the Perishable.”

Gladwin* calls him Shaikh Muhammed Mohsin, and says that, besides the Dabistán, he has left behind him a collection of poems, among which there is a moral essay, entitled Masdur ul asas, “the source of signs;” he was of the philosophic sect of Súfis, and patronised by the imperial prince Dara Shikoh, whom he survived; among his disciples in philosophy is reckoned Muhammed Tahir, surnamed Ghawri , whose poems are much admired in Hindostan. Mohsan's death is placed in the year of the Hejira 1081 (A. D. 1670).

William Erskine,* in search of the true author of the Dabistán, discovered no other account of Mohsan Fání than that contained in the Gul-i-Râana, “charm­ing rose,” of Lachmi Narayán, who flourished in Hyderabad about the end of the 18th or the begin­ning of the 19th century. This author informs us, under the article of Mohsan Fání, that “Mohsán, a native of Kachmir, was a learned man and a respectable poet; a scholar of Mulla Yakub, Súfi of Kachmir; and that, after completing his studies, he repaired to Delhi, to the court of the emperor Shah Jehan, by whom, in consequence of his great reputation and high acquirements, he was appointed Sadder, ‘chief judge,’ of Allahabad; that there he became a disciple of Shaikh Mohib ulla, an eminent doctor of that city, who wrote the treatise entitled Teswich, ‘the golden Mean.’ Mohsan Fání enjoyed this honorable office till Shah Jehân subdued Balkh; at which time Nazer Muhammed Khan, the Wali, ‘prince,’ of Balkh, having effected his escape, all his property was plundered. It happened that in his library there was found a copy of Mohsan's Diwán, or ‘poeti­cal Collection,’ which contained an ode in praise of the (fugitive) Wáli. This gave such offence to the emperor, that the Sadder was disgraced and lost his office, but was generously allowed a pen­sion. He retired (as Lachmi informs us) to his native country, where he passed the rest of his days without any public employment, happy and respected. His house was frequented by the most distinguished men of Kachmir, and among the rest by the governors of the province. He had lectures at his house, being accustomed to read to his audience the writings of certain authors of eminence, on which he delivered moral and philosophical comments. Several scholars of note, among whom were Taher Ghawri (before men­tioned) and Haji Aslem Salem, issued from his school.” He died on the before mentioned date. “It is to be observed that Lachmi does not mention the Dabistán as a production of Mohsan Fání, though, had he written it, it must have been his most remarkable work.”

Erskine goes on to recapitulate some particulars mentioned in the Dabistán of the author's life, and concludes that it seems very improbable that Mohsan Fání and the author of the Dabistán were the same person. In this conclusion, and upon the same grounds, he coincides with the learned Vans Ken­nedy.*

Erskine further quotes,* from a manuscript copy of the Dabistán which he saw in the possession of Mulla Firuz, in Bombay, the following marginal note annexed to the close of chapter XIV.: “In the city of Daurse, a king of the Parsis, of the race of the imperial Anushirván, the Shet Dawer Huryár, conversed with Amír Zulfikar Ali-al-Husaini (on whom be the grace of God!), whose poetical name was Mobed Shah.” This Zulfikar Ali, who­ever he was, the Mulla supposes to be the author of the Dabistán. Erskine judiciously subjoins: “On so slight an authority, I would not willingly set up an unknown author as the compiler of that work; but it is to be remarked that many verses of Mobed's are quoted in the Dabistán, and there is certainly reason to suspect that the poetical Mobed, whoever he may be, was the author of that compilation.”

“To this let it be added, that the author of the Dabistán, in his account of Mobed Serosh, says* that one Muhammed Mohsan, a man of learning, told him that he had heard Mobed Serosh give three hundred and sixty proofs of the existence of God. This at least makes Muhammed Mohsan, whoever he may be, a different person from the author of the Dabistán.”

I cannot omit adding the following notice annexed to the note quoted above: “Between the printed copy and Mulla Firuz's manuscript before alluded to, a difference occurs in the very beginning of the work. After the poetical address to the Deity and the praise of the prophet, with which the Dabistán, like most other Muselman works, commences, the manuscript reads: ‘Mohsan Fani says,’ and two moral couplets succeed. In the printed copy, the words ‘Mohsan Fani says,’ —which should occur between the last word of the first page and the first word of the second—are omitted. As no account of the author is given in the beginning of the book, as is usual with Muselman writers, Mulla Firuz conjectures that a careless or ignorant reader may have considered the words ‘Mohsan Fáni says’ as forming the commencement of the volume, and as containing the name of the author of the whole book; whereas they merely indicate the author of the couplets that follow, and would rather show that Mohsan Fani was not the writer of the Dabistán. This conjecture, I confess, appears to me at once extremely ingenious and very probable. A com­parison of different manuscripts might throw more light on the question.”

Concerning the opinion last stated, I can but remark, that in a manuscript copy of the Dabistán, which I procured from the library of the king of Oude, and caused to be transcribed for me, the very same words: “Mohsan Fani says,” occur (as I have observed in vol. I. p. 6, note 3), preceding a rabaâ, or quatrain, which begins:

“The world is a book full of knowledge and of justice,” etc. etc.

These lines seem well chosen as an introduction to the text itself, which begins by a summary of the whole work, exhibiting the titles of the twelve chap­ters of which it is composed. As the two copies mentioned (the one found in Bombay, the other in Lucknow) contain the same words, they can hardly be taken for an accidental addition of a copyist. I found no remark upon this point in Mr. Shea's translation, who had two manuscript copies to refer to. Whatever it be, it must still remain unde­cided, whether Mohsan Fani was there named only as the author of the next quatrain or of the whole book, although either hypothesis may not appear destitute of probability; nor can it be considered strange to admit that the name of Mohsan Fani was borne by more than one individual. I shall be per­mitted to continue calling the author of the Dabistán by the presumed name of Mohsan Fani.

Dropping this point, we shall now search for information upon his person, character, and knowledge in the work itself. Is he really a native of Kachmir, as here before stated?

Although in the course of his book he makes fre­quent mention of Kachmir, he never owns himself a native of that country. In one part of his narra­tive, he expressly alludes to another home. He begins the second chapter upon the religion of the Hindus (vol. II. p. 2) by these words: “As incon­stant fortune had torn away the author from the shores of Persia, and made him the associate of the believers in transmigration and those who addressed their prayers to idols and images, and worshipped demons* * * *.” Now we know that Kachmir is considered as a very ancient seat, nay as the very cradle, of the doctrine of transmigration, and of Hinduism in general, with all its tenets, rites, and customs; and that from the remotest times to the present it was inhabited by numerous adherents of this faith; how could the author, if a native of Kachmir, accuse inconstant fortune for having made him elsewhere an associate of these very reli­gionists with whom, from his birth, he must have been accustomed to live? The passage just quoted leaves scarce a doubt that the shores of Persia, from which he bewails having been torn, were really his native country.

When was he born?

He no where adduces the date of his birth; the earliest period of his life which he mentions, is the year of the Hejira 1028 (A. D. 1618):* in this year the Mobed Hushíar brought the author to Balik Nátǹa, a great adept in the Yoga, or ascetic devotion, to receive the blessing of that holy man, who pro­nounced these words over him: “This boy shall acquire the knowledge of God.” It is not stated in what place this happened. The next earliest date is five years later, 1033 of the Hejira (A. D. 1623).* He says that, in his infancy, he came with his friends and relations from Patna to the capital Akbar-abad, and was carried in the arms of the Mobed Hushíar to Chatur Vapah, a famous ascetic of those days. The pious man rejoiced at it, and bestowed his bless­ing on the future writer of the Dabistán; he taught him the mantra, “prayer,” of the sun, and appointed one of his disciples to remain with the boy until the age of manhood. We have here a positive state­ment: in the year 1623 A. D., he was “in his infancy,” and carried “in the arms of his pro­tector.” Giving the widest extension to these expressions, we can hardly think him to have been either much older or younger than seven or eight years: not much older, for being in some way car­ried in the arms of the Mobed; nor much younger, having been taught a hymn to the sun, and he might have been a boy of three years when he received the first-mentioned blessing from Balik Natha. We may therefore suppose him to have been born about the year 1615 of our era, in the tenth year of the reign of the emperor Jehangir. We collect in his work fifty-three dates relative to himself between the year 1618 and 1653. From 1627 to 1643, we see him mostly in Kachmir and Lahore, travel­ling between these two places; in 1643, he was at the holy sepulchre, probably at Meshhad, which appears to be the furthermost town to the West which he reached; from 1634 to 1649, he dwelt in several towns of the Panjab and Guzerat; the next year he proceeded to Sikakul, the remotest town in the East which he says he has visited; there he fell sick, and sojourned during 1653, at which epoch, if the year of his birth be correctly inferred, he had attained his thirty-eighth year. We have no other date of his death than that before stated: if he died in 1670, it was in the eleventh year of the reign of Aurengzéb, or Alemgir. Mohsan Fani would there­fore have passed his infancy, youth, and manhood mostly in India, under the reigns of the three emperors, Jehangír, Shah Jehan, and Aurengzeb.* It was the state of religion, prevailing in those days in Hindostan that he describes.

From his earliest age he appears to have led an active life, frequently changing his residence. Such a mode of life belongs to a travelling merchant or philosopher, and in our author both qualities might have been united, as is often the case in Asia. Moh­san Fani, during his travels, collected the diversified and curious materials for the Dabistán; he observed with his own eyes the manners and customs of dif­ferent nations and sects. He says himself at the conclusion of his work: “After having much fre­quented the meetings of the followers of the five before-said religions,” Magians, Hindus, Jews, Nazareans, and Muselmans, “the author wished and undertook to write this book; and what­ever in this work, treating of the religions of dif­ferent countries, is stated concerning the creed of different sects, has been taken from their books, and for the account of the persons belong­ing to any particular sect, the author's informa­tion was imparted to him by their adherents and sincere friends, and recorded literally, so that no trace of partiality nor aversion might be perceived: in short, the writer of these pages performed no more than the task of a translator.” This decla­ration, even to a severe critic, may appear satisfac­tory. Sir William Jones called him* a learned and accurate, a candid and ingenious author. A fur­ther appreciation of Mohsan Fani's character is reserved for subsequent pages. We can, however, here state, that he sought the best means of infor­mation, and gives us what he had acquired not only from personal experience, which is always more or less confined; not only from oral instruction, which is too often imperfectly given and received; but also from an attentive perusal of the best works which he could procure upon the subject of his investiga­tion. Of the latter authorities which the author produces, some are known in Europe, and we may judge of the degree of accuracy and intelligence with which he has made use of them. Of others, nothing at all, or merely the name, is known. This is generally the case with works relative to the old Persian religion, which is the subject of the first chapter, divided into fifteen sections.

The authorities which he adduces for this chapter are as follow:

Besides other writings of Zertusht, in great num­ber, which the author has seen.

These works are most probably of a mystical nature, and belong to a particular sect, but may contain, however, some interesting traditions or facts of ancient history. Of the twenty-three books just enumerated, a part of the third only is known to us, namely, that of the Desátir.