Aḫlāq-i Jalālī (=Lavami' al-Ishrāq fi makārim al-Aḫlāq) - Practical Philosophy of the Muhammedan People

Re-written and arranged from Ak.-nās. 1. (of the second Treatise), where we learn that Abú Aly Mashkovy’s Kitāb Tahārat, from which the previous materials were drawn, carries us no farther: and we now come upon the works of the well-known Avicenna. For this and the following book the Muhammedans profess to be less indebted to the Greeks than for the preceding one. But there is a Greek or Latin, or Byzantine, writer to whom they refer under the name of Abrúsan, as their principal foreign authority. (Ak.-nās. ubi sup.) The laws of conversion have not yet been sufficiently attended to, to enable us to identify the name.

The doctrine is overstrained, but it is Aristotelian. “It is chiefly the want of food, and the various means employed for supplying it, that produces the wide varieties of manners and modes of life in men and animals. By the constitution of nature, different animals delight in different kinds of food — some in herbs, others in flesh, others again in both — and in subservience to the facility of acquiring such their natural nourishment, some animals are solitary and others are gregarious.” Polit. i. 5. (Gillie.) Shelter, clothing, and firing, all so indispensable in our part of the globe, are here not noticed. This then seems to be the primal cause of the inferiority of Asiatic civilization. Political society is kept together by want, as domestic society is by affection. In Asia, the wants of man are less urgent, and therefore society is less widely and intimately united.

The origin of towns and states, as well as houses, according to Cicero, Off. ii. 21. “For although in the course of nature men are sure to congregate, yet it was for the purpose of preserving their property that they took refuge in cities;” which was exemplified during the middle ages, when the fortification of the boroughs originated political power in the tiers étát.

This is properly the origin of the domestic state (Arist. Pol. i. 7. Cic. Off. i. 17.), and would have been considered first, had this been a treatise of general, rather than moral, philosophy. As it is, they consider the domestic rather as a derivative than an element of the political state: and rightly — because, though the first does not derive its existence, it does derive its duties, from the appointment of the second. How can our conduct to wives and servants be determined, except by reference to the law of the land? Or how are we to educate our children, except in harmony with the feelings, practices, and expectations of others? The problem of the Section is, in fact, not how were houses first, but how are they still, required. Even Aristotle makes the same intentional oversight, on the same grounds. Pol. i. 2. , &c. “That the state is prior by nature to the individual, is clear; because, if each, when separated, is not self-sufficient, he is but as any other particle of any other whole.” Here then we may refer again to note 49, p. 141.

Arist. Pol. i. 3. “The elements of a family — master and servant, husband and wife, father and children.” Either two of these relatives, with the addition of property, make a quasi family: the elements in the text are necessary to complete one. Hesiod begins with man and wife and labouring ox. (Erg.)

More should have been said on the external relations of the state, which we are left to collect from Sects. 2 and 5. Of these the most comprehensive sketch is given by Cicero, Off. ii. 3.

To which Túsy adds, that it ought to be safe, in case of earthquake, from the downfall of other buildings. — Ak.-nās. ubi sup.

Some such anecdote was current of Demosthenes, “who used to say, he reproached himself as often as he chanced to be surpassed by the day-break industry of artisans.” — Cicero, Tuse. Disp. iv. 19.

Little more or less than Ak.-nās. 2. (2d Treatise.)

See in Sect. 5. pp. 127, 128.

After Aristotle, Pol. ii. 6. “The goods necessary to man were not found to be either of easy conveyance or of constant use. Markets would often lay at a distance. It became necessary therefore to,” &c. These views are adopted and carried out by Adam Smith, I. iv.

The further treatment of this division is omitted.

See in Sect. 5. p. 132, note 37.

That is, is now held by a bad title, the present owners or some of their predecessors having acquired it by fraudulent or illegal means; such as usury, which (after the Jewish) their code prohibits; or having failed to devote the assigned portion to the religious expenditures noticed at the end of the Section.

A remarkable instance of the influence of Grecian authority. It actually prevailed over that of their early ecclesiastical writers. The ancient opinion of pastoral innocence is well known, and is countenanced by Aristot. Pol. i. 6 and 7; and by Cicero, Off. i. 42; De Sen. 15—17, &c. The early preference of the Arabs for trade may have proceeded on the principle omne ignotum pro magnifico. They were themselves at first a nomadic people, and saw as much virtue in the contrary way of life as others did in theirs. Cicero, Off. i. 42, rightly remarks, that trade is either a liberal or a mean occupation, according as it is conducted on a grand or a petty scale.

Dealers in wine, we learn from the Alf Lailat, were generally Jews or Christians. Its use was prohibited (Kurān ii. 219. and v. 99.) as productive of more evil than good. But the Caliphs allowed it to be sold as a medicine, in which stage their law was a copy (in all but the penalty) of an old law of Locris. “If any drink wine unmixed, except as a remedy and by prescription of a physician, let him be punished by death.” (Athenæus x. p. 226. ap. Gillie ii. 143.) By the Mosaic (Lev. x. 8. 11. Numb. vi. 3.) and the Hindu law, wine was so far illicit, that the pure classes were forbidden to drink it. And at the end of the 4th century, A.D., wine was first interdieted in the Persian empire for its mischief, and afterwards permitted for its utility, by Bahrām Gúr, the contemporary of Theodosius. (Shāhnāmah.) Montesquieu justifies its prohibition in tropical climates from the state of the blood; legislators, however, were more probably influenced by the state of the feelings. Where exhaustion is so general, the stimulus is sure to be abused. Muhammad’s law has certainly limited the frequency of this abuse, though it may have added to the violence of debauches once begun. (In Sparta it was restricted. Plato, Laws, i.)

The further treatment of this division is omitted.

Cf. in Sect. 3. p. 92, and Sect. 8. p. 188. Distinction is more strictly hereditary with them than with us; so much so as to be independent of the fluctuations in wealth and power. — Respect has ceased to wait upon obedience, and many among a great man’s servants are more revered than their master.

Of provisions, scil., which is still an indictable offence at English common law (Blackst. Com. IV. c. xii. s. 8.); though the notion of its being injurious to the public was exploded by Adam Smith, W. of N. IV. c. v., and was previously little acted on.

Kurān ii. 219. Wine, music, dancing, dice, and debauchery seem to have gone together in the East from time immemorial. — Requiring stimulus more, the Asiatics are likewise more susceptible to it when applied. Cf. Isaiah v. 11. “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts,” &c.: and ibid. xxiv. 8, 9.

After Aristot. Pol. i. c. 6. “Those occupations are vile and sordid which hurt the health or deform the body; those are truly servile which may be exercised by the corporeal powers alone; and those are the meanest and most contemptible which require not any vigorous exertion either of mind or body.” Cicero, Off. i. 42, is fuller; but, like these writers, allows himself to be confused by the question of utility to others. If this was the view with which vile occupations were pursued, it might indeed redeem their character: as it is, the fact of necessity no more ennobles the caterers to vile wants, than it does the wants themselves. In Sect. 3. Book iii. the subject is renewed.

This is all that is given under the head of keeping, which he considers only a negative of spending.

In Kurān c. ii. v. 215, alms are enjoined to be given to — 1. relations; 2. orphans; 3. the indigent; 4. Muslimāns; in fact, in this order, to every one who needed them: but in verse 220 it is added, only out of what is superfluous. The practice is a fundamental point in their ceremonials. It is certainly connected with the Jewish tithes, (the three species of which see briefly stated in Tobit i. 7, 8,) and hence it is popularly considered as a tithe (even by Gibbon, c. 1.); but the proportion varied, and there is much intricacy in the law that determines it. See Hidāyat, Book of Alms.

The practice of approaching princes with a gift is rational, and proper enough in the outset of society, and before the sums and sources of revenue have been accurately settled. For the prince being a creature of society, constituted for certain purposes, is of course to be paid for his trouble, as well as any other professional person. There are numerous instances, even in more advanced stages, of the judicatures being supported by commission on the value in dispute, as appears to have been the case in Greece when Hesiod wrote. (See passim.) With the supreme power the title and the arrangement is precisely similar: after public provision made for the purpose, the practice ought of course to cease. But in this, as in many instances, the privilege long survives the right; or rather, the right is supposed to be in power, instead of to it; and the privilege attached not only to the supreme authorities, but all his representatives. Thus David — “Eating up my people as they eat bread,” Psalms xiv. 4. liii. 4.; and Homer, (II. A.); and Hesiod, ( 261.); till it seems, as in all the seriptural writings, to be inseparable from the idea of sovereignty, (“The daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift,” &c.) — but prohibited to subordinates, Exodus xxiii. 8. “Thou shalt take no gift.” Cf. Herodotus, Clio, c. xcvi.

These national scourges consisting always of the undue operation of some of these elementary powers; which are therefore said to be less strong than the act by which they are averted. Cf. the well-known passage from which these texts are taken, Matth. vi. 1—4.

It is very clear from this and other parts of the passage, that it is intended to apply to the first division of the third head, instead of to the second head, which treats of gifts without a purpose. Many other marks of haste are observable throughout the Section. Besides expenses for duty, advantage, and precaution, those for amusement or gratification not amounting to gain, might have afforded an instructive passage.

So in both the MSS. in the translator’s use. But the corresponding passage of Ak.-nās. has one instead of three, which last seems a slip of the pen by some very early copyist.

The black mail of the Scotch Highlanders is a familiar example of the payments intended. There are few times and places in Asia exempt from such necessities. In the text they seem argued on as inevitable evils.

Re-arranged from Akh.-nas. 3. (2d Treatise.) The anecdote of Hajāj and his chamberlain is new. Here it is that their Greek authorities seem first to fail them. (See note 1 to Sect. 1 of this Book.)

Precisely the three objects assigned in the marriage-service of our own church, only that the first is not sufficiently expressive of the social, as opposed to the animal craving. In the Akh.-nās. it is omitted altogether as a distinct head, but more dwelt upon as subsidiary to the third. See note 12.

Where the law is unequal to public protection, the security of individuals depends on the numbers of the family to which they belong. Hence, in turbulent societies, the feeling of clanship and the value attached to children — “Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.” The feeling was of course encouraged by the legislators, for the same reason. The early Arabs held public rejoicings at the birth of a male. See in the laws of Menu, and cf. Æschyl. Choëph. 501. Herod. I. cxxxvi.

The law originally prohibited the marriage of proprietors with their own slaves (it was often evaded), but they were allowed to marry those of others with the owner’s consent. The essence of marriage was a reciprocal engagement on either side, to recognise, on the other, the rights of the connubial relation. This engagement the law refused to consider serious or complete, unless concluded in the presence of witnesses. Ecclesiastical rites were commonly superadded. See Hidāyat, Book of Marriage, cs. i. and viii.

Hence one reason and one advantage of the prevalence of polygamy in insecure, and still more in vagrant societies. It multiplied the sources of security and the means of union.

Juv. vi. 161.

Taken probably from some similar and serious enumeration of qualities that ought to be sought for.

Ibid. 163.

Ibid. 210—240. “Imperat ergo viro,” &c.

Almost equally ungallant is Aristotle, Pol. i. 8. “In slaves the faculties of deliberation and resolution are almost entirely null; in women they are weak and dependent.” The women of Asia are no better than grown children. True it is that the men are partly obnoxious to the charge of having made them so; but equally true, that they are ignorant it can be remedied, and that till it is remedied, they can only speak of them as they find them. Again, there is a difference in the mental characteristics of the two sexes, that can never be removed, being based upon that of physical power and domestic position. All that operates to the disadvantage of women in this difference, the climate of Asia tends to aggravate.

Strangely enough the seclusion is put as a compliment rather than a restraint; and no doubt, when it had once become an established practice, the neglect of it would be insulting. Hence the anger of Candaules’ wife, Herod. I. x., who was most likely unveiled only, not undressed. (Cf. Esther i.) Persons of the harem are technically those within the prohibited degrees of affinity, including domestics, who were generally slaves. (Hidāyat, Marriage, c. ii. Kurān iv. 20, 21. and xxiv. 31, 32. and xxxiii. 56.)

Monogamy is so far a state of nature, as it is the most perfect form of marriage; and therefore that developement of the relation which she may be supposed to have intended (see note 10, p. 107). Unfortunately, however, these perfect developements are generally thwarted by other tendencies equally conferred by her; so that the immediately and the ultimately natural states very seldom coincide. Nor do they here. When parties are discontented with a present partner, the immediate tendency is to take another. Women, being the weaker party, are not allowed to do this. But men, being controlled only by men, have done and do it, in most parts and periods of the world: nay, in some parts and periods it is inconceivable and undesirable, other things remaining as they are, that they should not do it. But wherever nature’s immediate and ultimate purposes are brought into collision, it will be found that means are provided gradually to correct the aberration. Sages point out, legislators in time perceive, and communities acknowledge, the preferable course. It is adopted in some single instance; the adopters become enviable and powerful in consequence; and the same practice is forced upon some, and imitated by others. Exactly in this state of transition was the question of marriage in ancient Greece. Polygamy was disapproved, but not disallowed. In the Roman polity the convictional improvement appeared in a legal form. From Rome it was of course adopted by Christendom. In the north of Europe monogamy preceded civilization (Tacit. Germ.); and hence some colour to Montesquieu’s argument, that the practice depends on climate, and is never likely to disappear from Asia. The turning point has certainly not yet been reached; but let us hope it may be reached, since we can here trace an advance to it. The Muhammedan Institute (for the first time in central Asia, see Herodot. Clio, c. cxxxv.) fixed a maximum; lax indeed, but as strict as could then be ventured. “Freemen may marry as many as four wives, free or servile, but no more.” (Hidāyat, Marriage, c. ii. from Kurān, c. iv.) And here we have their moralists expounding the question in its true aspect, with a force and beauty not easily paralleled.

A more liberal account of this the author has already given in Sect. 1. Man requires a partner to attend to his affairs in his absence. A still more important truth follows; he requires an object of affection for the repose of his own feelings. These benefits, derived from women, should have been more dwelt on here, because their rights follow from them. Túsy is juster: “A good wife is partner in her husband’s property, sharer in his domestic power, and substitute for him whenever he is not present.” (Ak.-nās. ubi sup.) “The industry and excellences of each are brought into the common stock of domestic happiness, which their distinctive virtues are calculated wonderfully to augment.” Arist. Eth. viii. 12. ad fin. (Gillie.)

Juv. vi. 206.

For the cure alluded to, see in Sect. 8. Book i. p. 227.

A great captain and harsh governor employed by the Omian Caliphs in reducing and extirpating the unfortunate Alites (see note 83, p. 218) at the latter end of the seventh century. He is commonly called Hajāj Yúsaf or Bin Yúsaf.

Theirs was the office attributed by Xenophon to the cup-bearer of Astyages the Mede, Cyrop. I. c. iii. s. 7. “Now this Sacas ( ) was a well-favoured person, who had the honor of introducing to Astyages those whose presence was required, and stopping those whose introduction might appear unseasonable.” It may easily be supposed that their indirect influence was immense.

The gold dinār, which this Hajāj was the first to strike in the Caliph’s name; the specie previously in circulation having been of Greek coinage. (D’Herbelôt.)

A high mark of favour; as are also such presents of food from the prince’s table as Xenophon describes, Cyrop. I. c. iii. s. 6.

Cf. Juvenal, vi. 377.

Some remains of the old system survived in the Roman practice, and more of course in the Grecian. Veiling, seclusion, confinement, restraint, are all parts of the general system. Till they know how to elevate women’s feelings, they are quite right to prevent their going abroad. The constant prevalence of the most refined duplicity and intrigue is observable in the Alf Lailat (Arabian Nights). Lady Montague doubted whether it prevailed more in Turkey than in England (Letter XXXI.); and yet she allows that “the masquerade of veiling gives them more perfect liberty.” Is not such liberty conclusive against her former opinion, coming, as it does, after moral neglect, and in spite of attempted restraint?

The duties of wives should have been deduced from the benefits they receive, as their rights from those which they confer. The peculiar views of Muhammedans on the nature and origin of power (which will be noticed in the third Book) made them slow to perceive its proper limits.

Cf. Bacon’s Essay on this subject: “Wives are old men’s nurses, middle-aged men’s companions, and young men’s mistresses: ” and Simonides’ Poem on Women — “The Gods have given to man nothing better than a good woman, and nothing worse than a bad one.”

Divorce at the husband’s discretion is the very element of polygamy, as we have seen above; as also the cause of the wife’s not possessing the same privilege. Kāzies, however, might interfere at the wife’s instance, and compel temporary separation à mensâ et toro. See Hariri. Makām. xlv.

“Intolerabilius nihil est quàm fœmina dives.” — Juvenal.

“Rich heiresses acquire more than their due share of power: wealth is preferred to worth, the gifts of fortune to the distinctions of nature.” Arist. Eth. viii. 10. ad fin.

Little altered from Akh.-nās. 4. (second Treatise), except as noticed at note 41, and note 1, Sect. 5. The Orientals seem averse to any orderly derivation and distribution of precepts. As in the Proverbs and other ethical books of the Hebrews, rules are here thrown together rather undigestedly.

With the Jews it was the eighth. (Luke i. 59.) There is always a resemblance in the practices of the two people.

Sterne’s amusing disquisitions on the value and importance of names are taken then from the old schoolmen.

Introduction, pp. 19—40, et seq. Book i. p. 157.

See Book i. Sect. 6.

See p. 73, where shame is said to be a part of temperance; and pp. 55 and 57, where temperance is a form of the appetent power. Yet is shame here said to be the earliest and strongest manifestation of the reasonable power. This is partly explained in note 10, p. 57. They would probably further say, that though the appetent power was the material, reason was the instrument. The share which reason has in the formation of all virtue having been once fundamentally noticed, they leave it to be understood when treating, as in Book i. Sect. 2., of other elements. Were they to refer to the reasonable power for the origin of every virtue into which it enters, these qualities would be all of one class, and the benefits of subdivision and analysis must be given up. Thus it is that the two statements may be reconciled. As to the fact, as here put, see p. 149, note 7.

This, the well-known illustration of Locke, and commonly attributed to his own suggestion, has been in the possession of the schools from time immemorial. Aristotle called the soul tabula rasa, a clear tablet. (Gillie, Anal. note g.) We now see the origin and secret intent of Muhammad’s assertion, that the Kurān pre-existed in a preserved tablet (Lúh Mahfúz), Kurān c. lxxxv. ad fin. It was equivalent to the old eastern notion enforced by Plato, that natural religion was an instinct of the human mind. See Sect. 5. note 26, p. 127.

Xenoph. Cyrop. I. c. iii. s. 2. “Of the Persians, as he had left them in their own country, nay, as still subsisting, the apparel was mean and the diet moderate.” Cf. Herod. Clio, c. lxxi.

Xen. Cyrop. I. c. ii. s. 8. “They teach them to keep in check their appetite for food and drink.” Ib. c. iii. s. 10. “And your father, asked Astyages, my boy, does not he feel tipsy when he drinks? No, indeed, says he. How then? He feels no longer thirsty.”

Yet, strange to say, in the Akh.-nās. we have a paragraph on the proprieties of taking wine. See at note 41.

By the rapid evaporation of water, a sort of coolness may be preserved in the hottest times at the hottest places.

Herod. Clio, cxxxvi. and cxxxviii. “Three things the Persians teach their children — riding, archery, and truth.” “The basest of offences they hold to be falsehood.”

In Kurān ii. vs. 225, 226, Muslims are forbidden to use the name of God unnecessarily or irreverently; but no precept could be more completely disregarded than this. Like the of the Greeks, the word is hardly ever out of their mouths.

See again Sterne’s description from the schoolmen of what a pedagogue ought to be.

The old Spartan notion.

From the prayer of Abraham when founding the Kaaba at Mecca, according to Kurān c. xiv.

“Defend, O Lord, this land, and preserve me and my child from the worship of idols:

“For many are those, O Lord, whom they have led astray.

“Then whoso obeys me is with me, and whoso opposes me — thou, Lord, art merciful and gracious!

“Lord! of my offspring do I populate this barren valley near thy sacred house.

“Grant, Lord, that they may be constant in prayer.

“Incline the hearts of men towards them, and supply them with the products of the earth, that they may be grateful.

“Thou, Lord, knowest all we hide and all we discover; there is nothing hidden to God in earth or heaven.

“Glory to God! who has given me Ismael and Isaac in my old age. Yea, my Lord gives ear to supplications.”

The only colour to Ghazāly’s far-fetched notion would be derived from the faces and figures stamped upon coin. In the time of Abraham, however, money was not coined — hardly stamped, or, if stamped, hardly with a figure. See Genesis xxiii. 16. “And Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver.” Ghazāly seems led astray by St. Paul’s expression, Col. iii. 5. “Covetousness, which is idolatry.” Cf. Phocyll. , &c.

Manifestly a translation (to or from) of the Latin “Non omnia possumus omnes.” Cicero rests much on this topic, Off. i. cs. 31 and 33. “Nothing is to be gained by a conflict with nature, or by pursuing that which you cannot overtake,” &c. &c.

See p. 15, note 31, &c. Admitting Plato’s notion that souls were introduced, or perhaps kindled, by the heavenly bodies, nothing could be more reasonable than to attempt by observation and induction to ascertain the influence contributed by each. The premises only are to be attacked; and for these the chiefs of classical as well as of oriental literature are responsible.

Cic. Off. i. 33. “Should it happen, as it may, that he finds himself to have made an erroneous choice of a profession, the practice and destination must be changed,” &c.

In the East, where obvious and safe means of investing principal are rare, this often happens.

Faridún and his three sons, Kai Kāus and Kai Khasru, Luhrasp and Kishtāsp, Kishtāsp and Isfandiār, Bahman and Dārāb, Sam and Zāl, Rustam and Suhrāb, are all instances from the Shāhnāmah. The fact corroborates the authenticity of Xenophon’s historical data, though not his capacity to use them. He represents Cyrus as visiting his grandfather; but more for gratification than improvement.

“Just as the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined.” — Pope.

By the law of Menu, if the father did not provide his daughter with a husband by the age of ten, she might provide one for herself. So great was the difficulty, under the Asiatic system, of settling daughters with respectability, or keeping them unsettled without disgrace, that the Arabs, before the time of Muhammad, used to destroy female children as systematically as the Chinese are said still to do it, in order to avoid the dilemma. (Kurān vi. vs. 40, 45, and 51—53. xvi. 59.) Legislators and parents are not entirely to blame; climate contributes.

The celebrated vizier of the celebrated Noushirwān, who was contemporary with Justinian, and the protector of the seven Athenian sages. See Gibbon, c. xl. ad fin.

Ecclesiasticus xxxii. 8. “Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in few words; be as one that knoweth, and yet holdeth his tongue.”

In Xen. Cyrop. VIII. c. vii. s. 4. “I have been taught by our common country to give way to my elders — not brethren only, but citizens no less — in walking, sitting, and conversing.” Eccl. xxxii. 9. “When ancient men are in place, use not many words.”

Meaning Matthew vii. 6. “Cast not your pearls before swine,” or more probably some perversion of the passage, in their own uncanonical scriptures.

“Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.” Lev. xix. 14. Deut. xxvii. 18. In early society personal ridicule of any sort is a serious offence against morality, owing to the great store then set by bodily qualifications and the inflammable state of the passions. See Hom. Iliad iii. 64. Hesiod, . 715. Theognis 155. Phocyllides 7. Æschyl. Eum. 410.

Divination by casual vivá voce expression prevails to this day in Asia, as it did in ancient Greece and Italy, though not quite so much depended on.

Polonius to Laertes — “Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice.”

Cicero, Off. i. 36. Hor. Sat. I. 3. 10. “In our movements we must equally beware of indolent delay and excessive speed.” For this and the latter part of the passage consult too Sallust’s description of Catiline.

The Asiatics sit either on the ground or on cushions slightly elevated above it. The elaborate mechanism of European house-furniture is a consequence of our in-door mode of life: another illustration of the influence of climate.

Hence St. Paul says, he was “brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.” Acts xxii. 3.

Xen. Cyrop. I. c. ii. s. 15. “Among the Persians it is disgraceful, to the present day, both to spit and blow the nose,” &c. The kiblah is that point of the heavens to which men turn in prayer. The kiblah of Magians and Greeks was the place of the sun; of Jews and Christians (eastern), the site of Jerusalem; of Muhammedans, the site of Mecca, — an alteration defended in Kurān c. ii. vs. 125—132 and 143—145. Compare in Hesiod’s . his recommendation never in the eye of the sun.

A very old rule. See Gen. ix. 20—23. Levit. xviii. 6—19. xx. 11—21. Deut. xxii. 30.

His hands particularly; since they all eat with them out of the same dish. So with the Greeks. Xen. Cyrop. I. c. iii. s. 5. “I perceive that you no sooner touch any of the meats, than you cleanse your hand with the napkins; as if you repented having had such a handful.” . Hence one reason of the strictness of caste and fraternity in Asia — the hand that “dippeth in the dish” (Matt. xxvi. 23.) ought to be a welcome one.

In the early ages of the world (and in many parts of it to the present day) eating is more or less a religious act; because — 1. Killing animals for human food is only justifiable under the authority or pleasure of God. In our present state of refinement we overlook the fact: but at times when the lives of men are hardly more secure than those of animals, and hardly (to any ostensible purpose) more worth securing, the analogy is evident; and therefore means are taken to render the distinction equally so (see Gen. ix. vs. 3 and 5). 2. Being in the primitive regions almost the only want (see Sect. 1.), and in all regions the most universal and constant one, gratitude is more especially excited by the supply. 3. These facts and feelings have been encouraged and worked on by Pagan priests for their own purposes. 4. In warm climates public health and public delicacy has led to the moral interdiction of different kinds of food among different parties, and therefore to a religious distinction between the different feeders. 5. In the dark ages it appeared desirable to provide against the possible treachery of comrades in the course of an act which placed men at each other’s mercy; and therefore the act was ushered and concluded by appeals to heaven. 6. It is a tendency of simple people to confound moral with personal purity; and therefore an impure person joining in the meals in the manner described in the preceding note, would desecrate the food and all who partook of it. Hence the use of religious rites to discover who did and who did not belong to any given fraternity. Thus in the Bostān (c. ii.), there is a story of Abraham’s detecting, by these means, the irreligion of a guest, and driving him out both from food and shelter, for which he is rebuked by God.

Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 18. “When thou sittest among many, reach not thy hand out first of all.”

Xen. Cyrop. I. c. iii. s. 7. “These cup-bearers of eastern kings pour out wine gracefully — pour it in neatly; and in presenting the cup hold it with three fingers.” .

Ecclus. xxxi. 13, 14. “Remember that a wicked eye is an evil thing. Stretch not thy hand whithersoever it looketh, and thrust it not with him into the dish.” The bread alluded to in this passage is a flat limp cake, like a pancake, and is commonly used by them as we use plates, for a receptacle of their other food. So in Virgil the Trojans “eat their tables.”

“Leave off first, for manners’ sake; and be not insatiable, lest thou offend.” Ecclus. ubi sup.

People are apt to wonder at the frequency of Muhammedan ablutions, without reflecting that in Asiatic climates washing is an indulgence. Strange to say, the Akh.-nās. contains another paragraph (not inserted here) on the proprieties of wine-drinking. We know from the Alf Lailat, and Hariri. Makām. xii. ad fin., that the practice was common, though infamous.

The original of this Section in the Ak.-nās. is the concluding paragraph of Section 4: the matter is similar.

We here again come upon Greek authority. “Children should love their parents as men do the Gods; since they are to them the authors of the greatest benefits, their life, nurture, and education.” Arist. Eth. viii. 12. (Gillie.) Cf. Cic. Off. i. 15, 16, and 17: and again, Eth. viii. 14. “The son has to pay obligations which are too great for him ever to discharge.”

Under Aristotle’s technical division of causes, into material, formal, efficient, and final. Metaph. v. ap. Gillie. Anal. c. ii.

“The love of parents is strongest, because they know their children with greater certainty, and for a longer time, than their children can know them.” Arist. ubi sup. Hence it is that Simplicius justifies the extravagant authority entrusted to fathers by the Roman law. “They knew from the instinctive affection of parents for their offspring it would be mildly exercised.” Simp. ad Epictet. Enchirid. ap. Gillie.

Perhaps suggested by Arist. ubi sup. And yet we know the idea was widely known at an early period: thus in the Shāhnāmah, Zāl says to the phœnix who had nursed him, —

This is particularly the case in the eastern system, where the women, and consequently the young children, are separated from the rest of the establishment, so that the latter can very seldom see their fathers; which Herodotus, erroneously, explains on philosophic principles: “Up to the age of five, the child never comes into its father’s sight, but passes its whole time with the women; which is done on this principle, that in case of its dying in the course of nurture, the father may not suffer by its loss.” Clio, cxxxvi.

Book i. Sect. 2. p. 81. This and the other topics of this Section recur in Sect. 2 of Book iii. — on Affection.

Little more or less than Akh.-nās. c. 5. of the second Treatise.

Here would be a good opportunity of enlarging on the superior humanity of eastern moralists — the principles propounded in this Section being purer and higher than any that can be brought forward from Greek or Latin writers. The truth is, however, that the lower the stage of civilization may be, the greater is the tendency of the highest to sympathize with the lowest order; for this plain reason, that there is less interval and greater intimacy between the two. This holds good even with regard to animals, to which homogeneity is more readily conceded by barbarians than by citizens. No doubt as civilization proceeds another tendency arises, calculated to correct, and in course of time, perhaps, to control the first; but it is long before its operation is felt. By philosophers in Greece and Rome domestics were more harshly treated than they ever were by the other barbarians of the same age. Hear how Tacitus was struck by the contrast: “Their slaves they employ, not, as with us, in the assigned services of home: each has his separate residence; ay, and his separate feelings, (Penates.) The amount of agricultural, pastoral, or mechanical produce, the master determines, as to a tenant, and the (so far) slave conforms to. Other domestic duties their own wives and children execute. To scourge or discipline by chains and labour is uncommon. Kill them they do, not by systematic harshness, but in their bursts of passion — foe-like, in all but the power of killing.” Germ. 25. The Romans killed in both ways.

Arist. Eth. ix. 12. “Love enters first by the eye.” Fire or the Sun is the God here intended.

“Ingenui vultûs puer ingenuique pudoris.” Juvenal in commendation of his slave.

The right of slavery is now universally given up: for the origin of it, on which much is still said, we need look no further than power. Men’s first idea of property was only that it was something over which they had absolute power; and therefore, wherever they perceived the power, they inferred the property — even in the case of objects properly unsusceptible of the relation. A striking instance of this we have in that practice (for law it was not, but the absence of prohibition) in the States of ancient Greece, whereby any unprotected alien discovered in them was liable to be seized and sold by any citizen who could overpower him; simply because, not being part of the state, the public protection was not held to extend to him. Slavery then is a phenomenon incident to early society — one of the many instances of practices then prevailing, which are unnatural in the race, but natural in a given fraction of it. As the objections to it are not in such a state perceived, so neither, as before remarked, have they so prominent an existence. In the progress of civilization the relation gives birth to atrocities which gradually operate its extinction. Slavery is only a reproach to those who ought to know it is reproachful.

Aristotle is still sterner: “A slave is a living instrument, and an instrument a lifeless slave.” (Eth. viii. 11. ad fin.) In societies verging on the pastoral, “the treatment of cattle and beasts” is by no means harsh.

This is the old Asiatic system. “They marry each of them many wives, and young; and yet more numerous are the concubines they purchase.” Herodotus, Clio, cxxxv. The difficulties with which the question is beset in Asia, and the improvement effected notwithstanding these difficulties by the Muhammedan Institute, have been noticed in Sect. 3. p. 267.

Another instance of the incorrectness of their geographical notions, about Africa in particular. They are not, however, so much out as at first appears. In the old geography, it was a question whether the Red Sea or the River Nile was the boundary of Africa and Asia. (Herodot. Eut. xv.—xviii.) If they took the latter opinion, the space between the Nile and the Red Sea, as it belonged to Asia, would belong rather to Arabia than any other of Asia’s larger divisions. Now though the Abyssinian nation may have been a little beyond the Nile, the Abyssinian slaves were no doubt procured from scattered tribes settled opposite to Arabia on this debateable ground.

See Sect. 8. p. 194, note 39.

From Akh.-nās. 1. of the third Treatise, which certainly has here the advantage of its follower.

Then known only in their influences, and not in all of those. The existence of any process to maintain their influence, if allowed, takes them out of this class, which indeed, rigidly speaking, would comprise only the simple elements, or even gases.

This is explained a little below. “In like manner as he depends on the co-operation of the elements and their products, man is likewise dependent on that of other individuals of his own species.”

The greatest of their Grecian philosophers — second, they mean to say, to Aristotle only, (Avicenna avowing himself indebted to him) — condemned by Ghazāly for heterodox theology — died in the maturity of his powers, A. D. 954. Túsy tells us this third book is mainly drawn from his writings, which, judging from the above passage, must have been of infinite value in his age, and not without value in our own. The examples and instances falling under the several classes might be differently arranged by natural philosophers at the present day; but no fault can be found with the classification itself, which bespeaks great powers of analysis. The germ of it may be found in Aristotle, Pol. iv. 14. “In the works of nature and art it is easy to observe, that things which are worse are always made for the sake of those which are better: how long soever may be the series of means and ends, they all terminate and centre in some one great and ultimate purpose.”

An exploded idea of the old philosophy. There is no inconsistency in supposing animals made only to nourish others, but great inconsistency in supposing any made only to be destroyed without nourishing: and then as to facts, “The species of serpents described by Linnæus amount to 218, of which 32 only are poisonous.” Paley, Nat. Theol. c. xxvi. In the absence of any better solution, we may suppose poisonous reptiles were created in order to render waste ground terrific and noxious to civilized man; and so multiply the dissuasives against his abandoning society. At certain times and places they certainly operate in this way.

Society could not go on without some common measure of time. This the movements of the heavenly bodies supply, though, as Locke observes (Essay, II. cxiv.), any other phenomenon of equally striking and regular occurrence (if conceivable) would answer the purpose as well.

As much may be inferred from Genesis i. 26. 30. They have only a very slender acquaintance with the text of the Bible. “He for God only; she for God and him.” Milton.

It is needless to refer to the many passages of Greek and Roman writers where the os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque tueri jussit is so fondly dwelt on; but a comparison of the bare statement as there made, with this ingenious illustration of it, will exemplify the different character of eastern and western literature — the figurativeness of the former being invariably bottomed upon truth, which, by adorning it serves to recommend. The apophthegms of the East include those of the West; but add to them a conciliating ingredient. Of course there is a danger of impressing the fancy more than the reason by this arrangement; and when a taste for pure speculation has once been engendered, it will be best carried on in its purest form. No one would say, therefore, that the march of European science has not been promoted by its rejection of the figurative element. But for deeply impressing with a few momentous and elevating truths the minds of a rude and illiterate people, whose attention is not to be commanded by their simpler form, this style of writing has incalculable value.

The analogy between the society of men and animals is pointed out by Plato in his , and by Cicero, Off. i. 44. and Am. viii.

Cf. Book ii. Sect. 1. p. 246, note 2. Clothing and shelter are here enumerated as wants, if not as urgent ones.

See these views worked out by Adam Smith (W. of N. I. c. i. ad init. on the division of labour), and suggested by Cicero, Off. ii. c. 4. “What need of specifying that multitude of professions without which life could not be maintained?” It is from the Peripatetics and Stoics of that age that Abú Nasar probably derived this reasoning, which, though sufficient to show the necessity of supporting society as actually constituted, is overstrained (as Cicero himself remarks, Off. i. 44.) when used (as in the text) to account for its origin. There is no reasoning from the delicacy of the citizen to the hardihood of the savage. Political society is merely an extension of the domestic state (Arist. Pol. i. cs. 1 and 2, followed by Cicero, Off. i. 17.); for the origin of the last and the derivation of the first ample provision is made in the first feelings of man’s nature. To those born in any given stage of civilization it becomes necessary (as explained in the text) to enjoy, and therefore incumbent to support, the advantages of it. The question of origin need not have been touched on at all — far less at disadvantage — but such was the course of the authorities they follow: . “The state originates in our being, separately, not self-sufficient, but in want of many things.” Plato, Rep. ii. “In the opinion of the Stoics, all the earth’s productions are created for the use of men — men themselves for the benefit of each other.” (Cic. Off. i. c. 7. Cf. De Fin. iii. c. 20. De Nat. Deor. ii. c. 62.) There is some slight colour for it in the works of Aristotle himself. See Book ii. Sect. 1. page 246, note 2.

This aptitude was determined by the position of the heavenly bodies from which vitality was derived; see pages 15, 216, and end of next Section. This position always varying, so did the aptitudes; and these variations occurring without prejudice to the equipoise of forces in the celestial economy, the products were similarly balanced; so that the general demand and supply of aptitudes was sure to coincide.

Túsy gives it for a proverb — “If mankind were exactly on a par, they must perish altogether.”

In the original, tamaddan and madína.

See Book ii. Sect. 1. page 248.

Plato makes this idea the basis of his dialogue on the magistrate, where man is defined a pedestrian, herding, tame, animal without horns; . Cicero says, congregabilis naturâ. The latter (Off. i. 44. Am. viii. and ix.) argues against the current position, that the social tendency was a consequence of want merely; and certainly, to want so applied, a wide and noble interpretation must be given.

According to the above origin of society (note 11), government is co-original with society, or rather pre-original; paternal authority being physically pre-existent, and conjugal authority physically pre-arranged, before the meeting of the parties. Locke’s theory of consent, though undeniable of the maintenance of society, does not explain its origin; because, without a previous government of some sort, men could not be brought so far as to contemplate, much less endure, restraint. When then does Locke’s theory begin to apply? At that point, wherever it may be, where the unsubjected descendants of a given stock cease to regard the head of the tribe in the light of a relative. The theories are both true, but realized in different times and places.

They hold then that life cannot be maintained without society, nor society without government, nor government without religion. It follows that they are all produced together, (and art with them, see note 89, p. 45.) “Government and religion are twins,” (p. 128.) All religion then will be a derivative, more or less perverted, of the original gift, (renewable, note 6, p. 3.) Not only life, therefore, but all that makes life tolerable, they derive from particular exertions of divine bounty. This is Platonic doctrine, (see in note 26, p. 127,) elaborated and enriched by the castern Christians. But though the doctrine is faultless, the Muhammedans made a fatal oversight in the application of it. So much of religion as is indispensable to the continuance of society, is provided for, like man’s other necessities, in his original conformation: the moral sense — the dread of future retribution. The religion of revelation has another object: to raise mankind, when sufficiently prepared by the other, to an elevation of virtue not at all times and places attainable by the mass. Any confusion of the nature and functions of the two — any unwarranted supposition of divine agency for purposes which human agency is created with a competence universally to fulfil, must end, as it has with them, in false impressions and injurious results. Of this we shall presently see an instance.

Túsy says this is from Plato’s 5th book on law (Siāsat), or possibly he means the Repub. Much may be found in both to resemble, but nothing to coincide. Transferred from writer to writer for 800 years, no wonder the passage had lost its identity. The Muhammedans admit, then, that the Greek law-givers (and of course all others similarly circumstanced) acted under divine inspiration; (see however note 47, p. 140.) This is a liberal admission, if not a true one: their fanaticism had begun to give way.

Here is the worst consequence of their erroneous views on the subject of divine agency. Authority becomes sacred, because sanctioned by heaven. Despotism, being the first form of consolidated political authority, is thus rendered unchangeable and identified in fact with government at large. Other authority, official and even domestic, receives its portion of the same undue corroboration: and hence one source of conjugal tyranny (note 19, p. 272). This may be observed of all the Asiatic systems, but is more to be regretted in the case of the Muhammedans, because they seem otherwise capable of regenerating their institutions. A panegyric on Hasán Bēg is omitted at the asterisks.

This subject has been anticipated in note 41, p. 136. The analogy between the eastern and western Papacy might be worked out with good effect. Here Túsy has a long and bold passage asserting the right of the Caliphat to the allegiance of the Muhammedan world. This proves the Akh.-nās. to have been composed before the invasion of Húlagú.

‘O , as Plato and Aristotle frequently call the civil power.

“Let us resort to the types by which we are wont to figure royal rulers — the bold pilot — the physician in himself a host;” . Plat. Pol. The Muslims never adopt the first of these, being quite unfamiliar with navigation.

“If each of our members were to imagine its health would be promoted by drawing to itself the health of its adjoining member, the whole frame must infallibly be weakened and destroyed; and so if each of us were to seize on the advantages of others, and convert to our own benefit all of which any other could be deprived, just as infallibly must society and fellowship be overthrown among mankind.” Cic. Off. ii. 4. Cf. in Aristot. Pol. i. 3.

This alludes particularly to the monachism of the Christians. In the Syrian wars both monks and nuns were scandalously abused by the Muhammedans.

Túsy says this art is to all other arts what metaphysics is to all other sciences, the sum and source of them — a maxim very liable to abuse, unless expounded by another — the laissons nous faire of men of business. Up to the end of the sixteenth century, it seems to have been regarded without this qualification, even by the most enlightened of the political theorists of Europe, as indisputable. Elizabeth was constantly reprimanding her parliaments for meddling with matters that were too high for them.

Rather clearer and better than the corresponding Sect. of Akh.-nās.

Both are counterparts of Aristotle’s 8th and 9th books of Ethics, except that they omit, in common with Cicero in his treatise on the same subject, the curious question of dissimilarity. There must be resemblance and there must be difference in the parties. This tallies very well with their views; see note 11, p. 116.

See it, with the words of Aristotle, p. 144, note 52. 1 John iv. 18. “Perfect love casteth out fear.”

Page 147; Sect. 6. Book i.

“The ancient proverb, Among friends all things are in common” — . Plato, Laws, v., and Aristotle, Eth. viii. c. 9., and Cicero, Am. xxv. “The force of friendship lies in making one mind out of many.”

See this, with Cicero’s enunciation of the same doctrine, note 114, p. 233. In the wide sense here given to the term it may still be maintained as a phenomenon, though not as a cause.

This passage, with that at the end of the Section, are those intended in note 31, p. 15.

At page 234. Thus Eryximachus, in Plato’s Convivium, without rising to the height of the previous theory, says — “Love is not only to be found in the souls of men for the comely, but for many other qualities — in all the bodies of all animals no less — even in the products of the earth — in a word, in all existents.” .

This whole passage is a digest of Aristotle, Ethics viii. 2 and 3. “Whatever is an object of our friendship must promote either our good, our pleasure, or our utility. * * * When the cause is utility, men love each other as long as the mutual advantage lasts: the same holds with respect to affection founded on pleasure. Neither of the two being an essential part of any man’s character, he is himself an object of friendship only as he is an accession to them: and when they terminate, he is so no longer. * * * * The only perfect friendship subsists between those who resemble each other in virtue; because those who love their friends for their virtue, love them for what is not a temporary appendage, but a permanent essential in their characters. ” And much more to the same effect. The germ of this passage may be found in Plato’s 8th book of Laws (, &c.), and it has been distantly followed by Cicero throughout his treatise on Friendship, cs. v. viii. xviii. &c. “My primary conviction is, that there can be no friendship except between the good,” &c.

“Friendships founded on the love of gain are of all the most unstable.” Arist. Eth. viii. 4.

“When pleasure combines with profit, it is naturally more durable.” Arist. Eth. viii. 8. (Gillie.)

“Friendship, in its highest sense, cannot extend to many. Both in friendship and in love there is an intensity which naturally limits it to one object.” Arist. Eth. viii. 6: and again, ix. 10: and Cicero, Am. v. “To two, or at least to few parties, all affection is limited.”

End of Section 8. Book i. p. 227.

“Friendships founded on utility prevail most among persons advanced in years; for interest, not pleasure, is their aim. * * * * Youthful friendships however for the most part are founded on pleasure,” &c. Aristotle, Eth. viii. 3. (Gillie.)

Túsy says more forcibly — “To enjoy any one pleasure, another of some sort must be sacrificed.” Again, it appears human power lies only in selection. See note 2, p. 65.

The first towards our fellow creatures, the second towards our Creator. The love of wisdom, or virtue, or good, Túsy says, arises from (as it also indicates) the presence of a portion of divinity within us. See note 19, p. 123, and end of the Section. Aristotle’s words for the next quotation (which is not quite correct) are in Eth. viii. 1. ad fin.

. “Deep indeed would be our ecstasies, were the soul’s figure openly presented to our view.” Plato, Phæd.

Anacreon, ;

So Bacon says (Nov. Organ.), that most of men’s current ideas are imperfectly separated from matter. Cicero says, “As long as we are imprisoned in this tissue of body, we have a necessary duty, and irksome office, to discharge: the celestial spirit being degraded from its sublime abode, and plunged, as we may say, into the earth; a place the very opposite to divine and eternal being.” Sen. xxi. — after the celebrated allegory in Plato’s Phædrus — .

Angels were supposed to be posted on the approaches to heaven, in order to prevent the return of the fallen spirits. This they did by hurling fire-balls at them — the falling stars of our atmosphere.

Even this is followed (which we should not expect) upon Aristotle, Eth. viii. 9. “The peaceful communities of tribes and wards, and those mirthful assemblies which meet to feast, to drink, and to dance, depend on the same principle; for legislators have not merely temporary advantage in view; they look farther to the permanent comfort and sure enjoyment of life. * * * * * * * * * The ancient solemnities of this kind were held towards the end of autumn, the season of greatest leisure, when men, having gathered in the earth’s productions, might offer the first fruits to the Gods. Political society then comprehends all other associations,” &c. (Gillie.)

Friday is the Muhammedan Sabbath, differing both from Jewish and Christian, yet akin to both. They call it the Prince of days; and in fact, if Saturday is the day after the completion of creation, or Jewish Sabbath, Friday would be the day on which it was completed. (Gen. i. v. 31.) As a day of general concourse, it was regarded before the time of Muhammad; but chiefly for secular purposes. In the 62nd and 102nd chapters of the Kurān we may note the trouble it cost Muhammad to change the character of these meetings.

See pp. 130, 131. The festival continues two days; the first, the day of celebration, and the second, the day of sacrifice. Those unavoidably prevented from attending on either of these days might carry on some of the rites on the third day, but not after. (Hidāyat, Book of the two Eeds.)

This admits of argument. From Muhammad’s own expressions in the Kurān, it might be supposed that he was actuated only by a frantic fanaticism, and a blind but imperfect imitation of the Mosaic ritual. Be this as it may, the willingness of the Muhammedans to reason on the rationale of their ritual, indicates not only a most important approach to liberality and justness of sentiment, but a possibility of their in time reforming, or even altogether abandoning, their institutions. The next step to arguing upon principles is to detect what is amiss in them; and then the superstructure falls. It was no casual or temporary improvement; for the Ak.-nās. has a similar passage. A relic of the old repugnance of fanaticism to such discussions we have at page 84, on Devotion.

Arist. Eth. ix. 1. “Lovers complain of their beloved for not returning their affection with equal warmth. Those beloved, on the other hand, accuse the lovers of failing them in the magnificent promises formerly made. Their complaints arise from this, that the regard of one party is founded on pleasure, and that of the other on advantage, — conditions, which the first loses the power, and the second loses the will, continually to discharge. ” * * * An instance of this we have in the person who engaged to requite a musician, and being asked next day for the reward, said it had already been bestowed, since he had given one pleasure in return for another. Again, ib. viii. 8. ad fin. These passages recall the altercations and embarrassments in Terence’s Comedies.

We now see the special object of introducing this subject here, instead of in the last book, as was at first intended, (see p. 145, note 54:) To teach their princes that regard and fidelity was not to be expected on the subjects’ side, without some equivalent on theirs. This it is the tendency of depotism to overlook. Thus Xenophon’s Cyrus to his successor: “Think not that men are created faithful: those who are so, you must severally render such,” — . Cyrop. VIII. c. vii. s. 3.

Arist. Eth. viii. 11. “The relation of a king to his subjects is that of a benefactor to those benefited by his care,” &c. (Gillie.)

Ibid. viii. 12. “The love of parents for their children is merely an expansion of self-love; for they still regard their children as parts of themselves.” (Gillie.)

Arist. Eth. viii. 10. ad fin. “When the difference of age is great, brotherly affection cannot easily subsist.” (Gillie.) Among adults fraternal discord seems the rule in Asia, and fraternal harmony the exception. The prevalence of polygamy, by so frequently abolishing connexion on the maternal side, has weakened the tie altogether. The right of primogeniture subsists no further than as the first-born has had more time and opportunity to render himself formidable: this too encourages the spirit of rivalry.

This is further treated and exemplified in the two next Sections. The previous passage reminds us of Solon’s celebrated law declaring neutrals to be infamous.

A further analogy between eastern and western history. The Muslims had not only their papacy, but their father confessors; and these little less exacting and intriguing than the Catholics. Our author himself points out, at the end of Sect. 8. Book i., the principle which refutes this sophistry. Material benefits always imply a sacrifice on the part of the bestower; spiritual ones do not, but rather a reciprocation of benefit between the two. The latter, therefore, indicate little regard and constitute little right. To a certain extent, of course, the feeling is due — and to any extent, perhaps, it is estimable — even where it may cease to be appropriate. Aristotle, as usual, is the fountain head. “Such is the friendship that ought to subsist between teacher and student of philosophy — the value of which cannot be estimated in money, and to the teachers of which no adequate honors can be assigned. The scholars must honor them as they do their parents and the Gods — not sufficiently; for that is impossible — but in the measure of their ability.” (Gillie.) Eth. ix. c. 1. And Quintilian ii. c. 9. “Scholars should love their preceptors as much as they do their studies, and hold them for the parents of the mind rather than the body.” The passages in the next paragraph seem imitated from the Gospel. Matt. x. 37. Luke xiv. 26.

Casual benefits, resulting from measures which have no such view, lay, of course, little obligation on the recipient. This however is a harmless piece of sophistry. There was no danger of the king’s claiming a precedence in their regard; unlike the preceding error, which is calculated to disturb all the relations of life and the order of society.

He does not mention conjugal affection; ranking it apparently as something of a keener sort, and belonging to the topic of love, which was discussed in Sect. 8. Book i. His apprehension is that it will be too overwhelming. See Book ii. p. 268. See too at p. 334 his distinction between the two.

Arist. Eth. ix. 7. “How comes it that men love those to whom they have done good, better than these love their benefactors? Most are of opinion that this happens because creditors are, for their own sakes, more concerned for their debtors’ safety, than the debtors are about theirs. * * * * Yet the question must be solved on deeper principles. * * * Those to whom we have done good are objects of our love, whether they return the obligation or not; for we are naturally disposed towards them as artists are towards their works, and particularly poets towards their poems. * * * Our own good actions are more pleasing subjects of reflection than any benefits we can have received. * * * Besides, whatever is obtained with much labour is naturally regarded with much affection. Those who have acquired their fortunes delight in them far more than those who succeed to hereditary wealth; and, for a similar reason, maternal affection is commonly of the highest order,” &c. and again, viii. 13. ad fin.

See (with references) pp. 223, 337, 338.

According to the erotic doctrines, it is this very closeness of the Deity which prevents his recognition. So in Hindu metaphysics, extreme nearness is the second on the list of causes rendering things imperceptible. (Sánkhiya Káriká. vii. by Professor Wilson; a wonderful work, and ably rendered.) The doctrine of this and the succeeding passage has been authenticated by St. Paul, Acts xvii. 27. “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him; though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”

From the Akh.-nās. it is here clear that the passage intended (but not very clearly preserved) is that at the end of chap. 8, book x. of the Ethics: “If the Gods (as they appear to do) concern themselves about human affairs, it is reasonable to conclude that they should most delight in the energies of intellect,” &c. &c. (Gillie.) For concern in the affairs of men, they seem to have read, concern in the affairs of a given man, taking it for individual favour instead of general interest.

By a different punctuation in another MS. this sentence runs, — “Him that loveth me I destroy; him that I destroy, I owe for (the price of blood), and, &c. See note 112, p. 232.

“In compositions endowed with life it is the province of mind to command, and of matter to obey.” — Arist. Pol. i. 3. ad fin. The previous passage seems to refer to the extract in note 92, p. 222.

In another MS. this couplet is not to be found.

Commonly used for creation. It is taken from Genesis i. 3, &c. The expression so much admired by Longinus, II. IX.

Presently identified with celestial intellect, or source of production. See at p. 362.

Muhammedan spirit, because Prophetic spirit, of which they suppose Muhammad the quintessence: Prophetic spirit, because governing spirit: Prophet-hood, or revelation, being held to be the great instrument of social government. (Sect. 1, note 18.) Khondemir, a mere historian, begins his account of creation with the eduction of this essence, or light, as it is generally called; a similar idea (though dissimilarly justified) with that of St. John i. 1—5.

This contains the rationale of predestination and prophecy. The germ of all future events being always pre-existent in present ones, perfectly to know either is to know the other likewise: neither is it possible (given elements continuing the same) for the products to be other than they are. Properly considered, however, this does not contravert free agency (as we understand it), because it comprehends and allows for it. That choice and option on which we feel freedom to depend is one of the very elements given to work from.

There are traces of idealism throughout the passage. 1. In the introduction of it; which asserts the universality of mind. 2. In the process; which recounts only the operations of certain forms of intellect, without specifying other material. 3. In the light and casual manner in which material is here noticed; not as self-subsisting, or even as self-propertied, but almost imaginary. It is proper to add, however, that the word rendered prefigured (ainy) is one of very wide and various meaning. It is taken Platonically in the version. Idealism, as elsewhere noticed, must shortly follow upon the perfection of the Pantheistic theory. See note 50, p. 200.

Literally, mother of Scripture. See note 7, p. 277.

An opinion attributed by Cicero to all the ancient philosophers, particularly the Pythagoreans, — “That the Gods have sowed the earth with immortal souls, that emerge into mortal bodies, in order that there might be some to occupy the globe, and to learn, from the contemplation of heavenly harmony, how to imitate it in the order and consistence of their own minds.” Sen. xxi.

Hence the rationale of astrology, and the origin of that opinion mentioned by Tacitus, Annal. iii. 55 (and elsewhere). “Perhaps there may be a circulation in all things, and human manners revolve like the seasons.” Cf. p. 197, with note 45.

Three forms: celestial, primary, and active, — the first causing, the second containing, the last conducting, all things: the progressive or human intellect being only one of their products. In Plato’s Timæus, we have similar beings under different names. The original mind or divinity (); the soul of nature (); and nature itself (), — a product and delegate of the second, as the second is of the first. All speculative theology (not excepting that of the Jewish Rabbins) has recognised this triple form of divinity; one reason of which is remarked at note 53: with this, however, we are not to identify the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, which is founded upon facts that mere speculation could never arrive at.

Why limited to three? They seem to suppose the powers and properties of each being to be entirely occupied with its own peculiar product. The celestial intellect engrossed with the primary — the primary with the active — and the active with the progressive or human intellect; which, not being divine or productive, cannot generate any further, but must return to the original source. The three last of these would be successive products of the first. As to the expression here used, it may be found in Esdras II. c. iv. 40, and v. 46. “Ask the womb of a woman, If thou bringest forth children, why dost thou it not together, but one after another? And I said, She cannot, but must do it by distance of time. Then said he unto me, Even so have I given the womb of the earth to those that be sown in it in their times. * * * In the grave the chambers of souls are like the womb of a woman.”

A reunion with the first cause is here plainly intimated; but not without the intervention of at least one stage of individual existence after terrestrial life. Ultimate reunion is a necessary part of all systems of Pantheism. These are the doctrines of the later Pythagorean, Platonic, Peripatetic, and Academic schools, &c., fairly deducible, perhaps, from the tenets of their respective founders; though none of these (certainly not Aristotle) may have been prepared to subscribe to them himself.

This well illustrates the great objection to Pantheism, viz., the futility of the laborious mechanism supposed. If mind or divinity ends only where it begun, it works to no purpose; or if the exertion is a condition of its existence, then it is not an independent or self-sufficient or perfect being. If we observe, however, it is not one but many seeds that come forth from a single one: on which portion of the analogy the doctrine might be further defended.

In the old philosophy, as here, life and all its functions were forms of motion. See at the end of note 4, p. 53.

See above, at note 46. Pantheism supposes at least a two-fold division of mind; a state to come from, and a state to go to: besides which, the integral state, combined of both, constitutes a third. Analytically considered, the two first are co-extensive with the whole; and these are those indicated by the words “procession of essence unto essence.” The three states are more generally named together; as in the words of Antoninus, — , — which are nearly rendered by those words of the apostle, from which Archbishop Tillotson suggests they may have been taken: “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things.” Rom. xi. 36.

Abridged from Akh.-nās. 3. of the 3rd Treatise, which is clearer as well as fuller.

It is not clear from the text whether the classification is that of states or of classes in states, or both: this is explained in Akh.-nās. “Unrighteous states spring up in the midst of the righteous one: these will be noticed by-and-by under the name of Pests.”

Túsy says — “The modes of vice being infinite (see page 100), so will be the forms of vicious states;” to the elucidation of which the greatest part of his chapter is devoted: for number and nicety of distinctions, it is quite a Machiavellian performance; but too much intermingled (like all their political reasoning) with points of faith to interest the general reader.

See in Sect. 1. p. 320.

So called because resembling the celestial intellect. See end of last Section, and Introduction, pp. 14—18.

The reader must bear in mind throughout this passage that idea (), as well as the word for which it is used (), originally signifies visible shape or outline. “Bodily intellectuals” is not a very clear term; neither is that for which it is used. “Latent intellectuals” explain it. The whole passage, as here given, savours strongly of idealism; but as put in the Akh.-nās. it is only a detail of the usual Platonic doctrine — an extension of the passage in Repub. vi. , &c. “For this purpose these philosophers would repeatedly and largely refer to that nature which in itself is just, comely, wise, and all-good; according to that, they would compound and combine, out of human pursuits, the modification they are to introduce among mankind, as from that they would entirely infer it; just as Homer, to that part of it evinced by his heroes, applies the term godly and godlike.” For the current of ideas, see pp. 17 and 53.

A persuasion still current from the old philosophy, though formidably assailed by Locke, Ess. Book II. c. i.

No doubt they mean to include the Grecian masters, whose opposition to the Polytheism of their fellow citizens entitles them in the eyes of the Muslims to rank as apostles and martyrs of the truth. As such indeed they are represented by Khondemir in his account of them.

Túsy says, The first class are conversant with the reality, the second with the form of reality, the third with the reflex of the form, the fourth with the representation of the reflex. When Plato compounded his Republic of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice, they would say he worked with realities; when he applied these terms to the actual phenomena of life, he worked with forms; when he illustrated them by the arts of navigation and medicine, he worked with the reflex; and if he could have introduced national ceremonies to realize these illustrations, and beget the habits they indicated as desirable, he would have been working with the representation. Cf. Plato in Ep. vii. ad Med.

Literally kiblah. See p. 293, note 34.

Cf. pp. 102—104. Wine was prohibited in their ritual, and yet their highest meanings are generally figured by allusions drawn from its use, and here we see the reason. They held themselves above the application of the ritual; and though bound for the sake of the religion and the world practically to conform to it, they exulted in the use of a phraseology which intimated their own elevation in the scale of being. Hence Túsy demonstrates the dependence of government on religion (by which he means ritual religion). The principles of right and wrong being discernible only by the enlightened few, while a practical conformity with them on the part of all is essential to the existence of society, means must be devised for communicating equal habits of action even to those who are ignorant why they should pursue them.

Literally props or pillars — pillars of the state.

Divisions more governed by considerations of public good we have in the next Section. Here he is influenced rather by the question of excellence in the individual. In omitting the agriculturists and mechanics he seems to follow Arist. Pol. iv. 9. “Such men are not parts of the state, though they are necessary to it, any more than food is part of the animal requiring it.” In the next Section he does them justice.

This Plato (whose very words seem here adopted) makes a fundamental rule in his Republic; first, for the same reasons as in the text; secondly, as it would be an injury to others to intrude into their occupations. , &c. “Every one may advantageously prosecute one employment, but not many. He who attempts it, in grasping at all, will miss all.” Repub. iii. . “To attend to our own pursuits, and not meddle beyond them, is part of justice.” In early society this is confirmed and strengthened by the state in which art then exists, being more or less a secret, or, as our old law terms it, a mystery, not reduced to written rules, but attainable only from those engaged in the given craft; and that in the legitimate course of initiation. Hence it likewise became an object to render crafts and trades hereditary (as in the Hindu code), since much dexterity and method might be communicated to a son which could not be attained by any less constant or confidential pupil. Throughout the Shāhnāmah, at every instauration of the monarchy, we are told that the people’s attention was directed to these two precepts. The first is still in a manner the law with us by the statute of apprenticeships.

From Akh.-nās. 4. (3rd Treatise), with the addition of panegyrics, and the story about Pharaoh.

Monarchy, we have seen, is identified in their minds with government at large, and hence the encomiums they bestow upon it. Indeed it is from materials supplied by empires that constitutional governments have been, and can only be, formed; because they imply a pre-existent maturity of science and social habit which are first forced into being by the strong hand of arbitrary power. The Grecian commonwealths, which have supplied the world with the opposite system, were a recast of habits and principles obtained from, or attained in, the politics of Asia. Freedom may be the end of society, but up to a certain point restraint is the indispensable process.

Plato, Polit. , &c. “To correct, then, our reasoning in the way I mention, let us divide the superintendence of mankind into two sorts, the forcible and the voluntary: the first, tyranny; the second, politics,” &c. Panegyrics on Hasán Bēg are here omitted, as the asterisks denote: so delicate the discussion was felt to be, the multifarious sovereigns of that age holding a very inferior place in their theory of power. Hear Túsy: “Supreme government has four stages: 1. Where the absolute Prince is among them [Muhammad], concentrating in his own person the four cardinal virtues; and this we call the reign of wisdom. 2. Where the Prince appears no longer; neither do these virtues centre in any single person: but are found in four [Abú Bikre, Omar, Othmān, and Aly], who govern in concert with each other, as if they were one; and this we call the reign of the pious. 3. Where none of these is to be found any longer; but a chief arises [the Caliphat] with a knowledge of the rules propounded by the previous ones, and with judgment enough to apply and explain them; and this we call the reign of the Sunnah. 4. Where these latter qualities, again, are not to be met with in a single person, but only in a variety who govern in concert; and this we call the reign of the Sunnah-followers.” [All Muslim authorities not of the Caliphat.] Akh.-nās. 3 of iii.

Reflections directed probably against the Turks, with whom Hasán Bēg either was, or was to be, at war. It is the spirit of the Asiatic system to tax only the gross produce of the land. (Adam Smith, Book IV. c. ix.) Other taxes, when introduced, were considered oppressive. Abul Fazal mentions in his letters some very heavy imposts on moveables which Akbār had given up. The same Akbār, in one of his letters to Abul Fazal, casually mentions with disapprobation the rigorous and petty taxation of Rúm (European Turkey). The Turks, it seems, adopted the European practice without abandoning their own. (Inshāi Abul Fazal.)

This too is classical ground. “Let no one persuade us that a state will sooner or more easily change its institutions by any other means, , than by the example of its chiefs.” Plato, Laws, iv. “Such as the heads of the community are, such must the people at large speedily become,” (Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9. Gillie); words which Cicero has also rendered — “Nam licet videre, si velis replicare memoriam temporum, qualescunque summi civitatis viri fuerint, talem civitatem fuisse.” Leg. iii. c. 14.

Literally meant. Yúsaf Hajāj, mentioned in Sect. 3 of Book ii., is said to have fallen into a decline, and died of eating this clay; on which D’Herbelôt remarks, that it is called by the Arabs sealed or stamped clay, and by the Italians, Terra Lemnia. Then it was prepared in some way, and has its parallel in the vices of Europe.

The parasites (or nadíms) were personal friends and boon companions of Eastern kings. They had more license and influence than any other class, and the ministers themselves were often fain to entreat their good offices. § The five qualities first enumerated seem to be those intended in the heading of the paragraph; and then the others are suggested in pursuance of the subject.

This aphorism, which so often passes for a modern discovery, is only a compacter expression for general concord between the different classes, as mentioned below.

Túsy mentions in his last Section (on the classes) a strong expression of their Prophet, “The faithful shall be all as one hand.” Plato, Rep. v. , &c. “This arrangement comes very near to that of a single individual: when, for instance, one of our fingers is hurt, it is the man who suffers: very similar is the system of a well-constituted state, in which whatever was felt by one citizen, would be acknowledged for its own by the community at large.”

In one MS. this is omitted as not being genuine or orthodox.

A principle recognised and acted on by the Persian government from the earliest times. In the contests between the Grecian states relative to the constitution and dependency of the Ionian cities, it was a maxim of the great king to encourage democracy; which, considering it as injurious to those living under it, he can only have done in order to prevent the consolidation of the maritime provinces into a second Lydian empire. On an eventful occasion his message to Agesilaus was this — “The king decides that you are to return home, and that the [Grecian] cities of Asia are to retain their municipal independence, subject to the payment of their original tribute:” . Xenoph. Hist. Græc. iii. 4.

In the original, Iskandar and Dāra: Ajam was the Media of the Greeks. The laws of conversion between the two languages are so intricate, and so little understood, that there is no saying at present how far the words are identical.

From the time of Alexander to that of Ardshír Bābak, the East was subdivided among many rulers, called by historians “the sets of kings.” These may have arisen in the way mentioned in the text; or from the division of provinces among Alexander’s officers, and the recovery of them at different times and by different leaders. This vast period of 500 years is an utter blank in history. Ardshír Bābak is the later Artaxerxes of Western writers, (though the chronologies have not been quite reconciled,) the Parthians being figured by the Arshākian (Arsacidan) dynasty which he superseded. As to the fact, see it more at length in the concluding part of the work.

In the original, Dahkān, “chief of the village,” whence perhaps the Greek , with its long ā at variance with the derivation usually given from and .

This is the fundamental idea in the system of the French economists, which, in the early part of the last century, was in vogue throughout Europe. Even Adam Smith, who restored mechanics to their due consideration, would admit, in the last resort, this distinction between their products and those of the agriculturists. See note 85, p. 219.

This division of classes according to the wants of society agrees with Plato’s derivation of them in Rep. ii., which he follows up by insisting on the same relative harmony between them. “You perceive then how justly I predicted that temperance would turn out to be a likeness of harmony, pervading the whole state, and establishing one concordant diapason both of extremes and means of power.” Rep. iv., — followed by Cicero; “Sic et summis et infimis et mediis interjectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderatâ ratione civitas consensu dissimillimorum concinit: et quæ harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, ea est in civitate concordia.”

See in p. 179, note 17, the original (from Hesiod) of this classification.

This Hasán is better known by his title of Ruknodowlat, the second of the Bowide dynasty, which professed to be descended from the very Ardshír we have just been considering. Hasán’s reign was from 933 to 959, A. D.; and by a very slight stretch of chronology he may be made coincident with Nicephorus Phocas, whose wars with the Saracens, though not important, are matter of history. Strangely enough, they do not speak of the Byzantine commander as a Kaisar or Cæsar, but as a king; so that we are not obliged to suppose the Cæsar commanding in person. As to the matter of the message, it seems a decent apology for retreat.

If entirely bad throughout all his relations (of relation, citizen, subject, friend, creature), he was to be extirpated; if bad in some and good in others, he might be borne with.

“Just as any members are to be amputated that prove to be void in themselves of blood, or, so to speak, of life, and become hurtful to the other parts of the body; so, in this image of the individual, savage and untractable brutality must be thrown out from the body of the state.” Cic. Off. iii. 6. There cannot be a greater contrast than that prevailing between the enlightened views of the Muhammedan doctors and the sanguinary practice of their princes. See p. 200, note 49; p. 136, note 41. In the concluding portion of the work the foundation and limitation of capital punishment is set forth in an expressive allegory.

The well-known adage of one of the seven sages of Greece, to which, perhaps, Plato may have been indebted for the passage quoted in note 9.

Law which originates, as we have seen (note 23, p. 126), in revenge, ends in superseding it altogether. The Muslims are here in a state of transition between the two. It cannot be said that they are incapable of reforming their institutions when they have here partly reformed them.

A sturdy relic of ancient barbarity. Wherever improvement came in contact with the prince, it was forced to give way. We are not to suppose, however, that by directing taliation it is meant that he directs execution. No; but only that he urges his legal claim before the constituted tribunal. The judicial power, though lodged in the Caliphat, passed from the executive, in strict law, as the Caliphat declined. No doubt princes continued occasionally to usurp and to abuse it; but still the abuse was felt as such by their subjects and officers. Thus, in that story of the Gulistān, where a young man is about to be put to death (as infants were for Louis XI. of France), that his bile might be used as a medicine for some of their kings, it is particularly mentioned that a Fatwa, or official opinion on the legality of the proceeding, was first required from the law officer. Small as the security may have been, it gave hopes of a better one.

Hence Cicero derives, with some plausibility, the institution of monarchy. “Not only, I should think, with the Medes, as Herodotus tells us, but with our own forefathers, no less, well-conducted kings were originally established as a means of obtaining justice. Oppressed by those who surpassed them in resources, the needy multitude had recourse to some one person of eminent merit, who might protect the weak from injury, and, by the introduction of equity, reduce high and low to the same legal standard.” Off. ii. 12. See, however, in note 24, p. 124, their practical embarrassments, and the end they led to. This is the great difficulty of eastern government, — the want of access or means of complaint. And hence, as the lesser evil of the two, that capricious severity of punishment which shocks more equalized sympathies; the executive endeavouring to make up by aggravation of penalty for rarity of detection (a favourite principle with British legislators). A better course would be to multiply detections, and strange efforts have often been made for the purpose. The great Akbār is said to have had gongs suspended in every direction, which complainants were directed to strike.

Traditions are of four sorts: 1. The Sunat, or decisions, opinions, and intentions of Muhammad, unexpressed in the Kurān, but embodied in a supplementary to it by his immediate successors. 2. Hadíth, the sayings of Muhammad on the debateable points of morals and politics. 3. Āthār, “vestiges” of revelation; that is, anecdotes from their early fathers illustrative of the text of the Bible (Touriat), Gospel (Injíl Evangilium), and Kurān. 4. Akbār, the of the Greeks — profane and secular traditions. — In the version, the first of these four is called Sunat (see note 38, p. 18); the second dicta or oral dicta; the third traditions, (of which the story in the text is a specimen.) The fourth, accounts or histories.

This of course is incorrect, as we may learn from Exod. cs. iii. and iv. Moses was on the opposite side of the Red Sea when the mandate was given, and we know, from what passed on the road, that he did not reach Pharaoh’s house instantaneously. In Josephus (Ant. II. xiii. 1 and 2) there is nothing to countenance our text. The fact is, the Muslims confounded the histories of Moses and Mordecai (who appears indeed to have been a year or more at the gate of Ahasuerus without seeing him, Esther ii. 11, 12, and again, iii. 7), not only in this particular, but also in introducing Haman among the adversaries of Moses: a strong specimen of the general incorrectness of their traditions. The Kurān (on this point) is not so erroneous. The best account is in c. xxviii. But the mission of Moses is referred to passim cs. ii. 48. iii. 10. vii. 104. viii. 5, &c.

The whiteness of Moses’ hand was one of the miracles, Exod. iv. 6: a white hand likewise signifies in the Arabic idiom pre-eminence or favour.

In Asia snakes were sometimes buried with concealed treasures, in order that they might deter strangers from approaching the spot. Virgil’s snake from the tomb of Anchises would be one of this sort.

That is, considering all the native Persian dynasties as one continuous line. Indeed, they always made out a pedigree, not only before but after the Muhammedan conquest. The Sāssānian is the dynasty of which we have just seen Ardshír Bābak the founder. Sāssān, the father, professed to be descended from Isfandiār the Kaianian. With regard to the chronology, it seems indeed the universal impression in the East, that historical data exist for framing a wider one than that now received in Europe; not perhaps as wide as Plato’s, but something between the two. Tò , &c. “It is altogether 9000 years ago since war is said to have prevailed between those within and those beyond the pillars of Hercules.” Crit. The dates of the Assyrian and Chinese attested observations are well known. It is the tendency of distance to diminish intervals, and bring things into false juxtaposition: where the difficulty of preserving any thing is so great, there is a chance that some things may not have been preserved. It would not be extraordinary, therefore, if means were soon found of extending our early dates without prejudice to the authorities, on which (as now understood) they stand. As to the assertion in the text, compare Proverbs xxx. 21 and 22.

The difference between this and the other Omar (Ibn-ul-khitāb), mentioned a few pages back, must be remarked. The latter was a companion, a relative, and a successor of Muhammad; — one of those four, whose fifth this Omar is flattered with the name of being. He was 8th of the Omian or Anti-alite dynasty, and reigned 717-719, A. D.

The border or neutral ground between heaven and hell, mentioned in Kurān, c. vii.; another analogy between their religion and Popery.

See in p. 143, where bounty appears to be not only beyond justice, but beside it.

According to words quoted by Gibbon (c. 1.), Abú Safiān’s observation applied not to his own feelings, but those of Muhammad’s attendants.

Literally, dried camel’s flesh. As to the sentiment, cf. Wis. Sol. vii. 1—6.

“Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.”

“It is good to keep close the secret of a king.” Tobit xii. 7.

Contrary to our law maxim, which holds writing the most accountable act of the two. Scribere est agere — and justly when the writer is aware of his responsibility. In indifferent matters the rule of the text seems generally to apply: indeed, much the same distinction is drawn by Plato (Phædrus ad fin.); the cause of it being, that the party addressed has not the means of cross-examining the writer; and the justification of it being, that he has amplest leisure for detecting inaccuracy by all other means. If deceived, at any rate he ought not to be deceived. Cf. in p. 243.

Túsy says, “At first sight conquest seems to resemble sovereignty; but a little attention will show that they are opposites.”

Contrary to the well-known and successful maxim of the Romans; which, however, is put forward a little below.

As when Philip of Macedon put the by-standers to the blush by his extravagances after the battle of Chæronea, &c.

How, then, is this to be reconciled with what was said above? The question of attack and defence applies only when the sufficiency of discipline and materiel is granted. Then, indeed, the invader has the advantage. But if not (and seldom it was or is so in the East), this will be exhausted in the preliminary effort. Xenophon prettily illustrates the idea (Cyrop. I. ii. 10), by the method of dealing with wild animals, which are to be “shunned in their charge and assailed in their recovery.” If the first assailant were sure his charge could continue unabated, he might be right to make it; but if compelled to pause in the midst, and perhaps at the most inappropriate time, the other observation would hold in turn.

These were not merely theoretical views of courtesy and humanity. In the wars of the Crusades the contest was one of manners as well as arms; and not discreditable to the Muhammedans in either department. Capture in war has been taken to be the sole original source of slavery. At any rate it has been the most copious one.

Like the expression of Burke, when speaking of the sword wreathed in myrtle.

, Aratus: and Pindar, . See end of Sect. 2.

See p. 145. “I was as a treasure concealed: then I loved that I might be known.” The Section ends with another panegyric, the frequency of which is not creditable to the object. “Hæres non scribitur nisi malus Princeps.” Tac. With the concluding sentence compare Shaks. M. of V. IV. 1.

Although their idea of the kingly function was accurate, and even strict, as we have seen, the detail of kingly duty is vague and unimpressive throughout the Section: in fact, for the full discussion of it there was then neither material nor occasion. Power can only be limited by opposite power, the power of the king by the power of the subject. Where the issue had been really raised, they were ready enough to record it; as at p. 130.