THE PRE-MUHAMMADAN LITERATURE OF THE PERSIANS, WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF THEIR LEGENDARY HISTORY, AS SET FORTH IN THE BOOK OF THE KINGS.
IN a book professing to treat of the literary history of any people in its entirety it would at first sight appear proper that A personal explanation. each period and manifestation of the national genius should, as far as possible, receive an equal amount of attention. In the case of Persia, however, a complete survey of the whole ground could only be made at first hand either by a combination of specialists working together (as has been done in the truly admirable Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie of Geiger and Kuhn, to which reference has already so often been made), or by a scholar of such varied and multiple attainments as can but rarely coexist in one man. Corresponding with the philological divisions already laid down, we have four separate literatures (though one is perhaps too scanty and limited in extent and character to deserve this title) which may fairly be called “Persian”: to wit:—
(i) The Old Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Achæ-menian kings.
(ii) The Avesta (or rather the fragments of it which we still possess), including the more ancient Gáthás, written in a different and more archaic dialect, and believed by many to date from Zoroaster's own time.
(iii) The Pahlawí literature, including the contemporary Sásánian Inscriptions.
(iv) The post-Muhammadan, or “Modern Persian” literature of the last thousand years, which alone is usually understood as “Persian Literature.”
To this last we must also add, for reasons advanced in Chap. I (pp. 3-4 supra),—
(v) That large portion of Arabic literature produced by Persians.
Now, of the three more ancient languages and literatures above mentioned I can claim only a superficial and second-hand knowledge, since the study of Modern Persian and Arabic is amply sufficient to occupy even the most active mind for a life-time. The other literatures lie quite apart, and primarily require quite different qualifications. For the student of Old Persian and Avestic a good knowledge of Sanskrit is essential, while a knowledge of Arabic, Muhammadan theology, and the like is of quite secondary importance. For the study of the first, moreover, a knowledge of Assyrian, and for the second, of Pahlawí, is desirable; while Pahlawí, in turn, cannot be fruitfully studied save by one well-versed in the Aramaic languages, especially Syriac and Chaldæan. Wherefore, since it behoves an author to write of what he knows at first hand, and since my knowledge of the pre-Muhammadan languages and literatures of Persia is only such as (with the desire of extending and completing, as far as possible, my view of the people whose later history is my chosen study) I have derived from the writings of experts, I would gladly have confined the scope of this book to the post-Muhammadan period, whereon alone I have any claim to speak with authority. Yet since every increase of knowledge makes one feel how much greater than one had supposed is the continuity of a nation's history and thought, and how much weaker are the dividing lines which once seemed so clear, I could not bring myself to mislead such as may read my book as to the true scope and unity of the subject by such artificial and unnatural circumscription. I began my Oriental studies with Turkish, and was soon driven to Persian, since from the Persians the Turks borrowed their culture and literary forms. Soon I found that without a knowledge of the Arabic language and literature and of the Arabian civilisation and culture one could never hope to be more than a smatterer in Persian. Still I thought of the Arab conquest of Persia and the conversion of the bulk of the Persians to the religion of Islám as a definite and satisfactory starting-point, as an event of such magnitude and of so revolutionary a character that it might fairly be regarded as creating practically a tabula rasa, from which all earlier writing had been expunged. But gradually it became apparent that this conception was very far from the truth; that many phenomena of the complex 'Abbásid civilisation, of the early religious history of Islám, of the Book and Teaching of the Arabian Prophet himself, could only be understood in the light of earlier history.90a Inevitably one is carried back from Muhammadan to Sásánian times, from Sásánian to Parthian, Achæmenian, Medic, Assyrian, primitive Aryan, and I know not what besides, until one is fain to exclaim with the Persian poet:—
Marā-i khiradmand-i-hunar-písha-rá
'Umr du báyast dar-ín rúzgár,
Tá bi-yakí tajriba ámúkhtí,
Dar digarí tajriba burdí bi-kár!“The man of parts who after wisdom strives
Should have on earth at least a brace of lives;
In one experience he then might learn,
And in the next that same to profit turn!”
Therefore, unwilling on the one hand to speak much of matters wherein I have but little skill, and on the other to produce what I should regard as an essentially defective and misleading book, false to my conception of what is meant by the Literary History of a people, and faulty not only in execution but in conception, I have decided to set forth briefly in this chapter the main facts about the Achæmenian Inscriptions, the Avesta, the Pahlawí monuments and literature, and the Zoroastrian religion, to know which is important even for those whose main interest lies in Modern Persian. Of the Sásánian period, and therefore incidentally of Pahlawí, the official language of that time in Persia, I shall speak in greater detail in the next chapter, since in it lie the roots of so much that attracts our attention in the early Muhammadan days, and the gulf which severs it from what precedes is so much harder to bridge satisfactorily than that which divides it from what follows. And since, for literary purposes, the legendary is nearly as important as the actual history of a people, I shall also discuss in this chapter the Persian Epos or National Legend, which, as will be seen, only approaches the real National History at the beginning of the Sásánian period. This chapter will therefore be divided into four sections, which may be briefly characterised as follows: (1) Achæmenian; (2) Avestic; (3) Pahlawí; and (4) National Legend.
Our fullest knowledge of that first great Persian dynasty which began with Cyrus in B.C. 559, and ended with the defeat of the last Darius by Alexander, and his tragic death at the hands of his two treacherous satraps, Bessus and Barzaëntes, in B.C. 330, is derived from Greek historians, notably Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon (Anabasis, Cyropœdia, Agesilaus), while some sidelights may be derived from such works as the Persœ of Æschylus. Of these external sources, however, which have been fully used by those who have written the history of the Achæmenians (such as Rawlinson, Spiegel, and Justi), I do not propose to speak further, since they lie rather in the domain of the classical scholar than of the Orientalist. Raw-linson, however, in his admirable translation of Herodotus, points out how much the authority of that great historian is strengthened, not only by the Achæmenian inscriptions, but also by the true and convincing portraits of the national character which his work contains. But for him, indeed, the inscriptions, even if deciphered, must have remained obscure in many points which by his help are clear, as, for example, the words in ll. 8-11 of the first portion of Darius's great Behistun inscription: “Saith Darius the king: ‘Eight of my race who were aforetime were kings; I am the ninth: we are kings by double descent” [or, “in a double line”]. In the light of the following genealogical tree deducible from Herodotus (Polymnia, vii, 10) the meaning of this becomes evident:—
| (1) Achæmenes (Hakhámanish) | |
| (2) Teispes (Cháishpish) | |
| (6) Ariaramnes (Ariyárámna) | (3) Cambyses (Kambujiya) |
| (7) Arsames (Arsháma) | (4) Cyrus (Kurush) |
| (8) Hystaspes (Víshtáspa) | (5) Cambyses (Kambujiya) |
| (9) Darius (Dárayavush) | |
| Xerxes (Khshayárshá) | |
Ordinarily, of course, Cyrus (B.C. 559-529) is reckoned the first king of the line; his son Cambyses (B.C. 529-522) the second, and Darius (B.C. 521-485) the third; but Darius himself counts his own ancestors up to Achæmenes, as well as the three kings (for he evidently includes Cambyses the father of Cyrus as well as Cambyses the son) of the collateral branch, and so the meanings of duvitátaranam, “in a double line” (it was formerly translated “from a very ancient time”), and of Darius's “I am the ninth” become perfectly plain.
Any observant traveller who visits Persepolis and its surroundings will remark with some surprise that the inscriptions of the oldest period are the best preserved, while the most modern are the least legible. The Achæmenian cuneiform is so clear and sharp that we can hardly believe that nearly two thousand four hundred years have elapsed since the chisel which cut it rested from its labour. The Sásánian (Pahlawí) inscriptions, though younger by some seven hundred and fifty years, are blurred and faint in comparison; while the quite recent inscriptions in Modern Persian are almost obliterated. This seems to me a type of the three epochs represented by them, and to be reflected in the literary style of their contents. The great Darius is content to call himself “the Great King, the King of kings, King in Persia, King of the provinces, the son of Víshtásp, the grandson of Arsháma, the Achæmenian.” Shápúr the Sásánian calls himself in the Pahlawí inscription at Hájí-ábád, “the Mazda-worshipping divine being Shahpúhar, King of kings of Írán and non-Írán, of spiritual descent from God, son of the Mazda-worshipping divine being Artakhshatr, King of kings of Írán, of spiritual descent from God, grandson of the divine being Pápak the King.” As for the mass of empty, high-sounding titles with which the most petty Persian rulers of later Muhammadan times thought it necessary to bedeck their names, they are but too familiar to every Persian student, and I will not weary others by such vain repetitions.
I have said that we should rather speak of the Achæmenian inscriptions as historical than as literary monuments of the Old Persian language, yet there is in them a directness, a dignity, a simplicity and straightforwardness of diction, which entitle us to regard them as having a real literary style. The portion of Darius's great inscription from Behistun translated at pp. 31-32 supra, will serve as one specimen, and here is another, emanating from the same king, from Persepolis:—
“A great god is Ahuramazda, who hath created this earth, who hath created that heaven, who hath created man, who created the gladness of man, who made Darius king, sole king of many, sole lawgiver of many.
“I am Darius, the great King, the King of kings, King of lands peopled by all races, for long King of this great earth, the son of Víshtásp, the Achæmenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan of Aryan descent.
“Saith Darius the King: By the grace of Ahuramazda, these are the lands of which I held possession beyond Persis, over which I held sway, which brought me tribute, which did that which was commanded them by me, and wherein my Law was maintained: Media, Susiana, Parthia, Haraiva [Herát], Bactria [Balkh], Sughd, Khwárazm [Khiva], Drangiana, Arachosia, Thatagush [the Sata-gydæ], Gandára, India, the Haumavarka Sacæ and Tígrakhuda Sacæ, Babylon, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sparda, the Ionians, the Sacæ across the sea, Skudra, the crown-wearing Ionians,94a the Putiya, the Kushiya, the Machiya, the Karkas.
“Saith Darius the King: When Ahuramazda saw this earth …, then did He entrust it to me, He made me King, I am King, by the grace of Ahuramazda have I set it in right order, what I commanded them [i.e., men] that was carried out, as was my Will. If thou thinkest, ‘How many were the lands which King Darius ruled?’ then behold this picture: they bear my Throne, thereby thou may'st know them. Then shalt thou know that the spears of the men of Persia reach afar; then shalt thou know that the Persian waged war far from Persia.
“Saith Darius the King: What I have done, that did I all by the grace of Ahuramazda: Ahuramazda vouchsafed me help till I completed the work. May Ahuramazda protect me from …, and [likewise] my House and these lands! For this do I pray Ahura-mazda: may Ahuramazda vouchsafe me this!
“O man! This is Ahuramazda's command to thee: Think no evil; abandon not the right path; sin not!”
One curious phenomenon presented by one of the latest Achæmenian inscriptions (that of Artaxerxes Ochus, B.C. 361-336) deserves a passing notice. Does some subtle connection exist between the decay of a language and the decay, or at least temporary subordination, of a race? I have heard it said by English scholars that already before the Battle of Hastings the Anglo-Saxon, or Old English, language had, Degeneration of language and creed in latest inscriptions. to a great extent, ceased to be written grammatically, and that it was in full decadence before the Norman invasion. As regards the Old Persian language, at least, this appears to be beyond doubt; and in the inscription to which reference is made above we find such errors in declensions and cases as bumám (“earth,” acc. case) for bumim; asmánám (“heaven,” acc. sing.) for asmánam; sháyatám (“joy,” acc. sing.) for shiyátim; martihyá (“of men,” gen. pl.) for martiyahya; khsháyathiya (“king,” nom. for acc. sing.), and the like. And concurrently with this decay of language appear signs of a degeneration in creed; Ahuramazda no longer stands alone, but is associated with other gods, Mithra (the Sun) and Anahita (Venus).
We have already, in Chapter I, touched on some of the general questions connected with the origin, age, and home of the Avesta, and the language in which it is written—questions not admitting, unfortunately, of very precise or certain answers. Geldner's article on “Zoroaster” in the ninth edition of the Encyclopœdia Britannica (1888), and Dar-mesteter's French translation of the Avesta in the Annales du Musée Guimet, vols. xxi, xxii, xxiv (1892-3), may be taken as representing the two extreme views. According to Geldner's earlier views (1888). the former, part of the Avesta at least (the Gáthás) represented the actual utterances of Zoroaster or his immediate disciples; Bactria was the scene of his activity, and its language the vehicle of his teaching; the King Víshtásp (Gushtásp, Hystaspes), whom he converted, and who became the zealous patron and protector of his creed, “has no place in any historical chronology,” “must have lived long before Cyrus,” and “must be carefully distinguished from Hystaspes the father of Darius;” and the period at which he flourished may have been anything from B.C. 1000 (Duncker) to B.C. 1400 (Gutschmid). According to the latter, the Zoroastrian scriptures of Achæ- Darmesteter's later views (1893). menian times (if they ever existed) entirely perished after Alexander's invasion; the construction of the Avesta (of which we now possess a portion only) began in the first century of our era, in the reign of the Parthian Vologeses I (A.D. 51-78), was continued under the Sásánians until the reign of Shápúr II (A.D. 309-379), and, in its later portion, was largely influenced by the Gnosticism of the Alexandrian or Neo-Platonist philosophy; Media was the home of the Zoroastrian doctrine, and the Medic language its vehicle of expression; and the origin of the Zoroastrian creed goes back (as definitely stated in such Pahlawí books as the Arda Viráf Námak and the Bundahish) only to a period of three centuries or less before Alexander's time, that is, to the sixth or seventh century before Christ, or, in other words, to a period slightly more remote than the beginning of the Achæmenian dynasty.
The views advanced by Darmesteter, though they have not
commanded general assent, have nevertheless greatly modified
Geldner's later
view (1896).
those of the other school, notably of Geldner,
especially by causing them to pay much greater
attention to the traditions embodied in the
Pahlawí, Pársí, and early Muhammadan writings. Thus
Geldner, in the interesting article on the Avesta contributed
by him to Geiger and Kuhn's Grundriss (1896), while withholding
his assent from some of Darmesteter's most revolutionary
views as to the modern origin of the Avesta in the
form known to us, attaches great importance to the Pársí
tradition; identifies Zoroaster's King Hystaspes with the
historical father of Darius; makes Zoroaster a contemporary
of Cyrus the Great; fixes, accordingly, the earliest limit of
the Avesta as B.C. 560; admits the destruction of the original
Avesta during the period separating Alexander's invasion from
the reign of Vologeses I, who first began its reconstruction, a
work renewed with vigour by Ardashír, the founder of the
Sásánian dynasty; and allows that additions may have continued
to be made to it till the reign of Shápúr II (A.D. 309-379).
He still holds, however, that the Gáthás are not
only the oldest portion of the Avesta, but represent the actual
teachings and utterances of Zoroaster, of whose real, historical
character he remains firmly persuaded; and adduces good
historical evidence against Darmesteter's view that the Gáthás
are to be regarded as reflecting Alexandrian Gnosticism, or
that the Vôhu-manô (Bahman) which appears so frequently in
them owes its origin to the
Since Anquetil's time it has been well known that the Avesta, as we now possess it, is only a fragment of the entire The Sásánian Avesta. work which existed even in the Sásánian period; while this in turn was “not more than a single priest could easily carry in his head” out of the Avesta “written with gold ink on prepared ox-hides and stored up in Stâkhar-Pápakán,” which was destroyed by “the accursed Alexander the Roman.” Yet the Vendidâd, which constitutes a considerable portion of the existing Avesta, makes a fair-sized volume, and it was but one of the twenty-one nosks into which the Sásánian Avesta was divided, and of which the contents are in some measure known to us from the Pahlawí Dínkard, a very important work, dating, probably, from the ninth century of our era. These twenty-one nosks, of which the Pahlawí names are known to us,97a were divided equally into three groups—the gásáník (mainly theological and liturgical), the dátík (mainly legal), and the hátak-mánsarík (philosophical and scientific). Of the seven nosks constituting the first group (intended principally for the priests) we still possess fragments of three—the Stôt-yasht, the Bako, and the Hâtôkht; of the second seven (intended for the laity) also three—the Vendidâd, and parts of the Hûspâram and Bakân-yasht; while the third group, appealing to the more limited circle of learned and scientific men, has unfortunately (probably for that very reason) perished entirely. According to West's conjecture, these twenty-one nosks, which composed the Sásánian Avesta, contained in all about 347,000 words, of which we now possess only some 83,000, or about a quarter. Concerning the division above mentioned, Geldner remarks that it is “partly artificial, and is based on the attempt to establish a strict analogy between the whole Avesta and the Ahuna-Vairya verse, which is regarded as the quintessence and original foundation of the whole Avesta revelation.” This remark A curious analogy. suggests two interesting analogies with later times, and serves to illustrate what has been already said as to the remarkable persistence or recurrence of ideas in the East—a phenomenon of which I have elsewhere spoken in greater detail. The first of these is embodied in a Shí'ite tradition ascribed to 'Alí, which runs as follows:—
“All that is in the Qur'án is in the Súratu'l-Fátiḥa [the opening chapter], and all that is in the Súratu'l-Fátiḥa is in the Bismi'lláh [the formula ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Forgiving,’ which stands at the head of every chapter except one of the Muḥammadan Scripture, and which is used by Muhammadans when entering on any undertaking], and all that is in the Bismi'lláh is in the B of the Bismi'lláh, and all that is in the B of the Bismi'lláh is in the point which is under the B, and I am the Point which is under the B.”
The second is the further expansion and application of this idea by the Báb, the founder of the last great religious movement in Persia, who was put to death in 1850 at Tabríz; for he declared 19—the number of the letters in the Bismi'lláh— to be the “Unity” (in Arabic Wáḥid, “One,” in which, curiously enough, the numerical values of the component letters add up to 19) which was at once the intelligible Manifestation of the Ineffable One and the proper numerical base of all computation, so that he made his books to consist of 19 “Unities,” each containing 19 chapters, and the year to consist of 19 months of 19 days each (= 361 days).
The existing Avesta, as already said, contains but one complete nosk out of the twenty-one which it comprised in Divisions of the present Avesta. Sásánian times, viz., the Vendidâd; while portions of at least four others enter into the composition of the Yasna, and other fragments are preserved in some Pahlawí books, notably the Hûspâram in the Níran-gistán. The extant books and religious formulæ of the Avesta are divided into five chief groups or sections, which are as follows:—
1. The Yasna, or liturgical portion, consisting of hymns recited in honour of the different angels, spirits, and divine The Yasna. beings. It comprises seventy-two chapters (called háiti or há), symbolised by the seventy-two strands which compose the kushtí, or sacred girdle, investiture with which constitutes the formal admission of the young Zoroastrian to the Zoroastrian Church. In it are included the ancient Gáthás to which reference has already been made.
2. The Vispered, comprising 23-27 chapters (called karde), is not an independent, coherent, and self-contained book, but The Vispered. a collection of formulæ and doxologies similar and supplementary to the Yasna, in conjunction with which it is used liturgically.
3. The Vendidâd, or “Law against the demons,” is, in Geldner's words, “the Leviticus of the Pársís, the Eccle- The Vendidâd. siastical Law-book, which prescribes the priestly purifications, expiations, and ecclesiastical penances,” and comprises twenty-two chapters (fargard). Of these, the first, describing the successive creation by Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda) of the good lands, and the counter-creation by Ahriman (Anro Mainyush) of a corresponding evil in each case, has been the chief basis of all discussion as to the regions originally known to and inherited by the people of the Avesta.
4. The Yashts, twenty-one in number (cf. p. 98, l. 5 supra), are hymns in honour of the various angels and spiritual beings, the The Yashts. Amshaspands and Ízads, one of whom presides over, and gives his name to, each of the thirty days which constitute the Zoroastrian month. Originally, as the Pársís hold, each of these had his appropriate Yasht; so that it would appear that nearly a third part of this portion of the Avesta has been lost. This mention of the Zoroastrian calendar reminds me of another illustration of Another illustration of the resurgence in the East of ancient religious doctrines and observances that resurgence of ancient religious beliefs and observances in the East of which I have already spoken. The Zoroastrian year comprises 12 months of 30 days each, to which are added 5 extra days, called the gáthás. The year, in short, is a solar year, comprising, like our own, 365 days, with a suitable arrangement for further intercalation. The modern Bábís, wholly Muhammadan in outward origin, and ultra-Shí'ite in their earlier stages of development, abandoned the Muhammadan lunar year (which falls short of the solar by about 11 days), and, taking as their numerical base their favourite number 19, substituted for it a solar year consisting of 19 months of 19 days each, making a total of 361 (= 19 × 19) days, which were supplemented as required to maintain the correspondence between the calendar and the real season, by some or all of the five extra days which represented the numerical value of the Báb's title (B = 2, Á = 1, B = 2), and were, in the Bábí phrase, fixed “according to the number of the Há,” i.e., of the Arabic letter which stands for five. More than this, each day of the Bábí month, and each month of the Bábí year, is consecrated to, and derives its name from, some attribute, aspect or function of the Deity, just as each day and each month of the Zoroastrian year stand in a similar relation to one of the angelic beings who constitute the Zoroastrian spiritual hierarchy. The only difference between the two systems—the most ancient and the most modern which Persia has produced—lies in the substitution of attributes for Angels by the Bábís, and further in the fact that to only twelve of the thirty Amshaspands and Ízads who preside over the days of the month are allotted months also, while with the Bàbís the same nineteen names serve for both purposes. In both calendars the week plays no part; in both it happens once in each month that the same name indicates both the month and the day; and in both cases such days are observed as festivals. Yet it is most improbable that the Báb, who was a Sayyid, and, ere he announced his Divine mission (A.D. 1844), an ultra-zealous Shí'ite, holding all unbelievers as unclean and to be sedulously avoided (he enjoins in the Persian Bayán the expulsion of all who refuse to accept his doctrine, save such as are engaged in avocations useful to the community, from the five principal provinces of Persia), had, or would have condescended to acquire, any direct knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion and practices; and the same applies to the many striking analogies which his doctrine, and even phraseology, present with those of the Isma'ílís and other older sects; so that we are almost driven to regard a certain circle of religious and philosophical ideas as endemic in Persia, and liable at any moment, under a suitable stimulus, to become epidemic. To this point we shall have repeated occasion to recur later.
5. The Khorda Avesta, or “Little Avesta,” is a kind of prayer-book or religious chrestomathy compiled for the use of The Khorda Avesta. the laity in the reign of Shápúr II (A.D. 310-379) by the priest, Ádharpádh Mahraspand. It consists partly of selections from the whole Avesta, partly of formulæ written in Pázend (see pp. 81-2 supra); and comprises the five Nyáyishes (prayers addressed to the Sun, the Moon, Mithra, the Genius of the Water, and the Bahrám-Fire), the five Gáhs, the greater and lesser Sírúza (“thirty days”), and the four Áfríngán, or blessings.
Such, with the independent fragments preserved in Pahlawí books like the Nírangistán (chief amongst which are the Review of the Avesta as a whole. Aogemadaêcâ and Hâdôkht-nosk), is that remnant of the Zoroastrian scriptures which we now know as the Avesta. Intensely interesting though it be as an ancient document embodying the doctrines of so celebrated a person as Zoroaster, and the tenets of an old-world faith which once played an important part in the world's history, and which, though numbering at the present day not ten thousand adherents in Persia, and not more than ninety thousand in India,102a has profoundly influenced other religions of intrinsically greater importance, the Avesta cannot be described as either pleasant or interesting reading. It is true that the interpretation of many passages is doubtful, and that better understanding might lead to higher appreciation of these; but, speaking for myself, I can only say that while my appreciation of the Qur'án grows the more I study it and endeavour to grasp its spirit, the study of the Avesta, save for philological, mythological, or other comparative purposes, leads only to a growing weariness and satiety. The importance of its place in the history of religious thought, as well as its interest from an antiquarian and philological point of view, will ever attract to it a certain number of devoted students, apart from those who regard it as a Revelation and a Law from God; but to me it is doubtful whether any translation of it could be made which the ordinary reader of average curiosity and intelligence would be willing to read through from cover to cover, save for some special purpose. At any rate the number of translations into English, French, and German is sufficiently large to enable any one who chooses to try the experiment for himself, and the citation of selected passages in this place appears quite superfluous.
The earliest traces of the Pahlawí language (of which, as already pointed out, the apparent mingling of Semitic and Pahlawí legends on coins (B.C. 300—A.D. 695). Íránian words, brought about by the use of the Huzvárish system, is the essential feature) occur, as first pointed out by Levy of Breslau in 1867,103a on sub-Parthian coins of the end of the fourth and beginning of the third century before Christ—in other words, soon after the end of the Achæmenian period; and Pahlawí legends are borne by the later Parthian, all the Sásánian, and the early Muhammadan coins of Persia, including amongst the latter the coins struck by the independent Ispahbads of Ṭabaristán, as well as those of the earlier Arab governors. The Pahlawí coin-legends extend, therefore, from about B.C. 300 to A.D. 695, when the Umayyad Caliph 'Abdu'l-Malik abolished the Persian currency and introduced a coinage bearing Arabic legends.
103bThe Pahlawí inscriptions date from the beginning of Sásánian times, the two oldest being those of Ardashír and Pahlawí inscriptions. Shápúr, the first and second kings of that illustrious house (A.D. 226-241 and 241-272); and they extend down to the eleventh century, to which belong the inscriptions cut in the Kanheri Buddhist caves in Salsette near Bombay by certain Pársís who visited them in A.D. 1009 and 1021. Intermediate between these extremes are ten signatures of witnesses on a copper-plate grant to the Syrian Christians of the Malabar coast. The grant itself is engraved in old Tamil characters on five copper plates, and a sixth contains the names of the twenty-five witnesses attesting it, of which eleven are in Kufic Arabic, ten in Sásánian Pahlawí, and four in the Hebrew character and Persian language.
103cOf the age of the Pahlawí literature, properly so called, we have already spoken (pp. 7-8 supra). It was essentially the Pahlawí literature. Persian literature of the Sásánian period, but was naturally continued for some time after the fall of that dynasty. Thus the Gujastak Abálish námak, to which reference has already been made, narrates a discussion held between an orthodox Zoroastrian priest, Átur-farnbag son of Farrukh-zád, and a heretical dualist (perhaps a Mani-chæan) in the presence of the 'Abbásid Caliph al-Ma'mún (A.D. 813-833), so that the period to which this literature belongs may be considered to extend from the third to the ninth or tenth centuries of our era, at which time the natural use of Pahlawí may be considered to have ceased, though at all times, even to the present day, learned Zoroastrians were to be found who could compose in Pahlawí. Such late, spurious Pahlawí, however, commonly betrays its artificial origin, notably by the confusing of the adjectival termination -ík with the nominal or substantival termination -íh, both of which are represented by -í in Modern Persian.
Of actual written Pahlawí documents, the papyrus-fragments from the Fayyúm in Egypt, which West supposes to date from Pahlawí manuscripts. the eighth century of our era, are the most ancient, and after them there is nothing older than the MS. of the Pahlawí Yasna known as “J. 2,” which was completed on January 25, A.D. 1323. Pahlawí manuscripts naturally continue to be transcribed amongst the Pársís down to the present day, though since the introduction of Pahlawí type, and the gradual publication by printing or lithography of the more important books, the function of the scribe, here as in the case of other Eastern languages, has in large measure fallen into abeyance.
The Pahlawí literature is divided by West, who is certainly Extent and character of the Pahlawí literature. the greatest living authority on it, and who is in this portion of our subject our chief guide, into three classes, as follows:—
1. Pahlawí translations of Avesta texts, represented by twenty-seven works, or fragments of works, estimated to contain in all about 141,000 words.105a Valuable as these are for the exegesis of the Avesta, they “cannot be really considered,” in West's words, “as a sample of Pahlawí literature, because the Pársí translators have been fettered by the Avesta arrangement of the words.”
2. Pahlawí texts on religious subjects, represented by fifty-five works, estimated to contain about 446,000 words. This class contains, besides commentaries, prayers, traditions (riwáyats), admonitions, injunctions, pious sayings, and the like, several important and interesting works, amongst which the following deserve particular mention. The Dínkart The Dínkart (9th century). (“Acts of Religion”), “a large collection of information regarding the doctrines, customs, traditions, history and literature of the Mazda-worshipping religion,” of which the compilation was begun in the ninth century of our era by the same Átur-farnbag who appears before al-Ma'mún as the champion of orthodox Zoroastrianism against “the accursed Abálish,” and concluded towards the end of the same century.105b The Bundahishn The Bundahishn (12th century). (“The Ground-giving”), an extensive manual of religious knowledge,105c comprising, in the fuller recession known as the “Iránian,” forty-six chapters, which appears to have been finally concluded in the eleventh or twelfth century of our era, though the bulk of it is probably a good deal earlier. The Dátistán-i-Díník, or The Dátistán-iDíník (9th century). “Religious Opinions” of Mánúshchíhar, son of Yúdán-Yim, high-priest of Párs and Kirmán in the latter part of the ninth century, on ninety-two topics, characterised by West as “one of the most difficult Pahlawí texts in existence, both to understand and to translate.” The Shikand-gúmáník Víjár106a (“Doubt-dispelling Explanation”), a controversial religious work, composed towards the Shikandgúmánik Víjár. end of the ninth century, in defence of the Zoroastrian dualism against the Jewish, Christian, Manichæan, and Muhammadan theories of the nature and origin of evil; and described by West as “the nearest approach to a philosophical treatise that remains extant Mainyo-iKhirad. in Pahlawí literature.” The Díná-i-Mainyo [or Máinóg] -i-Khirad (“Opinions of the Spirit of Wisdom”) contains the answers of this spirit to sixty-two inquiries on matters connected with the Zoroastrian faith. The publication of the Pahlawí text by Andreas (Kiel, 1882), and of the Pázend text with Neriosengh's Sanskrit translation by West (Stuttgart, 1871), who has also published English translations of both texts (1871 and 1885), render it one of the most accessible of Pahlawí works, and as pointed out by Nöldeke in his translation of the Kárnámak-i-Artakhshatr-i-Pápakán , one of the best books for beginning the study of Arda-Víráf Námak. book-Pahlawí. The Arda-Víráf Námak is another very well-known work, accessible in the original (Bombay, 1872) and in English and French translations, and may be briefly described as a prose Zoroastrian Paradiso and Inferno. It is interesting for the picture it gives of the religious and material anarchy in Persia produced by the invasion of “the accursed Alexander the Roman,” of the Sásánian national and religious revival in the third century of our era, and of the Zoroastrian ideas of the future life. In the latter we can hardly fail to be struck by the analogy between the Chinvat Bridge and the Muhammadan Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, “finer than a hair and sharper than a sword,” to which Byron alludes in the well-known lines—
“By Allah, I would answer ‘Nay!’
Though on al-Sirat's bridge I stood,
Which totters o'er the burning flood,
With Paradise within my view,
And all its houris beckoning through.”
And these houris also seem to find their more spiritual prototype in the fair maiden who meets the departed soul of the righteous man, and who, on being questioned, declares herself to be the embodiment of the good deeds, the good words, and Mátígán-igujastak Abálish. the good thoughts which have proceeded from him during his life. The “Book of the accursed Abálish,” already mentioned more than once, was published by Barthélemy in 1887, with the Pázend and Pársí-Persian versions and a French translation. The Jámásp-námak, known in its entirety only in Pázend and Persian versions, contains some interesting mythological and legendary matter Andaraz-iKhusraw-iKavátán. about the ancient mythical kings of the Persian Epos. The Andaraz-i-Khusraw-i-Kawátán, or dying injunctions of King Núshírwán (Anôshak-rubân, A.D. 531-578) to his people, though of very small extent, deserves mention because it has been taken by Salemann in his Mittelpersische Studien (Mélanges Asiatiques, ix, pp. 242-253, St. Petersburg, 1887) as the basis of a very interesting and luminous study of the exact fashion in which a Pahlawí text would probably have sou??hen read aloud; an ingenious attempt at a critical Pázend transcription.
3. Pahlawí texts on non-religious subjects, represented by only eleven works, comprising in all about 41,000 words. This Non-theological Pahlawí works. class of Pahlawí literature is at once the most interesting and the least extensive. A large nontheological literature no doubt existed in Sásánian times, and many works of this class no longer extant (notably the Khudháy-námak, or “Book of Kings,” which will be discussed in the next section) are known to us by name, and to some extent in substance, through the early Arabic and Muhammadan Persian writers. The same cause which led to the loss of the scientific and philosophical nosks of the Avesta (the hátak mánsarík: see p. 97 supra), namely, the comparative indifference of the Zoroastrian priests, who were practically the sole guardians of the old literature after the fall of the Sásánian Empire, to all books which did not bear immediately on their own interests, led, no doubt, to the loss of the greater part of the profane literature of the Sásánian period. The works of this class now extant are so few that they may be enumerated in full. They comprise: (1) The Social Code of the Zoroastrians in Sásánian Times. (2) The Yátkár-i-Zarírán (also called the Sháhnáma-i-Gushtásp and the Pahlawí Sháhnáma), translated into German by Geiger in the Sitzungsberichte d. phil. und hist. Classe d. Kais. bayer. Akad. d. Wissenschaften for 1890, ii, pp. 243-84, and further discussed by Nöldeke two years later in the same periodical.108a (3) The Tale of Khusraw-i-Kawátán (Núshírwán) and his Page. (4) The extremely interesting Kárnámak-i-Artakh-shatr-i-Pápakán , or “Gests of Ardashír Bábakán,” the founder of the Sásánian dynasty, of which the Pahlawí text108b (which appears, however, to be edited with little criticism) was published at Bombay in 1896 by Kayqubad Ádharbád Dastúr Núshírwán, while an excellent German translation, with critical notes and a most luminous Introduction, by Professor Nöldeke of Strassburg, appeared at Göttingen in 1878. Of this book I shall have occasion to speak much more fully in connection with the Sháh-náma, or “Book of Kings.” It and the two preceding ones may be classed together as the sole survivors of the “historical novel” of Sásánian times; though the contents or titles of others are known to us through Arabic writers (such as Mas'údí, Dínawarí, and the author of the invaluable Fihrist), while the substance of one, the Book of the Gests and Adventures of Bahrám Chúbín, has been in part reconstructed by Professor Nöldeke (Geschichte der … Sasaniden, Leyden, 1879, pp. 474-487). The remaining books of this class (mostly of small extent) are: (5) The Cities of Írán; (6) the Wonders of Sagistán; (7) the Dirakht-i-Asúríg , or “Tree of Assyria”; (8) the Chatrang-námak, or “Book of Chess”; (9) Forms of Epistles; (10) Form of Marriage Contract, dated to correspond with November 16, A.D. 1278; and (11) the well-known Farhang-i-Pahlawík, or “Old Pahlawí-Pázend Glossary,” published at Bombay and London by Hoshang and Haug in 1870.
Besides the Pahlawí literature, there also exists a modern Persian Zoroastrian literature, of which the most important Persian Zoroastrian literature. works are: the Zartushtnáma (“Book of Zoroaster”) in verse, composed at Ray in Persia in the thirteenth century; the Sad-dar (“Hundred Chapters”), a sort of epitome of the Zoroastrian faith in three recensions (one prose, two verse), of which the first is the oldest; the 'Ulamá-i-Islám (“Doctors of Islám”); the Riwáyats, or collections of religious traditions; the Qiṣṣai-Sanján , or narrative of the Zoroastrian exodus to India after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia; and several Persian versions of Pahlawí texts. These are discussed by West in an Appendix to his article in the Grundriss (pp. 122-129). I know of no literary activity amongst the Persian Zoroastrians of Yazd and Kirmán in recent times, and though amongst themselves they continue to speak the peculiar Gabrí dialect already mentioned, their speech in mixed society scarcely Existence of verse in Sásánian times. differs from that of their Muhammadan fellow-citizens, and their letters are entirely copied from the ordinary models.
The question of the existence of poetry in Sásánian times has been already discussed at pp. 14-16 supra. If it ever existed, no remnants of it, so far as is known, have survived till the present day.
As has been already pointed out, the substance of a certain number of Pahlawí works which have perished is preserved to some extent by some Muhammadan writers, especially the earlier Arabic historians (that is, Arabic-writing, for most of them were Persians by race), such as Ṭabarí, Mas'údí, Dínawarí, and the like, who drew for the most part their materials from Arabic translations of Pahlawí books made by such men as Ibnu'l-Muqaffa', who were well acquainted with both languages. Of such translations a considerable number are enumerated in the Fihrist, but Ibnu'l-Muqaffa''s rendering of Kalíla and Dimna (brought from India in the time of Núshírwán “the Just,” together with the game of Chess, and translated for him into Pahlawí) is almost the only one which has survived in its entirety. Amongst the early Arabic writers, the best informed on Persian topics include, besides Ṭabarí († A.D. 923), al-Jáḥidh († A.D. 869), al-Kisrawí († A.D. 870), Ibn Qutayba († A.D. 889), al-Ya'qúbí († A.D. 900), Dínawarí († A.D. 895), Mas'údí (flourished in the middle of the tenth century), especially his Murúju' dh-dhahab and Kitábu't-tanbíh wa'l-ishráf, Ḥamza of Isfahán (A.D. 961), al-Bírúní (end of tenth and early eleventh century), al-Baládhurí († A.D. 892), the author of the Fihrist, Muḥammad b. Isḥáq (end of tenth century), and others. Amongst Persian works, Bal'amí's translation of Ṭabarí's history (A.D. 963), the anonymous Mujmalu't-Tawáríkh, and Firdawsí's great epic, the Sháhnáma, of which we shall speak immediately, are perhaps the most important from this point of view.
Hitherto we have spoken chiefly of the real history of Ancient Persia, as derived from the oldest and most credible sources—inscriptions, coins, and the writers of antiquity. It is now necessary that we should briefly examine the ideas that the Persians themselves entertain as to the dynasties and kings who ruled over them in days of old—in other words, the National Legend, which only begins to run parallel with actual history at the beginning of the Sásánian period. This National Legend finds its ultimate development in the celebrated epic of the Sháhnáma, or “Book of Kings,” an immense poem, generally computed at about 60,000 couplets, composed by Firdawsí for Sulṭán Maḥmúd of Ghazna, and completed, after some forty years of labour, in the year A.D. 1010. As a literary work this great epic will be more properly discussed in a later chapter, but, since it remains till the present day the chief source whence the Persians derive their ideas as to the ancient history of their nation, it will be proper to discuss briefly in this chapter both the nature and antiquity of its contents. This matter has been treated in a most exhaustive and scholarly manner by Professor Nöldeke of Strassburg in his article entitled Das Iranische Nationalepos, contributed to vol. ii of Geiger and Kuhn's Grundriss, and also published in separate form (Trübner, Strassburg, 1896). Of this excellent work, which probably represents the limit of knowledge attainable in this direction, the freest use is made in the brief account here given of the history of this National Legend or Saga.
The Sháhnáma recognises four dynasties of pre-Muhammadan Persian kings—the Píshdádí, the Kayání, the Ashkání Contents of the Sháhnáma. (or Parthian, also called in Arabic Mulúku't-Ṭawá'if , or “Tribal Kings”), and the Sásání. Of these, the two first are entirely unhistorical, belonging, as we have already said, to the mythology of the Avesta and the common Indo-Íránian legend; the third is historical in a sense, but nothing is remembered of it save a few names, mentioned without much order or method, and the fact that it filled the gap between Alexander the Great and Ardashír the first Sásánian; the fourth is wholly historical in the sense that the kings composing it are historical personages arranged in correct order, though naturally their deeds and adventures contain much legendary matter, especially in the earlier portion.
The first king of the legendary Píshdádí dynasty, called Gayúmarth, is the first man of the Avesta, Gayô Mareta, the Píshdádí dynasty. Zoroastrian Adam. He dwells in the mountains, dresses himself and his people in leopard-skins, brings the beasts of the field into subjugation, wages a war on the demons, in which his son Siyámak is killed, and, after a reign of thirty years, dies, and is succeeded by his grandson Húshang (Arabic Úshhanj. Húshang reigns forty years, accidentally discovers how to produce fire by flint and steel, and establishes the Festival of Sadah to commemorate this great discovery. He is succeeded by his son Tahmúrath, called Dív-band, “the Binder of Demons,” since he brought these beings into subjection, but spared their lives on condition that they should teach him the art of writing “not one but nearly 30 languages.”112a After reigning thirty years he is succeeded by his son Jamshíd, a much more important figure in the Persian Legend than any of his predecessors.
The early Arab (i.e., Arabic-writing) historians, who for the most part endeavour to combine the Íránian with Semitic and Jamshíd. Biblical legends, commonly identify Jamshíd with Solomon. Practically speaking nearly all the Achæmenian monuments about Persepolis are referred by the Persians to these kings, and apparently for no better reason than the following: “These gigantic buildings,” they say, “are evidently beyond the power of the unaided humanity of that age; therefore whoever built them was helped by the demons. But it is a well-known fact that only two kings had command over the demons, namely Solomon and Jamshíd; therefore Solomon and Jamshíd built these monuments.” Accordingly they call Persepolis Takht-i-Jamshíd, “the Throne of Jamshíd”; the Tomb of Cyrus, Masjid-i-Mádari-Sulaymán , “the Mosque of Solomon's Mother”; and another platform-like structure on a hill adjacent to the monuments in the Murgháb plain Takht-i-Sulaymán “the Throne of Solomon.” Such identifications were favoured by the Zoroastrians in Muhammadan times as tending to improve their position with their conquerors, and secure for them the privileges accorded by victorious Islám to “the people of the Book”—that is, peoples like the Jews and Christians who, though not believers in the Qur'án, possessed Scriptures recognised by Muḥammad. The most notable of these false identifications is that of Zoroaster with Abraham, and of the Avesta with the Ṣuḥuf (“Leaflets” or “Tracts”) supposed by the Muhammadans to have been revealed to him, and recognised by them as one of the five revelations made to the five great Prophets, the other four being the Pentateuch (Tawrát) of Moses, the Psalms (Zubúr or Mazámír) of David, the Gospel (Injíl) of Jesus Christ, and the Qur'án of Muḥammad. But of course well-informed writers like Ibnu'l-Muqaffa' knew that these identifications were wrong, just as well as we now know that Sir William Jones's identifications of Kay-Khusraw and Shírúyé with Cyrus and Xerxes are wrong. Thus Ibnu'l-Muqaffa' (quoted by Dínawarí, ed. Guirgass, p. 9) says: “Ignorant Persians, and such as have no science, suppose that King Jam was Solomon the son of David, but this is an error, for between Solomon and Jam was an interval of more than 3,000 years.” It is now well known that Jam (the termination—shíd, frequently dropped, is a mere epithet or title, as it is in Khurshíd, “the Sun,” representing the Avestic Khshaêta, “chief, sovereign, brilliant”) is identical with the Yama of the Hindú and the Yima of the Avestic mythology, though this hero of the Indo-Íránian legend appears under rather different aspects in the three cases. With the Hindús, he is the first great mortal to pass over into the After-world, and hence appears as a kind of Pluto, or King of Hades. In the Avesta he is “the fair Yima of goodly flocks,” the son of Vívaṅhâo (a name which, though absent from the Sháhnáma, occurs in early Muhammadan historians like Dínawarí and Ṭabarí as Vívanjhán, described as son of Írán or Arfakhshad, son of Sám or Shem, son of Noah), who is invited, but declines, to be the bearer of Ahura Mazda's message to mankind, and who is commissioned to build “the four-cornered Varena” for the protection of his people from the plague of cold created by Aṅra Mainyush (Ahriman), the Evil Spirit. In the Sháhnáma he appears as a great king, who reigns for 700 years, not only over men, but over demons, birds, and fairies; invents weapons of war and the textile art; teaches men the use of animals; institutes the priestly, military, agricultural, and artisan classes; compels the demons to practise architecture; introduces the use of precious stones and metals, perfumes, and medicines; builds ships; causes himself to be transported (like Solomon in the Muhammadan legend) on an aërial throne whithersoever he will; and establishes the great national festival of the Nawrúz, or New Year's Day, at the vernal equinox, when the Sun enters the sign of Aries. Thereupon his luck turns, for he becomes so inflated with pride as to claim divine honours, whereon he is overthrown and ultimately slain by the usurper Dahák.
This Dahák represents the snake Azhi Daháka (later Azhdahák, Azhdahá, “a dragon”) of the Avesta; and, with Azhidahák or Dahák. the two snakes growing from his shoulders which require a daily meal of human brains, stands for the three-headed dragon of other Aryan mythologies. By Firdawsí (in whose time the memory of the Arab Conquest was still alive, and race hatred still ran high) he is metamorphosed into an Arab, and his name is consequently given an Arab form, Ḍaḥḥák (with the hard Arabic ḍ and ḥ); he appears as a parricide, tyrant, and chosen instrument of the Devil, who beguiles him from the primitive and innocent vegetarianism supposed to have hitherto prevailed into the eating of animal food and ultimate cannibalism. His demand for fresh victims to feed his snakes ultimately, after he has reigned nearly a thousand years, drives his wretched subjects into revolt, to which they are chiefly incited by the blacksmith Káwa, whose leathern apron, by a patriotic apotheosis, becomes the standard of national liberty. The young Ferídún (Avestic Ferídún. Thraêtaôna, Indian Thrâitana), son of Ábtín, a descendant of Tahmúrath and “of the seed of the Kayán,” is brought forth from his hiding-place and hailed as king. He defeats Dahák, and chains him alive, Prometheus-like, in a cave at the summit of Mount Damáwand (or Dunbá-wand), the great conical peak of which is so clearly visible to the north-east of Tihrán, after which, amidst general rejoicings, he becomes king, and rules with great justice and splendour for five hundred years, so that of him it is said—
Farídún-i-farrukh farishta na-búd:
Zi mushk ú zi ‘anbar sarishta na-búd.
Bi-dád ú dahish yáft án níkú'í:
Tú dád ú dahish kun: Farídún tú'í!“Ferídún the fortunate was not an angel:
He was not compounded of musk and of ambergris.
By justice and bounty he attained such excellence:
Be thou just and bountiful, and thou shalt be a Ferídún!”
Yet for all this he was not exempt from bitter trouble in his own house. Having given his three sons in marriage to the Ferídún's three sons. three daughters of Sarv (or Surv, according to al-Bundárí's Arabic prose translation of the Sháhnáma, made about A.D. 1223),115a he divided between them his vast dominions, giving to Íraj, the youngest, the land of Írán (Érán-shahr). His other two sons, Salm and Túr, regarding this as the choicest portion of the heritage, were filled with envy, and eventually, by a dastardly stratagem, succeeded in compassing the death of their younger brother. His body is brought to Ferídún, who bitterly laments his death, and swears vengeance on Túr and Salm.
Some time after the murder of Íraj, his wife Máh-áfaríd bears a son, named Manúchihr, who, on reaching mature age, Manúchihr. attacks and kills his wicked uncles, and sends their heads to Ferídún. Soon after this, Ferídún abdicates in favour of Manúchihr, and shortly afterwards dies.
The three sons of Ferídún may be roughly described as the Shem, Ham, and Japhet of the Íránian legend; and from this Afrásiyáb. fratricidal strife date the wars between the sons of Túr (the Túránians or Turks), long led by the redoubtable Afrásiyáb, and those of Íraj (the Íránians) —wars which fill so great a part not only of the legendary, but of the actual history of Persia. At this point the The Sístán legend. National Epic begins to be enriched by a series of episodes whereof the Avesta shows no trace, and which are connected with a series of heroes belonging to a noble family of Sístán and Zábulistán, viz., Naríman, Sám, Zál, Rustam, and Suhráb. Of these Rustam Rustam. is by far the most important. For centuries he plays the part of a deus ex machinâ in extricating the Persian Kayání monarchs—especially Kay Qubád, Kay Ká'ús, and Kay Khusraw—from their difficulties and dangers, while, with his good horse Rakhsh, he plays the chief part in a series of heroic adventures in combats with men and demons. His death is only compassed at last by a treache- Isfandiyár. rous stratagem of his brother, after he has slain Isfandiyár (Isfandiyádh, Spandedát), the son of Gushtásp (Víshtáspa), the champion of Zoroaster. Spiege. supposes116a that Rustam's name was deliberately suppressed in the Avesta as an adversary of “the good Religion,” but Nöldeke117a thinks this improbable, and inclines rather to the view that the Sístán legend to which he and his ancestors belong was almost or quite unknown to the authors of the Avesta. At any rate Rustam's name has only been found in one or two places in late Pahlawí writings, though his doughty deeds were known to the Armenian Moses of Khorene in the seventh or eighth century, and the stall of his horse Rakhsh was shown about the same period to the Arab invaders of Sístán.117b Moreover, the Persian general who was defeated and slain by the Arabs in the fatal battle of Qádisíyya (A.D. 635) was a namesake of the great legendary hero.
The death of Rustam brings us nearly to the end of the
Kayání, or purely mythical period of the Epic. Isfandiyár,
End of the purely
mythical part of
the Epic.
the son of Gushtásp, leaves a son named Bahman
(Vôhumanô), who succeeds his grandfather. In
the later construction of the Epic this Bahman
was identified with Artaxerxes (Artakhshatr, Ardashír) Longi-
Bahman Artaxerxes Longimanus.
manus (
We have seen that the Parthians Ashkániyán, Mulúku'ṭ-Ṭawá'if ) occupy hardly any place in the Epic, and it might The Alexanderlegend. therefore be supposed that we should find therein an almost direct transition from the second Dárá (son of him mentioned above) to the Sásánians. At this point, however, an entirely foreign element is introduced, namely, the Alexander-romance, which, reposing ultimately on the lost Greek text of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, is preserved in Syriac, Egyptian, Abyssinian118a and Arabic, as well as Modern Persian, versions. The fate of Alexander in Alexander in the Zoroastrian tradition. Persian legend is curious. In the genuine Zoroastrian tradition (as, for example, in the Pahlawí Arda Víráf Námak),118b he appears as “the accursed Alexander the Roman,” who, urged on by the evil spirit, brought havoc, destruction, and slaughter into Persia, burned Persepolis and the Zoroastrian Scriptures (which, written with Alexander in the Sháhnáma. gold ink on 12,000118c prepared ox-skins, were stored up in the Archives at Stákhar Pápakán), and finally “self-destroyed fled to hell.” Later, the picturesque contents of the romance of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, and a desire to salve the national vanity comparable to that which tempted the authors of former English histories to treat William the Conqueror as an English king, led the Persians, including Firdawsí, to incorporate Alexander in the roll of their own monarchs, a feat which they achieved as follows. The first Dárá demanded in marriage the daughter of Philip of Macedon, but afterwards, being displeased with her, divorced her and sent her back to her father. On her return she gave birth to Alexander, who was in reality her son by Dárá, though Philip, anxious to conceal the slight put upon his daughter by the Persian King, gave out that the boy was his own son by one of his wives. Hence Alexander, in wresting Persia from his younger half-brother, the second Dárá, did but seize that to which, as elder son of the late King, he was entitled, and is thus made to close the glorious period of the ancient Píshdádí and Kayání kings. In the third Alexander in the Sikandar-náma. version, represented by the Sikandar-náma of Nidhámí (twelfth century), he is identified with a mysterious personage called Dhu'l-Qarnayn (“The two-horned”) mentioned in the Qur'án as a contemporary of Moses (with whom some suppose him to be identical), and, instructed by his wise and God-fearing tutor Aristotle (Aristú, Aristátalís), represents the ideal monotheistic king, bent on the destruction of the false creed of the heathen Persians. It is important to bear in mind these different conceptions of Alexander, and also the fact that he does not really survive in the genuine national remembrance, but has been introduced, together with Darius, from a foreign source, while the national memory goes no further back than the Sásánians.
Concerning the Parthian period we must notice, besides its very scanty and unsympathetic treatment, the curious fact that Parthian period. whereas five centuries and a half actually elapsed between the death of Alexander and the establishment of the Sásánian dynasty, this period is habitually reduced by the Persian and Arab historians to 266 years. The falsity, as well as the reason, of this arbitrary and misleading chronology is understood and explained by the learned Mas'údí in his Kitábu'-t-tanbíh wa'l-ishráf119a as follows. When Ardashír Bábakán established the Sásánian dynasty in A.D. 226—that is, about 550 years after Alexander—a prophecy was generally current in Persia that a thousand years after Zoroaster the faith founded by him and the Persian Empire would fall together. Now Zoroaster is placed 280 or 300 years before Alexander: hence, of the thousand years about 850 has already elapsed. Ardashír, fearing, apparently, that the prophecy might work its own fulfilment (for obviously he cannot have had any great belief in it if he hoped to cheat it of its effect by such means), and wishing to give his dynasty a longer respite, deliberately excised some three centuries from this period, thus making it appear that only 566 years out of the thousand had elapsed, and that his house might therefore hope to continue some 434 years; which, in fact, it did, for Yazdigird III, the last Sásánian king, was murdered in A.D. 651-2. This extraordinary falsification of history is described by Mas'údí as an “ecclesiastical and political secret” of the Persians, and the fact that it was possible shows how entirely the archives and the art of reading and writing were in the hands of the ministers of Church and State.
With the Sásánian period, as already remarked, the National Legend, though still freely adorned with romantic and fictitious incidents, enters on the domain of real history, and becomes steadily more historical as it proceeds. As the Sásánian period will be discussed in the next chapter, it is unnecessary to enlarge further upon it in this place, and we shall accordingly pass at once to the history and antiquity of the Epic.
The references in the Avesta to Sháhnáma heroes are sufficient to show that even at the time when the former work History and antiquity of the National Legend was composed the National Legend already existed in its essential outlines. This, however, is by no means the only proof of its antiquity, for Nöldeke has shown the occurrence of epic features in the accounts of the ancient Persian kings given by Greek writers, notably Ctesias, who was court-physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, and professedly compiled his work from Persian written sources. These epic features are, moreover, recurrent, and are transferred from one king and even dynasty to another; so that, for example, a strong resemblance exists between the circumstances surrounding the youth and early adventures of Cyrus the first Achæmenian in his struggle against the Medes, and Ardashír the first Sásánian in his war with the Parthians; while the appearance of the Eagle, Símurgh or Humá (in each case a mighty and royal bird) as the protector of Achæmenes, Zál and Ardashír; the similar rôle played by two members of the noble Qáren family in the rescue of Núdhar the Kayánian and Pírúz the Sásánian from Túránian foes; and the parallels offered by the Darius-Zopyrus and the Pírúz-Akhshunwár episodes, are equally remarkable.
The story of Zariadres, brother of Hystaspes, and the Princess Odatis is preserved to us by Athenaeus from the The Yátkár-iZarírán. history of Alexander composed by his chamberlain Charas of Mitylene, and the same episode forms the subject of the oldest Pahlawí romance, the Yátkár-i-Zarírán (see p. 108 supra), written about A.D. 500. This important little book, the oldest truly epic fragment in Persian speech, though treating only of one episode of the National Legend, assumes throughout a certain acquaintance with the whole epic cycle.
“We have here,” says Nöldeke, “unless we are wholly deceived, the phenomenon which shows itself in connection with the epic history of divers other peoples: the substance is generally known; individual portions therefrom are artistically elaborated; and out of such materials, by adaptations, omissions, and remodellings, a more or less coherent and comprehensive epic may arise. The essential features of the Legend of Zarír reappear in the short Arabic version of Ṭabarí, which entirely agrees, in part almost word for word, with the corresponding portion of the Sháhnáma; whence it must have been taken from the ancient general tradition which forms the basis of the great Epic.”
The “remodellings” to which Nöldeke alludes consist chiefly, as he points out, of modifications designed to facilitate the artistic combination and fusion of the different episodes in one epic, and the suppression, in the case of Firdawsí's and other later versions, of such features or phrases as might be offensive to Muhammadan readers.
Of the Sásánian portion of the Epic we still possess one
Pahlawí element in the Kárnámak-i-Artakhshatr-i-Pápakán,
now accessible, both in the original and in a German translation
(see p. 108 supra). A comparison of this with the
corresponding portion of the Sháhnáma (such as will be made
for a portion of this episode in the next chapter) cannot fail to
raise greatly our opinion of Firdawsí's fidelity to the sources
on which he drew, for the correspondence is continuous and
remarkable. This Kárnámak was probably composed about
A.D. 600, and the reference of Agathias (A.D. 580) to written
Persian chronicles of the Kings (
According to the introduction prefixed to Firdawsí's Sháhnáma (A.D. 1425-6) by order of Baysunghur, the grand- Final Pahlawí recension of the Book of Kings. son of Tímúr (Tamerlane), a complete and corrected Pahlawí text of the whole Epic from Gayúmarth to Khusraw Parwíz (i.e., to A.D. 627) was compiled by the dihqán Dánishwar in the reign of the last Sásánian king Yazdigird III; and Nöldeke remarks on this that, whatever may be the worth of this account in itself, the agreement of the versions given by the Arab historians with the Sháhnáma down to the death of Khusraw Parwíz, and their wide divergence after that event, afford evidence of its truth in this particular point; while the strongly patriotic and legitimist tone which pervades it sufficiently prove that it was compiled under royal supervision and patronage.
This Pahlawí Khudháy-náma(k), constantly alluded to by Arab writers such as Ḥamza, the author of the Fihrist, &c., Arabic and Persian versions of the Pahlawí Book of Kings. was translated into Arabic by Ibnu'l-Muqaffa' in the middle of the eighth century of our era, and so became generally known in the world of Arabic literature. This version, most unfortunately, is lost, as is also the Persian prose version made in A.D. 957-8 by order of Abú Manṣúr al-Ma'marí for Abú Manṣúr b. 'Abdu'r-Razzáq, at that time governor of Ṭús, by four Zoroastrians of Herát, Sístán, Shápúr, and Ṭús.123a The metrical Persian Sháhnáma, which was constructed chiefly from this, was begun for the Sámánid Prince Nuḥ b. Manṣúr (A.D. 976-997) by Daqíqí, who, however, had only completed some thousand couplets, dealing with the reign of Gushtásp and the advent of Zoroaster, when he was assassinated by a Turkish slave. It was reserved for Firdawsí to complete, a few years later, the task he had begun, and to display in some sixty thousand couplets (which include Daqíqí's work) the National Legend in its final and perfect form. To Daqíqí and Fir-dawsí we shall recur when speaking of Modern Persian literature, and nothing more need therefore be said about them in this chapter, save that the Sháhnáma represents the National Legend in its final epic form.
OF THE SÁSÁNIAN TO THE FALL OF THE
UMAYYAD DYNASTY
It would be neither suitable nor possible to attempt in this chapter to give a detailed history of the Sásánians, though on the other hand a period of such great interest and importance could not fittingly be omitted altogether. For this is a period which marks the transition from the old to the new, intimately connected with both, embodying still much of the ancient glory of the Achæmenians, yet standing in a far clearer historical light—a light to which, besides contemporary inscriptions, coins, and seals, and the native records preserved by Arabic and Persian historians and romance-writers, Byzantine, Syriac, Armenian, and Jewish records each add their contribution. It was these kings, called by the Greeks Chosroes and by the Arabs Kisrá (pl. Akásira), who were the restorers of the ancient Persian Empire and the “Good Religion” of Zoroaster, and of whom Mas'údí (writing in A.D. 956) thus speaks in the preface to his Kitábu't-tanbíh wa'l-ishráf (p. 6): “And we have restricted ourselves in this our book to the mention of these empires because of the mighty dominion of the kings of Persia, the antiquity of their rule, the continuity of their sovereignty, the excellence of their administration, their well-ordered policy, the prosperity of their domains, their care for their subjects, and the subjugation to their allegiance of many of the kings of the world who brought unto them taxes and tribute. And they held sway, withal, over the fourth Clime, which is the Clime of Babel, the middle part of the earth, and the noblest of the [seven] Climes.” In the same spirit sings a poet cited in the same work (p. 37), who, though he wrote in Arabic, boasted descent from the Royal House of Persia:—
“And we portioned out our empire in our time
As you portion out the meat upon a plate.
Greece and Syria we gave to knightly Salm,
To the lands wherein the sunset lingers late.
And to Túj the Turkish marches were assigned,
Where our cousin still doth rule in royal state.
And to Írán we subdued the land of Párs,
Whence we still inherit blessings rare and great.”
We have seen that the Sásánian kings called themselves
“gods” or “divine beings” (Pahlawí bagh, Chaldæan alâhâ,
The Sásánian
kings regarded
as divine beings.
Greek
“Now Kisrá [Chosroes, here Khusraw Anúshírwán] used to sit in his audience-hall where was his crown, like unto a mighty cask, The splendour which they maintained. according to what they say, set with rubies, emeralds, and pearls, with gold and silver, suspended by a chain of gold from the top of an arch in this his audience-hall; and his neck could not support the crown, but he was veiled by draperies till he had taken his seat in this his audience-hall, and had introduced his head within his crown, and had settled himself in his place, whereupon the draperies were withdrawn. And no one who had not previously seen him looked upon him without kneeling in reverence before him.”
In no country, probably, has the doctrine of the Divine Right of kings been more generally and more strongly held The doctrine of the “Divine Right” in Persia. than it was in Persia in Sásánian times. That any one not belonging to the Royal House should dare to assume the royal title was, as Nöldeke has pointed out129a in reference to the rebellious noble Bahrám Chúbín and the usurper Shahrbaráz, regarded as an almost incredible act of wickedness and presumption. The prevailing sentiment of the people is, no doubt, truly reflected in the following anecdote told by Dínawarí (p. 98) of the flight of Bahrám Chúbín after his defeat by Khusraw Parwíz and his Byzantine allies—
“And Bahrám fled headlong, and on his way he passed by a hamlet, where he halted, and he and Mardán-Sína and Yazdán- Anecdote of Bahrám Chúbín. Gushnasp alighted at the dwelling of an old woman. Then they produced some food which they had with them, and supped, and gave what was left over to the old woman. Then they produced wine; and Bahrám said to the old woman, ‘Hast thou nothing wherewith we can drink?’ ‘I have a little gourd,’ replied she; and she brought it to them, and they cut off the top and began to drink from it. Then they produced dessert; and they said to the old woman, ‘Hast thou nothing wherein we can put the dessert?’ So she brought them a winnowing-shovel, into which they poured the dessert. So Bahrám ordered that wine should be given to the old woman, and then he said to her, ‘What news hast thou, old lady?’ ‘The news with us,’ answered she, ‘is that Kisrá hath advanced with an army of Greeks, and fought Bahrám, and overcome him, and recovered from him his kingdom.’ ‘And what say'st thou,’ asked Bahrám, ‘concerning Bahrám?’ ‘A silly fool,’ replied she, ‘who claims the kingdom, not being a member of the Royal House.’ Said Bahrám, ‘Therefore it is that he drinks out of gourds and eats his dessert out of winnowing-fans.’ And this became a saying amongst the Persians, which they are wont to cite as a proverb.”
For myself, I believe that Gobineau is right in asserting that this doctrine of the Divine Right of the House of Sásán has Influence of this doctrine in later times. had an immense influence on all subsequent Persian history, more especially on the tenacity with which the Persians have clung to the doctrine of the Shí'a or sect of 'Alí. To them the idea of electing a Caliph, or spiritual successor to the Prophet, natural enough to the democratic Arabs, could not appear otherwise than revolting and unnatural, and in the case of 'Umar, the second orthodox Caliph, there was also an element of personal hatred against the destroyer of the Persian Empire, which, though disguised under a religious garb, is nevertheless unmistakable. Ḥusayn, on the other hand, the younger son of the Prophet's daughter Fáṭima, and of his cousin 'Alí, was believed by them Yazdigird's daughter “Bíbí Shahr-bánú.” to have married Shahr-bánú, the daughter of Yazdigird III, the last Sásánian king; and hence the remaining Imáms of both great Shí'ite factions (the “Sect of the Twelve” now prevalent in Persia, and the “Sect of the Seven,” or Isma'ílís) represent not only the Prophetic but the Kingly right and virtue, being at the same time descended from the Prophet Muḥammad and from the House of Sásán. Hence the political doctrine to which Gobineau (Rel. et philos. dans l'Asie Centrale, p. 275) alludes in the following passage:—
“C'est un point de doctrine politique incontesté en Perse que les Alides seuls ont le droit à porter légitimement la couronne, et cela Basis of Shí'ite politics. en leur double qualité d'héritiers des Sassanides, par leur mère, Bibi-Sheher-banou, fille du dernier roi Yezdedjerd, et d'Imams, chefs de la religion vraie. Tous les princes non Alides sont des souverains de fait; aux yeux des gens sévères, ce sont même des tyrans; dans aucun cas, personne ne les considère comme détenteurs de l'empire à titre régulier. Je ne m'étendrai pas ici sur cette opinion absolue, tranchante, qui n'a jamais admis la prescription; j'en ai assez longuement parlé dans un autre ouvrage. Ce fut sur cette base que les politiques bâbys élevèrent tout leur édifice.”
Now whether this marriage really took place or not, it has been accepted by the Shí'ites as a historical fact for many centuries. Amongst early authors who allude to it we may cite al-Ya'qúbí (ed. Houtsma, vol. ii, p. 293), an Arabic historian who flourished in the latter part of the ninth century of our era, and who concludes his account of Ḥusayn's tragic death as follows:—
“Amongst the sons of al-Ḥusayn were 'Alí Akbar, who was killed in aṭ-Ṭaff,131a and left no offspring, whose mother was Laylá, the daughter of Abú Murra b. 'Urwa b. Mas'úd ath-Thaqafí; and 'Alí Aṣghar, whose mother was Ḥarár,131b the daughter of Yazdigird, whom al-Ḥusayn used to call Ghazála (‘the Gazelle’).”
This Shahr-bánú, “the Mother of Nine Imáms” (the fourth to the twelfth) still holds a place in the hearts of her country- Shahr-bánú in the Persian Passion-plays. men; she gives her name to a mountain three or four miles south of Tihrán (the Kúh-i-Bíbí Shahr-bánú) which no male footstep may profane, and which is visited by women who desire an intercessor with God for the fulfilment of their needs; and she is one of the heroines of those heart-moving passion-plays (ta'ziyas) which are yearly enacted in every Persian town and colony to crowds of weeping spectators. And this is how she is made to speak in the drama entitled “the Passing of Shahrbánú” (Ta'ziya-i-ghá'ib shudan-i-Shahr-bánú, Tihrán, A.H. 1314, p. 19):—
Zi nasl-i-Yazdijird-i-Shahriyáram,
Zi Núshirwán buwad aṣl-i-nizáram.
Dar án waqtí ki bakhtam kámrán búd
Badán shahr-i-Ray-am andar makán búd.
Shabí raftam bi-súyi qaṣr-i-bábam,
Biyámad Ḥaẓrat-i-Zahrá bi-khwábam,
Bu-guft, ‘Ay Shahr-bánú, bá sad á'ín
Turá man bar Ḥusayn áram bi-kábín.’Bi-guftam, ‘Man nishasta dar Madá'in,
Ḥusayn andar Madína hast sákin:
‘Muḥál-ast ín sukhun!’ Farmúd Zahrá,
‘Ḥasan áyad bi-sardárí dar ínjá;
‘Tú mí-gardí asír, ay bí-qarína;
‘Barand-at az Madá'in dar Madína;
‘Bi-farzandam Ḥusayn paywand sází,
‘Mará az nasl-i-khud khursand sází.
‘Zi nasl-at nuh Imám áyad bi-dawrán
‘Ki na-b'wad mislashán dar dár-i-dawrán.’“Born of the race of Yazdigird the King
From Núshirwán my origin I trace.
What time kind Fortune naught but joy did bring
In Ray's proud city was my home and place.
There in my father's palace once at night
In sleep to me came Fáṭima ‘the Bright’;
‘O Shahr-bánú’—thus the vision cried—
‘I give thee to Ḥusayn to be his bride!’
Said I, ‘Behold Madá'in is my home,
And how shall I to far Madína roam?132a
Impossible!’ But Fáṭima cried, ‘Nay,
Ḥasan shall hither come in war's array,
And bear thee hence, a prisoner of war,
From this Madá'in to Madína far,
Where, joined in wedlock with Ḥusayn, my boy,
Thou shalt bear children who will be my joy.
For nine Imáms to thee shall owe their birth,
The like of whom hath not been seen on earth!’”
A few lines further on occurs a passage so characteristic of the Persian hatred of 'Umar and love of 'Alí that I cannot forbear quoting it in this connection. Shahr-bánú is brought to Madína in a litter, as befits a king's daughter, by the chivalrous Ḥasan, but then her troubles begin:—
“Walí chún shud Madína manzil-i-má
Gham-i-'álam fuzún shud bar dil-i-má.
Yakí guftá ki, ‘Ín dukhtar kaníz-ast’:
Yakí guftá, ‘Bi-shahr-i-khud ‘azíz-ast.’
Bi-masjid mard u zan dar bám maḥẓar,
Mará nazd-i-'Umar burdand, mádar!
Kalámí guft k'azú dar khurúsh-am:
Bu-guft, ‘Ín bi-kasán-rá mí-furúsham!’
'Alí jiddat chu bar ámad khurúshán
Bu-guftá, ‘Lab bi-band, ay dún-i-nádán:
Na-sháyad burdan, ay mal'ún-i-ghaddár
Buzurgán-rá sar-i-'uryán bi-bázár!’
Pas az án khwárí, ay núr-i-dú 'ayn-am,
Bi-bakhshídand bar bábat Ḥusayn-am.
Ḥusayn karda waṣiyyat bar man-i-zár
Na-mánam dar miyán-i-Ál-i-Aṭ-hár.
Agar mánam, asír u khwár gardam,
Birahna-sar bi-har bázár gardam.
Tú, chún hastí Imám u Shahriyáram,
Bi-dast-i-tust, mádar, ikhtiyáram.
Agar gú'í, rawam, dard-at bi-jánam;
Ṣaláḥ-am gar na-mí-dání, bi-mánam!’“But when at last I reached Madína's town
A whole world's sorrow seemed to weigh me down.
One cried, ‘This girl a serving-maid shall be!”
Another, ‘Nay, she was of high degree!’
The women thronged the roofs; the mosque, the men:
O Mother! Me they bore to 'Umar then,
Who spoke a word that caused me pain untold:
‘These hapless wretches shall as slaves be sold!’
But 'Alí then appeared upon the scene,
And cried, ‘Be silent, fool and coward mean!
These gentle women, traitor, void of grace,
Shall not stand naked in the market-place!’
Light of mine eyes! After such treatment dire,
They gave me to Ḥusayn, thy noble sire,Who did advise poor me, to spare me pain,
That after him I should not here remain.
Should I remain, enslaved, in fashion base,
I should be driven through each market-place.
Now, Mother, dear, Imám and Sov'reign mine,
Into thy hands my option I resign.
Bid my fare forth, my bosom filled with pain,
Or bid me tarry, and I will remain!’”
A darker picture of the Sásánians is presented by Christian, notably by Syrian, writers, a source of information “not Views of Christian subjects and contemporaries of the Sásánians. sufficiently used,” as Nöldeke remarks, “by most Orientalists.” Two works of this class in particular may be recommended to those students of Persian history who, like the writer, are unfortunately unable to consult this literature in the original. The first is the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite,134a composed in A.D. 507, describing the Persian invasion of Asia Minor by Kawád, and especially the sufferings of Edessa and Âmid (now 'Urfa and Diyár Bekr) in the beginning of the sixth century of our era. The other is the Acts of the Persian The Persian martyrs. Martyrs,134b excerpted from various Syriac manuscripts and translated into German with the most scholarly notes, by George Hoffmann. In these books, both on political and religious grounds, it is natural that the Persians should be depicted in rather lurid colours, but in the first, at any rate, it does not appear that they acted more cruelly or more falsely than their Christian antagonists, though it is natural enough that the author, writing within two or three years of the war which had desolated his home, should occasionally speak of them in such terms as these:—“Now the pleasure of this wicked people is abundantly made evident by this, that they have not shown mercy unto those who were delivered up unto them; for they have been accustomed to show their pleasure and to rejoice in evil done to the children of men.”
Religious feeling, indeed, ran high on both sides, and in the matter of toleration there was little to choose between the Instances of religious bias. Zoroastrian and the Christian priesthoods. A good instance of the extent to which judgment of character was influenced by purely theological considerations is afforded by comparing the accounts of Yazdigird “the sinner.” Yazdigird I (A.D. 399-420) given by the Arabic historians (who drew their information and their views ultimately from the Pahlawí Book of Kings, which was composed under the influence of the Magian priests) with a Syriac account of the same king's character from the pen of a contemporary Christian writer. In the former Yazdigird is called “the sinner” (Pers. Baza-gar, Arab. al-Athím), and his wickedness, frowardness, and tyranny are described as almost superhuman. In the latter he is spoken of in the following terms: “the good and merciful King Yazdigird, the Christian, the blessed amongst the kings, may he be remembered with blessing, and may his future be yet more fair than his earlier life! Every day he doeth good to the poor and the distressed.”135a So too Khusraw I (A.D. 531-578) gained the title of Núshírwán “the Just.” Núshírwán (Anúshak-rúbán, “of immortal soul”), by which he is still remembered as the very embodiment of kingly virtue and justice, by his high-handed suppression of the heresy of the communist Mazdak, which, in the eyes of the intolerant Magian priests, constituted his chief claim to “immortality”; and such service has their approval done him that Sa'di, zealous Muhammadan as he was, says:—
“Zinda'st nám-i-farrukh-i-Núshírwán bi-'adl,
Garchi basí guzasht ki Núshírwán na-mánd.”
“The blessed name of Núshírwán doth still for justice stand,
Though long hath passed since Núshírwán hath vanished from
the land.”
For the Christians, too, Núshírwán, as we learn from Dínawarí (p. 72), entertained the greatest contempt. When Núshírwán's opinion of the Christians. his son Anúsha-zádh, who had espoused the faith of his Christian mother, revolted against him, and his viceroy at Ctesiphon wrote to him for instructions, he wrote in his reply as follows: “Let not the multitude of the people affright thee, for they have no enduring might. How, indeed, shall the Christians endure, when it is prescribed in their religion that if one of them be smitten on the left cheek, he shall offer the right also?”
To return now to the scope of this chapter. Being unable to do more than glance at certain points in the history of this Scope and plan of this chapter. period, I propose to speak especially of its beginning and its end; the first, which is largely mixed with legend and fable, in order that I may have an opportunity of comparing certain episodes therein as sung by Firdawsí in the Sháhnáma with the same episodes as narrated in the Pahlawí Kár-námak-i-Artakshatr-i-Pápakán; the last, as having an immediate connection with the Arab Conquest which marks the inauguration of the modern, or Muhammadan period. Besides this, two religious movements of this epoch—those associated with the names of Manes (Mání) and Mazdak—deserve some notice, as early instances of that passion for philosophical speculation which is so remarkable a characteristic of the Persians, who have probably produced more great heresiarchs than any other nation in the world. Of these two men the first was born, according to his own statement, 136a during the reign of Ardawán (Artabanus) the last Parthian king, and was contemporary with the founder of the Sásánian dynasty; the second, as we have seen, was put to death by Núshírwán in A.D. 528 or 529, at which time the Sásánian power was at its height, though the first symptoms of its decline were not far distant. This chapter will therefore fall into four divisions—namely, (1) The Legend of Ardashír and the foundation of the Sásánian dynasty; (2) Manes and the Manichæan doctrine; (3) Núshírwán and Mazdak; (4) the last days of the House of Sásán.
The principal episodes of this Legend, as presented by the Pahlawí Kárnámak (of which I make use of Nöldeke's excellent German translation, a tirage-à-part of 21-69 pages, whereof the Introduction occupies pp. 22-34) and the Sháhnáma (Macan's Calcutta ed., vol. iii, pp. 1365-1416) are as follows.
(1) Sásán, fifth in descent from Bahman “Diráz-dast” (Longi-manus, see p. 117 supra), enters the service of Pápak (Bábak), Prince of Párs, as a herdsman. Pápak, warned in a dream of Sásán's kingly origin, raises him to high honour and confers on him the hand of his daughter. Of this union Ardashír is the offspring (K. 36-38; Sh. 1365).
(2) Pápak adopts Ardashír as his son, and as he grows up the fame of his courage, wisdom, and knightly virtues reaches Ardawán, the last Parthian King, who summons him to his court at Ray. There he is honourably entertained, until one day out hunting he gives the lie to one of Ardawán's sons who claims a remarkable shot made in reality by him. Thereupon he is disgraced, and dismissed to serve in the Royal stables (K. 38-41; Sh. 1366).
(3) A beautiful and wise maiden who enjoys Ardawán's fullest confidence takes pity upon Ardashír, provides two swift horses, and escapes with him to Párs. Ardawán pursues them, but turns back on learning that the “Royal Splendour,” personified as a fine ram, has caught up Ardashír and rides behind him on his horse (K. 41-46; Sh. 1370).
(4) Ardashír's wars with the Parthians and others; his defeat of Ardawân and his son, and his reverse at the hands of the Kurds (K. 46-49; Sh. 1374).
(5) The episode of Haftán-bókht (Haftawád) and the monstrous worm of Kirmán, including the war with Mithrak (Mihrak) (K. 49-57; Sh. 1381).
(6) How Ardawán's daughter, married to Ardashír, is by him doomed to death; how her life is saved by the chief múbad (named Abarsám by Ṭabarí); how she brings forth a son, who is named Shápúr (Sháh-puhar, “King's son”); and how the boy is recognised by his father (K. 57-63; Sh. 1392).
(7) Ardashìr, having learned from the King of India, Kayt or Kayd, that the sovereignty of Persia will be in his family or in that of his enemy Mihrak, endeavours to extirpate the latter. One of Mihrak's daughters is saved from the massacre, and brought up amongst peasants. Shápúr sees and falls in love with her, but conceals his marriage, and the birth of his son Hurmuzd in which it results, from his father Ardashír. Hurmuzd, when seven years old, is recognised by his grandfather by his boldness on the polo field (K. 64-68; Sh. 1397).
No one who has read the Kár-námak and this portion of the Sháhnáma side by side can fail to be greatly impressed by the general fidelity, even in minute details, with which the latter reproduces the former; and our opinion of Firdawsí's faithful adherence to genuine old legends is equally strengthened by a comparison of the Pahlawí legend of Zarír (Yátkár-i-Zarírán, translated into German by Geiger)138a with the corresponding part of the Sháhnáma. Now it is a mere accident that we happen to be able to check these portions by the originals, and we may fairly assume that elsewhere, where we have no such means of control, the poet is equally conscientious in his adherence, even in detail, to ancient legend. Space, however, will not allow the comparison in this place of more than one or two incidents of these two versions of the Legend of Ardashír. We will begin with the account of his birth.
“After the death of Alexander the Roman there were in Írán 240 tribal princes. Ispahán, Párs, and the neighbouring lands were in the hands of the chief of them, Ardawán. Pápak was Warden of the Marches and Prince of Párs and Governor for Ardawán. Pápak dwelt in Stakhr; he had no son who might be able preserve his name. Sásán was a herdsman of Pápak and abode ever with the flocks; but he was of the race of Dárá the son of Dárá. During the evil reign of Alexander he had fled away and gone forth with Kurdish shepherds. Pápak knew not that Sásán was of the race of Dárá the son of Dárá. Now one night Pápak dreamed that the Sun from the head of Sásán illuminated the whole world. Next night he saw Sásán riding on a richly-caparisoned white elephant, while all throughout the whole Kishwar (region, clime) surrounded him, tendered him their homage, and invoked on him praises and blessings. On the third night he saw how the (sacred) Fires Frobá, Gushasp, and Mithr waxed great in the house of Sásán and gave light to the whole world. This amazed him, and so he summoned before him the wise men and interpreters of dreams and related to them what he had dreamed on all three nights. Then said the interpreters of dreams, ‘Either the man himself concerning whom thou hast dreamed this, or one of his children, will attain to the lordship of the world: for the sun and the richly-caparisoned white elephant signify Strength, Might, and Victory, while the Fire Frobá signifies men well instructed in religion, and eminent over their peers; the Fire Gushasp, warriors and captains of hosts; and the Fire Burjín-Mihr, the peasants and husbandmen of the whole world. So the kingship will accrue to this man or to his children.’ When Pápak heard this speech, he dismissed every one, summoned Sásán before him, and asked him, ‘Of what family and stock art thou? Was any one of thy fathers or forbears a ruler or sovereign?’ Then Sásán prayed Pápak for indulgence and safety [with the words] ‘Inflict not on me hurt or harm.’ Pápak agreed to this, and thereupon Sásán revealed to him his secret, and who he was. Then Pápak was glad, and said, ‘I will promote thee;’ whereupon, at his bidding, a full royal dress was brought to him and given to Sásán [and he bade him] ‘Put it on.’ Sásán did so, and at Pápak's commend, he then strengthened himself for some days with good and proper meals. Later, he gave him his daughter in marriage, and when the time (according to the predestination of fate) was in accord, the girl forthwith conceived, and from her Artakhshír was born.”
“When on the wæl-stow Dárá his doom met
From all his House her face Fortune averted.
Him did a son survive, worthy of worship,
Wary and wise in war, Sásán ycleped,
Who, when he saw his sire thus foully smitten,
Saw, too, on Persia's arms Fortune look frowning,
Fled from his foes of Greece, swift and fleet-footed,
Stayed not to stumble on snares of ill fortune.
In distant lands of Ind death overtook him,
Where he in turn a son left to succeed him.Thus in like wise for four generations
From sire to son the name Sásán descended.
Herdsman were these and hinds, tenders of cattle,
Laden each year long with heavy burdens.When now the last in birth came unto Bábak,
And on the grazing-grounds sought the head-herdsman,
‘Hast thou,’ he questioned him, ‘need for an hireling,
Who here is fain to dwell, even in hardship?’
Him the head-herdsman hired to his service,
Holding him night and day unto long labour.
So for a while the man thus did continue,
Heart-sick and woe-worn, wearied with toiling.Sunk in deep slumber Bábak one night slept,
And his bright spirit thus in his dream saw.
On a fierce elephant Sásán was seated,
Held in his hand a sharp sword-blade of India,
While those who ringed him round in adoration
Bowed down, and on him blessings invokèd.
He by right rule and wise made the earth prosper,
And from the saddened soul banished the sorrow.When on the second night Bábak to sleep sank,
140a
Care of his anxious mind was the companion.
Thus in his dream he saw now, that the Fire-Priest
Held in his hand aloft three flaming censers,
Kharrád and Mihr-fires, Ádhar-Gushasp too,Brilliantly blazing like the bright heavens,
There before Sásán fiercely were flaring,
While in each blazing fire aloe-wood smouldered.Then from his slumber Bábak awaking
Felt in his anxious heart fearful forebodings.
Such as were wise to read dreamings and visions,
Such as were skilled in solving of riddles,
Straightway assembled at Bábak's palace,
Seers and Saga-men, skilful in learning.
Then unto these revealed Bábak his vision,
And all his dreamings frankly unfolded,
While the dream-readers, pondering deeply,
Lent all their ears while forming their answer.Answered the spokesman then, ‘King, highly favoured,
Look we now closely to the dream's showing.
He whom thou sawest thus in thy slumber
High o'er the sun shall lift his head in lordship.
Even though he should fail in the fulfilment,
Him will a son succeed earth to inherit.’
Blithely did Bábak lend ear to this answer,
Unto each gifts he gave after his measure.Then Bábak straightway hailed the head-herdsman;
Forth from the flocks he came through the thick fog-drifts,
Breasting the sleet and snow, wrapped in his blanket,
Fear in his bosom, frost on his fur-cloak.141a
When from his audience-hall Bábak had ousted
Strangers, alike both statesman and servant,
Then by his side the shepherd he seated,
Graciously greeted him, asked him of Sásán,
Asked of his lineage and of his fore-bears,
While, with foreboding filled, Sásán sat silent.Then at length spake he, ‘Sire, to thy shepherd
If thou wilt freely grant grace and forgiveness,
All that concerns my race I will discover,
If, hand in hand,141b with oath thou wilt assure meThat neither privily nor yet in public
Thou wilt attempt to wreak on me thy vengeance.’
Bábak, thus hearing, loosened his tongue in speech:
Much made he mention of the All-Giver,
Saying, ‘I swear no hurt shall befal thee,
Nay, I will hold thee honoured and noble.’Then spake the youth again freely to Bábak,
‘Know, valiant knight, that Sásán my sire is,
Who from King Ardashír's seed was descended,
(He who is called by you ‘Bahman the Long-hand’);
Of brave Isfandiyár he was the offspring,
Who of King Gushtásp's fair fame was the guardian.’142a
When Bábak heard this, tear-floods he rained
From those clear eyes which gazed on the vision.
Then kingly garments brought he from out his store,
And eke a horse equipped with lordly harness.
‘Hence to the bath,’ quoth he, ‘hie thee in all haste,
And there abide till fit raiment be brought thee.’Soon a fair palace built he for Sásán;
(Thus from the herdsman did he upraise him),
And in this palace when he had placed him
Bondsmen and servants set he before him,
Gave him all gear and garb needful for lordship,
And of all goods and gifts ample endowment,
Last, his dear daughter gave him in wedlock,
Crown of his glory she, and his heart's darling.When o'er the moon-faced maid nine moons had wanèd
To her a son was born, radiant as sun-light,
Like unto Ardashír, famed in the older time,
Graceful, and growing daily in favour.
Him too his father Ardashír named,
By him his grand-sire greatly was gladdened.”
The next episode which I shall give is the flight of Ardashír from Ardawán's court at Ray to Párs, accompanied by the beautiful and wise maiden (called Gulnár by Firdawsí) who had hitherto acted as Ardawán's counsellor and adviser, but who is moved by love for Ardashír to cast in her lot with him.
“Thereupon Ardawán equipped an army of 4,000 men and took the road towards Párs after Artakhshír. When it was mid-day he came to a place by which the road to Párs passed, and asked, ‘At what time did those two riders whose faces were set in this direction pass by here?’ Then said the people, ‘Early in the morning, when the sun rose, they passed by swiftly as the wind Artai, and a very large ram ran after them, than which a finer could not be found. We know that already ere now he will have put behind him a distance of many parasangs, and that it will be impossible for you to catch him.’ So Ardawán tarried not there, but hastened on. When he came to another place, he asked the people, ‘When did those two riders pass by?’ They answered, ‘To-day at noon did they go by like the wind Artai, and a ram ran after them.’ Then Ardawán was astonished and said, ‘Consider: the two riders we know, but what can that ram be?’ Then he asked the Dastúr, who replied, ‘That is the Kingly Splendour (Khurra-i-Khud'á'íh); it hath not yet overtaken him, but we must make haste; it is possible that we may catch them before it overtakes them.’ Then Ardawán hastened on with his horsemen. On the second day they had put behind them seventy parasangs: then a caravan met them. Ardawán asked the people, ‘In what place did you meet those two riders?’ They replied, ‘Between you and them is still a distance of twenty parasangs. We noticed that beside one of those riders a very large and mighty ram sat on the horse.’ Ardawán asked the Dastúr, ‘What signifies this ram which is beside him on the horse?’ He answered, ‘May'st thou live for ever! The Royal Splendour (Khurrak-i-Kayán = Firdawsí's farr-i-kayání, and the Kawaêm Hwarenô of the Avesta) hath overtaken Ardashír; in no wise can we now take them captive. Therefore weary not yourself and your horsemen more, nor further tire the horses, lest they succumb. Seek in some other way to prevail against Artakhshír.’ When Ardawán heard this, he turned back and betook himself again to his home.”
“Then did the King perceive plain that the maiden
With Ardashír had fled, his favours scorning.
Thereat his heart was stirred into dire anger,
And, on his chestnut horse hastily mounting,
Called he his horsemen bold out on the war-trail,
And on the southward road forth like a fire flamed.On the road came he to a fair township,
Wherein were many men and countless cattle.
Of them demanded he whether at day-break
Any had heard the beat of horses' hoof-strokes,
Or had beheld a pair riding right hotly,
One on a snow-white steed, one on a black barb.
Answered one, ‘Yea, hard by on the road here,
Forth to the plain fared two with their horses,
And at the horses' heels galloped a wild sheep,
Which, like the horses, hurled dust-clouds behind it.’Then quoth King Ardawán to his adviser,
‘What was this mountain-sheep which ran behind them?’
Answered the other, ‘That Royal Splendour
Which, by his lucky star, leads him to lordship.
If now this sheep should o'ertake him in running
Naught there is left us saving long labour.’There then King Ardawán hastily halted,
Rested, refreshed him, then hastened onward.
After Prince Ardashír hotly they hurried,
At their head Ardawán with his adviser.
When of the day had passed half, and the world-light
Up to the midmost point heaven had measured,
Saw he again a fair hamlet and fragrant,
Where, too, the village-folk hastened to meet him.
Thus quote the King once more unto their head-man,
‘Tell me, these riders, how passed they your hamlet?’
Thus quoth the head-man: ‘Lord of fair fortune,
Born 'neath a lucky star, cunning in counsel!
What time the sun in high heaven was paling,
And night was spreading her purple vestment,Hard by our hamlet two riders hastened,
Dry were their lips with thirst, their raiment dust-stained,
And behind one on the saddle a sheep sat:
In palace hunting-scenes ne'er was its like met.’Then to King Ardawán spake his adviser:
‘Turn we now back again whither we came from,
Since now the matter changeth its aspect,
In that King Ardashír's luck rides behind him.
So with hands empty will the quest leave us.
Unto thy son now send thou a letter,
Unto him, point by point, make clear the matter,
That he, perchance, may gain trace of our quarry,
Ere of the mountain-sheep's milk he partaketh.’When Ardawán had heard thus from the spokesman
He for a surety knew his fortune faded.
So in the hamlet straight he alighted,
And rendered praises to the All-Giver.
But when the night was spent, at early morning,
Bade he his armed host turn themselves homewards.
So, with cheeks sallow like the scorched reed-bed,
Did he to Ray return in the dark twilight.”
The Legend of Haftán-bókht (Haftawád in the Sháh-náma ) and the Worm of Kirmán is too interesting to be entirely omitted, though lack of space compels me to give only that portion of it which relates to the actual destruction of this monster. The connection of this Worm (Kirm) with the city of Kirmán is, of course, a piece of popular etymology, but it serves to show that those who persist in writing the name of this town as Karmán adopt a pronunciation which has certainly not been used in Persia for nine hundred years, whatever may have been the case in more ancient times. A similar word-play occurs in the Bústán of Sa'dí (ed. Graf, p. 87, l. 535). On the name Haftán-bókht, “the Seven have delivered,” Nöldeke has a very interesting note (Kár-námak, p. 49, n. 4). He points out that many names, notably of Christians, were compounded with the word bókht, “hath delivered,” e.g., Mârâ-bókht, “the Lord hath delivered,” Yishú'-bókht, or Bókht-yishú', “Jesus hath delivered,” while amongst Zoroastrians we find Si-bókht, “the Three (i.e., good thoughts, good words, and good deeds) have delivered,” and Chahár-bókht , “the Four have delivered.” “The Seven” referred to in the name of Ardashír's opponent are, he adds, the seven planets, which belong to the Creation of Ahriman the Evil Spirit. This name is therefore peculiarly appropriate for one whose reliance is in the powers of hell and the magic of the demons. Firdawsí was compelled by the exigencies of his metre to alter the name into Haftawáa (explained in the Sháhnáma glossaries as meaning “Having seven sons”),146a a form obtainable from the Pahlawí by excision of the three middle characters of the word, since the last three characters can equally well be read -ókht or -wát.
146b“Then he sent forth people to wage war with the Worm, summoned Burjak and Burjátur before him, and took counsel with them. Thereafter they took many gold and silver coins and garments; he himself [Artakhshír] put on a dress of Khurásán, came with Burjak and Burjátur to the foot of Castle Gulár, and said: ‘I crave of my august masters the boon of being admitted to the service of the Court.’ The idolaters admitted Artakhshír with the two men, and installed them in the house of the Worm. Then for three days Artakhshír showed himself eager in service and devoted to the Worm. The gold and silver coins and the garments he presented to the servants. Then all who were in the Castle, marvelled and were loud in his praises. Then said Artakhshír, ‘It would give me pleasure to feed the Worm for three days with my own hand.’ To this the servants and attendants consented. Then Artakhshír dismissed every one, and commanded an army of four hundred valiant and devoted men to conceal themselves opposite that place in a cleft of the mountain. Also he commanded, ‘When on the day of Ásmán146c ye see smoke from the fortress of the Worm, then put forth your valour and courage and come to the foot of the Castle.’ On that day he himself held the molten copper, while Burjak and Burjátur offered praise and glory to God. When now it was the time for its meal the Worm roared, as it did each day. Artakhshír had previously made the attendants and watchers of the Worm drunk and senseless at a meal. Then he went himself with his attendants to the Worm, bringing to it the blood of oxen and sheep, such as it received daily. But as soon as the Worm opened its mouth to drink the blood, Artakhshír poured the molten copper into its throat, and when this entered its body it burst asunder into two pieces. Thereupon such a roaring arose from it that all the people from the Castle rushed in thither, and confusion arose amongst them. Artakhshír laid his hand on his shield and sword, and made a great slaughter and massacre in the Castle. Then he commanded, ‘Kindle a fire such that the smoke may be manifest to those knights.’ This the servants did, and when the knights who were in the mountains saw the smoke from the Castle, they hastened to the foot of the Castle to help Artakhshír, and forced the entrance with the cry, ‘Victorious be Artakhshír, King of kings, the son of Pápak!’”
“Thence he returnèd war with the Worm to wage,
He with his warriors bold, bent on its slaughter.
World-tried and war-wise came he with armed hosts
Numbering two thousand over ten thousand.
When thus his scattered hosts he had assembled
'Twixt the two mountains boldly he brought them.Then spake King Ardashír unto his captain,
147a
One who was skilled in war and wise in counsel,
Shahr-gír named, ‘Taker of cities’:
‘Watchful and wakeful thou shalt abide here,
Keeping thy scouts alert day-time and night-time,
Ringing thy camp around with ready horsemen;
Sentries about thee, warders around thee,
By night and day shall keep watch o'er thine army.
Such cunning wile of war now will I venture,
As did Isfandiyár, my noble forbear.If then thy sentry by day a smoke-cloud
Sees, or at night a fire like the sun flaming,
Know then at last the Worm's witcheries ended,
Know that its star is set, its strength departed.’Out of his captains then seven men chose he,
Brave men and valiant all, lions in warfare;
E'en from the winds of heav'n kept he his counsel.
Then from his coffers fair gems he gathered,
Gold coins and rare brocades and rich possessions,
Holding things priceless cheap in his prudence.
With lead and copper then two chests he crammed full,
And, midst his baggage bound one brazen cauldron,
Being well skilled in crafts and devices.When in this wise his wares had been chosen
From the horse-master ten asses claimed he,
And like an ass-herd in coarse apparel clad,
But with his bales filled full with gold and silver
Fared he with anxious heart forth on the forward way,
And from the camp set his face to the fortress.
Also those two brave peasants who gave him
Harbour and shelter once in disaster
Chose he as comrades on his forth-faring,
Since he had proved them loyal and wary.
Thus on the road they drew near to the fortress,
Breasted the hill-ridge, rested to breathe again.For the Worm's service sixty were set apart,
Eager and earnest each in his service,
Of whom one cried aloud as they approached,
‘What have ye hidden there in your boxes?’
Thus the King answered that stern inquiry:
‘Of every precious stuff samples I bring you:
Red gold and silver white, ornaments, raiment,
Dínárs and fine brocades, jewels and sable.
I from Khurásán come as a merchant,
Leaving luxurious ease for toilsome journeys.
Much wealth have I amassed by the Worm's blessing,
And now I grateful come unto the Worm's throne;
Since by its favour my fortunes prospered,
Right do I deem it service to render.’When the Worm's warders thus heard the tale he told
Forthwith the fortress-gates wide they flung open.
Then, when his loads were laid safe in the fortress,
Thus did the King prepare his task to finish.
Swiftly before them spread he the wares he brought,
Graciously gave to each what he most cravèd.
Then for the warders spread he a rich repast,
And like a servitor stood there to serve them,
Cast loose the locks and clasps of chest and coffer,
Brought forth a beaker brimming with date-wine.
But from the brimming bowl those who were chargèd
With the Worm's feeding turnèd their faces.
Since milk and rice for its meal must they carry
Feared they that wine might their footsteps unsteady.Then to his feet leaped Ardashír lightly,
Crying, ‘With me I bear much milk and fine rice.
Let me, I pray you, for days and nights three,
Gladden my spirit with the Worm's service.
Thus in the world fair fame shall I win me,
And from the Worm's luck borrow new blessing.
Blithely three days and nights quaff ye the wine-cup,
And on the fourth day, when the world-kindler
Rises, a booth right royal I'll build me,
Which shall o'ertop the towers of the Palace.
I am a chapman, eager for custom,
And by the Worm much fame shall I win me.’He by these cunning words his aim accomplished:
‘Feed thou the Worm,’ they cried, ‘so an it please thee.’
Thus did the ass-herd win by his wiles his aim,
While unto wine and song wended the warders.When these had drunk deep wine overcame them;
Thus to wine-worship turned they from watching.
And when their souls were deep steeped in the wine-cup
Forth fared the Prince with his hosts of the hamlet,
Brought with him copper and brazen cauldron,
Kindled a flaming fire in the white daylight.
So to the Worm at its meal-time was measured
In place of milk and rice much molten metal.
Unto its trench he brought that liquid copper;
Soft from the trench its head the Worm upraisèd.
Then they beheld its tongue, like brazen cymbal,
Thrust forth to take its food as was its custom.Into its open jaws that molten metal
Poured he, while in the trench helpless the worm writhed.
Crashed from its throat the sound of fierce explosion
Such that the trench and whole fort fell a-quaking.
Swift as the wind Ardashír and his comrades
Hastened with drawn swords, arrows, and maces.
Of the Worm's warders, wrapped in their wine-sleep,
Not one escaped alive from their fierce onslaught.
Then from the Castle-keep raised he the smoke-wreaths
Which his success should tell to his captains.
Hasting to Shahr-gír swift came the sentry,
Crying, ‘King Ardashír his task hath finished!’
Quickly the captain then came with his squadrons,
Leading his mail-clad men unto the King's aid.”
We see from the above extracts not only the fidelity with which Firdawsí followed the Pahlawí legend (known to him, Ardashír a historical figure surrounded by legends. as Nöldeke has shown, not in the original, but in Persian translations), but also to what extent legends and fables gathered round the perfectly historical figure of “Artakhshír, King of kings of Persia and non-Persia, son of Pápak the King,” known to us not only from historical works, but from coins and inscriptions 150a dating from his own time. With him, indeed, the native tradition may be said to pass from mythology to history (for the Alexander-legend, as we have already seen, is an importation from without), a point well put by the historian Ibn Wáḍiḥ al-Ya'qúbí (ed. Houtsma, vol. i, pp. 178-179), who flourished towards the end of the ninth century of our era, in the following words:—
“Persia claims many supernatural attributes for its kings which cannot be accepted as credible, such as that one had a number of al-Ya'qúbí on Persian legend and Persian history. mouths and eyes, and another a face of copper,150b and that on the shoulders of another grew two snakes which ate human brains,150c the long duration of their lives, their keeping death from mankind, and the like of this; things which reason rejects, and which must be referred to the category of idle tales and frivolous fables, devoid of actuality. But such of the Persians as possess sense and knowledge, or nobility and distinguished extraction, alike princes and squires (dihqán), tradi-tionists and men of culture, neither believe nor affirm nor repeat these things, and we find them reckoning the Persian Empire only from [the time of] Ardashír Bábakán… So we have omitted them [these legends], our method being to reject what is of ill savour.”
Shápúr, the son of Ardashír (the interesting legend of whose birth and recognition, given in the Kár-námak, the Sháh-náma, Shápúr I. and most of the Arabian historians, I am compelled to omit for lack of space) is notable in Western history for his successful campaigns against the “Romans” and his capture of the Emperor Valerian, achievements com- Shápúr's inscriptions and monuments. memorated in the sculptures of Naqsh-i-Rustam and Shápúr.151a The Greek translation attached to the short bi-lingual Pahlawí inscription of this king at Naqsh-i-Rajab (which formed, as we have seen, the starting-point of the decipherment of both the Sásánian and the Achæmenian inscriptions) was probably cut by some Greek The Ḥájí-ábád inscription. prisoner. The longer Ḥájí-ábád inscription still presents some difficulties, in spite of the labours of Thomas (1868), West (1869), Haug (1870), and other scholars, and the excellent reproductions of it (casts, copies, and photographs) available. Thomas did excellent service in publishing all the available Pahlawí inscriptions, but he was more successful in decipherment than in interpretation, where his results were of the most amazing kind, for he explained several of these edicts as professions of faith on the part of the Sásánian kings in the God of the Jews and Christians, and in consequence the divergence between the translations offered by him and the other scholars mentioned is so great that Lord Curzon says in his work on Persia (vol. ii, pp. 116-117):—
“That the decipherment of the Pehlevi character has reached no scientific stage of development is manifest from the different readings that have been given of the Hájíábád lines; and sooner than pin my faith either to the philo-Christian theory of Mr. Thomas, or to the bowshot theory of Dr. M. Haug, although I believe the latter has secured the verdict of most scholars, I prefer the security of unshamed ignorance.”
No one, however, who is at all capable of weighing the evidence can doubt the general correctness of the renderings of Haug and West, who had the advantage over Thomas of being familiar with the book Pahlawí. Out of the 115 words which constitute the Sásánian-Pahlawí version, not more than half a dozen are uncertain in meaning (though unfortunately they are of importance for the understanding of the sense), and the meaning of the first six lines and a half is perfectly certain. The difficulty of fully comprehending the whole largely arises from our absence of information as to the nature of the ceremony described, and the exact object of the shooting of the arrow by the King out of this lonely little cave. Parallels, however, are not wanting, and evidently the shooting of an arrow to determine a site was not unusual in Sásánian times. Thus Ṭabarí (Nöldeke's translation, pp. 263-264) and Dína-warí (p. 66) tell us that when the Persian general Wahriz, the conqueror and governor of Yemen, felt his death approaching, he called for his bow and arrows, bade his retainers raise him up, and shot an arrow into the air, commanding those who stood by him to mark where it fell, and to build a mausoleum for his body there; and it is very probable that the shot which forms the subject of the Ḥájí-ábád inscription was made for some similar purpose, which, were it known, would greatly facilitate the full explanation of the inscription.
152a We ought, however, to refer in this connection to a very
ingenious attempt at a new translation of this inscription
F. Müller's interpretation of
the Ḥájí-ábád
inscription.
made by Friedrich Müller in the Vienna Oriental
Journal for 1892 (vol. vi, pp. 71-75). Citing
for illustration and comparison a passage from the
Iliad (xxiii, 852) and an episode from the life
of Charles VI (M. Bermann's Maria Theresa u. Joseph II,
p. 38), he takes minô (translated by Haug as “spirit”) as a conventional
honorific epithet of Royalty at this time (similar to
“sublime” in modern Turkey and Persia and “celestial” in
China), chêtâk (= Balúchí chêdag, “a stone-arrow”) as a
pillar set up as a target (= Homer's
“This is the edict of me, the Mazda worshipper, Sháhpuhr, placed amongst the gods, King of kings of Persia and non-Persia, of celestial descent from God, son of the Mazda-worshipper Artakh-shatr, placed amongst the gods, King of kings of Persia, of celestial descent from God, grandson of Pápak, placed amongst the gods, the King.
“And when we shot this arrow, then we shot it in the presence of the Satraps, the Princes, the Great ones and the Nobles: we set the foot on this stone153a and shot out the arrow at one of these targets: where the arrow was shot, however, there was no bird at hand, where, if the targets had been rightly set up, the arrow would have been found outwardly visible [or ‘sticking in the ground.’]
“Then we ordered a target specially set apart for His Majesty to be erected in this place. The Celestial hand [i.e., the hand of His Majesty] wrote this: ‘Let no one set foot on this stone or shoot an arrow at this target.’ Then I shot the arrow destined for the Royal use at these targets.
“This hath the hand [of the King] written.”
At the end of the Parthian period, in the fourth year of King Ardawán (A.D. 215-216), as we learn from the Chronology Manes and his doctrine. of Ancient Nations (Sachau's translation, p. 121) of the learned al-Bírúní (early eleventh century), was born Manes, or Mání, the founder of the Manichæan religion—a religion which, notwithstanding the fierce persecutions to which it was exposed both in the East and the West, alike at the hands of Zoroastrians and Christians, from the very moment of its appearance until the extermination of the unfortunate Albigenses in the thirteenth century, continued for centuries to count numerous adherents, and to exercise an immense influence on religious thought both in Asia and Europe.
In the system which he founded Manes was essentially eclectic; but though he drew materials both from the ancient Babylonian and from the Buddhist religions, his main endeavour was, as Gibbon has said, “to reconcile the doctrines of Zoroaster and Christ,” an attempt which resulted in his being “pursued by the two religions with equal and unrelenting hatred.” His system, however, is to be regarded rather as a Christianised Zoroastrianism than as a Zoroastrianised Christianity, since he was certainly a Persian subject, and probably at least half a Persian; wrote one of his books (the Sháburqán, or Sháh-puhrakán , characterised by the Muhammadan al-Bírúní as “of all Persian books one that may be relied upon,” since “Mání in his law has forbidden telling lies, and he had no need whatever for falsifying history”) in Persian for King Shápúr, whose conversion he hoped to effect, and was finally put to a cruel death by one of Shápúr's successors.
154aThe sources of our information about the life, doctrines, and writings of Manes are both Eastern and Western, and since the former (notably the Fihrist, al-Bírúní, Ibn Wáḍiḥ al-Ya'qúbí and Shahristání)155a have been made accessible, it has Sources of our knowledge of Manes and his system. been generally recognised that the information which they yield us is of a more reliable character than that contained in the writings of St. Augustine, the Acts of Archelaus, &c., on which the older European accounts of this remarkable man are entirely based. As considerations of space render it impossible to devote more than a few pages to this topic, which will be found fully discussed in the books cited at the end of the last note, we will first give a translation of al-Ya'qúbí's account of the life and doctrines of Manes (this being the only one of the four Arabic authorities above enumerated which is not at present accessible in a European translation), and then add such few remarks as may appear necessary for the further elucidation of the outlines of the subject.
Al-Ya'qúbí says:—
“And in the days of Shápúr the son of Ardashír appeared Mání the Zindíq, the son of Ḥammád, who invited Shápúr to Dualism Al-Ya'qúbí's account of Manes. and cast censure upon his religion (i.e., Zoroastrianism). And Shápúr inclined to him. And Mání said that the Controller of the Universe was twofold, and that there were two Eternal Principles, Light and Darkness, two Creators, the Creator of Good and the Creator of Evil. The Darkness and the Light, each one of them, connotes in itself five ideas, Colour, Taste, Smell, Touch, and Sound, whereby these two do hear, see, and know; and what is good and beneficial is from the Light, while what is hurtful and calamitous is from the Darkness.
“Now these two [principles] were [at first] unmixed, then they became mixed; and the proof of this is that there was [at first] no phenomenon, then afterwards phenomena were produced. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in this admixture, for they were [at first] in mutual contact like the shadow and the sun; and the proof of this is the impossibility of the production of anything save from something else. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in admixture, because, since the admixture of the Darkness with the Light was injurious to the latter, it is impossible that the Light should have made the first beginning [therein]; for the Light is by its nature the Good. And the proof that these two, Good and Evil, were eternal, is that if one substance be posited, two opposite actions will not proceed from it. Thus, for example, Fire [which is], hot and burning, cannot refrigerate, while that which refrigerates cannot heat; and that wherefrom good results cannot produce evil, while from that which produces evil good cannot result. And the proof that these two principles are living and active is that good results from the action of this, and evil from the action of that.
“So Shápúr accepted this doctrine from him, and urged his subjects to do the same. And this thing was grievous unto them, and the wise men from amongst the people of his kingdom united in dissuading him from this, but he did not do [what they demanded]. And Mání composed books wherein he affirmed the Two Principles; and of his writings was the book which he entitled Kanzyu'l Iḥyá (‘the Treasure of Vivification,’)156a wherein he describes what of salvation wrought by the Light and of corruption wrought by the Darkness exists in the soul, and refers reprehensible actions to the Darkness; and a book which he named Sháburqán, wherein he describes the delivered soul and that which is mingled with the devils and with defects, and makes out heaven to be a flat surface, and asserts that the world is on a sloping mountain on which the high heaven revolves; and a book which he named Kitábu'l-Hudá wa't-Tadbír (‘the Book of Guidance and Administration’), and the ‘Twelve Gospels,’ whereof he named each after one of the letters of the alphabet, and described Prayer, and what must be done for the deliverance of the soul; and the Sifru'l-Asrár (‘Book of Secrets’),156b wherein he finds fault with the miracles of the prophets; and the Sifru'l-Jabábira (‘Book of the Giants’); besides which he has many other books and epistles.
“So Shápúr continued in this doctrine for some ten years. Then the Múbadh (Fire-priest) came to him and said, ‘This man hath corrupted thy religion; confront me with him, that I may dispute with him.’ So he confronted them, and the Múbadh bested him in argument, and Shápúr returned from Dualism to the Magian religion, and resolved to put Mání to death, but he fled away and came to the lands of India, where he abode until Shápúr died.
“Then Shápúr was succeeded by his son Hurmuz, a valiant man; and he it was who built the city of Rám-Hurmuz, but his days were not prolonged. He reigned one year.
“Then reigned Bahrám the son of Hurmuz, who concerned himself [only] with his minions and amusements. And Mání's disciples wrote to him, saying, ‘There hath succeeded to the throne a King young in years, greatly preoccupied [with his amusements].’ So he returned to the land of Persia, and his doings became noised abroad, and his place [of abode] became known. Then Bahrám summoned him and questioned him concerning his doctrine, and he related to him his circumstances. Then [Bahrám] confronted him with the Múbadh, who disputed with him, and said, ‘Let molten lead be poured on my belly and on thine, and whichever of us shall be unhurt thereby, he will be in the right.’157a But [Mání] replied, ‘This is a deed of the Darkness.’ So Bahrám ordered him to be imprisoned, and said to him, ‘When morning comes I will send for thee and will slay thee in such wise as none hath been slain before thee.’
“So all that night Mání was being flayed, until his spirit departed [from his body]. And when it was morning, Bahrám sent for him, and they found him [already] dead. So he ordered his head to be cut off, and his body to be stuffed with straw; and he persecuted his followers and slew of them a great multitude. And Bahrám the son of Hurmuzd reigned three years.”
The account of Mání given in the Fihrist is much fuller,
but as it is accessible to all who read German in Flügel's
translation, only a few important points will here be mentioned.
His father's name is given as Futtaq (the arabicised form of a
Persian name, probably Pátaka, represented by Western writers
as
“Manichæanism,” says the first (Sachau's translation, p. 191), “increased by degrees under Ardashír, his son Shápúr, and Hurmuzd son of Shápúr, until the time when Bahrám the son of Hurmuzd ascended the throne. He gave orders to search for Mání, and when he had found him, he said: ‘This man has come forward calling people to destroy the world. It will be necessary to begin by destroying him, before anything of his plans should be realised.’ It is well known that he killed Mání, stripped off his skin, filled it with grass, and hung it up at the gate of Jundê-Shâpûr, which is still known as the Gate of Manes. Hurmuzd also killed a number of the Manichæans… I have heard the Ispahbadh Marzubán the son of Rustam say that Shápúr banished him out of his empire, faithful to the Law of Zoroaster which demands the expulsion of pseudo-prophets from the country. He imposed on him the obligation never to return. So Mání went off to India, China, and Thibet, and there preached his gospel. Afterwards he returned, and was seized by Bahrám and put to death for having broken the stipulation, whereby he had forfeited his life.”
What, now, was this “gospel” which so aroused the enmity of the Zoroastrian priesthood, and which (to speak of the East only) was still so active in the latter part of the eighth century, that the 'Abbásid Caliph al-Mahdí appointed a special inquisitor, called Ṣáḥibu (or 'Arífu) z'-Zanádiqa, to detect and punish those who, under the outward garb of Islám, held the doctrines of the Manichæans or Zindíqs? And what was the exact meaning of this term Zindíq, which, originally used to denote the Manichæans, was gradually, and is still, applied to all atheists and heretics in Muhammadan countries?
Let us take the last inquiry first, as that which may be most
briefly answered. The ordinary explanation is that the term
Meaning of the
term Zindíq.
Zandík is a Persian adjective meaning “one who
follows the Zand,” or traditional explanation (see
pp. 78-9 supra) in preference to the Sacred Text,
and that the Manichæans were so called because of their disposition
to interpret and explain the scriptures of other
religions in accordance with their own ideas, by a process
akin to the
The Manichæans, as we have seen, like the followers of Marcion and Bardesanes, were reckoned by Muhammadan Doctrines of the Manichæans. writers amongst the “Dualists.” But since the Zoroastrian religion is also essentially dualistic, whence arose the violent antagonism between it and the Manichæan doctrine? The answer is not far to seek. In the former the Good and the Evil Creation, the realm of Ahura Mazda and that of Aṅra Mainyush (Ahriman), each comprised a spiritual and a material part. Not only the Amshaspands and Angels, but also the material elements and all animals and plants useful to man, and of mankind those who held “the Good Religion,” fought on the side of Ahura Mazda against the dívs and drujes, the khrafstars, or noxious animals, the witches and warlocks, the misbelievers and heretics, who constituted the hosts of Ahriman. In general the Zoroastrian religion, for all its elaborately systematised Spiritual Hierarchies, presents itself as an essentially material religion, in the sense that it encouraged its followers to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,” and to “sow the seed and reap the harvest with enduring toil.”161a According to the Manichæan view, on the other hand, the admixture of the Light and the Darkness which gave rise to the material universe was essentially evil, and a result of the activity of the Powers of Evil; it was only good in so far as it afforded a means of escape and return to its proper sphere to that portion of the Light (“Jesus patibilis”: see Spiegel, Erân. Alt., ii, p. 226), which had become entangled in the darkness; and when this deliverance was, so far as possible, effected, the angels who supported the heavens and upheld the earth would relax their hold, the whole material universe would collapse, and the Final Conflagration would mark the Redemption of the Light and its final dissociation from the irredeemable and indestructible Darkness. Meanwhile, by the “Column of Praise” (consisting of the prayers, doxologies and good works of the faithful ascending up to Heaven, and visible as the Milky Way),161b the particles of Light, set free from their imprisonment in the Darkness, ascend upwards, and are ferried across by the Sun and Moon to the “Paradise of Light,” which is their proper home. All that tends to the prolongation of this state of admixture of Light and Darkness, such as marriage and the begetting of children, is consequently regarded by Manes and his followers as evil and reprehensible, and thus we see what King Hurmuz meant by the words, “This man has come forward calling people to destroy the world.” Zoroastrianism was national, militant, materialistic, imperialist; Manichæanism, cosmopolitan, quietist, ascetic, unworldly; the two systems stood in essential antagonism, and, for all their external resemblances (fully indicated by Spiegel in his Erânische Alterthumskunde, vol. ii, pp. 195-232), were inevitably hostile and radically opposed. In the case of Judaism, orthodox Christianity and Islám, the antagonism was equally great, and if the Manichæans suffered less at the hands of the Jews than of the other three religions, it was the power rather than the will which these lacked, since, as we have seen, Judaism was held by Manes in particular abhorrence.
Into the details of the Manichæan doctrine—the causes which led to the admixture of the Darkness and the Light; their theories concerning the “King of the Paradises of Light,” the Primal Man, the Devil, and the mechanism of the material universe as a means for liberating the Light from its captivity; and their grotesque beliefs concerning Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Ḥakímatu'd-Dahr (“the World-wise”) and Ibnatu'l-Ḥírṣ (“the Daughter of Desire”), Rawfaryád, Barfaryád, and Sháthil (Seth), and the like,—it is not possible to enter in this place. As a set-off against their rejection of the Hebrew prophets the Manichæans recognised not only Zoroaster and Buddha as divine messengers, but also Christ, though here they distinguished between the True Christ, who was, in their view, an Apparition from the World of Light clad in a merely phantasmal body, and His counterpart and antagonist, “the Son of the Widow” who was crucified. It is a curious thing that this belief of the Manichæans was adopted by Muḥammad: in the Qur'án (súra iv, v. 156) it is written:—
“And for their saying, ‘Verily we slew the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God;’ but they did not slay Him or crucify Him, but the matter was made doubtful to them [or, a similitude was made for them]. And verily those who differ about Him are in doubt concerning Him; they have no knowledge concerning Him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill Him, for sure! but God raised Him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!”
As regards the history of the Manichæans in the East, we have already mentioned that during the Caliphate of al-Mahdí Progress of Manichæanism in the East. (A.D. 775-785), the father of Hárúnu 'r-Rashíd, they were so numerous that a special Inquisitor was appointed to detect and destroy them. The author of the Fihrist (A.D. 988) knew 300 professed Mani-chæans at Baghdad alone, and al-Bírúní (A.D. 1000) was familiar with their books, especially the Sháburqán (the one book composed by Manes in Persian, i.e. Pahlawí; for the other six of his principal writings were in Syriac) which he cites in several places, including the opening words (Sachau's translation, p. 190), which run thus:—
“Wisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to mankind by the messengers of God. So in one age they have been Citation from one of the books of Manes. brought by the messenger of God called Buddha to India, in another by Zoroaster to Persia, in another by Jesus to the West. Thereafter this revelation has come down, this prophecy in this last age, through me, Mání, the Messenger of the God of Truth to Babylonia.”
The migrations of the Manichæans are thus described in the Fihrist:—
“The Manichæans were the first religious community to enter the lands of Transoxiana beside the Shamanists. The reason of Migrations of the Manichæans. this was that when the Kisrá (Bahrám) slew Mání and crucified him, and forbade the people of his kingdom to dispute about religion, he took to killing the followers of Mání wherever he found them, wherefore they continued to flee before him until they crossed the river of Balkh and entered the dominions of the Kháqán (or Khán), with whom they abode. Now Kháqán (or Khán) in their tongue is a title conferred by them on the King of the Turks. So the Manichæans settled in Transoxiana until such time as the power of the Persians was broken and that of the Arabs waxed strong, whereupon they returned to these lands ('Iráq, or Babylonia), especially during the break up of the Persian Empire and the days of the Umayyad kings. Khálid b. 'Abdu'lláh al-Qaṣrí163a took them under his protection, but the leadership [of the sect] was not conferred save in Babylonia, in these lands, after which the leader would depart into whatever land would afford him most security. Their last migration took place in the days of al-Muqtadir (A.D. 908-932), when they retired to Khurásán for fear of their lives, while such as remained of them concealed their religion, and wandered through these regions. About five hundred men of them collected at Samarqand, and their doctrines became known. The governor of Khurásán would have slain them, but the King of China (by whom I suspect the ruler of the Taghazghaz to be meant) sent unto him saying, ‘There are in my domains double the number of Muhammadans that there are in thine of my co-religionists,’ and swearing to him that should he kill one of the latter, he would slay the whole of the former to avenge him, and would destroy the mosques, and would establish an inquisition against the Muhammadans in the rest of his dominions and slay them. So the Governor of Khurásán let them alone, only taking from them the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). So they diminished in numbers in the lands of Islám; but in the City of Peace (Baghdad) I used to know some three hundred of them in the days of Mu'izzu'd-Dawla (A.D. 946-967). But in these our days there are not five of them left at the capital. And these people are named Ájárí, and they reside in the suburbs of Samarqand, Sughd, and especially Nuwíkath.”
Of those who, while outwardly professing Islám, were really Manichæans, the author of the Fihrist gives a long list, which Manichæans in Islám. includes al-Ja'd b. Dirham, who was put to death by the Umayyad Caliph Hishám (A.D. 724-743); the poet Bashshár b. Burd, put to death in A.D. 784; nearly all the Barmecides, except Muḥammad b. Khálid b. Barmak; the Caliph al-Ma'mún (A.D. 813-833), but this is not credited by the author; Muḥammad ibnu'z-Zayyát, the Wazír of al-Mu'taṣim, put to death in A.D. 847; and others.
The Manichæans were divided into five grades—the Duties imposed on the Manichæans. Mu'allimún or Teachers, called “the Sons of Tenderness”; the Mushammasún or those illuminated by the Sun,164a called “the Sons of Knowledge”; the Qissísún or priests, called “the Sons of Understanding”; the Ṣiddíqún or faithful, called “the Sons of the Unseen”; and the Sammá'ún or hearers, called “the Sons of Intelligence.” They were commanded to perform the four or the seven prayers, and to abandon idol-worship, falsehood, covetousness, murder, fornication, theft, the teaching and study of all arts of deception and magic, hypocrisy in religion and lukewarmness in daily life. To these ten commandments were added: belief in the four Supreme Essences: to wit, God (“the King of the Paradises of Light”), His Light, His Power, and His Wisdom; fasting for seven days in each month; and the acceptance of “the three seals,” called by St. Augustine and other Christian writers the signacula oris, manuum et sinûs, typifying the renunciation of evil words, evil deeds, and evil thoughts, and corresponding to the hûkht, hûvarsht, and hûmat (good words, good deeds, and good thoughts) of the Zoroastrian religion. Details of the fasts and prayers, and some of the formulæ used in the latter, are also given in the Fihrist, from which we also learn something of the schisms which arose after Mání's time as to the Spiritual Supremacy, the chief divisions being the Mihriyya and the Miqlásiyya. The seven books of Mání (of which, as has been already said, six were in Syriac and one—the Sháburqán—in Pahlawí) were written in The writing invented by Manes. a peculiar script invented by their author and reproduced (in a form greatly corrupted and disfigured in the existing MSS.) by the Fihrist. To this script, and to the art of writing in general, the Manichæans (like the modern Bábís, who, as is well known, have also invented a script peculiar to themselves called khaṭṭ-i-badí', “the New Writing”) would appear to have devoted much attention, for al-Jáḥidh (ninth century) cites Ibráhím as-Sindí as saying that “it would be well if they were The legendary Arzhang-i-Mání. to spend less on the whitest, finest paper and the blackest ink, and on the training of calligraphists.” From this, as Professor Bevan conjectures, arose the idea of Mání as a skilful painter which is prevalent in Persia, where it is generally believed that he produced a picture-book called the Arzhang or Artang, to which he appealed (as Muḥammad appealed to the Qur'án) as a proof of his supernatural power and divine mission.
166a“I was born,” the Prophet Muḥammad is reported to have said, “in the reign of the Just King,” meaning thereby Character of Núshírwán. Khusraw Anûshak-rûbân (“of Immortal Spirit”), who is still spoken of by the Persians as “Núshír-wán the Just” and regarded as the perfect type of kingly virtue. We have already seen that this verdict cannot be accepted without reserve, and that Núshírwán's vigorous measures against heretics rather than his justice (in our sense of the term) won him the applause and approval of the Magian priests by whose hands the national chronicles were shaped; just as the slur which rests on the name of the first Yazdigird (called Baza-gar, “the Sinner”) is to be ascribed rather to his tolerance of other religions and his indifference to the Zoroastrian clergy than to any special wickedness of life. Yet Núshírwán, though severe on heretics whose activity threatened the welfare of the State, was by no means a fanatic, but on the contrary interested himself greatly in foreign religions and philosophies. In this respect he reminds us of the Caliph at Ma'mún and the Emperor Akbar, both of whom took the same delight in religious and philosophical controversies and speculations. Nöldeke (Gesch d. Sasaniden, p. 150, n. 3 ad calc.), who is by no means disposed to look favourably on the Persians, gives, on the whole, a very favourable summary of his character, which he concludes in the following words: “On the whole Khusraw (Núshírwán) is certainly one of the greatest and best kings whom the Persians ever possessed, which, however, did not prevent him from being capable of reckless cruelty, nor from having little more regard for the truth than the Persians, even the best, are wont to have.” His suppression of the Mazdakites, his successful campaigns against the “Romans” (Byzantines), his wise laws, his care for the national defences, and the prosperity enjoyed by the Persian Empire during his reign (A.D. 531-578) all conduced to the high reputation which he enjoys in the East as an Neo-Platonist philosophers at the Court of Núshírwán. ideal monarch; while his reception of the seven Greek philosophers, expelled from their native land by the intolerance of the Emperor Justinian, and his insertion of a special clause in their favour (whereby they were guaranteed toleration and freedom from interference on their return thither) in a treaty which he concluded with the Byzantines at the close of a successful war, as well as his love of knowledge, exemplified not only by his patronage of learned men, but by the establishment of a great medical school at Jundê-Shâpûr, and by the numerous translations from Greek and Sanskrit into Pahlawí executed by his orders, caused it to be believed, even in the West, “that a disciple of Plato was stated on the Persian throne.”
167aThe importance of the visit to the Persian Court of the Neo-Platonist philosophers mentioned above has, I think, Introduction of Neo-Platonist ideas into Persia at this epoch. hardly been sufficiently emphasised. How much the later mysticism of the Persians, the doctrine of the Ṣúfí?? which will be fully discussed in a later chapter owes to Neo-Platonism, is beginning to be recognised, and has been admirably illustrated by my friend and former pupil Mr. R. A. Nicholson, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in his Selected Poems from the Díván of Shams-i-Tabr'z (Cambridge, 1898); nor, if Darmesteter's views be correct, did Zoroastrianism disdain to draw materials from the same source. The great historical introduction of Greek phiosophical and scientific ideas into the East took place, as is well known, during the early 'Abbásid period, especially during the reign of Hárunu'r-Rashíd's son al-Ma'mún (A.D. 813-833), but it is exceedingly probable (though, owing to the loss of the great bulk of Pahlawí literature, especially the non-religious portion, it cannot be proved) that already in the sixth century, during the reign of Núshírwán, this importation had begun, and that the beginnings of the Ṣúfí doctrines, as of so many others, may in reality go back beyond the Muhammadan to the Sásánian times. As regards the Christians, Núshírwán's contempt for their pacific doctrines and vexation at the rebellious behaviour of his son Anúsha-zádh (see p. 136 supra) did not prevent him from according certain privileges to the dangerous and often disloyal Monophysites,168a or from accepting in one of his treaties with the Byzantine Emperor certain stipulations in favour of the Catholics;168b nay, it was even asserted by Euagrius and Sebêos168c that he was privately baptized before his death, which statement, though certainly false, shows that he was generally regarded as favourably disposed towards the Christians, who, as Nöldeke remarks, gave a touching proof of their gratitude for his favours a century later when they would not suffer the remains of his unfortunate descendant Yazdigird III, the last ruler of the House of Sásán, to lie unbaried. Such toleration, however, was always subject to considerations of the safety of the State and the order of social life, both of which were threatened by the doctrines of the communist Mazdak, of whom we shall now speak.
The evidence which has come down to us concerning this remarkable man has been carefully collected by Nöldeke168d in the fourth Excursus (Ueber Mazdak und die Mazdakiten, pp. 455-467) appended to his admirable History of the Sásánians, Mazdak the Communist. which we have already had occasion to cite so frequently. It must naturally be borne in mind that this rests entirely on the statements of persons (whether Zoroastrian or Christian) who were bitterly opposed to his teaching, and that if the case for the defence had been preserved we might find favourable features, or at least extenuating circumstances, of which we now know nothing. What, for example, to take an analogous case from modern times, would be our judgment of the Bábís if we depended solely on the highly-coloured and malicious presentations of their doctrines and practices contained in such official chronicles as the Násikhu 't-Tawáríkh of the court-historian Lisánu'l-Mulk, or of the talented Riẓá-qulí Khán's supplement to the Rawẓatu'ṣ-Ṣafá, or even of presumably unprejudiced Europeans who were dependent for their information on the accouuts current in court circles? In this connection it is worthy of remark that the charges of communism and antinomianism, especially in what concerns the relation of the sexes, were those most frequently brought alike against the Mazdakites of the sixth and the Bábís of the nineteenth century by their opponents; and since we now know that the alleged communism of the early Bábís, so far as it existed at all, was merely incidental, as in the similar case of the early Christians, and cannot be regarded as in any sense a characteristic of their doctrines, we cannot avoid a suspicion that the same thing holds true in some degree of Mazdak and his followers.
Whether Mazdak himself originated the doctrines associated with his name is doubtful, a certain Zarádusht the son of Doctrines of Mazdak. Khurragán, of Fasá in the province of Fárs, being mentioned in some of the sources as their real author. Of the theoretical basis of this doctrine we know much less than of its practical outcome, but Nöldeke well remarks that “what sharply distinguishes it from modern Communism and Socialism (so far as these show themselves, not in the dreams of individuals, but in actual parties), is its religious character.” All evils, in Mazdak's view, were to be attributed to the demons of Envy, Wrath, and Greed, who had destroyed the equality of mankind decreed and desired by God, which equality it was his aim to restore. The ascetic element which has been already noticed (p. 161 supra) as one of the features of Manichæanism to which the Zoroastrians so strongly objected also appears in the religion of Mazdak in the prohibition of shedding blood and eating meat. Indeed, as we have already seen (p. 169 n. 1 ad calc.), to the Zoroastrian theologians Mazdak was par excellence “the ungodly Ashemaogha who does not eat.”
For political reasons, of which, according to Nöldeke's view, the chief was a desire to curb the excessive power of the priests Rise and fall of the Mazdakites. and nobles, King Kawádh (or Qubád) favoured the new doctrine; an action which led to his temporary deposition in favour of his brother Jámásp. This untoward event probably produced a considerable alteration in his feelings towards the new sect, and the balance of testimony Massacre of the Mazdakites (A.D. 528-9). places in the last years of his reign that wholesale slaughter of the Mazdakites with which, in the popular legend, Khusraw the First is credited, and by which he is said to have earned his title of Núshírwán (Anúshak-rúbán, “Of Immortal Spirit”). According to the current account (given in its fullest form in the Siyásat-náma of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk (ed. Schefer, pp. 166-181; transl. pp. 245-266), Prince Núshírwán, after exposing the evil designs and juggler's tricks of Mazdak to his father King Kawádh, deceived the heresiarch by a feigned submission, and fixed a day when, in presence of all the Mazdakites, he would make formal and public profession of the new doctrine. Invitations were issued to the Mazdakites to a great banquet which the prince would provide in one of the royal gardens; but as each group entered the garden they were seized by soldiers who lay in wait for them, slain, and buried head downwards in the earth with their feet protruding. When all had been thus disposed of, Núshírwán invited Mazdak, whom he had himself received in private audience, to take a walk with him through the garden before the banquet, and to inspect the produce thereof. On entering the garden, “Behold,” said the prince, pointing to the upturned feet of the dead heretics, “the crop which your evil doctrines have brought forth!” Therewith he made a sign, and Mazdak was at once seized, bound and buried alive head downwards in the midst of a large mound of earth specially prepared for him Contemporary testimony. in the middle of the garden. A contemporary account of the massacre by an eyewitness, Timotheus the Persian, has been preserved to us by Theophanes and John Malalas. The presence at this horrible scene of the Christian bishop Bazanes, who was also the King's physician, finds a curious parallel in recent times, for Dr. Polak, court-physician to the late Náṣiru'd-Dín Sháh, was present at the cruel execution of the beautiful Bábí heroine Qurratu'l-'Ayn in 1852.
However great the number of Mazdakites who perished in this massacre (which took place at the end of A.D. 528, or Subsequent history of the Mazdakites. the beginning of 529) may have been, the sect can hardly have been exterminated in a day, and there are reasons for believing that a fresh persecution took place soon after Nushírwán's accession to the throne (A.D. 531). After that, even, the sect,though no longer manifest, propably continued to exist in secret; nor is it unlikely that, as is suggested by some Muhammadan writers, its doctrines, like those of the Manichæans, passed over into Muhammadan times, and were reproduced more or less faithfully by some of those strange antinomian sects of later days which will demand our attention in future chapters. This view is most strongly advanced by the celebrated Nizámu'l-Mulk, who, in his Treatise on Government (Siyásat-náma) endeavours at great length to show that the Isma'ílís and Assassins towards whom he entertained so violent an antipathy (amply justified in the event by his assassination at their hands on October 14, 1092) were the direct descendants of the Mazdakites.
In the long and glorious reign of Nushírwán (A.D. 531-578), no year, perhaps, was so memorable, or so fraught with consequences of deep and unsuspected importance, as the forty-second “The Year of the Elephant.” (A.D. 572-3), called by the Arabs “the Year of the Elephant.” In this year, on the one hand, culminated a long series of events which led to the annexation by Persia of the rich and ancient kingdom of Yaman, an acquisition which might well arouse the enthusiasm and awaken the plaudits of the Persian imperialists of that epoch; while in it, on the other hand, was born in distant Mecca one whose teaching was destined to overthrow the House of Sásán and the religion of Zoroaster, the Prophet Muḥammad. On the night of his birth, according to the legends so dear to pious Muslims, the Palace of the Persian King was shaken by an Prognostications of misfortune to the Sásánian Empire. earthquake, so that fourteen of its battlements fell to the ground; the Sacred Fire, which had burned continuously for a thousand years, was extinguished; and the Lake of Sáwa suddenly dried up; while the chief priest of the Zoroastrians saw in a dream the West of Persia overrun by Arabian camels and horses from across the Tigris. At these portents Núshírwán was greatly troubled, nor was his trouble dispelled by the oracular answer brought back by his messenger 'Abdu'l-Masíḥ, a Christian Arab of the tribe of Ghassán, from his uncle, the aged Saṭíḥ, who dwelt on the borders of the Syrian desert. This answer, conveyed in the rhyming rajaz regarded by the Arabian soothsayers (kahana) as the appropriate vehicle of their oracles, was couched in the following strain:—
“On a camel 'Abdu'l-Masíḥ hastens toward Saṭíḥ, who to the verge of the Tomb is already come. Thee hither doth bring the Oracular utterance of Saṭíḥ. command of the Sásánian King because the Palace hath quaked, and the Fire is slaked, and the Chief Priest in his dream hath seen camels fierce and lean, and horse-troops by them led over the Tigris bed through the border marches spread.
“O 'Abdu'l-Masíḥ! When reading shall abound, and the Man of the Staff174a be found and the hosts shall seethe in the Vale of Samáwa,174b and dried up shall be the Lake of Sáwa, and the Holy Fire of Persia shall fail, no more for Saṭíḥ shall Syria avail! Yet to the number of the turrets174c your kings and queens shall reign, and their empire retain, though that which is to come cometh amain!”
These tales of portent and presage must, however, be regarded rather as pious after-thoughts than as historical facts. The birth of the Arabian Prophet, like many another momentous event, was announced, we may be sure, by no such blare of celestial trumpets, and did not for a moment occupy the attention even of the men of Mecca, for whom the “Year of the Elephant” afforded ample food for thought and anxiety.
In the early part of the sixth century the political position of the Arabs was as follows. In the west the kingdom of Ghassán and in the east the kingdom of Ḥíra acknow- Political relations of the Arabs in the sixth century. ledged more or less the suzerainty of Byzantium and Persia respectively. The bulk of the Arabs of Central Arabia, secure in their deserts and broken up into numerous more or less hostile tribes, fought and sang and robbed and raided much as do the Bedouin of to-day, with little regard for the neighbouring states. In the south the rich and ancient kingdom of Yaman enjoyed, under its own Tubba's or kings, a larger measure of wealth, prosperity, and civilisation. The infamous usurper Lakhí'a, called Dhú Shanátir, met his well-merited doom at the hands of the young prince Dhú Nuwás, who—for since the days of Bilqís Queen of Sheba regicide seems to have been regarded in South Arabia as the best title to the Crown—was by acclamation elected king, the last king, as it proved in the event, of the old Ḥimyarite stock.
Now Dhú Nuwás elected to turn Jew, and with the zeal of a proselyte, proceeded to persecute the Christians of Nejrán, Dhú Nuwás and the persecution of the Christians of Nejrán. whom, on their refusal to embrace Judaism, he slew with the sword, burned and roasted in pits dug for the purpose, and barbarously tortured in other ways. To this event allusion is made in súra lxxxv of the Qur'án: “Death upon the People of the Pits, “The People of the Pits.” of the Burning Fire, when they sat over them, watching what they did to the believers, against whom they had no complaint save that they believed in God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy!”
That, as stated by Ṭabarí, 20,000 Christians perished in this persecution (A.D. 523) is, of course, incredible, the actual number of victims being probably not much more than a hundredth part of this; but the news, brought by one of the fugitives, was horrible enough to stir the wrath of the Abyssinian Abyssinian conquest of Yemen. Christians, and to induce their ruler, the Nejáshí or NĖgúsh, to send an army to avenge his co-religionists. This army, commanded by Aryáṭ and Abraha, utterly defeated the Yamanites, and Dhú Nuwás, perceiving that all was lost, spurred his horse into the sea, and disappeared for ever from mortal ken. To this event the Ḥimyarite poet Dhú Jadan refers in the following verses:—
“Gently! Can tears recall the things that are spent and sped?
Fret thyself not with weeping for those who are lost and dead!
After Baynún,175a
whereof nor stones nor traces remain,
And after Silḥín, shall man ere build such houses again?”
And again:—
“Leave me, accursed shrew! For what can avail thy cries?
Plague on thee! Peace! In my throat thy scolding the spittle dries!
To the music of cithers and singers in bygone days 'twas fine
When we drank our fill and revelled in royallest, ruddiest wine!
To drain the sparkling wine-cup I deem it, indeed, no shame,
When it brings no act that a comrade and boon-companion can blame;
For Death is by no man cheated, the grave is the share of each,
Though protection he seek of the perfumes and potions and drugs of
the leech!
The monk in his cloistered dwelling, which rears its fanes as high
As the nest of the hawk and eagle, in vain would death deny.
Thou hast heard, for sure, of Ghumdán,176a
the house with the lofty roof,
Which they built on a mountain-summit, from meaner dwellings aloof;
Crowned with the joiner's labour, with square-hewn stones for stay,
Plastered without and within with clean, tough, slippery clay.
With burden of dates half-ripened already the palm-trees seemed
Ready to break, while the oil-lamps like summer lightning gleamed.
Yet is this once-new Castle a pile of ashes to-day,
And the lambent flames have eaten its beauty and form away.
For Abú Nuwás, despairing, hath hastened to meet his death,
Foretelling their pending troubles to his folk with his latest breath!”
Aryáṭ, the Abyssinian conqueror of Yaman, did not, however, long survive to enjoy the fruits of victory, for he was Aryáṭ killed by Abraha. treacherously slain in a duel by his ambitious lieutenant, Abraha, who, however, emerged from the combat with a wound across his face which earned for him the nickname of al-Ashram, “the split-nosed.”
Now it pleased Abraha to build at Ṣan'á, the capital of Yaman, a great and splendid church, whereby he hoped to Abraha's expedition against Mecca. divert the stream of Arab pilgrims away from the Square Temple of Mecca. But the Arabs murmured at his endeavour, and one of them, a soothsayer of the tribe of Fuqaym, entered the church by stealth and defiled it. Then Abraha was filled with wrath, swore to destroy the Temple of Mecca, and set out to execute his threat with his elephants of war and a vast host of Abyssinians.
While Abraha lay encamped at Mughammas, hard by the city of Mecca, he was visited by 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib, the grand- 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib and his camels. father of the Prophet Muḥammad, who was one of the principal men of the Quraysh, that noble tribe to whom was specially entrusted the care of the Sanctuary. And Abraha, being well pleased with his manners and address, bade him through his interpreter crave a boon. “I desire,” replied 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib, “that the King should restore to me two hundred camels which have been taken from me.” “Thou speakest to me,” answered Abraha in astonishment, “of two hundred camels which I have taken from thee, yet sayest naught of a Temple which is the Sanctuary of thee and thy fathers, and which I am come to destroy!” 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib's rejoinder is characteristically Arabian. “I am the master of the camels,” said he, “but the Temple has its own Master, who will take care of it;” and, on Abraha's remarking, “He cannot protect it against me!” he added, “That remains to be seen; only give me back my camels!”
Having recovered his camels, 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib withdrew with his associates to a mountain-top to await the event, but ere he retreated from Mecca he paid a visit to the Ka'ba, and, holding in his hand the great ring-knocker on the outer door, exclaimed:—
“Lord, in Thee alone I trust against them!
Lord, repel them from Thine Holy Land!
'Tis the Temple's foe who fights against Thee:
Save Thy town from his destroying hand!”
Next day Abraha prepared to carry out his threat, and advanced with his army, at the head of which marched his The elephant Maḥmúd. great elephant Maḥmúd, against Mecca. But as the elephant advanced, an Arab named Nufayl came up to it, took hold of its ear, and cried, “Kneel down, O Maḥmúd, and return by the direct way whereby thou camest hither, for thou art on God's holy ground!” Thereat the elephant knelt down, and, notwithstanding all their blows and stabs, refused to move a step against Mecca, though ready enough to go in any other direction.
Then God sent against the Abyssinians hosts of little birds like swallows—abábíl, as the Qur'án calls them—each of The Ababíl birds. which held three little stones or pellets of clay, one in its beak and two in its claws. These they let fall on the Abyssinians, and whosoever was struck by them died, and so the great host was routed. One fugitive, they say, returned to Abyssinia to tell the tale, and when they asked him “What manner of birds were these?” he pointed up at one which still hovered over him. Even as he did so, the bird let fall the stone that it held, and he too was stricken dead.
Such are the events which gave their name to this momentous year, and to which allusion is made in the chapter of the Qur'án entitled the “Súra of the Elephant.” “Hast thou not seen,” it runs, “how thy Lord dealt with the people of the Elephant? Did He not cause their plan to miscarry? And made them like chaff consumed?”
The opinion which now generally prevails amongst European scholars is that the above legend rests on a real basis of Historical basis of the legend. fact, and that a sudden and virulent outbreak of small-pox did actually decimate and put to rout the impious invaders. Small wonder that the Arabs saw in this almost miraculous preservation of their Sanctuary the Manifest Power of God, and that the “Year of the Elephant” marked an epoch in the development of their national life.
But Yaman still groaned under the Abyssinian yoke, and Abraha of the split nose was succeeded in turn by his sons Sayf b. Dhú Yazan's appeal to Persia. Yaksúm178a and Masrúq, whose hands were heavy on the Ḥimyarites, so that at length Sayf the son of Dhú Yazan went forth as their ambassador to seek relief from one of the two great empires, the Byzantine and the Persian, which then divided the mastery of that region of the world. Meeting with no encouragement from the former, he induced Mundhir, the Arab King of Ḥíra, to present him at the Persian Court. Núshírwán received him in his audience-hall, seated on his gorgeous throne, his head surmounted by, though not supporting, the gigantic barrel-like crown, glittering with rubies, emeralds, pearls, and other precious stones, supported by a chain from the roof, which was at once the glory and the oppression of the Sásánian kings.
“O King!” said Sayf ibn Dhú Yazan, when he had prostrated himself before this gorgeous apparition, “the Ravens have taken our land!”
“Which Ravens?” inquired Núshírwán; “those of Abyssinia or those of India?”
“The Abyssinians,” continued Sayf; “and now I come to thee that thou may'st help me and drive them away from me; then shall the lordship over my land be thine, for ye are preferred by us to them.”
“Thy land,” answered the King, “is too remote from ours, and is withal too poor a land, wherein is naught but sheep and camels, for us to desire it. I cannot venture a Persian army in Arabia, nor have I any wish so to do.”
So Núshírwán gave him a present of ten thousand dirhams and a robe of honour, and so dismissed him. But the Ḥim- Economical Imperialism. yarite envoy, as he went forth from the palace, cast the gold in handfuls amongst the retainers, slaves, pages, and handmaidens who stood round, and these greedily scrambled for it. When the King heard this, he recalled the envoy, and asked him how he dared deal thus with the King's gift. “What else should I do with it?” answered he; “the mountains of my land whence I come consist only of gold and silver.” And when the King heard this, he swallowed the bait so artfully presented, and detained the envoy till he should lay the matter before his advisers. Then said one of his counsellors, “O King, in thy prisons are men whom thou hast cast into fetters to put them to death; canst thou not give him these? If they perish, then is thy purpose fulfilled; but if they take the country, then is thy lordship increased.”
This ingenious plan for combining Imperial expansion with domestic economy was enthusiastically approved, and an Composition of the Persian expeditionary force. examination of the prisons produced eight hundred condemned felons, who were forthwith placed under the command of a superannuated general named Wahriz, so old that, as the story runs, his eyelids drooped over his eyes, and must needs be bound or held up when he wished to shoot.180a The expeditionary force thus constituted, and accompanied by Sayf, was embarked on eight ships, of which two were wrecked, while the remaining six safely reached the coast of Ḥaḍramawt, where the little Persian army of six hundred men was largely reinforced by the Yamanite Arabs. The news of this bold invasion soon reached Masrúq, and brought him out at the head of his hosts to give battle. Then Wahriz made a great feast for his followers, and, while they were carousing, burned his ships and destroyed his stores, after which, in a spirited harangue, he pointed out that the choice between death and victory was the only choice open to them, and called on them to play the part of men. They responded (having, indeed, but little option in the matter), and the battle began. Wahriz caused some of those who stood by The historic shot of Wahriz. him to point out to him the Abyssinian king, who was rendered conspicuous by an immense ruby, the size of an egg, which blazed on his forehead. Choosing an auspicious moment, Wahriz shot an arrow at him as he rode on his mule, and the arrow struck fair in the middle of the ruby, splintering it in pieces and transfixing Masrúq's forehead.
The death of their king was the signal for the rout of the Abyssinians, whom the victorious Persians massacred without Yaman as a Persian satrapy. mercy, though sparing their Arab and Ḥimyarite allies; and Yaman became a Persian province, governed first by its conqueror, Wahriz (and for a part of his lifetime by Sayf), then by his son, grandson, and great-grandson, and lastly, in the time of Muḥammad, by a Persian named Bádhán of another family. Even in early Muhammadan days we hear much of the Banu'l-Aḥrár, or “Sons of the Noble,” as the Persian settlers in Yaman were called by the Arabs.
With the death of Núshírwán (A.D. 578), which happened shortly after these events, the decline of the Sásánian Empire Rapid decline of the Sásánian power after Núshírwán. began. Proud and formidable to outward appearance as was the Persian power against which the warriors of Islám hurled themselves in the following century, it was rotten to the core, honeycombed with intrigues, seething with discontent, and torn asunder by internecine and fratricidal strife. Núshírwán's own son, Anúsha-zádh the Christian, revolted, as has been already mentioned, against him. His successor, Hurmazd the Fourth, provoked by his folly and ingratitude the formidable revolt of Bahrám Chúbín, which led directly to his estrangement from his son Khusraw Parwíz; the flight of the latter and his two uncles, Bistám and Bindú'è, to the Byzantines; and his own violent death. Parwíz in turn, after a reign long indeed (A.D. 590-627), but filled with strife, intrigue and murder, was murdered by his son, Shírú'è, after a travesty of judicial attainder which did but add senseless insult to unnatural cruelty. After a reign of only a few months, which he inaugurated by the murder of eighteen of his brothers, the parricide sickened and died; and a fearful plague which devastated Persia seemed the appropriate sign of Heaven's wrath against this wicked king. His infant son, Ardashír, a boy seven years old, succeeded him, but was besieged and slain in his capital Ctesiphon by the usurper Shahrbaráz, who in turn was assassinated some forty days later (June 9, A.D. 630) by three of his bodyguard. Púrán-dukht, daughter of Khusraw Parwíz, next ascended the perilous throne, and seemed by her wisdom and good intentions destined to inaugurate a brighter epoch, but, after restoring the wood of the True Cross to the Byzantine Emperor, she too died after a reign of sixteen months. She was succeeded by a distant cousin of her father, who, under the name of Pírúz, reigned less than a month, and was followed by her sister, the beautiful Ázarmí-dukht. She, to avenge an insult, compassed the death of Farrukh-Hurmazd, the Spahbadh of Khurásán, and was in turn slain, after a brief reign of six months, by his son Rustam, the Persian general, who four years later (in A.D. 635) perished in the disastrous defeat of Qádisiyya. Four or five other ephemeral rulers, some of whom were murdered and some deposed, intervened between her and her father's grandson, the ill-fated Yazdigird the Third, who, last of that royal and noble House, perished miserably, a solitary fugitive, at the hands of a wretched churl whose greed had been aroused by the jewels which alone remained to the hunted and ruined king to tell of his rank and riches. When Núshírwán had heard from 'Abdu'l-Masíḥ the intepretation of his vision he consoled himself wlth the reflection that fourteen kings of his House should rule after him ere the final catastrophe. The first fourteen kings of the dynasty reigned in all more than two centuries: who could suppose that the reigns of the eleven rulers who intervened between Khusraw Parwíz and Yazdigird the Third would not altogether amount to more than five years?
182aAnd all this time the enemy was thundering at the gates of the doomed empire with ever-increasing insistence. Three Warnings of disaster. presages of disaster, in particular, are enumerated by Ṭabarí,183a the Muslim historian, as Divine warnings to Khusraw Parwíz of the consequences which his rejection of the message of the Arabian Prophet would entail. The letter in which this message was embodied is said to have been couched in the following words:—
183b“In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From Muḥammad the Apostle of God to Khusraw son of Hurmazd. But to The Prophet's etter to Parwíz. proceed. Verily I extol unto thee God, beside whom there is no other God; He it is who guarded me when I was an orphan, and made me rich when I was destitute, and guided me when I was straying in error. Only he who is bereft of understanding, and over whom calamity triumphs, rejects the message which I am sent to announce. O Khusraw! Submit and thou shalt be safe, or else prepare to wage with God and with His apostle a war which shall not find them helpless! Farewell!”
Khusraw Parwíz, according to one story, tore the letter in pieces, whereupon the Muslim envoy exclaimed, “Thus, O impious King, shall God rend asunder thine empire and scatter thy hosts!” In another account, the Persian King is said to have written to Bádhán, satrap of Yaman (see p. 181 supra) bidding him march on Medína, seize the Prophet Muḥammad, and bring him captive to Ctesiphon.
183cThe portents described as warning Khusraw Parwíz of the swiftly approaching doom of the Persian Empire fall into three categories—visions, signs, and actual historical events.
The visions include the apparition to Khusraw Parwíz of an The Portents. (1) Visions. angel, who breaks a staff symbolising the Persian power, and the writing on the wall, whereof the purport is thus given in the Niháyatu'l-Irab:—
“O weak man! Verily God hath sent unto His people an Apostle, and hath revealed unto him a Scripture, therefore submit and believe, and He will vouchsafe to thee the good of this world and the next. But if thou wilt not do this, thou shalt shortly perish, and thy kingdom shall perish, and thy power shall depart from thee!”
The signs include the repeated bursting of a dam placed by order of the King in the “blind” Tigris (a branch of that (2) Signs. river which flowed by Baṣra); the collapse of the vaulted arch from which depended the mighty barrel-like crown over his throne; and the play of lightnings reaching towards the east over Ḥijáz.
The historical event was the Battle of Dhú Qár (fought between A.D. 604 and 610), an engagement which, com- (3) The Battle of Dhú Qár. paratively insignificant in itself, yet served to teach the Arabs that, for all their higher civilisation, their wealth, and their renown, the Persians were not invincible. “This,” said the Prophet, when he heard of it, “is the first day whereon the Arabs have obtained satisfaction from the Persians; through me have they obtained help!”
On the influence of pre-Muhammadan systems, both political and religious, on the civilisation of al-Islám, von Kremer's writings are most suggestive, especially his little work entitled Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete des Islams.
↩ This explanation is, I believe, now challenged. Professor Cowell
used to teach that it referred to the
See Geldner in the Grundriss, vol. ii, pp. 18, 20.
↩See Mademoiselle D. Menant's Les Parsis (Paris, 1898), pp. 52-56.
↩Z.D.M.G., xxi, pp. 421-465.
↩See the Arab historians—e.g., Dínawarí (ed. Guirgass, 1888), p. 322.
↩See Haug's Essay on Pahlawí, pp. 80-82; West's article on Pahlawí Literature in the Grundriss, vol. ii, p. 79, and the references there given.
↩The full enumeration of these and the following will be found in West's article in the Grundriss already referred to.
↩A very full ??alysis of its contents is given by West, op. cit., pp. 91-98.
↩For tran??on see West's Pahlawí texts in vol. v of the Sacred Books of the East, pp. 1-151 (Oxford, 1880). For analysis of contents see West's article in the Grundriss, pp. 100-102.
↩Translated by West in vol. xxiv of the Sacred Books of the East series (Oxford, 1885), pp. 115-251; and published in Pázend by the same scholar in conjunction with the Pársí Hoshang in 1887.
↩This work is placed by Nöldeke about the year A.D. 500, and is described by him as “wohl die älteste eigentliche Heldensage, die uns in iranischer Sprache erhalten ist.”
↩The date of its composition is placed by Nöldeke about A.D. 600.
↩See Macan's ed. of the Sháhnáma, p. 18.
↩Cambridge MS. QQ. 46, a fine old fourteenth century MS. of this important compilation, concerning which see Nöldeke's Das Iranische Nationalepos, p. 77 and n. 2.
↩Arische Studien, p. 126.
↩Das Iranische Nationalepos, p. 9.
↩Ibid., p. 11 and n. 2 ad calc.
↩Ibid., p. 12, and n. 3 ad. calc.
↩Dínawarí, p. 29.
↩See Budge's Book of Alexander.
↩Ed. Haug and West, pp. 4 and 141.
↩Mas'údí's Kitábu't-Tanbíh, p. 91.
↩See the excellent edition published by de Goeje in his Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum (vol. viii, pp. 97-9, Leyden, 1893).
↩See al-Bírúní's Chronology of Ancient Nations, Sachau's translation, pp. 119 and 45; Nöldeke's Dan Iranische Nationalepos, pp. 14-15.
↩Gesch. d. Sasaniden, pp. 388 and n. 7, and 477 and n. 2 ad calc.
↩That portion of Arabia which borders on the cultivated lands of 'Iráq.
↩Other names ascribed by other writers are, besides Shahr-bánú (universal amongst the modern Persians), as-Suláfa and Sháh-i-Zanán.
↩Madína in Arabia means “the city,” and Madá'in is its plural. The ancient Yathrib, when honoured by the flight thither of the Prophet Muḥammad, was called Madínatu'n-Nabí, “the City of the Prophet,” or simply al-Madína, “the City.” By Madá'in Ctesiphon, the ancient Sásánian capital in Chaldæa, is meant. It is said by the Arabian geographers to have been so called because it was formed by the fusion and coalescence of seven cities (madá'in). See Barbier de Meynard's Dict. de la Perse, p. 519. The confusion between Ray (the ancient Rhagae, near the modern Tihrán) and Ctesiphon is merely one indication of the essentially popular and unscientific character of these ta'ziyas, which makes their testimony to the national feeling the more significant. The sentiments embodied by them are not those of pedants, but of the nation.
↩Text and translation published at Cambridge (1882) by the late Dr. W. Wright.
↩Auszüge aus Syrischen Akten Persischer Märtyrer … von Georg Hoffmann (Leipzig, 1880).
↩See Nöldeke's Gesch. d. Sasaniden, p. 74, n. 3 ad calc.
↩See al-Bírúní's Chronology of Ancient Nations, translated by Sachau (London, 1879), p. 121.
↩See the Sitzungsberichte d. K. b. Akademie d. Wiss. zu München for 1890, vol. i, pp. 43-84: Das Yâtkâr-i Zarîrân und sein Verhältniss zum Shâh-nâma by Geiger; and Nöldeke's Persische Studien, II: Das Buch von Zarêr, in the Sitzungsberichte d. phil. hist. Classe der K. Akad. d. Wissen-schaften for 1892 (Vienna), vol. cxxvi, Abhandlung 12.
↩On these three most sacred Fires, see Nöldeke's note in his translation of the Kár-námak (p. 37, n. 3 ad calc.). Kharrád in Firdawsí stands for Frobâ, Frôbag, or Farnbag.
↩Nöldeke (loc. cit., p. 26) notices this especially as one of the graphic touches whereby Firdawsí strove to give life and colour to the curt, dry narrative of the Pahlawí original.
↩Concerning the “hand-contract” see the Vendidâd, Fargard iv, v. 2 Darmesteter's English transl. in S. B. E., vol i, p. 35).
↩The tracing of the Sásánian pedigree to Gushtásp (Víshtáspa), the protector of Zoroaster, and the first “Defender of the Faith” is part of the general plan which aims at representing them as the direct and legitimate heirs of the ancient Persian kings, and the hereditary champions of “the Good Religion.”
↩Seven sons are ascribed to him also in the Kárnámak, p. 51.
↩Nöldeke's ingenious view is, however, rejected by Darmesteter (Études Iraniennes, vol. ii, pp. 82-83).
↩The 27th of the month.
↩The allusion is to the capture of the Brazen Fortress (Rú'ín Dizh), which Isfandiyár entered as a merchant. See Sháhnáma, ed. Macan, vol. iii, pp. 1143 et seqq.
↩At Naqsh-i-Rustam. See Ker-Porter, i, pl. xxiii, p. 548; Flandin, iv, pl. 182.
↩Isfandiyár, called Rú'ín-tan, “having a body of brass,” is probably intended.
↩Dahák is here meant.
↩Curzon's Persia, vol. ii, pp. 120 and 211.
↩That the practice of determining a site by shooting an arrow continued into Muhammadan times, and was used by the Arabs as well as the Persians, is shown by a passage in al-Baládhurí's Kitábu futúḥi'l-buldán (ed. de Goeje, p. 276). Compare II Kings xiii, 14-19.
↩More probably “in this place,” for Nöldeke (Stoltze's Persepolis, vol. ii, Introduction) reads the word hitherto supposed to be dígí or díkí as dúkí = Aramaic dúkhá, “place.”
↩Hormuzd, Bahrám I or Bahrám II (see Nöldeke's Gesch. d. Sasan., p. 47, n. 5 ad calc.).
↩Fihrist (composed A.D. 987), ed. Flügel, pp. 328-338, and the same with German translation, introduction, and notes, also by Flügel (1862); al-Bírúní's Chronology, translated by Sachau, pp. 27, 80, 121, 189, 191, 225, 329; Ibn Wáḍiḥ, ed. Houtsma, vol. i, pp. 180-182; Shahristání, translated into German by Haarbrucker, i, pp. 285-291. See also, besides Beausobre (1734) and Mosheim, Baur, Kessler, and Spiegel's Erânische Alterthumskunde, vol. ii, pp. 195-232.
↩ See Flügel's Mani, n. 324,
See Flügel, op. cit., pp. 102-103, where the contents of this book are briefly stated from the Fihrist. It contained eighteen chapters.
↩This “molten brass ordeal” is repeatedly mentioned both in the Pahlawí and Arabic books. Amongst the former, see Haug's ed. and translation of the Arda Víráf Námak, p. 144, especially the passages from the Dínkard cited in the note; and also the Shikand Gúmáník Víjár (ed. West), p. xii. Amongst the latter, see al-Qazwíní's Átháru'l-Bilád, p. 267. The test is also said to have been proposed to Manes in the Persian Táríkh-i-Guzída (Cambridge MS. marked Dd. 3. 23, f. 45a).
↩The term Zandíkíh occurs in the Mainyó-i-Khard (ed. West, 1871, ch. xxxvi, p. 37), and is explained as “thinking well of the devils” (pp. 22-23).
↩Cf. C. Schmidt's Hist. et doctrine de la Secte des Cathares ou Albigeois (Paris, 1849).
↩Cf. Darmesteter's English translation of the Avesta, in S. B. E., vol. i, p. 46, and n. 1 ad calc. on Fargard iv, 47.
↩See Flügel's Mání, p. 231; Spiegel's Erân. Alterthumskunde, vol. ii, p. 217.
↩A powerful protector of the Manichæans, put to death by the Caliph al-Walíd in A.D. 743. See Flügel's Mání, pp. 320-322.
↩See Flügel's Mání, pp. 294-299. The meaning is uncertain.
↩Cf. Sháhnáma, ed. Macan, vol. iii, pp. 1453-1454.
↩See the excellent account o?? Núshírwán given by Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ed. 1813, vol. vii, pp. 298-307).
↩See Nöldeke, Gesch. d. Sasaniden, p. 162 ad calc.
↩Gibbon, op. cit., p. 305, n. 52 ad calc.
↩See Nöldeke, Gesch. d. Sasaniden, p. 162 ad calc.
↩See also a more popular account by the same scholar in the Deutsche Rundschau for February, 1879, pp. 284 etseqq.
The most ancient and authentic notices of, or references to, Mazdak are as follows:—
(i) In the Pahlawí translation of the Vendidâd, Fargard iv, v. 49, the words of the Avesta text, “it is this man who can strive against the ungodly Sources of information: 1. Pahlawí. Ashemaogha” (i.e., “fiend” or “heretic”) “who does not eat,” are illustrated by the gloss “like Mazdak, son of Bámdádh;” while other references to the “accursed Mazdak” occur in the Bahman Yasht, which, however, is one of the latest products of Pahlawí literature, and is, in its extant form, referred by West to about the twelfth century of our era. There also existed a Pahlawí Mazdak-námak, or “Book of Mazdak,” which was one of the numerous Pahlawí works translated into Arabic by Ibnu'l-Muqaffa', but this, unfortunately, is lost, though its contents are to some extent preserved by other Arabic writers. 2. Greek.
(ii) In Greek references to Mazdak occur in the works of Procopius, Theophanes, and John Malalas.
(iii) In Syriac, in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (Wright's ed. and 3. Syriac. transl., § xx), who speaks of King Kawád's “evil conduct” in re-establishing “the abominable sect of the Magi which is called that of the Zarádushtakán, which teaches that women should be in common…”
(iv) In Arabic, accounts of Mazdak are given by al-Ya'qúbí (c. A.H. 260; ed. Houtsma, vol. 1, p. 186), who mentions that he and his master Zarátusht 4. Arabic. Khurragán were put to death by Anúshírwán; Ibn Qutayba († A.H. 270-276; Kitábu'l-Ma'árif, ed. Wüstenfeld, 1850, p. 328); Dínawarí († A.H. 282-290; ed. Guirgass, p. 69); Ṭabarí (†A.H. 310; ed. de Goeje, Series I, vol. ii, pp. 885-886 = Nöldeke's transl., pp. 140-144; pp. 893-894 = Nöldeke, pp. 154-155); Ḥamza of Iṣfahán (early fourth century of Hijra); Eutychius († A.H. 328); Mas'údí († A.H. 346; Murúju' dh-Dhahab, ed. B. de Meynard, vol. ii, pp. 195-196); al-Bírúní († A.H. 440; Sachau's translation, p. 192); Shahristání († A.H. 548; Kitábu'l-milal , ed. Cureton, pp. 192-194 = Haarbrücker's transl., pp. 291-293); Ibnu-'l-Athír († A.H. 630); Abu'l-Fidá († A.H. 732; ed. Fleischer, pp. 88-91), and other historians.
(v) In Persian, the narratives in the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí (ed. Macan, vol. iii, pp. 1611-1616), and the Siyásat-náma of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk (ed. Schefer, pp. 166-181) deserve especial mention.
↩I.e., the Caliph 'Umar, in whose reign (A.D. 634-644) the conquest of Persia was chiefly effected.
↩A place near Ḥíra, in the neighbourhood of which was fought the fateful battle of Qádisiyya.
↩I.e., the fourteen turrets or battlements which, in Nushírwán's dream, fell from the palace. Nushírwán's fourteen successors are presumably to be reckoned as follows: (1) Hurmazd IV; (2) Khusraw Parwíz; (3) Shírú'é; (4) Ardashír III; (5) Shahrbaráz; (6) Púrán-dukht; (7) Gushnaspdeh? (8) Ázarmí-dukht; (9) Khusraw, son of Mihr-Gushnasp; (10) Khurrazádh-Khusraw; (11) Pírúz, son of Gushnaspdeh; (12) Farrukhzádh-Khusraw; (13) Hurmazd V; (14) Yazdigird III.
↩The names of two ancient castles, said to have been built by the Jinn for Queen Bilqís by command of Solomon.
↩Another celebrated edifice, built by the architect Sinnimár, who was on the completion of his task slain by his employer lest he should produce some yet more wonderful monument of his skill.
↩ One of his coins, figured by Rüppell, bears, according to Gutschmid,
the legend
Concerning the origin of this curious detail, which occurs again in another connection, see Nöldeke's Sasaniden, p. 226, n 1.
↩Shírú'è succeeded to the throne on February 25, A.D. 628; Yazdigird III, the last king of the House of Sásán, at the end of A.D. 632 or the beginning of A.D. 633.
↩See Nöldeke's Sasaniden, pp. 303-345.
↩The text is taken from the rare Niháyatu'l-Irab, Cambridge MS. See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for April, 1900, p. 251.
↩See the article mentioned in the last note, p. 251.
↩