Persians were in the habit of saying that the person would be deficient as a writer who was not conversant with the nature of flowing waters, with the digging of canals, with mirage, with the length of days as to particular seasons, with the rising of the new moon, and its effects, with weights and measures, with mensuration, triangles, squares, and measurements of areas involving various angles, with the preparation of channels and bridges and water mills, with the implements of artisans, and with the intricacies of mathematics. (p. 43).
[Sidenote: Mobedan-Mobed]
I have read in one of the _Books of the Persians_ that the _Mobedan-Mobed_ in eulogising the art of writing said etc … (p. 47).
[Sidenote: Epistle of Aberwez.]
I have read in the Epistle of Aberwez to his son Shiruya. [Then follows an advice about severely punishing even a small piece of dishonesty.] (p, 58).
[Sidenote: The _Taj_.]
I have read in the _Taj_ that Aberwez said to the treasurer [here follows some observations on integrity.]
[Sidenote: Persian sense of justice and equity.]
I have read in the _Ain_ that it behoves the ruler to understand the jurisdiction of rightful justice, of justice which is not equity, of equity which is not justice, and to use his judgment with regard to evidence and eyewitnesses, and to refrain from doubtful matters. Since it is both justice and equity to kill a person for the slaughter of a person, and it is justice without equity to kill a master for the slaughter of a slave, and it is equity without justice to award the same punishment for a crime committed by a sane man as to one who was not in his senses. (p. 88).
And I have read in the _Taj_: Said Aberwez to his chamberlain; [and here follow very interesting instructions regarding the treatment which the chamberlain was to give to the various persons seeking an audience of the king.] (p. 74).
I have read in the _Taj_ [here follows an address of a secretary to a king.]
[Sidenote: Speech from the throne.]
I have read in the _Siyaral Ajam_ [one of the Arabic versions of _Shah Nameh_] that Ardeshir, when he was firmly established on the throne, gathered together his subjects and addressed them with eloquence exhorting them to love and obedience to himself, and warning them against sin and dividing the people into four classes, upon which those present made obeisance and their spokesman addressed the king as follows. [Here follows one of those typical speeches of which we have so many in _Shah Nameh_, and which leaves no doubt that the originals of them were composed in Pahlavi and that they were almost literally translated.]
_JAHIZ._
_KITAB-AL-BAYAN VA-AL-TABAYYIN._
_(Egyptian Edition.)_
PART I.
The dictum of BUZURJAMEHR: Buzurg, son of Bokhtagan was asked, “Which is the thing which covers indolence.” “Aye” he said, “Wisdom, which gives beauty to it.” They said, “If a person has got no wisdom?” He said, “Then property, which will cover it.” They said, “But if there is no property?” He said, “His friends will earn respect for him.” They said, “But if he has got no friends to earn respect for him?” He said, “If a person is indolent then he must preserve silence” They said, “But if he does not observe silence?” He said, “Then sudden death is better for him than that he should remain, in the world of the living.” This passage has been repeated at page 123 with a slight difference. There the interrogator is Kisra Anushirvan, and the question is, which thing is the best for a man who is indolent. Buzurg replies, “Wisdom, with which he may be happy.” (p, 4.)
There is mention of several authors and books similar to _Kalileh wa Dimneh_ with the names of their authors including Sahal Ibn Harun, Ibn Rayhani, Al Katib. (p. 30.)
Says Ismai: In the alphabet of the Romans there is no _zad_ and among the Persians there is no _tha_. (p. 36)
A longish definition and description of oratory by Ibn ul Mukaffa. (p. 64.)
Ibn Mukaffa again referred to. (p. 65.)
Instances of Arabic poetry in which Persian words and phrases are intermingled _e.g., garden_ for _unuk_ (neck); _av sard_ for cold water, &c. (p. 79.)
[There are several other instances where the Persian words are there, but the copyist and possibly also the editor, do not seem to have understood the Kasida and the editor observes in a marginal note that, the text is corrupt, G.K.N.]
PART II.
Mention of Sahal Ibn Harun. (p. 37.)
Mention of Persia, (p. 53.)
Mention of Abdallah Ibn Mukaffa. (p. 84.)
Mention of Persia, (p. 92.)
Dicta of Ibn al Mukatia on the dignity of kings and of nobles, (p. 104.)
Reference to Khalid al Kisravi. (p. 105.)
Reference to Ibn al Mukaffa. (p. 109.)
Khalid al Kisrawi. (p. 112.)
Al Hurmuzan. (p. 139.)
On the service of kings. (p. 176.)
PART III.
The ways of the Shuubiya. (p. 2.)
Reference to Persia. (p. 5.)
Persia and Arabia compared. (p. 7.)
Arabia and Persia compared. (p. 12.)
Arabia and Persia contrasted. The prophets of Ajam. (p, 13.)
Reference to Persia. (p. 44.)
The Persian throne. (p. 77.)
Dicta of Mukaffa. (p. 87.)
Khalid al Barmaki. (p. 110.)
Dicta on Adab of Mukaffa. (p. 135.)
Reference to Barmaki. (p. 174.)
Reference to Barmaki. (p. 170.)
Sahal Ibn-Harun. (p. 185.)
Dictum of Buzurja Meher. (p. 217.)
Madaini quoted. (p. 233.)
Persia referred to. (p. 234.)
PART III., PAGE 5.
[Sidenote: Value of Zoroastrian literature.]
And we note that the persons most superior with, regard to preaching our sermons are the Persians. And among the Persians the most clever in this respect are the people of Fars, and they are the sweetest in words, and their pronunciation is the most correct. And the most difficult in this respect are the people of Merv. The most eloquent dialect of Persia is the Dari. As regards the Pahlavi idiom, of the people of the country of Ahwaz are the best. And as regards the chantings of the HERBEDS and the songs of the MOBEDS the superiority in this respect lies with the annotators of the Zemzema. And it is said that he who desires to acquire proficiency in the art of eloquence, and to be acquainted with rare expressions, and to be profoundly versed in vocabulary should read the book of Karwand. Moreover, if it is necessary to acquire sagacity and good manners and knowledge of the various interpretations of terms, a knowledge of pleasing expression and agreeable interpretation, one should study the LIVES OF KINGS, since for the Persians this book contains essays and sermons and fine expressions.
HAMZA ISPAHANI.
[Sidenote: Why no authentic history of Iran has survived.]
[Sidenote: A clear reference to the ambiguous Pahlavi script and to the great difficulty of translating from it:]
[Sidenote: Enumeration of the sources of Iranian history.]
There are four dynasties among the kings of Persia and their enumeration is given alone and without any history of the events of their time or the characteristics of the kings of Persia during the protracted period of their sovereignty. They were divided into four groups called the Feshdadiya, the Kayaniya, the Ashghaniya, and the Sasaniya. Their entire chronology is dubious and not certain since it was translated after 150 years from one language into another and from one equivocal set of symbols for figures into another set of symbols, so that there remained nothing for me with reference to a narrative, in these chapters except to bring together the doubtful transcripts. I succeeded in finding eight transcripts and these were the following:–The Book of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia translated by Ibn al Mukaffa, the Book of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia translated by Muhammad Ibn al Jaham al Barmak, the Book of the History of the Kings of Persia which was taken out of the treasury of the Khalif Mamun; the Book of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia which was translated by Zaduya son of Shahuya of Ispahan; the Book of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia which was translated or compiled by Muhammad Ibn al Behram Ibn Mutyan of Ispahan; the Book of the Chronology of the Kings of Persia which was translated or compiled by Heshan Ibn Kasum of Ispahan, the Book of the Chronology of the Kings of the Sasanian Dynasty which was improved upon by Behram son of Mardan Shah, Mobed of the district of Shabur in the country of Fars. And when I had collected together all these works, I compared one with the others and then acquired what was necessary for the writing of this chapter.
[Sidenote: Incorrect translations from Pahlavi.]
And says Abu Mashar, the astronomer:–The majority of their [Iranian] histories are interpolated and corrupt, and there is the corruption because they have come down from a great many years ago and because they have been translated from one writing into another and from one tongue into another and hence there have been mistakes of either excess or defect.
“And the Persians start their assertion from the Book which was brought to them by Zaradusht and which was called Avesta. This is the Book of their religion. It alleges that there have elapsed since the reign of Kayumarth, the father of mankind, down to the reign of king Yazdegerd, 4182 years, 10 months, and 19 days.”
[Sidenote: Corrupt texts and faulty translations.]
Says Musa Ibn Isa al Kesravi in his book: I saw the Book which is called the _Khoday Nameh_ and which is the Book which when it was translated from Persian into Arabic was entitled _Kitab al Muluk al Fars._ I carefully examined the copies of this Book and looked through the narratives in them, and I found them in disagreement with each other so that I could not find even two copies which agreed with each other, and this was on account of the doubts in the minds of the translators who turned from one writing into another.
[Sidenote: Mobed Behram the historian.]
And turning back to what I have related in the previous chapter as regards the chronology [of the Persians], I relate what has been stated by Behram son of Mardanshah, _Mobed_ of the district of Shabur in the province of Fars. Says Behram the mobed: I collected together a little over twenty copies of the book called _Khoday Nameh_ and I put together properly the chronology of the kings of Persia from the times of Kayumarth, the father of mankind, till the last days when the empire was transferred from them to the Arabs.
[Hamza describes the dress of the kings according to a book in which they were depicted just before their death. And he gives the buildings which each of them erected, especially the fire-temples they established along with the villages on the produce of which they were to be maintained.]
[Sidenote: Avesta.]
“I have read in the book which has been translated from one of their books called _Avesta_,” and so on Hamza proceeds regarding the beginning of creation.
TABARI.
(1st Series, Vol. 2, page 675.)
[Sidenote: Fire-temples in India.]
It is related by historians versed in the antiquities of Arabia and Persia that Bhishtasb, son of Kay Loharasb, when he assumed the crown, said:–To-day we have become sovereign and we shall employ our thoughts, our action, and our knowledge for the acquisition of the good. And it is said that he built in Fars a city called Fasa and he built fire-temples in India, etc., and appointed _herbeds_ to the same. He assigned several dignities to seven of his noblemen in his dominions and appointed each of them to the charge of a district.
[Sidenote: The appearance of Zoroaster.]
[Sidenote: Wars of Iran and Turan.]
Zaradusht son of Isfayman appeared in the thirtieth year of his reign and laid claim to apostleship and endeavoured that his religion might be accepted by the king. The latter refused and then Zaradusht satisfied him. Upon which the king accepted his claim. And he brought to him a Writing which he claimed was a revelation. And the said Writing was inscribed on 12,000 cow hides and they were embellished with gold, and Bishtasp deposited the same in a place in Istakhar called Darbesht and he appointed _herbeds_ in that connection. He prohibited the teaching of it to ordinary people…. [Here follows a passage which is not very clear regarding the difference that arose between the king of Iran and the king of the Turks relating to this new religion which Bishtasb had adopted. The name of the Turk sovereign is given as Khurzasaf.] Now when the messenger arrived with the epistle to Bishtasb there were gathered together the Ahl-bayat[1] and the noblemen of the empire, including Jamasaf the Wise, and Zarrin son of Loharasaf. Then Bishtasb wrote to the king of the Turks a strongly worded reply challenging him to a war and expressing his determination not to withdraw the step that he had taken and saying that that even if he refrained from fighting there would be all the people on both sides who would continue the struggle. On that day there were in the council of Bishtasb his brother Zarrin, and Nastur son of Zarrin, and Isfandiyar and Beshotan, the sons of Bishtasb and all the progeny of Loharasb. On the side of Khorasaf there were Ju Hormaz, and Hudarman his brother, and the Ahl-bayat and Baidarafsh, the magician. In the battle Zarrin was killed which was a heavy blow to Bishtasb and a great booty was taken by his son Isfandiyar, and Baidaraf was killed which was a calamity to the Turks. There was a huge slaughter and Khorsasaf fled. Thereupon Bishtasb returned to Balkh. Now when a number of years had passed after this war a person called Karzam attacked Isfandiyar. There was also an estrangement between Bishtasb and Isfandiyar. Order was issued for his imprisonment in a castle in which there were ladies, Bishtasb then proceeded in the direction of Kerman and Sagistan and proceeded towards a mountain called Tamdar. [The various manuscripts write the word differently and the editors have printed it without the diacritical marks so that it can be read in a variety of ways], for the purpose of teaching the religion and of spreading it there. And he left behind him his father Loharasaf in the city of Balkh and the treasures and the properties along with the harem including Khatus, his queen, were also left with the old man. [As the Editor points out Khatus is the Hutaosa of _Gosh Yast_ 26, and _Ram Yast_ 36[2]]. Now this fact was conveyed by the spies to Khorasaf and when he learnt it he collected an innumerable army and proceeded from his country towards Balkh and Khorasaf thought that this was an opportunity of attacking Bishtasb and his country. Thus when he approached Takhun he sent forward Ju Hormaz, his brother, with a large army and directed him to continue his march till he reached the centre of Bishtasb’s country and to invade it and attack the people and the cities. And this was done by Ju Hormaz who shed a large amount of blood and carried off incalculable booty. And Khorasaf followed him and set fire to the archives and slew Lohorasaf and the _herbeds_ and destroyed the fire-temples, _(buyut-an-niran)_ and he took possession of the properties and the treasuries and took two of the daughters of Lohorasaf prisoner and one of them was called Khumay and the other Bazafreh. [This of course is according to Firdousi Beh Afrid]. He captured a great standard which was called Dirafsh Kabyan and he pursued Bishtasb who was fleeing from him.
[Footnote 1: Ahl-bayat, or people of the house, is the Arabic equivalent of the Iranian Visputhra and was applied by Arabs to the superior Persian noblemen.]
[Footnote 2: Here is evidence, on the one hand, that the Arab historians had Iranian histories at their disposal and on the other, that the latter are still reflected in the _yasht_ literature.]
[The historian narrates how Isfandiyar went into the heart of the kingdom of the Turk and reached his capital which was called “Dez Ruin” and he proceeds to say “and being interpreted in Arabic it means the palace of copper.” There is further reference to the canals and castles which we can trace to the BUNDEHESH. The struggle between Rustum and Isfandiyar is also described. This is followed by a curious passage regarding Zoroaster.]
DINAWARI.
PAGE 26, CAIRO EDITION.
THE CALL OF ZARADUSHT.
[Sidenote: Rustam and Isfandiyar.]
And it is said that Zaradusht the head of the Magians came to Bishtasb the king and told him, “I am the Apostle of God to you”, and gave him the Book which the Magians possess. Then Bishtasb believed in him and accepted his religion which is that of the Magians and exhorted the people of his kingdom to the same and they also accepted it _nolence volence._ And Rustam the Strong, was at that time the Governor of Sagistan and Khorasan, and he was powerful of body and possessed of great vigour. And when this happened it was reported to Kaykobad the king, this, about the admittance of Bishtasb into the Magian religion and his abandoning the religion of their forefathers. Kaykobad became exceedingly angry at this, and said that this was forsaking of the religion of their forefathers who had inherited it from one generation to another. Then the people of Sagistan were gathered together and they wore incited to destroy Bishtasb. And they revolted against him. Upon this Bishtasb called upon Isfandiyar who was the strongest man of his time and said to him, “Oh son, the kingdom will be entrusted to you. But the affairs will not improve except by killing Rustam, and you know his strength and vigour. But you are his match in power and prowess. So do you choose from the army whomever you like and then proceed against him.” So Isfandiyar selected 12,000 Persian knights from the forces of his father, and marched against Rustam. And Rustam proceeded towards him between the boundaries or Sagistan and Khorasan. Isfandiyar suggested to Rustam that their armies should be excused from attacking each other, but that they two should engage in single combat and that whoever killed the other should be held to be the victor. Rustam agreed to the proposal and the covenant. Then the two armies stood abide and the two warriors engaged in a duel. Now the Persians have a good deal to say in this matter and that it was Rustam who killed Isfandiyar and that the latter’s army returned to Bishtasb and informed him of what had happened to his son Isfandiyar. The king was overwhelmed with grief fell ill and died. And the kingdom, came to the grandson Bahman, son of Isfandiyar, and it is related that soon after Rustam returned to his residence in Sagistan, he died.[1]
[Footnote 1: Note that Dinawari had obviously before him Iranian traditional materials for his history.]
DINAWARI TREATS OF THE FOLLOWING IRANIAN SUBJECTS IN HIS CLEAR AND SUCCINCT FASHION.
The reign of Baywarasaf, Farasiyab; Dhahak, the end of the reign of Minosher and the beginning of the reign of Farasiyab, the reign of Zab son of Budkan and Kaykohad Zab; the reign of Kaykawuys son of Kaykobad, the reign of Kai Khosro, the reign of Lohrasf and the invasion of Bukht Nasar; the reign of Bhishtasb in Persia; the call of Zaradusht, the reign of Bahman Ibn Isfandiyar in Persia and the emancipation of the Jews, the reign of Khumani (Humay) the queen of Bahman; the reign of Dara Ibn Bahman; the war of Dara with Greece; the reign of Darayush; the origin of Alexander; the invasion of Alexander against Dara; the reign of Ardwan; One para. is devoted to the Muluk ut Tawaef, and then regularly follow all the Sasanian kings beginning with Shahan Shah Ardeshir.
IBN AL ATHIR
(Vol. I., PAGE 110 CAIRO EDITION.)
_Account of King Loharasp and his son Bishtasb and the appearance of Zaradusht_.
[Sidenote: Zend and Pazend.]
And we have related that Kai Khosrou, when he was at the point of death, bequeathed the crown to the son of his uncle Loharasp; and when he acquired the sovereignty he got possession of the throne of gold adorned with jewels. For him was built in Khorasan the city of Balkh which was called Husna (charming). He established archives and strengthened the empire by the selection of soldiers and by advancing agriculture. He took taxes for the purpose of wages for his soldiers. At that time the Turks were in great strength and he went down to Balkh to fight them, and he was a favourite with his people and strong in overpowering his vigourous enemies, kind to his well-wishers, and of great intrepidity. He raised great buildings and cut a number of canals, built cities. The kings of India and China and the occident used to pay tribute to him and addressed him in their despatches as their ‘Lord’ out of fear and respect for him. Subsequently he abdicated the empire and throne and engaged himself in devotion, appointing in succession to him his son Bishtasb to be king. And his reign endured for 120 years. After him Bishtasb became king and in his days appeared Zaradusht son of Sakiman [it should be Safiman, the difference being only that of a dot] who claimed to prophesy and the Magians followed him. And according to what is stated by writers, Zaradusht belonged to Palestine and was a personal servant to one of the disciples of Armaya, the prophet. He was unfaithful to him and told him a lie so that God cursed him and he was afflicted with leprosy and went away to the country of Azarbayjan and there started the religion of Magians. And it is also stated by others that he was a Persian and that he composed a Book and went about with it in the world. But no one knew its meaning. And it was alleged that it was in a heavenly language and was called as such. It was entitled Ashta [this is clearly a misformation of Avesta]. Then he left Azarbayjan and proceeded towards Fars. No one knew what was in the book and no one accepted it. Then he went to India and produced it before the kings there. Next he went to China and Turkey. But no one acknowledged it, and he was driven out from their countries, and started for Farghana whose king prepared to slay him so that he fled from there and bent his steps towards Bhishtasb son of Loharasp; who ordered his imprisonment and he was consequently in captivity for a time. Now Zaradusht wrote a commentary on his Book called the Zend which means interpretation. Next he commented upon the Zend in a book called Bazand, that is, interpretation of interpretation, and therein are various sciences like astrology, astronomy, medicine, etc., with reference to the history of past ages, and the books of the prophets. And in his book is stated,–“Adhere to what I have brought you till the time when there will come to you the man of the red camel,” which means Muhammad the Prophet. This was at the beginning of the year 1600 and it was on this account that there has been enmity between the Magians and the Arabs and it has been mentioned in the history of Sabur Dhul Aktaf that this was one of the reasons justifying the raids on the Arabs. But God knows the best.
[Sidenote: The Eternal fire.]
[Sidenote: Royal archives forbidden to the Vulgar.]
Then Bishtasb caused Zaradusht to present himself before him since he was in Balkh. And when he came to him he commenced with his religion. Bishtasb admired it, followed it, and forced his people to embrace it, and slew a large number of them till the rest adopted it. But the Magians assert that he was by origin from Azarbayjan and that he came to the king from the roof of his palace and that there was in his hand a cube of fire with which he played without its injuring him; that whoever took it from his hand did so without hurting himself. He caused the king to follow him and to accept his creed. And he built fire temples in the country and lighted them with that fire. For it is stated that the fires which are in their fire-temples are burning from that fire to this day. But they are telling an untruth since the fire of the Magians was extinguished in all their temples when God sent Muhammad down as his apostle as we shall describe, God willing, in the sequel, as well as the appearance of Zaradusht after thirty years of the reign of Bishtasb. And Zaradusht brought a writing which is alleged to be revelation from God and is inscribed on 12,000 cow hides inlaid with gold. Bishtasb deposited them in a place in Istakhar and forbade the teaching of thorn to the vulgar.
MASUDI.
_Kitab-at-tanbih._
[Sidenote: The Kohan Nameh and the Ain Nameh.]
The Persians have a book called the _Kohan Nameh_ in which are mentioned all the officers of the Persian monarch amounting to 600 and classed according to their respective ranks. This book formed part of the _Ain Nameh._[1] The meaning of Ain Nameh is the ‘Book of regulations’. It is a book containing several thousands of leaves and no one can find a copy of it anywhere except among the _mobeds_ and others invested with authority. The mobed of the Persians at the moment of writing this history, that is in the year 364, for the country of Jabal in Iraq and for the countries of Ajam, is Ammad son of Ashwahisht. Before him these countries had for their mobed Isfandiyar, son of Adarbad, son of Anmid, who was killed by Radi at Baghdad in 325.
[Footnote 1: A remarkable passage from this Pahlavi treatise has been embodied in a close Arabic version in Ibn Kutayha’s _Uyun-al-Akhbar._ The credit of discovering and translating this unique passage into a European language belongs to M.K. Inostranzev.]
I have seen in the city of Istakhar in Fars in the year 303 in the house of a high noble Persian, a large book in which were set out along with the descriptions of several sciences the histories of the kings of Persia, their reigns and the monuments which they had erected,–fragments which I have not been able to find anywhere else in Persian books, neither in the _Khoday Nameh_, nor in the _Ain Nameh_ nor in the _Kohan Nameh_ or anywhere else.
[Sidenote: Portrait of Sasanian kings taken just before their demise.]
[Sidenote: Persian Imperial archives: Translation into Arabic.]
In this book were pictures of the kings of Persia belonging to the house of Sasan, twenty seven in number, twenty five men and two women. Each of them was represented as at the moment of death, whether old or young with the royal ornaments, with the tiara, hair, beard, and all the features of his face. This dynasty reigned over the country for 433 years one month and seven days. When one of these kings died his portrait was painted and it was deposited in the treasury in order that the living princes may know the features of the dead kings. The representation of every king who was painted as a warrior was in a standing posture; that of every king who was occupied with government affairs was in the sitting posture. To it was joined the biography of each, of them detailing his public and private life together with the important events and facts concerning the most interesting incidents of his reign. The book which I saw was redacted according to the documents found in the treasuries of the kings of Persia and it was completed in the middle of the second Jamada of the year 113. It was translated for Hisham son of Abdal Malik son of Merwan from Persian into Arabic. The first of the kings of this dynasty whom one sees there is Ardeshir. The distinctive colour in his portrait was of a brilliant red. His trousers were of sky-blue and the mitre was green on gold. He held a lance in the hand and he was standing. The last was that of Yezdegerd, son of Shahariyar, son of Kesra Abarvez. His distinctive colour was green. His trousers were sky-blue and his mitre vermillion. He held in his hand a lance and rested the other hand on his sabre. This painting was made with Persian colours which are no longer to be found now-a-days and of gold and silver dissolved and of pulverised copper. The leaves of the book were of a purple colour and of a marvellous tint. It was so beautiful and prepared with such care that I do not know whether it was paper or whether it was thin parchment. (P. 250.)
[Which stands for Pahlavi and not modern Persian.]
[Sidenote: Zoroaster, Avesta, and Avesta Script.]
Zaradusht brought to the king the book of _Avesta_, the name of which in Arabic has received a final _kaf_ and has thus become _Abestak_. The number of chapters of book is twenty one, each chapter comprising 200 leaves. In this book we find a total of sixty vowels and consonants each with a distinct character. Some of these characters are found elsewhere and others have fallen into disseutude. For this script is not confined to the language of the Avesta.
[Sidenote: Extent of Avesta.]
[Sidenote: Persian translation of Avesta.]
[Sidenote: Contents of Avesta.]
Zoroaster invented this writing which the Magians have called Sin Dabireh, that is to say, the ‘sacred writing’. He incised his writing into 12,000 cow skins and filled it with gold. It was in the ancient language of Persia of which no one has any knowledge to-day. Only a few portions of its chapters have been translated into the modern Persian. It is this Persian translation which they have in their hands when, they say their prayers. The translation contains fragments like the Ashtad, the Chitrasht, the Aban Yasht, the Hadukht, and other chapters. In the Chitrasht are found the recitals of the origin and the end of the world. Hadukht comprises exhortations.
[Sidenote: commentaries on Avesta.]
Zoroaster composed the commentary on the Avesta which he called the Zend, and which in the eyes of his followers was revealed to him by God. He subsequently translated it from Pahlavi into Persian. Zoroaster, further, prepared a commentary on the Zend and called it Bazend.
[Sidenote: Their destruction.]
The Mobeds and the Herbeds, learned in the science of religion, commented in their turn on this commentary and their work was called the Barideh, and, by others, the Akradeh. After he had conquered the Persian Empire and put to death Dara son of Dara, Alexander burnt them….
[Sidenote: Synopsis of Zoroastrian beliefs.]
Besides the two modes of writing which they owe to Zoroaster, the Persians have five other methods in many of which Nabatian words have been introduced. We have explained all these in our books already cited with quotations of portions regarding the miracles of Zoroaster, the marks and the proof of his revelation, the belief in the five eternal principles which are Ormazd or God, Ahriman which is the same as Satan, the wicked, Kah or time, Jay or space, Homa or the good spirituous liquor, the grounds on which they support these doctrines, the reasons why they render homage to the two luminaries and to other heavenly lights, the distinction which they make between fire and light, their discourses regarding the origin of the human species, on Mashya son of Gayomert, and Mashyana his daughter, and how the Persians trace their geneologies back to these two personages, and finally, other things connected with the exercise of their religion, the practice of their cult and the various places where they have established their fire sanctuaries.
[Sidenote: Confutation of prejudice Moslem theologians.]
Certain Musalman theologians and authors of books on various sects, and several authors who have set before them the task at different times of refuting Zoroastrianism have alleged that it is believed in their religion that from the reflexion of God on himself has issued an evil spirit or the devil and that God, indulgent towards him, has accorded him a certain time during which to tempt mankind. These authors further cite as appertaining to this religion propositions which the Magians themselves have always rejected. I believe that they must have heard these particulars from ordinary people and that they have recorded them as the authentic expression of the followers of the religion of Zoroaster.[1]
[Footnote 1: Our celebrated Arab polyhistor not only does not malign the faith of Zoroaster but proceeds to confute his prejudiced co-religionists who pretended to refute the old faith of Iran.]
SHAHARASTANI.
KITAB AL MILAL VAL NIHAL.
(_Page 112, Bombay Edition. Compare also page 83 of the Egyptian Edition on the margin of Ibn Hazm._)
THE MAGIANS.
These people believe in two Principles as we have already stated; only, that the original Magians were of the belief that it was not possible that there should be two Principles eternal and without beginning, but that the light was without beginning and darkness was only produced; and they were of different views as regards the origin of its rise,–whether it arose from light, since light cannot bring something that was partly evil. How then could the principle of evil or anything else arise since there was nothing at first which participated with light in its production and in its being eternal? Here the error of the Magians becomes apparent. They also assert that the first of persons was Kayumarth, though they sometimes say that he was Zarwan the great, and that the last of the prophets was Zaradusht. The Kayumarthiya assert that Kayumarth was Adam; Kayumarth appears as Adam in the histories of India and Persia. But all the histories are against this.[1]
[Footnote 1: I have constantly referred to Haarbrucker’s German translation and to the German passages cited by Gottiel in the Drisseler Volume which was very kindly presented to me by our Prof. A.V.W. Jackson. Gottiel has omitted the sections regarding the Kayumarthiya.]
THE ZARADUSHTIYA.
These are the followers of Zaradusht, son of Budashab who appeared in the time of Bishtasb, son of Lohrasb, the king. His father came from Azarbayjan and his mother from Ray and her name was Doghd. They assert that they had prophets and kings and that they had Kayumarth who was the first king on the earth and that his residence was at Istakhar, that after him came Haushanj, son of Farawal, who descended on India. After him came his son Jam; the king. Then followed prophets and kings among whom was Minochehr. He proceeded to Babel and settled there, and it is related that Musa, (may peace be on him!) appeared in his time. Things continued like this till the sovereignty came to Bishtasb, son of Lohrasb. In his time appeared Zaradusht al Hakim or the Wise….
[Sidenote: Miracles of Zoroaster.]
[Sidenote: Essence of his teachings.]
[Sidenote: His Cosmogony.]
Then the child [Zaradusht] laughed a great laugh which was noticed by all those present, and people contrived so as to put Zaradusht in the way of cattle and the way of horses and in the way of wolves. But each of them stood up to protect him from its own kind. After he had attained to an age of thirty God sent him as his prophet and apostle to his creation, and he turned himself with his calling to king Bishtasb and the latter accepted his creed. His creed consisted in the reverence of God and the non-reverence of Satan, in the obedience to good and in the prohibition of the evil, and in abstaining from unclean things. He said that light and darkness were two original principles which opposed each other antagonistically, and so were Yazdan and Ahriman and that both were the beginning of the created things in the world. That the composition of it was the product of the co-mingling and that the variety of forms were given rise to by means of the various unions, but that God was the creator of light and darkness and of both the prime origins. He was one without a companion, without an opponent, and without anyone who was his like, and that it was not possible to trace to him the existence of darkness in the way in which the Zarwanites trace it, but that good and evil, pure and impure, holy and unholy, were brought forth only by the co-mingling of light and darkness, and had not the two fore-gathered the world would not have come into existence. They were pitched each against the other and they fight each other till light shall overcome darkness, and good evil. And then the good will be liberated and come to its own, and the evil will be hurled down to its own world and that will be the cause of the emancipation. God, the Almighty, however, has in his wisdom compounded and co-mingled them. Sometimes they make out that light is the original principle and express themselves thus: The existence of light is a real existence. Darkness, however, is only a consequence like the shadow of a person. It was alleged that darkness was a thing produced though not created in reality, and that God had produced light and that darkness had come out as a consequence, because contrast was a matter of necessity in existence. Hence the existence of darkness was also essential. And thus it had become a thing created although not as in the first view, as brought out with reference to a man’s shadow.
[Sidenote: Zend Ave-ta.]
He [Zaradusht] also had composed a book about which people said that it was revealed to him, namely, the _Zand Awasta_ which divides the world into two parts, Mino or the spiritual and Geti or the corporeal; that is to say, into spiritual and corporeal worlds, or in other words, into mental and physical. And just as the creation is divided into two worlds, so according to him, all that was in the world was again divided into two, namely, _Bakhshis_ [Haarbrucker translates _Bakhshis_ by _gnade_ or favour, but the original Arabic expression is _takdir_ which means _destiny_, and _kunish_ or _deed_, by which are meant pre-destination By God and human action.]
[Sidenote: Zoroastrian Ethics.]
Further, he discussed the duties relating to the religious law and these have reference to the movements of man. He divided them into three parts _Manish, Guyish_ and _Kunish_, meaning thereby belief, speech, and act, and these comprehended all the duties. When in this a man is wanting he is out of obedience and out of creed. But if he conducts himself in these three movements according to the standard of the law and the ordinance he attains to the highest good.[1]
[Footnote 1: Here is an instance where the Arab philosopher and writer hands down to posterity the spirit of Zoroastrianism without prejudice and with precision.]
[Sidenote: Some Miracles explained.]
The Zaradashtiya ascribed to Zaradusht a number of miracles including that while Zaradusht was thrown into prison the forefeet of the horse of Bishtasb entered into its body. When he was set at liberty, the feet of the animal came out. Next, it is said that he happened to pass a blind man at Dinawar and to have told him, “Take the herb”, which he described to him “and press its juice into your eye and you will be able to see”. This was done and the blind man was restored to his sight. This, however, is to be attributed to his knowledge of the properties of the herb and so it is in no wise a miracle. (Here Gotthiel omits one section on the Saisaniya and the Bihafridiya[1]).
[Footnote 1: The Bihafridiya formed a heresy from Zoroastrianism in the time of the Moslems. The sect furnishes the strongest proof that there was no persecution worth the name in Persia at the time. Not only in those days were the Zoroastrians permitted to follow their own faith but here is a curious pars from Al Biruni which proves that both the original Zoroastrians and the heresy were permitted to flourish side by side under the Khalifs:–“When Abu Moslem came to Nishapur the _mobeds_ and _herbeds_ assembled before him telling him that this man [the founder of the Bihafridi sect] had infected Islam as well as their own [Zoroastrian] religion. So he sent Abdalla to fetch him. He met him in the mountain at Badjeh and brought him before Abu Moslem to put him to death together with such of his followers as he could capture. His followers called the Bihafridians still keep the institutes of their founder and strongly resemble the Zam-Zamis among the Magians.” Shaharastani adds that they were the most hostile of God’s creatures to the Zamzami Magians. The entire chapter on the Iranian sects in Shaharastani is worthy of careful and deep study. It explains the divergence between the prescriptions of the _Vendidad_ and the practice of the bulk of the Iranians. The _Vendidad_ was, it would appear, the authoritative scripture of one of the sects of Zoroastrianism. At any rate it is not too extravagant to deduce from the careful studies of the Iranian religion by Arab writers that as the teachings of Sakya Muni developed into more Buddhisms than one so there were several creeds with the common designation of Zoroastrianism.]
[Sidenote: The dignity of Mobedan Mobed.]
The Magians and the followers of the Two Principles and the followers of Mani and the other sects which are related to the Magians are known as the adherents of the Great creed or the Great religion. All the kings of Persia were the followers of the religion of Ibrahim, subjects and all those who belonged to the country among them during the reign of each of them followed the religion of their rulers. But these latter relied upon the chief of the ecclesiastics, _Mobed Mobedan_, the sage of sages, and the wisest of men according to whose instructions the kings conducted themselves and without whose judgment they undertook nothing; to him they showed reverence such as is shown to the Khalif of the time.
IBN HAZM.
KITAB AL FASAL FIL MILAL WAL HAWA WAL NAHAL.
(PAGE 112, VOL. 1, EGYPTIAN ED.)
As regards the Magians they believed in the prophetship of Zaradasht….
And as regards Zaradasht it is said that the majority of Moslems believed in his prophetship….
[Sidenote: “Majority of Moslems believed in the Prophetship of Zoroaster.”]
And the Book of the Magians and their religious Law were for a long time during their sovereignty in the possession of the _mobeds and_ 23 _herbeds_. Each of the herbeds had a volume which was individual and separate. In it was associated none of the other herbeds and no outsider had any concern with it. Subsequently there was a break on account of Alexander setting fire to their books at the time when he invaded Dara, son of Dara, and they admit with unanimity that a portion of their scriptures to the extent of a third has perished. This has been mentioned by Bashir and Nasik and others of their men of learning….
[Sidenote: History of Zoroastrian Sacred literature.]
And Magians compiled all the scriptures (ayat) regarding the miracles of Zoroaster such as that of the brass which was spread over and melted on his chest and which did not injure him, and the feet of the horse which had penetrated his belly and which were drawn out by him, etc.
[Sidenote: Zoroastrians are _Kitabis_.]
And among those who assert that the Magians are _Ahal Kitab_ are Ali Ibn Talib and Khuzayfa, may God be pleased on these two, and Said Bin Al Musib and Karadah and Abu Thaur and the whole of the sect of the Zahurites. And we have set out the arguments of the validity of this statement in our book entitled the _Isal_ in the chapters on Jehad, Ceremonial Slaughter, and Nikah. And therein is sufficiently proved the validity of the acceptance of Jaziya by the prophet of God from them. For in the clear statement of the Qoran in the last verses of the chapter of _Burat_, God has declared unlawful the acceptance of the Jaziya from _non-Kitabis_….
Now as regards the Magians they admit that the books of theirs in which is incorporated their religion were destroyed by fire by Alexander when he slew Dara son of Dara,–that more than two-thirds of them have perished the remnants being less than a third,–that their religious law was comprised in what has disappeared. Now since this is the condition of their religion, then their claims are void altogether became of the disappearance of the majority of their books; since God does not held responsible any person with reference to anything that has not been entrusted to him.
[Sidenote: Zoroastrians extant scriptures are corrupt.]
And among their books there is one entitled the _Khudhay_ to which they pay great reverence, in which it is related that king Anushirwan prohibited the teaching of their religion in any one of the cities except Ardeshir Khurrah and the religion spread from Datjird. Before this time it was not taught anywhere except Istakhar and it was not proper for anyone to engage in its study except a special class of people. And of the books which remained after the conflagration by Alexander there were 23 volumes and there were appointed 23 _herbeds_, one _herbed_ for each volume. And no herbed transgressed upon the volume of another. And the MOBED MOBEDAN was the superintendent of the whole of those scriptures. Now whatever is in this condition has its contents altered and modified and each of the transcripts is in this state. Hence they are corrupt and do not deserve to be regarded as authentic. Thus whatever is in their books cannot be held to be authentic except by reason of faith alone since there are evident falsehoods in them like the statement that their king mounted on Iblis and rode on him wherever he willed, that man in the beginning originated from a vegetable like grass called Sharaliya, and the birth of Bayarawan Siyawush son of Kay Kawash who built a city called Kangdez between the earth and the heaven and settled therein 80,000 men belonging to the _people of family_, that they are there to this day, and that when Behram Hamawand manifests himself on his bull to restore to them their sovereignty that city will descend to earth and will help him to restore their religion and Empire. Says Abu Muhammed, may God be pleased with him. And every book in which is incorporated a falsehood is invalid and fictitious. It does not come from God. Thus there is corruption in the religion of the Magians just as there is in the religion of the Jews and the Christians to an equal degree.
IBN HAUKAL.
Ibn Haukal has been edited in the _Bibliotheca Geogra phorum Arabicorum_ by De Goege, but as the text is not available the following excerpts from a translation of it made over a century ago by Sir William Ouseley will indicate its importance. He flourished in the middle of the 11th century.
[Sidenote: Fire Temples.]
“There is not any district nor any town of Fars without a fire temple. These are held in high veneration. We shall hereafter minutely describe them. Also throughout Fars there are castles one stronger than another.
[Sidenote: Nirang.]
“There is not any district of this province nor any without a fire temple. One near Shapur they call Kunbud Kaush…. And in the religion of the Guebres it is ordained that ‘Omnis Foemina quae tempore gravid it at is aut tempore menstruorum, fornicationem seu adultarium fecerit, pura non erit, donec ad Pyraeum (seu templum Ignicolarum) accesserit (et) coram Heirbed (sacerdote) nuda ferit et urina vaccae se laverit.’
“In the province of Fars, they have three languages–the PARSI, which they use in speaking one to another, though there may be some variations of dialects in different districts yet it is in fact all the same and they all understand the languages of each other and none of their expressions or words are unintelligible; the Pahlavi language which was formerly used in writings; this language now requires a commentary or explanatory treatise; and the Arabic language which at present is used in the Divans or royal courts of justice and revenue, etc.
[Sidenote: Maritime commerce.]
“As to the manners of the people in Fars those who are the chief men and occupy the higher offices in the service of the sovereign are polite and courteous. They have fine palaces and are very hospitable. The people in general, are kind and civil in their manners. The merchants are remarkably covetous and desirous of wealth. I have heard that there was a certain man of Siraj who had forty years at sea never leaving his ship during this time. Whenever he came to a port he sent some of his people on shore to transact his commercial affairs, and when the business was finished he sailed on to some other place. The inhabitants of Siraj devoted their whole time to commerce and merchandise. I myself saw at this place several persons who possessed 4,000 thousand dinars and there were some who had still more and their clothes were those of labourers.
[Sidenote: Parsis in Fars.]
“In Fars there are fire worshippers, Guebres, and Christians and some Jews. And the practices of the Guebres, their fire temples, and their customs and ceremonies and Guebreism or Magism, still continue among the people of Fars and there are not in, any country of Islam so many Guebres as in the land of Fars. It has been their capital or residence.”
[Like all other Arab authors Ibn Haukal mentions the celebrated men belonging to each of the provinces he describes. Among the celebrities of Fars are reckoned Hormuz, “Guebre”, who in the time of Omar was taken by Abdulla Ibn Omar and put to death; and Salman Farsi who was one of the illustrious men. His piety is celebrated throughout the world. He sought the truth of religion in all quarters only to find it at Medina with the Prophet. In consequence of this Selman became a true believer. Abdulla Ibn Mukaffa also belonged to Fars. In the territory of Istakhar is a great building with statuettes carved in stone and there also are inscriptions and paintings.]
APPENDIX VIII
IBN KHALLIKAN
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY
TRANSLATED BY DE SLANE, VOL, I.
_Dehkan_ is a Persian word signifying both a farmer and a historian. It is generally used to designate a person of ancient Persian family possessing hereditary landed property. (P. 77).
_Ispeh Salar._ This word signifies commander of the troops. (P. 228). KATIBS or writers were the persons employed in public offices: the directors, clerks and secretaries in government service were all called katib.
[Sidenote: Nauruz in Baghdad.]
_Khalifs’ Nauruz._–This another name for Nauruz Khasa “New Year’s day proper,” in which it was customary to offer presents to the sovereign. This festival was held on the sixth day of the month of Ferwardin (end of Marob). The old Persian custom of celebrating Nauruz existed at Baghdad under the Abbaside Khalifs. (See P. 203 of this work, see also an anecdote of Ahmed Ibn Yusuf al Khatif in his life of Al Mubarad.) (P. 340).
“In the year 499 Ak Sunkur was directed by the sultan Muhamed to lay siege to Tikrit which was then in the possession of Kaikobad Ibn Hazarasb (about 1125).” (P. 227.)
[Sidenote: Ibn Mukaffa.]
Ibn Khallikan has devoted seven pages to the life of Ibn Mukaffa who is called _the Katib_ and was renowned for the elegance of his style. He was the author of admirable epistles. He was a native of Fars and a Magian. But he was led to the profession of Islam by the uncle of the two first Abbaside Al Safar and Al Mansur. He then became a secretary and was admitted into intimacy. It was related that Mukaffa went to Isa Ibn Ali and said that he was persuaded of the truth of Islam and wished to make a profession of that faith. Isa answered, “Let it be done in the presence of the leaders and chiefs of the people who come here to-morrow.” On the evening of that very day he went to dine with Isa, and having sat down he began to eat and to mutter according to the custom of the Magian, “How” said Isa, “he mutters like the Magian although resolved to embrace Islam?” To this Makaffa replied: “I do not wish to pass a single night without some religion.” The next morning he made to Isa his solemn profession of Islam. Notwithstanding the eminent merit of Mukaffa he was suspected of infidelity and Al Jahiz states that his religious sincerity was doubted (P. 431). Ibn Kallikan says, “It was Mukaffa who composed the book entitled _Kalileh Wa-Dimneh_. But some state that he is not the author of the work which they say was in Pahlavi, and he translated it into Arabic, and put it in an elegant style. But the discourse at the beginning of the work is by him.”
VOLUME II.
Ahmed Ibn Yusuf addressed to Al-Mamun a verse with a present of an embroidered robe on the day of Nauruz. (P. 32).
Al-Marzubani received his surname of Al-Marzubani because one of his ancestors bore the name of Al-Marzuban, a designation applied by Persians to great and powerful men only. This word signifies guardian of the frontier, as we learn from Ibn al Jawaliki’s work called Al-muarrab. (P. 68).
A reference to the game of chess which originated in India, and the game of Nerd as invented by the Persian king Ardeshir.
We often come across names like Dhia-ad-Din Abu Said Bahrain Ibn al-Khidr, just as we have Paul Pakiam indicating the bearer of the name was originally Hindu but had adopted subsequently Christianity. (P. 296).
[Sidenote: Nominal converts.]
Abl-Hasan Mihyar Ibn Mirzawaih, a native of Dadam and secretary for Persian language was a Fire-worshipper, but afterwards adopted the Moslem faith. It is said that he made his profession to Sharif ar-Rida who was his professor and under whom he made his poetical studies. It seems, however, the conversion of Mihyar was only nominal. Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari says in his Annals that one Ibn Burhan said to him. “Mihyar, by becoming a Musalman you have merely passed from one corner of hell to another.” “How so?” said Mihyar. Ibn Burhan replied: “Because you were formerly a fire-worshipper and now you revile the companions of our blessed Prophet in your verses.” (P. 517.)
Ibn Khallikan adds that “Mihyar and Mirzawaith are both Persian names. Their signification is unknown to me.”
VOLUME III.
Instances of hybrid compound names, the Iranian component being retained.
Izz ad-Din Kaikaus son of Ghiath ad-Din Kaikhosru. (P. 487).
Ala ad-Din Kaikobad. (P. 489).
Abu Mahfuz Ibn Firuz. (P. 384).
Abu Manzur Al Muzaffar Ibn Abi I-Husain Ardeshir. (P. 365).
Abu Mansur-Sheherdar Ibn Shiruyah. (P. 11).
Sultan ad-Dawlat, Fanakhrosru (which is no doubt equivalent to Panah Khurso.) (P. 278).
The word _abna_ signifies _sons_. It was generally employed to designate persons one of whose parents was an Arab and the other of a foreign race. At the time of Mahomed and afterwards there was in Yeman a great number of _Abna_ whose fathers were Persians and whose mothers were Arabs. (P. 334).
Dress of the Ulema. (P. 273).
Yahya Ibn al Munajjim whose real name was Abban Hasis, the son of Kad, the son of Mahavindad, the son of Farrukhdad, the son of Asad, the son of Mihr, the son of Yezdigerd, the last of the Sasanian kings of Persia.
Story of the onagar with the inscription on its ear written by Bahramgor in the Kufic character. Ibn Khallikan quotes Al Khawarezmi’s _Mafatih-al-Ulum._ (P. 85).
[Sidenote: Old castles.]
Istakhri refers to the castle of Jiss in the district of Arrajan about which we have a more exhaustive notice by other writers. “Here lived the Magians,” says Istakhri, “and here also are to be found memorials of the past of Persia. The place is strongly fortified. The castle of Iraj is also strongly fortified. The fastnesses which cannot be subjugated are so many that it is not possible to detail them.”
Describing the city of Jur Istakhri says that it was built by Ardeshir. “It is said that here water used to be collected as in a lake. The king had taken a vow to build a city and to erect a fire temple at the place where he had defeated his enemy. He had the place drained, and when it was dried he built the city of Jur on the site. The city in its extent is like Istakhr, Sabur, and Darabgird. It had mud walls and moats and many gates, the eastern one being called the gate of Mihr, the western the gate of Bahram, the northern the gate of Hormuz, and the southern the gate of Ardeshir. In the centre of the city is a building with a cupola built by Ardeshir. It is said that it is so high that it commands a view of the city and its surroundings. _High at its top is a fire altar_.[1]” (P. 56).
[Sidenote: Languages of Iran.]
In another portion of his book Istakhri describes the inhabitants as thin, with little growth of hair and of brown colour. “In the colder tracts,” he continues, “the people are of a taller stature with a thick growth of hair and very fair. They speak three languages,–the Parsi, which everybody speaks and which is employed in their letters and their literature; the Magians who dwell among them use the Pahlavi in their writings, but it needs for a thorough understanding an explanation in Parsi; and Arabic which is the language used in the correspondence of the Sultan, the Government Boards, the grandees and the Amirs.” (P. 67).
[Footnote 1: This goes to confirm the hypothesis of Sir John Marshall that the curious structure with probably a fire-altar at the top excavated by him at Taxila near Rawal Pindi is a Zoroastrian _atash-kadeh_.]
[Sidenote: Tardy Converts.]
In the same place he makes mention of a numerous settlement of the Magians. “Here are,” he says, “a goodly number of Magians in the neighbourhood of Istakhr. There is a large stone building with carvings and pillars about which the Persians relate that it is the mosque of Solomon; the son of David, and that it is the work of genii. In bulk it is comparable to the buildings in Syria and Egypt” “In the neighborhood of Sabur is a mountain on which the representations of all the kings, governors, servitors of temples and grand mobeds who were celebrated in the times of the Persian monarchy are to be found. On the pedestals of these figures are engraved the events in connection with and the deeds of these personages.” Describing the Karen mountains Itakhri says, “The mountainous region is inaccessible and the inhabitants hold commerce with no one outside. During the Omayad period they persisted in their adherence to Zoroastrianism, and they could not be subjugated, and were worse than the inhabitants of the Koz mountain. But when the Abbasides came to power they embraced Islam. These Magians were extraordinarily brave. Yakub and Amru the sons of Leith, commenced their rule and power here and drew their supporters from these hills.” “Mokan,” says Istakhri, “contains many villages which are inhabited by the Magians.” (P. 71.)
MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.
IN THE NUZHAT AL KULUB OF HAMD-ALLAH
MUSTAWFI
BY G. Lestrange.
The following fire-temples are mentioned:–At [Transcriber’s note: word unreadable] there was an ancient fire temple called Ardahish. (P. 56)
A dragon was slain by king Kaikaushro who then built on the spot a fire temple afterwards known as Dayr Kushid. (P. 69).
Turshid was the chief city of the Kohistan province and near it was the village Kishwaz famous for the great cypress trees planted by Zoroaster as related by Firdausi in the Shah Nameh, (Turner, 1. Macar Vol. 4, line 1061). Near Tushiz were four famous castles one of which was called Arthush Gah or the Fire temple. (P. 80).
Herat was watered by the canals of the river Hari Rud. It had a famous castle called Sham Iram built over the ruins of an ancient Fire temple on a mountain two leagues distant from the city. Mustawfi adds a long account of the town, its markets and its shrines, giving the names of the various canals derived from the Hari Rud. (P. 85).
AL MUQADASI.
(BIBLIOTHECA INDICA)
[Sidenote: Zoroastrians are treated like Jews and Christians.]
The religious bodies which enjoy rights of subjects under the protection of law are four,–the Jews, the Christians, the Majus, and the Sabiah. (P. 67-69).
[Sidenote: Nauruz and Miherjan.]
The worshippers of idols in Sind are not of the Dhimma, nor those under the protection of Islam; it is on this account that they are exempted from the poll tax. _The Majus are counted with the Dhimma; for Omar ordered them to be treated in the same way as the people of the book (the Jews and Christians;_) the fact that we call the followers of one and the same code of doctrines by two names, one of praise and one of blame, does not arise from eulogising or reviling on our part; our object is merely to shew what others think of any sect, and by what names they call them. (P. 7).
THAALIBI.
EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY H. ZOTENBERG.
And Behram was matchless among kings, perfect in manners and facile of tongue. For he used to converse on the days of public assemblies and courtly meetings in Arabic and in matters of receiving petitions and granting of the gifts in Persian, and when giving public audiences he used the Dari language, and when playing polo he used Pahlavi, and Turkish while at war, and when out hunting the language of Zabulistan and in legal matters Hebrew, in questions of medicine the Indian language, in Astronomy the language of the Greeks, and while on voyage he used the Nabatian language and while speaking with women he used the speech of Herat. (P. 555).
That Thaalibi knew the correct distinction between Pahlavi and Persian can be seen from the fact that he says at p. 633 of his history with reference to the book of _Kalileh wa Dimna_ as follows:–When Burzuyeh arrived at the court and presented himself before Anushirwan he recounted to him what had happened to him and announced to him as a happy event that he was in possession of the book. Then he made a present of it to the king. (Anushirwan was charmed with it and he gave the order to translate the book into Pahlavi.) Burzuyeh requested and got from the king the permission to place at the head of the first chapter the king’s name, and a notice of his life. And the book remained carefully guarded with the kings of Persia until Ibn Muquaffa translated it into Arabic and Rudaki at the command of Amir Nasr Ibn Ahmad turned it into Persian verse.
Reference to _Kitab al Ain_. (P. 14.)
Reference to the murder and burial of the last Sasanian king, (P. 748.)