Iranian Influence on Moslem Literature Part 7

P. 51, A dictum of Bahramgor.

P. 51, The conversation between the MOBEDAN MOBED and King Aberwez.

P. 51, Reference to the book of "our" (Zoroastrian) religion _(Kitab din-na)._

P. 110, Reference to an inscription on a stone slab discovered in the treasury of a Persian king.

P. 163, The story of Balash as narrated by Kisrawi, (on this story Baron Rosen bases his investigation of the Pahlavi _Khodaynama_.)

P. 168, An anecdote of King Aberwez.

Professor Inostranzev finds the following Iranian material in the Mahasin-wal masavi and the Mahasin-wal azdad (MM=Mahasin-wal Masavi, and MA=Mahasin wal-azdad):

MA, 21, 4 to 10--MM, 490, 2 to 7.

MA, 37, 12 to 14--MM, 128, 11 to 12.

MA, 53, 14 to 16--MM, 571, 1 to 3.

MA, 78, 5 to 9--MM, 202, 2 to 5.

MA, 79, 2 to 6--MM, 202, 14 to 16.

MA, 79, 6 to 11--MM, 202, 16 to 203, 2.

MA, 168,20 to 3--MM, 310, 16 to 18.

MA, 170, 2 to 3--MM, 313, 7 to 8.

MA, 173, 8 to 16--MM, 372, 11 to 18.

In connection with the importance of Kisrawi as regards the Persian literary material, these are the extracts from him in the two Arabic works:

MA, 168, 20 to 269, 3--MM, 310, 16 to 18.

MA, 53, 14 to 16--MM, 571, 1 to 3.

MA, 359, 13 to 364, 6--MM, 376, 1 to 9.

In view of the remarks by Browne (_Literary History_,471 to 475) regarding the significance of Persian words and expressions in the ancient Arabic literary works for the history of the Persian language, of particular importance are the excerpts from Kisrawi, MA 168,20 to 269, 3--MM, 310, 16 to 18, where occur Persian phrases from the maxims of a.n.u.shirwan "which as I think have been handed down to us in pure Pahlavi." Interesting is the interpretation of the Persian word _Mihman_ at another place in the same Arabic books, _viz_:--MA, 79, 6 to 11=MM, 202, 16 to 203, 2.

APPENDIX III

[Translation of Noeldeke's _Burzoe's Einleitung zu dem Buche Kalila wa Dimna_.]

_BURZOE'S INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF KALILA WA DIMNA._

[Sidenote: Burzoe's Introduction not fabricated.]

The Arabic redaction of the Indian tales which we know under the name of _Kalila wa Dimna_ had two unquestionably genuine Introductions, that of the compilator Ibn Moqaffa himself who died in 142 A.H., and that of Burzoe who in the time of King Khusrow I, (A.D. 531 to 579) brought the book from India and translated it into the written Persian language of the time, the Pehlevi. The circ.u.mstances regarding the mission of Burzoe to India are still not clear. At any rate Ibn Moqaffa did not write as we read them now.

Nevertheless it is by no means improbable that he had affixed to his book a report which, however, wan subsequently mutilated, of necessity, in diverse ways. The preface by Ala-ibn-Shah or Behbod, which has also been printed by de Sacy, which is found in a few ma.n.u.scripts and which is not known to the ancient translations is a later and entirely valueless excrescence.

The Introduction of Burzoe stood in the Pehlevi work which Ibn Moqaffa had before him. According to certain ma.n.u.scripts this Introduction has been compiled--or however we translate the ambiguous term _tarjuma_--by Burzgmihir, the prime minister of Khusrow, much better known in polite literature than in history.

[Naturally I do not deny altogether that Burzgmihir was a historical personage but he possessed by no means the importance which the tradition in question ascribes to him. The ascription is purely an erroneous inference from the above-mentioned report of the circ.u.mstances touching the mission of Burzoe, has not the slightest inherent probability, and is besides wanting not only in other ma.n.u.scripts but also in all the older translations.]

We cannot question the fact that this section of the Arabic work in the main reproduces the Introduction composed by the Chief physician Burzoe himself to the book translated by him into Pehlevi from an Indian language. That language as Hertel has shown was Sanskrit, which fact, however, does not preclude the possibility of an Indian interpreter translating the original text to the Persian who spoke a modern Indian tongue. Several pa.s.sages speak to the fact that the author of the Introduction is the physician. Why should Ibn Moqaffa pretend that Burzoe earnestly studied medicine and practised it? Moreover, the section is familiar with those principles of Indian medicine of which Ibn Moqaffa could otherwise know little and the exposition of which he had no call to deal with. The entire situation seems to me to harmonise with the circ.u.mstances of the Persian physician. Specially noteworthy is the encomium on the Persian sovereign.

[Sidenote: Ibn Moqaffa took liberties with the Pehlevi.]

This is, however, not equivalent to saying that the Arabic text is an exact replica, down to details, of the original of Burzoe. In the first place it has to be observed that Ibn Moqaffa was no pure translator at all but a regular redactor of his model. His object was to prepare a work suitable to the taste of his highly educated readers and at the same time entertaining and instructive. He proceeded, therefore, not only with a tolerably free hand as an artist in words but added good many things of his own. Above all here we have to bear in mind the trial of Dimna. That this chapter is an addition by a Muslim who would not let pa.s.s in silence the acknowledgement of clever but demeaning intrigue was already recognised by Benfey and we need not doubt but that it originated with Ibn Moqaffa. I would also claim, for Ibn Moqaffa the somewhat unimportant history of the anchorite and his guest. The manner of his narrative we learn from his own preface. It is especially to be noted that here also as in the trial of Dimna he recounts anecdotes after the Indian fashion.

[Sidenote: Ibn Moqaffa's religious scepticism.]

It is accordingly not impossible that in our Burzoe chapter there are a few things which have originated not with the Persian physician of old but with Ibn Moqaffa; and this, I presume, as I showed long ago, specially from the disquisition on enquiry into the uncertainty of religions. It appears much more to fit in with Ibn Moqaffa than Burzoe.

Ibn Moqaffa exchanged the religion of his Persian fathers for Islam only in his mature years,--certainly not because he saw in the latter perfect verity but because probably he was not satisfied with Zoroastrianism with which he was intimately familiar or with any of the other religions which in his time flourished openly or in secret in Iraq which was "the heart of the Empire". To such a man the scepticism of our section is natural, a fact which does not make it impossible that certain principles which were common to all the religions intimately known to the author remained also self-evident to Ibn Moqaffa,--such as G.o.d as the Creator, and the next world with its reward and penalties. Had Ibn Moqaffa, in his own name confessed to such religious doubts publicly no patron could have saved him from capital punishment. On the other hand he ran no risk in ascribing the questionable exposition to the Persian long since dead, who, however, supposing that he harboured such doubts could not have given expression to them as a physician attached to the Imperial Court of Persia. The belief in an inexorable fate which is evident in this chapter as well as in the entire portion attributable to Ibn Moqaffa could have been cherished, no doubt, also by a Mazdyasnian.

This doctrine, therefore, speaks neither for nor against the authorship of Ibn Moqaffa. Equally far from decisive is the exhortation to pure morality which finds expression there.

I am confirmed in my view that the pa.s.sage on the unconvincing nature of religions proceeded from Ibn Moqaffa by a few couplets in the _Shahnama_. (Mohl vol. 5, 53 ff; Macan 1293). The king of India called Kaid has several dreams which are interpreted to him by the sage Mihran.

The third dream, about four men pulling at a fine piece of cloth, each towards himself, without tearing it, is thus explained by him:

"Know that the piece of cloth is the religion divine end that the four men who pull at it have come to preserve it. One of the religions is that of the Dihkans, the fire-worshippers, who may not take in hand the Barsom without p.r.o.nouncing the prayer formula.

"[The Dihkans were properly speaking the small landed n.o.bility of the Sasanian times and as such were representatives of the ancient Persian religion; _barsom_ and the prayer formula or _baz_ are well-known components of their ritual.]

"Another religion is that of Moses, which is called the Jewish religion, maintaining that none besides itself is worthy of praise; the third religion is of Greece, belongs to men of piety and brings equity to the heart of princes (this is Christianity). The fourth is the pure faith of the Arab which raises the head of the intelligent out of dust. Thus they struggle for the preservation of their religion and pull the cloth towards the four sides away from each other and become enemies for the sake of religion."

[Sidenote: Ibn Moqaffa no sincere Muslim]

This pa.s.sage the basic principle of which accords with the reflections on religion in our chapter I would now with greater positiveness than before trace to Ibn Moqaffa (ZDMG 59, 803). It did not find a place in the old Pehlevi "_Book of Kings_" because the latter could recognise only the national religion as the right one and could not have taken into consideration Islam, even supposing that the last redaction of the official Sasanian history took place at a time when Muhammadanism had already come into existence. But Firdausi did not at all invent the material of his narrative. He merely compiled it and the major portion of the compilation goes back to the shape which Ibn Moqaffa had given to the ancient tradition (see what I have to say on this in my National Epic of Iran, _Grundriss der iran philogie_). In actuality Ibn Moqaffa was not believed to be a sincere Muslim. He is frequently stigmatised as Zindik or heretic (See _Aghani_ 13.81, 18 ff. 18, 200, 25 ff. Ibn Qotaiba, _Uyun_ 71, 9; further Ibn Khallikan 186, p. 125.)

[The term zindiq probably originally denoted a certain rank among the Manichaeians or a similar religion and was then applied to suit a variety of infidels. The etemology, Aramaic Zaddiqy, has been recognised by Bevan.]

Again the pa.s.sage does not fit in with the tenor of the entire section.

For Burzoe who was at a loss with regard to the physician's art, the main question is, whether he should or should not become an ascetic,--a question which must concern Ibn Moqaffa but little. The suitability of the addenda hardly admits of proof but we may state that Ibn Moqaffa did not simply interpolate but wove them artfully in his text and he might have omitted something here and there.

[Sidenote: Burzoe influenced by Buddhism]

It seems to me highly probable that Burzoe allowed himself to be influenced by the Buddhist romance, the original of which has perished and the best representative of which, is preserved to us in the Arabic _Bilauhar wa Budasf_ (See _Barlaam und Joasaph_ by E. Kuhn). Many a pa.s.sage of our chapter is strongly reminiscent of the sentences of the romance, for instance, the dangers to the body remind one of those related at p. 53; the four principles or _akhalat_ appear at p. 9, and the parable of the man in the well is common to both. The parable which stands at the close of the chapter is, unless one is greatly mistaken, directly taken from the romance with little modification. It stands in the whole of _Kalila wa Dimna_ isolated, deviates in manner and tendency entirely from the story and also from what has issued from Ibn Moqaffa but is consistent with the monastic predilections of Burzoe. And his apprais.e.m.e.nt of the life of the recluse does not appear spontaneous but something to which he has laboriously compelled himself. One may surmise that it was really alive only in India. How far it was practised in actual life must remain unproved. We must not omit to mention that Burzoe points out that for an ideal physician his art earns also rich earthly profits.

[Sidenote: English translation of the Introduction a desideratum.]

So far as I know, of this chapter there is no translation in a European language except in the English by Knatchbull which appeared in 1819, which reproduced the imperfect text of de Sacy and is otherwise defective. Wolff did well to omit it in his German translation of _Kalila wa Dimna_ of 1837, for he could not have produced a correct rendering of de Sacy's text which was not completed till 1873 by Guidi.

[Sidenote: Difficulties of translation.]

Even now it is impossible to make a translation of Burzoe's Introduction which can stand the test of philology. We must first see whether with the use of all available ma.n.u.scripts and a careful collation of other text sources we cannot arrive at a tolerably settled Arabic text. And that is, so far as I can conclude from my not quite insignificant material, not very probable. At all events a searching examination of all the ma.n.u.scripts in the great Paris library is essential. The various texts of the book are considerably divergent. Arbitrariness and carelessness of transcriber have disfigured Ibn Moqaffa's work of art just because it presently became a favourite book of entertainment. The language at all events remains approximately correct in the ma.n.u.scripts.

Grammatical mistakes easy of correction are not seldom met with but pure vulgarisms occur only in a few copies like that of Berlin. The numberless variants have not much significance for the translator when it is only a question of synonyms, since for them the same European expression can do duty. And though it is not certain whether in the case of a mult.i.tude of non-essential or wholly a.n.a.logous expressions the shorter or the extended text is the original one, that does not substantially affect the translation. There is scarcely any harm in curtailing the frequent tautology of this chapter. We should be well advised in case of successive synonymous abstract nouns and verbs such as occur frequently in Arabic to translate by a simple expression with an emphatic adjective or adverb. But not seldom the difference becomes great. It is a difficult situation when we are uncertain whether the pa.s.sage which is found in several ma.n.u.scripts and not in others is the original one. As a rule we have to decide in favour of the majority but as sometimes we do come across actual interpolations in some, so their existence is not impossible in others, although we can not be positive on the subject.

[Sidenote: A monumental piece of literature.]