CHAPTER I
.
Of the religion of the Parsian 4
Section I.――Tenets and ceremonies observed by the Sipasian and Parsian 5 Description of the worship rendered to the seven planets, according to the Sipasian faith 35
II.――Description of the Sipasian sect 87
III.――The laws of the Paiman-i-Farhang and the Hirbed Sár 147 Descriptions of the gradations of Paradise 150 Description of the infernal regions 152
IV.――An account of the Jamshapian sect 193
V.――The Samradian sect 195
VI.――The tenets of the Khodaiyan 201
VII.――The system of the Rádián _ibid._
VIII.――The Shidrangián creed 203
IX.――The Páikárian creed _ibid._
X.――The Milánián system 204
XI.――The system of the followers of Alár 206
XII.――The Shidanian faith 207
XIII.――The system of the Akhshiyán sect _ibid._
XIV.――The followers of Zardusht 211 Account of the precepts given by Zardusht to the king and all mankind 260 The Sad-der, or “the hundred gates” of Zardusht 310 Enumeration of some advantages which arise from the enigmatical forms of the precepts of Zardusht’s followers 351 Summary of the contents of the Mah-zend 353
XV.――An account of the tenets held by the followers of Mazdak 372
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE.
## PART I.
INTRODUCTION.
§ I.――HOW THE DABISTAN FIRST BECAME KNOWN――ITS AUTHOR――THE SOURCES OF HIS INFORMATION.
It is generally known that sir William Jones was the first who drew the attention of Orientalists to the Dabistán. This happened five years after the beginning of a new era in Oriental literature, the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta by that illustrious man. It may not appear inopportune here to revive the grateful remembrance of one who acquired the uncontested merit of not only exciting in Asia and Europe a new ardor for Oriental studies, but also of directing them to their great objects――MAN and NATURE; and of endeavoring, by word and deed, to render the attainment of languages conducive to the required knowledge equally easy and attractive.
Having, very early in life, gained an European reputation as a scholar and elegant writer, sir William Jones embarked[1] for the Indian shores with vast projects, embracing, with the extension of science, the general improvement of mankind.[2] Four months after his arrival in Calcutta,[3] he addressed as the first president of the Asiatic Society, a small but select assembly, in which he found minds responsive to his own noble sentiments. A rapid sketch of the first labors of their incomparable leader, may not be irrelevant to our immediate subject.
In his second anniversary discourse,[4] he proposed a general plan for investigating Asiatic learning, history, and institutions. In his third discourse, he traced the line of investigation, which he faithfully followed, as long as he lived in India, in his annual public speeches: he determined to exhibit the prominent features of the five principal nations of Asia――the Indians, Arabs, Tartars, Persians, and Chinese. After having treated in the two following years of the Arabs and Tartars, he considered in his sixth discourse[5] the Persians, and declared that he had been induced by his earliest investigations to believe, and by his latest to conclude, that three primitive races of men must have migrated originally from a central country, and that this country was _Iran_, commonly called Persia. Examining with particular care the traces of the most ancient languages and religions which had prevailed in this country, he rejoiced at “a fortunate discovery, for which,” he said, “he was first indebted to Mir Muhammed Hussain, one of the most intelligent Muselmans in India, and which has at once dissipated the cloud, and cast a gleam of light on the primeval history of Iran and of the human race, of which he had long despaired, and which could hardly have dawned from any other quarter;” this was, he declared, “the rare and interesting tract on twelve different religions, entitled the DABISTAN.”[6]
Sir William Jones read the Dabistán for the first time in 1787. I cannot refrain from subjoining here the opinion upon this work, which he communicated in a private letter, dated June, 1787, to J. Shore, esq. (afterwards lord Teignmouth); he says: “The greatest part of it would be very interesting to a curious reader, but some of it cannot be translated. It contains more recondite learning, more entertaining history, more beautiful specimens of poetry, more ingenuity and wit, more indecency and blasphemy, than I ever saw collected in a single volume;[7] the two last are not of the author’s, but are introduced in the chapters on the heretics and infidels of India.[8] On the whole, it is the most amusing and instructive book I ever read in Persian.”[9]
We may suppose it was upon the recommendation of sir William Jones, that Francis Gladwin, one of the most distinguished members of the new Society, translated the first chapter of _The Dabistán_, or “School of Manners,” which title has been preserved from due regard to the meritorious Orientalist, who first published the translation of a part of this work. The whole of it was printed in the year 1809, in Calcutta, and translations of some parts of it were published in _The Asiatic Researches_.[10] It is only at present, more than half a century after the first public notice of it by sir W. Jones, that the version of the whole work appears, under the auspices and at the expense of the Oriental Translation Committee of Great Britain and Ireland.
Who was the author of the Dabistán?――Sir William Jones thought it was composed by a Muhammedan traveller, a native of Kachmir, named _Mohsan_, but distinguished by the assumed surname of _Fání_, “the Perishable.”
Gladwin[11] calls him _Shaikh Muhammed Mohsin_, and says that, besides the Dabistán, he has left behind him a collection of poems, among which there is a moral essay, entitled _Masdur ul asas_, “the source of signs;” he was of the philosophic sect of Súfis, and patronised by the imperial prince _Dara Shikoh_, whom he survived; among his disciples in philosophy is reckoned _Muhammed Tahir_, surnamed _Ghawri_, whose poems are much admired in Hindostan. Mohsan’s death is placed in the year of the Hejira 1081 (A. D. 1670).
William Erskine,[12] in search of the true author of the Dabistán, discovered no other account of Mohsan Fání than that contained in the _Gul-i-Râana_, “charming rose,” of _Lachmi Narayán_, who flourished in Hyderabad about the end of the 18th or the beginning of the 19th century. This author informs us, under the article of Mohsan Fání, that “Mohsán, a native of Kachmir, was a learned man and a respectable poet; a scholar of _Mulla Yakub_, Súfi of Kachmir; and that, after completing his studies, he repaired to Delhi, to the court of the emperor _Shah Jehan_, by whom, in consequence of his great reputation and high acquirements, he was appointed _Sadder_, ‘chief judge,’ of Allahabad; that there he became a disciple of Shaikh _Mohib ulla_, an eminent doctor of that city, who wrote the treatise entitled _Teswich_, ‘the golden Mean.’ Mohsan Fání enjoyed this honorable office till Shah Jehân subdued Balkh; at which time _Nazer Muhammed Khan_, the Wali, ‘prince,’ of Balkh, having effected his escape, all his property was plundered. It happened that in his library there was found a copy of Mohsan’s Diwán, or ‘poetical Collection,’ which contained an ode in praise of the (fugitive) Wáli. This gave such offence to the emperor, that the Sadder was disgraced and lost his office, but was generously allowed a pension. He retired (as Lachmi informs us) to his native country, where he passed the rest of his days without any public employment, happy and respected. His house was frequented by the most distinguished men of Kachmir, and among the rest by the governors of the province. He had lectures at his house, being accustomed to read to his audience the writings of certain authors of eminence, on which he delivered moral and philosophical comments. Several scholars of note, among whom were Taher Ghawri (before mentioned) and _Haji Aslem Salem_, issued from his school.” He died on the before mentioned date. “It is to be observed that Lachmi does not mention the Dabistán as a production of Mohsan Fání, though, had he written it, it must have been his most remarkable work.”
Erskine goes on to recapitulate some particulars mentioned in the Dabistán of the author’s life, and concludes that it seems very improbable that Mohsan Fání and the author of the Dabistán were the same person. In this conclusion, and upon the same grounds, he coincides with the learned Vans Kennedy.[13]
Erskine further quotes,[14] from a manuscript copy of the Dabistán which he saw in the possession of Mulla Firuz, in Bombay, the following marginal note annexed to the close of