§ II.—Discussion on the Desatir.
This word was considered to be the Arabic plural of the original Persian word dostúr, signifying “a note-book, pillar, canon, model, learned man;” but, according to the Persian grammar, its plural would be dosturán, or dostúrha, and not desátir. From this Arabic form of the word an inference was drawn against the originality and antiquity of the Desátir; but this of itself is not sufficient, as will be shown.
Other readings of the title are Dastánir, in one passage,[20] and Wasátir[21] in two other places of Gladwin’s Persian text, and the last also in a passage of the printed edition.[22] The first is not easily accounted for, and is probably erroneous; but the second is found in the index of the printed edition,[23] under the letter و, vau, and explained: “the name of the book of Mahabad;” it cannot therefore be taken for a typographical error, and is the correct title of the book, as I now think, although I formerly[24] preferred reading Desátir. It is derivable from the Sansrcit root वाश् wás, “to sound, to call,” and therefore in the form of wasátis or wasâtir (the r and s being frequently substituted for the visarga) it signifies “speech, oracle, precept, command.” It is also in connection with the old Persian word wakshur, “a prophet.” Considering the frequent substitution in kindred languages of ba for va, and ba for bha, it may also be referred to the root भाष bhasha, “to speak,”[25] which, with the prepositions pari and sam, signifies “to explain, expound, discourse.” Hence we read in the Commentary of the Desátir the ancient Persian word basátir[26] (not to be found in modern Persian vocabularies), which is there interpreted by “speculations,” in the following passage: “the speculations (basátir) which I have written on the desátir.”
I shall nevertheless keep, in the ensuing Dissertation, the title Desátir, because it is generally adopted. Besides, in the Mahabádian text, the vau, و, frequently occurs for the Persian dál, د, thus we find وادن, wáden, for دادن, dáden, “to give;” and wárem, وارم, for dárem, دارم, “I have;” but I am aware that the two letters, so similar in their form, may be easily confounded with each other by the copyist or printer.
The extract from the Desátir contained in the Dabistán was thought worthy of the greatest attention by sir William Jones, as before mentioned; nay, appeared to him “an unexceptionable authority,” before a part of the Desátir itself was published in Bombay, in the year 1818, that is, twenty-four years after the death of that eminent man.
The author of the Dabistán mentions the Desátir as a work well known among the Sipasians, that is, the adherents of the most ancient religion of Persia. According to his statement, the emperor Akbar conversed frequently with the fire-adorers of Guzerat; he also called from Persia a follower of Zerdusht, named Ardeshir, and invited fire-worshippers from Kirman to his court, and received their religious books from that country; we may suppose the Desátir was among them. So much is positive, that it is quoted in the Sharistan chehar chemen, a work composed by a celebrated doctor who lived under the reigns of the emperors Akbar and Jehangír, and died A. D. 1624. The compiler of the Burhani Kati, a Persian Dictionary, to be compared to the Arabic Kamus, or “sea of language,” quotes and explains a great number of obsolete words and philosophic terms upon the authority of the Desátir: this evidently proves the great esteem in which this work was held. Let it be considered that a dictionary is not destined for the use of a sect merely, but of the whole nation that speaks the language, and this is the Persian, considered, even by the Arabs, as the second language in the world and in paradise.[27]
It is to be regretted that Mohsan Fani did not relate where and how he himself became acquainted with the Desátir. I see no sufficient ground for the supposition of Silvestre de Sacy[28] and an anonymous critic,[29] that the author of the Dabistán never saw the Desátir. So much is certain, that the account which he gives of the Mahabádian religion coincides in every material point with that which is contained in that part of the sacred book which was edited in Bombay by Mulla Firuz Bin-i-Kaus.[30]
This editor says in his preface (p. vi): “The Desátir is known to have existed for many years, and has frequently been referred to by Persian writers, though, as it was regarded as the sacred volume of a particular sect, it seems to have been guarded with that jealous care and that incommunicative spirit, that have particularly distinguished the religious sects of the East. We can only fairly expect, therefore, that the contents should be known to the followers of the sect.” Mulla Firuz employs here evidently the term sect with respect to the dominant religion of the Muhammedan conquerors, whose violent and powerful intolerance reduced the still faithful followers of the ancient national religion to undergo the fate of a persecuted sect. But we shall see that the doctrine of the Desátir is justly entitled to a much higher pretension than to be that of an obscure sect.
Whatever it be, Mulla Firuz possessed the only manuscript of the work then known in Bombay. It was purchased at Isfahan by his father Kaus, about the year 1778, from a bookseller, who sold it under the title of a Gueber book. Brought to Bombay, it attracted the particular attention of Mr. Duncan, then governor of Bombay, to such a degree, that he began an English translation of the work, which was interrupted by his return to England. The final completion of the version was owing to the great encouragement which sir John Malcolm gave Mulla Firuz in consequence of the high opinion which sir William Jones had publicly expressed of the Dabistán, the author of which drew his account of the ancient Persian dynasties and religions chiefly from the Desátir. There is an interval of one hundred and thirty-three years[31] between the composition of the Dabistán and the fortuitous purchase of the manuscript copy of the Desátir, by Kaus in Isfahan; as it would be assuming to much to suppose that the latter is the same from which Mohsan Fani drew his information, we can but admit that the agreement of both, in the most material points, affords a confirmation of each respective text.