To wind up the matter, steadily and unequivocally I do deny that the Round Towers of Ireland were fire receptacles. I go further, and deny that any of those eastern round edifices which travellers speak of, were ever intended for fire receptacles: that they were all pagan structures—and temples too—consecrated to the mostsolemnandengrossingobjects ofhuman pursuit, however erroneously that pursuit may have been directed, I unhesitatingly affirm. What then, I shall be asked, was their design? To this I beg leave to offer a circumlocutory answer. Squeamishness may be shocked, and invidiousness receive a pretext, but, the spirit being pure, the well-regulated mind will always say, “Cur nescire, pudens pravé, quam discere malo?”[94]
Then be it known that theRound TowersofIrelandwere temples constructed by the early Indian colonists of the country, in honour of thatfructifyingprinciple of nature, emanating, as was supposed, from the sun, under the denomination of Sol, Phœbus, Apollo, Abad or Budh, etc. etc.; and from the moon, under the epithet of Luna, Diana, Juno, Astarte, Venus, Babia or Butsee, etc. etc. Astronomy was inseparably interwoven with this planetary religion; while the religion itself was characterised by enforcing almost as strict a regard to the body afterdeath, as the body was expected to pay to a Supreme Essence before its mortal dissolution. Under this double sense then offunerealor posthumous regard, as well as active and living devotion, must I be understood to have used the expression, when previously declaring that ourSabian rotunditieswere erected with the twofold view of religiouscultureand thepracticeof thatsciencewith which it was so amalgamated.
To be explicit, I must recall to the reader’s mind the destination which the Brahmins assigned to the Egyptian pyramids, on hearing Wilford’s description of them—viz. that they were places appropriated to the worship of Padma-devi.[95]Before I proceed, however, I must state that I do not intend to make this the basis of what I shall designate mydisclosures. It would be very foolish ofme, if hoping to dislodge aworldof long-established prejudice, to use, as mylever, a ray shot transversely from a volume which has been tarnished by forgery. I need no such aid, as the sequel will show; and yet were it requisite, no objection would be valid, as the “Pundit” could have had no motive, either of interest or of vanity, such as influenced histranscriptions, here to mislead his victim. It was the mere utterance of a casual opinion, without reference to any deduction. Besides it was not the statement of the knave at all, but that of a number of religious men of letters, who all agreed in the ascription above laid down. They spoke, no doubt, from some traditionary acquaintance with the use of those tall round buildings which so much baffle antiquarians, not more in Ireland than they do in Hindostan: but the explanation of thistheir answer will be a happy inlet—and as such only do I mean to employ it—to theillustrationof what we have been so long labouring at.
The word Padma-devi[96]means “the deity of desire,” as instrumental in that principle ofuniversalgenerativeness diffused throughout all nature. Do I mean that gross suggestion of carnal concupiscence?—that mere propensity of animal appetite which is common to man with the brute creation? No; it became redeemed, if not justified, by the religious complexion with which it was intertwined, derived, mayhap, originally from thatparadisiacalprecept which said, “increase and multiply”; while the strain of metaphor under which it was couched, and the spiritual tendency by which the ceremony was inculcated, prevented offence even to the most refined taste, the most susceptible fancy, or the most delicate sensibility.
The love of offspring has ever been a powerful ingredient in man’s composition. The fair portion of the human species, as every age and experience can prove, have shown themselves not more exempt from the control of the same emotions or the influence of the same impulses. It was so wisely instituted by the great Regulator of all things, nor is the abuse of the principle any argument against its general utility or sanctified intent. Search the records of all early States, and you will find the legislator and the priest, instead of opposing a principle so universally dominant, used their influence, on the contrary, to bring it more into play, and make its exercise subservient to the increase of our species; the law lent its aid to enforce the theme as national, and religion sanctified it as a moral obligation.
In India thisfervorwas particularly encouraged: for “as the Hindoos depend on their children for performing those ceremonies to their names, which they believe tend to mitigate punishment in afuture state, they consider the being deprived of them as a severe misfortune and the sign of an offended God.”[97]They accordingly had recourse to all the stratagems which ingenuity could devise to recommend this passion to the inner senses, and dignify its nature by the studied imagery of metaphor and grace. In conformity with this sentiment we are favoured by Sir William Jones with the copy of a hymn, which they were in the habit of addressing to the above-mentioned “Padma-devi,” or “Mollium mater sæva cupidinum,” which he thus prefaces with her figurative descent:—
It is Camadeva, that is, thegodof desire, the opposite sex he speaks of, but the principle is the same.
“Peor, his other name, when he enticedIsrael in Sittim, on their march from Nile,To do him wanton rites, which cost them sore.”[98]
“According to the Hindu mythology, he was the son of Maya, or the general attracting power;[99]that he was married to Ritty, or Affection; and that hisbosom friend is Vassant, or the Spring: that he is represented as a beautiful youth, sometimes conversing with his mother, or consort, in the midst of his gardens and temples; sometimes riding by moonlight on a parrot, and attended by dancing girls, or nymphs, the foremost of whom bears his colours, which are a fish on a red ground: that his favourite place of resort is a large tract of country round Agra, and principally the plain of Mathra, where Kreshen also, and the nine Gopia usually spend the night with music and dance: that his bow is of sugar-cane or flowers, the sting of bees, and his five arrows are each painted with an Indian blossom of an healing quality.” Tedious and diffuse as has been the dissertation already, I cannot resist the inclination of transcribing the hymn also.
“What potent god, from Agra’s orient bowers,Floats through the lucid air; whilst living flowers,With sunny twine, the vocal arbours wreathe,And gales enamoured heavenly fragrance breathe?Hail, Power unknown! for at thy beckVales and groves their bosoms deck,And every laughing blossom dresses,With gems of dew, his musky tresses.I feel, I feel thy genial flame divine,And hallow thee, and kiss thyshrine.Knowest thou not me?—Yes, son of Maya, yes, I knowThy bloomy shafts and cany bow,Thy scaly standard, thy mysterious arms,And all thy pains and all thy charms.Almighty Cama! or doth Smara bright,Or proud Aranga, give thee more delight?Whate’er thy seat, whate’er thy name,Seas, earth, and air, thy reign proclaim;All to thee their tribute bring,And hail thee universal king.Thy consort mild, Affection, ever true,Graces thy side, her vest of glowing hue,And in her train twelve blooming maids advance,Touch golden strings and knit the mirthful dance.Thy dreadful implements they bear,And wave them in the scented air,Each with pearls her neck adorning,Brighter than the tears of morning.Thy crimson ensign which before them flies,Decks with new stars the sapphire skies.God of the flowery shafts and flowery bow,Delight of all above and all below!Thy loved companion, constant from his birthIn heaven clep’d Vassant, and gay Spring on earth,Weaves thy green robe, and flaunting bowers,And from the clouds draws balmy showers,He with fresh arrows fills thy quiver,(Sweet the gift, and sweet the giver,)And bids the various warbling throngBurst the pent blossoms with their song.He bends the luscious cane, and twists the string,With bees how sweet! but ah, how keen their sting!He with fine flowrets tips thy ruthless darts,Which through five senses pierce enraptured hearts.Strong Champa, rich in od’rous gold,Warm Amer, nursed in heavenly mould,Dry Nagkezer, in silver smiling,Hot Kiticum, our sense beguiling,And last, to kindle fierce the scorching flame,Loveshaft, which gods bright Bela name.Can men resist thy power, when Krishen yields,Krishen, who still in Mathra’s holy fields,Tunes harps immortal, and to strains divine,Dances by moonlight with the Gopia nine?Oh! thou for ages born, yet ever young,For ages may thy Bramin’s lay be sung;And when thy Lory spreads his emerald wings,To waft thee high above the tower of kings,Whilst o’er thy throne the moon’s pale lightPours her soft radiance through the night,And to each floating cloud discoversThe haunts of blest or joyless lovers,Thy milder influence to thy bard impart,To warm, but not consume his heart.”
Amongst the fables that are told to account for the origin of this amorous devotion, Sir William tells us, is the following, viz.:—
“Certain devotees in a remote time had acquired great renown and respect; but the purity of the art was wanting; nor did their motives and secret thoughts correspond with their professions and exterior conduct. They affected poverty, but were attached to the things of this world, and the princes and nobles were constantly sending them offerings. They seemed to sequester themselves from the world; they lived retired from the towns; but their dwellings were commodious, and their women numerous and handsome. But nothing can be hid from the gods, and Sheevah resolved to expose them to shame. He desired Prakeety[100]to accompany him; and assumed the appearance of a Pandaram of a graceful form. Prakeety appeared as herself a damsel of matchless beauty. She went where the devotees were assembled with their disciples, waiting the rising sun to perform their ablutions[101]and religious ceremonies. As she advanced the refreshing breeze moved her flowing robe, showing the exquisite shape which it seemed intended to conceal. With eyes cast down, though sometimes opening with a timid but a tender look, she approached them, and with a low enchanting voice desired to be admitted to the sacrifice. The devotees gazed on her with astonishment. The sun appeared, but the purifications were forgotten; the things of the Poojah[102]lay neglected; norwas any worship thought of but that to her. Quitting the gravity of their manners, they gathered round her as flies round the lamp at night, attracted by its splendour, but consumed by its flame. They asked from whence she came; whither she was going? ‘Be not offended with us for approaching thee; forgive us for our importunities. But thou art incapable of anger, thou who art made to convey bliss; to thee, who mayest kill by indifference, indignation and resentment are unknown. But whoever thou mayest be, whatever motive or accident may have brought thee amongst us, admit us into the number of thy slaves; let us at least have the comfort to behold thee.’
“Here the words faltered on the lip; the soul seemed ready to take its flight; the vow was forgotten, and the policy of years destroyed.
“Whilst the devotees were lost in their passions, and absent from their homes, Sheevah entered their village with a musical instrument in his hand, playing and singing like some of those who solicit charity. At the sound of his voice the women immediately quitted their occupations; they ran to see from whom it came. He was beautiful as Krishen on the plains of Matra.[103]Some dropped their jewels without turning to look for them; others let fall their garments without perceiving that they discovered those abodes of pleasure which jealousy as well as decency has ordered to be concealed. All pressed forward with their offerings; all wished to speak; all wished to be taken notice of; and bringing flowers and scattering them before him, said, ‘Askest thou alms!thou who art made to govern hearts! Thou whose countenance is fresh as the morning! whose voice is the voice of pleasure; and thy breath like that of Vassant[104]in the opening rose! Stay with us and we will serve thee; nor will we trouble thy repose, but only be jealous how to please thee.’
“The Pandaram continued to play, and sung the loves of Kama,[105]of Krishen, and the Gopia, and smiling the gentle smiles of fond desire, he led them to a neighbouring grove that was consecrated to pleasure and retirement. Sour began to gild the western mountains, nor were they offended at the retiring day.
“But the desire of repose succeeds the waste of pleasure. Sleep closed the eyes and lulled the senses. In the morning the Pandaram was gone. When they awoke they looked round with astonishment, and again cast their eyes on the ground. Some directed their looks to those who had been formerly remarked for their scrupulous manners, but their faces were covered with their veils. After sitting a while in silence, they arose, and went back to their houses with slow and troubled steps. The devotees returned about the same time from their wanderings after Prakeety. The days that followed were days of embarrassment and shame. If the women had failed in their modesty, the devotees had broken their vows. They were vexed at their weakness; they were sorry for what they had done; yet the tender sigh sometimes broke forth, and the eye often turned to where the men first saw the maid, the women the Pandaram.
“But the people began to perceive that what thedevotees foretold came not to pass. Their disciples in consequence neglected to attend them, and the offerings from the princes and the nobles became less frequent than before. They then performed various penances; they sought for secret places among the woods unfrequented by man; and having at last shut their eyes from the things of this world, retired within themselves in deep meditation, that Sheevah was the author of their misfortunes. Their understanding being imperfect, instead of bowing the head with humility they were inflamed with anger; instead of contrition for their hypocrisy, they sought for vengeance. They performed new sacrifices and incantations, which were only allowed to have effect in the end to show the extreme folly of man in not submitting to the will of Heaven.
“Their incantations produced a tiger, whose mouth was like a cavern, and his voice like thunder among the mountains. They sent him against Sheevah, who, with Prakeety, was amusing himself in the vale. He smiled at their weakness, and killing the tiger at one blow with his club, he covered himself with his skin. Seeing themselves frustrated in this attempt, the devotees had recourse to another, and sent serpents against him of the most deadly kind; but on approaching him they became harmless, and he twisted them round his neck. They then sent their curses and imprecations against him, but they all recoiled upon themselves. Not yet disheartened by all these disappointments, they collected all their prayers, their penances, their charities, and other good works, the most acceptable of all sacrifices; and demanding in return only vengeance against Sheevah, they sent a consuming fire to destroy his genital parts. Sheevah,incensed at this attempt, turned the fire with indignation against the human race; and mankind would have been soon destroyed, had not Vishnou, alarmed at the danger, implored him to suspend his wrath. At his entreaties Sheevah relented. But it was ordained that in his temples thosepartsshould beworshippedwhich the false devotees had impiously attempted to destroy.”[106]
CLONDALKIN.
But what was the form under which thisdeitywas recognised? “Look on this picture and on that;” and the answer presents itself.[107]The eastern votaries, suiting the action to the idea, and that their vivid imagination might be still more enlivened by the veryformof thetemplein which they addressed their vows, actually constructed its architecture after the model of themembrum virile, which, obscenity apart, is the divinely-formed and indispensable medium selected by God Himself for human propagation and sexual prolificacy.
This was the Phallus, of which we read in Lucian,[108]as existing in Syria of such extraordinary height, and which, not less than the Egyptian Pyramids, has heretofore puzzled antiquaries,—little dreaming that it was the counterpart of our Round Towers, and that both were the prototypes of the two “Pillars” which Hiram wrought before the temple of Solomon.
Astarte was the divinity with whose worship it was thus associated, and by that being understoodthe moon,[109]it was natural to suppose that the study of the stars would essentially enter into the ceremonial of her worship. Another name by which this divinity was recognised, was Rimmon, which, signifying as it doespomegranate, was a very happy emblem offecundity, as apples are known to be the most prolific species of fruit.
Lingam is the name by which the Indians designated this idol.[110]Those who dedicate themselves to his service, swear to observe inviolable chastity. “They do not, however,” says Craufurd, “like the priests of Atys, deprive themselves of the means of breaking their vows; but were it discovered that they had in any way departed from them, the punishment is death. They go naked; but being considered as sanctified persons, the women approach them without scruple, nor is it thought that their modesty should be offended by it. Husbands whose wives are barren solicit them to come to their houses, or send their wives to worship Lingam at the temples; and it is supposed thatthe ceremonieson this occasion, if performed with the proper zeal, are usually productive of the desired effect.”[111]
Such was the origin and design of the mostancientIndian pagodas, which had no earthly connection with fire or fire-worshippers, as generally imagined. And that such, also, was the use and origin of the Irish pagodas is manifest from the name by which they are critically and accurately designated, viz.Budh, which, in the Irish language, signifies not only theSun, as the source ofgenerative vegetation, but also as themale organ of procreative generativeness, consecrated, according to their foolish ideas, to Baal-Phearaghor Deus-coitionis, by and by to be elucidated. This thoroughly explains the word “Cathoir-ghall,” or “temple ofdelight,” already mentioned as appropriated to one of those edifices, and is still further confirmed by the name of “Teaumpal na greine,” or “temple of the sun,” by which another of them is called; while the ornament that has been known to exist on the top of many of them represents the crescent of Sheevah, the matrimonial deity of the Indians, agreeably to what the Heetopades states, viz. “may he on whose diadem is a crescent cause prosperity to the people of the earth.”
But you will say that my designating these structures by the name ofBudhis agratuitous assumption, for which I have no authority other than whatimaginationmay afford me; and that, therefore, however striking may beappearances, you will withhold your conviction until you hear my proofs. Sir, I advance nothing that I cannot support by arguments, andshould not value your adherence were it not earned by truth. This is too important an investigation to allowfancyany share therein. It is not the mere settlement of an antiquarian dispute ofindividualinterest orisolatedlocality that is involved in its adjustment,—no, its bearings are as comprehensive as its interest should be universal;the opinions of mankind to a greater extent than you suppose will be affected by its determination; and I should despise myself if, by any silly effort of ingenuity, I should attempt to lead your reason captive, or pander to your credulity, rather than storm your judgment.
This being premised, I shall not condescend, here or elsewhere, to apologise for the freedom with which I shall express myself in the prosecution of my ideas. The spirit that breathes over the face of the work will protect me from the venom of ungenerous imputation. Freedom is indispensable to the just development of the subject. Nor do I dread any bad results can accrue from such a course, knowing that it is theviciousalone who can extract poison from my page,—and they could do it as well in a museum or picture gallery,—while thevirtuouswill peruse it in the purity of their own conceptions, and if they rise not improved, they will, at least, not deteriorated.
My authority for assigning to the Round Towers the above designation is nothing less than those annals before adduced.[112]Where is itthere? you reply. I rejoin inFidh-Nemphed; which, as it has heretofore puzzled all the world to develop, I shall unfold to the reader with an almost miraculous result.Fidh, then—as theUlster Annals, orFiadh, as those of the Four Masters spell it—is the plural ofBudh,i.e.Lingam; the initialFof the former being only the aspirate of the initialBof the latter, and commutable with it[113]; andNemphedis an adjective, signifyingdivineorconsecrated, fromNemph, the heavens: so thatFidh-Nemphedtaken together will import theConsecrated Lingams, or theBudhist Consecrations.
CelestialINDEXES, cries O’Connor; following whichterm—but with a very different acceptation—the reader must be aware how that, in the early part of our journey, I ascribed to thisenigmaan astronomical exposition; but herein I was supported not only by expediency but by verity, having, all along, not only connectedSolarworship, and its concomitant survey of the stars—which isSabianism—withPhallicworship,—beginning with the former in order to prepare the way for the latter,—but shall proceed in detail until I establish their identity.
The Egyptian history, then, of the origin of this deification is what will put this question beyond the possibility of denial, viz. that “Isis having recovered the mangled pieces of her husband’s body, thegenitals excepted, which the murderers had thrown into the sea, resolving to render him all the honour which his humanity had merited, got made as many waxen statues as there were mangled pieces of his body. Each statue contained a piece of the flesh of the dead monarch. And Isis, after she had summoned in her presence, one by one, the priests of all the different deities in her dominions, gave them each a statue,intimating that, in so doing, she had preferred them to all the other communities of Egypt; and she bound them by a solemn oath that they would keep secret that mark of her favour, and endeavour to prove their sense of it by establishing a form of worship, and paying divine honours to their prince. But thatpartof the body of Osiris which had not been discovered, was treated with moreparticularattention by Isis, and she ordered thatitshould receivehonours more solemn, and at the same timemore mysterious, than the other members.”[114]
Now as Isis[115]and Osiris—two deities, by the way, which comprehended all nature and all the gods of the ancients—only personated theSunandMoon, the sources of nutrition and vegetative heat, it is very easy to remove the veil of this affectionate mythology, and see that it means nothing more than the mutual dependence and attraction of the sexes upon, and to, each other; while the fact of the Egyptian “Osiris,”[116]which intheirlanguage signifies theSun, and the Irish “Budh,” which inour languagesignifies the same planet, beingbothrepresented by thesame emblematic sign;[117]and thenameof that sign in both languages signifying as wellsignasthingsignified, gives a stamp to my proof which I defyingenuityto overthrow.
What is it, then, that we see here elucidated? Just conceive. For the last three thousand years and more, the learning of the world has been employed to ascertain theoriginof the doctrine of Budhism. The savants of France, the indefatigable inquirers of Germany, the affected pedants of Greece and Rome, and the pure and profound philosophers of ancient India and Egypt, have severally and ineffectually puzzled themselves to dive into the secrets of that mystic religion.[118]
“The conflicting opinions,” says Coleman, “which have prevailed among the most intelligent Oriental writers, respecting the origin and antiquity of this and the Jaina sects, and the little historical light that has yet been afforded to disperse the darkness that ages have spread over them, leave us, at the end of many learned disquisitions, involved in almost as many doubts as when we commenced upon them.”
“There was, then,” adds Gentil, “in those parts of India, and principally on the coast of Choromandel and Ceylon, a sort of worship the precepts of which we are quite unacquainted with. The god Baouth, of whomat present they know no more in India than the name, was the object of this worship; but it is nowtotallyabolished, except that there may possibly yet be found some families of Indians who have remained faithful to Baouth, and do not acknowledge the religion of the Brahmins, and who are on that account separated from and despised by the other castes.... I made various inquiries concerning this singular figure, and the Zamulians one and all assured me that this was the god Baouth, who was now no longer regarded, for that his worship and his festivals had been abolished ever since the Brahmins had made themselves masters of the people’s faith.”
“The worship of Budha,” says Heeren, “concerning the rise and progress of which we at present know so little, still flourishes in Ceylon.” Again, “All that we know with certainty of Budha is, that he was the founder of a sect which must formerly have prevailed over a considerable part of India, but whose tenets and forms of worship were in direct opposition to those of the Brahmins, and engendered a deadly hate between the two parties, which terminated in the expulsion of the Budhists from the country.”[119]
“The real time,” say theAsiat. Res.viii. p. 505, “at which Budha propagated the doctrines ascribed to him, is a desideratum which the learned knowledge and indefatigable research of Sir W. Jones have still left to be satisfactorily ascertained.”
“If the Budhaic religion,” says theWestminster Reviewof January 1830, “really arrived at predominance in India, itsrisein the first place, and more especially itsextirpation, are not merely events of stupendousmagnitude, but of impenetrable mystery.”
It will soon appear, that howeverimpenetrableheretofore, it is so no longer. Indeed, a great deal of the principle of theirfaithhas been at all times understood, but under different associations. It was that which Job alluded to when he said, “If I gazed upon Orus (the sun) when he was shining, or upon Järêcha (the moon) when rising in her glory; and my heart went secretly after them, and my hand kissed my mouth (in worship), I should have denied the God that is above.”
So far all have arrived at the discovery of this creed, and accordingly, if you look into any encyclopedia or depository of science for a definition of the word “Budhism,” you will be told that “it is the doctrine of solar worship as taught by Budha.” There never was such a person as Budha—I mean at the outset of the religion, when it first shot into life, and that was almost as early as the creation of man. In later times, however, several enthusiasts assumed the name, and personified in themselves the faith theyrepresented. But the origin of the religion was anabstract thought, which while Creuzer allows, yet he must acknowledge his ignorance of what thatthoughtwas.
The sun and moon were the great objects of religious veneration to fallen man in the ancient world. Each country assumed a suitable form to their propensities and peculiarities; but all agreed in centering the essence of their zeal upon those resplendent orbs to whom they were indebted for so many common benefits. Those mysteries of faith to which the “initiated” alone had access, and which were disguised in the habiliments of symbols and of veils, were neither more nor less than representative forms ofgenerationandproduction. These were thethemewhich made the canopy of the firmament to ring with their songs; and these thespringwhich gave vigour and elasticity to those graceful displays which, under the name ofdances, typified the circular and semicircular rotations of those bright objects of their regard.[120]
The Eleusinian[121]rites themselves were essentially of this kind; for though the benefits ofagriculturewere said to be chiefly there commemorated, this after all resolves itself into the above: for as the process of the earth’s bearing is similar to that of our own species, and indeed of all creatures that restupon her,—no seed bringing forth fruit until, as the apostle has affirmed,[122]it first dies,—the representation of this miracle of nature’s vicissitudes led the mind to the contemplation of general fecundity. And hence thecultureof the ground, and thepropagationof human beings, being both viewed in the same light, and sometimes even named by the same epithet, viz.tillage, were inculcated no less as beneficial exercises than as religious ordinances. Did a doubt remain as to the accuracy of this connection between the worship of the ancients and their sexual correspondence, it would be more than removed by attending to the import of the terms by which they mystified those celebrations, and which, with the sanctity attached to thepartsthemselves, will come consecutively under our review. One of them, however, is too apposite to be omitted here, and that is the term by which they designated a certain ceremony still practised on the coast of Guinea, and which neither theblandishmentsofartificenor theterrorsofmenacecould ever prevail upon them to divulge. This ceremony they callBelli-Paaro. The meaning they assign to it isregeneration, or the act of reviving fromdeathto a new state of existence; and when we see that the name itself is but an inflection of theBaal-Peorof the Scriptures, theBaal-Phearaghof our forefathers, and theCopulative deityof the amative universe, it will not be hard to dive into its character, though so shrouded in types.
But the Budhists, not content with this ordinary veneration, or with paying homage insecretto thatsymbol of production which all other classes of idolators equally, though privately, worshipped,—I mean the Lingam,—thought they could never carry their zeal sufficiently far, unless they erected it into anidolof more than colossal magnitude—and those idols were the Round Towers. Hence the nameBudhism, which I thus define, viz.that species of idolatry which worshipped Budh(i.e.the Lingam),as the emblemofBudh(i.e.the Sun)—Budh signifying, indiscriminately, Sun and Lingam.
Such was the whole substance of this philosophical creed, which was not—as may have been imagined—aritual of sensuality, but amanual of devotion, as simple in its exercise as it was pious in its intent—a Sabian veneration and a symbolical gratitude. I shall now give a summary of their moral code, couched in the following Pentalogue, as presented by Zaradobeira, chief Rahan at Ava, to a Catholic bishop, who expressed a wish some years ago to be favoured with a brief outline of their tenets; it is this:—
1. Thou shalt not kill any animal—from the meanest insect up to man himself.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
4. Thou shalt not tell anything false.
5. Thou shalt not drink any intoxicating liquor.
The extension of this first commandment from the crime of homicide to the deprivation of life of any breathing existence, arose from their doctrine of the transmigration of souls, which they believed should continue ever in action, and, after release from one tenement of earthly configuration, enter into some other of a different species and order.
In this incessant alternation—which was to be one ofascentor ofdescent, according to the merits of thebody, which the spirit hadlastanimated, and which was all considered as a sort of lustral crucible, for the refining of the vital spark against its reunion with the Godhead, whence it had originally derived—it is manifest that such tenderness for the entire animal creation arose from the apprehension of slaying some relation in that disguise.—Or, did we ascribe it to no higher motive than a sympathy with fellow-creatures, which, if not equally responsible, are at all events susceptible of anguish and of pain, this in itself should teach us to suppress all ebullitions of irreverent sarcasm, and, if we yield not our acquiescence, to extend to it at least our commiseration.
“Pain not the ant that drags the grain along the ground,It has life, and life is sweet and delightful to all to whom it belongs.”[123]
Thegood workswhich they wereadditionallyenjoined to perform were classified under the two heads ofDanaandBavana. By “Dana” was meant thegiving of alms, and hence the whole fraternity were calledDanaansorAlmoners.[124]By “Bavana” was understood thethoughtfully pronouncingthose three words,Anuzza,Docha, andAnatta: of which the first implies our liability tovicissitude; the second tomisfortune, and the third ourinabilityto exempt ourselves from either.[125]
The exposition of the termsTuathandde, as prefixes toDanaans, forming with it the compound Tuath-de-danaan, I shall reserve for a more befitting place. Meantime I hasten to redeem my “pledge” as to the elucidation of the import of the nameHibernian.
In the wide range of literary disquisition there is no one topic which has so engrossed the investigation of studious individuals as the origin of the wordHibernia. The great Bochart, the uncertain Vallancy, the spiteful Macpherson, the pompous O’Flaherty, and the “antiquary of antiquaries,” Camden himself,—with a thousand others unworthy of recognition,—have been all consecutively shipwrecked upon its unapproachable sand-banks. But the most miserable failure of all is that of a namesake of my own,the author of a dictionary upon the language of his country, who, in his mad zeal for an outlandish conceit, foists into his book a term with which our language owns no kindred, and then builds upon that a superstructure which “would make even the angels weep.”
This gentleman would fain make out[126]that, because those islands have been denominated theCassiterides, orTin Reservoirs, therefore Eirin, our own one of them, must have been so called as anIron Store! forgetting that the genius of our vocabulary has never had a term whereby to express thatmetalat all,—that by which we now designate it, namely,iarun, being only a moderncoinagefrom the English word,—as the general voice of antiquity speaks trumpet-tongued on the point, and the fragments of our Brehon laws give it insuperable confirmation, thatironwas the last metal which mankind has turned to profit, or even known to exist, while with us it was an exotic until a very recent period.[127]
But admitting thatEirinorErindid signifythe Land of Iron, then its Greek formationIernemust convey the same idea, and so mustHibernia, their Latin inflection; and it would afford me a considerable portion of merriment to behold any champion for thisiron-casedknight buckle on hisetymologicalarmour, and analyse these two last terms so as to make them indicate theLand of Iron.
Yet pitiable as this appears, for the author of an Irish dictionary, its ingenuity, at all events, must screen it from contempt. But how will the public estimate the brightness of that man’s intellect, who would state thatErinis but ametempsychosisof the wordGreen? Will it be believed that such is the sober utterance of the author of theDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire? But lest I should misrepresent, I shall let him speak for himself, viz.: “Ireland, from its luxuriant vegetation, obtained the epithetGreen, and has preserved, with a slight alteration, the nameErin.”[128]
So that a country which piques itself on itsIrishry, has remained ever without a cognomen, until theEnglishlanguage has beenmatured; and then, in compliment to her sister, Britain, has borrowed an adjective from herrainbow, which, however, she had not the good manners to preserve pure, but allowed to degenerate so far, that the sagacity of a conjurer could not trace any resemblance between thisvitiationand theoriginal epithetwhich pourtrayed herverdure!
Have we not here the solution of that general disbelief which attaches to proofs deduced from etymology? It is so in all professions, when quacks break into the fold, and usurp the office of the legitimate practitioner.Etymology, in itself, is an exaltedscience, and anunerring standard; but the mountebanks that have intermeddled with her holy tools, and disjointed the symmetry of her fair proportions, knowing no more of thefoundationoflanguagesthan they do of theoriginofspirit, have sunk it into apandemoniumofhackling,mangling, andlaceration, at which “the satirist,” perhaps, may laugh, but “the philosopher,” who has any regard for the right thinking of society, and the implanting in the tender mind a correct idea of words, at a moment when impressions are so wrought as to beineffaceable, will feel differently on the subject; and, if he cannotreform, do all that he can toexposeit!
How opposite has been the conduct of the learned Abbé MacGeoghegan as to the origin of this abstruse word! After reviewing in his able work[129]the opinions offered by the several persons who wrote before him upon the question, and none of them giving him satisfaction, he freely acknowledges, when unable to supply the deficiency, that “the derivation of this name is unknown.” He was right; but the spell is at last broken.
As a sequel to this avowal, I must be allowed to quote at full length the extract from Avienus,[130]which has been already referred to—
“Ast hinc, duobus inSacram—sicInsulamDixereprisci—solibus cursus rati est;Hæc inter undas multum cespitem jacit;Eamque latè gensHibernorumcolit,Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet,”—
that is, two days’ sail will take you thence (from the Sorlings) to theSacred Island; as so denominated bythemen of old. A rich gleby soil distinguishes this favourite of the waters; and the race of theHibernianscultivate it in its wide extent. Close by, again, is situated the isle of the Albiones.
Without dwelling upon the importance which he attaches to this “Sacred Island,” while he disposes of England in one single line, I ask any person at all conversant with letters, whether it was as a vernacular epithet, or not rather in compliance with hishexametersand the rules of metrical versification, which rendered inconvenient the exhibition of thename itselfthat the poet paraphrased its meaning, and gaveinsula sacraas its equivalent?
Is not the country inhabited by the Gauls called Gallia; that occupied by the Britons, Britannia; that possessed by the Indians, India; that peopled by the Germans, Germania; and that tenanted by the Arcadians, Arcadia? Consequently, the land inhabited by the people styledHiberniansmust, by universal analogy, be denominatedHibernia. And if this signifies “Sacred Island,” of course “Hibernian” must mean “an inhabitant of the Sacred Island.”
Avienus wrote about the three hundredth year of the Christian era, and cites the authorities whence he derived his information to the following purpose, viz.:—
“Himilco, the Phœnician, has recorded that he has himself traversed the ocean, and with his own eyes and senses verified those facts. From theremoteannals of the Phœnicians I copy the same, and present them to you as handed down from antiquity.”
Himilco, be it remarked, flourished six hundred years before the name of Christianity was mentioned in the world; and when his acquaintance with thisisle, and that of his countrymen in general, is thus irrefutably premised, we shall be the more ready to do justice to that observation made by Tacitus, when, in hisLife of Agricola, talking of Ireland relatively to England, he affirmed that “her coasts and harbours were better known, through commerce and mercantile negotiation,” than those of the latter country.[131]
Why do I introduce this notice here? To show that it was not to the Latins Avienus was indebted for hisinsightinto that term, which we thus pursue. The Romans knew nothing even of thesituationof the place that bore it, until their avarice and their rapacity brought their eagles to Britain; and, after effecting the subjugation of that heroic island, it is no small incentive to our vanity to see their historian constrained to confess that the exhibition of a similar project against the liberties of Ireland was more with a view to overawe, than from any hopes of succeeding;[132]while the ignorance which he evinces in another clause of that very sentence, whence the above extract has been quoted,—placing Irelandmidwaybetween Spain and England,—is proof incontrovertible of the position which has been assumed.
But it is to me immaterial whether Avienus was aware or otherwise that “Hibernia” and “Sacred Island” were convertible and synonymous. It is not by his authority that I mean to establish the fact; for even admitting his cognisance of the identity of these two terms, he must yet ofnecessitybe unacquainted with therootwhence theybothhad sprung; and, accordingly, I have only put him here in theforeground—as has been the plan all through—“to break the ice,” as it were, for the exordium of the promiseddénouement.
Iran, then, andIrin, or, as more correctly spelled,EireanandEirin, with aneprefixed to each of the other vowels, as well initial as intermediate, is the characteristic denomination which all our ancientmanuscriptsaffix to this country. There is no exception to this admitted rule. From the romance to the annal, the observation holds good; it is aninalienablelandmark, and ofinviolableunanimity.
Dionysius of Sicily, who wrote about fifty years before theAdvent, and who cannot be suspected of much partiality towards our forefathers, calls the land they inhabited by the name ofIrin.[133]Nor will the circumstance of his applying to it in another place, the variationIris, detract from this fact; as it is evident that he only manufactured this latter, having occasion to use a nominative case which he thought thatIrinwould not well represent, and so, with the lubricity of a Greek, ever sacrificing sense to sound,[134]he gave birth to a conception whichstrangledthe original.[135]
In theLife of Gildas, an early and eminent English ecclesiastic, we find it calledIren, when the biographer, talking of the proficiency made by his subject in literary pursuits, says that he betook himself toIreland, which he designates as above, in order to ascertain, by communion with kindred teachers, the very utmost recesses of theology and philosophy.[136]
Ordericus Vitalis, in hisEcclesiastical History,[137]having occasion to mention theIrish, calls them by the name ofIrenses, equivalent toIranians, that isinhabitantsofIran,Iren, orIrin, whichever of them you happen to prefer. And as these are now established as thebasisof our general search, I shall address myself without further digression to their syllabic analysis.
To do this the more effectually, and at the same time to comprise within one dissertation what otherwise might encroach upon two, it is to be noticed that the country known in the present day asPersia, and whither our labours will be directed at no distant hour, was by itsprimitiveinhabitants calledIranalso, and spelled as ours, with an initialE. The prefixing of this letter, in both instances of its occurrence, whether we regard theEasternor theWesternhemisphere, was neither the result of chance, nor intended as an operative in the import of the term. It was a meredialectaldistinction, appertaining to the court-language of the dynasty of the times, and what is astoundingly miraculous, retains the same appellation, with literal precision, unimpaired, unadulterated, in both countries, up to the moment in which I write.
Palahvi[138]is the appellation of this courtly dialect inPersia, andPalahveris the epithet assigned to it inIreland; and such is the softness and mellifluence of its enchanting tones, and its energy also, that to soothe care, to excite sensibility, or to stimulate heroism, it may properly be designated as “the language of the gods.”
Thus we see that Ireland and Persia were both calledIran; that both equally admitted of the change of this name toEiran; and that thestyleof this variation was similarly characterised in both. How, then, will theempyricsof etymology recover their confusion: they who would persuade us that Ireland was so denominated fromIar, theWest—unless, indeed, they can substituteEastforWest, and show that Persia was denominated fromIaralso.[139]Entangled in this dilemma, the amiable old General Vallancy, without intimating, however, thatitwas what extorted his remark,—after rigidly maintaining through a series of volumes, that the word had its origin in the above explodedWesternWill o’ the Wisp,—exclaims, in a sentiment of unconscious self-conviction, that “nothing more can be said of this derivation than that the name was common to that part of the globe whence they (who imported it) originally came.”[140]
Arrived, then, at length, at thefountain-headof our inquiry, how shall we account for it in “that part of the globe whence we originally came”? I have seen but two efforts to develop the word, as applied to thatquarter: one by Professor Heeren, of the Göttingen University; the other by “a learned priest of the Parsees,” as recorded by Sir John Malcolm, the late lamented author of a history of the place itself. And as the former of these is ratherhumorous, and as the latter contains in it a smallingredient of truth, it is worth while to parade them in thetailof our inspection.
“Anciently,” says the professor, “they were called by the Orientals themselves by the common term ofIran, and the inhabitants, inasmuch as they possessedfixedhabitations and laws, were styledIranians, in opposition to theTuranians, orwanderinghordes of Central Asia.”[141]
I wonder did the Germanhistoriantake his cue from the conjecture of the Irishlexicographer? It is literally marvellous if he did not; for, by a most unaccountable coincidence, while tracing the foundation of a name, descriptive of two localities at opposite points of this mundane ball, one boldly asserts, and the other more than insinuates, that its root is to be found in one and the sameEnglishword!—and this, too, when those countries were blazing in glory, before three words of the English language were broken into train!
A difference, however, breaks out amongst those partners, which seems to sever the prospects of theirmetallicunion. It is, that though each would makeironto be the substratum of their respective hobbies, yet wouldmy namesakehave his so called asaboundingtherein; whereas, theprofessor, who betrays a respectable insight into geology, and fearing that the womb ofPersiacould not conceive so hard an ore, wishes us at once to believe that it acquired itsancientepithet from thefixednessof that metal; and thus would oneex abundantiâ, and the otherex similitudine, have the common name ofIranfor Ireland and for Persia be derived from anEnglishword, which was not concocted for many centuries after thedecayof those two regions, when the very metal it represented first grew into use![142]
“Moullah Feroze, an excellent Palahvi scholar, tells me,” says Sir John Malcolm, “thatIranis the plural ofEir, and meansthe country of believers.” And again, when he had occasion to consult his oracle, he states the answer as follows:—
“I gave this inscription[143]to Moullah Feroze, a learned priest of the Parsees, at Bombay, and he assured me that the translation of De Sacy was correct. Feroze explained the wordAn-Iranto meanunbelievers.Eer, he informed me, was a Pehlivi word, which signifiedbeliever;Eeranwas its plural: in Pehlivi, theaoranprefixed is a privative, as in Greek or Sanscrit; and consequently,An-Eeranmeantunbelievers. The king ofEeranandAn-Eeranheinterpreted to mean king ofbelieversandunbelievers;ofPersia and other nations. It was, he said, a title like king of the world. This however,” adds Sir John, of himself, “is like allconjecturesfounded on etymology, very uncertain.”
It was natural enough that Sir John should express himself slightingly as to a mode of proof, the principle of which he must have seen violated in so many instances; and, independently of this, it is an infirmity in human nature to affect disregard for any knowledge which we do not ourselves understand. I do not mean, however, to vindicate Feroze’s interpretation; on the contrary, I purpose to show that it is not onlyimperfect, butincorrect; yet while doing so, I am bound to acknowledge, that, if he has not hit off the whole truth, he has a part of it; and eventhisis such a treat, in the wilderness through which we have been groping for some time back, that I welcome it as anoasis, and offer him my thanks thus beforehand.
To prove however, that he is in error, I need but confine myself to the unravelling of his own words. At first he affirms thatEeranis the plural ofEer, and means thecountry of believers; if so, the singular must meanthe country of a believer; but he tells us afterwards, thatEersignifiesa believeralone, consequentlyEeranmustbelieversalone, without any consideration of the wordcountry. And the same inconsistency, which manifests itself here, applies with equal strictness toAn-Eiranalso.
Should these papers ever reach the observance of this distinguished foreigner, whom I appreciate even for hisapproximationto the precincts of thethought, they will, I doubt not, readily disabusehim of aradicalmisconception.Eeranis not apluralat all, but acompoundword: its constituents beingEerandAn,[144]of which the former signifiesSacredand the latter aTerritory. So that the united import will be theSacred Territory; andAn-Eeran, of course, is but its negative.
This exposition I gain from the Irish language, which I take to be the primitive Iranian or Persic language. By it I am furthermore enabled to inform theGerman“professor” thatTuran, though now inhabited by “Nomad tribes,” obtained not its name from that circumstance, but from a widely different one. Tur[145]meansprolific, whether as regardspopulationorrural produce; andAn, as before, a territory—the whole betokening aprolific territory.[146]And he should remember, what he is not at all unconscious of, that eastern denominations are not varied by recent occupants, but continue in uninterrupted succession, from age to age, as imposed at the outset.