« ZurückWeiter »
mine of the 25th of May last, that I was not wrong in the opinion, that those most cruel murders, and barbarous massacre committed by certain troops of yours upon the professors of the reformed religion in Savoy þad neither your command nor authority. I am also extremely rejoiced to find, that your majesty has signified your strong disapprobation to your military commanders, who took upon themselves to perpetrate such atrocities without your orders; and that you have remonstrated with the Duke of Savoy upon the subject of such monstrous cruelty, and have interpused your influence and good offices with so much humanity and earnestness, for the restoration of those unhappy exiles. I did hope that that prince would have conceded something to the intercession of your majesty; but since neither your mediation, nor that of the other sove reigns and states, have been of any avail in their favor, I have thought it my imperative duty to send an ambassador extravrdinary to the duke, to give a full explanation of my sentiments, in regard io his excessive cruelty towards the professors of the same religion with ourselves, ou no other account but their religion. And in order to promote the success of this mission, I trust your majesty will be pleased to renew your remonstrances, and to give them greater weight than before: and as your ma, jesty has already declared yourself responsible for the fidelity of these poor people to their prince, so you will now take upon yourself to guarantee their security and protection, that a repetition of such inhuman cruelty may not be inflicted upon them again. We cannot but expect this from your majesty, as being nothing but a just and royal proceeding, and perfectly consistent with the benignity and clemency, with which you have watched over the safety and welfare of so many of your subjects, who profess the same religion. By such an act, you will conciliale the affections of all the Protestants throughout your kingdom, who have given you so many proofs of their loyalty and aitachment; and you will satisfy those of foreign nations, that you are not implicated in this iniquity, however much your ministers of state, and commanders, may be: more especially if your majesty will punish those ministers and com'manders, who have presumed, upon their own authority, and out of their own malignity, to commit such monstrous atrocities. In the mean time, since your majesty disavows this most inhuman and detestable policy, I am confident you will give shelter and protection to such of the distressed refugees, as shall Ay into your dominions for an asylum, and will not suffer
of your own subjects to assist the Duke of Savoy against them. It remains for me to assure your majesty of the value I set upon your friendship, and of my readiness, at all times, to give proof of the sincerity of my respect.
Given at our court at Westminster, July 31, 1655.
Travels in Persia and other Countries of the East, by
Sir W. OUSELEY, KNt., 3 vols. 4to.
Books of Travels are the prevailing taste of the day, yet the utility thence accruing to general literature is, by no means, in proportion with their number or size. The chief fault in modern travels consists in the manifest compilations from preceding travellers which they contain, and the want of research as to the ancient history, manners, and customs of the countries visited. This fault, however, we cannot impute to the writer now before us. On the contrary, he has done more to elucidate ancient geography and antiquarian studies, than any who have preceded him in the same tract: adding to an intimate acquaintance with Oriental literature a critical knowlege of the classics, he entered on his task better qualified for it than the majority of Eastern scholars, and has certainly accomplished it with greater success, and more benefit to the cause of science and philology, than the generality of travellers.
Sir William Quseley left England in the capacity of private secretary to his brother Sir Gore Ouseley, his Majesty's embassador and plenipotentiary at the court of Persia. In illustration of each place which he visited, he has furnished us with copious extracts of Eastern Mss. concerning their produce, peculiarities, legends, and geography, and has inserted many valuable remarks on the accurate pronunciation of the Persian language.
His dissertation on Ceylon is particularly interesting and curious. Bochart imagined it to have been the Ophir of sacred Scripture, (Phaleg. 1. i. c. 27.) concerning which Sir William writes :
Whether Ceylon was the Ophir of Jewish History has been disputed by many ingenious Europeans. The Arabian and Persian writers, whose works have fallen into my hands, seem unaoquainted with the triennial navigation of Solomon's fleet, and do not offer, amidst the numerous traditions which they preserve concerning that mighty sovereign, any confirmation of Bochart's opinion, nor indeed of the conjectures made by other antiquaries. Yet the Garshasp-Namah, a Persian poem of the tenth or eleventh century (for Asedi, who composed it, lived in both), records an extraordinary naval expedition undertaken against the vassal king of Ceylon, at the command of a powerful monarch, appearing from certain coincidences noticed by Eastern authors, as the contemporary of Solomon, and in respect to local habitation, nearly identified with that most sapient of men, his palace being at Jerusalem.Meanwhile, it is unequivocally stated, that after the monarch at Jerusa
VOL. XXX CI. NI. NO. LIX. L
lem had provided ships and troops, one year and six months had elapsed from the commencement of this expedition, until Garshasp, the general, finally disembarked them at the place of his destination ; and with due acknowlegments of pious gratitude towards God, prepared to attack the sixteen thousand war elephants, and the two millions of soldiers, which Bahu “the Ceylon king," or Serandib-Shàh, had assembled within a distance of two days' march. I shall remark, that the three years, which Solomon's servants going and returning employed on their Ophirian voyage, is a space of time exactly agreeing with the one year and six months assigned for Garshasp's expedition to Ceylon.
Several treatises have been written on the Ophirian voyage, some of which have been collected by Ugolini, and by Ikenius; Michaëlis, likewise, indulged "in conjectural speculations on the subject, but no disquisition so closely approximating itself to the scriptural history has been offered, as this, which we have cited. The notes are peculiarly valuable, showing the contemporary date of Solomon and Jemshid, which from the confusion of their characters by Eastern writers, appears very probable. Zobak (Ulsio) dethroned Jemshid, who is mentioned as the builder of the “ forty spires” (or lio dez) and hall of the thousand columns (or wgin yl; c) at Persepolis. This Zohak is said to have holden his court at the ugl, or palace at Jerusalem, when Mahraje (zboro) the sovereign paramount in India, although Zohak's tributary, requested his aid to chastise“ a rebelligus prince, on whom he had bestowed the government of Ceylon." In consequence of which request, the naval expedition is said to have been sent there by Asedi. There are two verses in the Shahpamah, which record the first naval expedition to have taken place in the days of Jemshid.
If this event had no relation to Solomon's expedition, it is an inexplicable circumstance, that Jerusalem should be connected with its history. Asedi speaking of Garshasp's route, in verses cited in the note, says,
بدزهت کنک آمد از راه شام که خوانيش بيت المقدس بنام
انکه که ضاكی شد پادشاه همي خواند آن خانه را ایلیا
“ He came by way of Syria to Dez Hukht Gang, which is also called the Holy House (Jerusalem); but, at the time, when Zohak reigned, it was called Ælia." This quotation is conclu'sive, because Jerusalem was called Ælia, after Hadrian Ælius : and as the Persian poets were little solicitous about the dates of
other nations, we need not be surprised, that this more recent name is referred to a preceding period. The reader is referred to Bochart (Ed. Rosenmüller) for proofs, that the produce of Ceylon corresponded with the produce of Ophir. Our limits will not allow us to quote Sir W's account of Alexander landing in Ceylon: the inquisitive reader will, bowever, derive considerable instruction from perusing it with the accompanying notes.
From Ceylon he proceeded to the coast of Malabar and Bombay. At Bombay he was entertained by the dances of the Natch-girls, which he concludes to be the same movement as the Kópdag in the vep' of Aristophanes ; Pausanias having pronounced the Kópdag to have been of Eastern origin. Several pages are occupied by descriptions of Salsette and Elephanta, and an account of the modern Parsis established in India, among whom he saw the Barzu-namah, an imperfect copy of which Anquetil du Perron brought with him to France. These Parsis, he contends, are descendants of those ancient Persians, who erected no statues in honor of the deities, and, under the scriptural title of Medes and Elamites, broke down all “ the graven images of Babylon,” as they afterwards, under Xerxes, destroyed the temples of the Grecians. Huet in his Demonstratio Evangelica, and Hyde in his Religio Veterum Persarum, strongly argue, that they were worshippers of THE TRUE God: “ Medi et Persa-VERI Dei cultores, Idololatriam erosi ;” and in Lev. vi. 12-13, we remark the law of a perpetual fire enjoined to the Israëlites. Sir W. Ouseley rightly conceives, that "the first Persian altars blazed in honor of God alone," although the purity of their religion was affected by the schisins of the intermediate ages; and we must attend to the observations of the Grecians concerning them with great caution, on account of their propensity to represent as a Deity every symbol of foreigners, which they did not understand. Verses from the Shahnámah are cited to prove, that the Parsis were not adorers of fire, but simply regarded it as a divine symbol; and examples are adduced of the fire-altar becoming a place of refuge for criminals. About the year 766, when Persia became a prey to the Arabs, the fire-worshippers retreated “to Hormuz, embarked there for the coast of India, and landed first at Diu in Gujerat, whence they soon after extended their establishments in successive ramifications to Saujan and Cambay, to Baroach, Nausari, and Daman, places near Surat, and in process of tiine to Bonsbay."
Our author from Bombay describes his voyage to Bushehr, giving a luminous and scientific account of the principal interjacent places. Here the party pitched their camp, expecting the arrival of a Mehmándár, and beheld a multitude of locusts di
recting their flight to cultivated spots, many of which were prized as food by those of Arabian origin, although they were Iittle esteemed by those, who were of purely Persian extraction. These locusts, called to and ito, according to their species, are distinguished into Jals or lawful, and peo, or forbidden. The Arabs prepare them “by boiling them with salt, and mixing a little oil, butter, or fat : they sometimes toast them before a fire, or soak them in warm water, and without any further culinary process, devour almost every part, except the wings.” Their
taste is like that of “ a lobster, or rather a shrimp, one neither offensively stale, nor absolutely fresh.” Cazvini divides them “into two classes, like horsemen and footmen, • mounted and pedestrian,' which will call to the recollection of the Biblical reader some passages from Joel and the Apocalypse.” Within half a mile of the camp were some Arab villages, the inhabitants of which “ retained the manners, dress, and language of their Arabian ancestors.” The men were clothed in the Abba (las), but did not wear the Kulah (W) or high cap of black lambskin used by the Persians. The women were wrapped in great cloaks nearly to their eyes, and “most of the huts were situated close to palm-trees.” Here follow an account of the remarkable antiquities at or near Bushehr, a catalogue of the principal fishes in the Persian Gulf, mentioned by ancient authors, and a valuable disquisition on the musical instruments of the Persians.
From Bushehr, the embassy proceeded on their way to Shiraz as far as Sliápur, accompanied by blü, or running footmen, according to the custom of the country. Shápur received its name from the Sassanian king, whom we call Sapores or Sapor. The original name of the city was Shahpuhri, as appears from Pahlavi inscriptions : near which is a fire-temple called yugu, or the Bull-headed. The bull was an old symbol of the Sun, as Hyde has shown; and one of Sir W.'s companions imagined, that he traced the rude delineation of one on this spot. The steel mace, with which Feridun destroyed Zohak, was so named: Cai Khusrau's general had a bull's head, as the device of bis banner, and Rustam is described wielding “a ponderous bullheaded mace.” The plates annexed to this part of the travels contain many historical illustrations. Cazvini's account of the city is, that it was built by “Tahmuras, the vanquisher and en. chainer of demons, who called it Díndiládár” Glass woma); that Alexander of Greece levelled it with the ground : that it was rebuilt by Shapur, “ who gave it his own name," although, in