PREFACE

TO THE PRESENT ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

In the year 1820, Major STEWART, Professor of Persian at the East India College, Haileybury, published a translation of the Seventh book of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ and dedicated it to the Junior Civil and Military Servants of the Hon. East India Company. In 1835, a literal translation of the First book of the same work was published by the Rev. H. G. KEENE, Arabic and Persian Professor at Haileybury, and dedicated to the Students of the College. In a memorandum inserted by Mr. JAMES ROSS at the beginning of his translation of the ‘Gulistán,’ that gentleman announced his intention of publishing a translation of the first two books of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ in 1826: but this version never made its appearance, in consequence of the death of the translator, by which melancholy event the public were deprived of several other proposed additions to our knowledge of Persian Literature. Enough however, has been already said to prove that a Translation of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ has long been considered desirable by competent judges. The high encomiums, too, which have been passed upon the Work in all countries, and by the scholars of all nations; especially by those illustrious Orientalists, Sir WILLIAM JONES and Baron SILVESTRE DE SACY, furnish another justi¬fication of this attempt to make it known to English readers. The opinion of the former of these distinguished men as to the merits of the work is couched in the following terms, ‘The most excellent book in the language is, in my opinion, the collection of tales and fables called ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ by Ḥusain Vá’iz, surnamed Káshifí, who took the celebrated work of Bidpai or Pilpay for his text, and has comprised all the wisdom of the Eastern nations, in fourteen beautiful chapters.’ [1] In another place he says, [2] ‘The fables of Vishnu Sharman, whom we ridiculously call Pilpay, are the most beautiful, if not the most ancient, apologues in the world: they were first translated from the Sanskrit, in the sixth century, by order of Buzurjmihr, or ‘Bright as the Sun,’ the chief physician, and afterwards the vazír [3] of the great Núshírwán, and are extant under various names in more than twenty languages.’ Baron DE SACY remarks, ‘Hosaïn Vaïz s’est proposé comme on le voit, de rendre la lecture du livre de Calila plus agréable à tout le monde, en la rendant plus facile. Il ne s’est pas contenté de supprimer ou de changer tout ce qui pouvoit arrêter un grand nombre de lecteurs, il a encore ajouté au mérite primitif de l’ouvrage, en y insérant un grand nombre de vers empruntés de divers poëtes, et en employant constamment ce style mesuré et cadencé, ce parallélisme des idées et des expressions, qui, joint à la rime, constitue la prose poétique des orientaux, et qui, ajoutant un charme inexprimable aux pensées justes et solides, diminue beaucoup ce que les idées – plus ingénieuses que vraies, les métaphors outrées, les hyperboles extravagantes, trop fréquentes dans les écrits des Persans – ont de rebutant et de ridicules pour le goût sévère et délicat des Européens. Quoique le style de Hosaïn ne soit pas exempt de ces défauts, on lit et on relit, avec un plaisir toujours nouveau, son ouvrage, comme le Gulistan de Saadi.’ [4]

The ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ is the work which candidates for interpreterships in India are required to read after the ‘Gulistán.’ The vast abundance of words, and the great variety of style, reaching from that of ordinary dialogue to the highest flights of poetry, render it incontestably the best book in the language to be studied by one who desires to make rapid progress in Persian. At the same time, however, as Major STEWART has very justly remarked, ‘It must be acknowledged that it is too difficult for the generality of students without the assistance of a munshí or teacher;’ and as good Persian munshís are not very easily procurable in India – in fact, in many provinces are altogether wanting – it is hoped that this Translation and the Notes appended to it will prove of service to those who desire to qualify themselves for examination in our Indian territories. To them the present Translation is offered with far more confidence than to the English public, for it is impossible not to perceive that those very characteristics of style, which form its chiefest beauties in the eye of Persian taste, will appear to the European reader as ridiculous blemishes. The undeviating equipoise of bi-propositional sentences, and oftentimes their length and intricacy; the hyperbole and sameness of metaphor, and the rudeness and unskilfulness of the plots of some of the stories, cannot but be wearisome and repulsive to the better and simpler judgment of the West. Kings always sit on thrones stable as the firmament, rub the stars with their heads, have all other kings to serve them, and are most just, wise, valiant, and beneficent. Ministers are invariably gifted with intellects which adorn the whole world, and are so sagacious that they can unravel all difficulties with a single thought. Mountains constantly race with the sun in height, all gardens are the envy of Paradise, and every constellation in Heaven is scared away in turn by some furious tiger or lion upon earth. These absurdities are so prominent that they would probably induce the generality of readers to close the book in disgust. Those, however, who have patience enough to proceed with the perusal will not fail to discover many beautiful thoughts, many striking and original ideas forcibly expressed; and though their first beauty cannot but have suffered very considerably in translation, still enough will remain to justify, in some degree, to all candid judges, the celebrity of the work.

It may be here desirable to direct attention to those parts of the Book which are generally considered the best. The whole work consists of an elaborate Preface and Introduction by Ḥusain Vá’iz, and of Fourteen Chapters or Books with a very brief Conclusion. The Preface may be dismissed from consideration at once, as being a turgid specimen of the obscure and repulsive preludes with which Persian writers think fit to commence their compositions. A few helpless infantine ideas struggle in the gigantic coils of an endless prolixity and verboseness, which it would require a Hercules to disentangle. Nevertheless, this Preface may be read by those who wish for a model of such compositions in Persian. The arrangement is the same in all. There is, first, an address to the One God; secondly, a lengthy eulogy of his Prophet, Muḥammad; thirdly, a panegyric on the High Personage to whom the work is dedicated, with a meagre explanation of the reasons which induced the Author to commence his undertaking. The whole is thickly larded with quotations from the Ḳur’án, and with difficult and unusual words; so that it would really seem as if a preface were intended, like a thorny hedge, to repel all intruders, and to preserve the fruit within from the prying eyes of readers.

In the Introduction, Ḥusain Vá’iz is at once simpler and more agreeable. The description of the Bees and their habits, is prettily given. The story of the Pigeon, who left his quiet home to travel; and of the old woman’s Cat, who was discontented with his meagre fare and safe seclusion, are among the happiest in the whole work.

The First Two books form rather more than a fourth of the entire composition. The plot of them is borrowed from the First Chapter of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ to which, indeed, the Second book of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ is a very proper sequel. The First story of the First book of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ – that of ‘the Merchant and his Sons,’ – corresponds to the opening of the Second book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and of the First Chapter of the ‘Pancha-tantra:’ the Fifth story of the same, ‘the Ape and the Wedge,’ to the Second fable in both Sanskṛit works; the Seventh story of the Persian, ‘the Jackal and the Drum,’ is the same as the Second in the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ but is not found in the ‘Hitopadesha;’ the Eighth Persian story, ‘the Recluse who was plundered by a Pretended Disciple,’ answers to the Fourth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and to part of the Sixth fable of the Second book of the ‘Hitopadesha;’ the Eleventh Persian story, ‘the Raven and the Snake,’ agrees with the Eighth of the Second book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Sixth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Twelfth Persian story, ‘the Heron and the Crab,’ corresponds to the Seventh of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Seventh of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha;’ the Fourteenth Persian story, ‘the Lion and the Hare,’ answers to the Ninth fable of the Second book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Eighth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’; the Fifteenth Persian story, that of ‘the Three Fishes,’ cor¬responds to the Third fable of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Fourteenth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Nineteenth Persian story, which has been extracted by Sir W. JONES into his ‘Persian Grammar,’ is exceedingly beautiful, and we owe it entirely to Persian taste, as no traces are found of it in Sanskrit; the Twenty-first Persian story, that of ‘the Crow, the Wolf, the Jackal, and the Camel,’ corresponds with the Eleventh fable of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and with the Eleventh of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Twenty-second Persian story, that of ‘the Ṭiṭawa and the Ocean,’ is the Tenth of the Second book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Twelfth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Twenty-third Persian story, that of ‘the Two Geese and the Tortoise,’ is the Second of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Thirteenth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Twenty-fourth Persian story, that of the ‘Monkeys and the Bird that gave them advice,’ is the Second of the Third book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Eighteenth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra;’ the Twenty-Fifth Persian story, that of ‘Sharp-wit and Light-heart,’ is the Nineteenth of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ but is not found in the ‘Hitopadesha;’ the Twenty-eighth Persian story, is the Twenty-first of the First book of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’

In the Second book, the story of Kalílah and Damnah is continued, but as this continuation is not found in the Sanskṛit, so also none of the Persian stories it contains are to be found in that language. The apologue is for the most part laid aside, the First and Second stories being the only instances of it. On the whole it is not inferior to the First book.

The Third book is borrowed from the First of the ‘Hitopadesha’ and the Second of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ The First Persian story corresponds to the opening of the above mentioned Sanskṛit books, and contains also the Fifth of the First book of the ‘Hitopadesha.’ The Fourth Persian story, ‘of the Woman who wished to barter husked Sesamum for unhusked,’ is the Second of the Second book of the ‘Pancha-tantra’; the Fifth Persian story, that of ‘the Wolf and the Bowstring,’ is the Seventh of the First book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the Third of the Second book of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’

The Fourth book is the Third and Fourth of the ‘Hitopadesha’ and the Third of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ The First Persian story corresponds to the opening of the same books in Sanskṛit; the Fourth Persian story, that of ‘the Hare and the Elephants,’ is the Fourth of the Third book of the ‘Hitopadesha,’ and the First of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra’; the Fifth Persian story, of ‘the Pious Cat,’ is the Second of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra’; the Seventh Persian story, of ‘the Pious Man who was cheated out of a Sheep by confederate Rogues,’ is the Third of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Tenth of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha’; the Eighth Persian story, that of ‘the Merchant’s Wife and the Thief,’ is the Eighth of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra’; the Ninth Persian story, ‘the Thief and the Demon who went to rob the Recluse,’ is the Ninth of the ‘Pancha-tantra’; the Tenth Persian story, ‘the Carpenter and his artful Wife,’ is the Eleventh of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Seventh of the Third book of the ‘Hitopadesha’; the Twelfth Persian story, ‘the Mouse that was changed into a girl,’ is the Twelfth of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Sixth of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha’; the Thirteenth Persian Story, ‘the Snake and the Frogs,’ is the Fifteenth of the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Twelfth of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha.’

The Fifth book is borrowed from the Fourth of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ The First Persian story corresponds to the opening of the same book in Sanskrit; the Third Persian story of ‘the Ass without Heart and Ears,’ is the Second of the Fourth book of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ Though the general plot of this book is borrowed from the Sanskṛit, it differs in all except outline, and is nowise inferior to it, but, on the whole, may be pronounced the very best of all the fourteen books into which the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ is divided. The outline is simple, natural, and well preserved; and the stories are vigorous and amusing.

The Sixth book is borrowed from the Fifth book of the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ The First Persian story, of ‘the Devotee and the Ichneumon,’ corresponds to the Second story of the said Sanskrit book; the Second Persian story is the Ninth of the Fifth book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and the Eighth of the Fourth book of the ‘Hitopadesha.’ This is also an excellent book, and decidedly among the best of the fourteen.

The Seventh book is said by Stewart to correspond to the Third book of the ‘Pancha-tantra,’ and I have inserted his remark; but on reference, I cannot find any agreement, and none of the stories are alike.

In the rest of the Books I can trace no connection with the Sanskṛit. The Ninth and the Twelfth are decidedly the dullest and worst written, especially the latter, the plot of which is childish, ridiculous, and unnatural, and full of the most extravagant metaphors and conceits.

It will be seen, from the comparison which has been made, that the first Seven books, forming rather more than two-thirds of the whole work, have been in a greater or less degree borrowed from the Sanskṛit, and chiefly from the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ It is also from the ‘Pancha-tantra’ that translations have been made into most of the vernacular dialects of India, such as Gujaráṭhí, Maráṭhí, Braj-Bháṣhá, Bengálí, etc. It may be here remarked that the ‘Pancha-tantra’ has been generally supposed to be of an age anterior to the ‘Hitopadesha.’ Of course the question does not admit of proof; but on perusing the former book immediately after the latter, it would seem that the ‘Hitopadesha’ is the older of the two, as well from the style as from the greater amplification of the subjects in the ‘Pancha-tantra.’ Be that, however, as it may, it is quite clear that the larger portion of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ has been borrowod from one or other of these Sanskṛit works, and it is unnecessary to proceed to isolated expressions or general reasons for establishing the identity. At the same time it must be acknowledged that many of the stories which are of purely Persian origin, though somewhat different in character, are in no degree inferior to those taken from the the Sanskṛit. Thus the story of ‘the Gardener and the Nightingale,’ the Nineteenth of the First book; that of ‘the Painter and his Mistress,’ the Seventh of the Second book; of ‘the Thief and the Monkey,’ the Second of the Fifth book; of ‘the Farmer’s Wife,’ the Second of the Seventh book; and of ‘the Farmer and the Purse of Gold,’ in the Fourteenth book, are equal to any of the stories in the ‘Hitopadesha’ or ‘Pancha-tantra.’

Having said thus much of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ itself, and of its Sanskṛit originals, it remains that some notice be taken of the Translations which have been made into other languages, and of which the Baron DE SACY has given a full account in the ‘Mémoire Historique’ prefixed to his edition of Calila et Dimna.’ This profound scholar is of opinion, that, after the physician Burzuyah had brought the works of which the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí’ is an expansion, into Persia (see p. 6 of this translation) during the reign of Núshírwán; they were immediately translated into Pahlaví, under the same reign, that is, circa A.D. 570. This version perished, no doubt, in the invasion of the Arabs. At least, no copy has yet been discovered.

The Arabic translation of ’Abdu’lláh bin Al-Muḳaff’a

was made by the person whose name it bears, under the second Khalíf of the ’Abbásís, Manṣúr, (see p. 7 of this translation) between the years 136 – 158 of the Hijrah. This ’Abdu’lláh bin Al-Mukaff’a (wrongly called by many, Al-Muḳann’a, as at p. 7 of this translation) was born in Persia, and was, until converted, by religion, a Fire-worshiper. His father, who was collector of taxes in ’Irák, under Hajjáj bin Yusúf, had been guilty of extortion, and was, therefore, put to the torture, and his hand remaining shrunken in consequence, he got the name of Al-Muḳaff’a, i.e., ‘he that has shriveled hands.’ He was put to death by the Governor of Baṣrah, in accordance with a secret order despatched to him by Manṣúr.

Of the Greek version of Simeon Seth.

This was made towards the close of the eleventh century, by order of the Emperor Alexis Comnenes. It is chiefly remarkable for the substitution of Greek proper names for the Oriental ones. Thus, a king of the rats is called , and three rats, his counsellors, are termed , , and .

Of the Hebrew version attributed to the Rabbi Joël.

Nothing certain is known of the Translator. The version contains two additional Chapters, the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, the former of which, being the story of ‘the Two Swans and the Duck,’ was found by M. de Sacy in one Arabic MS.: the latter, or the story of ‘the Dove and the Fox,’ he was unable to discover in any Arabic version.

Omitting a Syriac version doubtfully mentioned by M. de Sacy, and of which nothing certain is known, we come next to

Rudakí’s Persian Version

(See p. 7 of this translation). This poet, called also Ustád Abú’l Ḥasan, was born blind, and flourished at the court of Sulṭán Naṣr bin Aḥmad, the third prince of the Sámánides, who, it is said, presented him with 80,000 dirams for his metrical version, which, however, seems not to have survived to modern times.

Of the Persian version of Abú’l M’aálí Naṣru’lláh.

This was executed (see p. 8 of this translation) by command of Bahrám Sháh, thirteenth sulṭán of the Ghaznivites, who died A.D. 1151. It is filled with Arabic quotations, and difficult and obsolete words; and its reputation has been entirely lost sight of in the blaze of the more elegant version executed by Ḥusain Vá’iz. As enough has already been said of the latter, we have only further to observe that it was made about the beginning of the 15th century, and proceed to notice

The more modern Persian version, called ‘’Iyár-i Dánish.’

This was made by the celebrated Abú’l-Faẓl, vazír of the renowned Akbar. His intention was to simplify the translation of Ḥusain Vá’iz, and render it more intelligible. He further introduced two Chapters which Ḥusain Vá’iz had retrenched. Of these the one is the Preface or Introduction of the Arabic translator, ’Abdu’lláh bin Al-Muḳaff’a; and the other is the life of Burzuyah before his journey to India to procure the Fables. Abú’l Faẓl seems to have fallen into the error common to many others, of supposing that Buzurjmihr, the Grand Vazír of Núshírwán, and not Burzuyah, was the Pahlaví translator of the book. M. de Sacy has proved, however, that this is not the case.

Mr. Colebrooke says of this version, ‘The ‘’Iyár-i Dánish’ comprises sixteen chapters, ten of which, as Abú’l Faẓl states in his preface, were taken from the Hindí original, entitled ‘Kartak and Damnak,’ and six were added by Buzurjmihr; namely, the four last, containing stories recited by the Bráhman Bídpáí in answer to the questions of King Dábishlím; and the two first, consisting of a preface by Buzurjmihr, with an introduction by Burzuyah. Both these introductory chapters had been omitted by Husain Vá’iz, as foreign to the original work: but he substituted a different beginning, and made other additions, some of which are indicated by him, and the rest are pointed out by Abú’l Faẓl; who has, nevertheless, retained them as appendages not devoid of use, and therefore admissible in a composition intended solely to convey moral instruction. The whole of the dramatic part, including all the dialogue between Dábishlím, King of India, and Bídpáí, a Bráhman of Sarándíp, as well as the finding of Húshang’s legacy, appears to have been added by the translators, although the appellations of the king and of the philosopher, are stated to be of Indian origin. For Abú’l Fazl has inserted the story at the close of the second chapter; after expressly declaring, in one place, that the substance of the work begins with the third; and in another, that the two first were added by the author of the Pahlaví translation.’

Of the Urdú version, entitled Khirad-Afrúz, or, ‘The Illuminator of the Understanding.’

This is a close Hindústání translation of the ‘’Iyár-i Dánish,’ and was made A.D. 1803, by Maulaví Ḥafizu’d-dín, for the use of the College of Fort William, at the suggestion of Dr. Gilchrist. It is written in good plain language, and is a very useful book for students. The editor was Captain Thomas Roebuck, a scholar of extraordinary industry and ability, to whom Urdú literature is much indebted. This translation obtained the highest pecuniary reward ever bestowed at the College.

Of the Turkish Version, called ‘Humáyún Námah;’ or, ‘Imperial Book.’

This was made in the first half of the tenth century of the Hijrah, under the reign of the Emperor Sulaimán I., by ’Alí Chalabí bin Sálih, Professor at Adrianople, in the College founded by Murád II. It is a close translation of the ‘Anvár-i Suhailí,’ but when the Persian verses are obscure, they are often suppressed, and Turkish verses substituted.

There are some other Turkish versions, and amongst them a poetical one by Jamálí.

Of European versions.

The Hebrew version was translated into Latin by John of Capua, towards the close of the fifteenth century, and published under the title of ‘Directorium Humanæ Vitæ, alias Parabole Antiquorum Sapientum;’ and from it several Italian, Spanish, and German translations were made. An Italian imitation of the ‘Directorium,’ ascribed to Doni, was translated into English, and printed in 1570. A Greek version (perhaps that of Sethus) from the Arabic, was edited in 1697, with a Latin interpretation, by Starkius. In French, a part of the Fables appeared in 1644, under the title of ‘Le Livre des Lumières (Anvár-i Suhailí) on la Conduite des Royes;’ the translator is named David Said, of Isfahán. The work was, however, little known in Europe, till Galland, the French translator of the ‘Arabian Nights’ Entertainments,’ undertook a version of the first four chapters from the Turkish of ’Alí Chalabí. The remaining ten chapters were afterwards supplied by Cardonne, Professor of the Persian Language at the Royal College of Paris, from the same original, as appears by the title ‘Contes et Fables Indiennes de Bidpai et de Lokman, traduites d’Ali Tchelebi ben Saleh, auteur Turc.’ The English work, ‘Instructive and Entertaining Fables of Pilpay, an ancient Indian Philosopher,’ of which a fifth edition was published in 1775, is said to have been taken from another French translation, which was made from the Persian and published in 1709.

It only remains that a few words be said of the present translation. [5] It is perhaps the only version of the whole of Ḥusain Vá’iz’s work which pretends to exact faithfulness. The Preface and the First book are much more literal than the remaining parts, and this greater scrupulousness at the beginning is intended for the benefit of students. No difficulty has been intentionally slurred over, and though it cannot be doubted that many mistakes will be found in so long a work, it is hoped that they will be indulgently viewed; and that the labor, at least, which has been expended upon the translation, more especially upon the Verses, which amount to between five and six thousand, will be appreciated. In fact a few words of approbation are the only encouragement that either the Translator or the Publisher can look for; as, so little suited are Oriental works in general to the European palate that, to use the words of Ḥusain Vá’iz (in a somewhat different sense), they would make

‘The market of Egyptian Joseph flat.’

EDWARD B. EASTWICK.

Haileybury, September 28th, 1854.