United States or Nauru ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
It is accordingly not impossible that in our Burzoe chapter there are a few things which have originated not with the Persian physician of old but with Ibn Moqaffa; and this, I presume, as I showed long ago, specially from the disquisition on enquiry into the uncertainty of religions. It appears much more to fit in with Ibn Moqaffa than Burzoe.
The belief in an inexorable fate which is evident in this chapter as well as in the entire portion attributable to Ibn Moqaffa could have been cherished, no doubt, also by a Mazdyasnian. This doctrine, therefore, speaks neither for nor against the authorship of Ibn Moqaffa. Equally far from decisive is the exhortation to pure morality which finds expression there.
Had Ibn Moqaffa, in his own name confessed to such religious doubts publicly no patron could have saved him from capital punishment. On the other hand he ran no risk in ascribing the questionable exposition to the Persian long since dead, who, however, supposing that he harboured such doubts could not have given expression to them as a physician attached to the Imperial Court of Persia.
That language as Hertel has shown was Sanskrit, which fact, however, does not preclude the possibility of an Indian interpreter translating the original text to the Persian who spoke a modern Indian tongue. Several passages speak to the fact that the author of the Introduction is the physician. Why should Ibn Moqaffa pretend that Burzoe earnestly studied medicine and practised it?
I am confirmed in my view that the passage on the unconvincing nature of religions proceeded from Ibn Moqaffa by a few couplets in the Shahnama. The king of India called Kaid has several dreams which are interpreted to him by the sage Mihran.
Again the passage does not fit in with the tenor of the entire section. For Burzoe who was at a loss with regard to the physician's art, the main question is, whether he should or should not become an ascetic, a question which must concern Ibn Moqaffa but little.
The preface by Ala-ibn-Shah or Behbod, which has also been printed by de Sacy, which is found in a few manuscripts and which is not known to the ancient translations is a later and entirely valueless excrescence. The Introduction of Burzoe stood in the Pehlevi work which Ibn Moqaffa had before him.
The suitability of the addenda hardly admits of proof but we may state that Ibn Moqaffa did not simply interpolate but wove them artfully in his text and he might have omitted something here and there.
Moreover, the section is familiar with those principles of Indian medicine of which Ibn Moqaffa could otherwise know little and the exposition of which he had no call to deal with. The entire situation seems to me to harmonise with the circumstances of the Persian physician. Specially noteworthy is the encomium on the Persian sovereign.
This is, however, not equivalent to saying that the Arabic text is an exact replica, down to details, of the original of Burzoe. In the first place it has to be observed that Ibn Moqaffa was no pure translator at all but a regular redactor of his model. His object was to prepare a work suitable to the taste of his highly educated readers and at the same time entertaining and instructive.
Word Of The Day