This story seems to have been written down from recollection
of some of the incidents in the Persian Romance which purports
to recount the adventures of the renowned Hatim et-Ta’í, the
generous Arab chief—a work of uncertain authorship or date.
It was probably written about the end of the 17th or beginning
of the 18th century, as the MS. copy used by Dr. Duncan
Forbes for his English translation, published in 1830, which he
procured in 1824, he considered to be at least a hundred years
old. The opening of our version—if indeed such it may be
styled—is absurdly inconsistent with all that is traditionally
recorded of Hatim. This is how the incident of Hatim and the
Darvesh is related in a Persian story-book, according to Dr.
Jonathan Scott’s rendering in his Tales, Anecdotes, and Letters
from the Arabic and Persian, published in 1800, p. 251:
Hatim had a large storehouse having 70 entrances, at each of
which he used to bestow alms on the poor. After his death
his brother, who succeeded him, wished to imitate his great
example, but his mother dissuaded him from such an attempt,
saying: “My son, it is not in thy nature.” He would not
attend to her advice, upon which she one day, having disguised
herself as a mendicant, came to one of the doors, where her son
relieved her; she went to another door and was relieved once
more; she then went to a third door, when her son said: “I have
given thee twice already, and yet thou importunest me again.”
“Did I not tell thee, my son,” said the mother, discovering
herself, “that thou couldst not equal the liberality of thy
brother? I tried him as I have tried thee, and he relieved me
at each of the 70 doors without asking me a question; but I
knew thy nature and his. When I suckled thee, and one nipple
was in thy mouth, thou didst always hold thy hand upon the
other, but thy brother the contrary.”
It is quite ludicrous to represent Hatim as setting out for
China to see a lady who was declared by a wandering darvesh
to be far more liberal than himself. From the following abstract
of the Romance—which begins where our story ends—it will be
seen that Hatim was actuated by nobler motives in undertaking
his several adventures. The opening of the romance is reproduced
almost in full from Forbes’ translation.
In the kingdom of Khurasan, during the reign of Kardán Sháh,
there lived a worthy merchant, of great dignity, named Burzakh,
who was on intimate terms with the king. He died, leaving an
only daughter as his heir, twelve years of age, and the king took
her under his protection, saying: “She is my daughter.” Husn
Bánú esteemed her wealth as no better than sand, and she began
to distribute it in charity. One day a darvesh, attended by forty
slaves[261] passed her house while she was seated in her balcony.
He was the king’s spiritual guide. Husn Bánú sent a servant to
invite him to an entertainment at her house, and he promised to
come the next day. She prepared for an offering to him nine
suits of silken garments, embroidered with gold, and seven trays
of pure solid gold and baskets of fruit. The pride of this darvesh
was such that he would not touch the earth when he
walked, but had his path paved with bricks of gold and silver,
and on these alone he placed his feet. On entering the house of
Husn Bánú he was presented with trays full of gold and silver.
He was amazed at the display of wealth, and resolved that very
night to seize the treasure. Accordingly he and his forty slaves
broke into the house, killed such as resisted them, and carried
off all the treasure. Husn Bánú and her nurse, concealed in the
lattice, saw the thieves and knew them. Next day, she complained
to the king that the darvesh had robbed her house.
This the king refused to believe, calling the darvesh the most
holy man of the age; but she declared that he was the fiend of
the age. Upon this the king in a rage ordered Husn Bánú and
her attendants to be stoned to death, as a warning to others.
But the chief minister reminded him that she was the daughter
of Burzakh the merchant, and that by putting her to death he
would estrange the hearts of his subjects. So the king spared
her life, but caused her to be expelled from the city.
In the desert, under a shady tree, Husn Bánú and her old
nurse fell asleep; and in a dream a man appeared to Husn Bánú,
and told her that beneath that tree was buried the treasure of
the seven regions, hidden there by the King of Truth, for her
sake, and she was to arise and take possession thereof. “I am
a woman,” she replied, “and how can I bring it out of the
earth?” The apparition said: “Dig the earth with a little
spade: let the means be applied by thee, and God will grant
success. Moreover, no one is able forcibly to deprive thee of
the treasure. Arise and build a city on this spot.” Husn
Bánú having told of her dream to her nurse, they both set to
work and dug with a piece of wood, when instantly they saw
a pit full of yellow gold, chests full of jewels, cups full of rubies,
and costly pearls the size of ducks’ eggs. Husn Bánú rendered
thanks to the Most High, then giving some gold to her nurse
desired her to return to the city and fetch food and raiment,
architects and labourers. Just then her foster-brother, in a
mendicant’s garb, passed by, and he recognised her. Telling
him how God had given her wealth again, she requested him to
bring thither his relations.
The foster-brother soon returned with a builder named
Mu’amír. She bids him begin to build a city, but he explains
that the king’s permission must be first obtained. So Husn Bánú
dresses herself in man’s apparel, and takes for a present a cup
full of rubies and a casket full of brilliant jewels. She gives
valuable gifts to the king’s officers, representing herself as a
merchant newly arrived from abroad and desirous of offering
presents to the king. His majesty is astonished to see the
priceless gifts and asks: “Sir, whence art thou?” She replies
that her father was a merchant of Irán, who died at sea; that
she was an orphan and without kindred; had heard of his good
qualities; had pitched tents in a tract of desert, and desired leave
to build a city there. The king presents her with a dress of
honour and adopts her as his son; and suggests that she should
rather build her city near the capital and call it Sháhábád
(i.e. king’s city). But Husn Bánú prefers the desert, so the king
gives her the required permission.
The city was built in about two years, and Husn Bánú
visited the king once every month. One day he tells her that he
is about to visit his darvesh and prevails on her to accompany
him. She invites the darvesh to her house, and on his consenting
she observes: “But my house is far distant, and in the capital
there is the unoccupied house of Burzakh the merchant.” The
king makes it over to her as a free gift. Finding her father’s
house has fallen to decay, she has it repaired and furnished
splendidly. On the day appointed the darvesh came, and he
declined the jewels offered to him by Husn Bánú, who had also
displayed vast wealth throughout the apartment; and even at the
banquet he pretended that he could not partake of dainty dishes.
When the darvesh and his attendants had taken their leave,
Husn Bánú caused all the golden dishes, etc. to be left as at
the banquet, and warned the captain of the watch that she had
reason to fear being robbed. At night the darvesh and his
forty slaves entered the house, and having tied up the valuables
in bundles were about to be off with their plunder—the
darvesh himself carrying a cup full of rubies in his hand—when
the night watch rushed in, seized and secured the robbers, and
laid them in prison. Next day when the king opened his court
Husn Bánú appeared,[262] and the kutwál brought the prisoners,
each with his bundle of booty hanging from his neck, and made
his report. The king thought the leader of the gang resembled a
certain darvesh. Thereupon Husn Bánú told her story, and the
king ordered all the robbers to be instantly put to death. Her
father’s property, of which she had been formerly robbed, was
found in the house of the darvesh, and she presented it all to the
king. Soon after this occurrence the king visited Husn Bánú at
Sháhábád, and she gave him much gold; then pointing out
the source of her wealth desired him to cause his attendants to
convey it to his own treasury. But when they began to handle
the gold, it turned into serpents and dragons, which convinced
the king that it was devoted to her sole use. She built a house
for the entertainment of travellers, each of whom received a
handsome present on leaving, and the fame of her generosity
was noised abroad.
Husn Bánú, being young, beautiful, and passing rich, had of
course many suitors for her hand in marriage, and she one day
consulted with her nurse as to the best means of securing
herself from the importunity of worldly men. The nurse said
she had seven questions (or tasks), which Husn Bánú should
propose to every suitor, and he who complied with the terms
which they embraced should be her husband, to which she
agreed. Her fame being spread far and wide, Prince Munir,
the son of the king of Kharizm, sent a painter to draw her
portrait, which he did from the reflection of her face in a vessel
full of water[263] and brought it to the prince, who on seeing it
became quite frantic from love, and that same night he set out
privily for Sháhábád. Obtaining an interview with Husn Bánú
and declaring his passion, she replied: “You must first answer
me seven questions. There is a man who constantly exclaims:
‘What I once saw I long to see a second time.’ Inform me
where he lives and what he saw, and then I will put the second
question.” The prince takes his leave and wanders about all
sad at heart. He is met by Hatim Taï, who learns from him
the cause of his evident sorrow, and undertakes to perform the
task for him. Having entertained the prince for three days,
Hatim takes him back to Sháhábád, and they go into the
caravanserai there; but Hatim refusing both the food and the
gold always presented to travellers, he is taken before Husn
Bánú, who asks him the reason of this strange conduct. Hatim
only desires to look at her face. She tells him that he must
first bring her the solution of seven questions, to which Hatim
agrees, on the condition that she would become at his disposal
in the event of his succeeding, which condition was at once
written and signed and confirmed by witnesses. Then Hatim,
leaving the love-struck prince at the caravanserai, sets out to
obtain an answer to Husn Bánú’s First Question.
After many surprising adventures, Hatim at length reaches a
desert where an old man is crying: “What I once saw I long
to see a second time,” and learns from him that once he was
walking on the border of a lake, when he saw a damsel who
took him by the hand and leaped with him into the water,
whereupon he found himself in a magnificent garden and beheld
a lovely female form closely veiled; and on venturing to raise
the veil he was instantly struck to the ground, and opening his
eyes found himself in that desert, where he had ever since
wandered about, restless and forlorn, wishing to see that beauteous
fairy once more. Hatim—for whom nothing was too
difficult, for he had all sorts of talismans—conducts the old
man to the fairy, after which he returns with the required
information to Husn Bánú.
His Second Adventure is to ascertain why a man has above
his door these words: “Do good, and cast it on the water;” who
he is, and where his house is situated. In the course of this
expedition he performs three additional tasks in order to obtain
for another distracted lover the daughter of a merchant for his
wife, the second of which is: Who is the man that cries every
Friday and why does he cry: “I have done nothing that will
benefit me this night”? Hatim comes to a sand-hill (having
been directed to the spot by the grateful inhabitants of a town,
whose lives he had saved by slaying a man-eating monster), and
hears the voice. As he advances he discovers a number of the
dead rising out of their graves, with angelic countenances and
apparelled in splendid robes—all save one, who was covered
with dust and ashes and sat on the cold ground, while the others
sat on thrones drinking nectar, and never gave him to drink
thereof. This wight sighed heavily and exclaimed: “Alas, I
have not done that which might benefit me this night!” He tells
Hatim that he was a merchant and those around him had been
his servants. He was a great miser, but his servants fed the
hungry and clothed the naked. On a journey a gang of robbers
attacked and murdered him and all his followers. “Here they
rest as martyrs—they are crowned with glory, while I am
plunged in misery. In the capital of China, my native country,
are my grandchildren living in abject poverty. In a certain
chamber of my house is buried an immense treasure, of which
no living man has knowledge.” Hatim inquires whether it was
possible for him to minister to his relief. “Proceed to the
capital of China,” says the miser’s shade, “and find out my
house. My name is Yúsuf, and in my day I was well known in
all parts of the city. Seek my descendants; tell them of the
treasure; divide it into four equal portions; bestow one portion
on my grandchildren, and the other three on the poor of the city;
then perhaps my case may be ameliorated.” Hatim goes at
once to the capital of China, but before he is allowed to enter
he must answer three questions put to every stranger by the
governor’s daughter. Of course Hatim gives correct solutions
of the enigmas, and then complies with the directions of the
miser’s ghost.
He now addresses himself seriously to the solution of the
Second Question of Husn Bánú, but he has many wondrous
experiences before he comes at length to the bank of a large
river, on which is a lofty mansion of stone, and over the door is
written the motto: “Do good, and cast it on the water.”
Ushered by attendants into the house, Hatim sees a venerable
man of a hundred years seated upon a throne, who receives him
with great courtesy and causes him to be supplied with refreshments.
When Hatim asks the meaning of the motto over the
door, the old man relates his history: In his youth he was
a great robber, yet every day he made two large loaves mixed
with sweet oil and sugar, which he threw into the river, saying:
“This I give away, to propitiate Heaven.” One day, continues
the old robber, “I was seized with a sickness and I thought
a man grasped me by the hand and pointing to the infernal
regions said: ‘There is the place destined for thee.’ But two
youths, divinely fair, came up and laid hold of me, saying:
‘We will not permit this man to be cast into hell, sinful though
he has been. His future state is in Paradise, and thither let us
carry him.’” They conveyed him accordingly to the regions of
bliss, and an angel of exalted rank telling them that he had a
hundred years yet to live, they brought him back to his house, and
explained that they were the two loaves he was wont to cast
into the water for fishes to feed on. His health was at once
restored and he made two loaves as before. When he went
to cast them into the water he found a hundred dínars, which
he took up and carried to the village, where he caused it to
be proclaimed that such a sum of money had been found, but
no one came to claim it. Next day when he went to the river
with the two loaves he found another hundred dínars, and this
continued till the eve of the eleventh day, when a man appeared
to him in the visions of the night and said: “Servant of the
Almighty, thy two loaves have pleaded thy cause in heaven:
the merciful Creator has forgiven thy sins. The dínars which
thou receivest are for thy subsistence, and what is superfluous
do thou bestow in charity.” Since then the old robber had
built that mansion and written the motto over the door, and
every day when he went to throw the loaves into the river he
found a hundred dínars.[264]
Hatim returns with this story to Husn Bánú, and she forthwith
despatches him on his Third Adventure: “There is a
man who constantly cries: ‘Injure no one; if you do, evil will
overtake you.’ Find out where that man lives, what injury he
has done, and what evil has overtaken him.” After having performed
a difficult task on behalf of a despairing lover whom he
met on his way, Hatim at length, aided by a band of fairy
troops, arrives at the outskirts of Himyar, where he hears a
voice crying these words, and discovers a blind man confined in
a cage, which is suspended from a branch of a tree. Hatim
having promised to mend his condition and relieve him, the
blind man related his history, as follows:
“I am by occupation a merchant, and my name is Hamír.
When I became of age, my father had finished the building of
this city, and he called the same after my name. Shortly after
my father departed on a sea voyage and left me in charge of the
city. I was a free-hearted and social young man, and so in a
short time expended all the property left under my care by my
father. Thus I became surrounded with poverty and want; and
as I knew that my father had hidden treasures somewhere in his
house I resolved to discover them if possible. I searched everywhere,
but found nothing; and, to complete my woe, I received
the news of my father’s death, the ship in which he sailed being
wrecked.
“One day as I was sauntering, mournful and dejected,
through the bazár, I espied a learned man who cried out: ‘If
any one has lost his money by theft or otherwise, my knowledge
of the occult sciences enables me to recover the same, but on
condition that I receive one fourth of the amount.’ When I
heard this seasonable proclamation, I immediately approached
the man of science, and stated to him my sad condition and
how I had been reduced from affluence to poverty. The sage
undertook to restore my wealth, and above all to discover the
treasures concealed in my father’s house. I conducted him to
the house and showed him every apartment, which he carefully
examined one after another. At length by his art he discovered
the stores we were in search of; and when I saw the gold and
silver and other valuables, which exceeded calculation, the
demon of fraud entered my heart, and I refused to fulfil my
promise of giving a fourth of the property to the man of wisdom.
I offered him only a few small pieces of silver; instead of
accepting which, he stood for a few moments in silent meditation,
and with a look of scorn said: ‘Do I thus receive the
fourth part of your treasure, which you agreed to give me?
Base man, of what perjury are you guilty!’ On hearing this I
became enraged, and having struck him several blows on the
face I expelled him from my house. In a few days, however,
he returned, and so far ingratiated himself into my confidence,
that we became intimate friends; and night and day he displayed
before my sight the various hidden treasures contained within
the bowels of the earth. One day I asked him to instruct me in
this wonderful science, to which he answered that no instruction
was requisite. ‘Here,’ said he, ‘is a composition of surma,
and whoever applies the same to his eyes, to him will all the
wealth of this world become visible.’[265] ‘Most learned sir,’ I
replied, ‘if you will anoint my eyes with this substance, I promise
to share with you the half of all such treasures as I may
discover.’ ‘I agree,’ said my friend: ‘meanwhile let us
retire to the desert, where we shall be free from interruption.’
“We immediately set out, and when we arrived here I was
surprised at seeing this cage, and asked my companion whose it
was. I received for answer, that it belonged to no one. In
short, we both sat down at the foot of this tree, and the sage,
having produced the surma from his pocket, began to apply it to
my eyes. But, alas! no sooner had he applied this composition
than I became totally deprived of sight. In a voice of sorrow I
asked him why he had thus treated me, and he replied: ‘Such
is the reward of treachery; and if you wish to recover your sight,
you must for some time undergo penance in this cage. You
must utter no complaint and you shall exclaim from time to
time: “Do no evil to any one; if you do, evil will befall you.”’
I entreated the sage to relieve me, saying: ‘You are a mere
mortal like myself, and dare you thus torment a fellow-creature?
How will you account for your deeds to the Supreme Judge?’
He answered: ‘This is the reward of your treachery.’ Seeing
him inexorable, I begged of him to inform me when and how my
sight was to be restored; and he told me, that a noble youth
should one day visit me, and to him I was to make known my
condition, and farther state that in the desert of Himyar there is
a certain herb called the Flower of Light, which the youth was
to procure and apply to my eyes, by means of which my sight
should be restored.
“It is now three years since he left me in this prison, which,
though quite open, I cannot quit. Were I to attempt to leave
my confinement, I should feel the most excruciating pain in my
limbs, so as not to have the power of moving, and thus I am
compelled to remain. One day, shortly after my companion
left me, I reflected that I could do nothing for myself while I
continued like a bird in this cage, and accordingly resolved to
quit it at all hazards; but the moment I was outside of it the
pain that seized my whole body almost killed me. I immediately
returned to my prison, and have since that time resigned
myself to my fate, exclaiming at stated times the words which
have attracted your attention. Many people have passed by me,
but on learning my condition they left me as they found me.”
When the man in the cage had ended his story, Hatim bade
him be of good cheer, for he would at once endeavour to relieve
him. By the aid of the fairies who had conducted him thither
and now carry him through the air for the space of seven days, he
arrives in the desert where the Flowers of Light shine brilliant as
lamps on a festival night, diffusing the sweetest perfume far and
wide; and, recking naught for the serpents, scorpions, and other
beasts of prey which infest the place (for he was guarded by a
powerful talisman), he advances and plucks three of the largest
and most brilliant flowers. Returning in the same manner as he
had come, he reaches the spot where the blind man Hamír is
imprisoned. Taking down the cage, he releases the wretched
man, compresses the stalk of the flower so that the juice should
drop upon his sightless eyeballs, and when this has been
repeated three times Hamír opens his eyes, and, seeing Hatim,
falls prostrate at his feet with a profusion of thanks.
The Fourth Adventure is: “Who is the man that has this
motto over his door: ‘He who speaks the truth is always
tranquil’; wherein has he spoken the truth, and what degree of
tranquility does he enjoy in consequence?” Passing through
regions of enchantment, Hatim then comes to a city, and discovers
the motto written above the gate of a splendid mansion.
He enters and is received graciously by an old man, who
entertains him hospitably. Next day he relates his story: He is
eight hundred years old. In youth he was a great gambler, and
having lost all his substance he became a robber. One night
he broke into the king’s palace, entered one of the chambers,
where the daughter of the king was sleeping, and seizing all her
jewels and a golden lamp that burned beside her he made his
escape. He fled to a desert, where he found a gang of thieves
dividing their plunder, to whom he showed his own booty, and
their avarice was aroused so that they were proceeding to take
it from him by force, when a tremendous voice was heard close
by, at which they ran off in different directions. Presently a
figure appeared before him and demanded: “Who art thou?”
He told his story. “’Tis well for thee,” said the figure,
“that thou hast related the whole truth; therefore I forgive thy
crime, and leave the treasure to thy enjoyment. But swear
never to gamble again.” He took the required oath. “Well,
keep thy oath, and the years of thy life shall reach nine hundred.”
Returning to the city with his plunder, his comrades envied his
prosperity, and reported him to the chief of the police, who
brought him before the king, to whom he told the whole truth
as to the source of his wealth, and the king pardoned him and
gave him more gold. Then he wrote that motto over his door.
Hatim’s Fifth Adventure is to bring an account of Mount
Nida, whence a voice from time to time proceeds, crying:
“Come quickly!” Whereupon one of the citizens in the
neighbourhood is seized with an uncontrollable frenzy, rushes
away to the mountain and is seen no more. This strange
occurrence Hatim learns is the manner in which the inhabitants
taste of death: when the doomed person approached a rock it
split asunder, and as soon as he had entered the opening it closed
behind him and his soul quitted his body.
The Sixth Adventure is to procure Husn Bánú a pearl
similar to one she already possesses, which is as large as a duck’s
egg. Hatim learns from the conversation of a pair of Nitka
birds that their species used to “lay” such pearls once in thirty
years, but this faculty had ceased since the days of Solomon; that
only two were on the face of the earth now (all others being at
the bottom of the sea), one being in the possession of Husn Bánú,
the other in the treasury of a fairy, who has an only daughter:
he who can tell the history of that pearl (which Hatim has heard
from the well-informed birds) shall have her in marriage and the
pearl for her dowry. Needless to add that Hatim is successful in
his quest, bestows the young fairy on her lover, who had been
unable to comply with her father’s condition, and returns with
the pearl to Husn Bánú.
Hatim’s Seventh Adventure, and the last, is to bring the
lady an account of the bath of Badgird—an enchanted palace
erected for the preservation of a peerless and priceless diamond
by its owner, a powerful magician. The stone is in the body of a
parrot, Hatim is told by a bird of the same species before
entering the hall, and whoever enters shall never return unless he
obtain possession of the gem. He will find a bow and three
arrows laid on a sofa in the hall, and must shoot the arrows at
the parrot, and if he hit right through its head he will break the
spell, but if not, he will, like all others before him, be turned
to marble. Nothing daunted, Hatim shoots one arrow, and,
missing, he becomes marble up to his knees; the second arrow
also missing, he becomes marble up to his middle; but (placing
his reliance in God) when he shoots the third arrow it pierces the
head of the parrot and it falls lifeless to the ground. This
achievement is immediately followed by a storm of wind, thunder,
lightning—darkness. And Hatim can see no palace or parrot,
but at his feet are the bow and arrow and a diamond of dazzling
brilliance. No sooner had Hatim seized the diamond than
all the marble statues started into life, being freed from the spell
of the enchanter.
Returning to Sháhábád, Hatim presented the diamond to
Husn Bánú, and, as he had now fulfilled all her conditions, she
was straightway married to Prince Munir, who thus reached the
summit of happiness. Hatim then returned to the capital of
Yaman, where he was affectionately received by his father and
mother, and his arrival was hailed with universal joy, while
every house resounded with music and mirth. Shortly after this
Hatim’s father resigned the reins of government into his hand
and lived in retirement for the remainder of his life, which
amounted to twelve years, seven months, and nine days. Hatim
reigned long and happily in Yaman.[266]
Such is the substance of the wonderful Adventures of Hatim
Taï, though I have necessarily omitted many details and some
rather curious incidents: like a tale in the Arabian Nights, out
of which spring several other tales, each of Hatim’s expeditions
led him on to others, which had to be accomplished before
he could attain the end for which he originally set out. He
undergoes some extraordinary experiences, too, such as being
swallowed alive and unhurt by a dragon of such monstrous
dimensions that he kept tramping to and fro in its stomach till it
was at last obliged, for its internal peace, to eject him and be off;
dipping his hand into a lake in order to drink of the waters, and
finding it instantly turned into pure silver—where, O where is
that lake?—and coming to another, which had the property of
restoring the argentine member to flesh and blood; not to speak
of the scenes of enchantment, which indeed seem to have been
begot of hashish or a like narcotic. With all its absurdities,
however, the morale of the romance is excellent: the hero goes
about constantly doing good; benevolent towards bird and
beast as well as to mankind; feeding the hungry, relieving the
distressed, and binding up the broken heart.—This work is still
a first favourite among the Persians, who continue to entertain a
firm belief in dívs, parís, and many other kinds of spirits, good
and evil.
Of the three stories which are interwoven with our tale of
Hatim and the Benevolent Lady but one is represented in the
Romance, that of the Blind Man, namely, but the details are
very different in the two versions.
begins with an account of a fight which he witnessed in his
garden between a white snake and a black snake, and seeing the
former was about to succumb he slew the black snake. This
incident also occurs in the Romance, when Hatim is returning
from his second expedition, only the magnanimous hero does not
kill—or even scotch—the black snake: he simply shouts, when it
lets go its hold of the other and wriggles off. The white snake
then becomes a handsome young man, and tells Hatim that he
is the son of a king of the jinn, that the black snake is his
father’s slave, and bears a most deadly enmity towards himself,
and so forth—an incident found in many Asiatic story-books.
The Painter’s subsequent experiences in the subaqueous palace
of the king of the jinn do not occur in the romance, though
the story is known to several collections, and, introduced by
the incident of the two snakes, it is found, as follows, in
Turkish Evening Entertainments, a translation,[267] by J. P.
Brown, of a Turkish story-book entitled ’Ajá’ib el-ma’ásir wa
ghara’ib en-nawádir (Wonders of Remarkable Incidents and
Rarities of Anecdote), by Ahmed ibn Hemden, the Ketkhoda,
surnamed Suhaylí (i.e. Canopus), who composed it for Murád,
the fourth Ottoman sultan, who reigned between A.D. 1623
and A.D. 1640:
In ancient times the sovereign of the country of Sabá was a
man called Yeshrah. One day, when this excellent prince was
travelling, he came to an extensive plain where were two
serpents resembling frightful dragons. One of these was white,
the other black. They were entwined around each other in
desperate conflict, and the white one had received a wound in
a most tender part of its body. The black serpent being thus
victorious, the strength of the white one was exhausted; it could
move no more, and the black one wreaked its vengeance upon
the helpless animal. King Yeshrah, touched with pity, went to
the assistance of the white snake, and aided it in its conquered
state. He placed a diamond-pointed arrow in his bow, and,
taking aim at the black snake, he let fly and instantly killed it.
The white snake, thus released, crawled away.
One day the king received a visit from a youth of a handsome
exterior, who informed him that he belonged to the race of the
jinn, and was the white serpent rescued by him. The youth
then made proffers of service to the king, which he declined,
upon which he offered the king his sister in marriage. The
king, enchanted by her beauty, accepted her, and the marriage
took place on the king undertaking to consent to everything
which his wife did, were it good or evil. Soon after the birth of
his first son, a dog approached the queen, who suddenly cast
the child into the dog’s mouth, and the dog ran away with it,
to the king’s great grief. Their next child, a girl, the queen
cast into a brazier, where the infant was immediately consumed.
The king was now exceedingly afflicted; but the birth of a
second daughter, who was so delicately beautiful on account of her
resembling the húrís of Paradise that she was called Bilkís, somewhat
reconciled him to his loss. The king implored her not to
treat this child as she had done the two others, for which she
severely rebuked him.
Soon after this a powerful enemy attacked the king, and his
own vazír, secretly allying himself with the enemy, poisoned the
provisions designed for the king’s army. The queen destroyed
the provisions, at which the king in wrath demanded her reason.
The queen explained the affair to her husband, and gave the
remaining bread to an animal which fell dead after eating it.
She then said that the king having broken the condition made
on his marriage with her, all intercourse must now cease between
them, and informed him that the son thrown to the dog was still
alive, and had been brought up by a nurse in that form, and that
the daughter was also in perfect health, nursed by the fire.
Beseeching him to be mindful of their daughter Bilkís, who
should succeed to the throne and become a great and illustrious
queen, and promising to send to his succour an army of jinn-soldiers,
she disappeared from the king’s sight for ever. The
troops of jinn came to his assistance as promised, routed the
enemy’s forces, and restored the king to his throne. But still
he was afflicted by the loss of his wife. At length the fatal
moment arrived, and he died; and his daughter Bilkís succeeded
him on the throne, and her history has been written elsewhere
in a detailed manner.
Thus, if we may place any credit in the foregoing story, the
thrice-renowned Queen of Sheba was jinn-born: no wonder,
therefore, if she was a miracle of beauty and wisdom! It does
not appear, however, why her fairy-mother did not dispose of
her soon after she was born, in the same extraordinary manner
as she “made away” with her previous babes.—Regarding the
notion that when a human being unites with one of a supernatural
order there are certain conditions always imposed by the
latter, the breaking of which must result in their separation,
generally temporary, I take leave to refer the reader to my
Popular Tales and Fictions, vol. i, p. 212 ff.
In more or less different forms the same story is found in the
following works: in Les Mille et un Jours, which purports to
have been translated, by Petis de la Croix, from a Persian
collection entitled Hazár ú Yek Rúz, the Thousand and one
Days, by a darvesh named Mukhlis, of Isfahán, from whom
M. Petis obtained a copy in 1675, where it is entitled “Histoire
du Roi Ruzvanschad et de la Princesse Cheheristani,” but in
this version the king’s fairy-wife leaves him only for a time; in a
Turkish story-book, entitled Al-Faraj ba’d al-Shiddah, Joy
after Distress, a work written not later than the 15th century;[268]
and in a collection described by Dr. Chas. Rieu in his Catalogue
of Persian MSS. in the British Museum, vol. ii, p. 759, Or. 237,
which has no specific title, the compiler, whose poetical name
was Hubbí, merely calling his work, Hikáyát-i’Agíb ú Gharíb,
Wonderful and Strange Tales. In this last work, the MS. of
which is unfortunately imperfect, the final story, No. 34, relates
how a king of Yaman, while hunting, saw two snakes, a white
one and a black one, engaged in deadly combat. He sends an
attendant to kill the black snake and rescue the white one,
which was half dead; which being done, he causes the rescued
snake to be laid down beside a spring of water, under the shade
of a tree. The snake rallies, and after a while crawls away.
When the king is asleep at night, the wall of his chamber
suddenly opens and a fair youth appears. “I am,” says he,
“the king of the parís (fairies). You rescued me from the
black snake. I am now come to requite your kind act. If
you wish it, I will make you rich with many treasures.” No
more of the MS. remains,[269] but it is not unlikely that the sequel
was similar to that of the Turkish story cited above.
The battle between the two snakes, which is found so often
reproduced in Arabian and Persian story-books—though I cannot
recollect having met with it in any Indian collection—seems
reflected in two incidents in the Voyage of Saint Brandan. One
day the saint and his companions discover a monstrous sea-serpent
on the surface of the water, exhaling fire from its nostrils,
as it were the roaring flame of a furnace; and while the pious
voyagers could not measure its length they were more successful
with its breadth, which was “full fifteen feet, I trow”; presently
a monster of the same species appears, and a terrific combat takes
place between the two, until one is torn by his antagonist into
three pieces, when the victor sinks down into the sea. After
this they see a deadly conflict in the air between a griffin and a
dragon.—It is well known to students of the history of popular
fictions that many Eastern tales and incidents had found their
way into Western literature long before the collection commonly
but incorrectly called the Arabian Nights, in its existing form,
was compiled.
Among the countless absurdities abounding in the Toldoth
Jeshu, a scurrilous “life” of Jesus Christ of Jewish invention—the
text of which, with a Latin translation, is given at the end of the
second volume of Wagenseil’s Tela Ignea Satanæ, 1681—is an
aërial conflict between Jeshu and Rabbi Judas before Queen
Helena: “And when Jeshu had spoken the incommunicable
Name,[270] there came a wind and raised him between heaven and
earth. Thereupon Judas spake the same Name, and the wind
raised him also between heaven and earth. And they flew, both
of them, around in the regions of the air, and all who saw it
marvelled. Judas then spake again the Name, and seized
Jeshu and sought to cast him to the earth. But Jeshu also
spake the Name, and sought to cast Judas down, and they
strove one with the other.” Ultimately Judas prevails and
casts Jeshu to the ground, and the elders seize him; his power
leaves him; and he is subjected to the tauntings of his captors.
Being rescued by his disciples, he hastened to the Jordan; and
when he had washed therein his power returned, and with the
Name he again wrought his former miracles.[271] This “story”—to
employ the term in its nursery sense—strongly resembles the
equally apocryphal legend of the aërial contest at Rome between
St. Peter and Simon Magus, in which the apostle overthrew
the magician.
calls for but slight remark. The fairies who alighted in succession
on the tree in the form of doves, and putting off their
feather-dress appeared as the most beautiful damsels, belong, of
course, to the Bird-Maiden class, and the Washerman, by his
own showing, did not deserve to possess any one of them.
Could he have decided—but perhaps the trial was too much for
him—he might have secured even the last and most bewitching
of the three, by taking possession of her feather-robe, when she
would have no alternative but to follow him wheresoever he
might go: but evidently he did not know this. (See the
chapter on “Bird-Maidens” in my Popular Tales and Fictions,
vol. i. p. 182 ff.)
differs considerably from its representative in the Romance, the
story of the blind man Hamír in the cage (ante p. 464ff.); and
it is also observable that in our story Hatim does nothing to
mitigate the poor man’s wretchedness. Both versions agree in
treasure being found in a dwelling house; but in our story it is
the geomancer who is the blind man, and his eyes are blinded in
mistake by a vindictive neighbour of the friend whom he thought
to entrap;—while in the other story it is the man in whose house
the treasure was discovered who is blinded by the geomancer, in
revenge of the ill-treatment he had received at his hands; and it
is by the application of surma to his eyes, by means of which he
expected to behold all the hidden treasure of the world, that he
is deprived of sight. The analogous tale in our common version
of the Arabian Nights, of the Blind Man Baba Abdullah (it has
not yet been found in any Arabic text of the collection), is
wholly different in all its details until it reaches the catastrophe,
when the greedy cameleer, after getting back from the darvesh
all his share of the treasure, returns to request the box of salve,
which, after having had applied to his left eye and thereby been
enabled to see all concealed treasure, he insists—in spite of the
repeated warning of the darvesh—on being also applied to his
right eye, whereupon he instantly becomes stone-blind. Widely
as the three stories differ one from the other, in details, however,
it is very evident, I think, that they have been independently
adapted from a common source.
The very climax of absurdity is surely reached by the author of
our version of the story of Hatim when he represents the
benevolent Lady as saying (p. 50) that she is so jealous of the
wide-spread fame of Hatim for liberality that she wishes him to
be killed; and when, on his return, she reproaches him for not
having brought her Hatim’s head, he replies that he is himself
Hatim and that his head is at her disposal, whereupon the lady,
struck with such magnanimity, at once consents to marry him.
According to tradition, an enemy of Hatim despatched one of
his officers to slay him and bring his head. When he reached
the encampments of the tribe of Ta’í, he was courteously greeted
by an Arab, and invited into his tent, where he was treated
most hospitably; and in the morning he told his host that he
had been sent thither by his master to slay Hatim and bring
back his head. The host smilingly replied: “I am Hatim; and
if my head will gratify your master, smite it off without delay.”
The man hastened away in confusion; and returning to his
master told him of his adventure, and the enemy of Hatim ever
afterwards loved and esteemed him.—This seems to be the
tradition adapted so incongruously by our author.
The idea of our tale of Hatim and the Benevolent Lady may
have been partly taken from the Story of the Third Darvesh
in the Persian work, Kissa-i Chehár Darvesh (Romance of the
Four Darveshes), an anonymous book, of uncertain date,[272] where
the narrator, a Persian prince, tells how he tried to imitate the
generosity of Hatim, by causing a great palace to be erected
with four gates, at each of which he distributed gold and silver
to all comers. One day a wandering darvesh receives money at
each of the gates in succession, and then begins to beg again
at the first gate, upon which the prince upbraids him for his
greediness, and the darvesh retorts, as in our story, that there is
a lady to whose liberality there is absolutely no bound. The
prince learns that this generous lady is the princess of Basra,
and donning the robe of a darvesh he sets out for that city,
where he is sumptuously entertained for several days by the
servants of the princess, after which he writes her a letter,
declaring his rank and offering her marriage. He is told that
the princess has resolved to marry only him who should bring
her the explanation of the singular conduct of a youth in the city
of Namrúz who appeared once a month riding on a bull, carrying
a vase of gold and jewels in his hand, which he smashed in
the market-place, and then smote off the head of one of his
slaves, immediately afterwards riding away again, foaming at the
mouth. The royal mendicant undertakes to ascertain the cause
of the youth’s madness (he proves to be in love with a fairy, like
the Painter in our tale), and before setting out for Namrúz is
admitted into the private chamber of the princess, who is concealed
behind a curtain, where a slave-girl relates the history of
her mistress: how she was one of seven daughters of a king, and
was driven out of the palace because she would not acknowledge
that she derived her good fortune from her father, but maintained
that it was from God. In the wilderness she meets a darvesh,
and discovers underground immense treasures, and so forth.—This
story of the princess of Basra is one of the numerous
parallels or analogous tales cited by my friend Mr. E. Sidney
Hartland in a very able and interesting paper on the “Outcast
Child” cycle, in the Folk-Lore Journal, 1886, vol. iv, p. 308 ff.
The latter part of this tale—where the merchant Sadullah
befriends the imprudent prince, bestows his own wife on him,
afterwards becomes ruined in fortune, and visits the now prosperous
sovereign, on whom he had lavished such favours (pp.
89-97)—has long been current in Europe as well as in the East,
in various forms. It occurs in the collection of Persian Tales
translated into French by Petis de la Croix, under the title of
Les Mille et un Jours (first published in 1710-12, 5 vols.),
where it is entitled: “Histoire de Nasiraddole, roi de Mousel;
d’Abderrahmane, marchand de Baghdad; et de la belle Zeineb,”
and it is to the following effect:
A rich young merchant named Abd er-Rahman, meets with a
stranger in a confectioner’s shop in Baghdád, and the two soon
become very intimate friends. After some time the stranger
informs the merchant that he must now return to Mosúl.
The merchant says that he himself may soon have to visit that
town, and begs to know his friend’s name, so that he may be
able to inquire for him there. The stranger bids him to come
and see him at the palace. Abd er-Rahman goes to Mosúl on
business and discovers that the stranger is no less a personage
than King Nasír ad-Dole, who is delighted to see him and entertains
him in the palace for a whole year, after which he returns
to Baghdád, the king parting with him very reluctantly.
Arrived in Baghdád, the merchant regales his friends and
acquaintances in the most sumptuous manner, and purchases
a number of slave-girls, with one of whom, a Circassian beauty
called Zaynib, he becomes greatly enamoured. The king of
Mosúl comes again to Baghdád, without attendants, and is the
honoured and cherished guest of his friend the merchant Abd er-Rahman.
One day the king boasts of some beautiful slave-girls
in his haram in Mosúl, when the merchant, inflamed with wine,
leads the king into an inner apartment, magnificently furnished,
where are seated thirty lovely damsels, adorned profusely with
the rarest diamonds. The king is perfectly amazed on beholding
the peerless beauty of Zaynib, and on the following day, in a
melancholy tone, informs his friend that he intends returning at
once to Mosúl. “Has your majesty aught to complain of, that
you have formed this sudden resolution?” the merchant inquired
anxiously. “All my complaint,” replied the king, “is of my
destiny”; but when he is about to depart his friend learns from
him that he is desperately in love with the fair Zaynib, and then
the king takes his leave and sets out for Mosúl. Abd er-Rahman
then reflects that he should not have shown Zaynib to the king,
who must now lead a sorrowful life. At length he resolves to
send the damsel to his royal friend, and, having ordered her
litter to be prepared, sends for Zaynib and tells her that she does
not now belong to him, but to the king of Mosúl, whom she
saw yesterday;—“he is in love with you, and is himself lovely.”
Zaynib bursts into tears and exclaims: “Ah, you no longer love
me—some other damsel has taken your heart from me!” “Not
so,” says he. “I swear that I have never loved you so much as
I do at this moment.” “Why, then, do you part with me?”
“Because I cannot bear the thought of my friend’s sorrow.”
So a number of attendants are sent with Zaynib to Mosúl, but
the king had arrived there before them. When she is ushered
into the palace, the king perceives that she is sorrowful, and
that his presence is distasteful to her—evidently she cannot
forget the merchant.
Meanwhile Abd er-Rahman falls into a languishing condition,
and one day the grand vazír sends officers to apprehend him
on a trumped-up charge of having spoken disrespectfully of the
Khalíf in his cups, made by two envious courtiers, his enemies.
The merchant’s house is razed, his wealth is confiscated, and he
is to be put to death the next day. But the gaoler, whom the
merchant had formerly befriended, takes pity on him and
secretly sets him at liberty. When the vazír learns of this he
sends for the gaoler and tells him that if the merchant is not
re-captured in the course of twenty-four hours he will certainly
suffer in his place. The gaoler answers that he believes the
merchant to be innocent of the crime charged against him.
In the meantime Abd er-Rahman is concealed in a friend’s
house and the police are scouring the country in search of him,
and during their absence from the city he escapes and takes the
road to Mosúl. When he enters the palace there, the king
simply orders his treasurer to give him two hundred gold sequins.
The poor merchant is surprised that the king should bestow such
a paltry sum on him, after the sacrifice he had made by presenting
the fair Zaynib to his majesty. He takes the money,
however, and tries all means of increasing it by trade. At the
end of six months he returns to the king and informs him that he
has lost fifty of the two hundred sequins by his unfortunate
speculations. The king bids his treasurer give him fifty more
sequins, again to the surprise of the merchant, who departs once
more on a trading expedition, but this time he gains a hundred
sequins and returning to Mosúl he acquaints the king of his
success. “Misfortunes are contagious,” said the king. “I had
heard of your disgrace and dared not receive you into my palace
again, fearing that your ill luck should affect me and put it out
of my power to assist you when your star should look more
favourably on you. But now you shall live with me.” Next
day the king tells the merchant that he purposes giving him a
good wife. “Alas,” says he, “I cannot think of any woman
after my beloved Zaynib.” But the king insists, and that same
night the merchant is agreeably surprised to find that the wife
given him by his royal friend is none other than Zaynib, whom
the king has all along regarded as a sister. Not long after this
Abd er-Rahman learns that one of his accusers has confessed,
and he goes to Baghdád and recovers part of his wealth, and
passes the rest of his life at the court of Mosúl.[273]
In another form the tale of the Two Friends is found in the
Disciplina Clericalis of Peter Alphonsus, a Spanish Jew, of the
twelfth century, whence it was probably taken into the Gesta
Romanorum, the celebrated mediæval monkish collection of
“spiritualised” stories for the use of preachers (page 196 of
Herrtage’s edition, published by the Early English Text Society).
It is also found in Boccaccio’s Decameron (Day x, novelle 8); and
Lydgate, the monk of Bury, of the fifteenth century, turned it
into verse under the title of “Fabula duorum mercatorum,”
beginning:
“In Egipt whilom as I rede and fynde”
(Harleian MS. 2251, lf. 56, preserved in the British Museum);
and it forms one of the Fabliaux in Le Grand’s collection, of
which this is a translation:
Two merchants had been for a long time connected in business.
They had never seen each other, one residing at Baldak
[Baghdád?] and the other in Egypt; notwithstanding which,
from their long correspondence and mutual services, they entertained
a reciprocal esteem and friendship as if they had passed
their lives together. The Syrian merchant at last became very
desirous to have an interview with his correspondent, and set
out on his journey with that intention, after having apprised his
friend of it. The Egyptian rejoiced heartily at the news, and on
his friend’s approach went out several leagues to meet him. On
his arrival he lodged the Syrian in his own house, and, making a
display of his riches and all that he possessed, told him that
everything was at his disposal. In order to amuse his guest, he
invited several persons successively to his table. For a week
together there was nothing but feasting and pleasure; but in the
midst of their enjoyment the traveller was so struck with the
beauty of a lady who had one day been present that he fell
dangerously ill. Immediately all the best physicians of the
country were sent for. At first, neither by his pulse nor by any
other symptom could they discover the nature of the merchant’s
disorder; but at length by his profound melancholy they conjectured
that love was the cause. The Egyptian on hearing this
conjured him to disclose his secret, that the remedy might if
possible be found. His guest, thus called upon and pressed to
declare it, acknowledged that he was in love and that without
possession of the object of his affection he could not endure life.
“But where to find her I know not. I am wholly unacquainted
with her name and abode. My eyes beheld her once, to my
great misfortune, but day and night her image is present and
without her I shall certainly die.” He then fainted away. For
several hours he continued in this trance, and was even thought
dead. Awaking at length, he cast his eyes about the room to
discover the object of his passion, but in vain. She was not
among the persons present. His friend at last, in order to
obtain for him, if possible, a sight of his beloved, thought of
bringing successively to his bedside all the ladies who had been
invited to the feasts, or whom he could have seen since his
arrival in the country. But she was not of the number.
Ultimately the people of the house recollected that there was in
an inner chamber a young lady whom the Egyptian merchant
loved to distraction, and had brought up with the greatest care,
intending her soon to be his wife. She was by his desire
introduced. Instantly on seeing her the Syrian exclaimed:
“That is she to whom I am to owe either my life or my death!”
The Egyptian merchant demurred for some time; but, with a
heroic resolution sacrificing his passion to his friendship, he
presented the lady to his guest. He not only consented to their
union but even insisted on giving her a marriage portion.
He made her presents of rich stuffs and money, and himself took
charge of the nuptials, to which he did not fail to invite minstrels,
who sang pantomimic songs and enlivened the feast with all
manner of gaiety.
When all these carousals were ended the merchant proceeded
to take leave of his generous host and to return into his own
country. His friends on his arrival pressed forward to congratulate
him. There was a fresh celebration of the nuptials with
rejoicings which lasted for a fortnight, after which the merchant
and his spouse lived happily together. But in the meantime sad
misfortunes occurred to the Egyptian merchant: he met with
such losses that he was entirely ruined. In this deplorable
situation he thought of having recourse to his friend at Baldak,
and determined to visit him there, reckoning on his gratitude for
the eminent services which he had rendered him. He was
obliged to make this long journey on foot and to suffer both
hunger and thirst, to endure both heat and cold, extremes of
misery to which he had hitherto been unaccustomed. At length
after much fatigue he arrived about nightfall at Baldak. But at
the moment when he was about to enter the city the state of
wretchedness in which he was excited in him a feeling of shame
at proceeding farther. He thought that if he presented himself
in the dark to his friend in that miserable state he would not
recollect him, and therefore he judged it better to wait till
morning. With this intention he entered a temple which was
hard by. No sooner did he find himself in this dismal, lonely
place than a multitude of melancholy ideas assailed him.
“Good God!” cried he, “to what a wretched condition has thy
will reduced me! Alas, my former affluence renders it still
more miserable. I had all that I could desire, and now I find
myself an outcast, without property and without friends!
Surely in such circumstances death is preferable to existence.”
While he was speaking thus to himself he suddenly heard a
great noise in the temple. A murderer had taken flight thither
and some of the citizens were following to seize him. They
asked the Egyptian whether he had seen the assassin. He, who
wished to die and thus terminate at once his shame and his
sufferings, declared himself the guilty person. He was instantly
seized, bound, and thrown into prison. The next day he was
brought before the judge and being convicted was condemned to
the gallows. When the time for the execution arrived a great
number of people flocked to the place, and amongst them the
friend whose life he had saved and in quest of whom he had left
his native country. He had not forgotten the obligation, and
luckily he recognised his friend. But what could he do at this
juncture to save his life? He could think only of one method,
and that was to devote himself for his friend. Having taken
this sudden resolution, he exclaimed: “Good people, take care
what you are about, and do not be guilty of the sin of punishing
an innocent man. It was I who committed the murder.” This
declaration astonished the assembly. The execution was suspended,
the merchant was arrested, and they began to unloose
the stranger. But the real assassin happened to be there, and
when he saw them binding the merchant he was seized with
remorse. “What!” cried he to himself, “shall this honest
man die for my crimes whilst I escape? I cannot escape the
vengeance of God! No! I will not charge my conscience with
a second offence, but will rather expiate my crime by suffering
here than subject myself to the indignation of the Deity, who
can punish for ever.” He then made a full confession and was
brought before the judges, who, being puzzled at this extraordinary
case, referred it to the king, who, no less perplexed
than they, sent for the three prisoners, and promising them
pardon if they would declare the truth, interrogated them himself.
Each then recounted with fidelity what had happened, and the
consequence was that they were all three pardoned and discharged.
The Syrian went home with his friend, whom he in
his turn had had the good fortune to save. He ordered some
refreshments to be served up to him, and said: “If you choose
to reside here, my friend, I call God to witness that you shall
never be in want of anything, but shall be as much master as
myself of all I possess. If you prefer returning to your own
country, I offer you the half of my wealth, or whatever part you
may please to take of it.” The Egyptian declared his desire was
rather to return home, and he departed, charged with presents.
Under the title of the “Mirror of Friends,” the Spanish
novelist Matias de los Reyes (1634) relates this favourite story,
varying the incidents of the fabliau version as above, and with a
tragical catastrophe. This is an abstract of Reyes’ tale, following
Roscoe’s translation, in his Spanish Novelists, ed. 1832, pp.
17-39:
A young man[274] is placed at the university of Bologna, under
the guardianship of a friend of his father, named Federico, whose
son Lisardo and he at once become most intimate friends. There
was so close a resemblance between the two youths in person
and features that one was often mistaken for the other. Four
years after entering the university, he falls in love with a pretty
girl whom he saw seated at a balcony—it is not said how he got
introduced to her—and she returns his affection, but insists on
their engagement being kept a profound secret. Shortly after
this, the father of Laura—such was the sweet name of our
youth’s secret fiancée—proposes that she should marry Lisardo,
to which his father Federico most willingly consents, as the
young lady’s family are of high station and very wealthy. This
comes like a thunder-clap upon our poor love-sick youth, but he
cannot get himself to confess to Lisardo his devoted attachment
to Laura. As the time draws near for the marriage he falls
dangerously ill—“sick of love”; and if his friend tried to “stay
him with flagons and comfort him with apples,” he did so in
vain—albeit we have high authority for the efficacy of such
remedies. At length Lisardo comes to him one day, and insists
upon knowing the secret cause of his illness and melancholy,
otherwise their friendship must be at an end. He then confesses
his love for Laura and their private betrothal. Lisardo reproaches
him for not having told him of this before, since he
would willingly sacrifice his life for his friend; but even now
he will contrive means whereby his friend should be united to
the young lady instead of himself.
On the morning of the marriage-day Lisardo makes his friend
dress himself in his wedding-garments, and, as they were so like
each other, none present at the ceremony suspected but that it
was Lisardo who led the bride to the altar. Next day, at an
early hour, the bridegroom goes into Lisardo’s room and receives
his hearty congratulations; but now comes the question of how
to disclose the affair to Lisardo’s father. After some discussion
they go to Federico and confess the deception that had been
practised. At first he is very angry but at length consents to
explain everything to Laura’s father, which he does accordingly,
at the same time stating that the match is quite as good as was
intended, and this is ere long confirmed by the receipt of documents
from our youth’s father conveying property and money to
him. Soon afterwards the loving couple set out for the husband’s
home.
Two years pass away, during which Lisardo has not once
communicated with his friend, who now goes to Bologna to
ascertain how he fares. He finds that Lisardo’s father is dead
and himself gone no one knows where. Then he visits all the
chief towns and ports of Italy in quest of him, but without
success. Entering Naples for the second time, he perceives a
large concourse of people in the great square, where there
is a scaffold erected, on which he sees a youth with his arms
pinioned, and the executioner, sword in hand, by his side. He
recognises in the unhappy young man his friend Lisardo, and,
breaking through the crowd, rushes on to the scaffold, exclaiming:
“This man is innocent—I am the guilty one!” When
the tumult caused by this singular scene is somewhat allayed,
the chief magistrate orders both to be taken to prison in the
meantime, and, as a favour, they are both placed in the same
cell. Lisardo reproaches his friend for casting away his life,
and he innocent of any crime, but his friend replies that he is
convinced that Lisardo is equally innocent, for which Lisardo
expresses his gratitude and then proceeds to tell his story. His
father died worth little money, although he had a reputation of
being very rich, and with a few jewels Lisardo departed from
Bologna. As he journeyed he was attacked by a band of
robbers, who plundered him and even stripped off his clothes.
A humane cottager gave him a ragged coat, and he wandered
on, not knowing or caring whither he went. He thought of his
friend, but was ashamed to be seen by him in such a plight.
After being sick for six months in a public hospital, he resumed
his wanderings, and one night took shelter in a cavern. In the
morning he was rudely awakened by some peasants, who pointed
to the dead body of a man that lay in the cavern, and accused
him of the murder. Presently the police came and led him off
to prison. At his trial he said nothing in his own defence—for
he was weary of life—and he was duly condemned to death.
Having heard this sad story, his friend is now more than ever
determined to save him by the sacrifice of his own life. But
while they are still conversing the cell door is thrown open, and
the prison officials inform them that the real murderers of the
man have just been captured in a gang of desperadoes, who
were discovered to be the same that had robbed Lisardo, his
jewels having been found in their possession. The reaction
produced by this sudden intelligence proves too much for Lisardo’s
shattered frame; and, confessing to his friend that he had
from the first loved and had never ceased to love the beauteous
Laura, his devoted spirit took its flight from this earth, leaving
his friend for ever disconsolate: “I shall go to him, but he shall
not return to me!”
Was there ever, I wonder, another Shoayb besides the hapless
fellow of this story? Not only did good fortune actually run
after him and he all the while flee from it, as if the pestilence
were behind him, but his very presence anywhere was the cause
of manifold disasters! If there be not, however, amidst the
multitude of the world’s folk-tales an exact parallel to the Story
of Shoayb, there is one near akin to it, from Western India,
related by M. Putlibai D. H. Wadia, in the Indian Antiquary,
1886, p. 221, as follows:
Once upon a time there lived in a certain country a merchant,
who was formerly very prosperous, but having suffered great
losses in trade, he came to be in such poor circumstances that
starvation stared him in the face. As the king of the country
knew him well, his wife advised him to go to court, feeling sure
that the king would do something for him. The merchant,
however, felt reluctant to go to the king as a suitor, but after
suffering great privations for a long time, when he saw that
there was nothing left for his family but starvation, he made up
his mind to follow his wife’s advice, and one morning presented
himself at the court, which he found crowded with many persons,
who had come there on the same errand as himself. This sight
rather unnerved him, and he devoutly hoped the king would
not recognise him. When his turn came, however, to be
ushered into the royal presence, the king recognised him at once,
and asked him what he could do for him. The merchant with
great hesitation related his case, and the king, being a very
thoughtful man, feared that he would hurt the dignity of one
so respectable as the merchant if he gave him pecuniary assistance
before so many people. So he requested him to wait till
all had left the court, and then going into his private apartments
he ordered a water-melon to be brought to him, in which he
made a hole, and pouring out its contents, he filled it with gold
coins. Then summoning the merchant before him, he gave
him the melon and said: “Take this to your family, it is a
refreshing fruit, and you will all enjoy it this hot day.” The
merchant thanked the king and returned homeward very much
grieved at receiving only a water-melon when he expected
something more substantial. As he was walking along on his
way home, he met two travellers, who were very thirsty and
looked wistfully at the melon he was carrying, and, being of a
very generous disposition and thinking that they needed the
melon more than he did, he gave it to them and walked quickly
home empty-handed.
After passing many months of privation and misery, he was
persuaded by his wife to go to the king a second time, in the
hope of better luck. The king was, however, much surprised at
the merchant’s paying him a second visit so soon after the first;
but when he heard that he was as poor as before, he thought he
had invested in trade the money he had given him and lost it.
He therefore filled a water-melon once more with gold coins and
presented it to him. The merchant was again disappointed at
being sent away with such a trifle, but he nevertheless made his
obeisance to the king and returned homewards. This time,
however, he resolved not to part with the fruit, knowing that it
would be welcome to his starving children. He had not gone
very far, however, when he met a beggar who asked alms of
him, saying that he was very hungry. The merchant could not
resist this appeal, and, having no money, gave the melon to the
beggar.
When he reached home his wife was sorely vexed at his bad
luck, and wondered very much why the king, who was reputed
to be very charitable, should treat her husband so shabbily as to
send him away with a melon every time he went into his
presence. Being, however, of a persevering nature, she once
more persuaded him to go to court and ask the king for help.
He accordingly went there and stood in presence of the king as
before. But this time the king first asked him to explain what
use he had made of the two water-melons he had given him.
The merchant related how he had given the first to two travellers
who were very thirsty, and the second to a hungry beggar who
asked him for alms. The king laughed at the merchant for
what he considered his folly, and told him what the two melons
contained. He then filled another water-melon with jewels in
the merchant’s presence, and gave it to him, admonishing him
to be very careful of it. The merchant went away rejoicing, full
of hope that the contents of the fruit would enable him to start
in life anew. Now it happened that as his house was situated on
the other side of the river which passed through the town he had
to cross it, and in doing so his foot slipped and the fruit fell into
the water and was carried away by the flood. The poor merchant
wept over this misfortune, and returned home, cursing his
evil star.
He was now fully persuaded that it was the will of Iswara[275] that
he should remain poor; and, thinking it useless, therefore, to
struggle against Destiny, he resolved never to ask anybody for
help again, but to live as best he could till it should please Iswara
that he should see better days.
To the same class, also, belongs No. 104 of the selection of
monkish Latin Stories edited by Thomas Wright for the Percy
Society, of which this is a translation:
There were two blind men in the Roman state. One of them
daily cried through the town: “He is well helped whom the
Lord wills to help.” The other exclaimed: “He is well
helped whom the emperor wills to help.” When they had said
this very often, daily, and the emperor had frequently heard it,
he caused a cake to be made and many talents to be put into it,
and ordered this cake filled with talents to be given to the blind
man [who said that he was well helped whom the emperor
helped]. Having received it, and feeling the cake heavy, and
meeting the other blind man, he sold him the cake for his
children. He who bought the cake, coming home and breaking
it, finding it full of money, gave thanks to God, and for the
rest of his life ceased to beg. But the other continued to be as
formerly, and the emperor called him, and said to him: “Where
is the cake which I ordered to be given you yesterday?” He
replied: “I sold it for a trifle to my companion, because I
thought it was raw.” “Truly,” said the emperor, “he is well
helped whom God helps!” And he turned away and refused to
aid the blind beggar.
A similar story is told by Gower in his Confessio Amantis,
Book v, only here the emperor causes two pasties to be made,
into one of which he puts some florins and into the other a
capon, and the beggars exchange pasties. Another analogue
is found in Past Days in India (London: 1874), pp. 169-171,
where two fakírs (Hindú religious mendicants) are among the
crowd at a grand royal festival, one of whom, to flatter the king,
bawls out: “Kings have all sublunary power, and they give to
whom they please; what, then, can the Ruler of Destiny do?”
The other, an honest fellow, rebuked him, saying: “When the
Ruler of Destiny gives, what can the greatest king do?” With
limes in place of pasties, the result is the same as in Gower’s
story.[276]
This most entertaining little romance, which all readers would
wish longer, may be considered as exemplifying—if we can
allow ourselves to suppose such strange occurrences to be
possible—the adage that “it is better to be born lucky than
rich.” Unlike most heroes of romance, the troubles of Farrukhrúz
are comparatively few and of very brief duration; and even
while he is in tribulation we feel confident that he will presently
emerge from it, being so evidently a favourite of Fortune.
Several of the incidents in the tale are peculiarly interesting
to comparative “storiologists.”
The diabolical treatment of Farrukhrúz by his two brothers
was probably adapted from the tale of “The Witch Shamsah and
Táhir of Basra,” which occurs in the Turkish story-book,
Al-Faraj ba’d al-Shiddah, and of which the following is the
outline:
One day three jewels were brought to Harún er-Rashíd, who
greatly admired them, but his vazír, Fazl bin Rabí’, told him
that a merchant of Basra, called Táhir the dog-worshipper,
possessed much finer ones. Táhir is sent for, exhibits his thirty
unequalled jewels, protests that he is a good Mussulman, but
admits that he has two dogs well cared for, and then proceeds to
relate his history: His father ’Asim had left a wealthy estate to
him and his two brothers, who soon squander their shares and
become destitute. He has pity for them and takes them with
him on a trading voyage. While he slept on deck, they threw
him overboard. He escapes on a plank and is cast ashore on
the island of Gang, where he finds his two brothers. They
trump up a charge against him before the king, to whom they
had made a present of his favourite slave-girl, and he is thrown
into a dark pit, where he meets with a youth who is also the
victim of a treacherous brother, and whose sweetheart rescues
them both. Wandering forth, they fall in with a caravan, and
here again Táhir meets his brothers, who leave him wounded
and almost dead on the road, where he is found by a princess,
who has his wounds dressed, and takes him to her father’s
palace. She is Kamar al-Bahr, the daughter of the king of
Gang, and falls in love with him. They are betrayed to the
king, who is about to slay them, but makes them over to his
vazír, who puts them in a boat. They fall in with pirates, who
take the princess and leave Táhir in the boat, which they send
adrift. The pirates fight over their prize and kill each other, all
but one, whom the princess contrives to get rid of by poison.
Táhir, drifting in his boat is picked up by a passing ship, where
once more he finds his rascally brothers. They wish to put him
to death, but are persuaded to hand him over to the king of
Iram, an island on which they land.[277] There the two brothers
find the princess of Gang and present her to the king, who
immediately becomes madly enamoured of her, but she will not
yield to his desires. Then he tries to terrify her into submission
by slaying a prisoner before her eyes, who happens to be none
other than Táhir. The king was raising his sword to cut off his
head but gave way to her entreaties and released him. By the
advice and with the help of a kind officer, Táhir crosses the sea
to Jazíra-i Firdaus,[278] the realm of the mighty sorceress Shamsah,
where he finds a paradise indeed, and enters a magnificent but
untenanted palace. Suddenly he hears an awful sound, and a
dragon appears and ascends the throne. It then changes into an
old woman—Shamsah herself. She hears his story, takes pity
on him, and sends with him an innumerable host of wild beasts
to the conquest of Iram. He returns victorious to pay homage
to Shamsah, who gives him his beloved princess in marriage and
along with her a string of thirty jewels, and two magic vials of
green and red oil, one having the virtue of changing men into
beasts, the other that of restoring them to their natural shape.
After a while Táhir returns with his wife to Basra, whither he is
soon followed by his two brothers, whom he changes to dogs.—At
the intercession of the Khalíf Harún er-Rashíd, Táhir consents
to forgive his brothers and restores them to their human
form.
If the idea of the ungrateful conduct of the two brothers
towards Farrukhrúz was derived from the foregoing tale of
Táhir, the latter in its turn, seems to have been adapted from
the story of the dog-worshipping merchant of Nishapúr, in the
Persian Kissa-i Chehár Darvesh, of which the Bagh o Bahár is a
modern Urdú version, and in the latter we find the story told at
very considerable length and with more details and incidents than
in the Turkish version, while all that relates to the sorcerer Shamsah
is peculiar to the latter. It would occupy too much space,
in view of what remains to be said regarding other tales in our
collection, to give even the outline of the Persian original, but it
may be mentioned that in place of the two wicked brothers
being changed to dogs they are confined in cages; while the
merchant’s dog, who had often saved his life when attempted by
his brothers, and continued faithful to him through all his
vicissitudes, is adorned with a collar set with priceless rubies and
attended by two slaves—the merchant thereby indicating, so to
say, his approval of the aphorism of the ancient Hindú sage,
that “a grateful dog is better than an ungrateful man.”—In our
tale, it will be observed, the two wicked brothers do not reappear
after they cut Farrukhrúz adrift.
It is a very usual occurrence in folk-tales, as well as in tales of
more elaborate construction, for the hero, after becoming the
king’s chief favourite, to be the mark for the shafts of envy and
malice. Plots are laid in order to bring about his destruction,
and, commonly through the suggestions of his enviers, the king
is induced to despatch him on most perilous adventures—almost
invariably three in succession, as in our little romance. Sometimes
it is the hero’s brothers who are envious of his good fortune
and thus seek to cause his death; sometimes a courtier whom he
has supplanted in the king’s favour and patronage. We have
examples of both kinds of enviers in Geldart’s Folk-Lore of
Modern Greece, an entertaining collection, as well as useful to
such as are interested in the study of popular fictions. Thus,
in the tale of “Constantes and the Dragon,” the hero’s elder
brother is jealous of his favour with the king, and it is at his
suggestion that Constantes is sent to procure for the king (1) the
Dragon’s diamond ring; (2) the Dragon’s horse and bell;
(3) the very Dragon himself. And in the tale of “Little John,
the Widow’s Son,” the hero, thus styled, becomes the king’s
hunter, and one day kills (1) a wild beast, whose skin was all
covered with precious gems. The king shows this treasure to
his courtiers, who declare they have seen nothing like it under
heaven. The vazír, however, says the skin is all very well, but
if the king had the bones of elephants to build a church with, all
the kings of the earth would come to admire it, and the skin as
well. So the young hero is despatched to procure (2) a sufficient
quantity of elephants’ bones to build a church with, and returns
successful. He is then sent, at the suggestion of the vazír,
to bring the Dragon’s daughter to the king, in which, of course,
he also succeeds, and thus the vazír’s malice comes all to
naught.
We have three examples from Sweden in Thorpe’s Yule-Tide
Stories. In No. I of “The Boy that stole the Giant’s Treasures”
a peasant dies and leaves his small property to his three sons.
The two elder (as in the story of the merchant of Nishapúr in
the Chehár Darvesh, referred to, page 495) take all that was
valuable, leaving the youngest an old split kneading-trough
for his share. The lads all enter the service of a king—the
youngest helps in the royal kitchen and is liked by everybody.
His two elder brothers are envious of him and induce the king
to send him (1) for the Troll’s seven silver ducks; (2) his gold
and silver bed-quilt; and (3) his golden harp.[279]—In No. II
three brothers set out in quest of their fortune, and the
two elder obtain employment as helpers in the royal stables,
while the youngest is taken as page to the king’s young son.
His brothers are sorely nettled at his preferment, and consult
how they might compass his disgrace. They tell the king of
a wonderful golden lantern that shed light over both land and
water, and add that it ill beseemed a king to lack so precious a
treasure. The king asks, excitedly, where this lamp is to be
found and who could procure it for him. The brothers reply:
“No one can do that, unless it be our brother Pinkel. He
knows best where the lantern is to be found.” So the king
despatches Pinkel to get him the golden lantern, promising
to make him the chief person at court should he bring it.
Pinkel goes off and returns in safety with the (1) lantern; and
the king made him the chief person at court, as he had promised.
The brothers, hearing of his success, become more envious than
before, and at their suggestion the king sends him to procure (2)
the beautiful goat that had horns of the purest gold, from which
little gold bells were suspended, which gave forth a pleasing
sound whenever the animal moved; and next (3) the Troll-crone’s
fur cloak, that shone like the brightest gold, and was
worked with golden threads in every seam; after which the king
gave him his daughter in marriage, and he thus became heir to
the kingdom, but his brothers continued to be helpers in the
royal stable as long as they lived.—In No. III two poor lads
roam about the country in search of a livelihood. At length the
younger is received by the king among his pages, but the elder
goes about begging as before: through the influence of his
brother, however, he is shortly taken into the king’s service as a
stable-boy. The elder brother is continually thinking of how he
might get the younger disgraced. One day when the king visits
his stables he praises a favourite horse, upon which the stable-lad
tells him that he knows of a golden horse that excels all
horses in the world, but only his brother could procure it. In
brief, the hero procures for the king (1) the golden horse; (2) the
moon lantern; and (3) a princess who had been enchanted.
In No. 8 of M. Legrand’s Contes Populaires Grecs (Paris, 1881)
the hero, at the suggestion of the Beardless Man, is sent by the
king (1) for the ivory chamber; (2) for the nightingale and wall
swallow; and (3) for the belle of the world.—And in M. Renè
Basset’s Contes Populaires Berbères (Paris, 1887), No. 27, the
hero is despatched by the king, at the instigation of his enemies,
to procure (1) the coral tree; (2) the palm tree of the wild beasts;
(3) the woman with silver attire; and, of course, returns successful
from each perilous expedition. M. Renè Basset in his Notes,
pp. 163-166, refers to several parallels or analogues from Brittany,
Lorraine, the West Highlands of Scotland, etc.
A story from Salsette, entitled “Karne da Pequeno João,” by
Geo. Fr. D’Penha, in the Indian Antiquary, 1888, p. 327 ff.,
is full of interest to folk-lorists, apart from its connection with
the “envious brothers” cycle: Three brothers, of whom Little
John, the youngest, is as usual the only clever one, set out to
seek their fortunes. They rest for the night in the abode of an
ogre, who resolves to kill them while they are asleep and eat all
three for breakfast. The ogre has three daughters, and he puts
white caps on them and red caps on the youths. The two elder
brothers are soon fast asleep, not so Little John. He suspects
mischief is brewing, and changes caps with the ogre’s daughters,
who are consequently killed by their father in mistake for the
three lads. Little John rouses his two brothers and they cross
the river, which the ogre cannot do, being unable to swim. In
the morning the ogre sees them, and cries out that he will make
John pay for it yet! They take service with a king: John is
made a shepherd, the others are given places of trust. John puts
on one of the caps (he had taken all of them with him) on his
head and begins to play on his pipe, whereupon all the sheep
begin to caper and dance. The princess sees this, and gets the
cap from him, and so on till she has got the sixth, on the promise
of her love. The king, at the instigation of the princess,
pays John better wages, and his brothers are envious of his good
fortune. Soon after this the king falls ill, and the two elder
brothers suggest to him that John should be sent to fetch (1)
the ogre’s parrot. John manages to carry off the bird, and the
ogre cries after him that he’ll make him pay for it yet! But
John says he’ll come again. In short, John afterwards procures
(2) the ogre’s mare; (3) his diamond ring; (4) his sword; (5)
his blanket; and (6) the ogre himself. After each expedition
John is promoted to a still higher station till he is made vazír
and finally marries the princess. He does not punish his brothers,
the good young man, but raises them to high offices of state.
In many instances, as in the case of Farrukhrúz, the hero is
assisted by fairies or other superhuman beings, but with the
means by which the seemingly impossible tasks are accomplished
we have no present concern and so I have passed them over.
The third and last expedition of Farrukhrúz, suggested by the
envious vazírs of the king of Yaman—who was, like the monarchs
of Eastern fictions generally, a credulous blockhead—by which
they made sure to cause the death of the favourite, but which
ended so disastrously for themselves—thus illustrating the saying
that “he who digs a pit for another,” and so forth: the proverb
is somewhat musty—namely,
has its close parallel in the Kalmuk Relations of Siddhí Kúr,[280]
which form the first part of Miss Busk’s Sagas from the Far
East, a work chiefly derived from Jülg’s German translation.
In Miss Busk’s book, the story is No. VIII and entitled “How
Ananda the Woodcarver and Ananda the Painter strove together,”
and, pruned of some redundancies of language, this is
how it goes:
Long ago there lived two men, a wood-carver and a painter,
both named Ananda. While they appeared to be on very friendly
terms, in reality jealousy reigned in their hearts. One day the
painter presented himself before the Khán, and told him that his
father of blessed memory had been re-born in the kingdom of
the gods, in proof of which he handed the Khán a letter, forged
by himself, which stated such to be the fact, and directed the
Khán to send forthwith Ananda the Woodcarver to the kingdom
of the gods, to adorn with his cunning a temple which he was
building—“the way and means of his coming shall be explained
by Ananda the Painter.” The Khán, believing all this to be
true, at once sent for the Woodcarver, informed him of his father
the late Khán’s message, and commanded him to prepare forthwith
to depart for the kingdom of the gods. The Woodcarver
knew that this was the device of the Painter, and resolved to
meet craft with craft, but, dissembling his feelings, asked by what
means he was to win thither. Hereupon the Khán sent for the
Painter, and ordered him to declare the way and manner of the
journey to the kingdom of the gods. The Painter replied,
addressing the Woodcarver: “When thou hast collected all the
materials and instruments appertaining to thy calling, and hast
gathered them at thy feet, thou shalt order a pile of beams of
wood well steeped in spirit distilled from sesame grain to be
heaped around thee. Then, to the accompaniment of every
solemn-sounding instrument, kindle the pile, and rise to the
gods’ kingdom, borne on the obedient clouds of smoke as on a
swift charger.”
The Woodcarver durst not refuse the Khán’s behest, but obtained
an interval of seven days in order to collect the materials
and implements of his calling, and also to devise some plan of
avenging himself upon the Painter. Returning home he consulted
with his wife, who proposed a means of evading while
seeming to obey the Khán’s command. In a field belonging to
her husband, not far from the house, she caused a large flat
stone to be laid, on which the sacrifice was to be consummated,
and, at night, beneath it she had an underground passage made
communicating with the house. And when the eighth day came,
the Khán and all the people were assembled round the pile of
wood steeped in spirit distilled from sesame grain in the Woodcarver’s
field, and in the midst of it stood the Woodcarver, calm
and impassable, while all kinds of musical instruments sent forth
their solemn-sounding tones. And when the smoke began to rise
in concealing density, the Woodcarver pushed aside the stone
with his feet and returned to his house by the underground
passage. The Painter, never doubting but that he must have
fallen a prey to the flames, rubbed his hands, and, pointing to
the curling smoke, cried to the people: “Behold the spirit of
Ananda the Woodcarver ascending to the kingdom of the gods!”
And all the people, believing him, echoed his words.
For the space of a whole month the Woodcarver remained
secluded in his house, daily washing his face with milk and
keeping out of the sunshine. Then his wife brought him a
garment of white gauze, with which he covered himself, and,
taking with him a letter which he had forged, he went into the
presence of the Khán, who when he saw him said: “Thou art
returned from the kingdom of the gods—how didst thou leave
my father?” Then he gave the forged letter to the Khán, who
caused it to be read aloud to the people. The letter stated that
the Woodcarver had executed the sculptures well, but it was
necessary that they should send thither Ananda the Painter, in
order that they should be suitably decorated. When the Khán
heard this letter read he was overjoyed, and he loaded the Woodcarver
with rich presents. And then he sent for Ananda the
Painter, and told him how his father in the kingdom of the gods
required his services. On hearing this the Painter was seized
with great fear, but when he looked at the Woodcarver, all white
and radiant from the milk-washing, and clad in celestial raiment,
as if the light of the gods’ kingdom yet clove to him, and
that the fire had not burnt him, neither should it burn himself;
moreover, if he refused to go, death must be his portion,
while if he went he should, like the Woodcarver, also receive
great wealth on his return. So he consented to have his gear
in readiness in seven days. And when the prescribed day
arrived, the Khán, in his robes of state, and attended by
his ministers and officers, and all the people assembled in the
Painter’s field, where was a great pile of wood steeped as before
in spirit, and in the midst of it they placed the Painter;
and, amidst the sound of all sorts of musical instruments, they
set fire to the pile. At first the Painter bore the torture, expecting
to rise on the clouds of smoke, but soon the extreme pain
caused him to shout to the people to come and release him.
But the sound of the music—his own device to drown the cries
of the Woodcarver—prevailed against him: no one could hear
his cries, and he perished miserably in the flames.
This story is doubtless of Buddhist extraction; but it is not
very probable that our author was indebted to any Mongolian
version such as the foregoing for the materials of the tale he has
told so well, in which he represents the vile complotters against
the life of Farrukhrúz as crying out for mercy when they saw the
awful doom they had brought upon themselves, and the silly
King of Yaman as still firm in the belief that they should really
go to Paradise and return in safety with his beatified ancestors’
grand presents.
As a pendant, I may reproduce, from Professor Basil Hall
Chamberlain’s interesting collection of Aino Folk-Tales, privately
printed for the Folk-Lore Society, 1888, the story of “The
Wicked Wizard Punished” (No. XXV):
One day a wizard told a man whom he knew that if any one
were to climb a certain mountain-peak and jump off on to the
belt of clouds below, he would be able to ride about on them as
on a horse and see the whole world. Trusting in this, the man
did as the wizard had told him, and in very truth was enabled to
ride about on the clouds. He visited the whole world in this
manner, and brought back a map which he had drawn of the
whole world, both of men and gods. On arriving back at the
mountain-peak in Aino-land, he stepped off the cloud on to
the mountain, and, descending to the valley, told the wizard
how successful and delightful the journey had been, and thanked
him for the opportunity kindly granted him of seeing sights so
numerous and so strange. The wizard was overcome with
astonishment. For what he had told the other man was a lie—a
wicked lie, invented with the sole intention of causing his death,
for he hated him. Nevertheless, seeing that what he had simply
meant for an idle tale was apparently an actual fact, he decided
to see the world himself in this easy fashion. So, ascending the
mountain-peak, and seeing a belt of clouds a short way below,
he jumped off on to it, but was instantly dashed to pieces in the
valley below. That night the god of the mountain appeared to
the good man in a dream, and said: “The wizard has met with
the death which his fraud and folly deserved. You I kept from
hurt, because you are a good man. So when, obedient to the
wizard’s advice, you leapt off on to the cloud I bore you up, and
showed you the world to make you a wiser man. Let all men
learn from this how wickedness leads to condign punishment!”
Such a tale as this is not at all likely to have been invented by
a race so low in the scale of humanity as the Ainos; and we
must, I think, consider it as one of the tales and legends which
they derived from the Japanese. As it is, the story presents a
remarkable general resemblance to the Mongolian tale of the
Woodcarver and the Painter, of which one might almost say it is
a reflection or an adaptation.
Under the title of “Strike, but Hear,” a considerably abridged
and modified version of this Tale is given in the Rev. Lal Behári
Day’s Folk-Tales of Bengal (London: Macmillan & Co., 1883),
of which this is the substance:
A king appoints his three sons to patrol in turn the streets of
his capital during the night. It happens that the youngest
prince in going his rounds one night sees a very beautiful woman
issuing from the palace, and he asks to know what business she
is bent upon at such an hour. She replies: “I am the guardian
deity of this palace. The king will be killed this night, and
therefore I am going away.” The prince persuades the goddess
to return into the palace and await the event. He enters his
father’s bed-chamber and discovers a huge cobra near the royal
couch, and at once cuts the deadly snake into many pieces,
which he puts into a brass vessel that was in the room. Then
seeing that some drops of the serpent’s blood had fallen on his
step-mother’s bosom, he wraps a piece of cloth round his tongue
to protect it from the poison, and licks off the blood. The lady
awakes, and recognises him as he is leaving the room. She
accuses him to the king of having used an unpardonable freedom
with her. In the morning the king sends for his eldest son and
asks him: “If a trusted servant should prove faithless, how
should he be punished?” The prince replies: “Surely his
head should be parted from his body. But before doing so, you
should ascertain whether the man is actually guilty.” And then
he proceeds to relate the
There was in former times a goldsmith who had a grown-up
son, whose wife was acquainted with the language of animals,
but she kept secret from her husband and all others the fact of
her being endowed with such a rare gift. It happened one
night that she heard a jackal exclaim: “There is a dead body
floating on the river; would that some one might give me that
body to eat, and for his pains take the diamond ring from the
finger of that dead man.” The woman arose from her bed and
went to the bank of the river, and her husband, who had not
been asleep, got up and followed her unobserved. She went
into the water, drew the corpse on to the land, and, being unable
to loose the ring from the dead man’s finger, which had swelled,
she bit off the finger, and, leaving the corpse on the bank of the
river, returned home, whither she had been preceded by her
husband. Almost petrified by fear, the young goldsmith concluded
from what he had seen that his wife was not a human
being but a rákshasí; and early in the morning he hastened to
his father and related the whole affair to him—how the woman
had got up during the night and gone to the river, out of which
she dragged a dead body on to the land, and was busy devouring
it when he ran home in horror at the loathsome sight. The
old man was greatly shocked, and advised his son to take his
wife on some pretext into the forest, and leave her there to be
destroyed by wild beasts. So the husband caused the woman to
get herself ready to go on a visit to her parents, and after a
hasty breakfast they set out. In going through a dense jangal,
where the goldsmith purposed abandoning his wife, she heard a
serpent cry: “O passenger, I pray thee to seize and give me
that croaking frog, and take for thy reward the gold and precious
stones concealed in yonder hole.” The woman at once seized
the frog and threw it towards the serpent, and then began
digging into the ground with a stick. Her husband quaked
with fear, thinking that his ghúl-wife was about to kill him; but
she called to him, saying: “My dear husband, gather up all the
gold and precious gems.” Approaching the spot with hesitation,
he was surprised to perceive an immense treasure laid bare by
his wife, who then explained to him how she had learned of it
from the snake that lay coiled up near them, whose language she
understood. Then said he to his wife: “It is now so late that
we cannot reach your father’s house before dark, and we might
be slain by wild beasts. Let us therefore return home.” So
they retraced their steps, and approaching the house, the goldsmith
said to his wife: “Do you, my dear, go in by the back
door, while I enter by the front and show my father all this
treasure.” The woman accordingly went in by the back door
and was met by her father-in-law, who, on seeing her, concluded
that she had killed and devoured his son, and striking her on the
head with a hammer which he happened to have in his hand she
instantly fell down dead. Just then the son came into the room,
but it was too late.
“I have told your majesty this story,” adds the eldest prince,
“in order that, before putting the man to death, you should
make sure that he is guilty.”
The king then calls his second son, and asks him the same
question as he had asked his brother, to which he replies by
relating the
Once a king while engaged in the chase was separated from
his attendants, and seeing what he conceived to be rain-water
dropping from the branch of a tree, being very thirsty, he held
his drinking-cup under it until it was nearly filled, and as he was
about to put it to his lips his horse purposely moved so as to
cause the contents to be spilled on the ground, upon which
the king in a rage drew his sword and killed the faithful animal.
But afterwards discovering that what he had taken for rain-water
was poison that dropped from a cobra in the tree, his
grief knew no bounds.
Calling his third son, the king asks him what should be done
to the man who proved false to his trust, and the prince tells
the
which bestowed perennial youth on him who ate of it, with some
unimportant variations from the same story in our Romance.
Then the youngest prince explained the occasion of his
presence in the royal bed-chamber, and how he had saved the
king and his consort from the cobra’s deadly bite. And his
majesty, overjoyed and full of gratitude, strained his faithful
son to his heart, and ever afterwards cherished and loved him
with all a father’s love.
Another version is orally current in Kashmír, and, under the
title of “The Four Princes,” a translation of it is given by the
Rev. J. Hinton Knowles in his excellent collection, Folk-Tales
of Kashmír, from which are extracted the following details:
Four clever and handsome young princes are hated by their
step-mother, who persuades her husband the king to cease his
personal and secret inspection of the city and adjacent towns and
villages—which had long been his custom, going about at night
in disguise—and appoint his four grown-up, idle sons to the
duties. But still the queen is jealous of them, and poisons the
king’s mind against them, so that he speaks harshly to his
worthy sons, without any apparent cause. One night the four
princes met together and discussed the altered conduct of the
king towards them, and the three younger proposed that they
should privily quit the country, but this was strenuously opposed
by the eldest brother, who suggested that they should rather
take turn and patrol the city, one of them each night, to which
they agreed. It happened that the eldest prince, in the course
of his perambulation one night, came past the hut of a Bráhman,
whom he saw gazing out of the open window towards the
heavens, and presently heard him say to his wife that he had just
observed the king’s star obscured by another star, which
indicated that his majesty would die in seven days. His wife
asked him how he should die then, and he replied that a black
snake would descend from the sky on the seventh day, enter the
royal bed-chamber by the door that opened into the courtyard,
and bite the king’s toe, thus causing his death. Then the Bráhman
made a sacrifice, and, after prayers and incantations, he told
his wife farther, that the king’s life would be saved if one of his
relations dug pits in the courtyard on the east side of the palace,
filled some with water and the others with milk, and scattered
flowers on the ground between the ponds and the door of the
king’s room. He must be ready, sword in hand, outside the
door at the appointed time, when the snake will come and swim
across the ponds and pass over the flowers, after which it will
become comparatively harmless. Then he must strike and slay
the snake with his sword, and taking some of its warm blood
smear it over the king’s toes—thus will he be preserved from
evil. The prince, having treasured these directions in his
memory, on the seventh day follows them exactly, and having
taken some of the snake’s blood, gently opens the door of the
king’s chamber and enters, having first tied a bandage over his
eyes, that he should not see the queen. But being thus blindfolded
he smears the blood on the queen’s toes instead of those
of the king, which causes her to awake, and to shriek on seeing
a man glide out of the room, which awakes the king, who
recognises his eldest son as the intruder. The queen, on discovering
the blood on her feet concludes that it was a rákshasa,
and becomes frantic with fright, but her husband sets her mind
at rest by telling her that he is now assured of the wickedness of
his sons, who had employed a demon to destroy them both, and
he would have them all executed on the morrow, at which the
queen was highly delighted. Then the king causes the four
princes to be stripped of their royal robes and thrown into a
dungeon. In the morning they are brought into the presence of
the king, who gives order for their immediate execution, and
they are being led away when one of them made signs and
prostrated himself before the throne, as if he wished to say
something. “Let him speak,” said the king. “Perhaps he
wants to relieve his heart of some foul secret—let him speak.”
The prince then began to relate the
which differs materially from our story of the Hunter and his
Dog (p. 206), but agrees with some versions current in various
parts of India: A young merchant meets four men who are
quarrelling over the possession of a poor dog, which they are
dragging about most unmercifully. They tell him it is not an
ordinary dog, for their late father charged them not to sell it for
less than 20,000 rupís. He gives them the money and takes the
dog with him. By-and-by he loses all his wealth through a
series of unfortunate transactions, and borrows 15,000 rupís of
another merchant on the security of his dog. One night a gang
of robbers break into the merchant’s house and carry off all his
valuables. They are followed unobserved by the dog, who
watches them dig a pit and bury the treasure in it, intending to
return and share their booty when they might do so with safety.
Next day the dog, by means of signs, leads the merchant to the
spot where his wealth was hidden, and when it is discovered,
full of gratitude to the faithful animal, he writes out an acquittance
of the young merchant’s loan, and having related the great
service the dog had done him expressed a wish to purchase the
dog, for which he enclosed a draft for 30,000 rupís, and putting
the letter in the dog’s mouth, sends him back to his master. As
the dog is trotting along he meets his master, who, concluding
that he had run away, and that the merchant would quickly
follow, determined to kill the animal, and if the merchant
should come, he would say: “Give me back my dog, and I will
return the money.” But when he had killed his dog and was
about to take the carcase up, in order to conceal it, the letter
dropped from his mouth, and the young merchant, stricken with
remorse, fell down insensible.
Another of the princes then steps forward and relates the
which does not differ very much from the same tale in the
Bengalí collection, cited on p. 505, above, excepting that in
place of a goldsmith the husband is a shikárí, or hunter; it is a
bracelet set with five precious stones, not a diamond ring that
the woman takes off the corpse in the river, and a crow, not a
serpent, that tells of the treasure underground; and it is her
father-in-law, not her husband, who accompanies her, and it is
her husband who kills her when she comes home, thinking that
she had devoured his father.
The youngest prince next makes his obeisance to his majesty
and obtains leave to relate the
which is similar to that of the King and his Faithful Horse in
the Bengalí version: The king is about to drink of some water he
had drawn from a spring, when his falcon dashed the cup out of
his hand, whereupon the thirsty and enraged king drew his
sword and killed his favourite bird. Afterwards a huge and
deadly snake was found coiled up at the head of the spring, and
too late the king saw that the falcon had saved his life.
His majesty having heard these stories, now began to suspect
that his wife had deceived him regarding his four sons, and when
the eldest prince had explained the whole affair, and shown the
king the pits of water and milk and the body of the serpent, he
was fully reconciled to them, and abdicating the throne in favour
of his eldest son, and appointing the others to be governors of
provinces, he retired to the wilderness and became a hermit.
Few stories are more widely spread than that of the Lost Camel,
which occurs in the opening of our romance. It was formerly,
and perhaps is still, reproduced in school-books as a reading
exercise. Voltaire, in chapter iii of Zadig, ou la Destinée, (the
substance of which he is said to have derived from Geuelette’s
Soirées Bretonnes), gives a version in which a lost palfrey and a
she-dog are accurately described by the “sage” from the traces
they had left on the path over which they passed.
The oldest known written form of the story of the Lost Camel
is in the great work of Mas’udí, the celebrated Arabian historian,
‘Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems,’ which has not yet been
completely translated into English.—In an Arabic MS. text of
the Alf Layla wa Layla (Thousand and one Nights), brought
from the East by Wortley Montague, and now in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, it forms an incident in the tale of the Sultan
of Yaman’s Three Sons: After their father’s death the three
royal youths quarrel over the succession to the throne, and
at length agree to submit their respective claims to one of their
father’s tributary princes. On the road one of them remarks: “A
camel has lately passed this way, loaded with grain on one side
and with sweetmeats on the other.” The second observes: “And
the camel is blind of one eye.” The third adds: “And it has lost
its tail.” The owner comes up to them, and on hearing their
description of his beast forces them to go with him before the king
of the country, to whom they explain how they discovered the
defects of the camel and its lading. In this form it also occurs in
the Turkish collection translated under the title of Turkish
Evening Entertainments—see ante, p. 472—with the addition of
a woman riding on the back of the camel, she having got off the
animal during a temporary halt, and left her small footprints in
the sand.
In a Siberian version three youths are met by a man, who asks
them if they have seen his camel, to which they reply by
describing the colour and peculiarities of the animal so exactly
that he accuses them to the prince of the country of having
stolen it. “I have lost a camel, my lord,” says he; “and
when I met these three young men we saluted, and I told them
of my loss. One of these youths asked me: ‘Was thy camel of a
light colour?’ The second: ‘Was thy camel lame?’ And the
third: ‘Was thy camel not blind of an eye?’ I answered ‘Yes’
to their questions. Now decide, my lord. It is evident that
these young men have stolen my camel.” Then the prince
asked the eldest: “How did you know that the camel was of a
light colour?” He answered: “By some hairs which had fallen
on the ground when it rubbed itself against the trees.” The two
others gave answers similar to those in our version. Then said
the prince to the man: “Thy camel is lost; go and look for it.”
So the stranger mounted his horse and departed.[281]
Captain (now Sir) Richard F. Burton, in his Scinde, or the
Unhappy Valley, vol. i, p. 142, thus describes how a paggi, or
tracker, sets about discovering a strayed camel: “He ties on
his slippers with packthread, winds his sheet tight round his
waist, and squatting upon the ground scrutinises the footprint
before he starts, with all the air of a connoisseur, making meanwhile
his remarks aloud: ‘He is a little, little camel—his feet
are scarcely three parts grown—he treads lightly with the off
foreleg, and turns this toe in—his sole is scarred—he is not
laden—there he goes—there—there, he is off to the jungles of
Shaykh Radhan’.”
A variant of this story is cited from a Cawnpore newspaper
in the Asiatic Journal, vol. xv (new series), Part II, October,
1834, p. 78, which is to the following effect: A man named
Dabí had a dog called Bhyro, the faithful companion of his
travels, who guarded his goods from robbers while he slept.
He wished to go to a distant part of the country on a speculation
in grain, but had not sufficient funds for this purpose. After
much cogitation he at length resolved to pledge his dog for 1000
rupís, and when he applied to several persons was laughed at
for his folly; but a wealthy merchant named Dyarám gave the
money, on condition that it should be paid back within twelve
months, taking the dog Bhyro in pledge. When eleven months
had passed the merchant began to bewail the stupidity which
had induced him to lend so large a sum on so precarious a
security. His relentings were, however, premature. One dark
and dreary night he was aroused from his slumbers by a great
noise, occasioned by the clashing of swords and the barking of
Bhyro. A band of armed men had entered the house with
intent to plunder, but before they could effect their purpose
they had been observed by the faithful Bhyro, who commenced
an attack upon them. Before Dyarám could render any
assistance Bhyro had laid two of the robbers dead at his feet; a
third, on the approach of Dyarám, aimed a blow at his head,
which was prevented from taking effect by Bhyro seizing the
ruffian by the throat and laying him prostrate on the ground.
After peace was restored Dyarám congratulated himself on
having received Bhyro in pledge for Dabí, by which act he not
only escaped being plundered, but in all probability murdered.
Next morning Dyarám called Bhyro, and, after caressing him,
said: “The service you rendered me last night is more than an
equivalent for the 1000 rupís I lent your master; go, faithful
creature, I give you a free discharge from your obligation as
security for him.” Bhyro shook his head in token that it was
impossible for him to go until his master returned; but Dyarám,
comprehending his meaning, soon arranged matters, by writing a
statement of the circumstances, and giving a voucher for the
1000 rupís. This document he tied round Bhyro’s neck, which
done, Bhyro expressed his delight by leaping about in every
direction, and, after licking the hands of Dyarám, darted out of
the house and set off in quest of his master. While these scenes
were transpiring in Dyarám’s house, Dabí was not unmindful of
the pledge he had left behind him, and, having succeeded in his
speculation, was returning with all haste to redeem it. At his
last stage homewards he was surprised to see Bhyro approaching
him with every demonstration of joy, but at sight of him Dabí’s
rage was kindled, and repulsing Bhyro as he fawned upon him
he thus addressed him: “O ungrateful wretch! is this the
return you have made for my kindness to you? and is this the
manner in which you have established my character for veracity?
You remained faithful to your trust during eleven months—could
you not have held out for thirty short days? You have, by your
desertion from your post, entailed dishonour upon me, and for
this you shall die.” And, so saying, he drew his sword and
slew him. After having committed this deed, he observed
a paper tied round Bhyro’s neck, and having read it, his grief
was indescribable. To atone in some measure for his rash act,
he caused poor Bhyro to be buried on the spot where he fell,
and a superb monument to be erected over his remains. To the
grave of Bhyro, even at the present day, resort natives who have
been bitten by dogs, they believing that the dust collected there,
when applied to the wounds, is an antidote for hydrophobia.
It will be observed, on comparison, that the chief difference
between this version and the Kashmírí story, cited in p. 509,
is that in the latter the dog does not venture to attack the
robbers, but follows them to the place where they conceal their
plunder and next day leads his temporary master to the spot,
while in the foregoing the dog Bhyro boldly flies at the rascals,
and slays or disables three of them, thus preserving the house
from being robbed. The Tamil version has the dog’s killing the
paramour of the merchant’s wife in place of the robbery, and the
tragical catastrophe of the suicides of all the characters.
A version given from Oudh, by Mr. G. H. Roberts, of Sítápúr,
in Indian Notes and Queries, 1887, p. 150, agrees exactly with
the Kashmírí story.
This story is of world-wide popularity, and the preceding tale of
the Hunter and his Faithful Dog must be considered as an off-shoot
from it. In this country the form in which it is generally
known is the legend of Llewellyn and his hound Gellert, which
has been so finely versified by Spencer. I have adduced many
variants of the story in the Appendix to my Book of Sindibád,
and have treated it still more fully in my Popular Tales and
Fictions, vol. ii. pp. 166-186, where, besides versions found
in the Sindibád cycle (including, of course, the European Seven
Wise Masters),[282] are given several Indian forms of the story, and
lastly the oldest known version, from the Vinaya Pitaka of the
Chinese collection of Buddhist books, which, according to Dr.
S. Beal—one of the greatest living authorities on Chinese Buddhist
literature—probably dates from the time of Asoka’s Council,
B.C. 230. But indeed the story may be many thousands of years
old, for there is no reason to suppose it to be of Buddhist invention;
and we need not be surprised should it be discovered some
day in an Egyptian papyrus.
This Tamil version is one of three known to me in which it is
the mother, not the father, who kills the faithful animal, the
others being one current in Ceylon, and one from the North-West
Provinces, cited in a very entertaining work entitled Past
Days in India, and also in the small collection of Indian tales
appended by Vermieux to his Hermit of Mottee Jhurna, second
edition, p. 101; it is, moreover, singular in representing the
woman as destroying herself and her husband then killing his
little son and afterwards himself—tragic incidents added by the
author probably to enable the supposed narrator to more forcibly
impress on the king’s mind the terrible consequences of acting in
affairs of moment with inconsiderateness and precipitation.
Among the Malays the story is told in this manner: A man
left a tame bear in charge of his house and of his sleeping child
while he was absent from home. On his return he missed the
child and found the house in great disorder, as if some desperate
struggle had taken place, and the floor was smeared with blood.
Hastily concluding that the bear had killed his child, the enraged
father slew the animal with his spear, but almost immediately
afterwards found the carcase of a tiger, which the faithful bear
had defeated and killed, and the child emerged unharmed from
the jangal, where it had taken refuge.
Two very bad characters, and the less my readers have to do
with such, the better for their own peace of mind, I trow!—There
is a tale in the Kathá Sarit Ságara of a woman who
cruelly abandoned her helpless husband in the jangal, and went
off with a lusty young fellow, but I am unable to say in which
chapter of that most valuable and entertaining collection it occurs,
though I made a special search for it.
As a set-off to the faithless wife of the blind man—who afterwards
proves to be himself an arrant scoundrel—read the touching
address of Damayanti to her husband the ruined Rájá Nala, when
he proposes in the jangal that she should return to her parents
and leave him to his fate: “O king, thinking of thy purpose,
my heart trembleth, and all my limbs become faint. How can I
go, leaving thee in the lone woods, despoiled of thy kingdom and
deprived of thy wealth, thyself without a garment on, and worn
with hunger and toil? When, in the deep woods, fatigued and
afflicted with hunger, thou thinkest of thy former bliss, I will, O
great monarch, soothe thy weariness. In every sorrow, there is
no medicine equal unto the wife, say the physicians. It is the
truth, O Nala, that I speak unto thee!”[283]
A story somewhat resembling the incident of the blind man
and the honest Setti will be found in the notes on the Rose Of
Bakáwalí, under the heading of ‘The Bráhman and the Lion.’
Analogues of this story are found in a Canarese collection
entitled Kathá Manjarí, with a magpie in place of a parrot as
the bearer of the youth-renewing fruit, and in the Tútí Náma
(or Parrot-Book) of Nakhshabí, a work written A.D. 1329, which
has not yet been completely translated into English, and is now
generally known from Káderi’s abridgment.
Fruits having the property of restoring the youth and vigour
of those who ate of them figure in many Asiatic stories—there is
a notable instance in the opening of the Indian collection entitled
Sinhasana Dwatrinsati, or Thirty-two (Tales) of a Throne.
And from the East the notion was introduced into the European
mediæval romances; for example, in the Boke of Duke Huon of
Burdeux, “at the bidding of an angel,” I quote from Mr.
Sydney L. Lee’s notes to his edition of the work printed for the
Early English Text Society, “Huon gathers three of the Apples
of Youth, each of which when eaten by a man of eighty or a
hundred years old transforms him to a young man of thirty.
Huon bestows one of the apples on the admiral of Tauris and
his white hair and beard grow yellow as he eats it, and he
suddenly becomes a youth of strength and beauty. The second
is eaten by the abbot of Cluny, who is 114 years old, with
similar results. The third rejuvenates Thierry, emperor of
Germany.”
This is the third instance in the romance of food being poisoned
by serpents, and it is of very common occurrence in Eastern
fictions. The oldest known form of the story is found in a
Sanskrit collection entitled Vetálapanchavinsati, or Twenty-five
(Tales) of a Vetála, or Vampyre, which is given fully in the
Appendix to my Book of Sindibád, and the story occurs in all the
Eastern texts of the Sindibád cycle. This Tamil version is
peculiar in representing an old man as falling a victim to the
poison dropped from a snake’s mouth into food given him by a
young pilgrim, and the imprisoning of the latter in the village
temple of Kálí and so forth. In all other versions known to me,
the poison is dropped into an open dish of milk carried by a
slave-girl on her head, and her master’s guests, partaking of the
milk, all perish.
With an important difference, this tale resembles that of the
Bráhman and the Lion, p. 254, which is a variant of the world-wide
fable of the Hunter and the Serpent—the difference being
that in this case the snake ultimately rewards its rescuer. In
the story of Nala and Damayanti, the rájá rescues a snake from
a jangal fire and carries it some distance and is about to set it
down when the snake says: “Carry me ten steps farther, and
count them as you go.” So Nala proceeds, counting the steps—one,
two, three; and when he says “ten” (Sansk. dasa, which
means “bite” as well as “ten”) the snake takes him at his
word and bites the rájá on the forehead, upon which he becomes
black. But this the snake does for Nala’s own benefit, that he
should not be recognised in his degradation.
In the Introduction to the present collection will be found the
few particulars which are known regarding this romance and its
original Persian author. There is, I think, strong evidence of
its being of Hindú extraction. In the absence of any similar
work in Sanskrit or one of the vernacular languages of India, we
can only suppose that the author of the Gul-i Bakáwalí drew his
materials from various and more or less distinct, or separate,
fictions; and this supposition seems fully borne out by the somewhat
loose arrangement of the later incidents. The narrative
down to the end of the sixth chapter (p. 315), as I have divided
it, is complete in itself: the Prince wins at backgammon the
immense wealth of Dilbar, and her own person besides; he is
married to the beauteous damsel Mahmúda; he procures the
magical Rose; he has a splendid palace erected for him by the
fairies, becomes reconciled to his father, and puts his false
brothers to shame; and after a number of wondrous adventures
is united to the fairy Bakáwalí, and “passed his time with these
rosy-lipped beauties, immersed in a sea of bliss.” Surely this is
the usual conclusion of a romance, and all that follows was an
afterthought. It is, of course, quite in keeping with “the fitness
of things” romantic that the hero should have to undergo some
tribulation before becoming possessed of Bakáwalí; but that
fairy’s subsequent punishment by the deity Indra; the hero’s
marriage with the princess Chitrawat; the re-birth of Bakáwalí—which,
as I have already remarked, is quite out of place in a
Muslim work, though very proper in a Hindú story; and the
love-affair of Bahrám are evidently incidents which have been
taken out of different tales, albeit we should be sorry to have
them omitted, for they are all very entertaining.
The quest of a wonderful flower, or other object, having the
virtue of restoring sight to the blind, or of bestowing perennial
youth, or of bringing back the dying to life and health, is the
theme of many folk-tales. Besides the magical Rose from the
garden of the fairy Bakáwalí, which cured the king’s blindness
(p. 271), we have another instance in the romantic adventures of
Hatim Taï (ante, p. 467), in the case of the blind man confined
in a cage; and in the same work—but not mentioned in my
epitome of it—we are told that in the course of Hatim’s Second
Adventure he came to the capital of Mahparí, the king of the
fairies, and learned that his son had become blind. Hatim tries
the effect of his talisman on the eyes of the young prince, and it
removes the pain, but not the blindness. He is then informed
that there is a tree that grows amidst the shades of Zulmát [or
region of darkness, where is also the Water of Life], which is
named Nandar; and from this tree distils a liquid of such rare
virtue that if even a drop of it could be procured it would be the
means of restoring the prince’s sight. A fairy in love with
Hatim gives him a guard of seven thousand troops, and he at
once sets out on his dangerous journey. Having arrived in the
region of darkness, Hatim takes some of the wondrous liquid,
and returning in safety applies a few drops to the prince’s eyes,
when his sight is immediately restored.
The myth of the Water of Life is of ancient date, and it was
probably introduced into Europe from the East during the
Crusades. In Rabbinical lore it is said that Solomon sent one
of his officers for the Water of Immortality, but when he
returned successful the sage monarch would have none of it,
because he did not wish to survive all his female favourites!
According to the Muslim legend, Alexander despatched the
mythical prophet Al-Khizar on a similar errand, but no sooner
had he drank of the water than it disappeared, and this is how
Al-Khizar possesses everlasting youth.
A Fountain of Youth figures prominently in the fabliau which
chants the delights of the Land of Cockaigne; and in Conrad of
Wartzburg’s Trojan War (of the 13th century) Medea obtains
water from Paradise to renew the youth of Jason’s father. In
the romance of Huon of Bordeaux, the doughty hero finds the
Fount of Youth on Alexander’s Rock, and bathing in it is at
once restored to vigorous health.
The quest of the Rose in the garden of Bakáwalí, to cure the
king’s blindness, finds an analogue in the German tale of the
Water of Life, in the collection of the Brothers Grimm—indeed,
they are very closely allied: A king is sick unto death.
The first and the second of his sons set out in succession to
procure for him the Water of Life, but they behave rudely to a
dwarf on the road and he enchants them. The third son next
undertakes the adventure, and meeting the dwarf is civil and
courteous towards him, and in reward the dwarf directs the
youth on his way. Following all the instructions of the dwarf,
he comes to a castle, which he enters, unhurt by the two lions at
the gate. In one room he finds a number of knights in a trance,
and taking the rings off their fingers he puts them on his own.
Going into another room he sees on a table a sword and a loaf,
which he also takes. In a third room he discovers a beautiful
damsel on a couch, who welcomes him joyfully, and says that he
should have the kingdom if he would free her from the spell by
which she is bound, and come back in a year and marry her.
Returning homeward, the dwarf tells him that the sword would
at a single blow slay a whole army, and the bread would never fail
him. But the brave youth will not go home without his brothers,
and so the dwarf sets them free. While the three brothers are
sailing in a ship, the two elder substitute for the Water of Life a
bottle of sea water, which makes the king worse when he drinks
some of it. Then the two elder brothers give him the real
water and he is cured. But in the end, as in our Tale, the hero
turns the tables on his brethren and marries the princess.
Readers of the Arabian Nights will recollect that Prince
Ahmed is required by his father, at the suggestion of an envious
vazír, to get him some water from the Lion’s Spring, and his
bride, the Parí Bánú, directs him how to win past the lions, and
so forth. There can be little doubt that both the German and
the Arabian stories have a common origin. Again, in the tale of
the Envious Sisters, with which our ordinary English version
of the Arabian Nights concludes, the Fountain of Golden Water
has the property of disenchanting all the princes and nobles who
had been turned to stone.—But it were tedious to farther
multiply examples.
From the most remote times of which any records have been
preserved, wine, music, dancing, and dice seem to have gone
together in the East. The ancient Arabs were passionately
addicted to gaming, till Muhammed strictly forbade all games of
chance; a prohibition which—like that against wine-bibbing—has
not been so strictly observed by all his followers, though
Muslims are not, perhaps, so much given to gambling as most
other Asiatic peoples. They are excessively fond of chess,
which, however, cannot be included amongst games of pure
chance. Of all races, the Chinese are probably the most
inveterate gamblers: they will play at hazard till they have lost
all their possessions, wives, and children, and finally their own
freedom. In our own country the mania for dice-play was
fatally common among the upper and middle classes until within
comparatively recent years, and if all stories be true, gaming
with cards or dice, though forbidden by law, is still only too
prevalent, to the speedy ruin of the deluded votaries of the
Goddess of Chance. For it would appear that, though some
gamesters may win and others of course lose, yet nobody is ever
a gainer in the end, and hence we must conclude that all the
winnings go to—the Devil!
The Hindús have always been infatuated gamesters, and of
this we have ample evidence in the noble Indian epic, the
Mahábhárata, out of which one or two notable examples may
suffice. In the Second Book (Sabha Parva—Effort Chapter),
sections lix-lxvi, Yudhisthira, the eldest of the Pandavas, plays
at dice with Shakuni, who by foul means[284] wins all his wealth,
then his kingdom, then his brothers one by one, then Yudhisthira
himself, and finally his spouse Draupadi. In the Third
Book (Vana Parva—Forest Chapter), sections lix-lxi, Rájá
Nala, infatuated by Kálí, who had possessed him, plays at dice
with his brother Pushkara and loses his wealth and his kingdom,
but refusing to stake his sweet queen Damayanti he goes
accompanied by her into exile. Ultimately, having exchanged
with Vahuka his skill in dice-play for his own wonderful knowledge
of horses, Nala plays again with his brother and wins back
his kingdom.[285]
European fiction furnishes analogous incidents to those above
cited. For example, in the mediæval romance of Guerni de
Monglave, the hero loses his kingdom at a game of chess. In
W. Harrison Ainsworth’s novel (or “romance”) of Old Saint
Paul’s, in the chapter entitled “The Bully and the Gamester”
the latter, after losing all his money, is induced to stake his wife
on a “cast of the ivories”—and his opponent wins. In Prior’s
Danish Ballads, ‘Sir Thor and the Maiden Silvermor,’ vol. iii,
p. 151 ff., a damsel stakes her own person on a single throw of
dice, and loses.—Other instances occur in the early European
romances.
In the latter portion of “All for a Pansa,” in the Rev. J.
Hinton Knowles’ Folk-Tales of Kashmír, we have a pretty
close parallel to the incident of the Prince and Dilbar at the
game of nard, or backgammon, but a very ancient version is
found in the following Panjábí legend,[286] which recounts
How Rájá Rasálú Played at Chess With Rájá Sirikap
For Their Heads.
News was once brought to King Rasálú that at Kot Bhitaur
on the Indus lived a certain Rájá, Sirikap by name, who was
notorious for his ferocity, and renowned for his skill in chess-playing.
King Sirikap only played with those who would
accept his conditions, which were: In the first game the stakes
were to be horse, clothes, and lands. In the second game the
stake was to be the loser’s head. King Rasálú, who could not
bear the thought of a rival in anything, resolved to visit him.
So he called his captains together and said: “I am going to
try my luck against King Sirikap. But if I lose the game and
forfeit my head, say, what will you, my followers, do?” One
of the officers answered: “You may lose the game, and you
may lose your head, O king, but one thing is very certain—if
you lose your head, the head of Rájá Sirikap will be forfeited
too. Of this he shall be certified.”
Then the king mounted his horse and rode to Kot Bhitaur,
the castle of the “handsome” Sirikap the Beheader. King
Sirikap welcomed his brother king with every demonstration of
affection, and conducted him into his palace. “O youth,” said
he, “you must have come from a long distance. What is the
purpose of your visit?” “My kingdom is Siálkot,” answered
Rasálú. “Your fame as a chess-player kindled my ambition, and
I have come to play with you; only, as I am now fatigued, let
us play, if it please you, to night.” To this Sirikap agreed, and
King Rasálú, having refreshed himself, descended from the
mountain rock on which the castle stood, and walked to the
bank of the river. There he saw struggling in the water some
small clusters of ants which were being washed away, and
stooping down he saved them. Then he saw a drowning hedgehog,
and, being a humane man, he saved it also, and one of the
attendants begged for it to amuse the servants in the castle above.
Going a few steps farther, he came to a breakwater, which was
close to the castle-rock, and there he heard a voice proceeding
from the cliff: “O sir, you have come to Kot Bhitaur to play
at chess with Rájá Sirikap. But I warn you that he is a magician.”
The astonished attendants looked about them and cried:
“What voice is this?” but they perceived no one. Then they
saw on the sand a representation of the game, well figured, and
they said to the king: “O king—see, here is the game. It is
an omen of good fortune. This is your conquering day.” At
this moment the mysterious voice again issued from the rock:
“O prince—for such I perceive you to be—I have been witness
of your humanity. To you I may confide my life, being satisfied
that you will not betray me. Rájá Sirikap is a man of blood—deep,
sudden, and treacherous; but observe what I say, and
your life will be saved.” “Speak on, O hidden one,” answered
King Rasálú. “First of all,” continued the voice, “do you
walk along the bank until you see a rat with a black head.
Catch him and bring him here.” The king obeyed, and returning
to the crag he said: “The rat, O friend, I have found,
as you said, but now I would find you.” Climbing up the
ledges of the steep rocks, he came to a roughly-fashioned cell in
the face of the cliff, in which he discovered a lady of noble birth,
chained by her feet to the floor. “Who are you?” said he;
“and whence came you here?” She answered him: “I am
one of the five daughters of King Sirikap. My fault was one
which I will not reveal to you now, but my punishment is
imprisonment in this rocky cell. Yet I knew, by my power of
divination, that a prince would come from a distant kingdom,
strong and young, and that, having cut off my father’s head, he
would release me. In you I behold the prince of my prophetic
dreams.” “And I will release you,” cried the king; “but
first inform me how I am to be conqueror at the chess-board.”
The princess then gave him full instructions how he should
proceed in the trial of skill which awaited him. “First of all,”
said she, “play with the king only on a Tuesday, as to-day;
and, secondly, play only once, and let the stake be the head of
him who loses. You will proceed thus: Tie the rat with a
string, and keep him near you, as you both sit on the floor, but
keep him so that he may be visible. That King Sirikap may
not suspect your design, lean your cheek upon your hand, and
call out now and then: ‘O Rájá Núl! O Rájá Núl!’ for he was
the inventor of the game of Chaupúr,[287] in which you will be
engaged. There are two sets of men of eight pieces each, and
they are of two different colours. Now at the critical point of
the game Rájá Sirikap will give a certain signal, and straightway
from his capacious sleeve will issue his magic cat. On her
head she bears a light which renders her invisible, and which
is also invisible to all but the king himself. The effect of the
mysterious light is to throw a glamour over the king’s adversary
and to dazzle his eyes, so that he is unable to see, and during
this interval the cat dexterously disposes the pieces in such a way
that at the next move King Sirikap wins the game, and his
adversary forfeits his wager. But do you, O Prince, in order
to guard against surprise, keep the rat secure, and now and then
put your disengaged hand upon it, and now and then take it off,
patting it playfully. The moment the cat comes forth she will
make a dash at the rat, and, coming in contact with your hand,
the light will fall to the ground. Then keep her at bay, and the
game will be yours for the cowardly heart of King Sirikap will
begin to quake, and his disordered mind will ensure his discomfiture.”
Having received his instructions, King Rasálú returned to the
palace, and that night, being the eve of Tuesday, the two kings
sat down to play. The issue of the game for some time was
doubtful; but at last it was evident that a few more moves would
decide the result in favour of Rájá Rasálú; when his rival made
a secret signal, and the magic cat, unseen by any but himself,
stole from his sleeve. The moment she did so she caught sight
of the black-headed rat, and, forgetting her duty to her master,
she instantly sprang towards it, but the hand of Rájá Rasálú,
chanced to smite the light from her head and to keep her occupied
until he had won the game.
Then sprang the mighty king to his feet and cried to his
trembling rival: “The game is won and your head is my prize”;
and drawing his long sword he was about to strike off his head,
when Sirikap, lifting up his hands, implored a short respite, that
he might enter his inner apartments and bid farewell to his
family. That moment a messenger brought news to him that
his queen had been delivered of a daughter. But he heeded it
not. His perturbed soul was full of schemes as to how he might
escape his impending fate. As he walked sadly from room to
room, he said to himself: “If I hide in my own chambers I
shall be discovered.” So this idea he dismissed from his mind.
But in an unfrequented corner his anxious eye caught sight of a
large disused drum, and, disregarding his kingly dignity, he crept
under that, and began to feel himself a little secure.
Rájá Rasálú was meanwhile pacing the hall with impatient
strides, waiting for the return of his adversary. At last he could
tarry no longer, so, calling his captains, he summoned King
Sirikap to appear. But no answer was made to his call. He
then began a careful search of the whole of the castle, feeling
satisfied that the king could not have passed his guards who were
on the watch at every post. When he came to the drum, the
quick eye of Rasálú detected that it had been recently moved.
“Aha!” cried he, “the caitiff must be skulking here,” and in
another moment he dragged the dishonoured monarch forth by
the heels. Then he handed him over to his officers. “As he
was a king,” said he, “lodge him in his own palace, but guard
him well, for at sunset he must die.” Then turning to Sirikap,
he spurned him, saying: “O villain! hundreds of heads you
have smitten off in your time with your own hand, and all
for pastime, yet you never grieved or shed a tear. And now,
when the same fate is to be your own, you sneak away and hide
yourself in a drum.”
Some time after this there entered the royal soothsayers, and
they, addressing their fallen master, said: “Sir, we have sought
for the interpretation of this mystery, why ruin should have visited
your house, and we conclude that all this calamity is on account
of your daughter, whose baneful star has crossed your own. She
has come in an evil hour. Let her now be slain, and let her
head be thrown into the Indus, and your life will be saved.”
Sirikap answered: “If my life depends on her, bring me her
head, and mine may yet be saved.” So a slave-girl was despatched
to bring the infant to its father. And as she carried it
along from the apartments of the queen she said: “O what a
pretty child! I should like to save it.” Rájá Rasálú, overhearing
her, said: “Whither are you taking that child?” The slave-girl
answered: “This is Rájá Sirikap’s child, born only this very
night. The Bráhman soothsayers have told my master that his
child is the cause of all his misfortunes, and that her head is to
be taken off to save his own.” When Rájá Rasálú looked at
the child he loved it, and became very sorrowful, knowing the
power of divination. So he returned and said: “O Rájá Sirikap,
your head shall be spared on certain conditions: First, you must
surrender this infant princess in betrothal to me. Secondly, you
must become my vassal and pay me an annual tribute. Thirdly,
you must consent to have your forehead branded with a red hot
iron, in token of your vassalage. And fourthly, you must discontinue
your bloody games at chess.” To all these conditions King
Sirikap was only too glad to agree. So a treaty was drawn up
between the two kings, and it was confirmed and ratified in the
presence of their principal officers.
After this Rájá Rasálú mounted his horse and was riding
away when he thought of the princess in her lonely cell.
Turning his horse’s head, he sought the foot of the cliff and
ascended to the cavern. “Of course,” cried she, when she
saw him, “you have won the game? But tell me, have you
cut off my father’s head?” “No,” said he, “I have not.”
“What!” replied she, “have you beaten your antagonist in the
game of death, yet not exacted the penalty of his failure? What
luckless man are you?” Then King Rasálú explained to the
princess all the circumstances of his adventure. “But,” concluded
he, “one thing I omitted, namely, to stipulate for your
deliverance from captivity.”
The princess, who expected no less than to be espoused to this
handsome stranger, was overcome with distress. Seeing this, the
king, who pitied her misfortunes, took up a piece of rock and
broke her chain, and then, lifting her over his shoulder, he
descended with her from the cavern, and carried her up to the
palace of Rájá Sirikap, her father, who, seeing company returning
and fearing some new calamity, once more endeavoured to
conceal himself. But King Rasálú reassured him, and brought
him forth, and said to him: “Behold, here is your daughter;—now
say for what crime was she imprisoned?” “A certain
prince,” answered Sirikap, “came to play with me, and my
rebellious daughter gave him, to sit upon, my fortunate carpet of
state. ‘Aha,’ said I to myself, ‘so, my lady, there’s treason
afloat?’ upon which I ordered her to be perpetually chained and
imprisoned.” “One more condition,” said Rájá Rasálú, with a
stern air, “must be added to the others; it is, that you forgive
her, and that you let me know within three months that you have
made a suitable match for her.” Nor could Rájá Sirikap dare
to dispute his new lord’s will, but he received his daughter
and provided suitably for her in accordance with his pledged
word.
Once more King Rasálú mounted his charger, and at the head
of his brave companions, whose lance-heads glittered in the
sunlight, and whose accoutrements clashed merrily, he rode
proudly away to his own capital. With him, in a magnificent
litter, travelled the infant daughter of Sirikap, whose name was
Kokilan.[288] She it was, who, in after years, when she grew to
woman’s estate, became his beautiful but ill-fated consort.[289]
It is not likely that our author adapted his story of the Prince
and Dilbar the courtesan from the foregoing legend of Rájá
Rasálú: the fact that a similar tale is current in Kashmír, as
already mentioned, would seem to indicate that, in more or less
different forms, it is known in various countries of Hindústán.
But the Prince’s game with Dilbar, mainly to rescue his brothers
who had fallen into her toils, finds a curious analogue in the
mediæval European romance which recounts the adventures
of four brothers, Agravain, Gueret, Galheret, and Gauvain, all
of whom set out, in different directions, in quest of Lancelot du
Lac, according to the analysis given by Dunlop, in his History
of Fiction: Agravain, as a coup d’essai, kills Druas, a formidable
giant, but is in turn vanquished by Sorneham, the brother of
Druas. His life is spared at the request of the conqueror's niece,
and he is confined in a dungeon, where his preserver secretly
brings him refreshments. Gueret also concludes a variety of
adventures by engaging Sorneham, and being overcome is shut
up in the same dungeon with his brother. Galheret, the third
of the fraternity, comes to a castle where he is invited to play
with the lady at chess, on the condition that if he wins he is
to possess her person and castle, but losing, should become her
slave. The chessmen are ranged in compartments on the floor
of a fine hall, are as large as life, and glitter with gold and
diamonds. Each of them is a fairy and moves on being touched
with a talisman. Galheret loses the game, and is confined with
a number of other checkmated wights. Gauvain, however, soon
after arrives, and vanquishes the lady at her own arms; but
only asks the freedom of the prisoners, among whom he finds
his brother. Having learned from an elfish attendant of the
lady the fate of his two other brothers, he equips himself in the
array of the chess-king. In this garb he engages Sorneham,
who, being dazzled with the brightness of his attire, is easily
conquered, by which means Agravain and Gueret are delivered
from confinement.
There are few fables more widely spread than this, certainly
in various forms, but always with the same result. In another
work I have adduced a number of versions European and Asiatic,[290]
and shall content myself with citing in this place a rather unique
version from Mrs. Meer Hasan Ali’s Observations on the Mussulmans
of India, vol. ii, p. 330ff.:
A certain man is travelling on horseback through an immense
forest, and observes fire consuming some bushes, in the centre of
which is a great snake, who implores the traveller to save him.
The traveller throws down his horse-bag and the snake creeps
into it, and when the horseman takes it up and releases the snake
the latter is about to bite him, and so forth. Having appealed to
the pípal-tree and received the same answer as that of the banyan
in our version, the two meet a camel-driver, who says the snake
is right—it is “the way of the world” to return evil for good,
and tells his own story: “I was,” says he, “sole proprietor of a
very fine strong camel, by whose labour I earned a handsome
livelihood, in conveying goods, and sometimes travellers, from
place to place, as fortune served me. One day, returning home
through an intricate wood, I approached a poor blind man, who
was seated on the ground lamenting his hard fate. Hearing my
camel’s feet advance he redoubled his cries of distress, calling
loud for help. He told me that he had been attacked by robbers,
and that his boy-guide had been forced from him and taken as a
slave. I seated him on my beast and proceeded with him to the
city where he said he resided. Arriving there, I offered to assist
the poor man to alight, but to my astonishment he began abusing
me for my barefaced wickedness, collected a crowd about us
by his cries for help from his persecutor, declared himself the
master of the camel, and accused me of attempting to rob him
now, as I had done his brother before. Hearing this plausible
speech, the people dragged me before the judge, who sentenced
me to be thrust out of the city with threat of greater punishment
should I ever return. Therefore I say, the reward of good is
evil.” The fox is then appealed to with the usual result of leaving
the ungrateful snake in the flames, there “to fry in his own
fat.”—This story of the camel-driver is somewhat analogous to
that of the Setti and the Blind Man—ante, p. 215ff.
This droll story is of Hindú extraction, and in much the same
form is still current in Southern India. In the “Exposition”
prefixed to the Abbé Dubois’ French translation of the Tamil
version of the Panchatantra, p. 15, it is given with a few
unimportant variations: The name of the king is Nihla-Kéton,[291]
his country is called Anga-Dessa, and his capital, Barty-Poura.
His wife was long sterile, and after many vows and prayers she
at length gave birth to daughters only. Enraged at this, the
king tells his prime minister, Vahaca, that he purposes divorcing
his wife and taking another, and Vahaca tries to dissuade him
from such a course. When the queen is again pregnant the
minister offers to take her to his own house and treat her with
every care, to which the king consents. The queen once more
gives birth to a girl, and the prime minister announces it as a
boy, greatly to the king’s delight. He fixes the twelfth day for
the nama-carna (name-giving) and intimates his intention of
being present at the ceremony. But the minister bribes the
púhorita, or royal astrologer, to tell the king that in consequence
of the unfavourable aspect of his horoscope he must not
see this child or allow it to be produced in public until it is
grown up and married, otherwise dire calamities threaten both
king and country. During 16 years the king must have his
child educated at a distance from the palace, and this is undertaken
by the prime minister. When the child is 15 the minister
tells the king that a wife must be sought out for “him,” and,
taking the girl with him, he leads an army against the city of
Pattaly-Poura, and there demands the king’s daughter as wife to
the “son” of King Nihla-Kéton, the marriage to take place in
five days. These terms are accepted.—Meanwhile a giant-Bráhman
(un géant Brahme), whose abode is in a large tree in
the vicinity of the invading army, falls in love with the young
princess, and demands her of the prime minister, but Vahaca
explains that she is already betrothed, and therefore cannot be
given to him. He then tells the giant the whole story of the
girl’s birth, the concealment of her sex, and so forth, imploring
his aid, and suggesting that he should give the girl his sex and
take hers for five or six nights, till the wedding and its festivities
be over. The good-natured giant consents and exchanges sexes
with the princess. The marriage is duly celebrated, soon after
which the minister, the metamorphosed prince, and the real
princess set out to return home. On the way they visit the giant,
and the minister asks him to resume his proper sex. But he
replies that “a neighbouring genie” had fallen in love with him,
as a woman—and so on, as in our story.
Here, it will be seen on comparing the two versions, the chief
differences are: the minister takes the place of the mother in
deceiving the king as to the sex of the child; the foreign king is
compelled to give his daughter in fear of an invading army; the
minister prevails with the “giant” to exchange sexes with the
princess, who does not, as in our story, go into the forest with
the intention of destroying herself from shame. But in respect
of this last incident, we shall find that our tale adheres more
closely to the original than the Tamil version. The story occurs
in the “Udyoga Parva” (Effort Book—the fifth) of the Mahábhárata,
sections cxc-cxciii:
SANSKRIT ORIGINAL.
The first and best beloved wife of King Drupada had never
borne him a child, and the king paid his adorations to Siva for
years, in order to obtain the boon of a son. He practised the
most austere penances, saying: “Let a son, and not a daughter,
be born unto me, O Mahádeva! I desire a son, that I may
revenge myself on Bhishma.” At length the great deity said
to him: “Thou shalt have a child who shall be female and
male. Desist, O king! It will not be otherwise.” Returning
to his wife, he informed her of this decision of the great Siva—that
his child should be first female and afterwards become male.
In due time the wife of Drupada gave birth to a daughter, in
accordance with the decree of Destiny, and she gave out that the
child was a son. Then Drupada caused all the rites for a male
child to be performed in respect of that concealed daughter as if
she were really a son, and the child was named Sikhandin.
And no man in all Kámpilya, save Drupada himself, knew the
real sex of the child. Drupada bestowed great pains on the
education of his child, teaching her writing, and painting, and
the like arts. And in arrows and weapons the child became a
disciple of Drona.
Then that royal couple fixed upon the daughter of Hiranyavarman,
the king of the Dasárnas for wife to Sikhandin. And
he gave his daughter to Sikhandin, who, after the marriage, returned
to Kámpilya. The daughter of Hiranyavarman soon came
to know that Sikhandin was a woman like herself, and bashfully
informed her nurses and companions of the fact. Then the
nurses sent to the king and represented to him everything about
the imposture, upon which the king was filled with wrath. He
was a powerful monarch, with a great army, not easily to be
overcome. And he despatched a messenger to Drupada, who,
taking the king aside, said to him: “The king of the Dasárnas,
O monarch, deceived by thee and wroth at the insult that thou
hast offered him, hath said these words unto thee: ‘Thou hast
humiliated me! Without doubt, it was not wisely done by thee.
Thou didst, from folly, solicit my daughter for thy daughter!
O wicked one, reap now the consequence of that act of
deception! I will now slay thee, with all thy relatives and
advisers!’” Thus addressed, Drupada, like a thief caught in a
net, could not at first speak. At length he sent a sweet speech,
saying: “This is not so,” in order to pacify the king of the
Dasárnas. But he was not thus to be pacified; and, after
consulting with his ministers, he again sent an envoy to
Drupada, saying: “I will slay thee!” Now King Drupada
was not naturally courageous, and the consciousness of his
offence filled him with fear. He took counsel with his wife
as to how they might best escape the wrath of the king of
the Dasárnas, for he was already on the march against him
with a large army.
Meanwhile Sikhandin, filled with grief, and saying to herself
that it was solely on her account that her parents were now
in such tribulation, resolved on putting an end to her own
life. Having formed this determination, she left home, full of
heavy sorrow, and went into a dense and solitary forest which
was the haunt of a very powerful Yaksha, called Sthunákarna.
From fear of that Yaksha,[292] man never went into that forest.
And within it stood a mansion with high walls and a gateway,
plastered over with powdered earth, and rich with smoke
bearing the fragrance of fried paddy.[293] Entering that mansion,
Sikhandin, the daughter of Drupada, began to reduce herself by
foregoing all food for many days. Thereupon the Yaksha, who
was endued with kindness, showed himself unto her. And he
enquired of her, saying: “For what object is this endeavour
of thine? I will accomplish it—tell me without delay.” Thus
asked, the maiden answered him, repeatedly saying: “Thou art
unable to accomplish it.” The Yaksha, however, rejoined:
“I am a follower of the Lord of Treasures [i.e. Kuvera]. I can
grant boons, O princess! I will grant thee even that which
cannot be given! Tell me what thou hast to say.” Thus
assured, Sikhandin represented, in detail, everything that had
happened, unto that chief of Yakshas called Sthunákarna. And
she answered: “My father, O Yaksha, will soon meet with
destruction. The ruler of the Dasárnas marcheth against him in
rage. That king cased in golden mail is endued with great
might and great courage. Therefore, O Yaksha, save me, my
mother, and my father! Indeed, thou hast already pledged thyself
to relieve my distress. Through thy grace, O Yaksha, I
would become a perfect man! As long as that king may not
depart from my city, so long, O great Yaksha, show me grace!”
Hearing these words of Sikhandin, that Yaksha, afflicted by
Destiny, said, after reflection: “Blessed lady, I will certainly do
what thou wishest. Listen, however, to the condition I make:
For a certain period I will give thee my manhood. Thou must,
however, come back to me in due time. Pledge thyself to do
so. Possessed of immense power, I am a ranger of the skies,
wandering at pleasure, and capable of accomplishing whatever I
wish. Through my grace, save thy city and thy kinsmen
wholly! I will bear thy womanhood, O princess! Pledge thy
troth to me, and I will do what is agreeable to thee.” Sikhandin
answered: “O holy one of excellent vows! I will give
thee back thy manhood. O wanderer of the night! bear thou
my womanhood for a short time. After the ruler of the Dasárnas
has departed from my city, I will once more become a maiden
and thou wilt become a man.” Then they both made a
covenant, and imparted into each other’s body their sexes. And
the Yaksha became a female, while Sikhandin obtained the
blazing form of the Yaksha.
Then Sikhandin, having obtained manhood, entered his city in
great joy and approached his father, to whom he represented
everything that had happened; and Drupada became exceedingly
glad, and, along with his wife, recollected the words of the
great Siva. And he forthwith sent a messenger to the ruler of
the Dasárnas, saying: “This my child is a male. Let it be
believed by thee.” Meanwhile the ruler of the Dasárnas had
arrived at Kámpilya, and Drupada sent a messenger who was
well versed in the Vedas. But Hiranyavarman addressed the
envoy in these words: “Say unto that worst of kings: ‘O
thou wicked of understanding! having selected my daughter for
the wife of thy daughter, thou shall to-day, without doubt, behold
the fruit of that deception.’” When the envoy returned
and delivered this message to Drupada, he despatched another
Bráhman learned in the Vedas to the ruler of the Dasárnas, who
said to him: “Hear, O king, the words of the ruler of the
Pánchálas: ‘This my child is really a male. Let it be made
clear by means of witnesses.’” Then the king of the Dasárnas
sent a number of young ladies of great beauty to ascertain
whether Sikhandin was really a male or a female. And those
ladies, having ascertained the truth, joyfully told the king of the
Dasárnas that Sikhandin was a powerful person of the masculine
sex. Hearing this testimony, Hiranyavarman was filled with
joy, and going to his brother Drupada passed a few days with
him in gladness. And the king, rejoiced as he was, gave
Sikhandin much wealth, many elephants, steeds, and kine.
And, worshipped by Drupada as long as he stayed, the Dasárna
king then departed, having rebuked his daughter. And after
Hiranyavarman had departed in joy and with his anger quelled,
Sikhandin began to rejoice exceedingly.
Meanwhile [some time after the exchange of sexes had taken
place] Kuvera, the protector of all the treasures, in the course of
a journey came to the house of Sthuna, the Yaksha, and admiring
the garlands of flowers with which it was bedecked, he
asked his followers why it was that Sthuna did not come out to
greet him. And they told him how Sthuna had given his own
manhood to the daughter of Drupada, taking her womanhood
in exchange, and therefore he was ashamed to approach him.
Hearing this, Kuvera caused Sthuna to be brought before him;
and Sthuna, wearing a feminine form, came thither, and stood
before him in shame. And Kuvera said: “Since, humiliating
all the Yakshas, thou hast, O thou of sinful deeds, given away
thy own sex to Sikhandin and taken from her, O thou wicked
of understanding, her womanhood—since, O wicked wretch,
thou hast done what hath never been done before by anybody;—therefore,
from this day, thou shalt remain a woman and
she shall remain a man!” At these words all the Yakshas
attempted to mollify Kuvera for the sake of Sthuna, saying:
“Set a limit to thy curse!” Then the lord of the Yakshas
said: “After Sikhandin’s death, Sthuna will regain his own
form. Therefore let this high-souled Yaksha be freed from his
anxiety.” Having said this, Kuvera departed with his followers.
And Sthuna, with that curse denounced on him, continued to
live there; and when the time arrived, Sikhandin, without
losing a moment, came to that wanderer of the night. And
approaching his presence he said: “I have come to thee, O
holy one!” Sthuna then repeatedly said unto him: “I am
pleased with thee!” Indeed, beholding that prince return to
him without guile, Sthuna told Sikhandin everything that had
happened, adding: “O son of a king, for thee have I been
cursed by Kuvera. Go now, and live happily amongst men, as
thou choosest. Thy coming hither and the arrival of Pulastya’s
son [i.e. Kuvera] were, I think, both ordained from beforehand.
And this was incapable of being prevented.” Sikhandin then
returned to his city filled with joy.[294]
It is evident that the Persian and the Tamil versions were not
derived directly from the story in the Mahábhárata, but from
some modern adaptation, since in both the good-natured dív
has a very different reason from that of the Yaksha Sthuna for
retaining his adopted sex. The chief features of the Sanskrit
original are, however, reproduced in the two variants, if we
except the actual marriage of the princess, the discovery of her
sex, and her father’s cognisance of the whole affair from the
first, which do not appear in them.—The story is so singular
that I think it must be orally current in different countries of
India, as well as exist in collections in many of the vernacular
languages; and it would be interesting to see what farther
modifications it has undergone, especially in passing by word of
mouth to successive generations and from place to place.
In M. Dozon’s Contes Albanais No. 14 presents some analogy
to the story of the Exchange of Sexes. Here a man with three
daughters and no sons is called to the wars; he is old, and has
no one to take his place. The first and second daughters express
their wish to be married—probably, though it is not expressly
stated, in order that one of their husbands should go as the
substitute for their aged father. But the youngest assumes a
man’s dress and goes to the wars in place of him, and slays
a lamia that had long made a feast on the people once every year,
for which she receives in reward a wonderful talking horse,
through whose cleverness she accomplishes a feat by which she
wins a king’s daughter in marriage. The princess, as in the
Sanskrit story and in the well-known Arabian tale, complains to
her parents of the coldness of her “husband,” and the king
lays various snares in hopes of causing the destruction of the
disguised heroine, but her horse saves her from all of them.
At last the king sends her to “the church (sic) full of serpents,”
to demand payment of their arrears of tribute, hoping they
would kill the objectionable spouse of his daughter. The
money is paid, however, but the serpents, enraged at having
to part with so much treasure, cry out: “If thou art a girl,
become a boy; if thou art a boy, become a girl,” and there and
then the heroine found herself actually changed into a man; so
the serpents thus did her a good turn, instead of the evil one
they intended.—M. Dozon, in his rapprochements, cites No. 58
of Hahn’s collection of Greek popular tales, in which a man is
first changed to a girl, and afterwards, by a giant, back to a man
again.
Precisely the same incident occurs in the Comte de Caylus’
interesting collection of Contes Orientaux, with, strange to say,
instead of a snake, a black bull (“un taureau noir”), and the
hero, “having been brought up in the midst of jewels,” knew
that the stone was a real carbuncle, and it was of a size he had
never before seen.[295]
I have already offered some remarks on the common belief in
the East from the most ancient times that serpents have precious
stones in their heads and are the guardians of treasures concealed
in the earth (pp. 232 and 297), but the subject is so interesting
as being a survival, or rather relic, of serpent-worship, that I
think the following observations by Mr. M. J. Walhouse, the
veteran scholar, in the Indian Antiquary for 1875, pp. 45, 46,
may be reproduced here:
“In the Life of Apollonius Tyanæus [B.C. 3-A.D. 98] are
some marvellous stories of large Indian serpents, which the
Indians are said to destroy as follows: ‘They spread a silken
robe, inwoven with golden letters, before the entrance of the
serpent’s cave, and those letters, being magical, bring on sleep,
so that the eyes of the serpent are overcome. Then with
powerful incantations they so allure it as to be able to cast over
it the magical robe, which induces sound sleep. Rushing in, the
Indians cut off its head with an iron axe and take out certain
stones found therein; for the heads of most serpents are said to
contain small stones, very beautiful and endowed with a peculiar
lustre and wonderful virtues. Such a stone was in the ring that
Gyges is said to have possessed.’ This is probably an exaggerated
version of the Indian snake-charming, and one of the earliest notices
of it.… The American Indian tribes believe that in the
mountains is a secret valley, inhabited by chiefs of the rattlesnake
species, which grow to the size of large trees and bear in their
foreheads brilliant gems. In Peru is an animal called carbunculo,
which appears only at night. When pursued a valve opens in
its forehead, and a brilliant object becomes visible, dispelling the
darkness and dazzling the pursuers.”
This singular mode of concealing jewels—into which Asiatics
still very commonly convert their wealth—is said to have been
formerly, and perhaps is yet occasionally, adopted by travellers.
We have another instance in the story of the Young Man who
fell in love with a Picture, which occurs only in the Breslau
printed Arabic text of the “Thousand and One Nights,” where
the hero has luckily some jewels in the flesh of his forearm.—And
in the Toldoth Jeshu (already cited in connection with the
conflict between the white and black serpents—p. 475) is the
following most veracious narrative:
“Now at this time the unutterable Name[296] of God was
engraved in the temple on the corner-stone. For when King
David dug the foundations he found there a stone on which the
Name of God was engraved, and he took it and placed it in the
Holy of Holies. But as the wise men feared lest some ignorant
youth should learn the Name and be able to destroy the world—which
God avert!—they made by magic two brazen lions, which
they set before the entrance of the Holy of Holies, one on the
right, the other on the left. Now if any one were to go within
and learn the holy Name, then the lions would begin to roar as
he came out, so that from alarm and bewilderment he would lose
his presence of mind and forget the Name.
“And Jeshu left Upper Galilee and came secretly to Jerusalem,
and he went into the Temple and learned there the holy writing;
and after he had written the incommunicable Name on parchment
he uttered it, with intent that he might feel no pain, and
then he cut into his flesh and hid the parchment with its
inscription therein. Then he uttered the Name once more, and
made so that his flesh healed up again. And when he went out
at the door the lions roared and he forgot the Name. Therefore
he hasted outside the town, cut into his flesh, took the writing
out, and when he had sufficiently studied the signs he retained
the Name in his memory.”[297]
If there ever was a deliberately trumped-up story, this
assuredly is one—it is altogether absurd and inconsistent.
When, I wonder, did King David dig the foundation of the
Temple? Moreover, the temple referred to by this miserable,
malignant scribbler was not that built by the son of David, but
the gorgeous pile erected by King Herod. But indeed nothing
more is needed to show that this idle tale was written for one
sole purpose than the words “lest some ignorant youth should
learn the Name.” Why “some youth” only? Was there not
any danger of ignorant, or curious, or evil-minded grown men
attempting to acquire this knowledge?—Then we have the
magic lions of brass that were placed on either side of the
entrance of the Holy of Holies! The only “graven images”
we read of as being in the Temple are the cherubim, whose
wings canopied the Ark. It is very evident that this most
wretched tract—of which it is said the Jews themselves are now
ashamed—was written during the later Middle Ages, when belief
was so rife in magic images of metal as guardians of treasure or
of some other magical contrivance.
The classical story is well known of Zeus, dreading the wrath
of Hera when Semele gave premature birth to Dionysus
(Bacchus), sewing up the infant in his thigh, where he came to
maturity. And we have an interesting example of the prevalence
in India—mutatis mutandis—of Greek and Roman legends,
known to every schoolboy, in a folk-tale contributed to the
Indian Antiquary for 1886, p. 367, by (Miss?) Putlabi D. H.
Wadia, in which seven brothers go on a trading voyage, leaving
their little sister, Sunábaí Jái, with their wives, who in their
absence ill-treat her shamefully and appoint her tasks very
similar to those which Venus gave Psyche to do, the last being
to bring them some sea-foam. The poor little maid goes to the
shore, and observes her brothers’ ship coming in, and runs to
meet them. One of the brothers, when she has told her story,
cuts open his thigh and having placed her inside the opening
sews it up. When they reach home they ask for their sister and
the wives give an evasive reply, upon which they are threatened
with dire punishment should any accident have happened to the
little one, and the women having confessed their wickedness,
the brother draws Sunábaí Jái out of his thigh.
In the Tamil romance entitled Madnakámarájankadai, which
has been translated by my friend Pandit Natésa Sástrí, of
Madras, under the title of Dravidian Nights Entertainments, a
prince one day sees the daughter of Indra bathing in a tank, and
having purloined her garment takes it home, cuts open his thigh
and puts the celestial robe inside, and then sews the flesh
together. The nymph, like others of the Bird-Maiden class,
had no resource but to follow the hero and become his wife.
From the East, doubtless, the idea was brought to Europe and
utilised in the romance of Huon of Bordeaux, where we read
that the beard and molars of the Saracen amír—the procuring of
which was the condition of the hero’s pardon by Charlemagne—were
sewed up by Oberon, King of the Fairies, in the side of
Gerames, the uncle of Duke Huon.[298]
In the Kashmírí tale of Gullala Sháh (Mr. Knowles’ collection),
a fair princess, Panj Phúl, falls in love with the hero, and
her father, when he comes to know of this, transforms her to
wood and causes her to be placed in a public garden, as a
warning to other fairy damsels not to bestow their affections
on human beings. Gullala Sháh, instructed by the vazír, whose
daughter he had already married, burns the wood, and pouring
water on the ashes, Panj Phúl, as in Bakáwalí’s case, is restored
to life.
In No. 16 of the Burmese collection of tales entitled Decisions
of the Princess Thoodhamma Tsari—which has been translated
into English by Capt. T. P. Sparks (Maulmain, 1851), and
again by Chr. J. Bandow (Rangoon, 1881)—a youth is changed
into a small parrot by a magic thread being tied round his
neck, and in that form is captured by some bird-catchers in
the king’s garden, and presented as a pet to the princess, who
discovers and removes the thread, when he becomes once more
a handsome young man. Early every morning the princess
replaces the thread and he is again changed to a parrot; at
night she takes off the thread; and thus she continues to amuse
herself until the consequences could not be any longer concealed,
but in the sequel the youth is publicly acknowledged
as her husband.
Sometimes the hero of a popular fiction has the power of
transforming himself into a bird or of quitting his own body and
animating that of any dead animal, as in Mr. Natésa Sástrí’s
Dravidian Nights Entertainments, pp. 8-18, and the idea is
also known to European ballads and romances. For instance,
in Prior’s Danish Ballads, iii, 206, we are told how a knight,
to gain access to a lady’s bower, becomes a bird and flies in.
In his notes, Prior refers to the ballad of ‘The Earl of Mar’s
Daughter’ (Buchan, i, 49):
“I am a doo the live-lang day,
A sprightly youth at night;
This aye gars me appear mair fair
In a fair maiden’s sight.”
He also refers to the Netherlandish ballad, ‘Vogelritter,’ where
a knight goes to Cyprus and wins the king’s daughter, whom
he had previously visited in the form of a bird, having in his
possession a stone which effects transformations; and to the
‘Lai d’Iwenec’, by Marie de France.
Page 357—The crafty mother of the bathman is said to have
“practised for years under the sorceress Shamsah”; probably the
witch of the same name who figures in the story of Táhir, an
extract of which will be found in pp. 494, 495.
Page 370—The story of ‘The Sun and the Moon’ (Mihr ú
Máh), which the carpenter brags that he knows, is probably the
Persian romance of Mihr, the son of Káhvar Sháh, described in
Dr. Rieu’s Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts in the British
Museum, vol. ii, p. 765 (Add. 15,099), which also occurs in
Hubbí’s collection, entitled Hikáyát-i’Ajíb ú Gharíb, (already
cited on p. 474), of which Dr. Rieu, in the same Catalogue (ii,
759, Or. 237), gives the titles of the first nineteen stories, No.
3 being Mihr ú Máh. Dr. Rieu has kindly furnished me with
the first part of this tale:
In the kingdom of the East was a mighty king named Khávar
Sháh, who had no son. He is told by his astrologers that he is
predestined to have a son, provided the mother be a parí (or
fairy). On the advice of his vazír, Rushan Ráï, he asks the
help of a devotee called Faylasúf, who tells him that he should
obtain possession of the book of magic which is kept by the witch
Naskas in her castle. All three set out with this intent, and by
means of the Most Great Name (see ante, note on p. 163) obtain
entrance into the castle, and on their way release a dove from its
cage. Deceived by the wiles of the witch, they are transformed:
the king, into a lion, the vazír, into a lynx, and the devotee, into
a fox; but plunging into the waters of the Spring of Job, they
are restored to their natural shape, seek refuge in a hollow tree,
and are taken out of it by the bird Rukh (or roc) and carried to
the top of a mountain. In the meanwhile the released dove, who
was no other than Rúz-afrúz, daughter of Farrukhfál, king of the
parís, returns to her parents and tells them of her rescue. Then
she goes in search of her deliverers; finds them asleep, and has
them conveyed to her father’s court. Farrukhfál waives his
objection to a marriage which he deemed a mésalliance, and the
result in due time is the birth of a prince, called Mihr. The
astrologers prophesy that at the age of eighteen grief will come
to him through a piece of paper. And, in fact, the young man,
while out hunting, meets a youth called Mukhtarí, a rich merchant
from Maghrab, who has suffered shipwreck and has saved
nothing but the portrait of Máh, the fair daughter of Hilál, king
of the West. The remainder of the tale deals with the adventures
of the love-struck prince in search of the fair one, ending,
of course, with their happy union.[299]
The tale of ‘Sayf ul-Mulúk and Bady’á ul-Jumál,’ which the
carpenter says he had also heard, occurs in the Arabian Nights;
the Turkish story-book Al-Faraj ba’d al-Shiddah, or Joy after
Distress; the Persian Tales translated into French by Petis de
la Croix, under the title of Les Mille et un Jours; and it also exists
as a separate story in MSS. preserved in the British Museum
and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It recounts how a young
prince discovers in his father’s treasury the portrait of a very
beautiful damsel and sets out in quest of her. After many
perilous adventures he finally learns from a jinni that the fair
original of the portrait was one of the concubines of King
Solomon and had, of course, been dead for many ages.
Whether the ‘Road to the Mosque’, which the carpenter says
he has “seen,” be the title of a story, or (as is more likely) that
of a devotional work, I am unable to say, never having seen
it alluded to elsewhere.
is a variant of a story found in the Beslau printed Arabic text of
the ‘Thousand and One Nights,’ of the Fuller, his Wife, and the
Trooper. It also occurs in the Historia Septem Sapientum
Romæ, the European adaptation of the Book of Sindibád, where
a crafty Knight of Hungary plays the part of the carpenter of
our story, and a jealous old baron that of the Kází. The plot of
the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, which is very similar to the tale
of the crafty Knight, in all likelihood suggested to Boiardo the
amusing episode, in his Orlando Innamorato, of Folderico and
Ordauro, which, in its turn, was perhaps adapted in the Seven
Wise Masters. In my Book of Sindibád, p. 343 ff., and in my
Popular Tales and Fictions, vol. ii, pp. 214-228, are most of
the other known versions and variants of this story.
has many parallels in Eastern story-books, and the tale seems to
have been, time out of mind, a favourite with Asiatics. In one
version there is no game of yad est between husband and wife.
The lady has her lover concealed in an adjoining apartment, for
her husband has come home quite unexpectedly. But she tells
him plainly of the fact, upon which he demands the key and
approaches to open the door of the room, when the lady bursts
into laughter. He pauses in astonishment, and asks the cause
of her merriment, to which she replies: “I cannot help laughing
at your simplicity, in believing that I should have a lover in
the next room, and tell you of it.” The husband returns the
key and goes away well pleased.
resembles the latter part of the Arabian tale of the Fuller, his
Wife, and the Trooper, where the poor husband is also drugged,
his hair is cropped, he is dressed as a soldier, and provided with
a letter recommending him to be enrolled by the governor of
Isfahán. In this case, however, the poor husband is not
reclaimed by his artful wife.
Whatever may be the source of this diverting story, it was
known in France as early at least as the 13th century, in the
form of fabliau by Haisiau the Trouvère, under the title “Des
Trois Dames qui trouverent un Anel” (Méon’s edition of Barbazan,
1808, tome iii, p. 220ff., and Le Grand, 1781, tome iv,
pp. 163-166), of which the following is the outline:
Three ladies found a ring, and “they swore by Jesu that she
should have it who should best beguile her husband to do a good
turn to her lover.”
The First Lady, having made her husband drunk, when he
is asleep, causes his head to be shaved, dresses him in the habit
of a monk, and carries him, assisted by her lover, to the entrance
of a convent. When he awakes and finds himself thus transformed
he imagines that God, by a miraculous exercise of his
grace, had called him to the monastic life. So he presents himself
before the abbot and requests to be received among the
brethren. The lady hastens to the convent in well-feigned
despair, and is exhorted to be resigned and to congratulate her
husband on the saintly vow he has taken. “Many a good
man,” says the poet, “has been betrayed by woman and her
harlotry. This one became a monk in the abbey, where he
remained a very long time. Wherefore, I counsel all people who
hear this story told, that they ought not to trust in their wives, or
in their households, if they have not first proved that they are full
of virtues. Many a man has been deceived by women and their
treachery. This one became a monk against right, who would
never have been such in his life, if his wife had not deceived
him.”
The Second Lady had some salted and smoked eels which
her husband bade her cook for dinner on a Friday, but there was
no fire in the house. Under the pretext of going to have them
cooked on a neighbour’s fire, she goes out and finds her lover, at
whose house she remains a whole week. On the following
Friday, about the hour of dinner, she enters a neighbour’s house
and asks leave to cook her eels, saying that her husband is angry
with her for having no fire, and that she could not dare to go
back lest he should cut off her head. As soon as the eels are
cooked she carries them home, “piping hot.” The husband
asks her where she has been for the last week, and commences
to beat her. She cries for help and the neighbours come in, and
amongst them the one at whose fire the eels had been cooked,
who swears that the wife had only just left her house, and
ridicules the man for his assertion that she had been away a
whole week. The poor husband gets into a great rage and is
locked up for a madman.[300]
The Third Lady proposes to her lover to marry him, and he
thinks that she is merely jesting, seeing she is already married,
but she assures him that she is quite in earnest, and even undertakes
that her husband will give his consent. The lover is
to come for her husband and take him to the house of Dan
Eustace, where he has a fair niece, whom the lover is to pretend
he wishes to espouse, if he will give her to him. The lady will
go thither, and she will have made her arrangements with Dan
Eustace before they arrive. Her husband cannot but believe
that he has left her at home, and she will be so apparelled that
he cannot recognise her. This plan is accordingly carried out.
The lover asks the lady’s husband for the hand of his niece in
marriage, to which he very willingly consents, and thus without
knowing it makes him a present of his own wife. “All his life
long the lover possessed her, because the husband gave and did
not lend her; nor could he ever get her back.”[301]
“Now tell me true,” adds the poet, “without any lie, and if
you would judge rightly and truly, which one of these three best
deserved to have the ring?”
Le Grand, at the end of his modern French prose abridgment
of this fabliau, says that it is told at great length in the tales of
the Sieur d’Ouville, tome iv, p. 255. In the Facetiæ Bebelianæ,
p. 86, three women make a wager as to which of them will play
the best trick on her husband. One causes her poor spouse to
believe he is a monk, and he goes and sings mass; the second
husband believes that he is dead and allows himself to be carried
on a bier to that mass; and the third sings in it stark naked,
believing he is clothed. It is also found in the Convivales
Sermones, t. i, p. 200; in the Délices de Verboquet, p. 166; and
in the Facetiæ of Lod. Doménichi, p. 172. In the Contes pour
Rire, p. 197, three women find a diamond, and the arbiter whom
they select promises it to her who concocts the best device for
deceiving her husband, but the ruses, according to Le Grand,
are different from those in the fabliau. Possibly from this last
mentioned version (if not from some old Morisco-Spanish tale,
for the idea of the story is certainly of Eastern origin) Isidro de
Robles, a Spanish novelist, who wrote about the year 1666,
adapted his tale of ‘The Diamond Ring,’ of which a translation
is given by Roscoe in his Spanish Novelists, 1832, vol. iii, pp.
163-214, and the outline of which is as follows:
In the fair city of Madrid there lived three ladies who were
very intimate friends. One was the wife of Luca Morena, cashier
to a wealthy Genoese merchant; the second was the wife of
Diego de Morales, a painter, employed in decorating one of the
monasteries; the third was the wife of Señor Geloso, an elderly
ill-tempered curmudgeon. It happened one day, when the three
ladies were standing near a fountain to see a grand public procession,
that they simultaneously discovered a diamond ring
which glittered under the water, and when one of them took it
up, all three laid claim to it, on various grounds, and they
squabbled for its possession till one of them proposed they
should submit the matter to a count of their acquaintance whom
they saw approaching, to which the others agreed. The count
takes charge of the ring and says that it should be the prize of
“whichever of you shall, within the space of the next six weeks,
succeed in playing off upon her husband the most clever and
ingenious trick—always having due regard to his honour.”
The Cashier’s Wife employs an astrologer to waylay her
husband on his road home and tell him that he looks seriously
ill; then to feel his pulse and declare that he will be a dead
man within 24 hours, so he had better put his affairs in order.
Somewhat alarmed, he reaches home, takes little supper and
goes to bed, but only to toss restlessly about all the night. He
is off to business earlier than usual next day, and coming home in
the evening meets the vicar of the parish and some friends, who
are also in the plot. They pretend not to see him, but talk to
each other aloud of Luca Moreno’s sudden death, and express
very uncomplimentary opinions as to his state in the other
world. In great perplexity, he continues his way and meets the
astrologer and the painter (the latter is the husband of the second
lady, and, strange as it may seem, is also a party in the plot),
talking likewise of his death. He can endure this no longer,
and accosts them, saying that he is not dead, but they affect to
take him for his own ghost and run away. Now he thinks he
must be really dead, though when and how he died he cannot
recollect. Arriving at his house, he finds it shut up, and knocks
long and loudly at the door before the maidservant appears, who
asks: “Who is it? You can’t come in, for master is dead.”
“Why,” exclaims the poor cashier, “it is I myself, your master.”
“Who calls at this hour? This is the house of mourning, for
we are all in grief for the loss of our master.” “Hold your
tongue, you jade, and let me in, for I am your master.” She
replies that he, poor man, is now engaged counting money in
another and a worse world. In his rage he bursts open the
door and walks in. His wife on seeing him pretends to swoon,
but leaving her in the care of the maidservant he goes down to
the pantry to stay his ravenous appetite, and there indulges in a
hearty supper, washed down with copious draughts of wine, and
then goes to bed. In the morning his wife, in gala dress, awakes
him, and he thinks that she is dead also, and asks her when he
himself died and was buried. She says all that she knows is
that he buried last night some of the best wine and dainties
provided for the carnival—he must be still drunk to talk such
nonsense. The astrologer and the painter come, and when they
hear his story declare they had not seen him or been from home
last night, and, the vicar and his friends making a similar
statement, he is persuaded the whole affair was a dream, and
promises to defray the cost of a feast on Shrove Tuesday.
It is now the turn of the Second Lady to play a trick upon
her husband, the painter. “For this purpose she concerted
a plan with a brother of hers, who possessed a fine genius for
amusing himself at other people’s expense. In the first place
they contrived to have a false door made at the entrance of the
house, on such a plan (then frequently adopted) that it might be
easily substituted for the real door at short notice. It was brought
thither secretly one night, and concealed in a cellar, while the
brother and two friends lay ready to carry on the intended plot
in an upper chamber of the house.” The painter returns home
as usual, and having supped retires to rest. About midnight he
is roused from a deep sleep by the cries of his wife, who pretends
to be dying, and implores him to go for her confessor, and her
old nurse, who knew her constitution. He very reluctantly rises
and dresses himself, and then sets out in quest of the nurse, who
lived at the other end of the town. Meanwhile the old door is
removed and the false one substituted, and above it a sign is
placed bearing the words, “House of Public Entertainment.”
Then, according to arrangement, friends of the lady and a party
of musicians with their instruments arrive, in order to “make a
night of it.” The poor painter, after plodding his weary way in
quest of the old nurse, through wind and rain, and knocking at
the wrong doors, at last returns home, drenched to the skin. But
what must have been his amazement to find his house metamorphosed
into a tavern and to hear sounds from within of mirth and
revelry! He knocks at the door, however, and a head is thrust
out of an upper window and a voice orders him to be off, for the
house is full. When he says that the house is his own, he is told
it has been a tavern for the last 15 years and is finally made to
beat a retreat by two dogs being let loose on him. Betaking himself
to his friend Señor Geloso (whose turn is yet to come), he
relates to him all his strange adventures. His friend thinks he is
drunk and accommodates him for the night in his house. Next
morning they go to the painter’s house, which has been restored
to its former appearance, and when he tells them of what had
happened to him the previous night, his wife and her friends
assure him that the affair must have been the effect of sorcery,
at the same time his loving spouse reads him a severe lecture on
his debauched way of life, staying out o’ nights and so forth. It
is finally agreed to say no more about the matter.
The trick played on the jealous, ill-tempered husband of the
Third Lady bears a striking resemblance to that of the Kutwál’s
wife—mutatis mutandis. Having plied him with wine till he is
“dead drunk,” she sends for her brother, prior of the convent of
Capuchins, who comes (as arranged) with the lay brethren, and,
after his head has been shaved and he has been dressed in the
monastic garb, they carry him off to the convent and place him
in a cell. When he awakes he is perplexed at the change that
has taken place in his person and place of abode. In brief, he is
flogged next day for contumacy and sentenced to eight days’
imprisonment, with bread and water. This term expired, he is
sent out with one of the monks to beg alms, and in the course of
their rounds they come to his own house, where seeing his wife
at a window he rushes in and embraces her. The lady, of course,
raises a great outcry, and the servants and neighbours hasten to
her assistance. The monk explains that he is a crazy brother
who fancies every pretty woman he sees is his wife, and leads him
back to the convent, where he is again soundly flogged and put
upon a new course of bread and water, so long that his hair and
beard were grown again. One night he is treated to a fine supper
and a bottle of wine containing an opiate, and, when he is asleep,
is carried back to his house, and on awaking next morning and
telling his wife of all that he had undergone as a monk, she persuades
him that it was but a distempered dream, and he, glad to
find himself in his own house, promises to treat her in future with
all respect and full confidence in her virtue.
The three ladies proceed next day to the dwelling of the count
and relate the tricks they had played their husbands. He says
that he cannot possibly give the preference to any one of them—they
are all equally clever—but as the ring is really one he had
himself lost the very day when they found it, he must ask them
to accept and divide amongst themselves a purse containing three
hundred pistoles, and so the ladies take their leave of the count,
in every way satisfied.
The latter part of this story will at once remind the reader of
the tale of Alí Khoja and the Merchant of Baghdád in our
common English version of the Arabian Nights,[302] in which Alí
Khoja, before setting out on the pilgrimage to Makka, places a
thousand gold pieces in a jar and fills it up with olives, and gives
it into the custody of a merchant with whom he was intimate, as
a jar of olives merely; and the merchant after the Khoja had
prolonged his absence far beyond the usual time opened the jar
to take out of it some olives for his wife, who had wished for that
fruit, and finding the gold underneath abstracted it, and substituted
fresh olives. The story is too well known to require the
repetition of the subsequent details—how judgment was at first
given in favour of the merchant, but was afterwards reversed, as
in our story of the Kází, by the acuteness of a boy.
It seems to have been a favourite pastime from ancient times
for Asiatic youngsters to play at “the King and his Ministers.”
In the apocryphal Arabic gospel of the Saviour’s Infancy we
read: “In the month of Adar, Jesus, after the manner of a
king, assembled the boys together. They spread their clothes
on the ground and he sat down on them. Then they put on his
head a crown made of flowers, and like chamber-servants stood
in his presence, on the right and on the left, as if he was a king,
and whoever passed that way was forcibly dragged by the boys,
saying: ‘Come hither and adore the king; and then go away.’”
This passage finds a very remarkable parallel in the Mongolian
tales of Ardshi Bordshi—the second part of Miss Busk’s Sagas
from the Far East, derived from Jülg’s Mongolische Märchen, as
follows: “In the neighbourhood of his [i.e. Ardshi Bordshi’s]
residence was a hill where the boys who were tending the calves
were wont to pass the time by running up and down. But they
had also another custom, and it was that whichever of them won
the race was king for the day—an ordinary game enough, only
that when it was played in this place the boy-king thus constituted
was at once endowed with such extraordinary importance
and majesty that every one was constrained to treat him as a real
king. He had not only ministers and dignitaries among his
play-fellows, who prostrated themselves before him, and fulfilled
all his behests, but whoever passed that way could not choose
but pay him homage also.”
The Rev. J. Hinton Knowles, in a note to his Folk-Tales of
Kashmír, thus describes the game of “Vazír Pádisháh,” also
called “Suhul,” as it is played by the boys in Kashmír:
“It is generally played by four youngsters. Four little sticks
are provided, of which the bark on one side is peeled off. Any
of the four children throws first. If one should throw three
sticks so that they all fall on the bark side, then he is appointed
pádisháh, or king; but if not, they all try and throw till some one
succeeds. The next thing is to find out the vazír. He who
throws the sticks so that one of them falls with the bark side up,
but the other three with the peeled sides up, is appointed to this
office. Then an asúr, or thief, has to be fixed upon. He who
throws so that two of his sticks fall with the bark side upwards is
proclaimed the thief. Lastly a sayd, or honest man, has to be
found. This part he has to play who throws the sticks so that
three of them fall with the bark side upwards. If it should
happen that all four of them fall with the bark sides up, that
thrower has to try again.[303]
“Pádisháh, vazír, asúr, and sayd being known, the real play
begins. The asúr, or thief, is brought before the king by the
vazír, who says: ‘O king, peace and health to you; here is a
thief.’ The king replies: ‘Whence has he come?’ Then the
vazír tells him the whole case, and punishment has to be inflicted
on the criminal. This is the most amusing part of the whole
play. ‘Give him Bangálí cannon,’ says the king, and the vazír
kicks the prisoner’s buttocks; or the king says: ‘Bring a dog in
his place from the Ladák,’ when the vazír takes the prisoner a
short distance, and then holding him by the ear pulls him back,
while the prisoner barks like a dog; or the king says: ‘Take
out the spindle,’ when the vazír draws a line with his thumb-nail
on the inside of the arm from the elbow-joint to the wrist, and
then hits the arm over the line as hard as he can with the first
and second fingers of his right hand. There are many other
words of punishment too numerous to mention here.”
Not a few Eastern stories turn upon the wonderful acuteness
of boys in solving difficult questions which have perplexed the
profound minds of their “grave and reverend” seniors. The
reader will find a number of examples cited in my Popular Tales
and Fictions, vol. ii, pp. 10, 12-14, one of which, a Mongolian
tale, is analogous to that of the Arabian story of Alí Khoja’s
“pot of olives.”
The indirect source of this story is probably the following tale,
from the Kathá Sarit Ságara, vol. i, p. 298, of Prof. C. H.
Tawney’s translation, published at Calcutta a few years ago:
There is a city named Srávastí, and in it there lived in old
time a king of the name of Prasenajit, and one day a strange
Bráhman arrived in that city. A merchant, thinking he was
virtuous because he lived on rice in the husk, provided him a
lodging there in the house of a Bráhman. There he was loaded
by him every day with presents of unhusked rice and other gifts,
and gradually by other great merchants also, who came to hear
his story. In this way the miserly fellow gradually accumulated
a thousand dínars, and going to the forest he dug a hole and
buried it in the ground, and he went every day and examined the
spot. Now one day he saw that the hole in which he had hidden
his gold had been re-opened, and that all the gold was gone.
When he saw that hole empty, his soul was smitten, and not only
was there a void in his heart, but the whole universe seemed to
be a void also. And then he came crying to the Bráhman in
whose house he lived, and when questioned he told him his whole
story; and he made up his mind to go to a holy bathing-place
and starve himself to death. Then the merchant who supplied
him with food, hearing of it, came there with others, and said to
him: “Bráhman, why do you long to die for the loss of your
wealth? Wealth, like an unseasonable cloud, suddenly comes
and goes.” Though plied by him with these and similar arguments,
he would not abandon his fixed determination to commit
suicide, for wealth is dearer to the miser than life itself. But
when the Bráhman was going to the holy place to commit suicide,
the king Prasenajit himself, having heard of it, came and asked
him: “Bráhman, do you know of any mark by which you can
recognise the place where you buried your dínars?” When the
Bráhman heard that, he said: “There is a small tree in the wood
there; I buried that wealth at its foot.” When the king heard
that he said: “I will find the wealth and give it back to you, or
I will give it you from my own treasury; do not commit suicide,
Bráhman.” After saying that, and so diverting the Bráhman
from his intention of committing suicide, the king entrusted him
to the care of the merchant, and retired to his palace. There he
pretended to have a headache, and sending out the doorkeeper
he summoned all the physicians in the city by proclamation
with beat of drum. And he took aside every single one of
them and questioned him privately in the following words:
“What patients have you here, and how many, and what
medicines have you prescribed for each?” And they thereupon,
one by one, answered all the king’s questions. Then one
among the physicians, when his turn came to be questioned,
said this: “The merchant Mátridatta has been out of sorts, O
king, and this is the second day that I have prescribed for him
nágabalá” [the plant Uraria Lagopodioides]. When the king
heard that he sent for the merchant and said to him: “Tell
me who fetched you the nágabalá?” The merchant said: “My
servant, your highness.” When the king got this answer from
the merchant he quickly summoned the servant and said to him:
“Give up that treasure belonging to a Bráhman, consisting of a
store of dínars, which you found when you were digging at the
foot of a tree for nágabalá.” When the king said this to him
the servant was frightened, and confessed immediately; and
bringing those dínars, left them there. So the king for his part
summoned the Bráhman, and gave him, who had been fasting in
the meanwhile, his dínars, lost and found again, like a second
soul external to his body. Thus the king by his wisdom recovered
to the Bráhman his wealth, which had been taken away from the
tree, knowing that that simple grew in such spots.
Many stories of hidden treasure being stolen and recovered by
a clever device are current in Europe as well as in the East.
For example, in No. 74 of the Cento Novette Antiche, the oldest
Italian collection of tales, a blind beggar conceals 100 florins
under the floor of a church, and is observed by a sharper who
next day takes the money away. When the blind man finds his
treasure gone, he stands at the church-door at the time of service
and bids his boy watch all who enter the church and let him know
if any one should regard him (the beggar) as if with peculiar
interest. The sharp-witted boy observes a man looking at his
father and smiling, and when the beggar learns the name of the
man, he scrapes acquaintance with him, tells him that he has
100 florins concealed under the floor of the church, and expects
to receive 100 more in the course of a day or two, which he had
lent out; and begs his new friend to meet him on such a day
when they would lift the stone and deposit the additional money.
The sharper, thinking to get this other sum as well, went privily
and replaced the 100 florins he had stolen, and the blind man,
anticipating he would do so, returned at night and took away his
money, resolving to part with it no more.—The same story is
found in the Breslau printed Arabic text of the ‘Thousand and
one Nights’, and is translated by Mr. John Payne in his Tales
from the Arabic, and also by Sir Richard F. Burton in the first
volume of his Supplemental Nights, under the title of “The
Melancholist and the Sharper.” A short version is given in
Gladwin’s Persian Moonshee; and another analogous story of
buried treasure will be found in Roscoe’s Spanish Novelists, ed.
1832, vol. iii, p. 215-234, entitled “A Prodigious Adventure,”
by Isidro de Robles.
Readers who are not familiar with the Kurán may like to see
in English the Muslim “Lord’s Prayer,” called Al-Fátihá, which
the Deaf Man recited in presence of his sick friend, so this is it,
from Rodwell’s translation, p. 11:
“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful!
Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds!
The compassionate, the merciful!
King on the day of reckoning!
Thee [only] do we worship, and to thee do we cry for help.
Guide thou us on the straight path!
The path of those to whom thou hast been gracious; with whom thou art not angry, and who go not astray.”
This sura is esteemed as the quintessence of the Kurán, and
is recited several times in the course of each of the five daily
prayers, and on many other occasions.
It is well known that men afflicted with partial deafness are
generally unwilling to acknowledge their infirmity, and even
resent being talked to in a loud tone of voice; though they often
betray themselves by the answers they give to questions asked of
them, much to the amusement of their questioners.—A story is
told of a deaf Persian who was taking home a quantity of wheat,
and, coming to a river which he must cross, he saw a horseman
approach; so he said to himself: “When that horseman comes
up he will first salute me, saying, ‘Peace be with thee!’ Next
he will ask, ‘What is the depth of this river?’ and then he
will ask, how many máns of wheat I have with me.” But
the deaf man’s surmises were sadly amiss, for when the horseman
came up he cried: “Ho! my man, what is the depth of
this river?” The deaf one replied: “Peace be with thee, and
the mercy of Allah and his blessing!” At this the horseman
laughed and said: “May they cut off thy beard!” to which the
deaf one rejoined: “Up to my neck.” The horseman then
said: “Dust be on thy mouth!” The deaf one placidly
replied: “Eighty máns of it.”
Here we have a very close parallel to the story of the Deaf
Man and his Sick Friend, and there is a curious Norwegian
variant in Sir George W. Dasent’s Tales from the Fjeld, under
the title of “Goodman Axeshaft,” which is to this purpose:
The wife and daughter of an old ferryman, who was extremely
deaf, by their extravagance plunge him into an ocean of debt
and run away from home. The sheriff is to come and seize, and
the old man wonders what he’ll say to him. “Ah, I’ll begin to
cut an axeshaft, and the sheriff will ask me how long it is to be.
I’ll answer, ‘Up as far as that twig sticks out.’ Then he’ll
ask, ‘What’s become of the ferry boat?’ and I’ll say, ‘I’m
going to tar her, and yonder she lies on the strand, split at both
ends.’ Then he’ll ask, ‘Where’s your gray mare?’ and I’ll
say, ‘She’s standing in the stable, big with foal.’ And then
he’ll ask, ‘Whereabouts is your sheepcote?’ and I’ll answer,
‘Not far off; when you get a bit up the hill you’ll soon see it.’”
But when the sheriff comes up he says “Good day” to the old
man, who answers: “Axeshaft.” Then he asks: “How far off
to the river?” to which the ferryman replies: “Up to this twig,”
pointing a little way up the piece of timber. The sheriff stares
and shakes his head. “Where’s your wife?” “I’m just going
to tar her,” and so forth. “Where’s your daughter?” “In the
stable,” and so on. “To the deuce with you!” exclaims the
sheriff, in a rage. “Very good,” says the old man; “not far
off—when you get a bit up the hill you’ll soon see it.” Upon
this the sheriff goes off, in sheer despair.
In mediæval times the ancient fable of the Fowler and the Little
Bird was appropriated by several monkish compilers of exempla,
designed for the use of preachers; but this version is unique, so
far as my knowledge of other forms of the fable extends. It has,
exclusively, the scene between the lapwing and the nightingale;
the references to the Muslim legend of Solomon’s receiving from
a lapwing, or hoopoe, intelligence of the city of Sabá (or Sheba)
and Queen Bilkís; and the allegation of the nightingale to the
gardener that the fruit the bird had destroyed was poisonous.
The fable is found in the spiritual romance of Barlaam and
Joasaph (not Josaphat, as the name is commonly written), which
is said to have been composed in the first half of the 7th century,
by a Greek monk named John, of the convent of St. Sabá, at
Jerusalem, and—according to M. Hermann Zotenberg—redacted
by Johannes Damascenus, a Greek Father, of the 8th century,
and included in his works. It is now certain that the substance
of this work was derived from Indian sources: the incidents in
the youth of Joasaph correspond with those in the early years of
Gautama, the founder of Buddhism; while some of the parables
contained in the romance are found in the Játakas, or Buddhist
Birth-stories and others in Hindú books. This is how the fable
is told in Barlaam and Joasaph:
They who worship idols are like the bird-catcher who caught
one of the smallest birds, which they call the nightingale. As
he was about to kill and eat it, articulate speech was given to
the bird, and it said: “What will the killing of me profit thee,
man? Thou canst not fill thy belly with me. But if thou set
me free, I will give thee three injunctions, which, if thou observe,
will benefit thee all thy life.” He was amazed to hear the bird
speak, and promised. Then said the nightingale: “Never try
to reach the unattainable. Rue not a thing that is past. Never
believe a thing that is beyond belief.” Away flies the bird;
but, to test the man’s common sense, it cries to him: “How
thoughtless thou art! Inside of my body is a pearl larger than
the egg of an ostrich, and thou hast not obtained it!” Then he
repented having let the bird go free, and tried to coax it back by
fair offers. But the bird rebuked his folly in so soon forgetting
all the three injunctions it had given him.
In this form the fable also occurs in the Disciplina Clericalis
of Petrus Alphonsus, a Spanish Jew, who was converted to
Christianity in 1106, and who avowedly derived the materials for
his work from the Arabian fabulists, and from this collection it
was taken into the Gesta Romanorum (see Swan’s translation,
ed. 1824, vol. ii, p. 87). John Lydgate, the monk of Bury, of
the 15th century, turned the fable into English verse, under the
title of “The Chorle and the Bird, from a pamflete in Frenche,”
which is conjectured to have been the fabliau “Le Lai de
l’Oiselet,” but this I think is rather doubtful. According to
Lydgate’s poem, a little bird takes up its abode in a laurel-tree
in a churl’s garden, and sings merrily all the livelong day. The
churl sets a trap (pantere) to catch the bird.
It was a verray hevenly melodye,
Evyne and morowe to here the bryddis songe,
And the soote sugred armonye
Of uncouthe varblys and tunys drawen on longe,
That al the gardeyne of the noysè rong,
Til on a morwe, whan Tytan shone ful clere,
The birdd was trapped and kaute with a pantere.
The churl puts the little bird into a fine cage and orders it to
sing, but says the bird:
“Song and prison have noon accordaunce,
Trowest thou I wolle syng in prisoun?
Song procedethe of joy and of plesaunce,
And prison causethe dethe and destruccioun;
Rynging of fetires makethe ne mery sounde,
Or how shuld he be gladde or jocounde
Agayne his wylle, that ligthe in chaynès bounde?”
“But let me out,” the bird goes on to say, “so that I may
perch again on the laurel-tree, and then I will sing to thee, and
moreover,
“I shal the yeve a notable gret gwerdoun,
Thre grete wysdoms according to resoun,
More of walewe, take hede what I do profre,
Thane al the golde that is shet in thi cofre.”
The three “great wisdoms” are the same as those in other
versions, and then the little bird says that the churl by setting
him free has missed gaining a rare treasure, for in his inside is
a stone, fully an ounce in weight, which has many wonderful
properties: making its possessor victorious in battle; he should
suffer no poverty or indigence but have abundance of wealth; all
should do him reverence; it would reconcile foes, comfort the
sorrowful, and make heavy hearts light.[304] The churl is beside
himself with vexation, and the bird calls him a fool for believing
such a rank impossibility.[305]
Husain Vá’iz has re-told the apologue in his Anvár-i Suhaylí,
or Lights of Canopus, a Persian rendering, in prose and verse, of
the celebrated Fables of Bidpaï with additions, of which this is
one. Here, however, the nightingale—having been entrapped
by the gardener, because it destroyed his roses—does not, when
liberated, give the gardener three maxims, but tells him that
beneath such a tree is a vessel full of gold. The villager digs
and finds the treasure, and then asks the bird how it was that he
could see a vessel full of gold under the earth, yet not discover
the snare above ground; to which the nightingale replies, like a
good Muslim: “Hast thou not heard that ‘when Fate descends
caution is in vain’?”[306]
The fabliau version, “Le Lai de l’Oiselet,” as found in Méon’s
edition of Barbazan’s collection, Paris, 1808, t. iii, 114, and (in
modern French prose) in Le Grand, ed. 1784, t. iii, 430, can
hardly have been the original of Lydgate’s poem, as may be seen
from the following free rendering of Le Grand’s abridgment
(in which, however, he omits the bird’s statement about the
wonderful stone in its body), including a few lines from Way’s
agreeable English metrical translation:
Once on a time there was a noble castle surrounded by a wide
domain of field and forest, which was first owned by a worthy
knight. His son and successor wasted his patrimony in riotous
living—“ye know well,” quoth our poet, “that it needs but one
spendthrift heir to bring great wealth to nought”; and now the
fair castle and domain had become the property of a rich but
sordid churl. This lofty and strong castle had been reared by
magic art. A pebble-paved stream flowed round a beauteous
orchard, where grew tall and shapely trees, flowers of every hue,
and odorous plants; and such was the fragrance of the air that
it might have arrested a man’s parting breath. In the midst of
this fair scene a gushing fountain sparkled in the sunlight, while
near it a lofty pine tree’s deathless verdure afforded grateful
shade at noontide.
A marvellous bird had fixed his abode in this tufted pine, and
ever he sat and sang his lay of love in such sweet and moving
strains that, matched against his magic melody, the music of viol
and full-toned harp were as nought. Such was the power of this
wondrous feathered minstrel that his strains could create unutterable
joy in the heart of the despairing lover; and should they
cease, and the songster take his flight from this enchanted ground,
then would all the goodly scene—castle, trees, flowers, forest—fade
away and forever disappear.
“Listen, listen, to my lay
(Thus the merry note did chime),
All who mighty Love obey,
Sadly wasting in your prime,
Clerk and laic, grave and gay;
Yet do ye, before the rest,
Gentle maidens, mark me tell!
Store my lesson in your breast,
Trust me it shall profit well:
Hear and heed me, and be blest!”
[307]
The little warbler had no sooner ended his lay of love when he
discovered the churl, upon which the bird ordered the river to
retire to its source, the flowers to fade, the fruit to wither, and
the castle to sink into the earth; for a vile churl should not be
suffered to dwell where the beautiful and the brave had once held
sweet communion. The churl, having heard the melodious strains
of the little bird, resolved to capture him and sell him for a large
sum. Accordingly he set his snare and caught the feathered
songster. “What injury have I done thee?” cried the little
bird. “And why dost thou doom me to death?” “Fear not,”
said the churl; “I only desire to hear thy song, and will get
thee a fine cage and plenty of seeds and kernels to eat. But sing
thou must, else I’ll wring thy neck and pick thy bones.” “Alas,”
sighed the pretty captive, “who can sing in prison? And even
were I cooked, I could scarce furnish thee with one mouthful.”
Finding that all entreaties failed to move the hard-hearted churl,
the bird then promised that, if set free, he would tell him three
rare and precious secrets. This offer the churl could not resist,
so he freed the little bird, who straightway flew to the summit
of the pine tree, and then proceeded to disclose the three precious
secrets. “First then,” said the bird: “Yield not a ready faith
to every tale.” “Is this all your secret?” quoth the fellow, in
rising wrath. “I need it not.” “Yet,” said the bird, “you
seemed but lately to have forgot it—but now you may hold it
fast. My second secret is: What is lost, ’tis wise to bear with
patience.” At this the churl chafed more and more. “My third
secret,” continued the bird, “is by far the best: What good
thou hast, do not cast lightly away.” So saying, the little bird
fluttered his wings a moment, and then flew away; and immediately
the castle sank into the ground; and the fountain
flowed back to its source; and the fruits dropped withered from
the trees; and the flowers faded—and all the beauteous scene
was melted into thin air.
Page 206—Five hundred pons.—It is possible that pon, like
hun, is another name of a pagoda, a gold coin of the value of 3½
rupís, which has not been coined in the mints of India since the
early part of this century.
Page 212—The Want of Children.—In the note on this subject
I omitted to include Hannah, mother of Samuel, the illustrious
Hebrew seer (First Book of Samuel, ch. i, v, 9-11, and 20).—Asiatics
consider a son as the “light,” or the “lamp,” of the
household; and so it is said of a king, in the opening of the
Persian romance entitled Bahár-i Dánish, or Garden and Spring,
by ’Ináyatu-’lláh: “In the house of his prosperity the light [i.e.
a son], which is the hope of descending life, beamed not, as the
blossoms of his house [i.e. his women] produced not the fruit
of his wishes; for which he made grief his companion, and sat
lonely, like a point in the centre of the circle of sorrow”—poor
fellow!
Page 391—The Story of the Envious Vazír.—I cannot call to
mind any close parallel to this, but the incident upon which it
turns, that of the old hag’s artifice in procuring the lady’s dress,
recalls the story of “The Burnt Veil” in the Book of Sindibád,
where a youth, desperately in love with the virtuous wife of a
merchant, employs a crone—who, like too many of her sex in
Muslim countries, went about evil-doing, in the guise of a devotee—to
cause the lady’s husband to put her away on suspicion
of her being unfaithful. But this slight resemblance is doubtless
merely fortuitous. The tale of the Envious Vazír exhibits more
art than is usually found in Eastern fictions, especially the
dénouement, where the Khoja’s wife cleverly causes the malignant
Vazír to convict himself of gross falsehood.
Page 430—The sentiment expressed to Sultan Mahmúd by
the Independent Man has its analogue in one of the countless
traditions of Hatim Taï, which goes thus: They asked Hatim:
“Hast thou ever seen in the world any one more noble-minded
than thyself?” He replied: “One day I had offered a sacrifice
of 40 camels, and had gone out with some other chiefs to a corner
of the desert. I saw a thorn-cutter, who had gathered together
a bundle of thorns. I said to him: ‘Why goest thou not to
share the hospitality of Hatim Taï, when a crowd has assembled
at his feast?’ He replied: ‘Whoever can eat of the bread of
his own labour will not put himself under an obligation to Hatim
Taï.’ This man, in mind and magnanimity, I consider greater
than myself.”
Page 483—For the original of the story of the Two Merchants
see Méon’s edition of Barbazan’s collection of Fabliaux, Paris,
1808, tome i, 52, “Des Deux Bons Amis Loiax,” and for the
modern French prose version see Le Grand’s Fabliaux, edition
1781, iii, 262.
Page 499—Mr. James Moir, Rector, Grammar School, Aberdeen,
is the authority (after his mother) for a story in the
Folk-Lore Journal, 1884, vol. ii, pp. 68-71, which presents an
interesting parallel to the tale from Salsette, with a clever girl in
place of Little John: Three young girls are abandoned in a wood
by their poverty-stricken parents, because they have too many
mouths to feed. The little maidens arrive at a giant’s house
and are granted shelter for the night. The giant resolves to kill
them and have them cooked for his breakfast in the morning.
In order to distinguish in the dark his own three daughters from
the stranger girls, he places “strae rapes” round the necks of the
latter and gold chains round his daughters’ necks, with the result
that he puts his own offspring to death. Mally Whuppie, the
heroine, wakes her sisters softly and they all escape. They next
come to a king’s house, and Mally and her sisters are to be
married to the three sons of the king, provided he should obtain
possession of three wonderful things from the giant: (1) his
sword from the back of his bed; (2) his purse from beneath his
pillow; and (3) the ring from off the giant’s finger. Mally is
successful in her two first adventures, and though she is caught
by the giant when drawing off his ring, she ultimately escapes
by a clever ruse.
Page 510—The story of the King and his Falcon occurs in
many collections, and perhaps one of the oldest versions of it is
found in Capt. R. C. Temple’s Legends of the Panjáb, vol. i, p.
467, in the story of “Princess Niwal Dai,” where a snake is
seen by the falcon to drop poison into the cup.
Page 519—The Rose of Bakáwalí.—I find my conjectures regarding
the construction of this romance are borne out by Garcin
de Tassy (Histoire de la Littèrature Hindouie, second edition,
Paris, 1870, tome i, p. 606), in his account of a version in the
Hindústání Selections by the Sayyíd Husain, compiled by order
of the Military Examiners’ Committee, and published at Madras
in the year 1849, in 2 vols. He says: “Le second volume offre
la reproduction, en 64 p., des deux tiers du Gul-i Bakâwalî
d’après la rédaction de Nihâl Chand, dont j’ai donné la traduction
en français. Huçain s’arrête au mariage de Tâj ulmulûk
et de Bakâwalî, où devrait en effet finir de récit, le reste étant
un hors-d’œuvre tout à fait hindou.”
He describes a similar romance (tome ii, pp. 531, 532) by
Rayhán ed-Dín, of Bengal, written in rhymed couplets (masnaví)
and entitled Khiyabán-i Rayhán, or Parterres of the Divine
Grace, A.H. 1212 (A.D. 1797-1798): “Cet ouvrage,” he says,
“roule sur le même sujet que le Gul-i Bakâwalî; mais, outre
qu’il est tout en vers, il est beaucoup plus long. Il se divise en
quarante chapitres, intitulés chacun Gul-gaschnî (Abondance de
roses).… Au surplus, il est bon de rappeler ici ce que j’ai
dit ailleurs, que le Gul-i Bakâwalî est une légende indienne qui
est reproduite dans plusieurs rédactions différentes et même dans
le dialecte des Laskars du Bengale.”
Another tale, in Persian, entitled Kissa-i Fírúz Sháh, if not
identical with our romance, seems to be on the same plan,
judging from the all-too brief account given of it by Dr. H. H.
Wilson in his Descriptive Catalogue of the Mackenzie Collection
of Oriental MSS., vol. ii, p. 137: “The story of Firoz Shah,
son of the king of Badakshán, who sought a marvellous flower
to cure his father.”
Page 520—In the so-called Suite des Mille et Une Nuits, by
Chavis and Cazotte (Story of Habíb, the Arabian Knight), the
Amír Salamis weeps himself blind on hearing a false report of
his son Habíb’s death. The hero, when he comes to know of
this sore affliction, is told that the only remedy is to be found
among the treasures of Solomon, preserved in a cavern, and going
there he finds two flat opals fixed as eyes into a visor, which he
takes away, and with them restores his father’s sight. And the
Rabbins say that Jacob wept himself totally blind from grief at
the reported death of his son Joseph, and he recovered his sight
many years afterwards by applying to his eyes the garment of
Joseph, which his brethren brought from Egypt.
Page 529—There can be no doubt that the Panjábí legend of
Rasálú’s game with Sirikap and the story of the Prince and Dilbar
are cousins, so to say, not far removed. In the former Rasálú
makes it one of the conditions of sparing the life of the vanquished
Sirikap that he must consent to have his forehead branded with a
red-hot iron, “in token of his vassalage,” and another condition
is that he forgive his daughter whom he had imprisoned. In the
latter the hero compels Dilbar to liberate his four brethren, but
she insists on first branding them on their backs, “in token of
the state of slavery to which they had been reduced.”—It seems
to me that in the earlier part of the Panjábí legend something
must have dropped out in connection with Rasálú’s rescuing the
ants and the hedgehog from the river (p. 525), since it is usual in
folk-tales for “thankful animals” to requite their benefactor by
rendering him signal services.